[ SECRET POST #1680 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1680 ⌋


Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________

02. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

03.


__________________________________________________

04.


__________________________________________________

05.


__________________________________________________

06.


__________________________________________________

07.


__________________________________________________

08.


__________________________________________________

09.


__________________________________________________

10.


__________________________________________________

11.


__________________________________________________

12.


__________________________________________________

13.


__________________________________________________

14.


__________________________________________________

15.


__________________________________________________

16.


__________________________________________________

17.


__________________________________________________

18.


__________________________________________________

19.


__________________________________________________

20.


__________________________________________________

21.


__________________________________________________

22.


__________________________________________________

23.


__________________________________________________

24.


__________________________________________________

25.


__________________________________________________

26.


__________________________________________________

27.


__________________________________________________

28.


__________________________________________________

29.


__________________________________________________

30.


__________________________________________________

31.


__________________________________________________

32.


__________________________________________________

33.



Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 102 secrets from Secret Submission Post #240.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - hit/ship/spiration ], [ 0 - omgiknowthem ], [ 0 - take it to comments ], [ 0 - repeats ]
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

Comments

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

Fail so hard. Did you seriously think this was just about asking for gayed-up songs?

A gay-focused song wouldn't be great either; unless the song was about an experience specific to queer people, it would be pointless to put pronouns in a love song by a queer artist as well. You could argue it as a representational thing, but that's about it.

[alliterations.livejournal.com]

Fail so hard, not addressing any of my other points about your entitled attitude!

And you used the word "heterosexism" which I assumed meant you were also angry about the "boy singing to girl" or "girl singing to boy" issue some other people have raised. So. I don't think that word means what you think it does.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

"Entitled"? I don't think that word means what YOU think it means.

Heterosexism is relevant here because gendered pronouns USUALLY put the song in a heterosexual context AND destroy the universality of the song. Doesn't mean I'd welcome the reverse.


And it occurs to me that if we were discussing books or movies, people would NEVER be defending this shit as "personal expression," wtf.

[alliterations.livejournal.com]

Honey, you're implying that songwriters should make all their songs gender neutral because you think it's better that way. If that's not entitled, I don't know what is.

But if you'd be pissed off by any use of pronouns, why bring up that word at all?

No, books and movies are personal expression. But in discussing those, people often come off as "I disliked this certain thing, and I think it could have been done better because of X reason" rather than "I disliked this certain thing and I think I know better than the author/movie producer/whoever and they should change it because I say so."
Not to say people don't do the latter when discussing books and movies, and it is just as entitled as what you're saying.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

But if you'd be pissed off by any use of pronouns, why bring up that word at all?

I explained that. Pretty clearly, I think.

Protesting the thoughtless reinforcement of a hegemonic paradigm (not that this was even the entire thrust of my concern, as I already explained) is not entitled and never could be. If people complained because ALL the main and important characters in a book or movie were male, or white, or whatever, for absolutely no good reason, no, that would not be "entitled" EITHER. It would be perfectly reasonable.

[alliterations.livejournal.com]

My point is completely going over your head, isn't it?

My problem is not with people finding problems within any kind of media. Hell, I do it all the time. My problem is with people thinking that the author/songwriter/whoever should change it because they happen to not like it. What you are talking about, concerning the male white characters, is a valid point within the context of sexism and the lack of non-white characters in media. Saying "I don't like this main, male character, because he is a bad stereotype of sexist male patriarchy" is different than saying "I don't like this main, male character, the author should have made the character female because I think that would be better."

The latter is entitled, and the latter is exactly what you're doing with gendered pronouns.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

I'm saying the former, you twit.

[alliterations.livejournal.com]

No, you're not.

If your opinion is that you feel the "he"/"she" is added just to make the songs have heterosexual appeal, or you feel that it doesn't flow well with the song, or you just plain don't like it, fine. I'm not arguing the fact that you can't have an opinion.

But where you start getting into the elitism is implying that nearly all gender neutral songs are not just better in your opinion, but are inherently better, and you say you "don't have to respect the enforced heterosexism."

No, you don't have to respect that. But you do have to respect the fact that certain others like these songs, and identify with them, and certain songwriters will write them, no matter what you think. Your opinion and interpretation is no more valid than anyone else's.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

No, you're not.

Yes, I am! Oooh, now say, "no you're not" again!

WTF, part of my problem is the pointless heterosexual focus of most current, mainstream music. That is no different from complaining that most of the important and active roles in film go to men.

