There, I said it. Why is it that every dick in the world expects me to like Roth-era Van Halen in order to give me a cool sticker? Obviously, everyone knows that Hagar-era Van Halen is the worst thing in the world behind Tequiza, but I’m coming out and saying it: Van Halen — even with Diamond Dave — is, like, the worst band of all time. I say that for several reasons, the foremost of which — for me at least — is their overt misogyny and the fact that their lyrics can’t possibly appeal to anyone but the kind of dude who pours beer on his own face when he gets fucked up and uses the word “tits” as a synonym for “cool.” But beyond that, is there such a thing as a song as overplayed as “Panama”? Hasn’t being into some dumbass band full of dudes who make surprised faces while “wailing” gone past the point of nostalgic irony and revealed itself to be just as stupid as it was in 1981? I’m sorry, dude, but Van Halen does not “rock.”
But aside from the fact that I’d rather listen to Colin Farell pontificate about the merits of fedoras vs. trucker hats than suffer through hearing “Hot for Teacher” one more time, let me get back to that misogyny thing. I know, I know, the 80s were the zenith for bands full of androgynous dudes aggressively objectifying women who wore less make-up and looser pants than they did. I know that Van Halen weren’t exactly alone in their laser-like focus on tits and partying, but they’re the most irritating to me because they’re the band that even people who’ve figured out being into Motley Crue’s first album isn’t cool still play on jukeboxes in urban bars with punning names (Crowbar, anyone?). Or maybe it’s that they seemed more serious about it and they never sang about anything else. I mean, in addition to singing about poontang, Poison sang about roses having thorns in them and other fruity cowboy shit, Motley Crue sang about the devil, Skid Row sang about being a badass eleven-year-old or whatever, but Van Halen was all tits and ass all the time, and they fucking meant it. Listening to the average Van Halen song makes me feel like some dirty old man is licking my ear. It’s just gross. Check out the lyrics to “Drop Dead Legs,” for example:
Drop dead legs, pretty smile,
Hurts my head, gets me wild.
Dig that steam, giant butt,
Makes me scream, I get nuh-nuh-nothing but the shakes over you
And nothing else could ever do.
Chorus:
You know that you want it.
I know what it is.
You know that you want it, baby,
When the night is through, will I still be loving you ?
Dig those moves, vam-pire
Set me loose, get it higher.
Throw my rope, loop-de-loop
Nice white teeth, betty boop.
Set it cool real heavy.
I aint fooled, gettin ready.
Chorus
Just yuck, right? Diamond Dave is about as subtle as Luther Campbell. Almost every single one of their songs resembles this one, with a description of some body part or other that gets David Lee Roth’s old bald ass hot, a few notes on how bad he wants to hump the body part’s owner, and a promise that he’ll toss her away like garbage once the humping has been completed. I was talking to Davetavius about this the other day and he said, “What if a woman were to write a similar type of song about a dude? What would it even say?” We snickered a little as we wrote lyrics about giant dongs and “ripped abs” and the like, but it was just ridiculous. Even if I were one of the Donnas and spent all my time writing songs about how many dudes I wanted to bang, I still wouldn’t be writing inventories of disembodied body parts that made me want to get busy and then take off after having used the body parts’ owner to sate my base desires. That might be because I don’t fetishize body parts and get aroused by disconnected bits of flesh because I’m not a sociopath. (There’s a difference between the Donnas singing about wanting to bone some guy and Van Halen saying they want to use a woman and throw her away.)
I can’t get hot and bothered enough by looking at a buttcheek to be able to ignore the fact that there’s a human attached to it. You see, no matter how fancily crafted a body part might be, you’ve got to interact with the human being that it comprises a part of in order to have sexual contact with it. For me, that has often meant that no contact would occur, since finding out someone is — oh, I don’t know — a Van Halen fan or something will make it impossible for me to maintain interest in a body part. In any case, I’ve never been able to understand the ability to ignore someone else’s humanity (or personality) in order to use her/his body parts and then bone out. I’ve never been able to figure out how someone could want to have sex with a person they didn’t think it was worth talking to. I think that makes me a better person than David Lee Roth, right? I mean, of course I’m a better person than the dick who covered “California Girls” while wearing a captain’s hat, but now I’ve got even more proof.
Really, how can any woman have ever bought a Van Halen album? And how is it that these ironic dicks who think being into a Camaro band is cool can expect me to like a band that might as well print a label on their album covers that says, “A note to female listeners: We hate everything about you except for whichever body part of yours we might want to use for a few minutes, and after that we hate all of you.” That was a rhetorical question. Anyone who is into Van Halen is stupid enough to expect anything. But still, the expectation is representative of the kind of pervasive misogyny we deal with at every turn, and of the fact that we’re not even allowed the space to call attention to it. If I tell some guy who thinks Van Halen is “awesuuhm” that I’m not into being dehumanized by the bands I listen to, he’ll tell me to relax, that it’s party music, that I’m being a fag (and we all know that calling someone a fag is just misogyny in drag). And then I’ll know I’m talking to a Liberal Dude, one of those guys who claims to support women’s rights as long as those rights don’t start looking like the freedom to define our own sexuality and to live in a world in which we don’t have to laugh it off when people tell us that we’re nothing but masturbation devices.
108 Comments
September 2, 2009 at 5:54 am
“I’ve never been able to figure out how someone could want to have sex with a person they didn’t think it was worth talking to. ”
Because they are really, really attractive? It might make you a better person that David Lee Roth (not a fan myself), but I don’t know if it makes you better than people in general who can do that. Some folk require more in the way of intimacy than others. Shrug. One of those odd differences between humans I guess.
