"Suzy" *should* be taken out of rotation (Phish + misogyny)
flaccid erudition
"Rock and misogyny got married, you know" --Daniel Neely
So, there once was a little troll saying that a whole stack of songs
had been retired, including "Suzy Greenberg." Well, there's a good
reason Phish should consider retiring the song, since, well, it
presents a horrible message. I've always been uncomfortable about the
lyrics to the song--but not entirely sure why. So, I decided to have a
look, and once everything was before me on paper--well, the pieces fit
into place.
At one point in time, I think every reader of rmp has been subjected
to the Suzy myth, describing her as a person Fish knew from summer
camp (I believe it may have even been a Jewish camp). Perhaps Suzy
wronged him really badly, so badly as to encourage the writing of a
song denouncing her. But, the problem is, in denouncing Suzy, the
lyrics stumble over themselves, denouncing and stereotyping women as a
whole. At best, "Suzy Greenberg" becomes a musical version of "The
Lockhorns," projecting an all-too-familiar and amazingly unfunny
picture of cultural stereotype that encourages misogyny. At worst, the
song is an outright condemnation of an entire gender, laying down a
prescription for hatred.
Now, the lyrics: (The LF spells, btw, "Suzy" "Suzie." I don't.)
LF>Little Suzie Greenberg with her head caved in
LF>Soon will let me drown beneath the undertow
LF>You better put that woman in a loony bin
LF>'Cause you know I'd really like to be a part of her show
LF>Suzie is an artist, she paints quite a lot
LF>An artist she may be but a genius she is not
LF>She says she wants to be a sociologist
LF>But she better first get checked by a neurologist
LF>Suzie, Suzie, Suzie, Suzie
LF>Suzie, Suzie Greenberg
LF>Suzie's 'bout as faithful as a slot machine
LF>Pays off once in a while but then she'll rob you clean
LF>She's always afraid that she's not sure what she's worth
LF>She's out of her mind and she's not of this earth
LF>The woman walks the streets like she's the queen of the town
LF>Doesn't talk very much, she's very profound
LF>Little Suzie Greenberg always playing the game
LF>But today I'll bet she's probably forgotten my name
The first verse begins rather innocuously--if only since meaning
escapes the combination of the words. The listener does not quite
follow what is happening with the initial two lines. "her head caved
in," however, suggests some sort of violent action that caused the
problems that follow for the rest of the song. Was she beaten? Born
missing a part of her brain? Assuming the latter, we can continue
happy and intrigued. Assuming the former, however, suddenly the
question becomes how her head came to be caved in. (Though the
obnoxious and diminutive and degrading "little" is cause for
concern)
Sadly, the second line answers neither interpretation, and only
illustrates the narrator's infatuation with Suzy. Ah, but look at the
words "drown" and "undertow," suggesting a pulling away from the
security/safety of solid ground. Where is the narrator being dragged
so that he fears drowning? Into a commitment, perhaps? Or towards
unrequited love? Both are problematic, though the former is the only
problematic option for now. Why should the narrator fear the
commitment?
However, the third line resonates strongly--and is probably the second
most forceful line of the entire song. "You better put that woman in
a loony bin," first suggests domination on behalf of the
narrator. Not only is he instructing/commanding the committing of
Suzy--and thereby exercising control over the agent of "put," but he
is also asserting control over Suzy. He tells what should happen with
her. He maps out her roads. The narrator falls for Suzy, and then,
once spurned, feels the right to control her.
But what makes the third line most important and jarring is that the
narrator isn't even referring to Suzy Greenberg. Instead, he refers to
"that woman." Suzy has been robbed of her identity and reduced to a
gender--not a person. Of course the narrator can exert control over
her! She doesn't even have the fortune of fortitude that individuality
grants. Furthermore, in reducing Suzy to a gender, the narrator is no
longer condemning just a specific person for her foibles. This is no
longer akin to Bunny Hoest condemning Loretta Lockhorn for being a
materialist. This is condemning all females.
By calling Suzy "that woman," also, the narrator is calling undue
attention to her gender--suggesting that it has something to do with
why the narrator is unhappy with her. One doesn't dare say, when his
mother doesn't let him borrow the car, "damn woman won't let me
drive," since in doing so, one is changing the perception toward the
gender of the mother--which is not the issue, and probably has nothing
to do with why the mother won't lend the car. Letting Phish get away
with singing "You better put that woman in a loony bin" is equal to
letting men criticise/assume a female co-worker's temperament for
being/is a part of her menstrual cycle.
The fourth line, however, only digs the narrator in deeper. "her
show"? What can that refer to? Suzy is being insincere/manipulative, a
common complaint among misogynists. An element of sympathy indubitably
extends to the narrator as a result of common understanding of
unrequited love, but it is a step too far to agree with the narrator's
bias and assume her to be insincere. Furthermore, the narrator is
suggesting committing Suzy so that he doesn't have to be a part of her
anymore--out of sight out of mind. Again, the narrator pulls tight the
chain around submissive Suzy's neck, exerting his male dominance.
The chorus then kicks in, with the seeming attempt at correcting the
wrongs of the first verse. The narrator tries to be understanding of
Suzy, accepting her being an artist, but he still dismisses her as not
a genius (suggesting, of course, that he is--how convenient that the
male is the genius and the woman is a silly little painter), undoing
that undoing.
Furthermore, the narrator uses Suzy's not being a genius as
justification for her not becoming a sociologist. Though the
correlation is not entirely clear--the juxtaposition of "a genius she
is not" and "wants to be a sociologist" suggests that. Suzy's good
enough to be a little painter, but doesn't have the brains to complete
higher education. Fine, not all people are smart. However, the
narrator has already suggested that he is using Suzy to describe women
as a whole. In referring to her as "that woman" back in the third
line, the narrator created a synecdoche that persists throughout the
song. So, in other words, he has set up an all-too-familiar situation:
the woman has aspirations towards higher learning, but isn't able to
make it since she's not smart enough. Silly little girl.
And then, to add insult to injury, the narrator, with aloofness
indicating a confidence in knowing Suzy better than she knows herself,
insists that she get checked by a neurologist. So, not only is she not
smart enough to be a sociologist, but she's also got nervous
disorders--like maybe mood swings that don't coincide with her
menstrual cycle (imagine that!), or, perhaps, she's unnecessarily
sentimental and needs surgery to correct her brain. The narrator, of
course, proceeds with the aloofness that he knows everything that is
right to do.
Credit must be given, though, to the fact that the narrator tries to
fix everything by repeating several times Suzy's name, trying to
reestablish that the song is about her, and not about women in
general. Or, perhaps, as a friend suggested, we're being reminded of
her femininity, since there can be little doubt that "Suzy" pertains
to a female.
In any event, the listener reaches the second verse seething with
animosity explicitly towards Suzy and implicitly towards women, and is
then presented with quite a treat to justify the misogyny. First, the
narrator complains about how Suzy is unfaithful--the same sorts of
complaints that anthropologists suggest led to the original
subjugation of women during the dawn of civilization. That is, men
were paranoid that their women were sleeping around, so they invented
religions/customs that devalued women and made them subordinate
near-chattel. The narrator is echoing 6 millenia of misogyny, without remorse.
Then comes another curious line: "Pays off once in a while but then
she'll rob you clean." Optimists might suggest that Suzy is
emotionally vacant and that it is she who cannot commit--she showers
the narrator with something from time to time, but then leaves him
hanging. But how is it that she's paying off? An interesting question
with many possible answers--but sadly the most obvious one is also the
most likely one: the narrator is complaining about not getting any
sex, reducing Suzy (if she can be still reduced any further) to a mere
object to pay off as orgasm.
Why is the business about slot machines tied in with sex? Surely the
narrator could be complaining about her being unfaithful in a loving
sense, right? No. Consider this: Slot machines work by pouring money
into an object and expecting more money in return--at a reasonably
high risk. The narrator has been putting money (real or metaphorical)
into Suzy and his return isn't coming through. The money could be
real, that is, he's wining and dining her, and she still refuses to
put out, or it could be metaphorical--he's, say, going down on her all
the time, but seldom receiving a similar response.
Furthermore, the use of the word "faithful" instantly conjures up
notions of fidelity and her nemesis adultery. Adultery, though a gray
area, boils down to sex. You are not allowed to have sex outside of
marriage--not not allowed to go to the theater with a woman who is not
your wife. "faithful" immediately connotes sex. Furthermore, there are
inherent sexual images with a slot machine. The phallic lever, the
fact largest payout often comes when one lines up three cherries, and
the ejaculatory expulsion of money upon winning all suggest sex. Added
to this is the risky/gambling nature of sex compared to a more
emotional relationship. So, any efforts to try and suggest that the
narrator has other things in mind than sex in the opening lines of the
second verse are flawed.
However, the denigration continues! The narrator criticises Suzy by
poking fun of her low self-esteem ("not sure what she's worth"). The
prevalence of low self-esteems among young women/teen-aged girls is
scientifically accepted, and had the narrator met Suzy at Jewish camp
as young teenagers, she may have been very self-conscious. So again,
the narrator is mapping a stereotypically female ("do I look fat?")
foible upon Suzy Greenberg, who is looking less and less like her own
person, deserving of directed criticism, and more and more like the
ultimate bitch born of a misogynist's mind.
And then, again, arises the generalisation of Suzy back to "woman" in
the following line. Suzy's walking the streets instantly summons
images of prostitution, which already are in our minds from the
complaints about fidelity at the start of the verse. Not only is Suzy
unpredictable, insincere, unintelligent, and insecure, but she's a
whore too. The narrator is swinging for the fences with this
story--trying to pin down every stereotype at once. Look at this line
outside of the context of the song. "The woman" is even worse than the
"that woman" from the third line of the song. "The woman" is a
complete and total generalisation, without even the benefit of the
demonstrative pronoun! This line can stand entirely, without any need
for clarification, on its own outside the song. And when it stands
alone, it's rife with misogynist anger. Not only does the first clause
suggest prostitution--a common charge levied by misogynists, but the
second clause suggests unbridled ego needing constant care and
"maintenance." Suzy is a queen who has to be pampered--attended
to. Additionally, "queen" is a very common pejorative term against
women. More misogyny. How unsurprising.
The next line, about Suzy being profound simply isn't. However, it
does finally break a bit with female stereotyping by suggesting that
she doesn't talk much. Still, it doesn't repair the earlier damage,
and serves more to confuse than anything, especially in the context of
the previous and following lines. That following line, in fact, just
digs everything deeper. Again the narrator uses the diminutive
"Little" and chastises Suzy for "playing the game." However,
conveniently the details of the game are omitted. The previous part of
this verse, though, criticised her playful/inconstant nature regarding
sex, though, so a safe bet is that the game implied is a head game
wherein sex is the reward. More stereotyping.
And finally, after all of this, the narrator bets that she's forgotten
his name--a complaint usually lodged against men who treat sex so
casually as to not know the name of their bed-partner. Yet this isn't
an indictment of Suzy since, again, it's merely the perspective of the
narrator. He can't even show that Suzy has forgotten his name. He's
only guessing at it. The listener doesn't know what kind of guesser
the narrator is, so it's not difficult to dismiss this final assertion
as irrelevant.
So here we have it, a song written about a woman who has a very
specific name, but problems stereotypical. She's insecure, a whore,
insincere, high-maintenance, unintelligent, misleading,
unpredictable/insane, and impragmatic (the example of her lack of
pragmatism is her wanting to be a sociologist, even though the
narrator knows she has no chance). Every attribute given to the
listener by the narrator in this song is in some way tied in with a
stereotype about women.
Like Loretta Lockhorn, who embodies her own stack of female
stereotypes, Suzy Greenberg is a two-dimensional character built by
the collective grumblings from a bunch of drunken misogynists whining
about how little play they get. The narrator treats his relationship
with Suzy not as something of importance worth salvaging, but instead
as something loathsome and regrettable. She suckered him into falling
for her, and now, embittered by her moving on, he treats, recreates,
and describes her as such a shallow person that the narrator is,
simply, a dipshit for falling for her in the first place.
Now the problem that arises is this: "Suzy Greenberg" is one of
Phish's most popular songs. The cheers that tip the levels on the
tapes I have with this song indicate no less. Phish is setting up as
one of their marquee setclosers a song encouraging misogyny, a song
that justifies bitterness (which can lead to violence) against women
for not being whom the men want them to be, a song that gives value
and importance to the narrator's whining about his unrequited love
over the perspective of Suzy. Unlike "Rift," (the album) which tries
to approach a problematic relationship maturely and bilaterally, "Suzy
Greenberg" is loud, obnoxious, and trouble. I hope the band takes it
out of rotation, since it clearly deserves to be in the same shitpile
of discarded misogyny as "The Lockhorns" and "Home Improvement."
--m
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
So Buddha says: 'I don't hafta take this sound. I'll by God metabolize
my own junk.' --W.S.Burroughs
Daniel Lanicek
In article <EC9Ar...@midway.uchicago.edu>, moa...@earth.uchicago.edu says...
>
>"Rock and misogyny got married, you know" --Daniel Neely
>
>So, there once was a little troll saying that a whole stack of songs
>had been retired, including "Suzy Greenberg." Well, there's a good
>reason Phish should consider retiring the song, since, well, it
>presents a horrible message. I've always been uncomfortable about the
>lyrics to the song--but not entirely sure why. So, I decided to have a
>look, and once everything was before me on paper--well, the pieces fit
>into place.
>
>At one point in time, I think every reader of rmp has been subjected
>to the Suzy myth, describing her as a person Fish knew from summer
>
>much time on my hands, blah, blah, etc.
I think it should be taken out out of rotation simply because I'm tired of
hearing it. I don't care what it means or what Trey meant when he said "the"
(Hmm, I think he meant that all things are concrete and all things have a
"the-ness" to them, what do you think?).
Hey, I think monogamy is a great thing! Oh wait, the word was 'Misogyny',
wasn't it? Well, that's different. Whatever. I say relax, listen to some Indigo
Girls, and you'll be okay.
Oh, by the way, this post was in jest, but I know you and others will take it
too seriously, so I apologize now. Misogyny (okay, I admit, I had to look it up
in the dictionary) is a BAD thing but I think you are reading too much into
this song and it's social impact.
Waiting for the flames,
Daniel
Lehigh98
I've never really used this thing before (usually i keep up to date from
Rosemary's Digest) but i am trying to keep up now and wanted to reply to
this post.... Suzy Greenberg is an ex girlfriend of the Dude of Life.... I
think he talks about it at the Dude's website if you want to double
check..... just to let any curious people know. =)
Stacey
><{{{">
Dvidedsky5
>
>"Rock and misogyny got married, you know" --Daniel Neely
>
>So, there once was a little troll saying that a whole stack of songs
>had been retired, including "Suzy Greenberg." Well, there's a good
>reason Phish should consider retiring the song, since, well, it
>presents a horrible message. I've always been uncomfortable about the
>lyrics to the song--but not entirely sure why. So, I decided to have a
>look, and once everything was before me on paper--well, the pieces fit
>into place.
>
>At one point in time, I think every reader of rmp has been subjected
>to the Suzy myth, describing her as a person Fish knew from summer
>
>Blah, Blah, psychobabble, blah, blah, overanalyzation, blah, blah, way
too
>much time on my hands, blah, blah, etc.
from what i have heard Suzie Greenburg is a girl the Dude of Life was in
love with and it was the Dude who wrote it....but its a great song to
listen to .. sure it may not move you like Divided Sky or its not as great
as Mikes song or David Bowie .. but whenever i listen to it ..it always
puts me into a great mood and makes me laugh .. i dont really think it
should be taken to seriously ... just my thoughts
Emilie
"Tactless! Never. Outspoken, yes. Highspirtited, yes. Mettlesome.
Sanguine, perhaps, to a fault" -J.D.Salinger
Matt Casteel
<long PC rant snipped>
Armit? Scribbles? Terri?
Mr. Mood
It is intersting, and not good, how in this country of 1st Amendments rights,
many so-called openminded members of the society would choose to engage in
language that curbs and discourages people from speaking their minds-- the
truth! No, they'd rather people say through grinding-toothed smiles what
people would like to hear were we living in Nirvana, despite any falsehoods
these words likely hold.
Damn shame.
I consider myself a non-aligned middle of the roader, and I think the
unintended consequences of PCness are worse than the good intentions that back
them.
For example, in the 1980s, opposing apartheid in South Africa was all the rage
on college campuses around the country. Sure enough, elders must have started
listening to the protests-- and threatened boycotts-- and pulled investmensts
out of S. Africa, a country they were sure didn't deserve such "privaledges."
Well guess what, folks. Now unemployment is rampant in South Africa because
after the end of apartheid, people did NOT reinvest there! They deserved to be
punished, but not to be rewarded? And thus a consequence *in a way* worse than
apartheid takes over: unemployment leads to crime and other social problems,
which leads to instability, which makes potential investors say forget it, and
so no one gets employed, and the cycle continues.
Hitting them in the wallet sounds like an efficient way to 'get' there, but
even "educated" college "thugs" should think things through, be realistic, and
understand that picking up the protestor's megaphone and sign may have
unintended consequence.
I know many of you are jack-booted PC thugs who will be tempted to flame ("do
your worst."), but understand, I am NOT saying not to fight the good fight.
The good fight must be still fought. Apartheid did have to end, for example. I
guess what I'm saying is that unlike a conventional battlefield, a battle won
by protest, boycott, and PC (or simply "correct") thinking needs a lot more
follow-up than is presently given.
We need a goal, a method, a solution, and closure.
mr mood
SA...@maine.maine.edu
psst...songs mean different things to different people. Your view may be
right for you and your experience. Personally the song seems to be
more of a personal attack on one woman rather than the entire female
population. (Note: the person is even named!). If you want misogyny
see Guns and Roses...
Brian M. Gordon
What a long and entertaining interpretation! I'd almost assume that
whole post was not serious... but just in case it is serious, here's
what I have to say.
Chill out! It's a song. It's not a statement of morals that all should
abide by. Maybe the author was trying to be obvious about stereotypes
and the point of the song is actually against that.
My point is that a song does not need to be moral or politically
correct. This song did its job in that it made you think about it. Also,
a song doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the author. It could be
complete fiction; a fictional story about a fictional person as told by
a fictional narrator. Maybe it's not. Who knows?
Who the hell are YOU to tell THEM what to play anyhow?? It is their art.
They can do whatever they want with it. I suppose next you're going to
rip on the band Cannibal Corpse for writing songs about raping and
killing virgin women. (Note to all morons: I in no way condone any such
action!) It's the same thing. They have the freedom to write and perform
whatever the hell they want to. If you think they shouldn't perform that
song because you believe it demoralizes women, you are welcome to that
opinion. But let others form their own opinion and leave it at that.
That's the beauty of music... it's open to interpretation. It doesn't
need to be serious or responsible, just entertaining.
Brian
flaccid erudition
"Brian M. Gordon" <gord...@cig.mot.com> posted:
> Chill out! It's a song. It's not a statement of morals that all should
> abide by. Maybe the author was trying to be obvious about stereotypes
> and the point of the song is actually against that.
That could very well be, and Phish does tend to extend itself to irony
rather easily--but the signs aren't there, and few people I think treat
the song as an ironic effort. However, hateful behaviour shouldn't be
tolerated. I mean, I could retool the song and map the misogyny onto
racism instead, and the problems would seem instantly obvious.
> Who the hell are YOU to tell THEM what to play anyhow?? It is their art.
> They can do whatever they want with it. I suppose next you're going to
> rip on the band Cannibal Corpse for writing songs about raping and
No, I don't care about Cannibal Corpse since I don't look up to them. In
many ways, Phish exemplify what I like about rock music, etc. It's
disheartening to have that crushed by a) misogyny or b) few improvisational
specatacles.
> That's the beauty of music... it's open to interpretation. It doesn't
> need to be serious or responsible, just entertaining.
dwarf-tossing is pretty entertaining too.
--m, who notes that "l'art pour l'art" is about as quaint and
destructive a notion as supressed Victorian female sexuality.
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
Special thanks to Ornette and Denardo Coleman...and the New York-London-
Tokyo Hardcore Triangle. Fucking hardcore _rules_. Smash racism. --JZ
Andy Wight
Come on Amrit, we know that was you!
(I like the tune, it's got a good beat, and you
can dance to it....)
David Pashman
Wow.. all this from one song!!!
sitting on my butt
josh
WBigg46269
I think "Suzy" is taken out of context, and used to represent the band's
feelings on all women. It's not misogynistic (sp?) to jibe one woman,
even if she apparently exists. I agree that it's poking fun at the girl,
but the lyrics are good and the song rocks and, really, that's all that
should matter unless we've got proof that Phish hates women. For the most
part, I've seen entirely the opposite; the band is one of the most
respectful and thoughtful when it comes to its treatment of females, in
songs or in real life.
commence the flaming,
walter
Tim
In article <ECAv4...@midway.uchicago.edu>, flaccid erudition wrote:
>
>dwarf-tossing is pretty entertaining too.
Dwarf tossing fucking rules!!!!!!!
you are a wingnut.
-tim
UArts69
All this stuff about mysogyny snipped:
Suzie+ GCH= One kick ass horn part!
Ry
Andrew Croke
"Brian M. Gordon" <gord...@cig.mot.com> wrote on Tue, 24 Jun 1997 12:58:31
-0500:
Let me start by saying that guys complaining about misogyny always strikes
me as a bit strange, but I keep an open mind.
}Chill out! It's a song. It's not a statement of morals that all should
}abide by. Maybe the author was trying to be obvious about stereotypes
}and the point of the song is actually against that.
I doubt this. The Dude wrote this one. He also wrote "She's Bitchin'
Again" (with wonderful backup vocals by somebody's wife... or was that a
misogynist statement?) which, I guess arguably could be another bit of deep
leftist social commentary. But I doubt it. I think the Dude's just
cranky. (Or maybe I'm projecting; I'm cranky right now.)
}My point is that a song does not need to be moral or politically
}correct. This song did its job in that it made you think about it. Also,
}a song doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the author. It could be
}complete fiction; a fictional story about a fictional person as told by
}a fictional narrator. Maybe it's not. Who knows?>
Point very well made. Me too! I have, as a writer, always been cranky
when someone complains about the bad behavior of a character, somehow
equating the character with the author (or, in this case the singer/band).
However, in my crankiness, I will again say I just think the Dude was
cranky. (I like the word cranky.)
}Who the hell are YOU to tell THEM what to play anyhow?? It is their art.
}They can do whatever they want with it. I suppose next you're going to
}rip on the band Cannibal Corpse for writing songs about raping and
}killing virgin women. (Note to all morons: I in no way condone any such
}action!) It's the same thing. They have the freedom to write and perform
}whatever the hell they want to. If you think they shouldn't perform that
}song because you believe it demoralizes women, you are welcome to that
}opinion. But let others form their own opinion and leave it at that.
}That's the beauty of music... it's open to interpretation. It doesn't
}need to be serious or responsible, just entertaining.
Just to annoy everyone, I'll say that I think Phish is one of the least
mysogynistic bands I've ever heard. Especially among "hippie" jam bands.
Let's mull over "We can share the women, we can share the wine" sometime,
shall we?
Have you ever noticed how "cool" people at shows (tourheads) think that
they are (generally) above prejudice and bigotry and better than the rest
of the world, yet tourhead-dom is mostly an all-white affair and especially
amoung the tourhead culture (I've been there and done that) there are such
clearly defined gender roles and mores (when you really study it) that it
makes the "straight" world look sane?
Drew
(the "just stirring the pot" penis)
Pohl
Oh Shut Up!
Michae...@anixter.com
I must commend the author of this post. It was a fantastic display of effort
and thoughtfulness. Its nice to see intelligence put to hard work. I would
like to assume that it is also an example of excellently dry humour and as such
I enjoyed it. I even showed it to my old clinical psychology Prof. and she
LOVED it! She is planning on using it in class as an example how ANYTHING can
be over analysed.
I thought a little less of it than that only because there are sure to those
out there who will take this seriously. To those I would like to point out a
few flaws in this analysis...
1) If this is a song about a Fishman summer camp experience, adolescent
rejection evokes strong feelings of hurt which are often covered up with anger,
usually unconsciously. This song's lyrics then capture a snapshot out of time
in Fishman's life; a view into his mind (and that of most adolescents male and
female). Thus exposing his own tender emotion to the world he shows great
courage and should be respected for that [See how easy it is to analyse your
point]
2) Second, Lyrics aside - the song jams!!! The author seems to have never seen
Suzy done with the BIG COUNTRY HORNS and had her face melt of in a frenzy of
groove. And for that we all can pity said author.
Mickey
Eric Storms
You want to know the truth behind the song go read what the dude says about it at
http://www.dudeoflife.com/. As for getting rid of it its not our choice. And if it has
horns with it I hope they play it every night.
peace
flaccid erudition
Andrew Croke <dre...@pgh.net> posted:
>
>Let me start by saying that guys complaining about misogyny always strikes
>me as a bit strange, but I keep an open mind.
Why is that? What's strange about it, that is? Mostly I'm unsure as to
whether you think that guys complaining about the presence of misogyny
is a bit strange or guys complaining about people deriding misogyny is
strange. I'm confused.
>leftist social commentary. But I doubt it. I think the Dude's just
>cranky. (Or maybe I'm projecting; I'm cranky right now.)
