Sunday, July 17, 2016

Patriarchy or Insignificance?

This just popped up in my Facebook feed: the guitarist of a historically unimportant punk band named The Slits (this is about as creative as calling your all-chick band Hole) was upset because a text in an exhibition mentioned The Sex Pistols, The Clash and the Buzzcocks, but not hers, so she took matters in her own hands:

Unlike the idiot who wrote the article claims, omitting The Slits is not an act of erasing this band from pop music history, but merely a consequence of inconsequential bands not standing the test of time. Using popularity as a yardstick for significance is not always a good idea, but when the subject is popular music, it doesn't seem all that unsuitable. Thus, it is perfectly plausible that a text highlighting a small number of significant bands does not mention a chick band that happened to jump on the punk bandwagon when it had been well underway, and that never reached a level of success that was even remotely close to the bands that were mentioned. Note that The Sex Pistol were the first "punk" band, a movement that had an enormous influence on music history. Of course, the members of The Slits had cunts, so apparently that's even better.

Dear feminists, cultural Marxists, and leftist morons in general: do we "eradicate female bands" out of history because we are stuck up whiteys who are insecure and need to protect our little boy's club, or is it maybe because women have a hard time competing with men in the field of music? On a related note, Schopenhauer used women's lack of achievement in music as the clearest example for the lack of ambition or talent (or did he even use the triggering term "intelligence"?) of women since they clearly weren't held back in that regard, neither by society --- upper class daughters were actively encouraged, which is still the case --- nor by physical limitations.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
(Also, if you’ve got a comment that is off-topic or only tangentially related to this article, then please post in the most recent Open Thread. Thank you.)


  1. The comments are unbearable, but they're what the leftmost side of my Facebook wall looks like these days.

    There's always a strong correlation between being completely irrelevant, and feeling victimized and persecuted because of it. That correlation is crudely taped together with demands of unequal participation awards, and if you don't receive them yet feel entitled anyway, you throw a bitch-fit, or riot/steal, as the left is prone to do.

    1. Hey Topher

      This a symtomn of something called the progressive virus. For more information read Doctor Anthony Napoleons blog and books he has a book on the progressive virus and a book called shadow men which is about the ones that really rule the world. I first learned of Anthony Napoleon through Strength by Sonny

    2. Thanks for the hint! I just had a brief look at that blog. Seems good.

  2. It seems to me you are ignoring a lot of women who are high achieving musicians, particularly in pop. But other genres as well. Taking a quote said over 100 years ago at a time when women were not just held back by laws but more importantly social conventions and attitudes doesn't seem fair to me.

    There are also women are a more "masculine" psychologically and are very high achievers and bad-asses (one billionaire Lynn Tilton comes to mind). They are a minority but they are out there, the exception disproves the rule.

    1. Then name some, cuck! There is not a single woman who comes close to what the top male composers have achieved, and it wasn't due to some fabled patriarchy. Again, women were actively encouraged to study music. To claim otherwise betrays your lack of education, and only further corroborates that you have been misguided by ideology.

      Lynn Tilton claims to be a billionaire, but she most likely is not. There was another fake female billionaire whose network is now closer to zero: Elizabeth Holmes. Heard of her?

      Lastly, exceptions prove the rule. Just like experience justifies prejudices. Now cuck off.

    2. I don't think naming the statistical outliers really helps anything. I could say Yoko Shimomura is one of my favorite composers (she worked on most of the music for all the Squaresoft games) but she's not "women" in general. The reason people on the left say women only make something like 78% of what a man makes is because they don't at all understand these statistical outliers, or even statistics, or how to compare statistics.

      If Anonymous is talking about people like the hundreds of Korean and Japanese pop stars, they are all very pre-engineered by record companies, the girls are only doing pop to further their modeling and acting careers, and they have themselves done nothing creative to gain their audience.

  3. A.Sleazy,

    So I'm a "cuck" now because I simply disagree on women? And you are jumping around. First punk, now classical composers? Make up your mind. What are you arguing?

    And my mistake, Lynn tilton is worth $600 million not a billion.

    Still it's self-made and a substantial achievement however you look at it. There's also Sara Blakely who's worth over a billion. There's a few more if you're willing to do a simple Google search.

    P.S. You don't seem to fully understand logic. If you claim all women are cowards, and I provide at least one example who is not, I have disproved your claim.

    1. No, we don't disagree. You are simply wrong. The topic was music. The reference to 'classical' music is due to the conclusion of my post. Note that what we now call classical music was once the popular music of its time, albeit addressing a much smaller audience.

      If you want to point out that some woman is a billionaire, she better be one. Maybe run a Google search on what the top male billionaires are worth.

