Pitchfork Continually Surprised by Talented Women

by anna

Like many music enthusiasts in the world, I have a love/hate relationship with Pitchfork. My most exhilarating encounters with music criticism occurred while reading Brent DiCrescenzo’s outrageous (yet emotionally stirring!!!) reviews while I was still in high school. Pitchfork has informed the way I conceptualize music; it created the first paradigm for richly informed, detailed, obsessive music criticism, thereby driving the blurb-driven snark machines of Rolling Stone and Spin into the bitter, bitter dirt of irrelevance.  Also, Pitchfork has contributed to my vision for a blog like this one, in which I deconstruct a Beyonce single in like 1000 words.

Back in 2005, DiCrescenzo wrote a column chronicling various indie prototypes created in Pfork’s reviews, among them an intellectual female artist known as “The Stef,” and the freak-man-boy known as “The Sloth.” In it, he describes Pitchfork writer’s analyses (both underlying and upfront) of women musicians:

Specifically, writers paint Fiona Apple and Cat Power’s Chan Marshall as hormonally capricious victim-savants and read all their lyrics like Psy.D parents unlocking a daughter’s pink diary, while Devendra Banhart’s jabberwocky skews as fecund genius.

and later…

When convenient, male songwriters slip into omniscient skin to amuse and illuminate, while female songwriters meddle in their first-person emotions, unable to escape the black hole of their romantic astrology. Naturally, emotional analysis always overshadows technical musicianship in Stef reviews.

In other words, reviewers focus on the emotional qualities of women artists’ work, while they are more generous with men, granting them agency over their identity.

Too bad no one ever heeded his words over at the magazine. Despite Pfork’s “Best New Music” section featuring a larger proportion of women-led acts than perhaps ever before, the language of the reviews stirs in me a reaction similar to that of feminist bloggers‘ responses to The New Republic’s recent profile of Sonya Sotomayor. (That’s a whole ‘nother controversy, but one that revolves around the reading of a female subject through a lens of motherhood and unhinged emotionality.) Do a close, or fuck, a distant reading of some of these reviews, and all the acceptable feminine identities are neatly rolled out in a matter of four goddamn sentences, then the woman artist in question will be shoved into each and every niche, until she is a sex symbol, a princess (!!), a mother, and an earth-goddess.

So, czech out the latest example, from the review of St. Vincent’s Actor.

Annie Clark, the musician otherwise known as St. Vincent, projects an aura of eerie perfection– beautiful, poised, good-humored, and well-adjusted to a degree uncommon for rock performers, let alone ordinary people. She’s clearly not oblivious to her disarming qualities. On the covers of both her albums, her wide eyes and porcelain features give her the appearance of a cartoon princess come to life, and in the songs contained therein, she sings with the measured, patient tones of a benevolent, maternal authority figure. The thing that separates Clark from any number of earth mother Lilith Fair types, however, is her eagerness to subvert that effect. Her album covers may showcase her pretty face, but her blank expression and the tight framing leave the images feeling uncomfortably ambiguous. Her voice and arrangements are often mellow and soothing, but those sounds mainly serve as context as she exposes undercurrents of anxiety and discomfort hidden just beneath a gorgeous façade.

Clearly, St. Vincent has an authoritative presence; but the critic here qualifies her assertive vocal tendencies as “maternal,” for no reason I can tell other than Ms. Clark has a woman’s voice. And, Lilith Fair? I don’t hear much 90’s lesbian music going on here; St. Vincent is more akin to those indie musicians pushing the classical envelope. Again, the only thing I imagine would conjure such a comparison would be her womanly voice.

Also, she’s a pretty pretty princess.

If Dicrescenzo is arguing that critics assume an insulting lack of agency on the behalf of women artists’ identities, this review pats St. Vincent on the back for being shifty; she has stealthily avoided all the traps pfork has set up for her.

Behold:

With that in mind, the album is perfectly titled, as Actor proves St. Vincent as an artist capable of crafting believable, complicated characters with compassion, insight, and exacting skill.

“Thanks, guys! I am capable!” I’m certain that’s what Ms. Clark was thinking when she read that.

You know who else is capable? Bat For Lashes’ Natasha Khan. Check out the last sentence of the recent review of Two Suns:

Not only does Khan hold her own, there are moments when she holds his, too [on the song The Big Sleep]. That she’s capable of doing so is evidence enough that we should be paying attention.