Crankiness is not at all an excuse for reactionary politics. I hadn't
realised that the DoL wrote "Suzy." Had I, I would have been far more
determined with denouncing it, since the DoL has consistently shown
himself to be, um, not exactly the most egalitarian person in the
world. (cf "She's Bitchin' Again." Just because Sofi sings on it
doesn't make it non-misogynist [cf Robin Quivers])
>when someone complains about the bad behavior of a character, somehow
>equating the character with the author (or, in this case the singer/band).
This is a double standard waiting to happen. As an author, I take
special pride in knowing that my characters are always reflections
upon me (which is also a source of anguish, since, as a result, I can
create characters who are always only refracted versions of me--and
creating believable females is totally out of the question) So I can't
in any experiential way sympathise with authors who cry "it's my
character, not me" when their characters are assaulted for being
destructive. (and yes, I understand the absurdities that can be
extrapolated from this assertion)
>Let's mull over "We can share the women, we can share the wine" sometime,
>shall we?
Indeed (especially poignant when Donna Jean is bleating the line,
too). I will agree that Phish on the whole is a non-misogynist
band. In fact, save the DoL-led fakes down Reactionary Way, they on
the whole espouse an attitude that is very welcoming and friendly. The
question then becomes: Why sully it up with an insulting anachronism
like "Suzy Greenberg"?
>Have you ever noticed how "cool" people at shows (tourheads) think that
>they are (generally) above prejudice and bigotry and better than the rest
>of the world, yet tourhead-dom is mostly an all-white affair and especially
>amoung the tourhead culture (I've been there and done that) there are such
>clearly defined gender roles and mores (when you really study it) that it
>makes the "straight" world look sane?
I always found the best part was the implied transcendence beyond
materialism. It's always easy to renounce what you have in
abundance. Prejudice, in fact, is almost laughable in the "scene,"
where a march-in-lockstep attitude toward aesthetic defines in toto
your position in the pecking order. But the inherent contradiction in
material renouncing and aesthetic clinging that festers in the scene
is a subject best saved for a later post.
--m, who has seen "Suzy" sev. times live, and once with the horns
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
Coltrane and Dolphy . . . seem bent on proving an anarchistic course in their
music that can but be termed anti-jazz. --John Tynan, co-editor of Down Beat
Michael Lacy
In article <ECAv4...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
moa...@earth.uchicago.edu (flaccid erudition) wrote:
>"Brian M. Gordon" <gord...@cig.mot.com> posted:
>
>> Chill out! It's a song. It's not a statement of morals that all should
>> abide by. Maybe the author was trying to be obvious about stereotypes
>> and the point of the song is actually against that.
>
>That could very well be, and Phish does tend to extend itself to irony
>rather easily--but the signs aren't there, and few people I think treat
>the song as an ironic effort. However, hateful behaviour shouldn't be
>tolerated. I mean, I could retool the song and map the misogyny onto
>racism instead, and the problems would seem instantly obvious.
Lighten up! Politically-Correct hypersensitivity is annoying! Its a song
about _one_ woman, not _all women_, and its a classic.
ML
Grendel
flaccid erudition wrote:
> I hope the band takes it
> out of rotation, since it clearly deserves to be in the same shitpile
> of discarded misogyny as "The Lockhorns" and "Home Improvement."
If only this post was written in jest, it would be brilliant. All of
the themes & ideas contained within are "true" in a sense. But to
suggest that the band should drop the song because of the way you *hear*
the lyrics is rediculous.
It takes me back to my old high school AP english class, when we were
discussing Hamlet. The teacher was throwing out some different ways we
could "read" the text: did Hamlet suffer from mental illness? Did he
have an Oedipal fixation on his mother? Was he affecting his madness?
Were there homosexual overtones in his relationship with Horatio? That
last one caused much confusion in a certain segment of the class. They
demanded to know, was Hamlet homosexual or not? The teacher tried to
explain that you could read it in the text, or you could not, depending
on where you came from. They didn't get it -- was he gay or not? Was
he mad or not?
Is the Dude a mysogonist or not? Is he trying to stereotype Suzie or
not? "Maybe so, maybe not," dig? Do you know if the author (the Dude)
is parodying Suzie *or* parodying the sort of person who views women
like this? Or are you coming from that lovely deconstructist school
where all words that flow from white men are racist/sexist/homophobic,
wether or not they can be read that way? If I write a song, and the
narrator is a racist, does that make me one for taking on that persona
to tell a story? Are his words mine? Are the Dude's feelings
necessarily represented by the words of the song *as you see them*?
The deconstructionist school has taken a very good and freeing thing
(searching for subtext and layers of meaning in words) and turned it
into something bad and confining (taking a particular interpretation and
claiming that is the message being put forth).
I quote:
> So here we have it, a song written about a woman who has a very
> specific name, but problems stereotypical. She's insecure, a whore,
> insincere, high-maintenance, unintelligent, misleading,
> unpredictable/insane, and impragmatic (the example of her lack of
> pragmatism is her wanting to be a sociologist, even though the
> narrator knows she has no chance). Every attribute given to the
> listener by the narrator in this song is in some way tied in with a
> stereotype about women.
Your interpretation of the song is admirable and interesting. But your
failure to understand that all of those things you got out were things
you brought in is frightening. The fact that you are intelligent enough
to glean deeper levels of meaning speaks highly of your education, the
fact that you take those extracted meanings as gospel says to me that
you cannot see the forest from the trees.
Your message would have been wonderful if used as a call for discussion
on what the message of Suzie might be. The fact that you call for
Suzie's retirement reminds me of people who want Huckleberry Finn
removed from curriculi because of the blunt portrayal of racism in
America.
Thanks for the time. I feel much better getting that off my chest. And
don't forget, no one has a monopoly on truth, *no one*. And especially
not when it comes to art.
Grendel.
Stoney
} Subject: "Suzy" *should* be taken out of rotation (Phish + misogyny)
} Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 01:28:20 GMT
} At best, "Suzy Greenberg" becomes a musical version of "The
} Lockhorns," projecting an all-too-familiar and amazingly unfunny
} picture of cultural stereotype that encourages misogyny. At worst, the
} song is an outright condemnation of an entire gender, laying down a
} prescription for hatred.
Woah!! Wait just a minute. To say that the song Suzy Greenburg is
condemning an entire gender is perposterous. First, what lyrics to that
song project culural stereotypes, and especially misogyny? Just because
someone doesn't like ONE woman doesn't mean that they hate all women.
} But what makes the third line most important and jarring is that the
} narrator isn't even referring to Suzy Greenberg. Instead, he refers to
} "that woman." Suzy has been robbed of her identity and reduced to a
} gender--not a person.
Well, what else is she? She's a woman. She has not been robbed of her
identity, because we know who the narrator is reffering to. Hence the
name of the song, "Suzy Greenburg". You can't mention the name Suzy in
every line, because as you learned in English class, that would be too
repetitive and not flow well. I think it's more a matter of grammar than
a robbing of identity. Look at the lyrics, and everytime it says "woman"
or "she", put "Suzy". How do you think that would sound?
}This is condemning all females.
Please, this is a total assumption. I think you are looking into this
too much. The song is about a girl who is stuck up, loony ,only cares
about herself, and someone has a strong opinion about her. In no way is
it a put down to all women.
} By calling Suzy "that woman," also, the narrator is calling undue
} attention to her gender--suggesting that it has something to do with
} why the narrator is unhappy with her.
Again, they call her a "woman", because that's what she is a woman.
Since when is it bad to call someone by their gender? In no way does
that suggest that he is unhappy with her because of her gender. It just
sounds good in that part of the song.
} "You better put that woman in a loony bin" is equal to
} letting men criticise/assume a female co-worker's temperament for
} being/is a part of her menstrual cycle.
Or maybe she really is crazy.
} Like Loretta Lockhorn, who embodies her own stack of female
} stereotypes, Suzy Greenberg is a two-dimensional character built by
} the collective grumblings from a bunch of drunken misogynists whining
} about how little play they get.
Okay thats enough. For one, you and I don't even know who Suzy G is. For
all I know, (and this is my theory) she could be a producer of
theirs in the past and she screwed them over. Puts a whole different
perspective on it doesn't it? SO instead of the song being about the
hatred of women (which I am positive it's not), it's about a girl who
ripped off the band and left a very bad impression on them.
I'm sorry if I had kind of a harsh tone here, but to call Phish a bunch
of pigs is going way too far. Those guys are the most open minded
musicians that I have ever heard. I just think you went a little
overboard with your interpretation of a song that you don't even know
the origins of.
To accuse Phish of being women haters is the harshest thing I've ever
heard anyone say. That's a very strong accusation, and though you are
totally convinced the they are women haters eventhough the lyrics of the
song refer to one woman, you shouldn't accuse people you don't even know
of something to that degree. I suggest you write the band, tell them
what you think about Suzy, and ask them if that was the purpose of the
song. I sure you will get a response, telling you otherwise.
--
Tony 'Stoney' Kubicek
guy...@execpc.com
http://www.execpc.com/~guyute/Phishlst.html
"I'm sittin back here sharin in the groove"
-Mike Gordon
Dennis
Okay, here's a Suzy post that will not use the word 'misogyny'
(<--that's a mention, not a use).
I noticed the other night that the producer of 'Seinfeld' is named Suzy
Greenberg. Might this have any relation?
Probably not,
Dennis
CBertolet
moacir stretched like a verbal contortionist:
>>>Jimmy is an artist, he paints quite a lot
An artist he may be but industrious he's not
Says he wants to be intelligent
But he better first get checked by a zoologist.
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy
Jimmy, Jimmy Jack Johnson>>>
So far, pretty funny. As a male, I do not find it offensive... it seems
to be about a guy who needs some self-improvement -- maybe Tim Allen could
play him in the movie version.
>>>Jimmy's as trustworthy as a slot machine
He's just waiting to revert and rob you clean
At gun-point, yeah, just like his brothers do.
He's not my kind, he likes basketball shoes.
The black man pimps around and he sells all that smack
Doesn't talk very much, he's very profound
Jimmy Jack Johnson always always playing the game
But today I'll bet he'll try to mug my friend.>>>
Oooooohhhh. Gooooood Poooint. [SARCASM]
Absurd!!! Beyond absurd!!! To equate the use of the word "woman" -- a
noun that describes 50% of all people -- to the use of the words "black
man" -- a noun modified by a minority racial qualifier -- is an
intellectual shortcut; nothing more than a sensationalist way to prove
your (dubious) point and trump people who disagree with you by painting
them as racists. Your argument has just swiss-cheesed itself.
>>>*******************HERE IT ALL IS, IN ONE
SENTENCE:************************
The fact that Suzy is a woman should have nothing to do with why the
narrator is pissed at her, and therefore it should not be explicitly
mentioned several times, begging a causal relationship.>>>
So you're saying that should someone want to write a song or story about
someone who begs to be skewered, and is unlucky enough (as will happen 51%
of the time) to have that person be of female gender, that the author
should be expressly forbidden from using nouns that identify the subject
as female??????
M, You're talking about a song that is *so clearly* rooted in the
satirical that I can't see how you can expect these logical arguments to
sound anything but farcical.
More hyper-analytical and hyper-sensitive schmeck SNIPPED.
>>>I guess 500 years of institutionalised
oppression of Africans/African-Americans can't quite compete with 6
millenia of institutionalised oppression of women in Western culture.>>>
WHAT?????? Oh, cry me a fucking river!!!!! I'm sorry, but I'd love to
know what makes you so self-righteous as to presume that your birthright
as a woman is somehow more burdensome than the ugly oppression of racial
hatred just because it's been going on longer. You are sooooo far out of
bounds here, it's beginning to make me ill. Please, people of color,
weigh in here!!!
>>>"Suzy Greenberg".....only gives more credit to
the idea that misogyny is so well-mixed into society that it's nearly
impossible for many to detect it. (A person sent me an email agreeing
with my position, telling me that he'd always squirm in his seat when
this song played in the presence of his girlfriend. Not, however,
since Trey was singing characteristically poorly, but rather since the
metamessage of this song was obviously hampering their
metacommunication.)>>>
The song is a satire!!! It's so plain in the way it's delivered and
staged that I can't believe you can't see this!!! Perhaps your
metacommunicator device has a glitch in it.
>>>Now, one last note: I am not suggesting that Trey Anastasio, Mike
Gordon, Page McConnell, or Jon Fishman (I'm abstaining re: DoL) are
misogynists. I am suggesting that "Suzy Greenberg," as a work of art,
is.>>>
As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The political
correctness that you are so proud to uphold has *stifled* infinitely more
artistic expression than it has freed. Racism, sexism, and other -isms
are only advanced by the kind of paranoia that you're trying to spread.
PC is a disease, and I hope that Phish plays Suy Greenberg from the top of
every fucking mountain if that's what it takes to squash this kind of
reactionary thinking.
Sorry for the flames, but I had to weigh in.
***"Truth is something you stumble into when you think you're going someplace else" - Jerry Garcia***
chris bertolet
flaccid erudition
cber...@aol.com (CBertolet) posted:
>
>Absurd!!! Beyond absurd!!! To equate the use of the word "woman" -- a
>noun that describes 50% of all people -- to the use of the words "black
>man" -- a noun modified by a minority racial qualifier -- is an
>intellectual shortcut; nothing more than a sensationalist way to prove
No. They are synonymous since both "woman" and "black" both signify
oppressed classes.
>should be expressly forbidden from using nouns that identify the subject
>as female??????
No. You're misreading me. The author should be clear that if in being
very blunt and bold, and using the person's gender as bluntly and
boldly, then parallels will grow.
>M, You're talking about a song that is *so clearly* rooted in the
>satirical that I can't see how you can expect these logical arguments to
How is it satire? "Suzy Greenberg" as ironical document criticising
society? Prove this, please.
>WHAT?????? Oh, cry me a fucking river!!!!! I'm sorry, but I'd love to
>know what makes you so self-righteous as to presume that your birthright
>as a woman is somehow more burdensome than the ugly oppression of racial
>hatred just because it's been going on longer. You are sooooo far out of
>bounds here, it's beginning to make me ill. Please, people of color,
>weigh in here!!!
Um... there is something definitely fraudulent about the line "your
birthright as a woman" when it refers to me... (see
http://xyz.uchicago.edu/users/mpdesape/moacir.jpg for details)
...though the assumption only proves my point better. Misogyny has
been going on longer and it's far deeper-rooted in our
subconscious. That's why something can be seen as racist instantly,
but misogynist not quite so. I'm sorry that you took my words to be
some sort of value judgment regarding the relative atrocity of racism
and misogyny. They are meant as a judgment of the relative
consciousness towards both.
>As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The political
Ahh, invoke Herr Freud, the man who had the balls to suggest that
women all feel inadequate since they are not men. By invoking a
misogynist, you're not helping to prove anything.
>PC is a disease, and I hope that Phish plays Suy Greenberg from the top of
I still don't see how anything I've written is "politically correct."
It's merely worried about slowing needless dissemination of hatred.
--m
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
Verse is nonsense, miss --Smerdyakov
Kim Hannula
I'm glad that a few people have finally responded to Moacir's post with
a little more depth than "shut up with that Political Correctness!" The
big problem blamed on PCness is that it stifles conversations. Since
the term "politically correct" came into vogue, however, I've seen it
used to attempt to stifle far more discussion than accusations of racism
or sexism ever did.
Long live feather-ruffling discussions! -- including those sparked by
feminists, anti-racists, and other so-called "PC" types.
Moacir wrote:
> The fact that Suzy is a woman should have nothing to do with why the
> narrator is pissed at her, and therefore it should not be explicitly
> mentioned several times, begging a causal relationship.
Except, of course, if the narrator happens to be a heterosexual in an
unpleasant relationship. Love (or a one-night stand, for that matter)
gone wrong makes people nasty. It's nearly impossible to disentangle
gender politics from broken-heart politics in a situation like this.
Women's descriptions of ex-boyfriends get pretty ugly too, you know.
And it feels damn good to badmouth your ex, even in a totally unfair and
stereotypical manner. That scream of Fishman's before the chorus --
that's too cathartic to be something as impersonal as misogynistic
oppression of all women.
Would I want to date the Dude of Life? Hell, no. Am I enraged every
time I listen to Suzy G? Nah.
Kim "not a literary critic, but proud to be a feminist of some sort
anyway" mula
flaccid erudition
moa> = my original post that started this well misunderstood thread
Stoney <guy...@execpc.com> posted quicker than Stoney read:
>Woah!! Wait just a minute. To say that the song Suzy Greenburg is
>condemning an entire gender is perposterous. First, what lyrics to that
>song project culural stereotypes, and especially misogyny?
First, misogyny is not a cultural stereotype. It's a cultural reality.
Second, this paragraph from my original post seems to have escaped many
of the follow-uppers' radar. Which is a shame, since it answers the
questions most people have posed. (Save the well-worn myth that
Phish's Suzy produces "Seinfeld" *sigh*)
moa> So here we have it, a song written about a woman who has a very
moa> specific name, but problems stereotypical. She's insecure, a whore,
moa> insincere, high-maintenance, unintelligent, misleading,
moa> unpredictable/insane, and impragmatic (the example of her lack of
moa> pragmatism is her wanting to be a sociologist, even though the
moa> narrator knows she has no chance). Every attribute given to the
moa> listener by the narrator in this song is in some way tied in with a
moa> stereotype about women.
I really only had to post this single paragraph, since it answers all
the questions. Suzy is an amalgam of stereotypes! See below.
>Just because
>someone doesn't like ONE woman doesn't mean that they hate all women.
You're right, but the song goes to efforts to equate her problems with
her being female.
>Well, what else is she? She's a woman. She has not been robbed of her
>identity, because we know who the narrator is reffering to. Hence the
Ok. I was hoping I would not have to go into Identity Politics 101
here, but it seems as though a parallel is important for illustration
(misogyny is probably one of the most elusive cultural criminals
today). I'll dispense with the obvious disclaimers, et cetera, and
only include this to help illustrate that "Suzy Greenberg" is
anti-woman.
Here's a new song:
Jimmy is an artist, he paints quite a lot
An artist he may be but industrious he's not
Says he wants to be intelligent
But he better first get checked by a zoologist.
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy
Jimmy, Jimmy Jack Johnson
Jimmy's as trustworthy as a slot machine
He's just waiting to revert and rob you clean
At gun-point, yeah, just like his brothers do.
He's not my kind, he likes basketball shoes.
The black man pimps around and he sells all that smack
Doesn't talk very much, he's very profound
Jimmy Jack Johnson always always playing the game
But today I'll bet he'll try to mug my friend.
Pretty damn racist, isn't it? But, it wasn't racist until you came to
the line "The black man..." Once it was clear that Jimmy is a member
of that group, every part of the song began to map itself onto a
stereotype. The same holds true for "Suzy" when the lines calling her
"that woman" or "the woman" come up. They remind the listener that
Suzy is not a person, but a mixture of stereotype. Similarly, Jack is
not a person, but a mixture of stereotype--BUT ONLY ONCE HIS GROUP
IDENTITY IS ESTABLISHED. That's why the line "The woman walks the
streets..." is *shamefully* misogynist, since it establishes Suzy's
group identity and links her inextricably to it.
*******************HERE IT ALL IS, IN ONE SENTENCE:************************
The fact that Suzy is a woman should have nothing to do with why the
narrator is pissed at her, and therefore it should not be explicitly
mentioned several times, begging a causal relationship.
(phew!) Now, back to the Jimmy song. That song is racist at first
glance, but it exhibits the same level of crimes levied against
African-Americans as "Suzy Greenberg" does against women. Jimmy Jack
Johnson is a creation of negative stereotypes about African
Americans. Here's a line by line comparison of the stereotypes, to
illustrate the equivalence:
(NOTE: The quote from the original does NOT NECESSARILY map to the
stereotype given. That stereotype is in the line, but not necessarily
in the quote. The quote serves as a guide for orientation)
Original Song Jimmy Suzy
Line 1: "...paints quite..." none none
Line 2: "...genius" Slothful Unintelligent/Ditzy
Line 3: "...sociologist" Unintelligent Impragmatic
Line 4: "...neurologist" Non-Human Hysterical
[names]
Line 5: "...slot machine" Criminal Whore
Line 6: "...rob you clean" Criminal Whore
Line 7: "...she's worth" Criminal Low Self-Esteem/Pity-Grabbing
Line 8: "...not of this earth" Materialist Hysterical
Line 9: "...queen of the town" Pimp/Dealer Whore/Materialist/Egoist
Line 10: "...very profound" none none?
Line 11: "...playing the game" none Coquettish/Insincere/Dissembler
Line 12: "...my name" Criminal Insincere/Egoist/Manipulator/
There you go. The song I just wrote about Jimmy Jack Johnson is, as
displayed above, as offensive as "Suzy Greenberg." Less, in fact,
according to line 11. I guess 500 years of institutionalised
oppression of Africans/African-Americans can't quite compete with 6
millenia of institutionalised oppression of women in Western culture.
Yet, even given the above diagram, to many "Jimmy Johnson" seems far
more offensive than "Suzy Greenberg," which only gives more credit to
the idea that misogyny is so well-mixed into society that it's nearly
impossible for many to detect it. (A person sent me an email agreeing
with my position, telling me that he'd always squirm in his seat when
this song played in the presence of his girlfriend. Not, however,
since Trey was singing characteristically poorly, but rather since the
metamessage of this song was obviously hampering their
metacommunication.)
Now, one last note: I am not suggesting that Trey Anastasio, Mike
Gordon, Page McConnell, or Jon Fishman (I'm abstaining re: DoL) are
misogynists. I am suggesting that "Suzy Greenberg," as a work of art, is.
--m
Jeff Levitt
Brian,
I couldn't agree with you more.
-Jeff
CBertolet
moacir wrote:
>>>To equate the use of the word "woman" -- a
>noun that describes 50% of all people -- to the use of the words "black
>man" -- a noun modified by a minority racial qualifier -- is an
>intellectual shortcut; nothing more than a sensationalist way to prove
No. They are synonymous since both "woman" and "black" both signify
oppressed classes.>>>
You've spent far too much time in a classroom. You sound like a Monty
Python skit. The only things that separate you from Amrit are your
academic credentials and the fact that you're more articulate -- but both
of you are engaged in the same kind of reactionary whining that impedes
real progress in the areas of race and gender relations. In many ways
Amrit's better, because at least he seems to value freedom of expression.
If you hope to raise awareness of any kind, you should refrain from
talking to people like they're morally inferior. Instead of pontificating
so self-righteously, please feel free to list concrete examples of ways in
which you have been oppressed because of your sex. I'll eat my tape
collection if you can name five. And if you can name one concrete way in
which Suzy Greenberg contributes to sexism, I'll eat Fishman.
>>>>No. You're misreading me. The author should be clear that if in being
very blunt and bold, and using the person's gender as bluntly and
boldly, then parallels will grow.>>>>
These are big words, but academic, esoteric non-thoughts.
>>>How is it satire? "Suzy Greenberg" as ironical document criticising
society? Prove this, please.>>>
Webster's Ninth -- Satire: (1) a literary work holding up human vices and
folly to ridicule or scorn (2) trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to
expose and discredit vice or folly.
Human vices like Suzy's (she's a phony -- this is how I happen to
interpret "artist/she paints quite a lot/says she wants to be a
sociologist" -- we all know these people. They're called blowhards, and
they're as common among men as women). The "folly" is the narrators, for
falling for someone so vapid. Please note that again, this could easily
be reversible in terms of gender -- you could switch the sex of the
narrator and subect, and the song would make PERFECT sense. Scorn? The
narrator scorns Suzy. She's scornable, but for reasons more compelling
than her sex. Trenchant wit? How can you deny that the composer,
narrator, and performers of this song find it FUNNY? I laughed my ass off
the first time I heard it.... it's bawdy.
Watch MASH, for Christ sakes, one of the best satires ever written for the
screen. If you can get through that one without your hair-trigger
sexismeter going kaflooie, I'll give you a prize.
>>>Um... there is something definitely fraudulent about the line "your
birthright as a woman" when it refers to me... (see
http://xyz.uchicago.edu/users/mpdesape/moacir.jpg for details)>>>
I don't have web access, but I assume these are your academic credentials
as a feminist. No offense, but....so? BTW, don't even think of calling
me a misogynist.
>>>>As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The political
Ahh, invoke Herr Freud, the man who had the balls to suggest that
women all feel inadequate since they are not men. By invoking a
misogynist, you're not helping to prove anything.>>>
Invoking a misogynist? I was quoting him, not bowing at his fucking
feet!!!!! You need to grow a sense of humor.....badly.
>>>>I still don't see how anything I've written is "politically correct."
It's merely worried about slowing needless dissemination of hatred.>>>
As I said before, to find hatred in Suzy Greenberg in any way, shape or
form is an act of logical and emotional contortionism beyond
comprehension. You're politically correct as hell -- you just don't
realize it because you've been brainwashed. Step into the real
world.....it's really not so bad out here.
flaccid erudition
cber...@aol.com (CBertolet) posted:
>
>You've spent far too much time in a classroom. You sound like a Monty
Hmmm. I don't know how to take this, except as yet another rash
assumption at my expense. I haven't been in a classroom in over a
year, and even when I was taking classes I was far better known for
cutting them than for being inculcated by them. (Besides, UofC is full
of reactionary objectivist hacks who would look at my posts and yell
yell yell)
>Amrit's better, because at least he seems to value freedom of expression.
Who says I don't? I have yet to email your provider insisting on
taking away your access ;)
>If you hope to raise awareness of any kind, you should refrain from
>talking to people like they're morally inferior. Instead of pontificating
This isn't a question of morals. This is a question of oppression. No
one who reads rmp should, I think, be in favour of oppression. It just
has a funny way of sneaking around.
