Most sexist musical act that's considered "great"?

[Dogzilla]

Regarding Cat Stevens’ “Wild World.” It’s not about his daughter.

From the Wikipedia page (citation included).

Stevens developed a relationship with a young American woman, the actress Patti D’Arbanville, and the two were a pair throughout a period of two years or so. During that time, he wrote several songs about her, including the hit song “Wild World.”

The song is in the form of the singer’s words to his departing lover, inspired by the end of their romance. Stevens later recalled to Mojo: “It was one of those chord sequences that’s very common in Spanish music. I turned it around and came up with that theme- which is a recurring theme in my work- which is to do with leaving, the sadness of leaving, and the anticipation of what lies beyond.” [1]

[Hector_St_Clare]

@Andiethewestie

For me, Wild World was always more of a father lamenting to his daughter about the bad world out there. She intent on leaving and his need to protect her. It sort of worked as a complement song to his Father and Son song, of the two not meeting eye to eye, again Father trying to impart his wisdom, on the life his Son will encounter. In that song Father and Son take turns in the verses so you get both sides of the story. Stevens doesn’t use the same device in Wild World. I wonder if he had written a verse or two from the female perspective it would come across differently.

It’s clearly a romantically tinged song, so I hope it’s not about his daughter.

@Andiethewestie

However, If the song is about a relationship between a man and a woman, I agree, it is sexist to expect that any woman in a liberated society would cowtow to paternalism.

Why? If it’s voluntary on her part, and she enjoys being in a paternalistic relationship?

[

@Andiethewestie

Of course many world religions are based in paternalism which is sexist towards women. He being Muslim, or if he were devout Catholic or Orthodox Jew, there is inherent sexism in how they chose to practice their faith. So it could be an honest reflection of that horrifying reality.

He certainly wasn’t a Muslim when he wrote the song- he was of mixed Greek Orthodox and Baptist parents and went to a Roman Catholic school, so I don’t know what his personal beliefs were then.

[Malthus]

@Andiethewestie

For me, Wild World was always more of a father lamenting to his daughter about the bad world out there. She intent on leaving and his need to protect her. It sort of worked as a complement song to his Father and Son song, of the two not meeting eye to eye, again Father trying to impart his wisdom, on the life his Son will encounter. In that song Father and Son take turns in the verses so you get both sides of the story. Stevens doesn’t use the same device in Wild World. I wonder if he had written a verse or two from the female perspective it would come across differently.

However, If the song is about a relationship between a man and a woman, I agree, it is sexist to expect that any woman in a liberated society would cowtow to paternalism.

Of course many world religions are based in paternalism which is sexist towards women. He being Muslim, or if he were devout Catholic or Orthodox Jew, there is inherent sexism in how they chose to practice their faith. So it could be an honest reflection of that horrifying reality.

That may be what the song is “for you”, but it is not the intent of the song as it was written. It is most definitely about a sexual relationship ending between the singer and his lover.

[Malthus]

@Hector_St_Clare

I don’t find the song either sexist or creepy. For one thing, he’s being paternalistic towards someone he’s in a relationship with, not ‘women’ in general. I realize it’s fashionable nowadays (at least among some people) to insist that relationships be all about a ‘partnership between equals’ or whatever, but that certainly isn’t the traditional ideal for relationships between men and women, and some of us still subscribe to the traditional ideal. The song is pretty emblematic of what I’d say an ideal relationship between a man and his girlfriend/wife/etc. should be like. (I guess I’m the intended audience for the song, because I did find it sweet and sentimental).

It’s excessive. The song quite literally equates the lover with a child.

But if you wanna leave, take good care
I hope you have a lot of nice things to wear
But then a lot of nice things turn bad out there

[Chorus:]
Oh, baby, baby, it’s a wild world
It’s hard to get by just upon a smile
Oh, baby, baby, it’s a wild world
I’ll always remember you like a child, girl

“I hope you have a lot of nice things to wear”? That’s how you talk to a six-year old. I would find it more than slightly creepy to address an adult like that.

My parents were as traditional as a Norman Rockwell print, but my dad never would have addressed my mother like that.

[Dogzilla]

@Malthus

It’s excessive. The song quite literally equates the lover with a child.