      Lastly, where do I use the word 'coward'? When we talk about a field in which the top performers are exclusively male, then name dropping a woman whose achievements indicate that she is not even part of that set only proves that it's better to spend half a minute on research online before demonstrating to the world that you are at best uninformed and at worst dishonest.

    2. Look dude,

      At best you are ignorant, at worst you are irredeemably stupid. Unless you've been living under a rock, you'll find many if not most of the most popular acts in music right now are women. I can go on at length, (Beyonce, Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Lorde, Lana del Rey, Lady Gaga, and on and on even Madonna is still popular). There is an enormous amount of female talent in music right now.

      Second, how much top male billionaires are worth is irrelevant. Stop moving the goal posts. The issue is female self-made billionaires. They exist. Why they exist is an interesting question but lets first acknowledge their existence before this debate continues any further.

      Third, I used 'coward' as an example in logic. You not only failed to grasp the logic, but even took the example literally like a simpleton. You will not or cannot hold an honest debate if you attack me after the fact I admit a mistake. That makes this all the more pointless so why bother?

    3. Are you retarded? The article pointed out that The Slits are insignificant and most certainly don't deserve a place in the punk rock pantheon. Everything else you brought up is just irrelevant. If you wanted to make the point that women are as successful as men, you've clearly failed. Man, you've been moving the goal post so much you must be getting amazing arms. Seriously, if you want to discuss who's the best at X and it's a guy, then it just doesn't fly that you come in and claim that there is also chick who is "kind of good" at the same thing but who is not even in the same league, for crying out loud. What's next, finding a chick who is able to lift a 50 lbs and claiming this roughly comparable to the weights top male powerlifters get off the ground? Finding a chick who was in the top5 at the chess tournament at her high school and claiming this is about as good as making GM? But don't worry, dude, if I'd get pegged every night by some fat ugly chick like you, I would probably couldn't think clearly either. It's all good.

      Aaron didn't make a logic mistake related to "All X are Y", which can of course be refuted by a counter example. This schema DOES NOT EVEN APPLY to his post. Besides, you initially failed at providing a counter example as you claimed that Lynn Tilton was a billionaire when she wasn't. But, for the sake of argument, let's say she's worth 2bn. It just doesn't matter. Bill Gates is worth what, 70bn? Just like Bill Gates is in an entirely different league from Lynn Tilton, The Sex Pistols are in an entirely different league from The Slits. Is there something else you need us to explain to you? Did you buy any chance grow up without a strong male figure in your life that could have told you to keep your mouth shut instead of embarrassing yourself in public?

    4. You seriously are comparing authors and composers to simple singers ?!? Are you serious ?

      I think nobody denies that women throughouts ages have been "great" singers/performers.

      But hello, hello, anybody home ? Singers/performers create NOTHING. Someone created something for them and they just... perform !

    5. Cuckster (chuckle),

      Music is in large part subjective. We are talking purely about popularity and acclaim. Saying the Slits are insignificant is your opinion. Not a punk aficionado by any means but just going by Wikipedia, their album "Cut" has been called one of the defining post-punk albums. I wouldn't rush to call that insignificant.

      I've never made any such that claim women are as "successful as men". That is not has never been my argument. I said they are capable of great achievement if they have a masculine psychology (logical thinking, assertiveness, problem solving, risk taking etc). Maybe 10-15% of women fall into this category and they are probably mostly lesbian or inclined to women.

      But music is not a masculine field. It is unisex. Anyone can be great at it if they are creative.

      Third, Mr. Sleazy said women (as a whole) lack ambition and talent. This is clearly wrong, so my logic holds. And I provided counter-examples. The issue not how much they've achieved (such as comparing them to male billinaires) but whether the are capable of great achievement on their own merits. To that I say yes.

      P.S. I've never fucked a fat chick in my life. :)

    6. This is getting tiresome. Let me just remark that hardly addressed my points at all and instead attempt moving the goal post once again. I'm not going to bother fleshing out my response, so let's do this quick 'n' easy:

      1) The article wasn't about subjective taste in music. If you thing The Slits are the bestest band ever, then be my guest. Sleazy used popularity as a measure for relatively importance of pop music, which is pretty plausible. The three bands mentioned above are orders of magnitude more popular than some chick punk band that didn't stand the test of time (The Slits).

      2) The text in that picture mentions arguably the three most well-known, influential and commercially successful (not sure about that) punk bands. That there were other band doesn't matter. Sure, if we're talking about the 50 most influential punk bands, we'll probably find a spot for The Slits somewhere.

      3) Who gives a fuck about "great achievement" when they can't really compete? If you need women to compete in a different arena (Special Olympics anyone?) than men, then it only shows that they can't compete with men. Look at music, finance, lifting, etc.

      4) Yeah, everybody is a special snowflake.