Then again, it would seem I am a sociopath. An amazing set of abs does wonders for me. I can want to sleep with a man who has an amazing set of abs…even if he never speaks.
September 2, 2009 at 7:53 am
I’m glad I missed the ’80s.
September 2, 2009 at 8:17 am
” I can want to sleep with a man who has an amazing set of abs…even if he never speaks.”
Wouldn’t that just be weird though? How would you know if he wanted to stop, change “positions” etc etc? You wouldn’t, would you? Unless you’re a pro at sign language.
Idgh you could want to have sex with someone you couldn’t at least say “hello” to, or even “Thanks, I had a great time”?
September 2, 2009 at 8:30 am
“Listening to the average Van Halen song makes me feel like some dirty old man is licking my ear.”
Seconded. Listening to this song felt like I was being subjected to Salad Fingers on repeat. I got about thirty seconds in.
“You know that you want it.
I know what it is.
You know that you want it, baby,
When the night is through, will I still be loving you ? ”
Why does this sound familiar? Oh wait, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard the wastes of oxygen who raped me say this.
“We snickered a little as we wrote lyrics about giant dongs and “ripped abs” and the like, but it was just ridiculous. Even if I were one of the Donnas and spent all my time writing songs about how many dudes I wanted to bang, I still wouldn’t be writing inventories of disembodied body parts that made me want to get busy and then take off after having used the body parts’ owner to sate my base desires. ”
I can think of ONE band that did this. Maybe. Betty Blowtorch, if you’ve heard of them. They have such awesome classics as shut up & fuck, I wanna be your sucker etc etc. Lyrics include “I don’t want conversation/I just want penis penetration/I don’t want you to be mine/I just want to 69/Shut up & Fuck” – but I don’t think this is a great example because its the same bullshit, different person.
The Donnas are shit house anyway. I’d rather listen to Turbonegro than the Donnas, and that says something.
Your last paragraph rings true to the point where it hurts because it’s so fucking true. Sounds reminiscent of something every dude in my family has said to me at some point (lightening up, I mean.)
What do you think the chances are the dudes in Turbo are fans of Van Halen?
September 2, 2009 at 10:21 am
Really? People still listen to this shit?
I’m one of these weird women who truly doesn’t care very much about looks…except that I usually avoid Mr. Handsome A. Popular. It’s not universally true, but it’s a safe bet he doesn’t know how to fuck because he’s never had to learn.
September 2, 2009 at 10:45 am
Agreed, Nine-Deuce. I’ve always thought Van Halen were arseholes. As a pre-teen their videos made me sick, they were so insulting.
‘I’ve never been able to figure out how someone could want to have sex with a person they didn’t think it was worth talking to.’
Exactly, well said! Just buy a sex doll then and stop using actual humans as masturbatory aids.
September 2, 2009 at 11:04 am
Hello, long time lurker here. I just wanted to say that this sentence was brilliant:
“That might be because I don’t fetishize body parts and get aroused by disconnected bits of flesh because I’m not a sociopath.”
Western society is kind of sociopathic with the obsession of different female body parts, like breasts. It’s not natural; in many societies it have been natural for women to walk around with a bare upper body, and men didn’t care. I know it’s still so among certain African people.
September 2, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Body language can go a long way…but note I said I can “want to”… I figure if it goes to the “having” stage, some form of communication will happen- for the reasons you stated.
September 2, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Maybe Peaches? I haven’t listened to any of her stuff in a little while, but I’m pretty sure that there’s some along these lines. Or…Well…All of it along these lines. She’s not known for her lyrical discretion.
Neither are Van Halen known for having lyrics. I believe that their average listener (not an individual I’m well acquainted with, I have to say) probably pay much more attention to the “riff”, & perhaps the band’s focus being to the same proportions would explain how terrible they are. Although it wouldn’t really render it forgivable…
Moldy Peaches, on a semi-related note, have a song called “I Think I’m In Love” which this comment reminded me of. Enamoured man bores cock-sated girl throughout the morning after she wasn’t expecting him to stay for, basically.
September 2, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I know next to nothing of Van Halen apart from that they might as well jump.
But as they say: You’ve got to roll with the punches and get to what’s real. (d’ya see what I did there?).
Oh come on folks. No you don’t have to be in luuurve with someone, or even like them THAT much to have sex with them (I speak as the woman who once had the casual shag challenge with my friend S who – sad to say – roundly trounced me).
You’re unlikely to have sex with someone you actually really detest, unless you’re in a bad romantic novel, (or unless they’re your ex and you’re drunk) but I do tend to agree that you don’t have to be that enamoured of someone to be sexually attracted to them. Or vice versa, cos there are loads of people I love to bits that I don’t fancy at all.
None of which is to do with fetishizing body parts necessarily a la van Halen. But I do agree that the idea you’ve got to have some deep spiritual connection with someone to want to have sex with them, is a load of codswallop. Most human beings would never have sex if that were the case.
The moral of this story is probably that you should go and listen to the Smiths.
September 2, 2009 at 8:26 pm
I don’t think you have to be all about someone to hump them, but I can get put off of an attractive person pretty easily and would have a hard time doing anything with someone I thought was stupid/an asshole/whatever. I think the deal is that if I wouldn’t want to hang out with someone as a friend, I can’t find them attractive enough to want to do it with. What I don’t get is the ability to think little of someone and still want to have sex with them, which is the attitude I see here with Van Halen and which I often hear in men’s discussions of women they want to bang.
September 2, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Hi Nine: I admit I’ve only just started reading you but let me commend you on “and other fruity cowboy shit.” That made me literally laugh out loud, something I rarely do.
