Sucky Mainstream Music

[jotte1]

Why do people listen to mainstream radio music when it sucks so bad?.... I know music is all up to opinion on whether its bad or not but there is no way most of the music on the radio can be described as good.

[jbertclassic]

Totally bro

[IntoTheSun]

Because it's super cool to hate on catchy radio music, duh.

[kearn1tm]

The same reason you end up buying the things you buy.

[cshadows2887]

I <3 these threads.

[Smash Adams]

up the punx

[Rawrr]

17 year old with a firm grasp on the world.

[ruthless_]

mainstream rocks what are you talking about hater

[zion the lion]

Because it's great?

I dont see you hating on The Beatles.

[doppelganger]

this guy probably knows so many obscure indie bands.

[rising_tied]

People dont like the mainstream.....WHAAAAAAT?????
But rel talk, as much as I dont wanna....Ke$ha - Tik Tok is fucking addicting as shit

[Neo Cassady]

gI-3wTEBdms

[Big_Guy]

no, sometimes it is not debatable if some music is better than other music.

98% of the stuff on the radio is trash

[cshadows2887]

no, sometimes it is not debatable if some music is better than other music.

98% of the stuff on the radio is trash

Very precise number. Conducted a scientific survey, have we?

[Big_Guy]

Very precise number. Conducted a scientific survey, have we?

no, I'm just not an idiot.

definitely within 1% of the actual percentage

[cshadows2887]

Because it's super cool to hate on catchy radio music, duh.

I missed this post earlier.

Have to say I really do like that most of your favorite music (so it seems) is not radio pop or anything particularly "commercial" or "mainstream" and is perfectly critically acceptable, but you always come out swinging in defense of those who like pop.

Reminds me of the dope quote they attribute to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[cshadows2887]

no, I'm just not an idiot.

definitely within 1% of the actual percentage

You know, when you're not being sexist, I get a kick out of arguing with you.

And that's a +/- I think even Newton might be jealous of.

[Big_Guy]

You know, when you're not being sexist, I get a kick out of arguing with you.

And that's a +/- I think even Newton might be jealous of.
haha, love you too, man

[indietrash]

people itt need to chill out and listen to Lady Gaga. 7CUYvWTd6oA

[kearn1tm]

Being aware of the dangerous effects of mainstream music and how detrimental it can be to art is essential. However, threads like these are absurd.

[aerofan11]

Why do people listen to mainstream radio music when it sucks so bad?.... I know music is all up to opinion on whether its bad or not but there is no way most of the music on the radio can be described as good.
You answered your own question, buddy.

[kearn1tm]

You answered your own question, buddy.

That's a populist stance on the subject. The reason so many people listen to mainstream music isn't solely (or hell, primarily) because of taste, but how it's been marketed to them, how they're conditioned to absorb it in this climate of commerce.

[alis21]

people itt need to chill out and listen to Lady Gaga.

that was awesome.

[eatsound]

music is music is music.

[georgia7jq]

I love the radio, it still introduces me to artists I never would of heard of otherwise, mainstream or not.

I think people seem to think that all mainstream music is so because it is manafactured, fake, with the backing of a huge record lable behind it.
Alot of stuff makes it into the mainstream because it is good, so it gets popular and more people become aware of it.

Just my opinion.

[highfidelity203]

People dont like the mainstream.....WHAAAAAAT?????
But rel talk, as much as I dont wanna....Ke$ha - Tik Tok is fucking addicting as shit

Haha so true. My work plays a pop radio station and I hear that song at least 10 times a day and I'm not sick of it. The production is great.

[aerofan11]

That's a populist stance on the subject. The reason so many people listen to mainstream music isn't solely (or hell, primarily) because of taste, but how it's been marketed to them, how they're conditioned to absorb it in this climate of commerce.
Yeah, I agree. Most people only like popular music, because it's popular. But, some people do genuinely like "commercial" music, myself included. Even though some of it is crap (in my opinion), some of it is actually really good or just insanely catchy.

[IntoTheSun]

I missed this post earlier.

Have to say I really do like that most of your favorite music (so it seems) is not radio pop or anything particularly "commercial" or "mainstream" and is perfectly critically acceptable, but you always come out swinging in defense of those who like pop.

Reminds me of the dope quote they attribute to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Thank you...

If this was my first week on AP.net I definitely would not be defending pop music (not that I'd support the riduculous things the OP is saying either), but over the past few months I've learned a lot from conversations and such that have helped better shape my opinion. It's been a great experience, what can I say.

Being aware of the dangerous effects of mainstream music and how detrimental it can be to art is essential. However, threads like these are absurd.

Dangerous effects? Do you mean the messages that it sends to people or the quality of the music itself?

[xJesusFreakx]

Here's an interesting topic for discussion (based in part on Todd's comment): How much is mainstream music a product of the masses, and how much are the masses a product of mainstream music/media in general? People are certainly affected by the music, but I feel like it's a two-way thing and am curious as to just how much the one affects the other and vise versa.

[kearn1tm]

Dangerous effects? Do you mean the messages that it sends to people or the quality of the music itself?

Dangerous insofar as how it perpetuates and reinforces norms of inequality and dangerous in it's commerce-oriented effects on art.

[kearn1tm]

Here's an interesting topic for discussion (based in part on Todd's comment): How much is mainstream music a product of the masses, and how much are the masses a product of mainstream music/media in general? People are certainly affected by the music, but I feel like it's a two-way thing and am curious as to just how much the one affects the other and vise versa.

It appears to be primarily the result of tastemakers who find new ways to make the same thing popular again by appealing to socially-constructed identities and sensibilities.

[IntoTheSun]

Here's an interesting topic for discussion (based in part on Todd's comment): How much is mainstream music a product of the masses, and how much are the masses a product of mainstream music/media in general? People are certainly affected by the music, but I feel like it's a two-way thing and am curious as to just how much the one affects the other and vise versa.

Really interesting point to bring up. We actually watched a video studying this sort of "mainstream culture" in psychology. I definitely feel like it's a two way thing, the media and consumer are dependent on each other. It's like the chicken and the egg question, which one came first? No one really knows the answer. It's like an unbreakable cycle. The media tells the consumer tells the media tells the consumer what is cool...or something.

[xJesusFreakx]

It appears to be primarily the result of tastemakers who find new ways to make the same thing popular again by appealing to socially-constructed identities and sensibilities.

Who are the tastemakers, and how much of what they deem fashionable is based off what the masses already prefer? Are you saying that it's already established, and the tastemakers merely exploit these fashions, are do they actually help to create and/or perpetuate them?

