Superbowl Halftime Show - M.I.A. Flips the Bird

[MacCruiskeen]

Disliking Lady Gaga is misogynistic in the same way as disliking Margaret Thatcher is misogynistic, i.e. not at all, or at the very least (and most certainly) not necessarily.

(Exactly what are you supposed to feel towards someone who goes out of her way to give your eyes and especially your ears, and therefore your soul, a really terrible time? Profound affection and respect?)

[Simulist]

Hi, Mac. Although I don't share any amount of revulsion for her, quite the opposite now, I think it's of course perfectly acceptable to dislike Lady Gaga; and to dislike Margaret Thatcher seems not only perfectly acceptable, but also potentially commendable.

But if someone disliked Margaret Thatcher not because of her rank nastiness as a former prime minister and also a person, but in some way because this person is a woman, I do think that would be misogynistic.

[MacCruiskeen]

Yeah, well, obviously, Simulist.

In my dreams, I see Kathleen Ferrier, Kate Bush, Bessie Smith, Maria Callas and Nina Simone sitting in a pub discussing the Gaga phenomenon, and, specifically, how she "empowers" women. There's a lot of laughter in that dream, and a fair bit of foul language.

But there you go. I'm a male fantasist.

[Simulist]

Yeah, well, obviously, Simulist.

Well, then hopefully I'll continue to improve: those who know me best tell me that it is precisely the obvious that I miss most often.

Like my keys and where I put them. Or that the reading glasses I've looking for are on top of my head.

[MacCruiskeen]

Now now, Simulist, you're one of my favourite posters, but I did go out of my way to make it clear that I think misogyny is a bad thing. Hence my tetchiness.

In other news, I also dislike Dick Cheney, Nick Cave, Tony Blair, Bono and Bruce Springsteen, and (god knows) not for no reason; but the reasons, though various, do not include the fact that each of them is equipped with a penis (or lacking a vagina, if you prefer). I dislike them because they insult my eyes, my ears and my soul. That seems reason enough.

[Simulist]

Now now, Simulist, you're one of my favourite posters, but I did go out of my way to make it clear that I think misogyny is a bad thing. Hence my tetchiness.

I know you did, Mac. But we're even now: I went out of my way to look up "tetchiness."

(Because I really didn't know what the hell it meant. lol)

[MacCruiskeen]

I am MC Tetchee Ol' Rascal.

Here are some under-empowered female singers who never reached the dizzy heights of Gagadom or Madonnaness, perhaps for want of trying, or lack of talent:

[Saurian Tail]

Check this out ... Nicki Minaj at the Grammy Awards. From Madonna to the Pope? Keeping the old marketing machine rolling?

[compared2what?]

Disliking Lady Gaga is misogynistic in the same way as disliking Margaret Thatcher is misogynistic, i.e. not at all, or at the very least (and most certainly) not necessarily.

(Exactly what are you supposed to feel towards someone who goes out of her way to give your eyes and especially your ears, and therefore your soul, a really terrible time? Profound affection and respect?)

It's fine to dislike and even despise her on the terms you state, obviously. I doubt that even she would have a problem with it, at least as an abstract proposition, although I guess that I might think twice before seating her next to you at a dinner party.

As I said, it's specifically Vigilant Citizen's response to her (and to popular culture in general) that I find profoundly reactionary, misogynist and homophobic. And racist, too, sometimes.

But love what you love and hate what you hate, by all means. I know you have a sophisticated palate. Not that you need me to tell you that. I just meant that I admire your taste.

Everyone can hate Madonna, too, for all I care. BTW,

I just think it's kind of key to one's self-respect and sense of personal integrity to know who and what the others that you hate are all about. I mean, if you just go around hating everyone for being what you personally hate, irrespective of whether they are or not, how can you ever get to know yourself?

If that makes sense. Which I'm not at all sure it does.

SHORTER VERSION: Sure, honey. Hate her. Go for it.

[MacCruiskeen]

As I said, it's specifically Vigilant Citizen's response to her (and to popular culture in general) that I find profoundly reactionary, misogynist and homophobic. And racist, too, sometimes.

I don't even know who or what Vigilant Citizen is. No, I haven't bothered to google it. Life's too short. And Vigilant Citizen is not a contributor to this thread. So why should I respond to [it]?

SHORTER VERSION: Sure, honey. Hate her. Go for it.

Well, that's just plain daft.

[compared2what?]

Really? I didn't mean anything much by it. I was just reiterating that of course it's not misogynist for you to dislike Lady Gaga.

[crikkett]

Thinking and saying so doesn't make it okay for crikkett (or anyone) to call me an asshole.

Hey, I didn't call you an asshole. Whether you felt like one after I commented on your rhetoric is another matter.