Oh and “Crowbar, anyone?” You’re in Chicago, then? I went there once and that was enough.
As far as being attracted to such stuff, I admit I have too large — or too fragile? — and ego to be fucked and forgotten. Not sure what that says about anything, but there it is.
September 2, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Nope, I’m in New York, but I used to live in San Francisco and there’s one there.
September 3, 2009 at 3:04 am
Imma keep this real simple seeing as I have a to go see a plant.
Peaches =/= rock and or roll.
Peaches =/= reducing someone to worth of flesh
Fuck the Pain Away =/= Drop Dead Legs
There was a time where I’d probably agree with you, now I’m just going to say it.
Peaches sucks. If she isn’t a FCP I don’t know what is.
& I’ve never actually heard of “moldy” peaches, although I’m willing to bet that they fuckin’ suck too.
Oh, while were on the subject of musicians being shithouse, Van Halens riffs are still not very good either.
September 3, 2009 at 3:07 am
Body language =/= verbal communication
Idk, to be that whole statement seems a bit… naff?
September 3, 2009 at 3:07 am
*to me, even.
rolling out of bed and onto the computer =/= good idea
September 3, 2009 at 3:09 am
@ND
“What I don’t get is the ability to think little of someone and still want to have sex with them, which is the attitude I see here with Van Halen and which I often hear in men’s discussions of women they want to bang.”
Uh huh, and its not just in music, you see it on TV, in the movies, on the way to uni, on the bus, on the train, blah blah fucking blah. Maybe they’re all connected or maybe it’s just us :P
@polly styrene
Fuck yeah for the Smiths :D
September 3, 2009 at 3:29 am
What is an FCP? I hate internet acronyms.
September 3, 2009 at 3:33 am
Oh, BTW (I used an internet acronym in your honor), I agree about the Donnas. Though I’d still never listen to Turbonegro.
September 3, 2009 at 3:44 am
female chauvinist pig. I’m so taken with that term. It makes me feel like peanut butter inside, all gooey and shit.
Oh, I am flattered :)
September 3, 2009 at 3:46 am
Right, I liked the book. I get it now. But I have to say that, though I think her music sucks, y’all aren’t understanding Peaches. She’s hilarious.
September 3, 2009 at 7:25 am
I agree with Van Valen having shoddy riffs (the one in Beat It is alright, but otherwise…), I was just saying that that was what fans seemed to care about. Like I said, that’s “seemed” because I don’t know any so I can’t ask them.
I don’t really know enough about what a Female Chauvinist Pig is to comment on Peaches being one or otherwise.
Moldy Peaches are one of the best short burst bands around. Like most “lo-fi” stuff it gets fucking tiresome after a little while, but while it lasts they’re exhillirating in their whimsy.
September 3, 2009 at 7:26 am
(& I wasn’t talking Fuck The Pain Away. If I recall correctly the only body parts she mentions in that song are her own.)
September 3, 2009 at 8:33 am
FCP the book? Ugh.
September 3, 2009 at 6:28 pm
“What I don’t get is the ability to think little of someone and still want to have sex with them, which is the attitude I see here with Van Halen and which I often hear in men’s discussions of women they want to bang.”
I, personally, can have sex without knowing someone very well. I cannot have sex if I think little of them, regardless of how well I do or do not know them. That is the distinction for me. I believe it is an important one.
In short, there’s a big difference between encountering someone and viewing them as a complete human being whom you respect even if you barely know them and going “Hey, you’re hot. Let’s get it on!” and “Damn, you’re an asshole. But, fuck, you’ve got a nice ass and a helluva bulge. Fuck it, let’s fuck anyway! It’s only sex, right? Who needs shit like respect just to have sex?”
Major difference there…
September 3, 2009 at 6:32 pm
What I don’t get is the ability to think little of someone and still want to have sex with them, which is the attitude I see here with Van Halen and which I often hear in men’s discussions of women they want to bang.
Well they’re mostly closet homosexuals if you ask me. A very, very large proportion of supposedly straight men are. And the rest are just talking shite to impress their mates (much like pretending to like Van Halen in fact)
But, it is possible for women to have sex with people they don’t like that much apart from sex. It’s not something I really go in for, (too much effort and I’m too old to be arsed) but I DO know some women who do. Ok they’re mostly lesbians which I suspect is a large part of the difference – casual sex with a man you don’t know that well is a different proposition in terms of personal safety apart from anything else. But I do know straight women who do it as well.
September 3, 2009 at 11:30 pm
You guys (gurls) are missing the point. I don’t want to have sex with a girl just because shes attractive. I want her for the prize. Shes attractive, and therefore, unattainable. Thats why some girls can be sexy (unattainable) without being”hot”. Maybe it’s still a commodification of women or a reduction in self worth yada yada yada…(If you can “yada yada” sex you can yada yada feminist intellectualism) but the point is that women aren’t being fetishized as much as it seems they are.
In short, a woman’s body is often not the end, its the status one gets from having captured it. *
* This doesn’t count for creeps though, like date rapists or sleaze bags, liars, etc.
September 3, 2009 at 11:37 pm
And that makes it better?
September 3, 2009 at 11:49 pm
No, not at all. But I think it’s important to understand the difference.
Understanding the base motivations of men is imperative to understanding how to change them. If one thinks its purely physical, she will be disappointed once every woman is in a burqa and men are still dehumanizing women. When one understands that a mans view of a woman is interconnected with her status (as defined by beauty), she understands that changing the relationship of women to men from the status symbol – trophy winner relationship is what becomes imperative. You probably know this though…
I will admit that a high premium is placed on breasts…I’ve never been a breast man myself, I’m actually turned on by faces (believe it or not). Despite this premium, I think more men than would like to admit would say that if the girl isn’t a “total package” she isn’t really attractive. There’s a whole ‘nother can of worms here, but suffice it to say that line regarding the fetishization/sociopath dichotomy was an overstatement.
