Men's repression of women's right is not comparable to American's slavery of the Black population because.
1. Blacks were a minority and could be subjugated by numbers.
2. Blacks came here by force.
Neither of these two points are true of women. Men and women, by definition, evolved simultaneously, there is no reason for men to get the upper hand, not even brute force is an excuse> If brute force was a governing force, bears would rule the planet: we have brains , why didn't women just gang up with weapons and kill men?
Simone de Beauvoir came closer to the truth when she claimed it was a mix of biology and economics.
1. Women are maternal and bond with babies in ways men don't, it made sense when the family duties were chosen, men went out to get food and therefore discover agriculture while women stayed in the caves.
Agriculture lead to economics, lead to power and women were stuck feeding the human pack.
It took millennium for women to level out the playing field and anybody who claims that there is equality also claims the indies are as important as the major record labels. Only in dreams.
BUT, if all the above is true, how is it men's fault? Reverse the situation and there would have been a war between the sexes. Men, as a sex, would not have accepted it. This is biology not sexism. I wish it wasn't true but I don't see how it is untrue. It was women's responsibility because any equality at the onset was up to women to fix, not men.
I realize I couldn't say anything less popular and so I will add that on a SUBJECTIVE sense, in my life, I have never known women to be less able than men and have worked for a woman or beneath a woman on many an occasion.
Which leads me to the reason for this post. My contention, actually it isn't really a contention, it's a fact, is that every important musical genre, invention, movement with the exception of the gender specific riot grrrls, has been made by, lead by and most often excelled by, men.
Naturally, the world at large was not amused by my blatantly sexist comment. Though I am clearly not saying there are not countless great female musicians. My claim is from Beethoven to the Beatles, Armstrong to Grandmaster Flash, Ray Charles to Nirvana, men have done everything for popular music -more or less.My problem is I don't like my conclusion, I don't even like the question, it goes against my instincts to claim superiority due too gender I raised the question on Facebook,
Irene Diamond agreed with my theory: "I've thought about it numerous times… and its true for the history of music for centuries".
Helen Bach, who is always ready throw a grenade when a pillow will do, agreed with me : "You're 100% correct. Men have provided far superior music there is no need to lie about something that is a simple fact. A few women have made contributions but in the great rock and roll tally- boys win."
Needless to say I wouldn't go that far at all… a few???
Amy Freeman concedes the point with an historic perspective: "I think it's a valid question, and that there are probably lots of layers to consider, much like why there are so few great wome…n painters (speaking of old times here). Women have historically been oppressed and made to feel inferior, useful only in how they can support men. It isn't a set of circumstances that leads to acts of wild, iconoclastic
Neda Kessas, notes that her current faves include "Amy Winehouse, Amy Winehouse , Amy Winehouse", Adele and Celene and that music is a matter of taste and shouldn't be overanylzed.
Steve Crawford essentially agreed with my theory though, like me, it left a bad taste in his mouth: I think you may be defining equality too narrowly. I'm sure there are vast examples outside of popular music where female contributions are superior to men. Biological wiring and outputs are not symmetrical across all spectrums.
Frank Schiazza and Barry Holdship -both rock and roll singers and therefore have a clearer idea as to what goes into creating music, , tried to show me the errors of my way.
Schiazza wrote: "It's about opportunity. You could say the same about literature until you realize that, for centuries, women really weren't allowed to write. In music, women like Genya Ravan would have been just as popular as Iggy Pop had the world let her. But it didn't, so the legions of Genya followers were forced into other lines of work while male hacks took their place. I get your point, and you're right in terms of output, but you have to consider the reasons behind it.
"There is NO WAY that the sexes got an equal start. You cant have this discussion without getting into politics and societal issues and, once you do, its clear that women were never given a fair shake in music."So Frank essentially concedes the point with caveats aplenty.
Barry starts his rebuttal with a litany of names, though to be honest, I don't think he rebutted my claim: ""Without giving it much thought, off the top of my head, I can think of quite a few women who have contributed greatly to rock 'n' roll & "pop." Singers & songwriters. Ruth Brown, Darlene Love, Ronnie Spector, Carole King, Patti Smith, Chrissie Hynde, all come to mind immediately. And I'm really missing a hell of a lot more, I know. The women I do love, I REALLY LOVE! Other other hand, I can go on for hours about the men & their contribution to rock 'n' roll. Even the ones who like to dress like women."
.
But a little later on Barry clearly does provide what I've been waiting for, a black swan."two clear example of women pioneering a sound, and, like all black swans, it only takes one to rebut the thesis: "But 50's rock 'n' roll, Wanda Jackson, Patsy Cline, Brenda Lee, etc., certainly were there and cut some great early tracks. The Beatles are in a category to themselves. But the 60's did offer us some wonderful girl groups. Didn't write or produce, but still great tracks. The Shangri Las, Ronnettes, Crystals, etc. Writers of most of the great pop hits in the early to mid 60's were partnered w/females. Goffin/King, Greenwich & Barry, Mann & Weil. Don't forget the marvelous bass playing of Carol Kaye on a majority of the 60's radio hits, Beach Boys, one hit wonders, which featured her in "The Wrecking Crew.". . Hopefully you see my point."
Which got me thinking L.A.'s soft rock early 1970s were birthed by Carole King and Linda Ronstadt. UK Punk got its entire vidual look from Vivienne Westwood and women like Siouxie Sue, Poly Styrene, Lora Logiv Ari Upp -they are all clearly rock pioneers.Men may have gotten there first, but women took it where men couldn't go. As for hip hop, does the name Sylvia Robinson mean anything to you: Sugarhill Records was extremely important for the yong rap movement.
Yet still: Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald were friends, peers and contemporaries. Ella is one of the greatest singers of all time, Armstrong invented jazz as we know it. So were Bing Crosby and Rosemary Clooney, Crosby taught us how to sing into a microphone. Bob Dylan and Joan Baez were the King and Queen of folk… need I belabor the point?
So anyway, looking for people to prove me wrong I found discrepencies and explanations.
1. Whatever the cause of inequality between the sexes, doesn't change that women were subjucgted in the music the same waay as they were ssubgacin all levels of society.
2. There are a few places where women's contributions in music was an important as men's.
Finally, Lisa Burns of Velveteen offered this word of wisdom: "Hmmmmm…"
Well, exactly.
Comments are closed.