feministhemes.com

Let them eat cake!  No, wait, I mean, let them listen to Cake!  Mmm, cake…  Sorry.  *Ahem.*  If you listen to Cake, you’re probably wondering what they’re doing on a feminist blog.  If you don’t listen to Cake, you’re probably wondering the same thing.  Well, I think it’s time to play a new game I’m going to call Feminist Rorschach, in which we interpret a piece of art, music, film, television, or whatever and try to determine whether it’s feminist… or not.  And why, and in what ways, and so on.  Wanna play?

The song is called Pretty Pink Ribbon off the 2001 album Comfort Eagle.  It wasn’t released as a single and has no official music video, but I found this cool Power Rangers themed video (which is frankly more interesting than staring at the album art for three minutes).  Lyrics after the cut.

My instinct has always led me to believe that the pretty pink ribbon is a reference to a particular part of the female anatomy (c’mon, sticky little kitten?).  I found other interpretations online that the song is about cancer (pink ribbons) or about a girl that’s only as good as her tight little denim.  But I’m going to stick with my interpretation, and argue for the song as a commentary on socialization, social roles and maybe even empowerment, at least potentially.  Whether the pretty pink ribbon is symbolic of the vagina (what a cliche feminist interpretation, huh?) or simply a stereotypical expression of socialized femininity/girliness, the song addresses gender differences between men and women (“Without the pretty pink ribbon / You’d end up just like me”).

Let’s get the not-so-good out of the way.  There is some blatant objectification here (“Without your tight little denim / Your virtues would all go unknown”), and some accusations of shallowness (“Without the pretty pink ribbon / You’d float down to the sea”), golddigging (“Without the sticky little kitten / Your ticket could never be free”), and so on.   There’s also the limitation of not being able to speak one’s own mind (“Without the pretty pink ribbon / You’d say just what you pleased”).  Kind of makes it sound like it’s not so great to be of the female persuasion.

On the other hand, it doesn’t sound like its so great to be a dude in this world, either.  Apparently for those whose “muscles bulge underground” (phallic reference?), there is no escape from personal demons – our culture socializes men to carry their burdens alone.  There is also less hope for healing (“Without the room that you live in / Your cancers would eat through the bone”) and less compassion (“You’d burn all these dying leaves… You would lift this steaming herd / You would kill all the sick ones / You would bury them deep in the earth”).  Here men are expected to carry out the dirty work of facing death, causing death, and cleaning up after death.

To me the song represents the social limitations imposed on those who do/can wear a pretty pink ribbon and those who don’t/cant.  There are benefits in each circumstance (free tickets, expression of virtues, and a sense of peace, hope, and healing for her; an uncensored voice, strength, and the ability to “be tough” for him), and these are not shared across the sexes.  For calling these things out, I as a feminist give the song props.  What do you think?

Lyrics below

There were two things that had me pumped up about The Wild Things: 1. Jim Henson muppets, and 2. Karen O.  I was never very attached to the story as a kid, and was pretty sure that it was going to be a hyped-up-indie-fest as a film.  However, this was also during that period that I kept going to movies expecting little and being blown away (Away We Go, Jennifer’s Body, Paper Heart, and Whip It!), so maybe that explains the mild obsession that overtook me after seeing The Wild Things last fall.  The film, the soundtrack, and the book all made their mark on me, and all have a little feminist spin in my opinion.  Let’s break it down:

The Film

Sadly this trailer doesn’t incorporate the Karen O led music that really contributes to the feel of the film, nor does it capture what, to me, was the most meaningful theme: Max’s relationship with his mother.  What? you say?  His mother?  Please, this is a story about a naughty and wild little boy. On the surface, yes, but Max’s relationship with his mom is what gave the film depth.

Max is being raised by a single mother who has a new boyfriend, which can be hard on any kid.  It’s hard even into adulthood to understand split parents, and when a newcomer steps in things become even more difficult.  Max was already a pain-in-the-butt kid, and between a fight with his older sister and the apparent intrusion of a new man into his home, he loses it.  He runs away and winds up living among the Wild Things as their king.  And each Wild Thing offers us an insight into Max’s relationship with his mom.  Carol represents the possessiveness Max feels towards her; Alexander represents how ignored he feels; Judith represents his difficult and disagreeable side; Ira represents the doting and needy part of him; and the Bull represents the stoic role our society asks us to show when we’re really experiencing pain.  K.W. on the other hand, represents Max’s mom.

K.W. is warm, loving, kind, and is more complex than the other Wild Things can understand.  She has a different level of maturity, she needs relationships outside of the group.  Carol in particular is resentful of this and alternates between loving K.W. and not knowing how to express it and loathing her in a violent and possessive way.  This is a clear reflection of how Max has treated his mother on the night he ran away.  When Carol turns on Max for letting him down as a king, it is K.W. that protects him, hiding him in her mouth.  For a moment after it is safe, K.W. wants to keep Max, but she understands that as much as she loves him, she must let him go.  Whether Max has the capacity to understand this as deeply as I see it or not, this is the turning point where he realizes he needs his mother and must return to her, hopefully with a new respect for her as a person, not just a mom.

After the jump, an analysis of the soundtrack (including an interview with Karen O.) and the book

Just for fun, I thought I’d pass along this internet musical I stumbled across.  It’s no secret that I have a deep love for all things Joss Whedon (mostly, anyway), and although he isn’t affiliated with this project in any way, Horrible Turn is a fantastic Dr. Horrible prequel.  Adolescent Billy and adolescent Hammer are right on.  Especially Hammer.  He cracked me up pretty much constantly.