Apparently Pfork needs a lot of proof from the women artists they review. I find it uncanny, not to mention lazy, that these two reviews end almost identically. Furthermore, the fact that Khan “holds her own” with a man is supposed to prove to us we can pay attention now? Thanks for the permission.

Then again, I am relieved that the critic even came to that conclusion, given his best efforts to totally undermine the seriousness or aesthetic worth of Bat For Lashes in his opening sentence:

Natasha Khan likes pretty things: fur, gold, melody, the moon, feathers, things that sparkle, chords that resolve.

The thing I am most shocked about is the weird lack of awareness running through these articles. Aren’t these music critic dudes at all sensitive to the potentially cringe-inducing usage of words like, “capable” or “pretty” or “maternal?” Didn’t these hip young men ever take a gender studies class? Don’t their girlfriends get annoyed with them? Have they ever talked to a woman?

I am not proposing censorship, I am proposing a little sensitivity. I am delighted that women artists are being reviewed favorably by Pfork, but I won’t be satisfied until they apply the language they use in reviews of dude bands/acts to the womenfolk.

It’s hard out here for a man…

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece for my campus paper about a ridiculous new survey- the 50 manliest cities in America. Yup, you read that right. You see, not content with shoving sexist bullshit down the throats of men around this country, we’ve taken to classifying cities based on how manly they are. And how exactly does one come up with such a ranking? Observe the categories-

Sports

Manly lifestyle (whatever that means)

Concentration of manly retail stores

Manly Magazine Subscriptions

Salty Snack Sales (um…..)

Anything strike you as particularly odd as you read this? Maybe the fact that last time I checked, women also watch sports, visit Home Depot and eat salty snacks? It’s things like these that reinforce how sexism isn’t just a women’s issue. Indeed, it never has been but yet, feminism hasn’t really done much to address artificial constructions of masculinity. In my column, I wrote-

While a number of gender studies classes focus on the effect that sexism has on women, little time is devoted to studying its effects on men. This despite the fact that men are victims of a culture that infantilizes them and reduces them to one of two caricatures: the beer guzzling and intellectually deficient Homer Simpson or the slacker with grade-school humor, as depicted in every (awful) Seth Rogen film.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this subject lately thanks to the popularity of this new reference in pop culture- bromance, or as Urban Dictionary puts it, “the complicated love and affection shared by two straight males.” There are several problematic things about this term. For one, it attempts to contextualize and rationalize a close relationship between two straight men, as if there is something wrong with maintaining such a bond. Of course, it also reveals a deeper issue- the fear that any relationship between two men will be construed as homosexual in nature. By slapping on a cutesy label like bromance, we are effectively silencing such fears. It seems then that straight men sharing close relationships with other straight men chips away at what we traditionally perceive of as masculinity- stoicism and a lack of emotions. This makes us deeply uncomfortable so we take to gender policing. And, in case you were wondering, the manliest city in America is Nashville. 

-Indira

Fuck Bill O’Reilly

Seriously, the dude’s a petty and vicious man but his latest drama is just crossing the line. Here’s the story. A few days ago, ThinkProgress (my favorite site, fyi) blogger Amanda Terkel wrote about O’Reilly speaking at a fundraiser for the Alexa Foundation, an organization that benefits rape survivors and raises support for such issues. As Terkel wrote, O’Reilly’s presence at the event was problematic given his endorsement of victim-blaming, most notably on his radio show when he made some vile comments about Jennifer Moore, an 18-year old woman who was raped and murdered. Here’s the beacon of social consciousness on Moore’s tragic death-

Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning.

But, of course, the helpless men! Enraged that his comments had been picked up by various media outlets, he did what any sensible person would do- Send your producer to stalk Terkel for 2 hours, all while harassing her and demanding an apology for “causing pain and suffering to rape victims and their families.” Are you kidding me, O’Reilly? Just so we’re on the same page, you sexually harassed a coworker and pretty much had to settle after it was revealed that your victim recorded many of your explicit conversations. So yeah, as a vic myself, I can safely state that the absolute last person I want to see an event about sexual violence, rape or abuse is a misogynistic asshat like you.

See, when I write/talk about the evil ways of the far- right wing machine, I’m not exaggerating. These people are vicious and their bullying ways have just gotten worse with Obama’s win. Much of it is their way of lashing out, particularly due to the realization that their ideology is deeply unpopular and marginalized around the country. Others like Limbaugh and O’Reilly are just evil people who can only be bothered with demonizing those unlike them. These people deserve no more publicity but I simply can’t help it.