>so self-righteously, please feel free to list concrete examples of ways in
>which you have been oppressed because of your sex. I'll eat my tape
Hmmm. When my gender is the one ruling western society, it's hard to
be oppressed. I guess one example was when I applied for a temp
job. All the girls I knew who applied at the place were getting jobs
left and right, and all the guys, with superior "clerical" skills,
were getting the proverbial gas-face. That's the only example. But I'm
not criticising "Suzy" for being misandronist--just misogynist.
>collection if you can name five. And if you can name one concrete way in
>which Suzy Greenberg contributes to sexism, I'll eat Fishman.
by presenting, in a positive and impressionable way (i.e. song lyrics
which are wonderfully mnemonic), justifications for misogyny.
>These are big words, but academic, esoteric non-thoughts.
Not really. Refer to my parallels between Jimmy and Suzy. Neither the
words nor the thoughts are that esoteric, I don't think. It's an issue
of association and of identity. I maintain that the use of the word
"woman" distances the criticism of Suzy from Suzy and maps it towards
women in general.
Here's another example. A person is the victim of a crime. The
perpetrator is African-American. At the lineup (of 5 people) he is the
only African-American and standing with two non-blacks on his right
and two non-blacks on his left. Were the victim to point him out as
"The one in the middle," he is clearly defined as the
perpetrator. However, if the victim were to point him out as "the black
guy," then his race is unnecessarily brought into play. Furthermore,
since there is a stereotype of African-Americans as criminals, the
pointing out only helps to fan racial tension and stereotyping.
We have two identifying features of that perpetrator that separates
him from the other men in the lineup: he's in the middle, and he's
black. Similarly, we have two identifying features describing Suzy:
her name and her gender. Now, if you were to say "the man in the
middle committed the crime," you're being neutral. If you were to say
"the black man committed the crime," you're unnecessarily helping
stereotyping.
Similarly, if you say "Suzy Greenberg is a whore," then you're being
far more neutral than "the woman walks the streets," which is what
Trey sings.
>Human vices like Suzy's (she's a phony -- this is how I happen to
>interpret "artist/she paints quite a lot/says she wants to be a
>sociologist" -- we all know these people. They're called blowhards, and
but you're cutting out the middle line where she is criticised for not
being a genius. Blowhards and phoneys are often rather
intelligent. Ask Holden Caulfield.
>they're as common among men as women). The "folly" is the narrators, for
>falling for someone so vapid. Please note that again, this could easily
>be reversible in terms of gender -- you could switch the sex of the
>narrator and subect, and the song would make PERFECT sense. Scorn? The
>narrator scorns Suzy. She's scornable, but for reasons more compelling
Sure, the way you present the situation the story makes perfect
sense. But it's not reversible. "The man walks the streets like he's
the king of the town" has in no way connotations of prostitution that
"The woman walks the streets like she's the queen of the town." You're
oversimplifying the tension in the song and the conflicts there so
that your eagerness to perform a dazzling feat of intellectual
illusion succeeds.
>than her sex. Trenchant wit? How can you deny that the composer,
>narrator, and performers of this song find it FUNNY? I laughed my ass off
>the first time I heard it.... it's bawdy.
Hmmm. bawdy I wouldn't quite think. I definitely never found it that
funny, either. But then, humour is in the eye of the beholder.
>Watch MASH, for Christ sakes, one of the best satires ever written for the
>screen. If you can get through that one without your hair-trigger
>sexismeter going kaflooie, I'll give you a prize.
MASH was also made several years ago, before a better sense of
misogyny was understood. Furthermore, the movie is indeed a satire,
but one serving up the folly of the military and war. To make a
parallel, you would have to say that "Suzy" serves up the folly of
relationship. I don't think it does. It's hateful before it's ironic.
>I don't have web access, but I assume these are your academic credentials
>as a feminist. No offense, but....so? BTW, don't even think of calling
No. They're my biological credentials for being a male.
>Invoking a misogynist? I was quoting him, not bowing at his fucking
>feet!!!!! You need to grow a sense of humor.....badly.
But, while you were quoting him you were also taking the easy way
out. The text is never just the text, since the second you look
at/listen to it, you immediately place your perspective on it. A cigar
is never a cigar. If a cigar is sometimes a cigar, then I ask you, is
there an absolute truth?
>comprehension. You're politically correct as hell -- you just don't
>realize it because you've been brainwashed. Step into the real
whereas I could be so bold as to say you've been brainwashed by a
society hardwired to hate women. But I won't, since I don't know you.
--m
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
I began counting each fool that passed me. I got up to 50 in two-and-one-
half-minutes, then stepped into the next bar. --C. Bukowski
flaccid erudition
han...@panther.middlebury.edu, in possession of stacks upon stacks
more academic credentials than I, posted:
>gone wrong makes people nasty. It's nearly impossible to disentangle
>gender politics from broken-heart politics in a situation like this.
>Women's descriptions of ex-boyfriends get pretty ugly too, you know.
>And it feels damn good to badmouth your ex, even in a totally unfair and
>stereotypical manner.
Ok. First, though, we are not entirely without conscience and don't
live our lives based merely on what feels good. I agree that a large
element of the anger of the song comes from the broken
relationship. That's the seed. But it extends itself beyond Suzy and
toward all women. That's my problem with it. As I just mentioned in
another post, had explicit attention not been paid to her gender
twice, I would have few problems with the song--lyrically, that is.
The problem is, though, that almost without exception everything about
Suzy is in some way a stereotype. I bring up Loretta Lockhorn
again. Were I to bad-mouth her, my entire train of anger would be made
up of boxcar upon boxcar filled with stereotype. (to be fair--the same
applies for Leroy Lockhorn, too) Those characters are created as
stereotypes, and they seem very dated because of it. Dated and
reactionary. The same holds true for Suzy. If there were just one
little complaint the narrator had with Suzy, I'd consider recanting
everything. If he were to sing "I hate her since she's always
level-headed and loves to watch football with me" in addition to the
stream of stereotypes already there, I'd have to reconsider
everything. But he doesn't. Since then Suzy would break from the mold
of gender stereotype. The only two possibilities are Suzy's being a
painter and being very profound. But the painter line seems neutral,
and the profound bit is also neutral. I don't think either gender has
a monopoly on the profound stereotype. However, women have an edge on
the non-profound stereotype.
The narrator even CONTRADICTS HIMSELF to add more stereotypes. Suzy is
both the materialist egoist of "like she's the queen of the town" and
the self-loathing insecure waif of "not sure what she's worth."
People's personal makeup is rife with contradictions...but it reaches
a level where it can't go on. This seems absurd.
>That scream of Fishman's before the chorus --
>that's too cathartic to be something as impersonal as misogynistic
>oppression of all women.
Possibly. But then, you're engaging in musical criticism, which is
another venue entirely. This is more textual--based solely on the
lyrics. :) (musical criticism to follow later. I was going to
incorporate the chord progression into my criticism,
but...well...that's to be saved for a later date.)
--m
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
Michael Lacy
In article <ECGDo...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
moa...@earth.uchicago.edu (flaccid erudition) wrote:
>moa> = my original post that started this well misunderstood thread
>
>Stoney <guy...@execpc.com> posted quicker than Stoney read:
>
>>Woah!! Wait just a minute. To say that the song Suzy Greenburg is
>>condemning an entire gender is perposterous. First, what lyrics to that
>>song project culural stereotypes, and especially misogyny?
>
>First, misogyny is not a cultural stereotype. It's a cultural reality.
In some people...
>Second, this paragraph from my original post seems to have escaped many
>of the follow-uppers' radar. Which is a shame, since it answers the
>questions most people have posed. (Save the well-worn myth that
>Phish's Suzy produces "Seinfeld" *sigh*)
>
>moa> So here we have it, a song written about a woman who has a very
>moa> specific name, but problems stereotypical. She's insecure, a whore,
>moa> insincere, high-maintenance, unintelligent, misleading,
>moa> unpredictable/insane, and impragmatic (the example of her lack of
>moa> pragmatism is her wanting to be a sociologist, even though the
>moa> narrator knows she has no chance). Every attribute given to the
>moa> listener by the narrator in this song is in some way tied in with a
>moa> stereotype about women.
>>>>snip, snip, snip<<<<
(Hypersensitive PC over-analysis)
>>>>snip, snip, snip<<<<
>Yet, even given the above diagram, to many "Jimmy Johnson" seems far
>more offensive than "Suzy Greenberg," which only gives more credit to
>the idea that misogyny is so well-mixed into society that it's nearly
>impossible for many to detect it.
snip
>Now, one last note: I am not suggesting that Trey Anastasio, Mike
>Gordon, Page McConnell, or Jon Fishman (I'm abstaining re: DoL) are
>misogynists. I am suggesting that "Suzy Greenberg," as a work of art, is.
Isn't political correct deconstructionsim fun! Look for an insult hard
enough, and you will find it whether it is their or not.
Has it ever occurred to you that the vast majority of phans are not nearly
so adept or obsessed as you at finding fault? Has it ever occurred to you
that Suzy Greenburg could have been written about a 'real' person, instead
of being a deliberate amalgam of misogynistic stereotypes intended to
insult all women? (The uncomfortable truth about stereotypes is that they
so often ring true).
It is obvious to me that you are reading far, far too much into that song,
and projecting your own agenda into it. Lighten up and dance...
>>Absurd!!! Beyond absurd!!! To equate the use of the word "woman" -- a
>>noun that describes 50% of all people -- to the use of the words "black
>>man" -- a noun modified by a minority racial qualifier -- is an
>>intellectual shortcut; nothing more than a sensationalist way to prove
>
>No. They are synonymous since both "woman" and "black" both signify
>oppressed classes.
Oh please! What a load of rubbish! Just because you define them to belong
to an arbitrarily concocted class does not make them interchangeable!
>>PC is a disease, and I hope that Phish plays Suy Greenberg from the top of
>
>I still don't see how anything I've written is "politically correct."
And I don't see how anything you've written is sensible.
>It's merely worried about slowing needless dissemination of hatred.
Since you seem to be the only one aware of this 'dissemination of hatred',
I wouldn't loose much sleep over it.
Mike Lacy
'The all-pervasive claim to victimhood tops off America's long-cherished
culture of therapeutics. To seem strong may only conceal a rickety
scaffolding of denial, but to be vulnerable is to be invincible. Complaint
gives you power - even when it's only the power of emotional bribery, of
creating previously unnoticed levels of social guilt.'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Robert Hughes
gordon sharpless
Geez, I wish I got into this thread sooner... Though Chris Bertolet is
doing a fine job of pointing out the absurdity of the arguments
presented by Mr. Flaccid Erudition, I have to jump into this one.
Mr. Flaccid,
What kind of bubble have you been living in? Have you any connection
to the real world? You are promoting a line of thinking that is so
horrifically politically correct that my bowels are churning in
disgust. That Suzy Greenberg is a promotion of misogynic attitudes is
utterly ridiculous. It has been well stated already that the song
presents attitudes of one man and his involvement with one woman.
Nothing more, nothing less. If you spent more time in the real world
and less time looking for supposed insensitivities found in simple
rock-n-roll songs perhaps you'd realize that Suzi Greenberg's exist
everywhere, for that matter, so do Steven Greenberg's. For every man
who has a Suzi G in his life, you'll find a woman with a Steven G. You
have taken a simple song and blown it up to epic proportions where
every woman is a Suzi Greenberg and every man is her oppressor. Get a
clue, man. You may not have set foot in a classroom for over a year,
but what you are reading into this song is frighteningly consistant
with the post modernist deconstructionalist thought so horribly
prevelant on college campuses these days. Anyway, please read on...
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 01:49:29 GMT, moa...@earth.uchicago.edu (flaccid
erudition) wrote:
>cber...@aol.com (CBertolet) posted:
>
>>
>>You've spent far too much time in a classroom. You sound like a Monty
>
>Hmmm. I don't know how to take this, except as yet another rash
>assumption at my expense. I haven't been in a classroom in over a
>year, and even when I was taking classes I was far better known for
>cutting them than for being inculcated by them. (Besides, UofC is full
>of reactionary objectivist hacks who would look at my posts and yell
>yell yell)
>
>>Amrit's better, because at least he seems to value freedom of expression.
>
>Who says I don't? I have yet to email your provider insisting on
>taking away your access ;)
No, but by advocating the suppression of a song which *you* find
offensive, you promote the denial of freedom of expression, whether
you mean to or not doesn't matter, that is the result. The most
dangerous aspect of the politically correct crowd is that it doesn't
promote social progress but in fact, sets it backwards by seeking to
suppress anything that someone might find offensive. If you suppress
it, you can't discuss it. History is full of instances where political
powers have sought to control the thought processes of it's people. It
never worked. Examples? Mao's Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge in
Cambodia- the closest thing to '1984' the real world has ever seen
(Big Brother=Angka), or even the Islamic government of Iran, and now
the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now I'll concede comparing Suzy Greenberg
to mass genocidal regimes is a bit extreme, but I use it to illustrate
a point: you cannot control people's thought. Whether or not Suzy
Greenberg is played will have no bearing on male/female dynamics.
Change doesn't occur by dictating what terminolgy I use or what songs
I listen to.
>
>>If you hope to raise awareness of any kind, you should refrain from
>>talking to people like they're morally inferior. Instead of pontificating
>
>This isn't a question of morals. This is a question of oppression. No
>one who reads rmp should, I think, be in favour of oppression. It just
>has a funny way of sneaking around.
Suzy Greenberg is not about oppression. Crushing someone's skull
because they expressed an emotion is oppression.
>
>>collection if you can name five. And if you can name one concrete way in
>>which Suzy Greenberg contributes to sexism, I'll eat Fishman.
>
>by presenting, in a positive and impressionable way (i.e. song lyrics
>which are wonderfully mnemonic), justifications for misogyny.
Impressionable? So you believe people can't listen to a song and form
their own opinion? Once again, you reveal a belief that people's
thought processes need to be controlled to be consistant with what
*you* believe they should be. Or at least what you believe is
beneficial to society. Sorry man, but you can't engineer society
unless you are prepared for some mighty horrific results. Hitler, Mao,
and Pol Pot all tried, look what that got them.
>
>Here's another example. A person is the victim of a crime. The
>perpetrator is African-American. At the lineup (of 5 people) he is the
>only African-American and standing with two non-blacks on his right
>and two non-blacks on his left. Were the victim to point him out as
>"The one in the middle," he is clearly defined as the
>perpetrator. However, if the victim were to point him out as "the black
>guy," then his race is unnecessarily brought into play. Furthermore,
>since there is a stereotype of African-Americans as criminals, the
>pointing out only helps to fan racial tension and stereotyping.
This is the most ridiculous thing I've read here in ages!!! First of
all, in your opening statement you have already determined the
perpretator is black. How the #$%* can one be accused of perpetuating
racial stereotyping if the perpretrator *IS* black? What do you want,
affirmative action in the prison population? Secondly, no lineup is
going to have one black man surrounded by four nonblacks when the
suspect is the black man. That's a ridiculous example. Third, there is
nothing racist an identifying a black person as a black person. Just
as if I am a lone white person in a group of black people, I have no
problem with being identified as the white person. Have you ever spent
time in a racially mixed group? I work in one everyday and the
black/white comments that fly back and forth would probably burn off
your overly sensitive politically correct ears. And you know what?
There's not a shred or racism present. Just an acceptance that
differences exist both culturally and in physical appearance between
blacks and whites. There's a big difference between being racist and
acknowledging differences in races. Someday, maybe the PC world will
recognize this. Menawhile, the rest of us will get on with our lives
as before, calling a duck a duck when we see it.
>
>We have two identifying features of that perpetrator that separates
>him from the other men in the lineup: he's in the middle, and he's
>black. Similarly, we have two identifying features describing Suzy:
>her name and her gender. Now, if you were to say "the man in the
>middle committed the crime," you're being neutral. If you were to say
>"the black man committed the crime," you're unnecessarily helping
>stereotyping.
There is no stereotyping if the man in the middle who committed the
crime *IS* black. How about if he had a big nose and you said "the man
with the big nose". Would that be insensitive to respiratory orifice
enhanced individuals?
>
>Similarly, if you say "Suzy Greenberg is a whore," then you're being
>far more neutral than "the woman walks the streets," which is what
>Trey sings.
This is absurd. Only you are equating waliking the streets with being
a whore in the context of this song.
>>than her sex. Trenchant wit? How can you deny that the composer,
>>narrator, and performers of this song find it FUNNY? I laughed my ass off
>>the first time I heard it.... it's bawdy.
>
>Hmmm. bawdy I wouldn't quite think. I definitely never found it that
>funny, either. But then, humour is in the eye of the beholder.
Try some.
>
>>I don't have web access, but I assume these are your academic credentials
>>as a feminist. No offense, but....so? BTW, don't even think of calling
>
>No. They're my biological credentials for being a male.
Which makes you perceptive to the thought processes of women how?
>
>>comprehension. You're politically correct as hell -- you just don't
>>realize it because you've been brainwashed. Step into the real
>
>whereas I could be so bold as to say you've been brainwashed by a
>society hardwired to hate women. But I won't, since I don't know you.
You're politically correct as hell. What next? Drop You Enjoy Myself
because it might be insensitive to those people without significant
others?
Gordon
Reese
moa...@earth.uchicago.edu (flaccid erudition) wrote:
>First, misogyny is not a cultural stereotype. It's a cultural reality.
It is neither...you can't possibly believe this. If you do, you've set
women back about 200 years. I admit that America does have its problems,
but misogyny is _not_ a cultural reality. We may be animals, but we're
not beasts...yet.
>moa> So here we have it, a song written about a woman who has a very
>moa> specific name, but problems stereotypical. She's insecure, a whore,
>moa> insincere, high-maintenance, unintelligent, misleading,
>moa> unpredictable/insane, and impragmatic (the example of her lack of
>moa> pragmatism is her wanting to be a sociologist, even though the
>moa> narrator knows she has no chance). Every attribute given to the
>moa> listener by the narrator in this song is in some way tied in with a
>moa> stereotype about women.
So what? As others have noticed, you really do say a lot without saying
anything, or meaning anything. You're similar to Amrit, but
unfortunately, not nearly as amusing.
>You're right, but the song goes to efforts to equate her problems with
>her being female.
Hardly. IMO, Suzy's qualities are representative of Suzy the individual,
and not all women. Any problems are either the author's or the
narrator's, not Suzy's (_you've_ made them "her problems"). Shit...I
can't believe I'm discussing the lyrics to a Phish song. I've set
_myself_ back about five years.
>Here's a new song:
>Jimmy is an artist, he paints quite a lot
>An artist he may be but industrious he's not
>Says he wants to be intelligent
>But he better first get checked by a zoologist.
>Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy
>Jimmy, Jimmy Jack Johnson
>Jimmy's as trustworthy as a slot machine
>He's just waiting to revert and rob you clean
>At gun-point, yeah, just like his brothers do.
>He's not my kind, he likes basketball shoes.
>The black man pimps around and he sells all that smack
>Doesn't talk very much, he's very profound
>Jimmy Jack Johnson always always playing the game
>But today I'll bet he'll try to mug my friend.
This is a pretty stupid song. What is more important, however, is how you
were able to sterotype "the black man" so easily. Makes me wonder...
>Pretty damn racist, isn't it? But, it wasn't racist until you came to
>the line "The black man..." Once it was clear that Jimmy is a member
>of that group, every part of the song began to map itself onto a
>stereotype. The same holds true for "Suzy" when the lines calling her
>"that woman" or "the woman" come up. They remind the listener that
>Suzy is not a person, but a mixture of stereotype. Similarly, Jack is
>not a person, but a mixture of stereotype--BUT ONLY ONCE HIS GROUP
>IDENTITY IS ESTABLISHED. That's why the line "The woman walks the
>streets..." is *shamefully* misogynist, since it establishes Suzy's
>group identity and links her inextricably to it.
Whether your song is racist or not is entirely up to the reader/listener,
depending on one's interpretation. Racism is also more apparent to the
victim than it is to the racist. Perhaps you have been a victim of
racism, or you're just a student of racism, which is much worse. Students
of racism tend to know everything about everyone. I often wonder why some
members of white America tend to throw themselves into the "struggle" on
our side. Not that your intentions aren't good, and you're morally just,
but (trying hard to not to sound cliche) you really wouldn't understand.
You couldn't possibly understand...this goes for you too, moacir. Do you
think you have helped Blacks or women either way? Your talk of
stereotypes only makes matters worse. There may be a little meaning in
some of the things you say, but who cares? The fact that you've taken a
Phish song this seriously is quite disturbing. What did you expect us to
do? Protest outside of venues? Leave a show if Suzy is played? Maybe we
should just boycott Phish? I question your intent in all of this...you
might have just wanted a little attention.
>*******************HERE IT ALL IS, IN ONE >SENTENCE:************************
>The fact that Suzy is a woman should have nothing to do with why the
>narrator is pissed at her, and therefore it should not be explicitly
>mentioned several times, begging a causal relationship.
Oh, _now_ I get it!
>Jimmy Jack
>Johnson is a creation of negative stereotypes about African
>Americans.
Jimmy Jack Johnson (is this supposed to be a stereotypical name?) is
_your_ creation of negative stereotypes about African Americans.
>Here's a line by line comparison of the stereotypes, to
>illustrate the equivalence:
>(NOTE: The quote from the original does NOT NECESSARILY map to the
>stereotype given. That stereotype is in the line, but not necessarily
>in the quote. The quote serves as a guide for orientation)
> Original Song Jimmy Suzy
>Line 1: "...paints quite..." none none
>Line 2: "...genius" Slothful Unintelligent/Ditzy
>Line 3: "...sociologist" Unintelligent Impragmatic...
Lines 4-12 snipped for humanity's sake
Your over-analysis was a complete waste of time. With all you've written,
I can't believe this bullshit means that much to you. I mean...this makes
no sense at all. It's funny, and at the same time, pretty sad.
>There you go. The song I just wrote about Jimmy Jack Johnson is, as
>displayed above, as offensive as "Suzy Greenberg." Less, in fact,
>according to line 11. I guess 500 years of institutionalised
>oppression of Africans/African-Americans can't quite compete with 6
>millenia of institutionalised oppression of women in Western culture.
It's nice that you know your history, but unless you're Black, or a
woman, you don't really know shit. Being an African-American is difficult
in this country. Being a woman is difficult in this country. Outside of
that, you can't really compare the two.
>Yet, even given the above diagram, to many "Jimmy Johnson" seems far
>more offensive than "Suzy Greenberg," which only gives more credit to
>the idea that misogyny is so well-mixed into society that it's nearly
>impossible for many to detect it. (A person sent me an email agreeing
>with my position, telling me that he'd always squirm in his seat when
>this song played in the presence of his girlfriend. Not, however,
>since Trey was singing characteristically poorly, but rather since the
>metamessage of this song was obviously hampering their
>metacommunication.)
You think too much, and anyone agreeing with you doesn't think enough.
Consider re-directing your energy. Your search for the "truth" has left
you completely missing the point.
What happened to all the fun in the world?
Ron
Reese
moa...@earth.uchicago.edu (flaccid erudition) wrote:
>First, misogyny is not a cultural stereotype. It's a cultural reality.
It is neither...you can't possibly believe this. If you do, you've set
women back about 200 years. I admit that America does have its problems,
but misogyny is _not_ a cultural reality. We may be animals, but we're
not beasts...yet.
>moa> So here we have it, a song written about a woman who has a very
>moa> specific name, but problems stereotypical. She's insecure, a whore,
>moa> insincere, high-maintenance, unintelligent, misleading,
>moa> unpredictable/insane, and impragmatic (the example of her lack of
>moa> pragmatism is her wanting to be a sociologist, even though the
>moa> narrator knows she has no chance). Every attribute given to the
>moa> listener by the narrator in this song is in some way tied in with a
>moa> stereotype about women.
So what? As others have noticed, you really do say a lot without saying
anything, or meaning anything. You're similar to Amrit, but
unfortunately, not nearly as amusing.
>You're right, but the song goes to efforts to equate her problems with
>her being female.
Hardly. IMO, Suzy's qualities are representative of Suzy the individual,
and not all women. Any problems are either the author's or the
narrator's, not Suzy's (_you've_ made them "her problems"). Shit...I
can't believe I'm discussing the lyrics to a Phish song. I've set
_myself_ back about five years.
>Here's a new song:
>Jimmy is an artist, he paints quite a lot
>An artist he may be but industrious he's not
>Says he wants to be intelligent
>But he better first get checked by a zoologist.
>Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy
>Jimmy, Jimmy Jack Johnson
>Jimmy's as trustworthy as a slot machine
>He's just waiting to revert and rob you clean
>At gun-point, yeah, just like his brothers do.
>He's not my kind, he likes basketball shoes.
>The black man pimps around and he sells all that smack
>Doesn't talk very much, he's very profound
>Jimmy Jack Johnson always always playing the game
>But today I'll bet he'll try to mug my friend.
This is a pretty stupid song. What is more important, however, is how you
were able to sterotype "the black man" so easily. Makes me wonder...