      5) Sleazy pointed out that women have a hard time competing with men, which is obviously true, as long as we don't invent bullshit standards like "0.6 billion made by a woman are as good as 70 billion made by a man", which is what you were aiming at. I don't see where he makes a statement about "all women". Please provide a quote. He was talking about Schopenhauer at the end, by the way.

      7) Who gives a fuck about someone's potential? Show what you're made of and then deliver. I'm not knocking the guy (forgot his name anyway but it probably easy to google) who was hailed as the biggest young talent in mathematics in decades. He was a Putnam fellow four years in a row, which is a competition for undergrads. He was 13 or 14 (!) when first became fellow. Yeah, entered college that young. Yet, despite all that, he left academia and in the end didn't even get much of a career off the ground, compared to his potential. Of course, someone like you will come along and say that every dumb 14 year old fuck can become a Putnam fellow too. Say, do you believe that intelligence is heritable?

      8) I don't care about your lack of a sex life.

    7. Looked up the guy: it was Arthur Rubin. Published his first maths paper at 13. Worked as an engineer for about two decades; now you can hire him to do your taxes. Super-smart guy, without a doubt, but clearly didn't live up to his potential. Kind of sad, if you think about it.

  4. Jesus the entitlement and delusion here is astounding. As a really guy who is really into his music I can tell you there are very few seminal girl bands in history. It really seems to be a mans world in music. There are plenty of Fantastic female session players and band members but there is just a big of influential female lead bands hence non-commercial novelty bands not standing the test of time is to be expected expected.

  5. Kind of confused here, but musicians here also include singers, piano performers?

    1. That doesn't really matter in this context, as the differences between the sexes are obvious no matter whether we're talking about classical musicians, composers, or bands. I'm not too familiar with what Top40 pop musicians and bands make. However, the richest performers tend to be male. Taylor Swift has been making bank for a few years, like Katy Perry, but those two are probably outliers. (I'm a fan of Taylor Swift, by the way.) In any case, this would be an entirely different discussion than comparing the relative merits of The Sex Pistols and The Slits.

    2. Huh. I would've never guessed that you were kind of fan of Taylor Swift, Aaron. That brought out a chuckle from me, sorry.

      OTOH, the singer department is more egalitarian by nature, since only castrati could hit the notes and registers usually reserved for sopranos. And no more castrati are being made, that we know of.

    3. I have a rather varied taste. I even have a post on Taylor Swift in the pipeline. ;)

  6. "That doesn't really matter in this context, as the differences between the sexes are obvious no matter whether we're talking about classical musicians, composers, or bands. "

    Nah, if you mean singers than I disagree, but if you mean composers then I wholeheartedly agree.

    Speaking of female composers, I always have Clara Schumann in my mind. On wiki, they attribute this quote to her without citing sources:

    "I once believed that I possessed creative talent, but I have given up this idea; a woman must not desire to compose — there has never yet been one able to do it. Should I expect to be the one?"

    Still, I like her music, and her face leaves a deep impression on me since the old 100 Deutsche Mark that bears her portrait is among the most beautiful piece I ever have in my collection. :)

  7. Take a look at the richest woman in wikipedia: Lilane Bettencourt. She has everything a man or woman who could wish to have: fucking nice upbringing, daughter of Eugène Schueller, founder of L'Oreal. So much of her wealth was inherited from her father.

    You take this and compared to the world class player: George Soros and Warren Buffett, and you will see a marked difference.

    Warren Buffett's starting position isn't bad, but not as spatacular as Madame Bettencourt, Soros' however, starting almost from zero.

    And you have the audacity to claim that those women are "self-made" billionaire.

  8. Here we go again with "the Patriarchy."

    It's amazing how feminism continues to pervade and poison art, especially in film these days. We already know about the Ghostbuster's BS that occurred, and the news is still trying to justify it as a success even though it hasn't made any money yet. This is absolute insanity.

    For example, take Pacific Rim, a movie that saw great success but because it was predicted to flop, it was still regarded as failure. It's budget was $190 million, it's gross was $411 million. Thus, it's not a flop by the numbers.

    Now take Ghostbusters 2016. The budget was $144 million, has only made $158 million as of now. In order for a film to be considered success, a film has to have grossed two and a half times it's budget. Yet, Sony is still planning a sequel for a Ghostbusters film that was a failure. Funny enough, Ghostbusters and Pacific Rim were both produced by Sony.

    The same feminist bullshit occurred in the Little Prince film, which I was looking forward to watching until I found out the director shoehorned a female lead character into it just because of some research that said female characters are underrepresented in animated films.

    If women in art, want respect and praise, then just make it good art, stop shoehorning, changing things, or whining about the lack of skill from feminist artists like The Slits. Woman can make good art but it still has to be good art. I mean, Kathryn Bigelow has directed many great films, and any female character in a David Fincher film proves to be awesome and the actresses he selects give the strongest performance of their careers.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.