-Indira

I’m not a feminist but…

As the leader of a feminist group on campus, if there was ever a phrase I heard commonly, it was this. I never quite understood it- otherwise intelligent women who professed their support for things like pay equity, reproductive rights and ending violence against women but refusing to call them feminists. What gives? To be sure, some of it is just confusion over what the label entails.

Feminism as a movement has often been hijacked by radicals, meaning different things to different people. On the one hand, women like Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly proudly call themselves feminists, even though their careers have been founded on misogyny and anti-woman policies. By the same token, you have some crazies who think that pornography and stripping are actually “empowering” to women. Or those who think that reproductive rights are absolute, without any regard for moral and ethical considerations. Clearly, the extremes aren’t good and as is the case with many movements, people are often presented with a vision that is out of touch and unrepresentative of most feminists.

And, where to begin with the ugly stereotypes of feminists, many of which surely turn off young women? A friend, after attending the Jessica Valenti at IU Monday, stumled upon this link titled “Feminism is Evil” during a regular google search for “feminism.” You know what, though? Some feminists are hairy, some are lesbians, some are fat, some are ugly, some hate men, some don’t wear bras. So what? As Anna would say, hurray for uncompromised and radical feminism! At the same time, no woman wants to be called ugly or fat and these stereotypes, according to Jessica, demonstrate that many still feel threatened by the feminist movement. Why else would they spend so much time trying to discredit it?

Jessica, who is hella cool by the way, also spent some time during her lecture dissecting the purity myth in our society, the topic for her upcoming book. Valenti called for the deconstruction of virginity as a concept, specifically as it relates to women’s sexuality. Indeed, conservatives and anti-feminists have spent so much time obsessing about young women’s sex lives, decrying the rise of “raunch culture” or the “hook up culture.” These exaggerated phenomenon are then used to make judgements about a woman’s character- as Jessica stated, for women, their moral compass lies between their legs. Based on the reaction from the audience, I could tell that this was the most relevant part of Jessica’s speech and I’m not surprised. I only hope that events like these bring out the closet feminists and I know there are a lot out there!

Sorry ladies (and dudes)…many of you are feminists. You just don’t know it yet!

-Indira

Q: Why do women hate El Rushbo?

A: Hmm, maybe it’s because he’s a misogynistic ass.

Seriously. Very few Republican dudes have spent this much time hating on women so I’m speechless at Rush Limbaugh’s convening of a “female summit.” The idea of a summit comes after a new public opinion poll found a huge gender gap in the radio talk show host’s favorability ratings.

46% [of American voters] have a positive perception of him with 43% viewing him negatively. There is a massive gender gap in those numbers, with 56% of men but only 37% of women holding a favorable opinion of him.

My question is, who are these 37% of women and what medication are they on? Limbaugh, however, feigned concern for the ladies.

Be ready at any moment for me to declare the summit officially underway, and we will take calls only from women who want to seriously discuss the proposition of this giant gender gap that I have, and what I could do to close it. In other words: What could I do to attract a higher favorability rating among more women in America? I own the men, and what must I do now to own women? And who better to ask than women?

Now, granted I’m not the target audience for tripe like his but nevertheless, I would humbly suggest the following. Stop calling women ugly and mocking their appearances, referring to rape survivors as “hos” and claiming that we “ask” for sexual harassment and of course, treating us like inanimate objects.

Tune in for next month’s summit- why do minorities hate Rush Limbaugh?

h/t- feministe

-Indira

No love for PETA

My latest piece about my disdain for animal rights groups, particularly PETA, is up. I’ve written about this issue before so some of the material will be familiar. An excerpt-

In 2005, PETA launched a nationwide tour, “Are Animals the New Slaves?” The campaign compared the lynching of blacks to animal cruelty and juxtaposed images of black men hanging from trees with pictures of slaughtered cows. In response to the controversy, the group’s founder, Ingrid Newkirk, released a statement titled “We are all animals, so get over it.”

Just two years earlier, PETA launched a campaign equating animal slaughterhouses to the Holocaust.

Most recently, PETA’s ads have featured women in various states of undress as they extol the benefits of vegetarianism, achieving the bigotry trifecta.

Therein lies the issue that animal rights groups often forget – there is a moral and ethical difference between an animal and a human being. Most people recognize this; we wouldn’t hesitate between saving a drowning woman and a drowning cat, and that’s a good thing. To even suggest that the lives of black people or Jews are comparable to that of an animal makes a mockery of the oppression these groups claim to be fighting.

Read the whole piece here.

-Indira