[IntoTheSun]

Dangerous insofar as how it perpetuates and reinforces norms of inequality and dangerous in it's commerce-oriented effects on art.

Oh, so concise. HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO RESPOND NOW?! haha.

I don't think a majority of mainstream music promotes inequality though, can you provide some examples? I'm assuming you mostly mean gender inequality, but it seems to be prevalent throughout all types of music, mainstream or not. And I agree it is very commerce oriented, but hey, that's capitalism for ya.

There's one thing that's been bothering me that no one seems to be willing to answer. What do you think about the difference between an artist really taking themselves seriously and trying to make music they think is good, but ends up making just mediocre or "bad" music versus someone who arguably doesn't take their music seriously and just makes fun, catchy music? There has been a pretty large consensus here that the latter is excusable and just fine while the other is condemnable, even if their quality of music is on a comparable level. The reasoning seems a bit off to me, what do you think?

[IntoTheSun]

There have always been saying of how kids learn a lot their behavior from what they see on TV. So everyday people are very much influenced by the tastmakers. But at the same time, tastemakers go out of their way to find kids who are "ahead of the curve," so to speak, and exploit and market these new trends they find to the general public.

[kearn1tm]

Who are the tastemakers, and how much of what they deem fashionable is based off what the masses already prefer? Are you saying that it's already established, and the tastemakers merely exploit these fashions, are do they actually help to create and/or perpetuate them?

I'm saying that you have record execs who are rich, white males. Rich, white males want to perpetuate a very specific set of social norms that maintain inequality, that maintain a vertical power structure, that maintain the status quo, because they benefit from the exploitation. So, they bandy about acts that appeal to these socially ingrained norms and make it seem "relateable" and people like that, because of the socialization process, they're conditioned to believe that "this is how life is and these are the things I value" and those values and norms and beliefs were established and perpetuated by these rich, white males in this western culture. So not only did they create the concept of things like race, age, youth, gender, etc. to differentiate and marginalize and alienate and create distinctions between people for a hierarchical purpose, they give each of these categorizes their own set of norms, believes and values and they create "art" to market these things while reinforcing their existence.

When there's an underground movement that opposes the order of things, you'll notice how it's co-opted by the mainstream, repackaged and marketed under the guise of rebellion to appeal to that demographic while really being robbed of all the potency and subversion and replaced with homogenized, norm-solidifying bullshit. It sucks.

[IntoTheSun]

I'm saying that you have record execs who are rich, white males. Rich, white males want to perpetuate a very specific set of social norms that maintain inequality, that maintain a vertical power structure, that maintain the status quo, because they benefit from the exploitation. So, they bandy about acts that appeal to these socially ingrained norms and make it seem "relateable" and people like that, because of the socialization process, they're conditioned to believe that "this is how life is and these are the things I value" and those values and norms and beliefs were established and perpetuated by these rich, white males in this western culture. So not only did they create the concept of things like race, age, youth, gender, etc. to differentiate and marginalize and alienate and create distinctions between people for a hierarchical purpose, they give each of these categorizes their own set of norms, believes and values and they create "art" to market these things while reinforcing their existence.
I don't know, this seems a bit exagerrated to me. The concepts behind those things were perptuated by humans in order to create hierarchies and gain power, sure. But it isn't so much a recent phenomenon with rich white males as it is something that has been going on since the earilest creation of civilization. What first started out as a basic survival technique for tribes and families was turned into that. It's not so much Western culture alone as it is a combination of things. But maybe I'm completely off.


When there's an underground movement that opposes the order of things, you'll notice how it's co-opted by the mainstream, repackaged and marketed under the guise of rebellion to appeal to that demographic while really being robbed of all the potency and subversion and replaced with homogenized, norm-solidifying bullshit. It sucks.


Very well said. The explanation reminded me of that video in class we had to watch on ICP...except of course, the movement actually sucked in the first place.

[xJesusFreakx]

I'm saying that you have record execs who are rich, white males. Rich, white males want to perpetuate a very specific set of social norms that maintain inequality, that maintain a vertical power structure, that maintain the status quo, because they benefit from the exploitation. So, they bandy about acts that appeal to these socially ingrained norms and make it seem "relateable" and people like that, because of the socialization process, they're conditioned to believe that "this is how life is and these are the things I value" and those values and norms and beliefs were established and perpetuated by these rich, white males in this western culture. So not only did they create the concept of things like race, age, youth, gender, etc. to differentiate and marginalize and alienate and create distinctions between people for a hierarchical purpose, they give each of these categorizes their own set of norms, believes and values and they create "art" to market these things while reinforcing their existence.

When there's an underground movement that opposes the order of things, you'll notice how it's co-opted by the mainstream, repackaged and marketed under the guise of rebellion to appeal to that demographic while really being robbed of all the potency and subversion and replaced with homogenized, norm-solidifying bullshit. It sucks.

Maybe I'm just ignorant about these things (which is certainly possible), but are you sure you can give them that much credit?

[kearn1tm]

Oh, so concise. HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO RESPOND NOW?! haha.

I don't think a majority of mainstream music promotes inequality though, can you provide some examples? I'm assuming you mostly mean gender inequality, but it seems to be prevalent throughout all types of music, mainstream or not. And I agree it is very commerce oriented, but hey, that's capitalism for ya.

Most anthropologists, sociologists and media analyzers would tell you you're wrong.

How many love songs do you hear on the radio? Now, ask yourself, why does western society perpetuate the concept that monogamous relationships are essential. Once you do that, continue to ask yourself who this benefits and who it exploits and make the connections.

Ask yourself how the fucking (I'm not trying to be condescending or antagonizing, merely using "fucking" gratuitously here to emphasize the point) Spice Girls became the embodiment of "girl power" in the mid '90s. What did they do? What were they a manifestation of?

In the early '90s, college-attending or educated, leftist leaning, DIY-ing young women had little standing in that DIY Indie/Underground Rock/Punk community that became so prevalent the previous decade. Then, there were responses to things like the Christian Right's Right to Life attack on legalized abortion and how the media essentially treated Anita Hill like a joke during Clarence Thomas' Senate Judiciary Hearings or the response to the mass rape of young women in Seattle in '90 that was swept under the proverbial rug.