September 4, 2009 at 12:33 am
“I want her for the prize.”
Which is a part of the objectification process. Seeing women as a prize rather than a human being is not only a means of objectification, but it is also a means of not valuing someone as a human being…which is exactly what this conversation has centered around.
I doubt seriously anyone here is unaware of the fact that men use women as a means of increasing their status. It, however, is not the only reasoning behind men objectifying women. To be perfectly blunt, you’re painfully naive if you believe that it is. Men, for example, certainly aren’t going to obtain status by having sex with a prostitute for $10 a shot. Yet there are plenty of men who will quite happily have sex with a woman for a measly $10.
September 4, 2009 at 1:00 am
The Fact that women are status symbols leads to there objectification and ultimate commodification. If women become partners instead of property the whole dichotomy changes. It might be more appealing to take a more Marxist approach, but I would argue that it fails as men don’t relate to women the way capitalists do to labor.
September 4, 2009 at 3:20 am
Why is it that every dick in the world expects me to like Roth-era Van Halen in order to give me a cool sticker?
What!?! When did liking Roth-era Van Halen (or indeedany-era Van Halen) automatically confer one’s cool status? Van Halen are not cool! Any band who’s history is described in terms of “eras” makes me think of geological eras and Mesozoic era Mick Jagger…ewww.
I’m also tired of being asked to feign enjoyment of crappy bands in the name of “irony”. No thanks.
September 4, 2009 at 6:35 am
How did I just know you’d say that?
September 4, 2009 at 6:42 am
You know just quietly Andrew I think most of the “gurrrls” here are actually adults, which makes them women. Which kind of pisses me off just a little bitty incy wincy bit.
(I could be wrong you know though, cos these lady bits make my brain not work properly or some old bullshit.)
Women =/= “prize”/objects/fuckbots/ whatever
Women (surprisingly) = human beings
“In short, a woman’s body is often not the end, its the status one gets from having captured it. *” is in fact the creepiest statement I’ve heard all week.
IMHO some bullshit “difference” doesn’t mean ANYTHING, it’s still a problem, a huge one at that.
September 4, 2009 at 9:04 am
Despite this premium, I think more men than would like to admit would say that if the girl isn’t a “total package” she isn’t really attractive.
Well talk is cheap. And yet again, this stuff is really all about (as Levi Strauss pointed out) the relationships between MEN.
I’ve been playing devil’s advocate and pointing out that women can sleep with people they’re not that keen on, because they can.
But the woman as status symbol – the *total package* has almost nothing to do with sex. Men can, and do, fuck a wide variety of inanimate objects and animals, as well as each other of course.
But I think you’re wrong about this having nothing to do with capitalism Andrew. It’s not SOLELY to do with capitalism there are other social structures in which status is important -but it is worse in a capitalist society which is explicitly geared around the acquisition of status. Capitalist societies have to be geared around the acquisition of status to continue to exist, as most of us in the western world could have our basic needs met at much lower levels of income than we have.
Similarly, Faith, one way to psychologically increase one’s “status” is to degrade someone else. Status can only ever be relative, because it has no objective existence.
September 4, 2009 at 12:05 pm
“The Fact that women are status symbols leads to there objectification and ultimate commodification.”
I’m pretty damn sure that the fact that we live in a society that hates women is what leads to our objectification and com modification.
September 4, 2009 at 2:34 pm
truth.
September 4, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Hate wouldn’t explain it. I don’t hate women, but I definitely mistreat them for selfish reasons. I suppose if you expand hate to include that then it does, but as it stands I think the issue is that men are trying to figure out how to relate to women as un-property, as un-status, as un-trophy…basically as friends and lovers. Many can’t, or are reluctant because of the costs to them; i.e. equal say in a relationship.
I think that this is akin to what happened to blacks after the reconstruction, but with women its felt harder because the black/white superiority complex was artificial, whereas since the beginning of time women have always been subordinated.
There is a capitalist dynamic, I suppose, since women can theoretically have value in and of themselves, mostly through sex. But I think the solution must be different than purely marxist because I believe that the relationship between the sex is infinitely more complex than the one between capitalist and worker. This might not be true at the macro level, but I think the individual level would really show it.
September 4, 2009 at 3:58 pm
It’s to bad you moved, we could have hung out. ;)
September 4, 2009 at 4:41 pm
“I suppose if you expand hate to include that then it does”
I do.
September 4, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Dude- are you saying that you mistreat women because you’re worried that if you don’t, you’ll lose control and be in an “equal relationship”? Or are you saying that if you feel the need to mistreat women in order to feel like you have equal control?
Either way, I suggest you take some time and deal with that. Treating your partner(s) with care and respect while also expecting the same in return is, in my experience, a much happier way to live.
One of the reasons that I treat the women in my life as equals because it makes my life better. Call it selfishness, or enlightened self-interest, or whatever, but believe me, it’s a much more pleasant way to live.
People of any gender have value, not because of sex, but because they’re people.
September 4, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Probably not.
September 5, 2009 at 12:10 am
I don’t necessarily think mistreating women, or anybody for that matter, is wrong. People should be responsible for their own self. This wouldn’t include rape or assault etc., but getting to drunk and sleeping with a guy does not make him a rapist. If people are not my friends or family then I see no absolute reason to respect them, take their welfare upon myself, not have a one night stand with them, etc. Even kindness is a defense mechanism, charity is insecurity, gentleness is seduction.
That aside, what Im more curious about why this same drama plays out line for line in every society everywhere. Women want something and they are not getting it, why? I think it’s because men don’t want to/have to share, and the way the feminist movement has played out and with the policies they’ve gotten across I don’t blame them (us).
What does this have to do with Van Halen? 9-2 was upset that they fetisized the body to the point of sociopathy. I disagreed, I say that women’s body = status and if a man can get it he will. It validates us to ourselves and our friends, is fun, enjoyable, etc. However these women don’t become friends, they are status, and they get passed around much like stocks in the stock market. Why do women play along? Maybe they never had a choice, but what makes it hard is that women get lonely, need validation to, like sex, like going out, like being popular, etc. This forces men and women into this wicked game and then bad things happen. Anyway I’m rambling. Sorry.
September 5, 2009 at 12:53 am
It doesn’t have to do with Van Halen, it has to do with the fact that women aren’t given the space to call attention to misogyny without being ridiculed. Van Halen and their fans’ expectation that women just laugh it off are examples of a pervasive problem.
September 5, 2009 at 2:53 am
“I don’t necessarily think mistreating women, or anybody for that matter, is wrong.”
See, this is what I love about freedom of speech: It allows us to identify the completely sorry, worthless assholes who should be avoided at all costs.
All hail the first amendment!
September 5, 2009 at 2:56 am
Yeah I realize that…I just couldn’t get past the Van Halen bit!
September 5, 2009 at 3:06 am
That wasn’t aimed at you but at Andrew. Sorry if the threading is fucked up.
September 5, 2009 at 5:05 am
Blink blink…
Um, wow. I at least have to admire your honesty.
September 5, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Re: Peaches. I was watching an episode of The L Word, and there was this really awesome song playing during one part, so I googled it and discovered it was a Peaches song. I knew nothing about her, but stupidly downloaded an entire album from iTunes, instead of just the one song I liked, and I didn’t preview the other songs, either. I think I went temporarily insane or something.
Anyway, after a brief listen, I deleted every other Peaches song from my ipod except the original one I liked. And I think the reason I liked it was because Joan Jett contributed to it. I must’ve sensed it in some way.
Afterwards I googled Peaches and found out she is/was a schoolteacher in Canada, and she’s about my age, and all I can think is if we keep pushing the age where we start to act like respectable adults, we’re gonna be fucked as a society. In my parents generation, you straightened yourself out by 20, in my generation it was 30. Now, I guess it’ll have to be 40. Pretty soon, the landmark to start acting decent will be when you apply for social security.
September 5, 2009 at 4:15 pm
As I admire this blogs honesty. I was having a discussion with a friend the other day about radical feminism and radical politics in general. I told him I generally agree with most tenets of radical philosophy. That is, for example, I believe that there is a patriarchy and it works against women in a way that stifles their independence compared to men. Where I get off the bus though is at the part about changing it. As a self identified straight white male there is no benefit for me in doing that. The only way this stays logically consistent though is if I accept that mistreating others is acceptable. Its hard, I’m usually very king when I’m interacting with strangers, very nice to my friends etc. Unfortunately 6,000 years of world history and day to day interaction proves, to me at least, that mistreatment is a survival skill and the modus operandi of those at the top.
So in short, I like you guys because you tell it as it is, but once your in a full on armed revolt (thats what it will take) I won’t be able to join your ranks.
September 5, 2009 at 4:23 pm
9-2 I don’t know how involved you are with music but I have noticed a surge in the stronger female role. I will caution that it does have a lot of “I’m going to fuck whoever I want” and “Yea I’m a bitch so what” kind of elements but it is decidely different than what’s usually fed to tweens (like Miley Cyrus). Is this the woman’s Van Halen or is it just more patriarchal gimmick, in your opinion. Personally I think it’s all catchy but it feels like a cock-block since most of the music is just telling women to be super choosy about who they go home with from bars.
If you need an example check out Livvi Franc – Now I’m That Bitch.
September 5, 2009 at 6:17 pm
What constitutes “respectable adults”? Having a job, paying taxes, taking care of those who might be dependant on you? What constitutes “decent”…
I am not overly familiar with Peaches music. I read her wiki. Shes know for explict lyrics. Okay. I don’t know if that makes her a punk kid who has not grown up. She also seems to actually be a musician and creative mind…which is light years better in my opinion than “girl bands” who are ultra popular but everything about them is constructed by men- from their look to their lyrics.
I did not see anything in there about her driving drunk or starting riots or being rushed to the hospital with a drug overdoes or anything of that nature. She dresses sleazy and sings songs about sex…sounds like typical rock and roll, ect., to me.
How is she supposed to act (at her age), B?
September 6, 2009 at 10:28 am
Sounds like you might be a potential Peaches fan, RE.
September 6, 2009 at 11:18 pm
What’s truly frightening here is people are still listening to
Van Halen, with or without Roth.
I thought they’d be all but forgotten by now.
September 6, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Oh yeah, you’re right. That’s true about music, movies, politics, even.
I’m having trouble thinking of a situation where feminists aren’t told to just “lighten up.”
September 7, 2009 at 5:34 am
Oh, I am VERY picky about music, if it isn’t Joan Jett or Siouxsie, and the lead is a woman, sad but true, chances are I won’t like it. I like Tori and Enya to a point, but I doubt I would be a Peaches fan…..
yet that does not make her indecent or irresponsible.
I await to hear why she is.