Horrible Turn from Horrible Turn on Vimeo.

I have fallen in love with Lady Gaga over the past month, and this post from Jukebox Heroines on the feminist themes in her music was too awesome not to share.  If you are interested in cross-posting or guest-posting at feministhemes.com, please contact me with your ideas at misswizzle@feministhemes.com.

Lady Gaga – The Fame (2008) on (Streamline/Konlive/Cherrytree/Interscope)

Part 1:

Oh snap. Yes, I just said it. Lady Gaga’s music is feminist. Why do I say such things? Because I can back it up. And because I love her music, videos, and persona. She is the reason I have actually started to listen to pop music again. So, let me tell you about feminist music….

Why do I say that her music is feminist? Whether or not she herself claims to be a feminist, her work criticizes gender, sexuality, the body, pop culture’s representations of women, and the nature of power. This in itself is a feminist act. Now, feminism, I guess we must define in some form, considering most representations of it are: man hater, bra burner, lesbian, ugly, want power over men, bitchy, hate children…..not true. Feminism is the political and social movement for women’s social, political, and economic equality. In that social part lies music, and Lady Gaga knows exactly what she is up against in the music industry. Feminist Music therefore, can be made by anyone, male/female/trans, as long as it fulfills the goals of fighting for equality and justice based on gender.

How does she present feminist ideas? I will give you a few examples. Read the rest of this entry »

If you know me, you know I love the Beatles almost as much as life itself.  This week I’ve been working on a T-shirt quilt of shirts than needed to be retired (some of these have been with me since middle school), and the Beatles have been my soundtrack while I work.  In ironing and sewing and dancing, I began noticing some disturbing material, especially that from early in the Beatles career.  Here’s a quick look at three troublesome Beatles songs.

You Can’t Do That – 1964

Despite the Lennon-McCartney traditional tagline, John deserves most of the credit (or blame) for this one.  An early Beatles tune, the song is about a jealous boyfriend who warns his girl that if he catches her talking to another guy again, he’ll leave her.  Posessiveness is so romantic.  I know that the Beatles were serious aphrodisiacs for teens and young women (my generation had the Backstreet Boys, this generation has the Jonas Brothers), but the wild screaming during a song about a pretty unhealthy, jealous, possessive and threatening relationship is a bit disturbing.

You Like Me Too Much – 1965

This one is a George song, and if you know the outcome of his relationship with Pattie Boyd, this little dedication collage is kind of disturbing.  This song is sung from the manipulative male partner to his lover, who likes him “too much” to leave him, though it’s all that he deserves.  He sings about following her if she leaves to bring her back where she “belongs” and admitting that he was “wrong” in order to convince her.  I love George (in theory, I guess), but I feel like we should have listened to this song at our domestic violence crisis line training.  This is exactly the kind of thing that is operating when it takes women (on average) seven attempts before leaving a dangerous relationship.  But when its sung by a Beatle, its “romantic.”  Yikes.

Run For Your Life – 1965

Of these three tunes, this is probably the one that you are most likely to know.  Kudos to John again, this time upping the ante with death threats on top of the possessive manipulations.  John Lennon, the “peace icon,” tells his “little girl” she better “hide her head in the sand” rather than be seen with another man, as he’d rather see her dead.  In a choice verse he announces: Well I know that I’m a wicked guy / And I was born with a jealous mind / And I can’t spend my whole life / Trying just to make you toe the line. John has always made my stomach turn, but I think anyone in their right mind would be hard pressed to defend this one.

So, there you have it.  My favorite band, the classic and timeless Beatles, as manipulative, misogynistic music makers.  I guess sometimes Love isn’t all you need.  Any other rough tunes I missed, or Beatles favorites of yours that redeem the band?

Ever notice that the realm of folk parody duos seems to be relatively male-dominant?  You know what I’m talking about.  Both the field of comedy and the world of music are essentially male oriented.  Women typically aren’t allowed to be funny, or if they are it must be at the expense of their looks.  And women musicians are either pop-princesses or “vagina rock”ers.  Either way, all people are expected to appreciate the comedy and music of male performers, while women performers are for women only.

Well, if you like Flight of the Conchords, you have no excuse not to give a listen to Garfunkel & Oates.  Riki Lindhome (Garfunkel) and Kate Micucci (Oates) are to L.A.-based actors who developed a friendship after frequently running into each other at various auditions and admiring each others talents.  It must have been fated for the two to make some beautiful music together…  The duos songs tackle issues including third wheels, one-night stands, unwanted gifts, and the sensitive topic of pregnancy:

The band’s website has a wide collection of their other songs and videos, which I highly recommend.  I found myself wondering as I watched their work what it would take for a network like HBO to offer a musical sitcom to such a duo, making the female characters front and center rather than sidelined as obsessive stalker fans, and allowing them to be powerful, central, and relateable characters despite their vaginas.  I’ll keep my fingers crossed for Garfunkel & Oates to find the success they deserve.

If you watch Fuse at all, you’ve probably seen a video or two starring a guy who looks like that Emo-Elvis hybrid from Guitar Hero II.  This might be your first clue that this guy takes himself a little too seriously, and probably has a pretty high douchebag-quotient (or DQ).  But trust me, there is more evidence that this man and his band, Theory of A Deadman, are kind of a waste of space, and that they are full of hatred for women.

Click here for video evidence