Young feminists, particularly second-wave separatists were justifiably angry and they liked Punk and began playing it. What people starting calling Riot Grrl, and the messages, DIY nature, and sound was co-opted, ascribed to an A&R contructed girl group comprised of young women who fit the socially constructs of beauty and were paid a lot of money to convey a false sense of female empowerment by perpetuating beauty standards, straight, monogamous relationships and gender roles. They took a movement in the underground that actually boasted a powerful message against inequality, co-opted it in the name of commerce, and ascribed something as socially detrimental and harmful as any other norm solidifying mainstream act and falsely labeled it as "progress," which inspired a generation of impressionable young girls to think that being an empowered woman meant looking like a Spice Girl, making "art" like a Spice Girl, being in the romanticized, oversexed relationships with men like the Spice Girls, but still maintaining an impossible dual identity of chastity and sexual-purity like the Spice Girls.

You can see it in how the Blues were co-opted from African Americans (and later, Hip Hop among other things), or Punk from Nihilistic junkies.



In 1991, in what many believe to be an unorganized collective response to the Christian Coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Coalition_of_America)'s Right to Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Life) attack on legal abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion) and the Senate Judiciary Hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas--in which Anita Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Hill) accused Thomas of sexual harassment and was mocked by the media--young feminist voices were heard through multiple protests, actions and events (L7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L7_%28band%29)'s Rock for Choice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_for_Choice)) that would later become part of a larger organized consciousness. This consciousness coalesced in late 1991 under the movement known as "riot grrrl."

[kearn1tm]

Maybe I'm just ignorant about these things (which is certainly possible), but are you sure you can give them that much credit?

Yes.

[kearn1tm]

I don't know, this seems a bit exagerrated to me.

Because you're socialized to believe that, and it sucks. There's no intrinstic link between the things we perceive as race, for instance, and being born African American. In fact, race is entirely a social construction ascribed to people of geographical separation whose genetics accliatmed to their surroundings differently.

So, what's one of the biggest tools in continuing to create and reinforce the fake differences between "races?" The media. Who does this? Rich, white males. This isn't some grand conspiracy. Take some soc classes when you graduate, Andrea. It'll open you to some scary things.

[IntoTheSun]

Yes.

Your explanation of it seems a bit too deliberate though. I'm sure there's more to it than that.

[kearn1tm]

Your explanation of it seems a bit too deliberate though. I'm sure there's more to it than that.

Yes, but you're pretty wrong.

[IntoTheSun]

Because you're socialized to believe that, and it sucks.

Sure I've become accustomed to a lot of socially accepted ideas, but that doesn't mean I blindly follow them. I've questioned them before, I've questioned myself...and I'm questioning you now, aren't I? I just don't percieve things as so black and white...I'd like to think things are a bit more complicated than that. It's just how I think. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that I won't be able to take your word for it is all.

[kearn1tm]

Sure I've become accustomed to a lot of socially accepted ideas, but that doesn't mean I blindly follow them. I've questioned them before, I've questioned myself...and I'm questioning you now, aren't I?

Because you think you're "questioning things." I can't really continue this conversation until you educate yourself on some of the issues.

I just don't percieve things as so black and white...I'd like to think things are a bit more complicated than that. It's just how I think. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that I won't be able to take your word for it is all.

Yes, you think of them in "white," hence why you think what I just detailed (admittedly, a very egregious over-simplification of the issue) is "black and white." It's about the nature a cultural reality.

[heyzombiehitler]

Green Day sucks. they are so overrated and not even punk anymore.

[IntoTheSun]

Because you're socialized to believe that, and it sucks. There's no intrinstic link between the things we perceive as race, for instance, and being born African American. In fact, race is entirely a social construction ascribed to people of geographical separation whose genetics accliatmed to their surroundings differently.

So, what's one of the biggest tools in continuing to create and reinforce the fake differences between "races?" The media. Who does this? Rich, white males. This isn't some grand conspiracy. Take some soc classes when you graduate, Andrea. It'll open you to some scary things.

...but there are still cultural differences which I do not believe are a construct from purely "rich white males". And aren't their genetic differences too? Now I'm confused.

Yes, but you're pretty wrong.

Haha, probably. I'm just taking guesses at it seeing as they don't teach these things in high school...

[IntoTheSun]

Because you think you're "questioning things." I can't really continue this conversation until you educate yourself on some of the issues.



Yes, you think of them in "white," hence why you think what I just detailed (admittedly, a very egregious over-simplification of the issue) is "black and white." It's about the nature a cultural reality.

I will discuss this with you 2 years from now haha.

[kearn1tm]

...but there are still cultural differences which I do not believe are a construct from purely "rich white males". And aren't their genetic differences too? Now I'm confused.


What are these genetic differences?

Also, think about this: the chemical composition of people can be and often is altered by their surroundings. Children in Communist China's brains are fully developed by the age of 16-17, whereas most children in America's brains aren't fully formed until the age of 21.

The bushmen, prior to the crushing effects of globalization, had different classes of gender, and their women (as a sex) produced low levels of testosterone.

"Race" came about when people splintered off from one another and their skin and features adapted to their climate. People from one society seeing another called them differences for self-aggrandizing purposes, hence the creation of race.

The western concept of adolescence only came about post-industrial revolution because children were no longer needed as agricultural laborers and so their "childhood" needed to be extended to occupy their time and keep them reliant on adults for a longer period of time.

So, what are these genetic differences between people you're speaking of and who in western society benefits the most and who is objectified the most? Why?

Haha, probably. I'm just taking guesses at it seeing as they don't teach these things in high school...

They most certainly don't. Schools are one of those institutions that aid in socialization.

I will discuss this with you 2 years from now haha.

Ha. Word.

[SickOfStars]

I'm saying that you have record execs who are rich, white males. Rich, white males want to perpetuate a very specific set of social norms that maintain inequality, that maintain a vertical power structure, that maintain the status quo, because they benefit from the exploitation. So, they bandy about acts that appeal to these socially ingrained norms and make it seem "relateable" and people like that, because of the socialization process, they're conditioned to believe that "this is how life is and these are the things I value" and those values and norms and beliefs were established and perpetuated by these rich, white males in this western culture. So not only did they create the concept of things like race, age, youth, gender, etc. to differentiate and marginalize and alienate and create distinctions between people for a hierarchical purpose, they give each of these categorizes their own set of norms, believes and values and they create "art" to market these things while reinforcing their existence.

When there's an underground movement that opposes the order of things, you'll notice how it's co-opted by the mainstream, repackaged and marketed under the guise of rebellion to appeal to that demographic while really being robbed of all the potency and subversion and replaced with homogenized, norm-solidifying bullshit. It sucks.

(^I also imply quoting all of your other posts in the thread when I quote this)

Man, I love you a lot.