If your opinion is that you feel the "he"/"she" is added just to make the songs have heterosexual appeal, or you feel that it doesn't flow well with the song

I said both of those things as well...

But yes, gender-neutral songs ARE generally inherently better (presuming there is no good reason to make the song more specific) because more people can identify with them.

Your opinion and interpretation is no more valid than anyone else's.

What is this stupid meme and can it die.

I can think "The Yellow Wallpaper," is about, say, communism. That could be my opinion and interpretation. But it's NOT valid. It's wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

And it occurs to me that if we were discussing books or movies, people would NEVER be defending this shit as "personal expression," wtf.

Neither would anyone say that authors should use genderless pronouns in order to appeal to the most amount of people, so there you go.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

Uh, but most characters aren't genderless. It would be virtually impossible to tell a story without indicating the character's gender (most of the time).

It's not only not impossible to do that in a song, it's fucking EASY.

[insanenoodlyguy.livejournal.com]

Easy? Sure. But not necessarily what the artists decide to write. Which is all that matters. Your inclusive/buisness philosophy isn't all that proven, plenty of gender-specific pronoun using songs have done quite well.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not only not impossible to do that in a song, it's fucking EASY.
Agreed.

It's hilarious to me that it's totally fine and indeed expected to call out any other creative form (books, movies, etc.) for sexism or homophobia or whatever even though they're much more restricted in how they can tell a story, but all these oh-so-special musicians - especially considering many singers don't even write their own songs and so they aren't limited to a particular performer - are apparently the only ones who can hide behind the "reason" of creative expression and personal meaning. Sorry, folks, the majority of songs out there, especially the ones that are more likely to have a randomly and unnecessarily inserted girl/boy or two (or dozen) are not art any more than any other piece of mass-produced pop culture.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

This, basically, thank you.

Most songs you hear right now are not actually one person's deeply person musical expression of how they felt when their marriage of 20 years fell apart. It's more like HOT SEXORS/TWU LOVE WHOOO *dancing with chairs in the music video*

[(Anonymous)]

And see, this attitude completely blows my mind. How is using gender specific pronouns in any way sexist or homophobic? A singer covering a song originally done by the opposite sex and switching the gender pronouns, yes, I agree on that, but that's not what the secret is about. But, say, a man singing a song about being in love with a woman? How on earth is that sexist or homophobic?

And please cite me some facts and data to prove that the "majority of songs out there" are not art. Who decides that, exactly? You?

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

But, say, a man singing a song about being in love with a woman? How on earth is that sexist or homophobic?

It's not. But why add in mention of her gender when the song is otherwise doing fine without it?

PRIME EXAMPLE that just rolled up on my iPod: Michael Buble's version of "Fever."

Seriously, was that "chicks" line necessary? I'm going to say HELL NO.

[(Anonymous)]

Because the song is about a woman that he's in love with? I truly don't know why this needs any other answer. It's not about you. It's not about who you're in love with. It's not about who any other listener is in love with. It's about who the songwriter is in love with. (I'm speaking about the vague "man writes a song about a woman" hypothetical here, not Michael Buble. I haven't heard that song and don't know anything about it)

Different Anon

[(Anonymous)]

Using your rules, in that song he shouldn't say "When you put your arms around me" because there are people who love one armed people and that excludes them from the song. It would be more inclusive if there was no mention of any body parts.
Any time a song mentions arms, lips, eyes, sex, beauty, intelligence, or any other damn physical or mental attribute someone is excluded. If you think a song inserts in characteristics poorly, don't give money to that artist.

[(Anonymous)]

This is the idea that was raised in discussion of this secret - that forcing gender specific pronouns into lyrics that don't require them may be considered some sort of "Whoa! Nothing gay here, folks!" paranoia on behalf of the singer or songwriter. That is homophobic. As is the fact that many now-out singers have sung songs about supposedly being in love with women, which was clearly driven by commercial and publicity concerns (I'm thinking of several U.S. boy band members). Is this the case for all songs, songwriters, or singers? Of course not. But there is more to songs - the writing of them and which ones actually get produced or played or whatever - than an individual's personal expression (which by the way is ALSO influenced by the person's social environment, career concerns, etc.). That seems to be beyond the comprehension of most of the commenters in this thread.