>Pretty damn racist, isn't it? But, it wasn't racist until you came to
>the line "The black man..." Once it was clear that Jimmy is a member
>of that group, every part of the song began to map itself onto a
>stereotype. The same holds true for "Suzy" when the lines calling her
>"that woman" or "the woman" come up. They remind the listener that
>Suzy is not a person, but a mixture of stereotype. Similarly, Jack is
>not a person, but a mixture of stereotype--BUT ONLY ONCE HIS GROUP
>IDENTITY IS ESTABLISHED. That's why the line "The woman walks the
>streets..." is *shamefully* misogynist, since it establishes Suzy's
>group identity and links her inextricably to it.
Whether your song is racist or not is entirely up to the reader/listener,
depending on one's interpretation. Racism is also more apparent to the
victim than it is to the racist. Perhaps you have been a victim of
racism, or you're just a student of racism, which is much worse. Students
of racism tend to know everything about everyone. I often wonder why some
members of white America tend to throw themselves into the "struggle" on
our side. Not that your intentions aren't good, and you're morally just,
but (trying hard to not to sound cliche) you really wouldn't understand.
You couldn't possibly understand...this goes for you too, moacir. Do you
think you have helped Blacks or women either way? Your talk of
stereotypes only makes matters worse. There may be a little meaning in
some of the things you say, but who cares? The fact that you've taken a
Phish song this seriously is quite disturbing. What did you expect us to
do? Protest outside of venues? Leave a show if Suzy is played? Maybe we
should just boycott Phish? I question your intent in all of this...you
might have just wanted a little attention.
>*******************HERE IT ALL IS, IN ONE >SENTENCE:************************
>The fact that Suzy is a woman should have nothing to do with why the
>narrator is pissed at her, and therefore it should not be explicitly
>mentioned several times, begging a causal relationship.
Oh, _now_ I get it!
>Jimmy Jack
>Johnson is a creation of negative stereotypes about African
>Americans.
Jimmy Jack Johnson (is this supposed to be a stereotypical name?) is
_your_ creation of negative stereotypes about African Americans.
>Here's a line by line comparison of the stereotypes, to
>illustrate the equivalence:
>(NOTE: The quote from the original does NOT NECESSARILY map to the
>stereotype given. That stereotype is in the line, but not necessarily
>in the quote. The quote serves as a guide for orientation)
> Original Song Jimmy Suzy
>Line 1: "...paints quite..." none none
>Line 2: "...genius" Slothful Unintelligent/Ditzy
>Line 3: "...sociologist" Unintelligent Impragmatic...
Lines 4-12 snipped for humanity's sake
Your over-analysis was a complete waste of time. With all you've written,
I can't believe this bullshit means that much to you. I mean...this makes
no sense at all. It's funny, and at the same time, pretty sad.
>There you go. The song I just wrote about Jimmy Jack Johnson is, as
>displayed above, as offensive as "Suzy Greenberg." Less, in fact,
>according to line 11. I guess 500 years of institutionalised
>oppression of Africans/African-Americans can't quite compete with 6
>millenia of institutionalised oppression of women in Western culture.
It's nice that you know your history, but unless you're Black, or a
woman, you don't really know shit. Being an African-American is difficult
in this country. Being a woman is difficult in this country. Outside of
that, you can't really compare the two.
>Yet, even given the above diagram, to many "Jimmy Johnson" seems far
>more offensive than "Suzy Greenberg," which only gives more credit to
>the idea that misogyny is so well-mixed into society that it's nearly
>impossible for many to detect it. (A person sent me an email agreeing
>with my position, telling me that he'd always squirm in his seat when
>this song played in the presence of his girlfriend. Not, however,
>since Trey was singing characteristically poorly, but rather since the
>metamessage of this song was obviously hampering their
>metacommunication.)
Michael Lacy
In article <ECGqE...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
moa...@earth.uchicago.edu (flaccid erudition) wrote:
>cber...@aol.com (CBertolet) posted:
>
>>
>>You've spent far too much time in a classroom. You sound like a Monty
>
>Hmmm. I don't know how to take this, except as yet another rash
>assumption at my expense. I haven't been in a classroom in over a
>year, and even when I was taking classes I was far better known for
>cutting them than for being inculcated by them. (Besides, UofC is full
>of reactionary objectivist hacks who would look at my posts and yell
>yell yell)
>
>>Amrit's better, because at least he seems to value freedom of expression.
>
>Who says I don't? I have yet to email your provider insisting on
>taking away your access ;)
>
>>If you hope to raise awareness of any kind, you should refrain from
>>talking to people like they're morally inferior. Instead of pontificating
>
>This isn't a question of morals. This is a question of oppression.
This is a question of _percieved_ oppression.
>No one who reads rmp should, I think, be in favour of oppression. It just
>has a funny way of sneaking around.
>
>>so self-righteously, please feel free to list concrete examples of ways in
>>which you have been oppressed because of your sex. I'll eat my tape
>
>Hmmm. When my gender is the one ruling western society, it's hard to
>be oppressed.
Genders do not rule, individuals rule. You make it sound as if we all
sneak of for secret votes to decide the fate of the world when the women
aren't watching.
>I guess one example was when I applied for a temp
>job. All the girls I knew who applied at the place were getting jobs
>left and right, and all the guys, with superior "clerical" skills,
>were getting the proverbial gas-face. That's the only example. But I'm
>not criticising "Suzy" for being misandronist--just misogynist.
>
>>collection if you can name five. And if you can name one concrete way in
>>which Suzy Greenberg contributes to sexism, I'll eat Fishman.
>
>by presenting, in a positive and impressionable way (i.e. song lyrics
>which are wonderfully mnemonic), justifications for misogyny.
Since you seem to be the only one who notices these alleged 'positive
justifications for misogyny, I don't think the world has much to fear from
the song...
>>These are big words, but academic, esoteric non-thoughts.
>
>Not really. Refer to my parallels between Jimmy and Suzy.
Your parallels are incredibly convoluted, and based upon your obsession
with finding fault and reading into the lyrics the most negative
connotations you can think of.
>I maintain that the use of the word "woman" distances the criticism of Suzy from Suzy >and maps it towards women in general.
And I maintiain that they do not, and that you are hyper-sensitive.
>Here's another example. A person is the victim of a crime. The
>perpetrator is African-American. At the lineup (of 5 people) he is the
>only African-American and standing with two non-blacks on his right
>and two non-blacks on his left. Were the victim to point him out as
>"The one in the middle," he is clearly defined as the
>perpetrator. However, if the victim were to point him out as "the black
>guy," then his race is unnecessarily brought into play. Furthermore,
>since there is a stereotype of African-Americans as criminals, the
>pointing out only helps to fan racial tension and stereotyping.
That depends entirely upon the mindset of the individual pointing out the
alleged criminal. Identifying him by any outstanding feature is perfectly
valid, and does not imply racism. If he is the only one in a red jacket,
pointing him out as 'the one in the red jacket' is just as valid as saying
'the black one' if he is indeed the only black one in the lineup.
>Similarly, if you say "Suzy Greenberg is a whore," then you're being
>far more neutral than "the woman walks the streets," which is what
>Trey sings.
Here is a classic example of you reading into the song the most negative
connotation possible; the line
'Suzy walks the street like she's the queen of the town'
I have never met anyone who interpreted this to mean she was a prostitute!
Yes, 'streetwalking' is slang for prostitution, but it is very far fetched
for you to read this definition into the song, considering its context. It
seems obvious to me that this line simply refers to her as being an
egotist! She's stuck up, arrogant, full of herself - strutting down the
road as if she owns the place. How you managed to bring prostitution into
the matter is beyond me, and sounds like a personal problem. Perhaps you
are the one with the latent misogyny, and you are attempting to placate
your guilt by attacking an innocent song instead of coming to grips with
your own inner struggle - you are in Denial and are externalising your
conflict.
Do you also interpret 'queen' to mean that she is in drag? And as for
refering to her as 'the woman' - big deal! It gets repetitive if you
constantly refer to her by her name, and since she is the only woman in the
song, there isn't much chance of the audience getting confused about who
they mean.
>>Human vices like Suzy's (she's a phony -- this is how I happen to
>>interpret "artist/she paints quite a lot/says she wants to be a
>>sociologist" -- we all know these people. They're called blowhards, and
>but you're cutting out the middle line where she is criticised for not
>being a genius. Blowhards and phoneys are often rather
>intelligent. Ask Holden Caulfield.
They can also be bone-heads. Big deal.
>>they're as common among men as women). The "folly" is the narrators, for
>>falling for someone so vapid. Please note that again, this could easily
>>be reversible in terms of gender -- you could switch the sex of the
>>narrator and subect, and the song would make PERFECT sense. Scorn? The
>>narrator scorns Suzy. She's scornable, but for reasons more compelling
>
>Sure, the way you present the situation the story makes perfect
>sense. But it's not reversible. "The man walks the streets like he's
>the king of the town" has in no way connotations of prostitution that
>"The woman walks the streets like she's the queen of the town."
That's because the connotation of prostitution was never there in the first
place!!
"The man walks the street like he's the king of the town" - i.e. he is
stuck up, arrogant, full of himself - strutting down the road as if he owns
the place. Perfectly reversible.
>You're
>oversimplifying the tension in the song and the conflicts there so
>that your eagerness to perform a dazzling feat of intellectual
>illusion succeeds.
And you're overcomplicating the song, bringing in tension and conflict
where there was none to begin with in your eagerness to perform a dazzling
feat of PC intellectual illusion that fails.
>>than her sex. Trenchant wit? How can you deny that the composer,
>>narrator, and performers of this song find it FUNNY? I laughed my ass off
>>the first time I heard it.... it's bawdy.
>
>Hmmm. bawdy I wouldn't quite think. I definitely never found it that
>funny, either. But then, humour is in the eye of the beholder.
>
>>Watch MASH, for Christ sakes, one of the best satires ever written for the
>>screen. If you can get through that one without your hair-trigger
>>sexismeter going kaflooie, I'll give you a prize.
>
>MASH was also made several years ago, before a better sense of
>misogyny was understood.
Translation: before Political Correctness turned half of America into
sanctimonious nit-picking bores with no sense of humour and a propensity to
over-analyse and find fault in everything that crossed their path.
Michael Lacy
"My views are corrupted by my obsession with reality."
Art Brostrom
Amrit, or Amrit-like-being,
I will once again suggest a nice long stay in a bucolic
setting. You have so many issues that you don't have
the slightest grasp of the meaning of peace, both on the
grand scale and within your poor tired heart.
You are infected with demons that only exist within yourself.
Art
Mark Powers
flaccid erudition pontificated:
>
> han...@panther.middlebury.edu, in possession of stacks upon stacks
> more academic credentials than I, posted:
First off, this condescending attitude is entirely unwarranted. Are you
actually arrogant enough to think that because you've earned a few
pieces of paper, your opinions on misonogy and male/female relations are
automatically beyond reproach? The fact that you might have (in your
thinking) "better" acedemic credentials than Kim doesn't change the fact
that you are expressing an _opinion_, and only an opinion.
You know, the more I read the Phish net, the more I think that Darwin
was wrong. I mean, I don't know what astounds me more: that someone
would spend this much time dissecting the lyrics of a silly, sophomoric
putdown song like Suzy, or that someone would actually infer mysonogy
from said lyrics, which are _clearly_ aimed at one person.
> >That scream of Fishman's before the chorus --
> >that's too cathartic to be something as impersonal as misogynistic
> >oppression of all women.
>
> Possibly. But then, you're engaging in musical criticism, which is
> another venue entirely. This is more textual--based solely on the
> lyrics. :) (musical criticism to follow later. I was going to
> incorporate the chord progression into my criticism,
> but...well...that's to be saved for a later date.)
Oh, _that_ should prove enlightening, hehee....
Mark
sch...@epix.net
Gordon Sharpless wrote:
>You're politically correct as hell. What next? Drop You Enjoy Myself
>because it might be insensitive to those people without significant
>others?
>Gordon
Yes! Yes! It's about time someone brought this up! Forget the misogyny
of Suzy Greenburg, forget Prince Caspian's cruel mockery of double
amputees, forget the fact that Harry Hood's blatant dairy lobbying is an
affront to vegans everywhere. Nay, You Enjoy Myself is easily Phish's
most offensive song to date.
First the title: You Enjoy Myself. Obviously, the subject at play
(ahem!) here is autoeroticism. However, examine the odd phrasing, the sly
grammatical error. The narrator seems to be addressing himself in a
rather awkward manner. The message is obvious: if you masturbate, you
will become delusional and start talking to yourself, a tired retread of
the misconception that masturbation induces insanity.
Next, the lyrics. Although a little spare in this department, the
words still reveal Phish's haughty contempt for that portion of the
population that pops off. 'Boy.' 'Man.' 'God.' 'Shit.' This can be taken
in two ways. The first interpretation is literal, an outline of one
masturbator's lifetime. He begins as a boy, continues as a man, and
then...? 'God' would seem to be a legitimization of onanism, but think
about it: what is God spelled backwards? The implication is inescapable:
the narrator begins as a boy, continues as a man, and ends up as dog
shit. The second interpretation is as a representation of the
masturbation act: starting in a boyish, embarrassed state, the
masturbator ascends to what he believes a nearly divine level (climax),
but quickly descends afterwards and feels like shit. To wit: jerking off
is an ultimately unsatisfying experience.
After this section, the band begins the "Wash uffitzi, drive me to
Firenze." Obviously, a uffitzi is some kind of Italian slang for
genitalia, although of which gender I am uncertain. The second part:
Firenze. Fire + nze. Fire = hell. Obviously, we are encountering thinly
veiled Christian Coalition propaganda here: Wash your uffitzi, and drive
to fire; masturbate (in the shower, where many do) and go to hell. And
what about the 'nze?' Rearrange the letters: zen. Think of a famous book
with zen in the title. Unless you're a complete idiot, Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance comes to mind. And, come on, what man hasn't
referred to his penis as a motorcycle on more than one occasion?
To sum up, You Enjoy Myself is nothing more than Phish's sophomoric
and offensive ribbing of those of us who prefer to masturbate. Only after
years and years of counseling, group therapy, and constant, unending
masturbation have I been able to overcome the pain that this song has
caused me. Flame me if you must (and I know that you will, after seeing
the reaction to the "Your newest fan" letter about a month back), but I
implore you, petition Phish to get rid of this horrible, horrible song.
-Chris Chappell
Dhkdhk
bravo, art.
peace,
christian
CBertolet
ok, one last time.
moacir wrote:
>>>I haven't been in a classroom in over a
year, and even when I was taking classes I was far better known for
cutting them than for being inculcated by them. (Besides, UofC is full
of reactionary objectivist hacks who would look at my posts and yell
yell yell)>>>
YOU'RE a reactionary hack (though admittedly not objectivist)!
>>>This isn't a question of morals. This is a question of oppression. No
one who reads rmp should, I think, be in favour of oppression. It just
has a funny way of sneaking around.>>>
This is your point, if I understand you correctly. That there's a turd in
the fruitcake and we're all unqittingly passing it from person to person
because we've lost our capacity to smell shit. Right? Well, I don't buy
it. Are there misogynists in the world? Mo'debly. Are they running the
world under our noses? Certainly not.
>>>[my text] And if you can name one concrete way in
>which Suzy Greenberg contributes to sexism, I'll eat Fishman.
by presenting, in a positive and impressionable way (i.e. song lyrics
which are wonderfully mnemonic), justifications for misogyny.>>>
HOW?? You can't simply state such bold hypotheses as if they were fact
without support. WHERE is misogyny justified in the lyrics to that third
person song? Where is the value judgment made about the narrator's
disdain (even if it is sexist on the narrator's part -- which it's not)?
>>>Refer to my parallels between Jimmy and Suzy.>>>
No, because those parallels aren't even slightly valid. Your lineup
example, as Gordon pointed out, is both improperly assumptive and useless
as a comparison. I have never, ever ever considered that Suzy could have
been a prostitute, btw, as it's not in my nature to assume that people who
use bipedal ambulation on public thoroughfares must be hookers. But it's
certainly in yours.
>>>MASH was also made several years ago, before a better sense of
misogyny was understood. Furthermore, the movie is indeed a satire,
but one serving up the folly of the military and war. To make a
parallel, you would have to say that "Suzy" serves up the folly of
relationship. I don't think it does. It's hateful before it's ironic.>>>
Well, we'll have to disagree on that count.
>>>But, while you were quoting him [Freud] you were also taking the easy
way
out. The text is never just the text, since the second you look
at/listen to it, you immediately place your perspective on it. A cigar
is never a cigar. If a cigar is sometimes a cigar, then I ask you, is
there an absolute truth?>>>
I was trying to make a point about the limited usefulness of
decontructionism as a problem solving tool. Breaking things you find
problematic into its smallest components to find the wrench in the works
is a fun way to while away the afternoon, but it always ends up a being
bigger mess than it was in the first place. My point is that it IS
possible to think too hard about something -- which you have done.....in
spades. The simplest solution is to look at the intent behind the song,
which dissecting the lyrics can't show you. Listen to the tone. Consider
the source. Better yet, watch the behavior of people before, during and
after the song is played. You won't see much there worth getting worked
up about -- I promise you.
>>>>comprehension. You're politically correct as hell -- you just don't
>realize it because you've been brainwashed. Step into the real
whereas I could be so bold as to say you've been brainwashed by a
society hardwired to hate women. But I won't, since I don't know you.>>>
BTW......my fiancee who is standing here next to me suggests that perhaps
you should use your impulse to help women in far more productive
ways.....focus on things that are seriously impacting women directly --
like volunteering at an abused women's shelter.
Gotta run....it's been fun.
Dan Epstein
Actually, Suzie Greenburg should not be taken out of the rotation. It
is a good, fun song. I don't care if its mysogynistic, its a good
song. If you are arguing that it should be taken out of the rotation
b/c it speaks poorly of women in general, then FUCK OFF. The song is a
joke. It is making fun of a childhood/adolescent friend. It is the
ultimate tribute to the real Suzie Greenburg. BTW, the real "Suzie"
spells her name "Suzy" and rights for "Seinfeld," just watch the opening
credits some time. I think the song is the band's way of poking
fun/getting back at the real Suzy for either breaking one of their or a
friends heart. If poets such as Shakspeare and Poe can write poetry
about lost loves, Phish can certainly sing about it. In closing, I
think Suzie really broke the heart of a friend of the band named Steve.
Listen to the Flynn 97 show Suzie. Before the first chorus Trey says,
"I know you're out there Steve," as if maybe the song was written for
him.
yats ot ereh si "eizuS,"
Dan Epstein
"Remember friends, always drink upstream from the heard." Ranger Doug
Matt Monaco
i'm not flaming, but i must say that what is below is one of the most
ridiculous things i've read on this newsgroup.....
oh well, just my two cents...
bouncin
Always Bouncin' Round The Room.....
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Monaco
http://bouncin-home.base.org - Bouncin's Homepage
http://tapetrading.base.org - Tape Trading
http://bouncin.base.org - PHiSH Page
http://pagey.base.org -Zeppelin Page
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CBertolet
Matt,
Plug your sense of humor back in. Someone must've tripped over the cord.
gordon sharpless
>i'm not flaming, but i must say that what is below is one of the most
>ridiculous things i've read on this newsgroup.....
>oh well, just my two cents...
Umm, yeah, right, sure. You're really on top of things these days.
Gordon
PJR430
i dont really give a shit about the fact that its mean to any one person
or offends anyone. its a kick ass song with a hell of a good jam led by
page. i think all of this nonsense debating whether it is gender biased
should be dropped and people should be talking about how pissed they are
that they will no longer be able to hear it. thats what upsets me!!!!--
PJ
Mike Pelczarski
I think that if Phish was really an evil misogynistic group of guys they
wouldn't have done that Voters for Choice benefit with Gloria Steinem
(sp) back in 95.
They also would have covered The Mentor's LP "Up The Dose" last
Halloween instead of the Talking Heads. :)
my .02
mike
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Waiting for waves is OK, some people spend their
lives waiting for nothing"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.javanet.com/~pella
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MOE-L TREE structures:
http://www.javanet.com/~pella/moetrees.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
margaret russo
Actually, I might be wrong here, but I think that Trey said that at the
Flynn in reference to Steve Pollack, aka Dude of Life, who wrote the
song. Correct if I'm wrong, please.
-Derek
flaccid erudition
p...@ti.com posted:
>flaccid erudition pontificated:
>>
>> han...@panther.middlebury.edu, in possession of stacks upon stacks
>> more academic credentials than I, posted:
>
>First off, this condescending attitude is entirely unwarranted. Are you
>actually arrogant enough to think that because you've earned a few
>pieces of paper, your opinions on misonogy and male/female relations are
>automatically beyond reproach? The fact that you might have (in your
>thinking) "better" acedemic credentials than Kim doesn't change the fact
>that you are expressing an _opinion_, and only an opinion.
Um... Here's what I wrote: "[Kim], in possession of stacks upon stacks
more academic credentials than I, posted:"
I'm still trying to see how that became "you might have ... 'better'
acedemic [sic] credentials than Kim."
My comment was hardly sarcastic, and it brought in Mr. Bertolet's fury
over his perception of my being an academic.
--m
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
So Buddha says: 'I don't hafta take this sound. I'll by God metabolize
my own junk.' --W.S.Burroughs
flaccid erudition
Reese <rre...@wpo.it.luc.edu> posted:
>moa...@earth.uchicago.edu (flaccid erudition) wrote:
>
>women back about 200 years. I admit that America does have its problems,
>but misogyny is _not_ a cultural reality. We may be animals, but we're
It's nearly indelibly built into Western society. That makes it a
cultural reality.
>Hardly. IMO, Suzy's qualities are representative of Suzy the individual,
>and not all women. Any problems are either the author's or the
I agree, to an extent. The song is constructed in a way that Suzy
bears the brunt of the criticism. My problem is, though, that the
complaints with Suzy, coupled with some of the wording, creates a very
tiny inductive hop from Suzy as individual to Suzy as tool for
misogynist dissemination.
>This is a pretty stupid song. What is more important, however, is how you
Which is a common excuse given about "Suzy Greenberg." Cute, isn't it?
>were able to sterotype "the black man" so easily. Makes me wonder...
That I am aware of stereotyping in the US and know what some of those
stereotypes are?
>Whether your song is racist or not is entirely up to the reader/listener,
>depending on one's interpretation. Racism is also more apparent to the
CORRECT! The same is true for Suzy. That's one of the points I'm
getting at. The way the song is built, it resonates with a lot of
horrible issues surrounding stereotyping. If the narrator's complaints
with Suzy were either less broad or entirely different, the song would
be too. As I think I've mentioned before, writing a song about how
much you hate an ex-girlfriend is not inherently misogynist--but when
the lyrics tie themselves up in a jargon of stereotype, then it
becomes trouble.
>some of the things you say, but who cares? The fact that you've taken a
>Phish song this seriously is quite disturbing. What did you expect us to
>do? Protest outside of venues? Leave a show if Suzy is played? Maybe we
>should just boycott Phish?
First, I don't think that there can be an issue of "seriously"
here. "Suzy Greenberg" exists as a text, along with the fortune cookie
I got at a restaurant yesterday or _Ulysses_. All deserve to be taken
seriously since all are documents of our society. I don't expect
anybody to respond in anyway anti-Phish regarding this song. I just
consider it an unfortunate part of a rather wonderful
repertoire. That's all. And the reason I find it so unfortunate is
since lyrically, the song is offensive.
>I question your intent in all of this...you
>might have just wanted a little attention.
Bah. This is USENET. What's the intent of anything?
>Jimmy Jack Johnson (is this supposed to be a stereotypical name?) is
>_your_ creation of negative stereotypes about African Americans.
Jimmy Jack Johnson is actually an allusion to _A Tribute to Jack
Johnson_. I admit he is my creation of negative stereotypes, but then
Suzy Greenberg, is a creation of the author of the song--even if he is
basing her on a real person.
>It's nice that you know your history, but unless you're Black, or a
>woman, you don't really know shit. Being an African-American is difficult
>in this country. Being a woman is difficult in this country. Outside of
>that, you can't really compare the two.
I'm just talking about oppression. Both identities have suffered/still
duffer from oppression. I don't try to say that I understand either
the African-American or the female's life. I'm realistic about
that.
>You think too much, and anyone agreeing with you doesn't think enough.
>Consider re-directing your energy. Your search for the "truth" has left
>you completely missing the point.
I'm not searching for truth. I'm just trying to wipe a window to this
song clean.
>What happened to all the fun in the world?
I have no idea what this has to with the post.
--m
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
flaccid erudition
pale...@philly.infi.net (gordon sharpless) posted:
>clue, man. You may not have set foot in a classroom for over a year,
>but what you are reading into this song is frighteningly consistant
>with the post modernist deconstructionalist thought so horribly
>prevelant on college campuses these days. Anyway, please read on...
Hmmm. Funny thing is, my read on Suzy is amazing in how
non-deconstructionist it is (to the point where it surprises
me). Futhermore, I wouldn't call anything here postmodern--save the
allusions to the Lockhorns, maybe.
>No, but by advocating the suppression of a song which *you* find
>offensive, you promote the denial of freedom of expression, whether
>you mean to or not doesn't matter, that is the result. The most
That's not it at all. I'm not suggesting that the thought police march
down to the Great Went and take Phish to Miniluv. As I just mentioned
in a previous post, I think that the song should be taken out of the
rotation since it's a blight. Another poster might make the claim that
"Sample" should be taken out of the rotation since it's boring. That
poster is making the same claim I am.
>Change doesn't occur by dictating what terminolgy I use or what songs
>I listen to.
Of course it doesn't. I'm searching my previous posts for references
to tape burnings and Congressional interventions, but I'm not finding
them since they don't exist. I'm pointing out that "Suzy Greenberg" is
a misogynist song. Therefore, the band should have the conscience to
remove it from rotation. That's it. If they keep it there, that
doesn't mean they're being misogynists, it just means that they don't
see it like I do.
>suspect is the black man. That's a ridiculous example. Third, there is
>nothing racist an identifying a black person as a black person. Just
Of course there isn't. But in those circumstances, the connections
made cause trouble.
>There is no stereotyping if the man in the middle who committed the
>crime *IS* black. How about if he had a big nose and you said "the man
>with the big nose". Would that be insensitive to respiratory orifice
>enhanced individuals?
If there were a society and justice system built, among other things,
upon the stereotype that big-nosed people are criminals, yes.
>Which makes you perceptive to the thought processes of women how?
Where do I suggest that I understand what women think?
--m
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
flaccid erudition
us...@srmdel.demon.co.uk (Michael Lacy) posted:
>'Suzy walks the street like she's the queen of the town'
>
>I have never met anyone who interpreted this to mean she was a prostitute!
>Yes, 'streetwalking' is slang for prostitution, but it is very far fetched
>for you to read this definition into the song, considering its context. It
I disagree entirely. The context is what is so key here, after all. To
me, the line (by the way, you unfairly help your argument by replacing
"The woman" with "Suzy" and "streets" with "street." First, the whole
issue is that Suzy is generalised to be a woman, and not an
individual, and second, "walk the streets," like "streetwalker" is
slang for prostitution. I've heard that several times.) is about
prostitution (at least the first half) on the face of it. But context
is key here! The rest of the verse deals with (among other things)
issues of infidelity and insincerity--suggesting that Suzy is a woman
with many men. In other words, a whore.
>Translation: before Political Correctness turned half of America into
>sanctimonious nit-picking bores with no sense of humour and a propensity to
>over-analyse and find fault in everything that crossed their path.
How quaint. Life was good in the 50s, wasn't it? Women were making
nowhere near the same as men (the ones that could even deal with the
stigma of not being June Cleaver), abortion was illegal, segregation
was the norm, and the whole nation was convinced that Hollywood was a
giant communist plot to overthrow the USA. I'm oversimplifying and
being partly snotty with this, so I apologise, but I'm pointing out
that what you call "political correctness," I call efforts to make
this nation fit Jefferson's assertion that "all men are created
equal."
--m
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
flaccid erudition
cber...@aol.com (CBertolet) posted:
>it. Are there misogynists in the world? Mo'debly. Are they running the
>world under our noses? Certainly not.
I agree. My complaint rests that society tolerates misogyny to the
point of in many instances not noticing it.
>been a prostitute, btw, as it's not in my nature to assume that people who
>use bipedal ambulation on public thoroughfares must be hookers. But it's
>certainly in yours.
So if someone says, "uhoh--you broke Dad's chair, you're in the
doghouse now!" you assume yourself to be within a tiny abode fit for a
canine out in the backyard? Of course literally there is nothing there
to feast on, but that's the wonder of language--we have metatexts
flying all over the place, waiting to sink their teeth into us while
we aren't paying attention.
>I was trying to make a point about the limited usefulness of
>decontructionism as a problem solving tool. Breaking things you find
Again...deconstruction comes up... *boggle*
>you should use your impulse to help women in far more productive
>ways.....focus on things that are seriously impacting women directly --
>like volunteering at an abused women's shelter.
I would just like to point out that I'm rather surprised that you so
willingly assume that this is not already the case. (but then,
baseless assumptions have sadly been a tar dragging your otherwise
lucid responses down, imo)
--m
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
Scott Silton
Moacir writes:
>That's not it at all. I'm not suggesting that the thought police march
>down to the Great Went and take Phish to Miniluv. As I just mentioned
>in a previous post, I think that the song should be taken out of the
>rotation since it's a blight. Another poster might make the claim that
>"Sample" should be taken out of the rotation since it's boring. That
>poster is making the same claim I am.
No, that poster isn't making the same claim at *all*. That poster is making a
judgement about the entertainment value of the song in question. That poster
is not interpreting the content of a song and suggesting that it be taken out
of rotation based on that (politically informed) interpretation.
>Of course it doesn't. I'm searching my previous posts for references
>to tape burnings and Congressional interventions, but I'm not finding
>them since they don't exist. I'm pointing out that "Suzy Greenberg" is
>a misogynist song. Therefore, the band should have the conscience to
>remove it from rotation. That's it. If they keep it there, that
>doesn't mean they're being misogynists, it just means that they don't
>see it like I do.
No, and neither do the majority of posters who have responded to the thread.
We do not agree that Suzie is a misogynist song simply because it evokes the
stereotypes you have grown up around. I don't know if anyone has had the guts
to say this so far, but there is often a grain of truth in stereotypes... for
example, there _are_ a lot of effeminate gay men out there, but it does not
follow that all gay men are effeminate or that all effeminate men are
gay (the truth in this case being obscured by those gay folk that are
closeted). It has been demonstrated that men are more likely to cheat on
their spouses than women... and, not surprisingly, there is a recognizable
image of men being, um, how is it usually put? "Pigs" ? Of course this
isn't applied to all men, but it can be applied... if a guy cheats on you,
then he's been a "pig", a "jerk" and an "asshole" -- not because he's a guy,
but because of what he did. When women write songs about how insensitive
their (ex) boyfriend was, do men crowd around and complain about what an
unfair stereotype the 'insensitive male' image is? I don't think so... some
of us men recognize that we are insensitive jerks from time to time (sic) :)
The converse stereotypes are also sometime true. No amount of P.C. is going
to keep me from saying that a certaian Rebecca I knew in college was a
class-A 100% USDA certified BITCH. Just because I really hated this certain
person -- for reasons one might identify as being part of a bitchy woman
stereotype (she was bossy, curt, and manipulative) -- does not make me assume
that all other women tend to act this way. However some do, and those that do
to excess get a nasty label like "bitch" to describe their personality. Don't
ask me why, when men act this way they are called "Assholes" instead of
"Bitch" (unless they are gay men talking to one another... being effeminate
hehehe), but the negative judgement is not left to the imagination, and that's
the point. I'd love to be clever enought to write a song about annoying,
bossy, bitchy, man-hating Rebecca someday, but I better first make sure the
leftist fringe has accepted my liberal credentials first. One wonders what
Fishman's reaction to all this might be. I reckon he'd say "Suzie was an
annoying bitch and we wrote a song about what an annoying bitch she was.
That's all I have to say".
Scott
PS: The Rebecca in question was also a genius... absolutely brilliant... but I
doubt that I'll include that in my upcoming hate-song rant about her on my
forthcoming album... it would kinda dilute the point of the song if I were to
construct a realistic, qualified, sensitive way of calling her a bitch. She's
a bitch.
Sister Mary Carmen
i have to agree with people who think that argueing over the misogynistic
undertones of suzie is silly. if i had to take all the lyrics of all the
bands i listen to that personally and be offended by their misogynistic
undertones, then i would have to stop listening to A LOT of music i enjoy.
maybe we should discuss why we like the song instead of why it offends us.
peace,
sister mary carmen, who spent all night listening to the Who and the
Rolling Stones (how much more misogynistic can you get) and enjoyed every
minute off it.
--
"Does anyone else feel weird when putting
their hand inside a puppet?"
-Sister Mary Carmen
SisterMa...@worldnet.att.net
"You know what Frank Zappa is?"
"No, what?"
"He's WEIRD!!!!!!"
- a very "happy" Schmegan
CBertolet
moacir wrote:
>>>been a prostitute, btw, as it's not in my nature to assume that people
who
>use bipedal ambulation on public thoroughfares must be hookers. But it's
>certainly in yours.
So if someone says, "uhoh--you broke Dad's chair, you're in the
doghouse now!" you assume yourself to be within a tiny abode fit for a
canine out in the backyard? Of course literally there is nothing there
to feast on, but that's the wonder of language--we have metatexts
flying all over the place, waiting to sink their teeth into us while
we aren't paying attention.>>>
Of course I don't assume he's literally in the dog's house. That's
because the most common context ("metatext" is a word I've never heard,
but can grasp enough Latin to know that it means a "larger context") is
the figurative, not the literal. But when you say someone is walking the
streets, the most common context is not prostitution. The person could be
anything from a runaway to a cop to a cumquat vendor to a businessman --
any of these is as likely as a prostitute. My point is that you're
finding "metatexts" where there are none.
>>>>I was trying to make a point about the limited usefulness of
>decontructionism as a problem solving tool. Breaking things you find
Again...deconstruction comes up... *boggle*>>>
Well, it happens to be the structure you've chosen to make your argument.
Do the words "hoisted on your own petard" mean anything to you? ;) But
aside from the insipid one-upsmanship I'm infamous for, I just want you to
examine your own methods of critical thinking -- which have clearly been
taught to you. Deconstructionism isn't necessarily a bad tool for problem
solving -- it's just a tool for solving low-order problems, i.e. problems
with little or no subjectivity involved. This isn't one of those.
>>>>you should use your impulse to help women in far more productive
>ways.....focus on things that are seriously impacting women directly --
>like volunteering at an abused women's shelter.
I would just like to point out that I'm rather surprised that you so
willingly assume that this is not already the case. (but then,
baseless assumptions have sadly been a tar dragging your otherwise
lucid responses down, imo)>>>
I don't assume this isn't already the case. Given how passionate you are,
I assumed you were doing something. But the issue is opportunity costs.
If you're spending all this time defending an indefensible position, it
stands to reason that your time could be used to do *more* of whatever
constructive work you do.
Obligatory Phish content -- anyone with enough sick patience to wade
through all this bullshit should post their favorite version of Suzy
Greenberg, with a brief reason as to why. I'd like to celebrate the most
maligned song in the repertoire as long as I'm defending it.
Michael Lacy
In article <19970630062...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cber...@aol.com (CBertolet) wrote:
>Obligatory Phish content -- anyone with enough sick patience to wade
>through all this bullshit should post their favorite version of Suzy
>Greenberg, with a brief reason as to why. I'd like to celebrate the most
>maligned song in the repertoire as long as I'm defending it.
Any version with the Giant Country Horns!
Mike Lacy
Michael Lacy
In article <ECKG...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
moa...@earth.uchicago.edu (flaccid erudition) wrote:
>us...@srmdel.demon.co.uk (Michael Lacy) posted:
>
>>'Suzy walks the street like she's the queen of the town'
>>
>>I have never met anyone who interpreted this to mean she was a prostitute!
>>Yes, 'streetwalking' is slang for prostitution, but it is very far fetched
>>for you to read this definition into the song, considering its context. It
>
>I disagree entirely. The context is what is so key here, after all. To
>me, the line (by the way, you unfairly help your argument by replacing
>"The woman" with "Suzy" and "streets" with "street."
??!!What are you on about! How the hell is that supposed to - no, wait, I
don't want you to explain... You could pick the nits off of nits!!
>First, the whole
>issue is that Suzy is generalised to be a woman,
Suzy _is_ a woman!! How many blokes do you know called Suzy!
>and not an individual,
Of coures she is an individual, you daft git! What else is she supposed to
be, a collective!?
>and second, "walk the streets," like "streetwalker" is
>slang for prostitution. I've heard that several times.)
And queen is slang for cross-dresser. I still want to know if you think
that Suzy is in drag as she jiggles down the street soliciting sex.
> is about
>prostitution (at least the first half) on the face of it. But context
>is key here! The rest of the verse deals with (among other things)
>issues of infidelity and insincerity--suggesting that Suzy is a woman
>with many men. In other words, a whore.
The most uncharitable conclusion would be 'slut', since a 'whore' is a
professional. I see no reference to the exchange of money for sexual
favours in the song.
A woman walks the streets = whore
A woman who (may be) insincere = whore
A woman who (may be) unfaithful = whore
A woman who (may be) with many men = whore
Sounds to me like your are the one with the misogyny hangup. I, at least,
do not immediately jump to the most misogynistic concluson about a woman's
character when confronted by any of those lyrics. You should seek therapy.
>>Translation: before Political Correctness turned half of America into
>>sanctimonious nit-picking bores with no sense of humour and a propensity to
>>over-analyse and find fault in everything that crossed their path.
>
>How quaint. Life was good in the 50s, wasn't it? Women were making
>nowhere near the same as men (the ones that could even deal with the
>stigma of not being June Cleaver), abortion was illegal, segregation
>was the norm, and the whole nation was convinced that Hollywood was a
>giant communist plot to overthrow the USA. I'm oversimplifying and
>being partly snotty with this, so I apologise, but I'm pointing out
>that what you call "political correctness," I call efforts to make
>this nation fit Jefferson's assertion that "all men are created
>equal."
First of all, MASH wasn't written in the 50's, which if the original
context of my posting was restored, it can be seen to refer to;
>>cber...@aol.com (CBertolet) posted:
>>Watch MASH, for Christ sakes, one of the best satires ever written for the
>>>screen. If you can get through that one without your hair-trigger
>>>sexismeter going kaflooie, I'll give you a prize.
>>
moa...@earth.uchicago.edu (flaccid erudition) wrote:
>>MASH was also made several years ago, before a better sense of
>>misogyny was understood.
>
>Translation: before Political Correctness turned half of America into
>sanctimonious nit-picking bores with no sense of humour and a propensity to
>over-analyse and find fault in everything that crossed their path.
As you your tirade in support of political correctness, I think it is
rather bold, to put it mildly, to imply that PC (a fairly recent
phenomenon) is in any way responsible for the advances in American civil
rights since the '50s. Bullshit, to put it less mildly.
And political correctness is not about equality, it is about revenge, about
'turning the tables', and thus it carries within it the seeds of its own
destruction; what goes around, comes around, and the further you push the
pendulum to any one side, the further it will swing back when the time
comes. Political correctness is the McCarthyism of the Left, and we all
know what happened after McCarthy had his day don't we? Backlash to the
summer of love. American Liberals are squandering a historic opportunity
to make real and lasting changes in the country by resorting to petty
revenge and engendering class conflict, when they could be building bridges
and nurturing consenus. When the right-wing backlash arrives (and it is
already gathering force) they will have no one to blame but themselves.
'Political Correctness, - the latest half-baked pseudo-intellectual trend
to be spewed forth from the People's Republic of California - is based upon
an intolerant left-leaning political agenda of social engineering being
propagated by a minority of 'intellectuals' who are abusing their positions
in academe and the press to enforce their views by introducing an Orwellian
'newspeak' that seeks to control peoples thoughts and actions by subtly
altering the language - just like in '1984'.
Political correctness will fail because, to paraphrase Shakespeare (you
know, one of those "Dead White Men" so dispariaged by the PC crowd) 'a
rose by any other name is still a rose,' and by corallary, 'a pile of shit
by any other name will still draw flies' Political correctness is a
shallow and superficial ritual for middle-class Americans to flog
themselves with liberal guilt. It, of course, does absolutely nothing for
those it proclaims to champion, and in fact makes matters worse by
trivialising important social issues, and engendering a smouldering sense
of grievance in those who are unable to claim the status of 'victim' - the
most exalted status in the PC world order, as it allows the maximum
leverage for the emotional blackmail that is the driving force behind it.
Robert Hughes, in his book "The Culture of Complaing: the Fraying of
America", pretty much says it all about PC;
>"Just as language grotesquely inflates in atack, so it timidly shrinks in
>approbation, seeking words that cannot possibly give any offense, however
>notional. We do not fail, we underachive. We are not junkies, but
>substance abusers; not handicapped, but differently abled...If these
>affected controtions actually made people treat one another with more
>civility and understanding, there might be an argument for them. But they
>do no such thing. Seventy years ago, in polite white usage, blacks were
>called "coloured people." Then they became "negroes". Then, "blacks".
>Now, "African Americans" or "persons of colour" again. But for millions of
>white Americans, from the time of George Wallace to that of David Duke,
>they stayed niggers, and the shift of names has not altered the facts of
>racism, any more than the ritual announcements of Five-Year Plans and Great
>Leaps Foreward turned the social disasters of Stalanism and Maoism into
>triumphs...No shifting of words is going to reduce the amount of bigotry in
>this or any other society. But it does increase what the military mind so
>lucidly calls collateral damage in a target-rich environment - namely, the
>wounding of innocent language."
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Mike Lacy
Grendel
Some final thoughts on this thread before it winds down.
I never did get a reply from Mr. Erudition, which I will merrily take as
a sign of victory, rather than a sign that my post did not make his
server! BTW, I harbor a sneaking suspicion that based on his handle the
author of the post is having a little fun with us. Unfortunately, the
content makes me belive otherwise. I will state again that I think
there were some very good points made in the original post, and some
even better ones made in response. But most people are missing the
large picture here.
I agree with much of the "Suzie" deconstruction, in terms of potential
subtext and meaning. While it is true that the Dude was no doubt
seeking to disparage Suzie alone with the song, that's not what
necessarily comes out. I think people hide from themselves what goes on
in the brain. Personally, I know that upon breaking up with women in
the past, I have slandered them with comments not necessarily drawn from
their actual flaws but from perceived flaws of women in general. Does
that make sense? The same thing has been done to me, i.e. I've been
accused of personifying male stereotypes that are not necessarily
present in my personality. If this isn't clear I'll expound on it by
request, otherwise I won't waste the bandwidth. But the point is I
enjoyed reading Suzie as a metaphor for the way men shackle women with
stereotypes. (And they do -- anyone who doesn't believe that is living
in a fantasy world similiar to that of our Ivory Tower friend.)
But--
Deconstruction is a dangerous thing. The debate over "street-walking"
is a good example. The phrase "walking the street" does frequently
refer to prostitution, and it can even do so in unlikely or
unintentional contexts. But you cannot see it as *always* or
*absolutely* having that meaning. Example: I had a literature teacher
once who spent a day ranting about the word "history". She broke it
down for us and pointed out that it was his/story, i.e. history is the
story of men. She wanted to refer to it as "herstory". This being an
early morning class, I did not even realize that the time that "history"
comes from the Latin word "historia". And in Latin, "his" is *not* a
masculine pronoun. So here we see an example of taking the
deconstruction of words/text too far, and not applying common sense
while we do. Not every instance of "his" refers to men, not every
reference to "walking the street" refers to prostitution.
That said, you can still take any street-walking phrase and see how the
rest of the text looks if you take it to mean prostitution. There's a
Bill Morrissey song that features the line "I can walk down these
streets tonight and not feel a thing." The song is definately not about
a male prostitute, but I could have fun picking it apart that way. This
ties back into my Hamlet as homosexual thing. Hamlet doesn't have to be
gay for you to enjoy reading the text as if he was, but believing he has
to be because of textual clues is fallacy. Only the author knows for
sure, and they might not know either! Deconstruction is meant to help
us understand the text better, and understand ourselves better. Is it
not meant to be a tool for some f*cking witch hunt!
My girlfriend spent the last two years of college concentrating on
women's studies classes. Through her I've been exposed to a variety of
views on male/female interaction, from Andrea Dworkin to Camille
Paglia. I've learned a good deal about how much sexism and misogyny
escapes my notice because of my gender. I've also learned how anything
can be seen as supporting one's perspective if it's twisted around
enough. The author would have done well to take his hysterical (and I
use that word with specific intent) rants down a few notches, perhaps
simply stimulating a discussion about what the lyrics of "Suzie" mean to
each of us, rather than a blanket call for Suzie's execution. And some
(not all) of the follow up post would have done well to acknowledge thet
there are issues of gender stereotypes to be contemplated in the
lyrics. IMHO, a good balance point can be found with my highly educated
girlfriend, who has no trouble seeing Dude shows with me (4 for 4 on
World Tours!) and dancing to "She's Bitching Again", but would no doubt
put me right in my place if I ever made reference to her "bitching".
Grendel.
Charles Dirksen
CBertolet (cber...@aol.com) wrote:
: Well, it happens to be the structure you've chosen to make your argument.
Neither one of you knows what "deconstruction" means. Stop offending
Derridean scholars with your phallocentric imperialism. ;)
Deconstruction ISN'T. Doesn't exist. Is neither a tool nor a technique.
: Obligatory Phish content -- anyone with enough sick patience to wade
: through all this bullshit should post their favorite version of Suzy
: Greenberg, with a brief reason as to why. I'd like to celebrate the most
: maligned song in the repertoire as long as I'm defending it.
I think Suzy Greenberg should be taken out and SHOT as an overplayed,
usually very boring, misogynistic p.o.s.. but that's just my two cents.
I've seen and heard that damn song enough to be SICK. However..
since you asked, my favorite versions of Suzy have to be 11/13/96
Target and 12/31/96. Both of them contain extended jam segments. The
11/13 version truly smokes. They LAUNCH into a raging jam right at Suzy's
end, basically, and it is a melodious, awe-inspiring hose-everyone-off
groove. Not the typical so-boring-you-can-conduct-it Suzy jam segment.
12/31/96's version is fairly dull and repetitive, with a lot of the same
old same old from Trey on the percussion kit, but I still enjoyed it at
the show and enjoy it on tape. These are certainly remarkable versions.
If you've heard the 11/22/94 Funky Bitch->JAM, though, then you have heard
something similar in power and majesty to the 11/13/96 Suzy->Jam (and vice
versa, imo). I imagine many would prefer that 11/22/94 Funky Bitch-> jam
though..
two cents
charlie
flaccid erudition
dirk...@dons.ac.usfca.edu ( Charles Dirksen) posted:
>CBertolet (cber...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: Well, it happens to be the structure you've chosen to make your argument.
>
>Neither one of you knows what "deconstruction" means. Stop offending
>Derridean scholars with your phallocentric imperialism. ;)
>
>Deconstruction ISN'T. Doesn't exist. Is neither a tool nor a technique.
>
Which is why I couldn't figure out why my shockingly (imo)
structuralist reading of Suzy was derided as deconstruction :)
Charlie, you should post to uchi.general and explain that to them
there...I've been trying for months to not explain what deconstruction
isn't.
--m
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
I bent my wookie --R. Wiggum
flaccid erudition
us...@srmdel.demon.co.uk (Michael Lacy) posted:
>
>Suzy _is_ a woman!! How many blokes do you know called Suzy!
she is not *only* a woman.
>Of coures she is an individual, you daft git! What else is she supposed to
>be, a collective!?
the lyrics of the song (to repeat myself) rob her of her individuality.
>that Suzy is in drag as she jiggles down the street soliciting sex.
no. drag doesn't come up in other parts of the song. Infidelity and
laissez-faire atitudes about relationships do.
>professional. I see no reference to the exchange of money for sexual
>favours in the song.
thanks for the nitpick.
>First of all, MASH wasn't written in the 50's, which if the original
>context of my posting was restored, it can be seen to refer to;
I know that, but the actions within the movie--the actions being
satired--did. Furthermore, "political correctness" has been around
with us since before the 50s. We just used to call it (before
Reactionary Reagan took control) "democracy" and "equality."
>to make real and lasting changes in the country by resorting to petty
>revenge and engendering class conflict, when they could be building bridges
>and nurturing consenus. When the right-wing backlash arrives (and it is
>already gathering force) they will have no one to blame but themselves.
bah. The class conflict already exists. The "PC" people are merely
poiting that out. Furthermore, liberals are building concensus on the
foundation of difference--ensuring that the varied pallette with which
this nation is painted retains its brilliant colour.
>Political correctness will fail because, to paraphrase Shakespeare (you
>know, one of those "Dead White Men" so dispariaged by the PC crowd) 'a
what a myth propagated by the white fascist regime. Shakespeare is
hardly disparaged by the "PC Crowd" or by academia. George Will and
other pseudo-intellectual fascists like to cry that William isn't
being taught anymore, but research proves that he still is. In
contrast to your cites, I encourage Levine's "Opening of the American
Mind," which explains why PC doesn't exist, and why the illusion of
leftists ruining the nation is a ruse concoted by overly reactionary
Republicans (like Diane (?) Cheney, Bill Benett, Rush Limbaugh, George
Will, and John Fund). If you want to count yourself among that party,
then, well, that's your choice. Furthermore John K. Wilson (a pride of
my school) has recently written a book available at your local Barnes
and Noble further explaining the absurdity of PC, and explaining
better than I everything above.
OPC: Which Phish song has the most egalitarian lyrics, in your opinion?
flaccid erudition
silt...@pop.service.ohio-state.edu (Scott Silton) posted:
>
>No, that poster isn't making the same claim at *all*. That poster is making a
>judgement about the entertainment value of the song in question. That poster
>is not interpreting the content of a song and suggesting that it be taken out
>of rotation based on that (politically informed) interpretation.
It's a question of aesthetics, Mr. Silton. That's all it has ever been
a question of. The lyrics of "Suzy Greenberg" are an aesthetic
abortion because they are so patently offensive. As a result, on
aesthetic grounds, the song should be retired. Sure, politics ties in
with aesthetic, but so might a distaste of diminished fifths.
>their (ex) boyfriend was, do men crowd around and complain about what an
>unfair stereotype the 'insensitive male' image is? I don't think so... some
speak for yourself. You seem to be tolerating stereotyping since there
is sometimes a bit of truth to it. To put another point on it--the
majority of violent crimes in my neighborhood are committed by
African-Americans. So therefore, all African-Americans should be
rounded up and searched on demand? Why the hell not? The stereotype of
black as criminal, buttressed by statistics showing that most violent
crimes are perpetrated by them seems to encourage this, as does your
post.
It's kind of like the recursive reasoning used by NYC cops in the 70s
(this story gratis my roommate's ex-NYPD father). They had developed a
profile of the person most likely to be a criminal, based on race,
gender, age, etc. At the same time, then, that was the type of person
they were bringing into the station for booking, increasing the
statistics that that type of person was the stereotypical criminal.
So stereotype became policy, since there was "a grain of truth" to it.
[hatred snipped]
flaccid erudition
cber...@aol.com (CBertolet) posted:
>the figurative, not the literal. But when you say someone is walking the
>streets, the most common context is not prostitution. The person could be
I agree.
>anything from a runaway to a cop to a cumquat vendor to a businessman --
>any of these is as likely as a prostitute. My point is that you're
>finding "metatexts" where there are none.
Now I disagree. If the line read "The cumquat dealer walks the
streets..." there would probably not be much to base an interpretation
of prosititution. But working in "the woman" instead changes
that. Just like if I said "you broke dad's chair, you're in the
chicken coop" you wouldn't understand the figurative. But by saying
"doghouse," you understand that I'm not describing literally your
physical location--but rather using an idiom.
>examine your own methods of critical thinking -- which have clearly been
>taught to you.
I wonder by whom. Oh yeah, my books. What a shame to base a mode of
thinking on the shoulders of giants.
>Deconstructionism isn't necessarily a bad tool for problem
>solving -- it's just a tool for solving low-order problems, i.e. problems
>with little or no subjectivity involved. This isn't one of those.
See Charlie's anger about the whole deconstruction as tool business.
"Arguing against deconstruction is like arguing against verbs" --my roommate.
>If you're spending all this time defending an indefensible position, it
>stands to reason that your time could be used to do *more* of whatever
>constructive work you do.
Point taken. I'll commit the 20 minutes/day of the past half-week I've
spent on rmp to a shelter from now on. That's absurd. Furthermore, I
resent your slippery technique of putting me, and not "Suzy Greenberg"
on trial here.
>Greenberg, with a brief reason as to why. I'd like to celebrate the most
>maligned song in the repertoire as long as I'm defending it.
Well, it wasn't the one at Halloween '95. Sure, the horns were fun and
everything, but Chris made a tiny mistake with the lights that sort of
turned it off. Furthermore, turning to my companion and saying "Suzy"
2 seconds before it starts just makes me think they're predictable ;)
Ken Morton
flaccid erudition wrote:
> OPC: Which Phish song has the most egalitarian lyrics, in your opinion?
Divided Sky, obviously.
Bruce Norbeck
Brothers & sisters,
Flaccid Eruditon writes:
> she is not *only* a woman.
>
>
> the lyrics of the song (to repeat myself) rob her
> of her individuality.
I have yet to see you complain about *Esther*,
though I'd imagine you'll get to it, shortly.
For the record, I've been wondering when some-
one would start claiming that *Suzy Greenburg* is a
misogynist song. I knew that, eventually, some overly-
sensitive sop would begin crying about the lyrics deni-
grating women, etc.
Personally, I think you're reading WAY TOO MUCH
into the lyrics, to claim that this song is about women
in general.
How many songs out there denigrate men, by por-
traying us all as lotharios, drunks, women-beaters, or
all of the above? Not necessarily by Phish, of course;
though, hey, what about Floyd, of *Fee*??? Isn't he the
epitome' of the conniving male pig?
Jeez, just dig the jam, & leave it at that. I'm
all in favor of outing racist, sexist, assholes, but I
really think, Friend Erudition, that you have WAY TOO
MUCH TIME on your hands.... :)
goddess bless,
--
bruce
bru...@etak.com (work); raf...@earthlink.net (home)
DAT list: http://www.earthlink.net/~rafayel/datlist.html
If you want peace, work for justice.
If you don't want either, work for the government.
flaccid erudition
Grendel <douglasa@*NOSPAM*usa1.com> posted:
>*absolutely* having that meaning. Example: I had a literature teacher
>once who spent a day ranting about the word "history". She broke it
>down for us and pointed out that it was his/story, i.e. history is the
>story of men. She wanted to refer to it as "herstory". This being an
>early morning class, I did not even realize that the time that "history"
>comes from the Latin word "historia". And in Latin, "his" is *not* a
>masculine pronoun. So here we see an example of taking the
No, it's still a valid point since the issue is that the presence of
the <his> connotes, albeit subconsciously, a masculine spin on the
word. A literature teacher in Ancient Rome couldn't make that case,
like you say, since there is no Latin connection between <eius> and
<historia>. But in English there is. An orthographic description of a
word, several have argued (before deconstruction even existed) has
trace and elements to tie it to other words. We may not understand how
<bat> and <cat> are related in our heads, but their similar spelling
does warrant study into a connection.
However, for me the study of the past is "history," and that's all. I
agree with your teacher's point, but don't advocate a retooling of the
language to accomodate it--but only since the effect is inferred in
unmeasurable ways.
flaccid erudition
Bruce Norbeck <bru...@etak.com> posted:
> I have yet to see you complain about *Esther*,
>though I'd imagine you'll get to it, shortly.
No dice. I wrote about Esther back in Summer of '94. I can't remember
quite what I had to say, but it tied into a condemnation of idolatry
and polytheism, if memory serves.
> For the record, I've been wondering when some-
>one would start claiming that *Suzy Greenburg* is a
>misogynist song. I knew that, eventually, some overly-
>sensitive sop would begin crying about the lyrics deni-
>grating women, etc.
You've been wondering that since you could tell that the lyrics were
misogynist and were waiting for someone with the verve to bring it to
the forefront.
> How many songs out there denigrate men, by por-
>traying us all as lotharios, drunks, women-beaters, or
Lots. But then, misandrony is not a cultural phenomenon that has been
a part of our society for millenia. When was the last time men were
oppressed because of their gender?
>really think, Friend Erudition, that you have WAY TOO
>MUCH TIME on your hands.... :)
That could very well be...but work does tend to lead to idling :)
(mmmm...tech support)
Kevin
First, I can't resist using this in reponse to the "Suzy" post:
"SHE SAYS SHE WANTS TO BE A SOCIOLOGIST
BUT SHE BETTER FIRST GET CHECKED BY A NEUROLOGIST"
-Phish, "Suzie Greenberg"
Included in Brian Gordon's (relation?) final line of response to this
somewhat aggravating post is a piece of wisdom I think the author of the
"Suzy" piece (and every reader of this newsletter) should keep in mind about
Phish:
}That's the beauty of music... it's open to interpretation. It doesn't
}need to be serious or responsible, just entertaining.
Ultimately, if the context and the culture of the Phish experience are taken
away, Phish is just entertainment. As in the baseball world, where fans
keep track of games with box scores and players with cards, Phish fans
monitor shows with setlists, newsletters, and tapes. Perhaps it is a way to
feel connected when away from the ballpark or concert environment, but
essentially it is an entertaining hobby.
The wonderful thing about Phish, however, is that everything that goes along
with an experience of their music (lights, dance, antics, drugs (for some),
the people, their feelings) can combine to create quite an emotional
experience. And the music becomes a symbol of this experience. And their
music, intertwining improvisations on a large and changing repertoire, is SO
open to interpretation, that Phish as a whole is likely to be understood in
many different ways (the number increasing as the band grows in popularity).
But as far as Suzie goes (spelling note: All my tapes, over all the years,
have always used "Suzie", as does Dean Budnick (_The Phishing Manual_), so I
do, too), to say that it promotes or even suggests misogyny [did you just
pick this up in a Social Science intro course] is extremely far out of the
realm of possible interpretations, at least assuming that valid
interpretations include the motives of the artist. And neither the Dude of
Life nor Phish (who began with the song 10 years ago) has a desire to
encourage a sexually segregated society or disrupt the gender power balance
in their fan base.
So just relax, and look for injustice in an unjust place, not within the
Phish community. And hope that they don't stop playing this great song; the
atmosphere at a show when those huge bulbs flood the audience with light is
an intense feeling of joy. Enjoy it.
KJS
Final note:
"The Lockhorns" runs in every major American newspaper with a comic page and
"Home Improvement" is still a very highly viewed program. I don't think
either one paints a desirable picture of ideal gender roles, but neither has
been placed on a "shitpile," except maybe in academia.
charlz franz
Ken Morton wrote:
> > OPC: Which Phish song has the most egalitarian lyrics, in your opinion?
>
> Divided Sky, obviously.
Weigh, indubitably.
Charlz
Martin Acaster
flaccid erudition <moa...@earth.uchicago.edu> wrote in article
>
> That could very well be...but work does tend to lead to idling :)
> (mmmm...tech support)
>
> --m
>
Tech Support
did you say tech support
hahahahahhahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
free time
hahahhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
the phones
they never STOP RINGING
I HEAR THEM IN MY SLEEP
MAKE THEM STOP
please........MAKE THEM ......stop
Synchronicity
that's what it is
you read a post about bob zimmerman
he calls on the phone
aahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhgggghhhh
you hear jaqcues cousteau is dead....you tell the person you are on the
phone with...they are sad because they did a whale dive with cousteau...
the coincidences never end
marty
our names even start with M.......hey didn't phish do an entire set in our
honor????
--
"I Like Phish" Nigel Tufnel(Spinal Tap)
Robes7
cber...@aol.com (CBertolet) wrote:
>Obligatory Phish content -- anyone with enough sick patience to wade
>through all this bullshit should post their favorite version of Suzy
>maligned song in the repertoire as long as I'm defending it.
Sweet, sweet stuff. C'mon!! Suzie's always great to hear.
Nuff Said,
-Robes
jason kelly
You my friend are a very confused and delusional individial! First of
all at least know the background of the subject of which you speak!
While no individual may lay claim to what is exactly intended in the
artists initial meaning of the lyrics of a song, you have gone above and
beyond the self interpretation for self promotion of alleviating guily
feelings and other shortcomings. (please don't interpret the word as
sexual innuendo.) But what I have always believed, and again this is
only one person's opinion, is the main thrust(more innuendo for you) of
the title You Enjoy Myself, is that this being one of the quintessential
jam songs that Trey is saying to the audience this is me sharing of
myself with you. I hope You Enjoy Myself! Also there is historical
factual basis in the fact that Trey and Fishman went over to Europe as
traveling minstrels of sorts. They weren't afforded the luxuries of the
frequent bath and apparently had washed they're feet in the fountain in
front of Uffizi musuem. Uffizi is a museum in Italy. Look it up! Also to
add to the myth/history of the song they apparently ran into two
gentelman with thick italian accents who were trying to express to them
they're enjoyment of they're music and conversation and in a construed
interpretive way said "you enjoy myself!", which apparently Trey and
Fish found endearing and decided to later incorporate in the song.
However your twisted self absorbed pschological problems with which you
address the exemption of the song from future set list I find to be
completly unwarrented! Again this is only one person's opinion and in my
excitement to fire of a missive I may have blurred a little Phish
History So please anyone out there don't take issue with me on the finer
points of Phishdom, just the case in the particular person of which I
speak.
That would be GORDON SHARPLESS! If this is truly the way you feel, i
have no idea why you would want to listen to such a band in the first
place!
gordon sharpless
WTF???
Haven't you been paying attention to these threads at all? Please
reread this thread with your sarcasm indicator engaged to the highest
setting, and be careful to make sure you know exactly who is writing
what here. Aside from a one line joke under another subject heading, I
haven't posted a thing about the meaning of YEM. Secondly, the post
equating YEM with masturbation, made in light of a joke I made under
the other subject heading, was an entirely satirical (and rather
funny) post founded in the lunacy of Mr. Flaccid the Politically
Correct's, diatribe about Suzie and misogyny.
Thank you.
Have a nice day,
Gordon
Mr. Mood
Please, people. Enough silly talk.
Phish does and should forever play whatever they want to play. We're their
fans. We do (or SHOULD) trust them and are (or SHOULD be) comfortable with
their intentions.
Suzie is a song.
Go ahead and argue that it's against all women. So frickin' what?! It's a song
written by one person, (most likely) inspired by a painful personal
experience. Who among you, male or female, hasn't been hurt so bad that your
anger went beyond the individual who hurt you? Who hasn't thought-- to any
degree-- "Screw 'em! All men/women/whatever should burn in the most vile
depths of hell."
Doesn't anyone listen to the blues?
Y'all think too much, sometimes.
Jeez,
mr mood
CBertolet
moacir wrote:
>>>examine your own methods of critical thinking -- which have clearly
been
>taught to you.
I wonder by whom. Oh yeah, my books. What a shame to base a mode of
thinking on the shoulders of giants.>>>
Jeez, don't have a cow. I'm not saying books are bad -- I happen to think
books are great. Even bad books.... I'm saying that your remarks echo
the kind of thinking that has been espoused by ivory tower-dwelling
reactionaries whose thinking has been labelled "deconstructionism" for one
reason or another. I learned real critical thinking from another guy in
grad school -- an ivory-tower dwelling curmudgeon who has written a lot
of, get this, books -- who explained to me that in an ever-more complex
world, "analysis," which is a simpler, less surgical form of
"deconstructionism," is a tool only suited for the discussion of simple,
low-order problems. The "systems approach" to thinking goes on to say
that you have to consider as many different aspects and stakeholders in an
issue as possible, and how they relate to one another. In the case of
this debate, it means that a microscopic breakdown of the lyrics and one
person's interpretation of what they mean is only one of thousands of
different factors to be considered.
>>>Deconstructionism isn't necessarily a bad tool for problem
>solving -- it's just a tool for solving low-order problems, i.e. problems
>with little or no subjectivity involved. This isn't one of those.
See Charlie's anger about the whole deconstruction as tool business. >>>
Well, he's wrong. ;) This should come as no surprise. Granted,
deconstructionism has a negative connotation that we've been using as a
weapon. But it is a tool, and not a philosophy (or whatever CD seems to
think it is).
>>>"Arguing against deconstruction is like arguing against verbs" --my
roommate.>>>
Well, you're roommate's wrong. ;)
>>>Point taken. I'll commit the 20 minutes/day of the past half-week I've
spent on rmp to a shelter from now on. That's absurd. Furthermore, I
resent your slippery technique of putting me, and not "Suzy Greenberg"
on trial here.>>>
My apologies. I suppose it was a bit slippery. I suppose that you have
at least made some people think, which is a worthy contribution.
I still contend that real progress in the areas of race and gender
relations can only be hindered by hyper-scrutinization of art. As a
matter of fact, I think that if there's anywhere society can exercise its
anger at another group, class, sex, etc. in a healthy way, it's art. Race
relations suck in L.A. (where I live) because political correctness has
stifled dialogue between the races. Stifle the freedom of creative
expression, and watch it worsen.
ch...@hal.com
In article <01bc850b$b31d2f20$cf6874cf@default>,
I have to agree with your agreement with those thinking this thread is
starting to get a bit silly (agreed?). I just hope none of the people
doing the moaning are Zappa fans. Based on lyrical content, they'd have
to throw away every last one of his albums (with perhaps the exception of
some of his Yellow Shark stuff).
chad (who thinks if FZ were reading this thread he'd be telling quite
a few people to "ram it up their poop shoot")
ch...@hal.com
http://www.hal.com/users/chadk
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
flaccid erudition
cber...@aol.com (CBertolet) asserted:
>Jeez, don't have a cow. I'm not saying books are bad -- I happen to think
sorry...that was snitty in retrospect.
>the kind of thinking that has been espoused by ivory tower-dwelling
>reactionaries whose thinking has been labelled "deconstructionism" for one
>reason or another. I learned real critical thinking from another guy in
>grad school -- an ivory-tower dwelling curmudgeon who has written a lot
>of, get this, books -- who explained to me that in an ever-more complex
>world, "analysis," which is a simpler, less surgical form of
"analysis," though, is exactly what I performed upon "Suzy," which is
why I'm still confused why you insist on calling my interpretation
deconstructionist. Furthermore, I wouldn't call deconstruction
reactionary. I'd call it a part of reality that everyone deals with on
a daily basis. However, I'm not talking about deconstruction, I'm
talking about "Suzy Greenberg." Using analytical tools, that is,
looking at the text, poring over it, building parallels, devising
interpretations based on the text and metatext, I come up with the
conclusion that "Suzy" is misogynist.
>this debate, it means that a microscopic breakdown of the lyrics and one
>person's interpretation of what they mean is only one of thousands of
>different factors to be considered.
which is a very deconstruction-aware thing to say.
>weapon. But it is a tool, and not a philosophy (or whatever CD seems to
It's neither. It's a part of linguistic and societal structure. Like
verbs. That's my roommate's quote has such amazing elegance.
>matter of fact, I think that if there's anywhere society can exercise its
>anger at another group, class, sex, etc. in a healthy way, it's art. Race
I agree. I'm all for free expression, etc. That's why I post to
USENET, afterall.
>relations suck in L.A. (where I live) because political correctness has
>stifled dialogue between the races.
I don't know how things are specifically in LA, though I can bet they
have little to do with "Suzy Greenberg." As I mentioned before, what
this whole debate boils down to is an issue of aesthetics. I honestly
don't believe that my take on the song is "reactionary" or "wrong"
(The latter can never be true). It is, I grant, merely a perspective,
but one that I buttress with a substantial display of "proof." I think
that it's not crazy PC jumps made by me, or hypersensitivity that
invokes the conclusion that the lyrics are, at the least, troubling.
So, tying politics into aesthetics (which is natural, given free
speech--every work of speech is therefore political since it is
connected to its freedom of existence granted by political
atmosphere), "Suzy Greenberg" fails. And I take serious issue with
people saying "relax, it's just a song, and it's meant to be
entertaining." Well, I bring up dwarf-tossing again. Dwarf-tossing is
just a game, and it's meant to be entertaining. But I don't think many
on this group would stand for a round of toss during a setbreak.
Again, a cigar is never just a cigar, because your cigar might be
totally different from my cigar. There is no Platonic Ideal Cigar to
which the Becoming Cigar can match itself. Collective subconscience
doesn't dephallicise cigars. Similarly, a song is not just a
song. Some people like Suzy because of the E vamp during the middle,
others because of the lyrics, others because of the fact that it often
means the end of a dragging second set. That song has different
meanings to all of them, and is like that cigar, no longer a cigar.
>Stifle the freedom of creative
>expression, and watch it worsen.
I agree. Stifling through governmental procedure creative expression
is bad. Very bad. However, I don't think, say, a boycott (along the
lines of the Baptist boycott of Disney) is bad. It is also a part of
free expression. Similarly, calling for the retirement of a song that
is offensive is also not bad. In fact, it's almost obligatory--though
once I start saying "you should be ashamed of yourself for not
supporting me!" you can label me PC. In fact, I wish you would to keep
me in check.
--m
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
Reese
moa...@earth.uchicago.edu (flaccid erudition) wrote:
>It's <<misogyny>> nearly indelibly built into Western society. That >makes it a cultural reality.
At some point, and for a very long time, it was. It was more of a
cultural reality in 1947 than it is in 1997.
>>This is a pretty stupid song. What is more important, however, is how you
>
>Which is a common excuse given about "Suzy Greenberg." Cute, isn't it?
>
Not really, most fans I know tend to like the song. One of the few times
Phish unleashes The Funk.
>>were able to sterotype "the black man" so easily. Makes me wonder...
>
>That I am aware of stereotyping in the US and know what some of those
>stereotypes are?
>
No. I was wondering whether or not you are a racist yourself. I don't
really believe you are, but sharing these stereotypes with us doesn't do
anything but makes matters worse...on r.m.p., and in the "real" world. It
certainly doesn't do anything for me, having to live with them. Help,
don't hinder.
>First, I don't think that there can be an issue of "seriously"
>here. "Suzy Greenberg" exists as a text, along with the fortune cookie
>I got at a restaurant yesterday or _Ulysses_. All deserve to be taken
>seriously since all are documents of our society. I don't expect
>anybody to respond in anyway anti-Phish regarding this song. I just
>consider it an unfortunate part of a rather wonderful
>repertoire. That's all. And the reason I find it so unfortunate is
>since lyrically, the song is offensive.
There is an issue of "seriously" here...IT'S A PHISH SONG. You must
realize what you're dealing with. I wouldn't take it as seriously as I
would my daily newspaper. If you had to make a choice, which one would
you rather live without?
>>I question your intent in all of this...you
>>might have just wanted a little attention.
>
>Bah. This is USENET. What's the intent of anything?
Are you asking _me_? I don't have those kind of answers.
>Jimmy Jack Johnson is actually an allusion to _A Tribute to Jack
>Johnson_. I admit he is my creation of negative stereotypes, but then
>Suzy Greenberg, is a creation of the author of the song--even if he is
>basing her on a real person.
Given Jack Johnson's (who was an African-American man) love of both white
wine and white women, I won't add to this. I'd hate to see where you'd
take it.
>I'm just talking about oppression. Both identities have suffered/still
>duffer from oppression. I don't try to say that I understand either
>the African-American or the female's life. I'm realistic about
>that.
Good.
>>What happened to all the fun in the world?
>
>I have no idea what this has to with the post.
moacir, IMO, this has a lot do do with you.
Give it a rest.
Ron
p.s. If you MUST reply, posting here is fine, but please send a copy to
my mailbox also.
Michael Lacy
In article <ECLpJ...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
moa...@earth.uchicago.edu (flaccid erudition) wrote:
>Grendel <douglasa@*NOSPAM*usa1.com> posted:
>
>>*absolutely* having that meaning. Example: I had a literature teacher
>>once who spent a day ranting about the word "history". She broke it
>>down for us and pointed out that it was his/story, i.e. history is the
>>story of men. She wanted to refer to it as "herstory". This being an
>>early morning class, I did not even realize that the time that "history"
>>comes from the Latin word "historia". And in Latin, "his" is *not* a
>>masculine pronoun. So here we see an example of taking the
>
>No, it's still a valid point since the issue is that the presence of
>the <his> connotes, albeit subconsciously, a masculine spin on the
>word. A literature teacher in Ancient Rome couldn't make that case,
>like you say, since there is no Latin connection between <eius> and
><historia>. But in English there is. An orthographic description of a
>word, several have argued (before deconstruction even existed) has
>trace and elements to tie it to other words. We may not understand how
><bat> and <cat> are related in our heads, but their similar spelling
>does warrant study into a connection.
Bollox. That is not a valid point at all, it is one born of ignorance and
pettiness. Such rediculous compalaints argue for a 'dumbing down' of the
English language for the sake of those who are too ignorant or lazy to look
into a words etymology.
This is very similar to the PC treatment of such words as 'chairman' and
'craftsman';
"Anyone who knows the history of our language knows that, in Old English
and Anglo-Saxon, the suffix -man was gender-neutal: it had, and retains,
the same meaning as "person" today, refering to all people equally. To
denote gender, it had to be qualified: a male was called a waepman, a
female wifman. This gender-free use of -man gives us forms like chairman,
fisherman, craftsman, meaning simply a person of either sex who engages in
a denoted work or profession. The ancient sexist wrong supposed to be
enshrined in the world since tht time of Beowulf turns out not to exist.
Nevertheless it affords ample opportunities for the display of petifrogging
PC virtue.."
Robert Huges, "Culture of Compalint"
>>>and second, "walk the streets," like "streetwalker" is
>>>slang for prostitution. I've heard that several times.)
>>
>>And queen is slang for cross-dresser. I still want to know if you think
>>that Suzy is in drag as she jiggles down the street soliciting sex.
>>
>>no. drag doesn't come up in other parts of the song. Infidelity and
>>laissez-faire atitudes about relationships do.
>The most uncharitable conclusion would be 'slut', since a 'whore' is a
>professional. I see no reference to the exchange of money for sexual
>favours in the song.
>thanks for the nitpick.
Niptick!! That is rich, coming from you! To automatically label a woman
who walks down a public street as a whore smacks far more of misogyny than
does the song 'Suzy Greenburg'
>>First of all, MASH wasn't written in the 50's, which if the original
>>context of my posting was restored, it can be seen to refer to;
>
>I know that, but the actions within the movie--the actions being
>satired--did. Furthermore, "political correctness" has been around
>with us since before the 50s. We just used to call it (before
>Reactionary Reagan took control) "democracy" and "equality."
Wishfull thinking! How eagar you liberals are to disown your child who has
turned into a monster. Modern political correctness is an organized and
premeditated progrom, not a simple evolution of politeness.
>>to make real and lasting changes in the country by resorting to petty
>>revenge and engendering class conflict, when they could be building bridges
>>and nurturing consenus. When the right-wing backlash arrives (and it is
>>already gathering force) they will have no one to blame but themselves.
>
>bah. The class conflict already exists. The "PC" people are merely
>poiting that out.
Pointing it out and fanning the flames of racial disharmony where it
exists, and encouraging it where it does not. Political correctness did
far more harm than good on my old college campus. By encouraging people to
think of themselves as aggrieved victims of subtle (i.e. nonexistent)
persecution, it sowed the seeds of resentment.
>Furthermore, liberals are building concensus on the
>foundation of difference--ensuring that the varied pallette with which
>this nation is painted retains its brilliant colour.
You cannot simultaneously encourage class conflict and build consensus
between the classes.
>>Political correctness will fail because, to paraphrase Shakespeare (you
>>know, one of those "Dead White Men" so dispariaged by the PC crowd) 'a
>
>what a myth propagated by the white fascist regime.
"White facist regime"... Well, don't your true colours come come our under
a bit of cross examination...Take a moment to wipe the froth from your
mouth before you continue, I would hate for your keyboard to short out...
> Shakespeare is hardly disparaged by the "PC Crowd" or by academia.