I don't know if this sacrificies the integrity of your statements, but I also agree that it's all about awareness. Once you've got a keen eye/ear for all of the things you've discussed, you sort of become the completely empowered music listener. As in: you can listen to whatever you want, mainstream, independent, or otherwise (don't really know what the otherwise is, but might as well include it for completeness' sake), without really giving in as more "programmed" individuals might. Of course, I think this attitude changes when it comes to creating, but I like to think I've taken a form of your philosophy, seen it in culture, and this awareness gives me the freedom to listen to music created with or without the rich whities backing it.

Also: props for straight-out saying that the mainstream cops every wave of counterculture and declaws it. I've noticed this since I was a young'un and am glad that someone else finally said it instead of cocking their head like a confused dog when I brought it up.

[kearn1tm]

(^I also imply quoting all of your other posts in the thread when I quote this)

Man, I love you a lot.

I don't know if this sacrificies the integrity of your statements, but I also agree that it's all about awareness. Once you've got a keen eye/ear for all of the things you've discussed, you sort of become the completely empowered music listener. As in: you can listen to whatever you want, mainstream, independent, or otherwise, without really giving in as more "programmed" individuals might. Of course, I think this attitude changes when it comes to creating, but I like to think I've taken a form of your philosophy, seen it in culture, and this awareness gives me the freedom to listen to music created with or without the rich whities backing it.

No, I agree. When "art" that's made so close to commerce, that's so saturated in the status quo, is made transparent to a person, they can begin to identify the goals of the things like mainstream music and it really helps steer them away from it.

Also: props for straight-out saying that the mainstream cops every wave of counterculture and declaws it. I've noticed this since I was a young'un and am glad that someone else finally said it instead of cocking their head like a confused dog when I brought it up.

Right on, man. Also, I know cats like Topegi have discussed it at length before. He's a smart dude.

[IntoTheSun]

What are these genetic differences?

Also, think about this: the chemical composition of people can be and often is altered by their surroundings. Children in Communist China's brains are fully developed by the age of 16-17, whereas most children in America's brains aren't fully formed until the age of 21.

The bushmen, prior to the crushing effects of globalization, had different classes of gender, and their women (as a sex) produced low levels of testosterone.

"Race" came about when people splintered off from one another and their skin and features adapted to their climate. People from one society seeing another called them differences for self-aggrandizing purposes, hence the creation of race.

The western concept of adolescence only came about post-industrial revolution because children were no longer needed as agricultural laborers and so their "childhood" needed to be extended to occupy their time and keep them reliant on adults for a longer period of time.

So, what are these genetic differences between people you're speaking of and who in western society benefits the most and who is objectified the most? Why?

Ha. Word.

I guess I'm just stunned by your absolute certainty, it's not something I see often from people. Err, I knew you said that you couldn't continue this discussion, but since you asked some questions, I'll just try to answer them to the best of my limited knowledge. Most of these "genetic differences" I've learned about are from my science and social studies classes, so they'd most likely be shot down within a couple of minutes. Yeah, I'll just stop now xD

[kearn1tm]

I guess I'm just stunned by your absolute certainty, it's not something I see often from people. Err, I knew you said that you couldn't continue this discussion, but since you asked some questions, I'll just try to answer them to the best of my limited knowledge. Most of these "genetic differences" I've learned about are from my science and social studies classes, so they'd most likely be shot down within a couple of minutes. Yeah, I'll just stop now xD

No, I don't think you should just "take my word for it," and definitely explore on your own. Always challenge things. Always.

However, yeah, I'm pretty damn sure of what I'm saying here.

Regardless, Andrea, I'm not trying to talk down to you here, but it's something I feel very strongly about. I've been opened to a lot of interesting thing in the last year and a half of college (what I'm saying is, after aimlessly wandering past a few majors and lame classes, I've taken some pretty rad courses that turned me on to some very important things).

[SickOfStars]

No, I agree. When "art" that's made so close to commerce, that's so saturated in the status quo, is made transparent to a person, they can begin to identify the goals of the things like mainstream music and it really helps steer them away from it.



Right on, man. Also, I know cats like Topegi have discussed it at length before. He's a smart dude.


Right on.

And yeah, I love Chris, he's my guy for sure.


What I'm meaning to ask, do you find yourself enjoying "mainstream" or pop tunes, even with this awareness? I guess one could call it a "weakness" for pop music, but I personally don't find anything wrong or compromising about me enjoying some mindless dancey bullshit here and there.

[IntoTheSun]

No, I don't think you should just "take my word for it," and definitely explore on your own. Always challenge things. Always.

However, yeah, I'm pretty damn sure of what I'm saying here.

Regardless, Andrea, I'm not trying to talk down to you here, but it's something I feel very strongly about. I've been opened to a lot of interesting thing in the last year and a half of college (what I'm saying is, after aimlessly wandering past a few majors and lame classes, I've taken some pretty rad courses that turned me on to some very important things).

For sure, I'll just have to read up on all this a little more I guess. Any books or something you'd recommend? Preferably something readable for a high school kid.

I didn't feel talked down to, it's all good. What are these interesting things you are studying exactly?

And also, I pretty much agree with you on all your sentiments about mainstream music.

[kearn1tm]

Right on.

And yeah, I love Chris, he's my guy for sure.

Is that his name?! I've always felt retarded calling him by that screenname in serious conversation, like I'm a mouth-breathing fucktard, but I was too sheepish to ask "hey man, I respect you a lot, what's your name, also a/s/l?"




What I'm meaning to ask, do you find yourself enjoying "mainstream" or pop tunes, even with this awareness? I guess one could call it a "weakness" for pop music, but I personally don't find anything wrong or compromising about me enjoying some mindless dancey bullshit here and there.
I don't think it's particularly wrong to like it, and I acknowledge that, given the "implanting" of socialization, my stupid love of Fall Out Boy is very much a result of it. However, other acts that I dig, like Kylie Minogue, is mostly due to how cool and infectious the music is, to a degree (inasmuch as I don't even know the lyrics to most of the tracks of that album of hers I really like, but the actual music is catchy as sin). Then again, the fact that it's fronted by a white, slim, attractive model-looking woman playing up that "pop-starlet need for sexuality" is a big gender architype that probably, despite being a homosexual, makes her an appealing "commodity" for me.

I'm just very, very aware of it now and it's turned me off to a lot of it, but there's still things I gravitate to in the mainstream, but I need to know (and can often identify) why and what impact it has on our culture.

[kearn1tm]

For sure, I'll just have to read up on all this a little more I guess. Any books or something you'd recommend? Preferably something readable for a high school kid.