I didn't say songs aren't art. I said they aren't art, as implied by the supposed need to protect and defend the "artist's" right to creative expression (which of course is pure and beautiful and not sullied by anything so crass as money or cultural biases). And if you think the hundreds of examples of songs out there with lyrics like "Yeah, girl, I want you" or "Oh, boy, you're so fine" or something similar is the truest expression of art put to music, then I pity you. Me, I'm willing to consider most pop songs disposable.

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't say songs aren't art. I said they aren't art

...What?

This is the idea that was raised in discussion of this secret - that forcing gender specific pronouns into lyrics that don't require them may be considered some sort of "Whoa! Nothing gay here, folks!" paranoia on behalf of the singer or songwriter. That is homophobic.

And that is you (and possibly the OP, though as someone else downthread pointed out, the OP didn't mention homophobia in the secret) creating your own paranoia and attaching fabricated reasons to people choose to write what they do. I mean, I just can't even further parse your comment, because you're speaking about songs as if they're not the creation of their writers, as if they're, IDK, public property for which we all vote and add our input into how they should go. There is no such thing as "forcing gender specific pronouns into lyrics that don't require them" because the songwriter and the singer decide what is required of the lyrics, not you. Again, to make a book comparison - you may love Harry Potter and think Harry/Luna is the greatest idea ever and the best pairing and that JK Rowling should write it into the last book. But it's not your book and you don't get to make that decision. You can be upset about it and you can make the decision not to buy the book, but you don't decide what is best for the book.

And if you think the hundreds of examples of songs out there with lyrics like "Yeah, girl, I want you" or "Oh, boy, you're so fine" or something similar is the truest expression of art put to music, then I pity you. Me, I'm willing to consider most pop songs disposable.

Yes, because those "hundreds" of songs are the only type out there, and certainly the only type that use gender specific pronouns! You can paint as much music as you like as "disposable" but again, I ask, who decides what is and isn't "art" and what is and which songwriters' creativity is worthy of defense and protection and which isn't?

[(Anonymous)]

First of all, easy? I just literally don't even know how to answer this. As if writing music is easy at all and to just change words in a song put together in a specific way is a simple as doing a find and replace.

Second of all, okay, lets assume it is that easy. So the fuck what? Point is, it's still just as much that songwriter's song as it is an author's story, so why should someone change a fundamental part of it just because it would be simple to do?

Third of all, you seem to be assuming that figures depicted in songs are genderless. Maybe they are to you until you're proven wrong, but they're not to the person writing the song.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

...Just....what....how many thousands upon thousands of songs survived on "you" and "they"?

I'm sure those were SO much harder to write, anon.

[(Anonymous)]

One thing has nothing to do with another. I never said that writing "you" or "they" is hard in itself, but that forcing someone to change the lyrics to a song, like from "him" to "they" is not as simple as just replacing all of the "him"s with "they"s. A writer sitting down to write a song can decide to write in any number of ways, but declaring that they should force themselves to write in the specific way that you want is ridiculous, and no more easy than telling an author to remove all trace of gender from their story.

Have you ever written any music? I'm honestly asking, because I just don't even know how to continue this discussion with you when you speak as if writing music is as simple as plugging words into Mad Libs.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

Music, no. Poetry, yes. And "it's my personal expression!" doesn't fly in poetry written for an audience, either.

[herongale]

What kind of crap music do you listen to where gender-specificity is just some pasted-on thing?

Of course, there are many wonderful songs which make excellent use of gender neutral language, even when the song is dedicated to a specific person. Example: George Michael's "Jesus to a Child," which is a song dedicated to his dead lover, Anselmo Feleppa. (Listen here.)

But then there are the amazing songs where the gender specificity is crucial. Example: "Michelle," by The Beatles. It's not just about women, it's about a woman. Or songs like "Thunder Road" by Bruce Springsteen, with the lyric "well now I'm no hero, that's understood, all the redemption I can offer, girl, is beneath this dirty hood," which is a song he is clearly singing to one particular person.

There are plenty of classic and modern songs which I couldn't imagine without the gender specificity.

Or do you think "Short Skirt, Long Jacket" by CAKE should have been, idk, NOT about "a girl with fingernails that shine like justice, and a voice that is dark like tinted glass?"

Get some culture! GENDER SPECIFICITY IN MUSIC IS A PART OF THE ARTISTRY OF GOOD STORYTELLING, WHICH IS IN TURN A PART OF ALL THE GREATEST SONGS.