September 7, 2009 at 3:54 pm
You are amazing, anonymous girl who writes on this website. You articulate so well and you’re so on point. I know guys like this, the ones that listen to crap like Van Halen and call it classic lol. And that kind of view is sociopathic and sick. I know so many guys that are like that and I don’t understand how because if I don’t care for a person but he has a “nice ass”, I don’t want any sexual encounter with him at all, maybe that’s because we’re trained to see men as human beings, and well, young retarded men raised in this society listening to bullsh*t like Van Halen don’t see us as human beings. I think they see us as just body parts. A composition of body parts the more hot parts the more our value and right to be treated like an actual person increases. It infuriates me, so does their automatic defensiveness and, if god forbid I open my mouth and say I deserve to be treated like a person; their reaction implying that I’m crazy or an overreactive, nagging, emotional female.
September 7, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Li’l Kim’s pretty balls-out-sexy-sex, but I’m not familiar with enough of her lyrics to know whether she has any songs that inventory male body parts in a comparatively creepy manner. From what I’ve heard of her work, she seems to objectify herself more than anything.
I’m imagining a female rock star doing a hetero-female-gaze flip of “Drop Dead Legs” in a video featuring some half-nekkid hot dude writhing around on the hood of a TransAm. LMAO! I want this to happen!
“Understanding the base motivations of men is imperative yadda yadda”
Right, ’cause what the world needs more of is the heterodude perspective. That’s only been the default for the last couple thousand years or so.
“I think that this is akin to what happened to blacks after the reconstruction, but with women its felt harder because the black/white superiority complex was artificial, whereas since the beginning of time women have always been subordinated.”
Damn, dude, crack a book. Humanity didn’t begin in the bronze age.
September 7, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Ummm…Yes it did. The Bronze age began at it’s earliest point in 3300 B.C. If you want to argue that there was a society around before then (or since) that did not subordinate it’s women, be my guest.
September 7, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Pretty sure there were humans before 3300 BC, dude.
September 7, 2009 at 8:13 pm
“Pretty sure there were humans before 3300 BC, dude.”
Not to mention that there actually have been societies that did not viciously subordinate women. Certain Native American societies as well as other pre-patriarchal societies treated women far more with the respect that we deserve. It was not until the rise of patriarchal societies that women became so savagely oppressed.
September 7, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Well, by humanity she must have meant society because society cant oppress women if it doesn’t exist. Prior to 3300 B.C. There much in the way of that, especially ones that “treated women with the respect they deserved”. Men probably didn’t have a lot going for them back then either. The comment about cracking the book though is what’s irksome, the fact is that modern society everywhere treats women poorly. Unless I’m missing the tenet of feminism which advocates creating a hunter-gatherer society away from white men and civilization, pointing to random native americans doesn’t help the cause.
The bottom line is that you need a model that works now. No highly integrated society, democratic, with a complex economy has provided a workable example of true female equality that you guys can follow.
Unless you plan on registering yourself as a tribe, getting land and a casino in wyoming and starting the revolution from up there, you need to figure it out.
September 7, 2009 at 10:20 pm
“Unless you plan on registering yourself as a tribe, getting land and a casino in wyoming and starting the revolution from up there, you need to figure it out.”
Oh, fuck off, Andrew. You’re a first-rate asshole and I have nothing to say to you.
September 8, 2009 at 5:10 pm
“Well, by humanity she must have meant society because society cant oppress women if it doesn’t exist.”
No, by humanity I meant humanity, which has been around for about 200,000 years. And because humans are social animals, we’ve lived in societies that whole time. Creating and maintaining the patriarchy took a lot of work, starting only about 5,000 years ago. What’s “irksome” is your ignorant assertions that subordinating and objectifying women is the natural order of human behavior.
I also said nothing about native americans. You pulled that straight out of your ass.
September 8, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Get this: I met a guy in a bar once a couple years ago who argued – vehemently – that Van Halen was way way better than the Beatles. He was dead serious about this and was all eye-roll-angry-contemptuous toward anybody who disagreed with him about it.
September 8, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I hit the wrong ‘Reply’ link. That was meant for Andrew. Sorry about that.
September 8, 2009 at 10:42 pm
I don’t know why you guys are disagreeing so vehemently with this when it’s your fundamental premise It doesn’t matter what happened 200,000 years ago, or even before the 1950’s. The world you have to change is the one we live in. The men you have to change are the ones alive today. I was just saying the task is harder because the subordination of women has been more pervasive than most sorts of discrimination out there.
The creation of the patriarchy was probably facilitated by a lot of factors, some presumably still in existence. The fact that women can’t bulk up the way men can, or that they aren’t as aggressive, or can be saddled with pregnancy, for example. These are just as true today as they were [substitute random number of years here] ago.
Feel free to challenge this, but these are YOUR talking points. It doesn’t make sense to talk about abolishing the patriarchy unless you talk about abolishing it in a first world democratic society with a complex economy, AKA the one we live in. (Includes Canada and the UK too).
BTW Faith made the comment about native americans, so…you know, you might want to be more respectful how you attribute comments in the future.
September 9, 2009 at 3:58 am
Van Halen aren’t that great, but Eddie was a very original, and adept guitar player. The harmonisation in the arpeggio section of ‘Eruption’ is very impressive.
I do agree about the misogyny in Dave’s lyrics
September 9, 2009 at 4:44 am
“or that they aren’t as aggressive”
you actually believe that? it may manifest in different ways, but the idea that men are by default more aggressive than women?
heh.
September 9, 2009 at 6:42 am
Enya? Enya??????
September 9, 2009 at 6:54 am
What do you mean by “society” though Andrew? Weren’t hunter gatherers society? As in social groups?
And weren’t the various African civilizations that also predated the bronze age societies?
Changes in the Stone Age are slow during the Early Stone Age. In the Middle and Later Stone Age, more rapid changes in diversification of tools, behavior patterns and cultural styles occurred– beginning approximately 100,000 to 150,000 thousand years ago. Proto-human and then human populations during the Stone Age subsisted on wild foods by gathering, hunting, and probably scavenging. By the later Stone Age, all regions of Africa were occupied by a large number of societies of people who looked like modern humans. Their behavior also appears to be modern in terms of complexity and ingenuity as well as development of aesthetic and symbolic behavior.
http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad/lessons/middle/history1.htm
September 9, 2009 at 6:57 am
The creation of the patriarchy was probably facilitated by a lot of factors, some presumably still in existence. The fact that women can’t bulk up the way men can, or that they aren’t as aggressive, or can be saddled with pregnancy, for example.
So modern civilisation is conducted entirely by hand to hand combat, is that what you’re saying?
Interesting, though entirely unsane, point of view.
September 9, 2009 at 8:46 am
I mean physically aggressive. When women are mentally or emotionally aggressive the words used are shrill, vindictive, manipulative, bitch, cunt, etc. Either way it’s not the kind of agression that can topple the patriarchy.
September 9, 2009 at 1:25 pm
“The moral of this story is probably that you should go and listen to the Smiths.”
Right as I red this line the track stuck in my head switched from “Panama” to “This Night Has Opened My Eyes.”
Thanks for that. :-)
September 9, 2009 at 1:31 pm
*cough* Abrahamic *cough* religions. *clears throat*
September 9, 2009 at 4:33 pm
This is the comment you originally made, which kicked off this whole discussion about the origin of patriarchy:
“I think that this is akin to what happened to blacks after the reconstruction, but with women its felt harder because the black/white superiority complex was artificial, whereas since the beginning of time women have always been subordinated.”
And now you’re moving the goalposts. Now patriarchy and sexism is artificial, but the problem is that we’re not talking about it correctly (rather than the fact that you never bothered to concern yourself about sexism enough to bother having some clue what you’re talking about when you enter a conversation with feminists on the internet).
BTW & PS it doesn’t make much sense to talk about abolishing the patriachy while letting people like you go on erroneously believing it’s existed “since the beginning of time” and that it’s not as artificial as racism or any other system of oppression.
September 9, 2009 at 5:16 pm
No, what you are alluding to is “violent”. Men are more violent. Guess what, no argument here. By in large they are. But lets not to pretty that up by saying “more aggressive” which is not so.
Now, believe it or not I actually think you are right in that if feminists want the sort of revolution they actually talk about, well, that probably won’t happen until they pick up m-16’s and get very, very hostile…as in willing to kill and destroy hostile, because that seems to be the only thing a great many men understand. Not a very nice proposition there, but IMHO, the one that will work. But that is war- violence- not aggression.
Women can be highly aggresssive in a great many ways, but sure, they tend to save the physical sort for when it actually matters and not merely for bravados sake.
Which is not exactly a bad thing you know.
September 9, 2009 at 5:31 pm
oddly enough, Mr.E has all her albums. I like listening to her for yoga and painting, very mellow and stuff.
September 9, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Yeah, well, that sure explains so much to me, what with the way I’ve been backing down much bigger guys than me for years. Women get that kind of confidence taken out of them very early; for me the military put it back.
I’m wondering if ole Andrew up there is going to come up with chivalry next.
September 9, 2009 at 8:12 pm
I would agree that all of it as “artificial” in that it doesn’t have to be that way. But I don’t think its artificial in the sense that it is the most likely outcome when the factors are as they are. I think that’s what we are disagreeing about. Personally, (and this might be my male-bias-predisposition towards violence – as differentiated from aggression talking) I don’t see how you abolish the patriarchy without subordinating the men which comprise it.
“Changing men’s attitudes” only goes so far, and has miniscule impact.
What else is there other than violence?
September 9, 2009 at 9:43 pm
“I would agree that all of it as “artificial” in that it doesn’t have to be that way. But I don’t think its artificial in the sense that it is the most likely outcome when the factors are as they are.”
I tried to parse those two sentences and my head exploded. I hope you’re satisfied.
September 10, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I’m glad the military treated you better than it did my wife. It taught her that she was worthless – less than a Marine just because she was injured and not skinny – even though she earned the title just like everyone else. It has taken her years to try to get that confidence back.
If what you say is true, it’s a rare sign that conditions for women in the military are improving.
September 10, 2009 at 3:57 pm
For what do we even need violence in this modern society? Sure, it happens, but we no longer have a need for it.
September 11, 2009 at 7:50 am
I guess you’re censoring me, 92? Oh well. My respect for you is gone. I’m removing your blog from my list of interesting sites.
September 13, 2009 at 9:44 pm
“Hasn’t being into some dumbass band full of dudes who make surprised faces while ‘wailing’ gone past the point of nostalgic irony and revealed itself to be just as stupid as it was in 1981? I’m sorry, dude, but Van Halen does not ‘rock.’”
This makes me wonder what exactly you think it is to “rock.” Maybe you don’t like bands that “rock”?
September 13, 2009 at 9:55 pm
No, I don’t like bands that “rock.” That shit is passe.
September 14, 2009 at 2:41 am
So maybe you dislike Van Halen not because they don’t rock, but because they do?
September 14, 2009 at 2:56 am
No, because even among bands that “rock,” Van Halen still stands out in the misogynist wanker department. It’s feasible that I could like a band that “rocks” (though that depends on who you ask what rocking entails).
September 14, 2009 at 4:58 pm
I’m asking you what rocking entails, because making surprised faces and wailing and all that kind of carefree, irreverent thing is pretty much a hallmark of the rock genre. So it’s puzzling to see you ascribe those things to Van Halen and then in the next sentence accuse them of not rocking.
