[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

New misogyny, What's this then?

It's a massive and complex issue but to boil part of it down as simply as possible; the increasing idea that if a female has any objections or complaints to the "woke" (I hate the term but I don't know how else to succinctly sum it up) zeitgeist, then she must be old/backwards/past it/repressed/not keeping up with the times/"a Karen". The mindset is stuffed full of subtle (and not so subtle) general misogyny.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's a massive and complex issue but to boil part of it down as simply as possible; the increasing idea that if a female has any objections or complaints to the "woke" (I hate the term but I don't know how else to succinctly sum it up) zeitgeist, then she must be old/backwards/past it/repressed/not keeping up with the times/"a Karen". The mindset is stuffed full of subtle (and not so subtle) general misogyny.

Oh thanks so much for dumbing it down for me.. I did say at the beginning of the thread that generationally there are differing views of what expressions of female empowerment look like. However that does not mean all gen x think the same , Cherie and I are around the same age so it's silly to suggest we are in the same box here or both 'karens'.

You are the one with all the buzzwords that limit freedom of opinion here... 'woke' doesn't succinctly sum anything up, it's a made up word that only means what is projected onto it.

[Niamh.]

tbf Kizzy you did ask him what he meant by it. I definitely agree that what he's talking about is going on a lot atm especially in social media circles

[Crimson Dynamo]

i love how it can either be a materpiece of feminism or vile porn

just either or

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I don't agree they want to be an 'object' you're missing the point, my view is they are not 'his' to do what 'he' wants.
It's the opposite, not that 'he' is theirs but that 'she' is sexually dominant.

The onus is on 'I want this' in male rappers lyrics the message is 'do this'.

Can you not see the difference?

Except she's singing about wanting him to dominate her. She's the submissive. Basically saying choke me with your dick.

Which, again, is fine but it's nothing feminist.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

i love how it can either be a materpiece of feminism or vile porn

just either or

I don't think it's either.

I'd stick it in the box labelled "derivative song".

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

tbf Kizzy you did ask him what he meant by it. I definitely agree that what he's talking about is going on a lot atm especially in social media circles

I did, how can we deal with new misogyny though when we're clearly still dealing with old misogyny, where is the definition of new misogyny? How did karens end up in there?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Except she's singing about wanting him to dominate her. She's the submissive. Basically saying choke me with your dick.

Which, again, is fine but it's nothing feminist.

So if you sometimes like certain things in bed at times you can't be a feminist?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So if you sometimes like certain things in bed at times you can't be a feminist?

Where did I say that?

I said doing things that are routinely labelled as mysoginist is not feminist.

I pointed out she was being submissve because you said she'd flipped it on its head by being the dominant.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I did, how can we deal with new misogyny though when we're clearly still dealing with old misogyny

With a lot of difficulty, but we're going to have to it seems.

where is the definition of new misogyny? How did karens end up in there?

Well that's the thing isn't it. It's not so much "new", as new flavours of the same old thing, dressed up in a pretty dress and coming from the opposite direction.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Where did I say that?

I said doing things that are routinely labelled as mysoginist is not feminist.

I pointed out she was being submissve because you said she'd flipped it on its head by being the dominant.

Doing what things... Sex? that's been going for a while Marsh. Look at the Karma Sutra. Some things give greater pleasure to one more than the other.
You did say that as she sings about being submissive its fine but not feminist..why isn't it?

She flipped the whole issue for me... misogyny is about control, if you take back control it ceases to be misogyny ergo it can't possibly be misogyny any longer can it?
New or otherwise.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Doing what things... Sex? that's been going for a while Marsh. Look at the Karma Sutra. Some things give greater pleasure to one more than the other.

Erm.... no Kizzy. You've completely changed the discussion.

Nobody was discussing whether sex is or is not feminist.

We're discussing whether music, lyrics and videos of this nature in pop culture can be taken as feminism or misogyny, or neither.

When did what people do in the privacy of their own sex lives become the debate? We're discussing music she has put out onto a public stage, not what she likes doing with her boyfriend.

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You did say that as she sings about being submissive its fine but not feminist..why isn't it?

She flipped the whole issue for me... misogyny is about control, if you take back control it ceases to be misogyny ergo it can't possibly be misogyny any longer can it?
New or otherwise.

I didn't say being submissive makes it not feminist. I responded to a point you made about her taking back control and being the dominant. All I said was the lyrics suggest she's submitting herself to the man.

Saying it ceases to be misogyny because the woman is objectifying herself is just not true. Women can be misogynistic too.