I didn't feel talked down to, it's all good. What are these interesting things you are studying exactly?

And also, I pretty much agree with you on all your sentiments about mainstream music.

Some cool stuff that I started reading my freshmen year ('05...argh) was Gender Trouble by Judith Butler and Jean Baudrillard's The Transparency of Evil. They both tackle reality in way of western hierarchies as it pertains to the identity of being female or being transgendered or queer, gay, etc.

The ever popular This Band Could Be Your Life is a good book to check out for it's DIY counterculture examination of some kickass underground and hardcore bands of the '80s. Those are some good places to start.

Oh, and I just finally had some good profs. I've taken a few anthropology courses, a lame humanities-required soc course, but about a year ago, I took this Social Psychology and Literary Philosophy class with two very good professors who turned me on to some fantastic things.

I'm taking a Women in Society and a Human Sexuality course this semester, both of which taught by one of those profs I grew to love. I can't wait.

[IntoTheSun]

Some cool stuff that I started reading my freshmen year ('05...argh) was Gender Trouble by Judith Butler and Jean Baudrillard's The Transparency of Evil. They both tackle reality in way of western hierarchies as it pertains to the identity of being female or being transgendered or queer, gay, etc.

The ever popular This Band Could Be Your Life is a good book to check out for it's DIY counterculture examination of some kickass underground and hardcore bands of the '80s. Those are some good places to start.

Thanks a bunch, Todd. Hopefully I'll find time to get back to you on those when I'm done reading.

Oh, and I just finally had some good profs. I've taken a few anthropology courses, a lame humanities-required soc course, but about a year ago, I took this Social Psychology and Literary Philosophy class with two very good professors who turned me on to some fantastic things.

I'm taking a Women in Society and a Human Sexuality course this semester, both of which taught by one of those profs I grew to love. I can't wait.
Sounds great! All of those classes sound really interesting to me.

[kearn1tm]

Thanks a bunch, Todd. Hopefully I'll find time to get back to you on those when I'm done reading.

My pleasure.

[SickOfStars]

Is that his name?! I've always felt retarded calling him by that screenname in serious conversation, like I'm a mouth-breathing fucktard, but I was too sheepish to ask "hey man, I respect you a lot, what's your name, also a/s/l?"





I don't think it's particularly wrong to like it, and I acknowledge that, given the "implanting" of socialization, my stupid love of Fall Out Boy is very much a result of it. However, other acts that I dig, like Kylie Minogue, is mostly due to how cool and infectious the music is, to a degree (inasmuch as I don't even know the lyrics to most of the tracks of that album of hers I really like, but the actual music is catchy as sin). Then again, the fact that it's fronted by a white, slim, attractive model-looking woman playing up that "pop-starlet need for sexuality" is a big gender architype that probably, despite being a homosexual, makes her an appealing "commodity" for me.

I'm just very, very aware of it now and it's turned me off to a lot of it, but there's still things I gravitate to in the mainstream, but I need to know (and can often identify) why and what impact it has on our culture.

Hahaha, he wouldn't mind, but yeah, that's his name. +50 pts for "mouth-breathing fucktard"

And yeah, I figured your take on that stuff would be as much. I would say about the same, minus the turned-off ness. I mean, I can really see it in TONS of pop music today and definitely the current, scene-dominated "alternative" rock scene of today. It screams of inauthenticity, and I guess that's really the only quality that really bothers me.

[kearn1tm]

Hahaha, he wouldn't mind, but yeah, that's his name. +50 pts for "mouth-breathing fucktard"

Ha. I'd still feel a bit odd saying (or typing) "sup Chris," but his posts always guarantee a read from me.

And yeah, I figured your take on that stuff would be as much. I would say about the same, minus the turned-off ness. I mean, I can really see it in TONS of pop music today and definitely the current, scene-dominated "alternative" rock scene of today. It screams of inauthenticity, and I guess that's really the only quality that really bothers me.

Yeah, that's definitely one thing, but if a lack of sincerity was the worst part of mainstream music, it would be easy to disregard it. One of the things that angers/scares me is its use as an agent of norm-reinforcement.

[SickOfStars]

Ha. I'd still feel a bit odd saying (or typing) "sup Chris," but his posts always guarantee a read from me.



Yeah, that's definitely one thing, but if a lack of sincerity was the worst part of mainstream music, it would be easy to disregard it. One of the things that angers/scares me is its use as an agent of norm-reinforcement.

I know a lot of people may consider it "low art" (eff that) , but by any chance have you seen the High School Musical episode of South Park?

When they showed the characters watching the DVD, the creators changed the lyrics to "just go with the status quo!" and etc, etc.

This conversation reminded me of that a lot haha.

[kearn1tm]

I know a lot of people may consider it "low art" (eff that) , but by any chance have you seen the High School Musical episode of South Park?

When they showed the characters watching the DVD, the creators changed the lyrics to "just go with the status quo!" and etc, etc.

This conversation reminded me of that a lot haha.

Ha. I haven't seen South Park since, man, I was in 5th grade, so around the time it first debuted. I've just never caught it. I'm a pop-culture hermit at times. That sounds like a line I'd expect when parodying High School Musical.

[tyramail]

hahahah.

[cshadows2887]

There's one thing that's been bothering me that no one seems to be willing to answer. What do you think about the difference between an artist really taking themselves seriously and trying to make music they think is good, but ends up making just mediocre or "bad" music versus someone who arguably doesn't take their music seriously and just makes fun, catchy music? There has been a pretty large consensus here that the latter is excusable and just fine while the other is condemnable, even if their quality of music is on a comparable level. The reasoning seems a bit off to me, what do you think?
Does that imply that people who aim to write fun catchy music don't care about it or try to make it good? If so, I might be actually offended this time?



I'm saying that you have record execs who are rich, white males. Rich, white males want to perpetuate a very specific set of social norms that maintain inequality, that maintain a vertical power structure, that maintain the status quo, because they benefit from the exploitation. So, they bandy about acts that appeal to these socially ingrained norms and make it seem "relateable" and people like that, because of the socialization process, they're conditioned to believe that "this is how life is and these are the things I value" and those values and norms and beliefs were established and perpetuated by these rich, white males in this western culture. So not only did they create the concept of things like race, age, youth, gender, etc. to differentiate and marginalize and alienate and create distinctions between people for a hierarchical purpose, they give each of these categorizes their own set of norms, believes and values and they create "art" to market these things while reinforcing their existence.

