beccatoria: (BARBARIANS!)
[personal profile] beccatoria
Hey guys
First off I'm really, really sorry I've been so crap about posting here lately and stuff. It's been a bit of a grind-you-down kind of couple of weeks. But I still love you all!

In other news, HALP ME.

For reasons that are far to long and boring to be of interest to many of you, I find that I need some suggestions for female singers, or bands with female lead singers, that I might like. My music taste tends to be somewhere in the vicinity of indie rock with various odd jaunts toward both singer-songwriter and rap artist. I like complicated lyrics. I like when not all the songs are about being in love. Or if they are, the lyrics are complicated and interesting. I like drumming. I like "strong" voices rather than "pretty" voices.

Here are some female artists I already like:

Florence and the Machine
Joan Baez
Tracy Chapman
Pat Benatar (shut up!)
Jefferson Airplane
Regina Spektor
Tori Amos (during her early years)

Any recs welcome!

Thanks guys!

Date: 2010-02-22 01:21 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ticketsonmyself.livejournal.com
Well, I wouldn't be so worried about the appropriate way to phrase... everything. I mean, to be boring and requote Sady, the guideline I try to roll with in these discussions is not hurting people in the same old ways they get hurt in other venues, or reinforcing that harm; the terminology and so on is a tool to that end. I kind of wish there were a more widely accepted way to engage with these debates, because as far as I can tell there are people who have gotten to a point where they've mostly learned to talk about these issues without reinforcing harm done to people at the wrong ends of various power differentials (whether that's other people or includes themselves), and are still working on their own consciousness-raising because obviously that's a process that doesn't end; a significantly larger number of people who haven't gotten to that point but are thinking about it and/or working on it; and a huge sector of people who don't care (some of whom really do derail a discussion in their efforts to proclaim that). Personally, I've been in the last category, and I've been floating between the first two categories for a while now, which will likely remain the case for some time. Not that I'm anyone's role model, but I honestly don't think it has to be so intimidating!

Date: 2010-02-22 01:34 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chaila.livejournal.com
Yeah and I do get that not hurting others is the purpose of all the terminology and methodology, but I also think that there's a tendency to conflate the second group you mention with the third group, and to respond accordingly. That unless you're in the first group and can say everything in the accepted way and mostly agree with what's being said, by trying at all, if imperfectly, you're exposing yourself to some possible hurtful responses that assume you were trying to be hurtful yourself. And that's the part that's intimidating/off-putting moreso than the terminology. I mean, I think everyone in these threads fits at least in the second group but is afraid of saying anything anywhere publicly and that is, I think, problematic in terms of having wide discussion. (Which is obviously not your fault! Or probably anyone's fault. But by way of explanation).

Date: 2010-02-22 02:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ticketsonmyself.livejournal.com
I guess the question I keep running into is: Accepted by whom? linkspam moderators and their friends and so on? I mean, for example, I periodically read most of the blogs on linkspam's sidebar, and they have a fairly significant range of opinions and areas of concern, even if many of them have important values in common.

by trying at all, if imperfectly, you're exposing yourself to some possible hurtful responses that assume you were trying to be hurtful yourself. And that's the part that's intimidating/off-putting moreso than the terminology.

I understand why it's intimidating, but as in my first paragraph, I think there's a wider range of publicly expressed opinions than that, though it's true I haven't followed this particular debate closely enough to be sure. Also, looking back on other debates, even if someone's opinion does differ from, say, that of various posts linked on linkspam, that person isn't going to be even close to ostracized by larger LJ/DW society unless they are frankly egregious in a way that rivals W*ll Sh*tt*rl*y (and he's still got quite a few fans, I think). In short, I think if someone really feels like they have something thoughtful to say about something like this controversy and really wants to say it publicly on LJ/DW... well, it's always the individual's call, but I think the possibility of angry responses isn't like... an oppressive force (or a less awkward phrase I can't think of).

Date: 2010-02-22 02:48 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ticketsonmyself.livejournal.com
I guess one example I'm thinking of here is during the wave of reactions to the Open Source Boob Project - many, many people wrote about the things they found problematic with it, and at one point [livejournal.com profile] delux_vivens made a post at her journal, saying that she frankly could not get all that worked up about the whole thing, because every day she's getting up to a society that already treats the bodies of women of color in particular as public property. There were a lot of comments to her post, and it helped lead off another significant sub-venue of discussion about how the Open Source Boob Project reflected implicitly racialized (people made posts going into the OP's language, in what I thought were fairly persuasive ways) attitudes toward chivalry & white women, and debate about the Back Up Project (http://www.backupproject.org/index.html), and ways of dealing with potential racialized complications therein (not necessarily to any satisfactory conclusion), and so forth.

Date: 2010-02-22 03:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ticketsonmyself.livejournal.com
how the Open Source Boob Project reflected implicitly racialized (people made posts going into the OP's language, in what I thought were fairly persuasive ways) attitudes toward chivalry & white women

My bad, I conflated two things I meant to say. Should be "how OSBP reflected implicitly racialized attitudes toward white women (people made posts going into the OP's language, in what I thought were fairly persuasive ways), how a lot of responses to OSBP reflected implicitly racialized attitudes toward chivalry & white women," and so on from there.

Date: 2010-02-23 05:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ticketsonmyself.livejournal.com
I should clarify: the possibility of angry responses alone / in and of itself.

June 2020

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14 151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 6th, 2025 04:09 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios