From: owner-support-system-digest@smoe.org (support-system-digest) To: support-system-digest@smoe.org Subject: support-system-digest V5 #48 Reply-To: support-system@smoe.org Sender: owner-support-system-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-support-system-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk support-system-digest Thursday, March 7 2002 Volume 05 : Number 048 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: it's official ["April Haitsuka" ] Re: it's official [robert joyner ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 01:02:50 -0800 From: "April Haitsuka" Subject: Re: it's official Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. I'm no huge fan > of Britney or Christina but I was just overwhelmed > with the self-righteous hypocrisy of Miss Crow. Just > mind-boggling. To be fair, the way I read it, she's criticizing the industry for using these teen-age girls as soft-core porn commodities. They're young and don't understand that they're being exploited, and it's not fair. She's not taking the traditional 1970's feminist ("breast beating") stance against sexualized imagery in general. The implicit statement is that it's OK, if the woman is in control of her image and flaunts it consciously as a part of her own personality (a la Liz or Madonna), as long as she is taken seriously as a musician. She says, "They're baring it all like that's what has to be done to make it as a musician." That's not to say that Britney or Christina don't have any talent, but to succeed in the industry, they have reduced themselves to Hooker Barbie dolls. Their talent becomes irrelevant and the only thing that matters is the amount of skin they flash. April ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 02:06:59 -0800 (PST) From: robert joyner Subject: Re: it's official - --- April Haitsuka wrote: > Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. I'm no huge fan > > of Britney or Christina but I was just overwhelmed > > with the self-righteous hypocrisy of Miss Crow. > Just > > mind-boggling. > > To be fair, the way I read it, she's criticizing the > industry for using > these teen-age girls as soft-core porn commodities. > They're young and don't > understand that they're being exploited, and it's > not fair. She's not taking > the traditional 1970's feminist ("breast beating") > stance against sexualized > imagery in general. The implicit statement is that > it's OK, if the woman is > in control of her image and flaunts it consciously > as a part of her own > personality (a la Liz or Madonna), as long as she is > taken seriously as a > musician. She says, "They're baring it all like > that's what has to be done > to make it as a musician." That's not to say that > Britney or Christina don't > have any talent, but to succeed in the industry, > they have reduced > themselves to Hooker Barbie dolls. Their talent > becomes irrelevant and the > only thing that matters is the amount of skin they > flash. I'm sorry but I don't by the argument by Liz and Sheryl of owning your exploitation. Owning their exploitation just helps them sleep a little better when they go to bed at night. Either way you slice it the end result is a female artist on the cover of the magazine/video/album cover half-naked. Somehow when Liz/Madonna/Sheryl do it it is okay because they are cynical about it? I'm sorry but I don't buy that and think it's, pardon my french, bullshit. If anything, it betrays the work of those that are truly talented. For some reason, when I see Sheryl with her ass cheek hanging out of hotpants, the first words that come to mind aren't serious artist. If anything it marginalizes her artistry. When I think Madonna, I think great sociological phenomenon, not necessarily great musical artist. At least with Liz, say showing her nipple on the cover of Exile in Guyville, it is in the context of the the album itself and the themes that it portrays. Sheryl is basically tarted up for some photo spread in a second rate men's mag, shilling for a little more exposure, literally, and a few extra album sales. Sheryl's criticizing the industry for using these teen-age girls as soft-core porn commodities...but is it any less relevant to criticize Sheryl Crow to for using herself as a soft-core porn commodity? At least in the case of a Britney, there is some nebulous entity to blame called "the industry". In Sheryl's case it comes off as personal compromise and somwhat hypocritical when villifying others for the same thing. but to succeed in the industry, > they have reduced > themselves to Hooker Barbie dolls I'm sorry but Sheryl seems to have lowered herself to the same role from looking at her Stuff layout. I guess the game is skin to win and Sheryl is more than happy to play. Btw, I don't know to what degree that the Industry is exploiting Britney and Christina. I think those two are well aware of the role a sexualized image plays in the equation for success. of course this is just one person's opinion. ===== - ------------------------------------------------------------ Nashville - A Liz Phair Web Site http://www.geocities.com/robnashville - ------------------------------------------------------------ Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ End of support-system-digest V5 #48 ***********************************