Sorry Mr. Flaccid, but despite your protestatons, DWEMs (Dead White
European Males) are a fact of life for many young people who are on
college campuses today. Greek philosophers are out of fashion, and
Afrocentrist racism is all the rage...
>In contrast to your cites, I encourage Levine's "Opening of the American
>Mind," which explains why PC doesn't exist, and why the illusion of
>leftists ruining the nation is a ruse concoted by overly reactionary
>Republicans (like Diane (?) Cheney, Bill Benett, Rush Limbaugh, George
>Will, and John Fund). If you want to count yourself among that party,
>then, well, that's your choice.
One does not have to be a member of the 'Lardass Limbaugh' fanclub to
despise the excesses of Political Correctness.
>Furthermore John K. Wilson (a pride of
>my school) has recently written a book available at your local Barnes
>and Noble further explaining the absurdity of PC...
Hardly a challenging task...
>cber...@aol.com (CBertolet) posted:
>>examine your own methods of critical thinking -- which have clearly been
>>taught to you.
>
>I wonder by whom. Oh yeah, my books. What a shame to base a mode of
>thinking on the shoulders of giants.
One man's giants are another mans's dwarves...(or, for the politically
correct among you, "One persons verticlally enhanced individuals are
another persons' vertically challenged')
Michael Lacy
"My views are corrupted by my obsession with reality."
flaccid erudition
us...@srmdel.demon.co.uk (Michael Lacy) posted:
>
>Bollox. That is not a valid point at all, it is one born of ignorance and
>pettiness. Such rediculous compalaints argue for a 'dumbing down' of the
>English language for the sake of those who are too ignorant or lazy to look
>into a words etymology.
that's absurd. Surely you know better than to insist that the meaning
of a word is tied exclusively to its etymology. I agree that the words
"chairman" or "history" are not evidence of a culture of misogyny, but
I do maintain that in our times, the words have exclusivity. It
doesn't matter what the etymology states, in 1997 "chairman" looks
like a combination of "chair" and "man," making the position seem
exclusive to non-men.
>Niptick!! That is rich, coming from you! To automatically label a woman
it's also ironic.
>who walks down a public street as a whore smacks far more of misogyny than
>does the song 'Suzy Greenburg'
Yet again, I get to say (so that again no one will listen) that the
conclusion about prostitution is brought on only partly by that
specific line. The rest of the verse provides context enough.
>Wishfull thinking! How eagar you liberals are to disown your child who has
>turned into a monster. Modern political correctness is an organized and
>premeditated progrom, not a simple evolution of politeness.
This smacks more of dittohead conspiracy paranoia than fact. The cabal
of the Templar Liberals are executing Stalinist progroms? I agree that
speech codes are bad, but education and sensitivity are not.
>far more harm than good on my old college campus. By encouraging people to
>think of themselves as aggrieved victims of subtle (i.e. nonexistent)
>persecution, it sowed the seeds of resentment.
Well, then your school was misdirected. Any action that sows seeds of
resentment is bad. However, contextualizing the vast an
all-encompassing history and reminding people that we aren't all shot
straight from the loins of the Peloponnesse is good.
>You cannot simultaneously encourage class conflict and build consensus
>between the classes.
One first acknowledges the conflict and tries to work around it and fix it.
>"White facist regime"... Well, don't your true colours come come our under
>a bit of cross examination...Take a moment to wipe the froth from your
that's right...I'm not allowed a sense of humour.[1]
>college campuses today. Greek philosophers are out of fashion, and
>Afrocentrist racism is all the rage...
Ahh yes, and this is no more obvious than at the college campus where
I'm currently sitting--a campus that offers a year-long class
encouraged by all freshman called "Greek Thought and Lit." The other
options in the department are "Readings in World Literature" and
similar classes. Only the Greeks get their own year. Furthermore, the
closest I've come to Afrocentrist racism has been...the empty set.
However, I won't argue that greek philosophers are out of fashion, and
it's for a good reason: they're *wrong*! And calling Plato and
Aristotle wrong predates PC by many many years. Nietzsche was
obviously breaking with them over 100 years ago, and already Hobbes
and Rousseau were evisioning men different from Plato's. And that was
200-some years ago.
Just like spontaneous generation is out of fashion because it's wrong,
so is socratic "dialogue" (more like well-veiled sophistry to me).
>One does not have to be a member of the 'Lardass Limbaugh' fanclub to
>despise the excesses of Political Correctness.
Excesses which are so few an far-spread that their effect is laughably minimal.
>One man's giants are another mans's dwarves...(or, for the politically
and? or are you invaliditating the claims of validity of your argument?
--m
[1] for "white fascist regime" cf "Lethal Weapon 2"
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
Have read little and understood less --stephen hero
Scott Silton
Moacir continues:
>"analysis," though, is exactly what I performed upon "Suzy," which is
>why I'm still confused why you insist on calling my interpretation
>deconstructionist. Furthermore, I wouldn't call deconstruction
>reactionary. I'd call it a part of reality that everyone deals with on
>a daily basis. However, I'm not talking about deconstruction, I'm
>talking about "Suzy Greenberg." Using analytical tools, that is,
[snip]
huh??? Deconstruction is a part of reality that everyone deals with? I don't
think so. Deconstruction has been rightly maligned as being totally oblivious
to the limitations of language, and those limitations are a much bigger part
of daily existence and communication than any attempt to analyze a micro-level
understanding of said communication. Deconstruction is an academic fraud
because it ignores context and focuses on presentation. Deconstruction is an
extremely poor way of analyzing lyrics *in particular* because lyrics are
often made to rhyme and not to make a social point. You totally don't
understand phish if you are taking them seriously. Junta era stuff in
particular was extremely silly... which may be tiresome now (the band seems to
think so judging by the improved and more personal lyrics on Rift, Hoist, and
BB), but at the time was a refreshing reaction to the political and/or gloomy
critical repose taken by alltogether too many critics.
And, btw, your analysis is entirely predicated on deconstruction.
Deconstuction in its essense means analyzing the words as they are on the
page, without attempting to integrate the presupposed intent of the author,
the greater context, etc. Deconstruction posits that every aspect of language
is intentional, consciously or subconsciously; you cannot interpret Suzie the
way you have without assumming that Tom "constructed" the piece.
>It's neither. It's a part of linguistic and societal structure. Like
>verbs. That's my roommate's quote has such amazing elegance.
I have news for you: 99.9% of people don't recognize a deconstructionist
understanding of language... it is FAR from being part of societal structure.
Get out of the Ivory tower, quick!!! Even among academics, there are a
significant number of us who find it an interesting analytical approach but
who reject it's microscopic focus, especially in terms of real life. I'm a
big believer in (teaching) a careful use of language, a respectful use of
language, but I would *never* try to make a judgement on something based on
the haphazard placement of a few words. (Yes, people are haphazard!) I
recognize that even most writers do not consciously construct their narratives
with such care. As for the 'unconscious' argument, I suggest you do some
research into cognitive psychology... I believe that you'll find we have an
extremely poor understanding of how the human mind organizes language.
Deconstruction is a THEORY at best. I call it the 'job employment act for
English Professors' who until a decade ago might have actually run out of
interesting things to say about literature.
>I don't know how things are specifically in LA, though I can bet they
>have little to do with "Suzy Greenberg." As I mentioned before, what
>this whole debate boils down to is an issue of aesthetics. I honestly
>don't believe that my take on the song is "reactionary" or "wrong"
>(The latter can never be true). It is, I grant, merely a perspective,
>but one that I buttress with a substantial display of "proof." I think
>that it's not crazy PC jumps made by me, or hypersensitivity that
>invokes the conclusion that the lyrics are, at the least, troubling.
No, I disagree... your "proof" is extremely weak. It suffers from any number
of inferred fallacies.
>So, tying politics into aesthetics (which is natural, given free
>speech--every work of speech is therefore political since it is
>connected to its freedom of existence granted by political
>atmosphere), "Suzy Greenberg" fails. And I take serious issue with
>people saying "relax, it's just a song, and it's meant to be
>entertaining." Well, I bring up dwarf-tossing again. Dwarf-tossing is
>just a game, and it's meant to be entertaining. But I don't think many
>on this group would stand for a round of toss during a setbreak.
Those people who are saying "it's just a song" -- do you think they all agree
that the tune is misogynistic? Have you even defined misogynistic? Misogyny
is the hatred of women. Listen to Waste and tell me that Trey hates women.
Even if you could 'prove' that Suzie was sexist (a different proposition
altogether) you still cannot simply blow off the fact that the song is about a
specific individual. Relating the experiences and opinions of an individual
to whatever victim group they happen to belong to (or vice versa) is another
great academic and intellectual fraud.
>Again, a cigar is never just a cigar, because your cigar might be
>totally different from my cigar. There is no Platonic Ideal Cigar to
huh? If we can't agree on what the signifigance of the cigar is becuase our
understanding of 'cigar' doesn't match, than what is a cigar other than just a
cigar?
>which the Becoming Cigar can match itself. Collective subconscience
>doesn't dephallicise cigars. Similarly, a song is not just a
>song. Some people like Suzy because of the E vamp during the middle,
>others because of the lyrics, others because of the fact that it often
>means the end of a dragging second set. That song has different
>meanings to all of them, and is like that cigar, no longer a cigar.
Collective subconscious doesn't necessarily phallicise cigars either. The
reason this famous quote was mentioned in the first place was because even a
subconsciously focused, microscopic analyst like Freud had to admit that there
were limitations on the inferences we can draw from theory. It doesn't speak
to subjectivity except to point out the limitations of language, which
absolutely contradicts your deconstructionist argument. I'm glad to see you
finally defend deconstruction even though you still deny that it was your
working analytical form. However, that theory has major limitations that
allows me to be confident in believing that a misogynist interpretation of
Suzie is simply false.
>I agree. Stifling through governmental procedure creative expression
>is bad. Very bad. However, I don't think, say, a boycott (along the
>lines of the Baptist boycott of Disney) is bad. It is also a part of
>free expression. Similarly, calling for the retirement of a song that
>is offensive is also not bad. In fact, it's almost obligatory--though
>once I start saying "you should be ashamed of yourself for not
>supporting me!" you can label me PC. In fact, I wish you would to keep
>me in check.
If you genuinely believe that Suzie is offensive, then calling for its
retirement makes perfect sense. Anyone that would claim that it is offensive
but says "its just a song" is being absurd. The point here really boils down
to the concept that labeling Suzie offensive in the first place is absurd;
calling for its removal based on your analysis seems premature. If the band
really has retired the song, I'd love to find out why. Its very possible that
they thought, hey, 10 years later, lets forgive and forget (suzie, the
individual, that is). But I think its far more likely that they were just
sick of playing it.
Scott
CBertolet
moacir wrote:
>>>"analysis," though, is exactly what I performed upon "Suzy," which is
why I'm still confused why you insist on calling my interpretation
deconstructionist.>>>
Deconstruction is labelled as such because it picks apart the whole until
no whole remains that can be "reconstructed." Suzy, for example, is
something very different from the sum of its lyrics....but not in
deconstruction. Deconstruction (in art, anyway) assumes
non-interconnectedness. What you get when you blow art into tiny pieces
and then add those pieces together again to craft an interpretation is
never (well, almost never) closer to a "correct" interpretation than mere
first-glance instinct.
Deconstruction ignores intent, tone, the artist him/herself (how's that
for political correctness), and how it makes you FEEL. It may be that
Suzy makes you FEEL like shaking your ass, which in turn may produce
dissonance due to the fact that the lyrics ring misogynist to you ("why am
I dancing to this hateful tripe?"). This should lead you to to the
question of intent. "Maybe this is what the song is meant to make me
FEEL." Maybe not. For clues, examine tone.
>>>I wouldn't call deconstruction
reactionary. I'd call it a part of reality that everyone deals with on
a daily basis. >>>
They're wholly different concepts, I agree.
>>>>a microscopic breakdown of the lyrics and one
>person's interpretation of what they mean is only one of thousands of
>different factors to be considered.
which is a very deconstruction-aware thing to say. >>>
D'OH. Let me clarify =). What I meant is that Suzy is far more than
simply the "sum" of its lyrics. It's not enough to make a case for such a
bold statement by blowing apart lyrics and then piecing them back
together. It makes too many assumptions. Let's take deconstruction out
of the picture for now, since we can't agree on what it means anyway.
Like I said, *analysis* is a tool that only really works for low-order
problems (problems to which there are "right" and "wrong" answers -- like
physics), and interpreting art is one of the highest-order problems we can
ever tackle. Analysis assumes SEPARABILITY between components being
analyzed. Analysis assumes that once you "lyse," i.e. cut up, the whole,
it can be glued back together without changing the meaning of the various
parts. It can't.
I would have given your argument much more credence had you talked about
how Suzy has affected your behavior or how you'd seen it affect others'
behavior. To me, that's a much more circumspect test of truth in
something as visceral and transitive as art.
>>>this whole debate boils down to is an issue of aesthetics.>>>
But you've IGNORED aesthetics. Just because you're talking about art
doesn't mean you're debating aesthetics. You haven't even scratched the
surface of the aesthetics of the song -- you've actually willfully ignored
it!
>>>I take serious issue with
people saying "relax, it's just a song, and it's meant to be
entertaining.">>>
How can you? If you believe in every person's Right to experience
art/speech in a personal and free way, how can you resent their
interpretation of the song as "a song." It's no more "right" or "wrong"
than your take, regardless of how much analysis buttresses your opinion.
>>>calling for the retirement of a song that
is offensive is...almost obligatory>>>
You're calling for self-censorship, which is just another form of
censorship. And the phrase "Suzy is offensive" omits a critical modifier
-- "to ____?" At the risk of sounding cruel, who the hell are you? If
you find it offensive, that's your prerogative. It's also your
prerogative to boycott Phish shows, leave the show when Suzy is played, or
strip naked in protest. But it's also the prerogative of others to find
it gleeful, fun, ironic, hilarious, sardonic, genius, inspiring, or useful
as a carpentry manual. You contend that you expect more from Phish -- I
contend that maybe this is a problem that resides within you.
flaccid erudition
First, I want to make something clear that I made in another branch of
this thread, and that is that I make no effort to accept "Suzy" as a
whole song. I am only concerned with the lyrics, as they are the only
part of the song I find to be offensive because of misogynist
undertones. I find the chord structure of the song and the essential
groove to be amazingly bland and dull, but that's not the argument.
cber...@aol.com (CBertolet) posted:
>never (well, almost never) closer to a "correct" interpretation than mere
>first-glance instinct.
Sure. It's not like I sat down and looked at the lyrics and saw that
Suzy was what it is and had never noticed it before. Since the first
time I listened to the song, the lyrics made me uncomfortable. The
instinct was always there--lyrical inspection only helped explain my
problems.
>dissonance due to the fact that the lyrics ring misogynist to you ("why am
>I dancing to this hateful tripe?"). This should lead you to to the
>question of intent. "Maybe this is what the song is meant to make me
>FEEL." Maybe not. For clues, examine tone.
But even the most hateful thing said with a smile still stings. I'll
grant that by looking at the lyrics solely, "Suzy" becomes more
misogynist as a song, but I can't ignore the lyrics or say "well,
they're only 10% of the art as a whole, so I can say this song is 10%
misogynist." That presence ruins the whole thing for me. It's like a
cd I have by Tokyo Ska Paradise Orchestra. There's one song on it
called "36-22-36" and it, by itself, makes the whole cd an agent of
discomfort. This is especially difficult since I *really* like all the
other songs on the cd. But my endorsement of the cd to someone always
carries that caveat that track 5 will possibly ruin the whole
experience.
>D'OH. Let me clarify =). What I meant is that Suzy is far more than
>simply the "sum" of its lyrics. It's not enough to make a case for such a
>bold statement by blowing apart lyrics and then piecing them back
>together. It makes too many assumptions. Let's take deconstruction out
>of the picture for now, since we can't agree on what it means anyway.
Agreed. We can't agree on what it is, since I still maintain there's
very little deconstruction in anything I've posted ever to this
ng. However, at least you continue to tackle the argument I present,
as opposed to others who label my argument deconstructionist and then
beat up on deconstruction--ignoring my argument.
>analyzed. Analysis assumes that once you "lyse," i.e. cut up, the whole,
>it can be glued back together without changing the meaning of the various
>parts. It can't.
The sum is not necessarily the same of its parts, but the parts play
an integral role. If I have a friend, who's the best friend in the
world, but when he's drunk he's a raving asshole, it's hard for me to
see him as a great person. And character interpretation is also a
rather high-order issue. If "Suzy" were played without lyrics, I'd
probably argue that it's a stale song, but definitely not
misogynist. If Duchamp hadn't written "L.H.O.O.Q." under the Mona
Lisa, the whole work would have been entirely different. One of the
component parts of "Suzy Greenberg" as a whole is the misogynist
lyrics. That ruins the whole. (This assumes, which I do, that the
lyrics are offensive on their face. The line-by-line analysis was
supposed to help illustrate that which should be clear)
>behavior. To me, that's a much more circumspect test of truth in
>something as visceral and transitive as art.
I don't want to wait for something bad to happen.
>But you've IGNORED aesthetics. Just because you're talking about art
>doesn't mean you're debating aesthetics. You haven't even scratched the
>surface of the aesthetics of the song -- you've actually willfully ignored
No I haven't. Not discussing timbre, chords, tone, et cetera is not
ignoring aesthetics. Part of the aesthetics of a work is its politics.
>How can you? If you believe in every person's Right to experience
>art/speech in a personal and free way, how can you resent their
>interpretation of the song as "a song." It's no more "right" or "wrong"
>than your take, regardless of how much analysis buttresses your opinion.
I take issue with it, in that it disturbs me that people don't agree
with me, since to me this is all more or less clear on the face.
>You're calling for self-censorship, which is just another form of
It's part of living in society. I think the lyrics of "Suzy" should
not be treated lightly, and that the subject matter should not be
tossed around a sheds like Great Woods. Yes I advocate
self-censorship. I also advocate restraint, which is the same thing. I
could run around naked shouting an yelling obscenities and racial
slurs if I wanted, but I hardly see how that's constructive.
>censorship. And the phrase "Suzy is offensive" omits a critical modifier
>-- "to ____?" At the risk of sounding cruel, who the hell are you? If
I'm a perspective. That's why I'm still arguing, since I find more
value in discussion than polemic. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that
we'll reach a concensus--but at least we've created a
dialogue. Furthermore, omitting the modifier is rhetorical.
>strip naked in protest. But it's also the prerogative of others to find
>it gleeful, fun, ironic, hilarious, sardonic, genius, inspiring, or useful
>as a carpentry manual. You contend that you expect more from Phish -- I
>contend that maybe this is a problem that resides within you.
I agree with the beginning part. But, I do expect more from Phish
since, as I've stated before, the song is a bit of a blemish. At the
same time, though, as a consumer, etc, I have a right to expect
certain things from my money. If Phish shows were incessant festivals
of misogyny, then I wouldn't buy tickets for them. But they
aren't. And I know that I'd feel like my money were better spent
without a "Suzy."
--m
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
Charles Dirksen
Michael Lacy (us...@srmdel.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Bollox. That is not a valid point at all, it is one born of ignorance and
: pettiness. Such rediculous compalaints argue for a 'dumbing down' of the
: English language for the sake of those who are too ignorant or lazy to look
: into a words etymology.
"Bollox," he said haughtily. "That is not a valid point at all, for it is
one born of ignorance and pettiness. Such ridiculous 'compalaints' argue
for a 'dumbing down' of the English language for the sake of those who are
either too ignorant or too lazy to look into a word's etymology."
Translation: "Fuck you. You're full of shit, and you don't even know it.
People who argue for appeasing the politically correct and the
grammatically ignorant are lazy, etymologically-challenged pooh-pooh
heads. Now where's my fucking tea!"
What the hell is a COMPALAINT anyway? It that like the segue from Tweezer
into Lifeboy or something?
: This is very similar to the PC treatment of such words as 'chairman' and
: 'craftsman'
I'm definitely in favor of taking CHAIRMAN and CRAFSTMAN out of the
rotation. All in favor say "You lost your colony, SUCKER." ;-)
: "Anyone who knows the history of our language knows that, in Old English
: and Anglo-Saxon, the suffix -man was gender-neutal: it had, and retains,
: the same meaning as "person" today, refering to all people equally.
Of course. But so what. What is so offensive to you about craftswoman or
craftsperson or simply "artisan"? I don't understand why people have such
a problem with "dumbing down" any language. Language is a fucking tool,
not an end in itself. It is a means. And if some people find the means
offensive, let 'em eat CAKE!!! You can keep your sorry-ass Anglo-Saxon
tradition, Wiiiiiiiiiiise One. I'm going to use the language that I want
to use and which **GASP** also communicates my meaning-intentions
effectively. You can take your Russell, your Wittgenstein, your Burke,
your Derrida, your Lacan, your Searle, your Austin and of course your
Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger and Habermas and STUFF IT, you haughty
pooh-pooh head.
: denote gender, it had to be qualified: a male was called a waepman, a
: female wifman. This gender-free use of -man gives us forms like chairman,
: fisherman, craftsman, meaning simply a person of either sex who engages in
: a denoted work or profession. The ancient sexist wrong supposed to be
: enshrined in the world since tht time of Beowulf turns out not to exist.
: Nevertheless it affords ample opportunities for the display of petifrogging
: PC virtue.."
: Robert Huges, "Culture of Compalint"
What the hell is a COMPALINT!? Please excuse my ignorance, but shouldn't
his book have been called "Culture of Compliance" or something?
And is his name really spelled "Huges"? not "Hughes"? Cute. I like it.
: Niptick!! That is rich, coming from you! To automatically label a woman
: who walks down a public street as a whore smacks far more of misogyny than
: does the song 'Suzy Greenburg'
BOLLOX.. ;-) Could you say "smacks far more of misogyny" again? I really
like your accent.
: Wishfull thinking! How eagar you liberals are to disown your child who has
: turned into a monster. Modern political correctness is an organized and
: premeditated progrom, not a simple evolution of politeness.
Do you mean POGROM !? Or program? I like the "evolution of politeness"
bit though.. good one...
You know, you really shouldn't have started with the "you liberals"
comment, Oh Learned Reactionary One. You reactionaries are always so
quick to find CONSPIRACIES and POGROMS were none exist. I tell ya, the
NERVE of those people who seek to change words like "postman" to "postal
worker." It just STEAMS me.. ;-)
I mean, HOW DARE THEY!!! Those.. those LIBERALS. (grabs the air, ears
turn red)
: Pointing it out and fanning the flames of racial disharmony where it
: exists, and encouraging it where it does not. Political correctness did
: far more harm than good on my old college campus. By encouraging people to
: think of themselves as aggrieved victims of subtle (i.e. nonexistent)
: persecution, it sowed the seeds of resentment.
Just out of curiosity, did you go to school in a CARDBOARD BOX !? Did it
have any windows!?!?!?!?
Are you so wholly oblivious to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. that you
consider victims of same to suffer from some sort of paranoid
schizophrenic insecurity complex?! What "sowed the seeds of resentment,"
in part, were and are the attitudes of white male reactionaries concerned
that their economic and cultural dominance is being SUBVERTED by LIBERAL
AGENDAS. Males who are apparently oblivious to outright examples (and
more subtle ones) of persecution that go on everywhere and everyday in
this country. I've got an idea. Why don't you actually befriend a victim
of homophobia, racism or sexism sometime. It might be a new fucking
experience for you, Oh Mighty Anglo-Saxon.
I can't wait to see a Congress that reasonably reflects the racial and
social and economic realities of our country. For now, we are ruled in
the states and in the Federal government by rich white men, most of whom
are hell-bent on only one thing: augmenting their personal fortunes by
exploiting everyone else.
Maintaining the status quo when it comes to language is just one more way
to keep everyone In Line.
: You cannot simultaneously encourage class conflict and build consensus
: between the classes.
(laughter)
That would depend on how you would define the classes, of course. We
should be only ONE PEOPLE, but due to economic realities and exploitation,
we are really simply a bunch of wage-slaves, living our lives for
corporations to piss on (and reward us when we play the game according to
their rules). Here's your bone.. now run along, and vote for either
Clinton or Dole. Because, you know what, it doesn't really make a fucking
difference. And if you think it does, I sympathize. It certainly isn't
always easy to remain a critical thinker and participate in a political
process that is self-legitimating (free from criticism, which exists to
serve the priorities of the rich, which include the maintenance of their
control of the citizenry).
We already have concensus, though, as the lack of people who take the time
to vote reflects. Most people think the system exists to serve the
richest 10% of the country, but they feel powerless about it, because
that's prescisely the beauty of a self-legitimating political system. I
mean, how DARE a person criticize DEMOCRACY. It WORKS, man. That's
right. It does WORK for the fucking richest 10% of the country. It keeps
everyone else sucking from the government TITTY. ;)
: "White facist regime"... Well, don't your true colours come come our under
: a bit of cross examination...Take a moment to wipe the froth from your
: mouth before you continue, I would hate for your keyboard to short out...
I don't know whom you are responding to, but good one. I jumped in only
for fun.
: Sorry Mr. Flaccid, but despite your protestatons, DWEMs (Dead White
: European Males) are a fact of life for many young people who are on
: college campuses today. Greek philosophers are out of fashion, and
: Afrocentrist racism is all the rage...