[user104658]

2020 is me and Marsh being TiBB's biggest feminists and Kizzy being a woman-hating agent of the nu patriarchy.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

2020 is me and Marsh being TiBB's biggest feminists and Kizzy being a woman-hating agent of the nu patriarchy.

Go figure lol!!

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Erm.... no Kizzy. You've completely changed the discussion.

Nobody was discussing whether sex is or is not feminist.

We're discussing whether music, lyrics and videos of this nature in pop culture can be taken as feminism or misogyny, or neither.

When did what people do in the privacy of their own sex lives become the debate? We're discussing music she has put out onto a public stage, not what she likes doing with her boyfriend.



I didn't say being submissive makes it not feminist. I responded to a point you made about her taking back control and being the dominant. All I said was the lyrics suggest she's submitting herself to the man.

Saying it ceases to be misogyny because the woman is objectifying herself is just not true. Women can be misogynistic too.

Look at you facepalming me telling me what you can and acan't discuss here. .. bahahaha!

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Look at you facepalming me telling me what you can and acan't discuss here. .. bahahaha!

Erm... telling you what you can and can't discuss? Where? I corrected you on you completely misrepresenting a point I made.

Seems like you got uppity at the emoji and didn't actually read anything at all.

Oh well.

[Kizzy]

I didn't say it wasn't misogyny because she objectified herself. I said it wasn't because she had took back control.

Stop misrepresenting me.

[Marsh.]

If you're not going to bother to read what was written, don't bother to reply.

[Ammi]

...this is another interesting article, I think...I’ll just leave it here for anyone’s read, as you wish...



WAP: the summer smash hit that exposed the fear of sexually liberated black women

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/wap-summer...112316928.html

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...this is another interesting article, I think...I’ll just leave it here for anyone’s read, as you wish...







WAP: the summer smash hit that exposed the fear of sexually liberated black women



https://uk.yahoo.com/news/wap-summer...112316928.html

I feel like this was written by a fan of the attists/music (openly within the first few sentences) and from that point neutrality goes out the window. It then cherry-picks which criticisms to counter (the ones that express outrage at the overt sexuality) and use those specific criticisms to create a "critic strawman" to argue against in a blinkered way, making massive assumptions along the way. They've either allowed their bias to stop them from seeing that there are multiple criticisms that have absolutely nothing to do with "not liking women talking about sex" OR they have consciously decided to ignore the parts of the argument that they can't easily shoo away with that particular angle. Neither makes for a very good article. I'd be more interested in the academic angle from observers who are not already fans of the genre or the artist. Not people who DISlike the genre of course, that would be just as biased, but anything that lacks sociological neutrality on this isn't really worth reading, just a lot of signalling and parroting.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

If you're not going to bother to read what was written, don't bother to reply.

I read it, I just don't agree with it. Any of it.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...this is another interesting article, I think...I’ll just leave it here for anyone’s read, as you wish...



WAP: the summer smash hit that exposed the fear of sexually liberated black women

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/wap-summer...112316928.html

Excellent article Ammi thanks, agree with all of that.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Excellent article Ammi thanks, agree with all of that.

Given that all you've done in this thread is exactly what I described above, that's unsurprising

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I feel like this was written by a fan of the attists/music (openly within the first few sentences) and from that point neutrality goes out the window. It then cherry-picks which criticisms to counter (the ones that express outrage at the overt sexuality) and use those specific criticisms to create a "critic strawman" to argue against in a blinkered way, making massive assumptions along the way. They've either allowed their bias to stop them from seeing that there are multiple criticisms that have absolutely nothing to do with "not liking women talking about sex" OR they have consciously decided to ignore the parts of the argument that they can't easily shoo away with that particular angle. Neither makes for a very good article. I'd be more interested in the academic angle from observers who are not already fans of the genre or the artist. Not people who DISlike the genre of course, that would be just as biased, but anything that lacks sociological neutrality on this isn't really worth reading, just a lot of signalling and parroting.

Your opinion is so much more unbiased than this academic article?..
Look at your use of language, she is cherry picking/biased/blinkered/ assumptive/

You can only comment on anything if you are neutral.. When did that become a thing, do film critics refuse to critique films or actors they like or admire? No of course they don't.

You've taken exception to this comprehensive peice as it flies in the face of your armchair sociologist perspective. So instead of validating anything she's said as having any merit, youve dismissed her as a fangirl.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Given that all you've done in this thread is exactly what I described above, that's unsurprising

Given that all you've done is snipe at my points in this thread this is unsurprising.