When there's an underground movement that opposes the order of things, you'll notice how it's co-opted by the mainstream, repackaged and marketed under the guise of rebellion to appeal to that demographic while really being robbed of all the potency and subversion and replaced with homogenized, norm-solidifying bullshit. It sucks.

I think you give record execs too much credit. They don't give a shit about soceital norms and keeping people down. They only care about one thing. $$$$

[quicksilv001]

i love reading posts where kearn1tm is involved. Smart fella.

[antimatter]

Well this turned out to be a good read.

I think people listen to mainstream music (exclusively) because its easy and accessible. Most people just don't seem to want to put efforts into finding obscure things and they don't see the point in it when they enjoy what is presented to them. It's also harder to connect to people when they have no idea what ur talking about. Idk if about being cool or fitting it but it just seems to be to make things easier

Just based on my observations and things I discuss with friends who just listen to radio.

[kearn1tm]

I think you give record execs too much credit. They don't give a shit about soceital norms and keeping people down. They only care about one thing. $$$$

It's not that they "care," they know exploitation keeps them in power and they know what things are used to do this, whether they're cognizant of why it works or not.

You're looking at the issue too one-dimensionally.

[cshadows2887]

It's not that they "care," they know exploitation keeps them in power and they know what things are used to do this, whether they're cognizant of why it works or not.

You're looking at the issue too one-dimensionally.

That's obviously an oversimplification of the issue, but it's definitely record exec's chief concern.

And I think you're an exceptionally intelligent dude. That said, I think there's a heavy dose of conspiracy theory nonsense in your views on this subject. While there's certainly a social construction element to things like race and gender, the idea that it's existence is entirely a tool utilized intentionally by "the man" is incredibly paranoid. You must have very little faith in humanity.

I respect your opinion, and you express it intelligently, but I don't agree with it.

[kearn1tm]

That's obviously an oversimplification of the issue, but it's definitely record exec's chief concern.

And I think you're an exceptionally intelligent dude. That said, I think there's a heavy dose of conspiracy theory nonsense in your views on this subject. While there's certainly a social construction element to things like race and gender, the idea that it's existence is entirely a tool utilized intentionally by "the man" is incredibly paranoid. You must have very little faith in humanity.

I respect your opinion, and you express it intelligently, but I don't agree with it.

But that's because you're ignorant on, well, most of the circumstances.

[gjpinizz]

People dont like the mainstream.....WHAAAAAAT?????
But rel talk, as much as I dont wanna....Ke$ha - Tik Tok is fucking addicting as shit

im not usually super opposed to mainstream stuff… but i hate that song more than anything in the world

[Mibabalou]

wait, the radio isn't good music ?????????

[SeeTheLights]

Because radio music is easy, it doesn't make you think, and you don't have to think about it.

[IntoTheSun]

Does that imply that people who aim to write fun catchy music don't care about it or try to make it good? If so, I might be actually offended this time?
What?

[drummergirl6]

I think people listen to mainstream music (exclusively) because its easy and accessible. Most people just don't seem to want to put efforts into finding obscure things and they don't see the point in it when they enjoy what is presented to them. It's also harder to connect to people when they have no idea what ur talking about. Idk if about being cool or fitting it but it just seems to be to make things easier

exactly what i was going to say, in better wording.

[briewer]

Todd's right on most of this stuff, but there's also a fair amount he's completely off on.

[IntoTheSun]

Todd's right on most of this stuff, but there's also a fair amount he's completely off on.

Please elaborate on your thoughts.

[pennie]

Paranoia is running wild up in here tonight

[kearn1tm]

Todd's right on most of this stuff, but there's also a fair amount he's completely off on.

Not really, no.

[kearn1tm]

Paranoia is running wild up in here tonight

Baaaaaaaaah baaaaaaah.

[IntoTheSun]

Baaaaaaaaah baaaaaaah.

That is the sound of me getting a Last fm account today.

[kearn1tm]

That is the sound of me getting a Last fm account today.

Yeah, but those things are bitchin'.

[IntoTheSun]

Yeah, but those things are bitchin'.

It looks super snazzy. I'm installing my scrobbler right now.

[briewer]

Please elaborate on your thoughts.

Not really, no.
I would, but I've got a lot of shit to do. I'm packing up and going back to school tomorrow. Essentially, the brain's inclination to stereotype is based on mental capacity (as in spacial confines), mental capacity (as in the ability), and a fear of the "other" and the "unknown" that is inherent in any self-sustaining creature, rather than some psychosomantical desire for self-aggrandizement. Humans, sadly, are much less naturally evil than Todd wants to make them out to be. Playing off of these inclinations by the rich and powerful, though, is definitely a prominent facet of society and Todd is spot on with that.

[IntoTheSun]

I would, but I've got a lot of shit to do. I'm packing up and going back to school tomorrow. Essentially, the brain's inclination to stereotype is based on mental capacity (as in spacial confines), mental capacity (as in the ability), and a fear of the "other" and the "unknown" that is inherent in any self-sustaining creature, rather than some psychosomantical desire for self-aggrandizement. Humans, sadly, are much less naturally evil than Todd wants to make them out to be. Playing off of these inclinations by the rich and powerful, though, is definitely a prominent facet of society and Todd is spot on with that.

This was my impression too.

[kearn1tm]

I would, but I've got a lot of shit to do. I'm packing up and going back to school tomorrow. Essentially, the brain's inclination to stereotype is based on mental capacity (as in spacial confines), mental capacity (as in the ability), and a fear of the "other" and the "unknown" that is inherent in any self-sustaining creature, rather than some psychosomantical desire for self-aggrandizement. Humans, sadly, are much less naturally evil than Todd wants to make them out to be. Playing off of these inclinations by the rich and powerful, though, is definitely a prominent facet of society and Todd is spot on with that.

This is entirely incorrect in that you've put words in my mouth that I never said and completely misread everything I typed.

I'm not getting defensive, just saying. The whole point of this is that there's no such thing as "naturally evil" or naturally anything. Most of our actions aren't inherent. It's socially constructed, something that isn't addressed at all in your prior post. I mean, you couldn't be farther from the point...it's just...so far from what I was getting at or the nature of the things I'm talking about. It could be something lost in translation here. I don't know.

[kearn1tm]

I'm willing to admit that I may have explained this without the clarity needed:

The US has a very specific social arrangement; a hierarchy in which there are ascribed statues awarded to people of different class, race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The people who benefit the greatest are rich, white males. Social mobility is a rare thing and therefor, things like cultural capital, influence, etc. help to solidify standings, leading to the US having elements of a caste system.

Now, many facets of our society are in place to create a status-quo-maintaining set of values, norms and customs. These things generally benefit those at the top of the vertical power structure and generally exploit those in the lower standings.

Certainly, there isn't a shadowy group of "priviledge people coming together every year to keep the people down" in the music industry, but the industry pumps out artists who reflect and promote values, norms and customs that those in our culture identify with. They mostly identify with them because of the socialization effect, and these norms, values, etc. often are indicative of the Western culture that propagates that caste-like social hierarchy, among other things. So no, these rich music execs aren't a shadowy cabal of evil, Machiavellian schemers trying to "keep the cattle unaware while they buy the things that help keep them unaware" deliberately, but mainstream music, along with most other popular media, does promote these things, helps cultivate them, and helps solidify our norms, values, beliefs, etc. that continue to strengthen the concept of difference and the socially-created disparities between them.

This is one of the most damaging things that arose from the industrial revolution.

Obviously, many of you disagree, but I can't stress how wrong I find you to be.

[cshadows2887]

What?

What do you think about the difference between an artist really taking themselves seriously and trying to make music they think is good, but ends up making just mediocre or "bad" music versus someone who arguably doesn't take their music seriously and just makes fun, catchy music?

I'm trying to figure out if that means fun, catchy music is a result of not taking music seriously.

[cshadows2887]

I'm willing to admit that I may have explained this without the clarity needed:

The US has a very specific social arrangement; a hierarchy in which there are ascribed statues awarded to people of different class, race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The people who benefit the greatest are rich, white males. Social mobility is a rare thing and therefor, things like cultural capital, influence, etc. help to solidify standings, leading to the US having elements of a caste system.

Now, many facets of our society are in place to create a status-quo-maintaining set of values, norms and customs. These things generally benefit those at the top of the vertical power structure and generally exploit those in the lower standings.

Certainly, there isn't a shadowy group of "priviledge people coming together every year to keep the people down" in the music industry, but the industry pumps out artists who reflect and promote values, norms and customs that those in our culture identify with. They mostly identify with them because of the socialization effect, and these norms, values, etc. often are indicative of the Western culture that propagates that caste-like social hierarchy, among other things. So no, these rich music execs aren't a shadowy cabal of evil, Machiavellian schemers trying to "keep the cattle unaware while they buy the things that help keep them unaware" deliberately, but mainstream music, along with most other popular media, does promote these things, helps cultivate them, and helps solidify our norms, values, beliefs, etc. that continue to strengthen the concept of difference and the socially-created disparities between them.

This is one of the most damaging things that arose from the industrial revolution.

Obviously, many of you disagree, but I can't stress how wrong I find you to be.

All of this, I agree with. The structures you describe exist and can be damaging.

I just think the idea that they're uniformly intentional is far too negative a view of human nature.

[briewer]

This is entirely incorrect in that you've put words in my mouth that I never said and completely misread everything I typed.

I'm not getting defensive, just saying. The whole point of this is that there's no such thing as "naturally evil" or naturally anything. Most of our actions aren't inherent. It's socially constructed, something that isn't addressed at all in your prior post. I mean, you couldn't be farther from the point...it's just...so far from what I was getting at or the nature of the things I'm talking about. It could be something lost in translation here. I don't know.
I agree that there's no such thing as "evil" in any ethically reliable sense, I was just stating that what you described would be considered evil to a Western, Christian theologically-minded person.

I'm willing to admit that I may have explained this without the clarity needed:

The US has a very specific social arrangement; a hierarchy in which there are ascribed statues awarded to people of different class, race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The people who benefit the greatest are rich, white males. Social mobility is a rare thing and therefor, things like cultural capital, influence, etc. help to solidify standings, leading to the US having elements of a caste system.

Now, many facets of our society are in place to create a status-quo-maintaining set of values, norms and customs. These things generally benefit those at the top of the vertical power structure and generally exploit those in the lower standings.

Certainly, there isn't a shadowy group of "priviledge people coming together every year to keep the people down" in the music industry, but the industry pumps out artists who reflect and promote values, norms and customs that those in our culture identify with. They mostly identify with them because of the socialization effect, and these norms, values, etc. often are indicative of the Western culture that propagates that caste-like social hierarchy, among other things. So no, these rich music execs aren't a shadowy cabal of evil, Machiavellian schemers trying to "keep the cattle unaware while they buy the things that help keep them unaware" deliberately, but mainstream music, along with most other popular media, does promote these things, helps cultivate them, and helps solidify our norms, values, beliefs, etc. that continue to strengthen the concept of difference and the socially-created disparities between them.

This is one of the most damaging things that arose from the industrial revolution.

Obviously, many of you disagree, but I can't stress how wrong I find you to be.
Right, and I agree with all of that. I was just saying I disagreed with your theory for how these "values, norms, and customs" even came into existence:

I'm saying that you have record execs who are rich, white males. Rich, white males want to perpetuate a very specific set of social norms that maintain inequality, that maintain a vertical power structure, that maintain the status quo, because they benefit from the exploitation. So, they bandy about acts that appeal to these socially ingrained norms and make it seem "relateable" and people like that, because of the socialization process, they're conditioned to believe that "this is how life is and these are the things I value" and those values and norms and beliefs were established and perpetuated by these rich, white males in this western culture. So not only did they create the concept of things like race, age, youth, gender, etc. to differentiate and marginalize and alienate and create distinctions between people for a hierarchical purpose, they give each of these categorizes their own set of norms, believes and values and they create "art" to market these things while reinforcing their existence.

When there's an underground movement that opposes the order of things, you'll notice how it's co-opted by the mainstream, repackaged and marketed under the guise of rebellion to appeal to that demographic while really being robbed of all the potency and subversion and replaced with homogenized, norm-solidifying bullshit. It sucks.
The bolded, I think, is grossly incorrect, and that's what I was getting at in my post.

EDIT: I don't think I'm going to be on the rest of the night, honey dearest, so any response on your part will be handled by me sometime tomorrow afternoon.

[kearn1tm]

I agree that there's no such thing as "evil" in any ethically reliable sense, I was just stating that what you described would be considered evil to a Western, Christian theologically-minded person.


Right, and I agree with all of that. I was just saying I disagreed with your theory for how these "values, norms, and customs" even came into existence:


The bolded, I think, is grossly incorrect, and that's what I was getting at in my post.

EDIT: I don't think I'm going to be on the rest of the night, honey dearest, so any response on your part will be handled by me sometime tomorrow afternoon.