Excuse me, but you're sadly misinformed. You've been deluded by typically
paranoid conservative propaganda. Greek philosophers are still THE RAGE
for many people on college campuses. Most of them, though, don't proceed
to become haughty, pig-headed reactionaries with a profound ability to
genuflect before everything Anglo-Saxon. "Afrocentrist racism"? Is that
what they are calling African American History these days in fascist
circles? How quaint.
Let me guess, you are convinced that "affirmative action" is simply a
racist program designed by flaccid liberals for the betterment of
minorities at the expense of white males ? Would you say that white males
are the AGGRIEVED VICTIMS of affirmative action ? They don't have enough
opportunities already. No sirreeeeeee. They only control almost every
business and government body in the country. No problems there. We should
be PROUD that our governments and colleges and businesses do not reflect
the DIVERSITY of our people. I tell ya, it is the fault of all those
BLOODY ILLEGAL ALIENS.. that's what it is. THE ALIENS. They are
destroying the FABRIC OF OUR SOCIETY. Soon we won't be able to PRACTICE
OUR RELIGION and SPEAK OUR LANGUAGE. Those LIBERALS in Congress are
RUINING ALL THAT IS RIGHT AND JUST in this ONCE GREAT COUNTRY.
Just having fun.. ;)
: One does not have to be a member of the 'Lardass Limbaugh' fanclub to
: despise the excesses of Political Correctness.
Absolutely. But one DOES have to be a member of that club to get upset
about people using the words "postal worker" instead of "postman."
;)
: One man's giants are another mans's dwarves...(or, for the politically
: correct among you, "One persons verticlally enhanced individuals are
: another persons' vertically challenged')
Michael, I think you meant "When one's ass is full, one should compel the
bowels to relieve themselves, and leave rec.music.phish to discussion
about postal workers, artisans and *gasp* GARBAGE PERSONS."
(oh my GOSH, I said IT.. I used PERSON instead of MAN.. Oh the SHAME, the
SHAME..)
BOLLOX420
flaccid erudition
silt...@pop.service.ohio-state.edu (Scott Silton) posted:
>huh??? Deconstruction is a part of reality that everyone deals with?
Yes.
Deconstruction <sous rature>is</sous rature> accepting play.[1]
Any other definition is probably invented by a critic.
And this describes exactly why my analysis isn't deconstructionist. My
analysis goes out of its way to ignore play. As I've said before, it's
the most structuralist thing I've written in years.
>often made to rhyme and not to make a social point. You totally don't
>understand phish if you are taking them seriously. Junta era stuff in
"You totally don't understand phish"... I didn't realise I was
speaking to the divine, explaining to me the truth. Yes, I'm being
snitty since you're insisting upon your definition of things to be the
truth.
>Deconstuction in its essense means analyzing the words as they are on the
>page, without attempting to integrate the presupposed intent of the author,
>the greater context, etc. Deconstruction posits that every aspect of language>is intentional, consciously or subconsciously; you cannot interpret Suzie the
>way you have without assumming that Tom "constructed" the piece.
cites.
The bit about "every aspect of language is intentional" is acceptable, but the rest seems a fraud. (why the hell am I debating the definition of deconstruction on rmp anyway?)
>research into cognitive psychology... I believe that you'll find we have an
>extremely poor understanding of how the human mind organizes language.
yet the lyrics to "Suzy" are not extemporaneous. They are planned and
constructed, which makes sense, since I accept the structure of
"Suzy," which makes sense, since I'm not confusing the ng by calling
structuralism deconstructionism.
>No, I disagree... your "proof" is extremely weak. It suffers from any number
>of inferred fallacies.
As would any "proof" of yours. I intentionally used the word in
quotes, since I'm not proving anything--just illustrating a
perception. (which is the only shred of deconstruction in my argument
about "Suzy.")
>is the hatred of women. Listen to Waste and tell me that Trey hates women.
blah. It's not about Phish; it's not about Trey. Stop hiding the
argument with pointless tangents.
>Even if you could 'prove' that Suzie was sexist (a different proposition
>altogether) you still cannot simply blow off the fact that the song is about a>specific individual. Relating the experiences and opinions of an individual
>to whatever victim group they happen to belong to (or vice versa) is another
>great academic and intellectual fraud.
Yes it is academic fraud, but you're still ignoring the point that
twice in the song Suzy is referred to as not "Suzy" but a "woman." I
maintain that that's partly a decision to provide some difference to
the song, but it also unnecessarily points out her gender, as if to
blame that for her problems. If a reader can't understand this point
(not you specifically) then the rest of my reading makes no sense and
seems like hypersensitive drivel. If one cannot understand the
subtlety of why pointing out the African-American in the middle of the
lineup as "the black guy" instead of "the guy in the middle" is bad,
then my argument clearly sounds like academic poop, even though it's
not.
Basically, when a stereotype is proven true, it doesn't help to point
that out. The lyrics say, in the second verse, "Suzy was unfaithful,
but she's a woman, so it's expected." That's an oversimplification, I
admit, but subtlety and nuance seem to be flying over heads.
>huh? If we can't agree on what the signifigance of the cigar is becuase our
>understanding of 'cigar' doesn't match, than what is a cigar other than just a>cigar?
To you, a cigar could be a tobacco product. To me, it's a tobacco
product and a carcinogen. To someone else, it's a carcinogen and a
phallus. So a cigar is not a cigar.
>Collective subconscious doesn't necessarily phallicise cigars either. The
Which is why Freud is wrong, trying to create a collective
subconscience. All of our subconsciences are different, and so are our
definitions.
>were limitations on the inferences we can draw from theory. It doesn't speak
or limitations to the inferences he could draw about an object that
are true for all people at all times. He simplified it by saying it's
just a cigar and has no other inferrables. He was wrong. It just has
different inferrables for different people. Hence inference and not
implication. Freud liked to think that a implied b, when usually b is
inferred from a.
>working analytical form. However, that theory has major limitations that
>allows me to be confident in believing that a misogynist interpretation of
>Suzie is simply false.
So my argument is false since you define it as deconstructionist, and
you also assert that deconstruction is false, and therefore the
argument is? But the syllogism fails since the first assertion is
false! That's like being offered a plate of spaghetti, saying it's
tunafish, remembering that tunafish upsets your stomach, and refusing
the plate. Sound absurd? Yep.
>If you genuinely believe that Suzie is offensive, then calling for its
>retirement makes perfect sense. Anyone that would claim that it is offensive
>but says "its just a song" is being absurd. The point here really boils down
I say that it's offensive but also grant that I'm not a possesor of
truth. I don't go around saying "you totally don't understand phish if
you are taking them seriously." My reasons for disliking it and
calling for its retirement are serious, to be sure, but it is a text,
and as a text, it's up for grabs.
flaccid erudition
mmmm following up to myself :)
moa...@earth.uchicago.edu posted:
>
>Deconstruction <sous rature>is</sous rature> accepting play.[1]
>
[1] This is my <sous rature>definition</sous rature>, based on what
little reading I've done on deconstruction. I don't maintain that it's
true, nor do I maintain that it's well-formed. But it is at least
based on the writtings of Derrida, and not on critics.
CBertolet
moacir wrote:
>>>But even the most hateful thing said with a smile still stings.>>>
Suzy, imo, is not "the most hateful thing," because my interpretation
isn't the same as yours. Not really close.
>>>I'll
grant that by looking at the lyrics solely, "Suzy" becomes more
misogynist as a song, but I can't ignore the lyrics or say "well,
they're only 10% of the art as a whole, so I can say this song is 10%
misogynist.">>>
That's the last thing I'd advocate. It's as impossible to ascribe
mathematical notions to poetry and music as it is to "analyze" the meaning
of art.
>>>If I have a friend, who's the best friend in the
world, but when he's drunk he's a raving asshole, it's hard for me to
see him as a great person.>>>
This kind of cuts to the heart of the matter -- it seems that you're in
search of comfortable perfection. As for myself, I won't associate with
perfect people. They bore me. I would probably love your friend even
more for his fits of drunken idiocy. Flaws make people -- and works of
art -- whole and dimensional. This is not to say that every song should
have a little phrase about "ho-bag bitches" in it, but it is to say that
you have to consider that flaws are part of the balance of life and truth
and nature and art.
The sun shines. Kindness is everywhere. Picasso painted Guernica. Jerry
Garcia played Stella Blue.
It rains. Anger boils. Picasso died of syphillis. Jerry Garcia was a
slave. To celebrate the other things, we have to accept these as part of
the truth. I realize I've gotten way too deep here, but you get the
drift.
>>>One of the
component parts of "Suzy Greenberg" as a whole is the misogynist
lyrics. That ruins the whole. (This assumes, which I do, that the
lyrics are offensive on their face. The line-by-line analysis was
supposed to help illustrate that which should be clear)...I take issue
with it, in that it disturbs me that people don't agree
with me, since to me this is all more or less clear on the face.>>>
Right. To *you.* To me, this is a poem set to music that attempts to
diffuse anger (at a person who caused the narrator pain) in a healthy,
humorous way -- and in which the narrator also *personally praises* Suzy
by not only giving her a name but shouting it to the skies.
Please note that inasmuch as the narrator resents what Suzy did to him,
*he let her do it.* There have been times in my life where a woman has
walked away leaving me feeling broken in two and at the same time flat-out
awed at her ability to enchant me -- this is what the song evokes in me.
Nothing sex-specific, just an ironic, funny, angry look at a very
relatable hang-up in one relationship. That's my gut feeling, and it's as
valid as yours or anyone else's.
>>>Yes I advocate
self-censorship. I also advocate restraint, which is the same thing. I
could run around naked shouting an yelling obscenities and racial
slurs if I wanted, but I hardly see how that's constructive.>>>
Self-censorship and restraint and being "constructive" aren't the jobs of
real artists. Real artists express truth, unfiltered. They set out to
explore and express a feeling, period. Rarely if ever can passable art
come out of someone saying "I want to create art that makes everyone feel
positive about themselves," or "I want to create art that betters gender
relations." Instead of "Institutionalized," we get "We Didn't Start the
Fire." I know which I prefer.
flaccid erudition
cber...@aol.com (CBertolet) posted:
>This kind of cuts to the heart of the matter -- it seems that you're in
>search of comfortable perfection. As for myself, I won't associate with
I don't know if it's perfection I'm looking for. I just think Suzy's
lyrics are egregious and unnecessary. "Suzy Greenberg" is not a
startling work of art. It's a throwaway ditty by a marginal
lyricist. I think it's unnecessary. That's probably the best
description.
>have a little phrase about "ho-bag bitches" in it, but it is to say that
>you have to consider that flaws are part of the balance of life and truth
>and nature and art.
Sure. Sometimes nailing the "wrong" note is as good, if not better,
than nailing the "right" note.
>Right. To *you.* To me, this is a poem set to music that attempts to
>diffuse anger (at a person who caused the narrator pain) in a healthy,
>humorous way -- and in which the narrator also *personally praises* Suzy
>by not only giving her a name but shouting it to the skies.
Interesting take. I don't quite see the song as a ode of praise,
though. Perhaps the lines that gave me the most difficulty (the line
with "undertow" for example) in trying to see the song as a misogynist
whole provide the connection.
Which is another thing. "Suzy" is not misogynist as a whole. Not even
the lyrics are. That's partly why this discussion is interesting,
actually. The song works so hard to be nice and sweet and
praiseworthy, as you say, but at the same time creates frightening
parallels.
>Please note that inasmuch as the narrator resents what Suzy did to him,
>*he let her do it.* There have been times in my life where a woman has
>walked away leaving me feeling broken in two and at the same time flat-out
>awed at her ability to enchant me -- this is what the song evokes in me.
OK. Then you're doing what I'm doing, just fixating on another aspect
of the song. Just like the people who say it's a rocking tune that
jams. Yes, he let her do it, and the business about being part of her
show show remorse. I definitely can and do sympathise with the
narrator's plight. Been there/done that. But his methods of purging
leave me with distaste. His technique could be improved. Though, I
guess, ymmv.
>real artists. Real artists express truth, unfiltered. They set out to
See, now you're giving Phish the same "too much" credit that I gave
that started a lot of the anger in this thread. I agree that artists
express truth, unfiltered, as an ideal. Well...I don't fully
agree...maybe not at all...but it's plausible. But to then take
something you define as "art" and use the transitive property to say
that "Suzy Greenberg" expresses unfiltered truth is...well...
...whose truth is it? It's not mine, but I didn't have a relationship
with Suzy. It's questionable if it's the narrator's, since I
(personally) have a hard time believing that truth rhymes.
>***"Truth is something you stumble into when you think you're going someplace
>else" - Jerry Garcia***
An interesting quote, in this context. I'm still trying to figure out
what it means, though... Is that like Douglas Adam's idea that if you
forget to fall, you'll fly?
geoffrey patrick stowell
Why did the monkey fall out of the tree?
Because he was dead.
-Cloud
Art Brostrom
Charles Dirksen wrote:
>
> You can take your Russell, your Wittgenstein, your Burke,
> your Derrida, your Lacan, your Searle, your Austin and of course your
> Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger and Habermas and STUFF IT, you haughty
> pooh-pooh head.
>
but please don't REACTIONARILY remove the ideas of some very thoughtful
WHITE MEN from your intellectual diet. I know you're being playful, though...
And in the interest of being PLAYFUL I'd like to point out how utterly
Nietzschean you are. To become the child - to tear down whole worlds
of thought without fear of loss or self-destruction - is very Nietzschean
indeed. So I say 'Hooray' for you, congratulations on burning those
archaic ideas and becoming even more Zarathustran.
Nietzsche's thought is full of paradoxes and you've exhibited the greatest
of all - that through the act of removing the Western tradition from your being
you've BECOME part of the next level in it. By FOLLOWING Nietzsche, one can't
be Nietzschean. But through the act of REJECTING Nietzsche, one becomes his
follower.
Love,
Art
PS All truths are lies.
PPS Phish is a great Zarathustran humdinger of a band. Ayn Rand misinterpreted
Nietzsche on one score - that great genius is only manifested through
individuality. Not so - Phish proves it (as do many great musicians and composers).
Only together can we shine, or: Hey, if we're going to overpopulate, let's at least
use it to our advantage.
PPPS Phuck Derrida and Heidegger, though. Deconstructionist assholes. Nazi
sympathists die.
PPPPS Please don't bring up Nietzsche and misogyny. What a bucket of monkeyworms!
PPPPPS What's so bad about Wittgenstein, though? He had some very relevant ideas
about etymology. Wasn't that what you were discussing? Or do you get your kicks
by challenging half-wits, Charlie?
PPPPPPS Here's a good underdetermined question: are there phases a culture MUST go
through? Or is ours just a one-time affair?
PPPPPPPS For a good conclusion, see Kierkegaard's 'Concluding Postscript'. It sums
it all up so succinctly.
CBertolet
moacir wrote:
>>>"Suzy Greenberg" is not a
startling work of art. It's a throwaway ditty by a marginal
lyricist.>>>
That's your opinion. It's not fact, and you should disclaim it as such.
In relation to Phish's other work, I'd say right-the-hell-on, but in
relation to other measures, certainly not. But that's my opinion.
>>>"Suzy" is not misogynist as a whole. Not even
the lyrics are.>>>
Well, Zippity-Doo-Dah!!!! (please note political incorrectness here).
Thanks for coming around!
What the hell have we been talking about? I might've even come around to
agreeing the song is *unwittingly* misogynist simply because it feels
misogynist to you. But thanks for sparing me the defeat ;-).
>>>I agree that artists
express truth, unfiltered, as an ideal. Well...I don't fully
agree...maybe not at all...but it's plausible. But to then take
something you define as "art" and use the transitive property to say
that "Suzy Greenberg" expresses unfiltered truth is...well...>>>
Expression of truth *should be* the goal of art, though I'll grant you it
doesn't always work. Painters can paint paintings and poets can write
poems that they think express a distinct feeling, and be appalled that no
one else gets it. Ever tell a joke you find hilarious only to have it
bomb? There's no way of knowing whether Suzy expresses the true feeling
the author was having at the moment he wrote the lyrics, an alley neither
one of us probably cares to venture down.
My point was that self-censorship stands between the feeling and true
expression of the feeling.
>>>I
(personally) have a hard time believing that truth rhymes.>>>
No, that's a valid point. Structure like rhyme and rhythm is another
thing that stands in the way of free expression -- although it serves a
purpose, which is to help untrained ear digest ideas. It's a necessary
evil, unlike censorship, which is an unnecessary evil.
M, we're getting a little circular in our arguments here. I think
everyone would appreciate it if we retired this thread to e-mail land.
***"Truth is something you stumble into when you think you're going someplace else" - Jerry Garcia***
chris bertolet
flaccid erudition
Just a quick note, since I think we've reached a concensus....
cber...@aol.com (CBertolet) posted:
>
>>>>"Suzy" is not misogynist as a whole. Not even
>the lyrics are.>>>
>
>Well, Zippity-Doo-Dah!!!! (please note political incorrectness here).
>Thanks for coming around!
>
>What the hell have we been talking about? I might've even come around to
>agreeing the song is *unwittingly* misogynist simply because it feels
>misogynist to you. But thanks for sparing me the defeat ;-).
oops. I should have been clearer. The lyrics are not misogynist
entirely. There are lines that are not misogynist. But there's enough
in there to cause me concern. I never suggested that the song was
wittingly misogynist, either. I don't think that it's a plan to sneak
misogyny past listeners. I think that the execution failed and created
a misogynist piece of dreck.
>My point was that self-censorship stands between the feeling and true
>expression of the feeling.
perhaps. But no man is an island.
>M, we're getting a little circular in our arguments here. I think
>everyone would appreciate it if we retired this thread to e-mail land.
I think we're just beginning to understand each other's
arguments--which is all I asked for in the first place. Well, that and
the retirement of Suzy.
Soooo...Mike'S opener? wtf?
--m
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
CBertolet
moacir wrote:
>>>I bent my wookie --R. Wiggum>>>
Is this some kind of reactionary neo-deconstructionist cry for
self-censorship of the police in Springfield?
Matthew E Bourland
I think the song you refer to could be "36-24-36" by the Violent Femmes,
of which much of their work I assume you would call an 'agent of
discomfort'. Don't stress out so much about lyrics. The music is more
important than any message, IMO. Take "Lifeboy" for example-beautiful
song, sad message. It doesn't, however, make me want to take it or any
other songs with lyrics that don't have postive, politically correct
message out of the rotation.
I am sorry for your sake that the '10% misogynist' nature of "Suzie"
ruins it for you. It still makes me happy, regardless of the lyrics.
Peace,
Matthew
Michael Lacy
In article <ECp85...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
moa...@earth.uchicago.edu (flaccid erudition) wrote:
>us...@srmdel.demon.co.uk (Michael Lacy) posted:
>>
>>Bollox. That is not a valid point at all, it is one born of ignorance and
>>pettiness. Such rediculous compalaints argue for a 'dumbing down' of the
>>English language for the sake of those who are too ignorant or lazy to look
>>into a words etymology.
>
>that's absurd. Surely you know better than to insist that the meaning
>of a word is tied exclusively to its etymology.
Language evolves and changes, but you cannot arbitrarily deconstruct a word
and assign its parts new meanings based upon current usage without
destroying the language. Feeling offended because a word has within it the
word "man" or "his" is petty and childish. Should I feel offended because
the word 'hermit' implies that all solitary individuals are female? Does
'Hero' imply that all who show valour are female? Should we have the words
'hemit' and 'heo' to satisfy the whinging of aggreived men who feel
excluded? I think not.
> I agree that the words "chairman" or "history" are not evidence of a culture of misogyny, but I do maintain that in our times, the words have exclusivity. It
>doesn't matter what the etymology states, in 1997 "chairman" looks
>like a combination of "chair" and "man," making the position seem
>exclusive to non-men.
Only due to ignorance or pettiness. A classic example of creating a
grievance for the sake of whinging. Once again, innocent language is
molested for no good reason.
>Yet again, I get to say (so that again no one will listen) that the
>conclusion about prostitution is brought on only partly by that
>specific line. The rest of the verse provides context enough.
Misogyny, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and is certianly
isn't in mine in the case of this song, nor does it seem to be in the eye
of most people who hear this song. Do you not feel that this may perhaps
indicate that you are reading more into is than is really there?
You are starting to sound like those obnoxious born-again xtians who
blather on about how 'satanic messages' are hidden in Disney films.
"...the conclusion about [Satanism] is brought on only partly by [the
alleged 666 pattern created by the dust in the Lion King]. The rest of
[The Lion King] provides context enough." Thpbbbbt!!
> The cabal
>of the Templar Liberals are executing Stalinist progroms? I agree that
>speech codes are bad, but education and sensitivity are not.
Puritanical speech codes, behaviour codes and thought codes are bad, as is
overall sense of 'victim mentality' that PC oversensitivity has engendered
in American cultured.
>>far more harm than good on my old college campus. By encouraging people to
>>think of themselves as aggrieved victims of subtle (i.e. nonexistent)
>>persecution, it sowed the seeds of resentment.
>
>Well, then your school was misdirected.
Yes, they were misdirected by political correctness, which is my point...
>>You cannot simultaneously encourage class conflict and build consensus
>>between the classes.
>
>One first acknowledges the conflict and tries to work around it and fix it.
By encouraging and rewarding those who adopt the victim mentality, PC tends
to encourage conflicts, not fix them.
>>college campuses today. Greek philosophers are out of fashion, and
>>Afrocentrist racism is all the rage...
>
>Ahh yes, and this is no more obvious than at the college campus where
>I'm currently sitting--a campus that offers a year-long class
>encouraged by all freshman called "Greek Thought and Lit." The other
>options in the department are "Readings in World Literature" and
>similar classes. Only the Greeks get their own year.
As they should since modern western culture is derrived from Greek models.
>Furthermore, the
>closest I've come to Afrocentrist racism has been...the empty set.
Surely you have heard of the delighful Mr. Farrakhan and his army of
bigots.
>However, I won't argue that greek philosophers are out of fashion, and
>it's for a good reason: they're *wrong*! And calling Plato and
>Aristotle wrong predates PC by many many years. Nietzsche was
>obviously breaking with them over 100 years ago, and already Hobbes
>and Rousseau were evisioning men different from Plato's. And that was
>200-some years ago.
Greek philosophy hasn't been taught 'as truth' for quite some time; I am
referring to the history of Greek philosophy as the roots of modern westen
thought (Democracy, etc).
>>One does not have to be a member of the 'Lardass Limbaugh' fanclub to
>>despise the excesses of Political Correctness.
>
>Excesses which are so few an far-spread that their effect is laughably minimal.
Yes, it must be a barrel of laughs to be brought before a University
kangaroo court full of PC zealots and be tried for the crime of free
speech. Expulsion from Univesity must be such a hoot, to say nothing of
being blackballed in academe for holding unfashionable opinions.
Michael Lacy
Mr. Mood
>
>[hatred snipped]
>
>--m
>
>
For cryin' out LOUD! It's a song! Tell me you've never thought or said
anything that could be interpreted as offensive (aka politically incorrect to
someone), and then you would STILL be wrong to say that Phish shouldn't play
it. Jeez, grow yourself even a slightly thin elephant skin. Or you would
prefer that Phish stick to some specific list of songs that you think are ok?
Can you imagine -Phish- bowing to politcal pressure? May it never happen.
Keep in mind, also, that much of their music is blues based (incl Suzie). If
you listen to enough blues, you'll know that there are plenty of songs that
take pain and translate it into lyrics that would suggest that the object (and
through him/her the entire gender) is the worst piece of shit on Earth for
causing the aforementioned pain. Shall we all stop listening to the blues?
Sounds like you need to hear more blues.
mood
Grendel
flaccid erudition wrote:
> >"White facist regime"... Well, don't your true colours come come our under
> >a bit of cross examination...Take a moment to wipe the froth from your
>
> that's right...I'm not allowed a sense of humour.[1]
>
> [1] for "white fascist regime" cf "Lethal Weapon 2"
If at any point in my previous posts I have implied that you lack a
sense of humor, I hereby renounce and disavow any such belief. That was
*funny*!
Grendel.
-=-Douglas Aldridge-=-
remove *NOSPAM* to reply
or mail douglasa@thecia(dot)net
Rafayel
Brothers & sisters,
flaccid erudition wrote:
> Another poster might make the claim that "Sample" should
> be taken out of the rotation since it's boring. That
> poster is making the same claim I am.
That is completely incorrect. The person requesting
that *Sample* be removed is simply saying it could be re-
placed with a more exciting, concert-worthy song -- you are
requesting that a song be removed because it offends YOU.
There is a tremendous difference, betwixt the two
complaints.
goddess bless,
bruce (raf...@earthlink.net)
http://www.earthlink.net/~rafayel/datlist.html
flaccid erudition
raf...@earthlink.net posted:
>Brothers & sisters,
>
>flaccid erudition wrote:
>> Another poster might make the claim that "Sample" should
>> be taken out of the rotation since it's boring. That
>> poster is making the same claim I am.
>
> That is completely incorrect. The person requesting
>that *Sample* be removed is simply saying it could be re-
>placed with a more exciting, concert-worthy song -- you are
>requesting that a song be removed because it offends YOU.
Um. You're wrong.
Moacir: "Suzy" is misogynist. It could be replaced with a more exciting,
concert-worthy song.
I think I just said what I've always said...
--m
--
<moacir p. de sa pereira> moa...@earth.uchicago.edu
Special thanks to Ornette and Denardo Coleman...and the New York-London-
Tokyo Hardcore Triangle. Fucking hardcore _rules_. Smash racism. --JZ