Your accusations of sexism are well-founded, of course. Though compared to a band like Limp Bizkit–a better candidate for worst band of all time, if we’re talking about bands whose terribleness is compounded by massive success–VH looks pretty quaint in that department. (Not that that excuses anything.)
September 14, 2009 at 5:08 pm
How about I say Van Halen doesn’t rule? I only picked on them because otherwise sane people who would understand that I don’t want to listen to Limp Bizkit (a band who might as well put out an album about how awesome they think date rape is) have expected me to put up with misogynistic lyrics in order to listen to Van Halen. It’s not the band that matters, but rather the dynamic wherein I’m expected to suppress my own self-respect in the name of “fun.”
September 14, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I saw Limp Bizkit live recently. I very much wanted to loathe them, but only partially succeeded (dedicating a song to Trent Reznor made me rage). And I suppose “I want to eat you alive” constitutes a rare reference to female oral sex, but they were hardly mainstream by that stage in their decline. I’m not much into biological essentialism but it seems possible that they tapped into the mystical roots of male adolescence, permantly altering all those where both states coincided in the early 2000s. Most unfortunate.
It made it a lot easier to enjoy them when you closed your eyes & pretended that Fred Durst wasn’t there, but that meant you missed the DJs absurd head-banging (I think that he was compensating for having the easiest job, just slightly). The guitarist, incidentally, belongs in a far better band.
Basically, they’ve become just another terrible band now. I could only hate a group like I used to when they were the biggest band in the world. That truly was a deeply worrying phase.
September 14, 2009 at 8:21 pm
“Doesn’t rule” would make a lot more sense. Thanks.
September 14, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Oh, and it was at a festival. I didn’t buy a ticket to see just them or anything. Jesus. Do live shows with just them even still happen any more?
September 14, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Yeah right.
September 14, 2009 at 8:34 pm
That’s why he referenced Trent Reznor! NIN were playing right after them!
September 14, 2009 at 8:37 pm
So you went to a Limp Bizkit NIN show? Who played last, Tool? I can’t imagine a line-up I’d rather see less.
September 14, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Funny you should say that, actually, a friend & I were telling each other all the way through that it would have been much better if Tool were playing. Preferably playing a Lateralus-heavy set. TBH just playing Lateralus would make me happy.
As it was, we got Metallica.
September 14, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Dude, are you kidding me? You’ve got no excuse for having been at that show.
September 14, 2009 at 8:59 pm
NIN’s last ever UK date.
I know you don’t like Reznor & Co. but The Fragile is a masterpiece (& I can’t recall meeting someone who’s listened to the thing who disagrees), the man’s an innovator in terms of approach to release (just look at the website puzzle/riddle/game/thing they ran for Year Zero) of the kind music-as-we-know-it is kinda going to need to survive, endlessly imaginative when it comes to arrangement and is also one astounding performer. He’s earned his ferociously partisan, disturbingly obsessional fanbase.
Their set was pleasingly heavy on The Fragile, but far, far too short. They kept things gentle and obscure as fuck, seemingly purely to piss off the metalheads and please the kind of fans who knew all the lyrics to songs which hadn’t even been released on any albums (of which they played two). Didn’t play Closer. Didn’t speak at all. I’m sure you would have hated it.
As for Metallica…Well, a classic case of an enormous amount of talent horribly squandered. Also, the embodiment of the concept of ‘masculinity’. At the end of the first song their vocalist actually went “UHHHR” right into the microphone. Not my thing, really, but still quite a wonder to behold. When they actually put some thought into songs they’re pretty damn amazing, but that’s strikingly rare.
Funniest moment was when they asked who’d seen them before and pretty much the entire park minus me + friends started yelling.
& don’t even get me started on Machinehead…
September 18, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Seriously. Fuck Ariel Levy. Why is she supposedly the best “feminist” writer this decade’s produced?
She’s not a feminist author – she’s purely a journalist. I got out of journalism because that field is so corrupt, and I know when I’m being spun from chapter to chapter.
September 18, 2009 at 9:39 pm
I was talking to Davetavius about this the other day and he said, “What if a woman were to write a similar type of song about a dude? What would it even say?”
As mentioned, Lil’ Kim has some pretty explicit lyrics about men. (“…And this black dude I called King Kong/He had a BIG-ass dick, and a hurricane tongue.”)
Although yes, she does objectify herself more than any men in her lyrics (so far as I’m aware).
September 22, 2009 at 6:33 am
[...] do to someone instead of do with someone. I can’t stand that shit. Reading those lyrics, as Nine Deuce so aptly put it, makes me feel like some dirty old man is licking my ear. Just replace Van Halen [...]
September 25, 2009 at 7:34 pm
um… can i hate both?
seriously, from my p.o.v., i could have had a rippin’ good time messing with that guy.
December 12, 2009 at 2:14 am
Wait a minute!… I like Peaches. I mean, can YOU cut the mustard to clear the custard?
December 18, 2009 at 5:59 am
Say what you will while nestled in your women’s lit pearch about their gender politics, but to accuse Van Halen of not rocking is crap. I’d rather gouge my ears out to the drums with high power hand blenders than listen to another pretentious, ultra pc indie poseur outfit roll off the shoegazer express, and trot out some hollow, faux freshman lit babble that would put a jumping bean to sleep.
January 21, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Fuck Van Halen rock.
January 22, 2010 at 1:28 am
Yes Van Halen really sucks! His songs talkin about fashion, whores and jumpings. What a stupid band.
January 28, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Sammy was a huge improvment in VH. He brought them to new levels. He is real and sings about re