It was close enough,

close enough for you to put words in my mouth? maybe in your eyes but not in mine.

and you were wrong, demonstrably so,

rebutted directly by the content you conveniently excised out of my earlier post and now once over again since you've read the post you quote above.

sorry, I lost interest.

My meaning and intent are absolutely crystal clear in both instances.

Of course. The overt meaning of the message I commented on left no room for anyone else's point of view, and you have been Told, as the kids used to say. Leave it at that, or fight for the last word until the Mods lock one of us out. Your choice.

Your intent, which I also agree was crystal clear, was to communicate how you're allowed to be rude and condescending except we're not supposed to think it's condescending, but precious and educational, and we're somehow also supposed to think that we deserve the crap you dish out, therefore we're not even allowed to get tired of it.

You're just being jerk, and that needs to stop.

I wasn't. I was absolutely sincere when I said that I am going to use that turn of phrase the next time I want to abuse someone. Dammit, you are educational.

I wasn't being a jerk then but I'll cop to it now. Still, I'm not the jerk that I could be. I'm holding back out of a sense of chivalry. And dammit again, I have to admit how I'm under your spell and think that you're some tender flower to be handled with care.

Now having got being a jerk out of my system darling, I'll stop. Don't think that I don't admire a great deal of what you write here. I do. Don't think I don't sympathize with the part of your story that you share here, because I do. Don't think that you're the only person on this board to have been abused, because you're not. We're more alike than I will ever want to admit, but don't worry that I'll ever vie for your crown. I doubt anyone will, so relax already and let other people get a word in edgewise. My point is that your aggression of late is getting on my fucking nerves. It needs to stop.

I hope someone near you cares enough to give you a hug and tell you it'll be alright, because I'm just words on a screen to you.

[sunny]

Yeah, well, obviously, Simulist.

In my dreams, I see Kathleen Ferrier, Kate Bush, Bessie Smith, Maria Callas and Nina Simone sitting in a pub discussing the Gaga phenomenon, and, specifically, how she "empowers" women. There's a lot of laughter in that dream, and a fair bit of foul language.

But there you go. I'm a male fantasist.

Mac, you'd be the best judge of whether you're a male fantasist, but in my opinion a triumphalist spectacle couched in a dominant/submissive paradigm smells like fascism to me. And fascists, be they male or female, are inherently, virulently anti-woman. Can a woman tell her audience to 'submit' to Empire, an Empire she is presenting as embodied by her, without being a fascist? In any case, nobody 'triumphs' in the Capitalist system without playing the game very well indeed, and the game is deeply malevolent.

[Pierre d'Achoppement]

quoted for possible relevance, the rolling stones review of the jazz album by queen:

By DAVE MARSH
FEBRUARY 8, 1979

There's no Jazz on Queen's new record, in case fans of either were worried about the defilement of an icon. Queen hasn't the imagination to play jazz — Queen hasn't the imagination, for that matter, to play rock & roll. Jazz is just more of the same dull pastiche that's dominated all of this British supergroup's work: tight guitar/bass/drums heavy-metal clichés, light-classical pianistics, four-part harmonies that make the Four Freshmen sound funky and Freddie Mercury's throat-scratching lead vocals.

Anyway, it shouldn't be surprising that Queen calls its album "jazz." The guiding principle of these arrogant brats seems to be that anything Freddie & Company want, Freddie & Company get. What's most disconcerting about their arrogance is that it's so unfounded: Led Zeppelin may be as ruthless as medieval aristocrats, but at least Jimmy Page has an original electronic approach that earns his band some of its elitist notions. The only thing Queen does better than anyone else is express contempt.

Take the LP's opening song, "Mustapha." It begins with a parody of a muezzin's shriek and dissolves into an approximation of Arabic music. This is part of Queen's grand design. Freddie Mercury is worldly and sophisticated, a man who knows what the muezzin sounds like. More to the point, you don't. What trips the group up, as usual, is the music. "Mustapha" is merely a clumsy and pretentious rewrite of "Hernando's Hideaway," which has about as much to do with Middle Eastern culture as street-corner souvlaki.

But it's easy to ascribe too much ambition to Queen. "Fat Bottomed Girls" isn't sexist — it regards women not as sex objects but as objects, period (the way the band regards people in general). When Mercury chants, in "Let Me Entertain You," about selling his body and his willingness to use any device to thrill an audience, he isn't talking about a sacrifice for his art. He's just confessing his shamelessness, mostly because he's too much of a boor to feel stupid about it.

Whatever its claims, Queen isn't here just to entertain. This group has come to make it clear exactly who is superior and who is inferior. Its anthem, "We Will Rock You," is a marching order: you will not rock us, we will rock you. Indeed, Queen may be the first truly fascist rock band. The whole thing makes me wonder why anyone would indulge these creeps and their polluting ideas.

[Allegro]

quoted for possible relevance, the rolling stones review of the jazz album by queen:

Thanks, Pierre. Here's the link to the article you've quoted just above.