Then let me ask you something: why was race created? Why was gender created? They're not biological, and they're not universal. They're made to differentiate people, and those differences have come to be used as ranking people. That's the purpose they serve. I'm absolutely right, and if you disagree, that's fine, but know that any social psychologist or anthropologist would tell you you're incredibly wrong.

You've cited reasons on why we create differences, but "fear of the unknown" isn't inherent. Many of those "innate" qualities you cite are social machinations (fear takes on different meanings in different cultures of different societies). If the brain has a tendency to stereotype for identification purposes (which has been in-and-out of hypothesis stage, with several studies published to support this, but others published and corroborated that argue this isn't the case, especially when there have existed various cultures in the last gazillion years that were not utilitarian, were not ranked, and where there was a horizontal power structure with hardly and discrepancies between people ), how did it come about that these stereotypes were ascribed meaning beyond "difference" and when did these differences become ranked? People did this. I'm not "making them out to be evil." This is what we did and continue to do.

Here's some food for thought, as I mentioned in prior posts: the way the brain works and operates is, in fact, shaped by society. Communist China breeds children whose brains are fully developed by the age of 17, whereas Americans aren't fully developed until 21-22. Women in second/third world countries produce testosterone. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder rewires the brain, essentially creating a brinks home security system that "goes off" when certain stimuli occur, and PTSD is much more prevalent in the U.S. So, when you use things like "fear of the unknown is intrinsically linked to the reason we categorizes," you must remember, what we fear, the way we fear it, is also intrinsically linked to society and social factors and what's "unknown" is relative. Stereotyping, inasmuch as identifying gender, race, creed, etc. isn't so much a function of spacial difference as ascribed status given to these mentally perceived discrepancies.

Let's just throw out all the conflicting rabble rabble though and operate under the idea those things you mentioned earlier, Brian (which is, most likely, as legit as anything I've mentioned): Again, in western (among others) culture ascribed meaning to those mentally perceived differences, and those meanings were that of "less than and greater than" which would fit the idea of "evil" you claimed people weren't capable of.

[IntoTheSun]

Somehow I feel like I've been misunderstanding what you've been saying all along, Todd. Oh boy. My head hurts...let me read through this again.

[IntoTheSun]

What do you think about the difference between an artist really taking themselves seriously and trying to make music they think is good, but ends up making just mediocre or "bad" music versus someone who arguably doesn't take their music seriously and just makes fun, catchy music?

I'm trying to figure out if that means fun, catchy music is a result of not taking music seriously.

You mean what I'm implying or what the hypothetical people debating are implying?

[cshadows2887]

You mean what I'm implying or what the hypothetical people debating are implying?

Wait. Now I'm REALLY confused. Who's debating with who?

Can we just tag team people with chairs instead?

[IntoTheSun]

.

Sorry for making you reiterate things so many times, but I have one thing I'm trying to clarify in order to understand what you're saying.

So not only did they create the concept of things like race, age, youth, gender, etc. to differentiate and marginalize and alienate and create distinctions between people for a hierarchical purpose

Are you implying here that race, age, youth, gender, etc., or the "concepts" of these things do not exist apart from/did not exist before the development of Western Civilization? Because that is how I interpreted it and it might not be what you are saying at all.

[kearn1tm]

Sorry for making you reiterate things so many times, but I have one thing I'm trying to clarify in order to understand what you're saying.



Are you implying here that race, age, youth, gender, etc., or the "concepts" of these things do not exist apart from/did not exist before the development of Western Civilization? Because that is how I interpreted it and it might not be what you are saying at all.

Not at all. All civilizations have various interpretations of the concepts of race, age, gender, etc. The important thing to note is that they're man-made.

[IntoTheSun]

Not at all. All civilizations have various interpretations of the concepts of race, age, gender, etc. The important thing to note is that they're man-made.

Oh holy fuck :hitself:

Everything you're saying now makes so much more sense. I'll just be going back and reading this again...

[kearn1tm]

Oh holy fuck :hitself:

Everything you're saying now makes so much more sense. I'll just be going back and reading this again...

Yeah, sorry. I should have strived to be a bit more lucid.

[IntoTheSun]

Yeah, sorry. I should have strived to be a bit more lucid.

Yeah, and I should really get more sleep so I can understand what is going on.

Strange. I was pretty much saying the same thing Brian and Chris were saying, otherwise I agree with you for the most part.

One thing I feel the need to ask though (this feels very deja vu for some odd reason), what exactly you mean by "gender is a social construct." I mean, not to point out the obvious, but males and females are physiologically different. If you mean that many of the gender differences attributed to men and women are made up, I wholeheartedly agree. However, I'm trying to figure out to what extent you are saying it is. That was a terrible sentence, sorry.

[kearn1tm]

Yeah, and I should really get more sleep so I can understand what is going on.

Strange. I was pretty much saying the same thing Brian and Chris were saying, otherwise I agree with you for the most part.

One thing I feel the need to ask though (this feels very deja vu for some odd reason), what exactly you mean by "gender is a social construct." I mean, not to point out the obvious, but males and females are physiologically different. If you mean that many of the gender differences attributed to men and women are made up, I wholeheartedly agree. However, I'm trying to figure out to what extent you are saying it is. That was a terrible sentence, sorry.

Yes. Women produce a different chemical from men. Men have a different reproducing organ from women. Then there's that gray area of those born with both, or the fact that women have been found in certain places to produce testosterone.

Now, given that men and women have those two differences (which is called "sex"), what else is different? Absolutely nothing. Then why do women commonly dress one way and men the other? Why have women been subservient for years to men? Why rabble, rabbldy blooo? Seriously, gender is a thing people made up.

[IntoTheSun]

Yes. Women produce a different chemical from men. Men have a different reproducing organ from women. Then there's that gray area of those born with both, or the fact that women have been found in certain places to produce testosterone.

Now, given that men and women have those two differences (which is called "sex"), what else is different? Absolutely nothing. Then why do women commonly dress one way and men the other? Why have women been subservient for years to men? Why rabble, rabbldy blooo? Seriously, gender is a thing people made up.

Hm, good question. I suspect you somewhat know the answer to that though.

Thank you for that bit of elaboration. Like I said in my previous post, in this case I wholeheartedly agree. It's something I've often wondered myself.

[T-bag]

up the punx


Comments like this are not punk. The music on these threads is equally as shit as the mainstream music. You are not punk.

[Jacknife87]

Comments like this are not punk. The music on these threads is equally as shit as the mainstream music. You are not punk.


but berets are indeed punk....