“I hope you have a lot of nice things to wear”? That’s how you talk to a six-year old. I would find it more than slightly creepy to address an adult like that.

My parents were as traditional as a Norman Rockwell print, but my dad never would have addressed my mother like that.

I find that line really condescending. It says, “You are so shallow, the only thing that’s important to you is your outfits, instead of me.”

[Andiethewestie]

@Dogzilla

Regarding Cat Stevens’ “Wild World.” It’s not about his daughter.

From the Wikipedia page (citation included).

I would never know by the lyrics alone that it was about a sexual relationship. I think there’s enough to infer other types of relationships.

[Andiethewestie]

Why? If it’s voluntary on her part, and she enjoys being in a paternalistic relationship?

The question was what was the most sexist musical act, I took that as how the audience reacts not the individual. It’s sexist to expect that females like to be treated like children, just as it would be reverse sexism to expect that men would like to get punched in the face just because some men like violence.

[Malthus]

@Andiethewestie

I would never know by the lyrics alone that it was about a sexual relationship. I think there’s enough to infer other types of relationships.

The first verse is about how her leaving is breaking his heart, and how he “lost everything to you”. It is more obviously natural that this would be a romantic relationship. It would be very odd indeed for a father to say that to a child.

[Andiethewestie]

@Malthus

The first verse is about how her leaving is breaking his heart, and how he “lost everything to you”. It is more obviously natural that this would be a romantic relationship. It would be very odd indeed for a father to say that to a child.

Yeah, no don’t see that. How many parents say “I’ve sacrificed everything for you” same difference. To me it could very much be a Dad and his daughter.

[Loach]

@Siam_Sam

How about Billy Joel’s “She’s Always a Woman”? I think there was even a hate thread for it once.

My old roommate used to refer to that as “The Geritol Song” due to lyrics such as “Oh–she takes care of herself.”

As I’ve seen discussed before that song was about his wife at the time. By some accounts she was…complicated. A song that is not flattering about a particular woman is not necessarily sexist. Some women are…complicated. Its telling that *Stiletto * came from the same era.
But can we all agree that Girls by the Beastie Boys is sexist?

Girls - to do the dishes
Girls - to clean up my room
Girls - to do the laundry
Girls - and in the bathroom
Girls, that’s all I really want is girls
Two at a time I want girls
With new wave hairdos I want girls
I ought to whip out my girls, girls, girls, girls, girls!

[Guinastasia]

@Hector_St_Clare

Why is that even ‘gross’? Assuming everyone involved is 18+, etc.

Did you even read the thread? The girl in the song ISN’T 18+. That’s the whole point!

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

To get back on track, SciFiSam nailed it with James Brown. No other act named, not even the Stones, deserved to be mentioned in the same breath with Soul Brother No. 1.

[Malthus]

@Andiethewestie

Yeah, no don’t see that. How many parents say “I’ve sacrificed everything for you” same difference. To me it could very much be a Dad and his daughter.

“Sacrificed everything for you” isn’t really the same as “lost everything to you”. In context, it is pretty obviously a romantic relationship. This verse would be a very odd word choice for a kid leaving home.

Now that I’ve lost everything to you
You say you wanna start something new
And it’s breakin’ my heart you’re leavin’
Baby, I’m grievin’

I mean, we know it was intended to be a romantic relationship, so it makes sense.

[Siam_Sam]

Has Frank Zappa been mentioned yet? From “Catholic Girls” on I think it was the Joe’s Garage album:

"With a tongue like a cow, they can make you go wow!"

Made me want to go to mass, and I’m not even Catholic!

[woodstockbirdybird]

@Blake

So you claim loudly and repeatedly that “many of the hard rock songs mentioned in this thread … treat the woman as an object that exists solely for the male’s pleasure”.

And when asked for evidence of those strident claims, you use a song that has never been mentioned in this thread.

:rolleyes:

Funny, I specifically mentioned Motley Crue and Kiss earlier in the thread, so I’m not sure what your issue is. I also talked about “Givin the Dog a Bone”, which I’ll unfortunately return to shortly. Here’s the thing: there are plenty of songs about male desire that don’t come across as sexist (I’m too much of a Prince fan to make such blanket statements), but when every song you play that deals with women is about fucking them or their perfidious nature, yeah, I don’t think it’s a wild leap to assume you’ve got issues with women. In fairness, once Robert Plant got older and wiser, that kind of lyrical content dropped off (not the case with Kiss or Motley Crue - or even Prince, who at least had plenty of love songs to go with his sex stuff).

@Blake

So any time that man describes the pleasure he gets form sex, that is inherently sexist.

I have to go with the consensus opinion here. You have no idea what sexist means. I suggest you get a dictionary.

A man is allowed to describe a past sexual event from his perspective. That is not in any conceivable manner sexist. You and a handful of the most radical lunatic feminsists of the “all men are rapists” stripe are the only people on the planet who believe such a thing. You are theonly ones who could believe such a thing.

Wrong. I realize how oppressed you white males are by all these scary feminists out to castrate you, so anything that challenges your “boys will be boys” outlook threatens the shit out of you, but I’m nowhere near the “all men are rapists” end of the spectrum (thank Christ, since I have always loved having sex with my girlfriends). Maybe I’m wrong, but you strike me as the kind of guy who, if in a group of males, will talk about some co-worker’s “nice tits” without ever considering how douchey it is, because “that’s how guys are” and “durp, men like sex”. You can keep pretending your experience is indicative of how men as a whole act, but I can honestly tell you none of my male friends and I talk about women in this manner (or in the manner the hard rock singers do). Grown-ups can appreciate attractiveness without having any sexual feelings at all. 14-year-olds and misogynists are another matter.

@Blake

Please provide a single line from any of the AC/DC songs quoted in this thread that suggest that the singer believe that sex is all about their pleasure.

You are projecting here. And projecting really heavily. A man describing what he felt during a sexual encounter is just that, a description of personal sensation. It’s not an indication that he only ever thinks about what he feels.

Once again, only you a handful of radical lunatic feminists could possibly believe that simply describing male sexual pleasure is indicative of a lack of consideration of female sexual pleasure.

When all you do in your songs about women is describe your sexual pleasure, I’d tend to deduce you’re maybe not the most thoughtful, evolved guy on the block. Is it proof he’s a sexist? No. But there’s more evidence there than there is for the existence of God.

By the way, I’m enjoying your label of me as a “radical lunatic feminist”. After reading your posts here, I kind of consider it a badge of honor.

@Blake

There is nothing disparaging in their. It’s an honest description that acknowledges that his lover does not have the face and figure of a supermodel.

Can you please explain to us how that is disparaging?

50% of women are below average in appearance. Describing them in that manner is not sexist, it’s honest. A man saying that a woman is below average in appearance but she has other desirable traits is also not sexist.

Are you saying that any description of a woman doesn’t describe her as looking like a supermodel, or it is disparaging? That a man can not honestly describe a woman as being slightly above average in appearance without it being disparaging?

I am seeing some seriously warped and sexist attitudes in this thread. But they are all coming for you. The idea that a woman is being disparaged if she is described as not being a supermodel is just too sexist for words.

You’re either being willfully obtuse or you really are extremely misogynistic. The song’s theme is not “My baby may not be a supermodel, but I love her anyway”. It’s a guy insulting the looks of a woman blowing him. What a stupid fucking hill for you to want to die on. Really, if you can’t see it by now, we might as well be talking different languages. I mean, I know I’m one of them there radical feminists, but if there’s any woman you know who thinks being compared to a dog is complimentary by any stretch of the imagination, please bring them in here to set me straight.

@Blake

Nobody described him as a gentleman. In fact my description of it was “tasteless”. So lets cut the strawmen, mmkay?

First off, the woman in the song is never at any point described as ugly. She is described as not being equivalent to the epitome of facial and physical beauty in our society. Nothing more. Your idea seems to be that any man has describe any woman as being a classical beauty with the body of a playboy model. And any man who doesn’t lie about the 99% of women who do not meet that standard is sexist.

If that isn’t your position, then can you please explain how describing a woman as not living up to the highest ideals of female beauty is sexist.

I say once again, your attitude here appears to be more sexist than anything in the songs. You seem to be saying that if 99% of women are described honestly, that they will take that as disparaging because their looks are the only thing about them that matters.
Secondly, can you please explain to use how saying that a woman great sexual technique is exist.

Because I’m sure we are all dying to here you explain how it’s somehow offensive to a woman to say that she is not one of the most beautiful women in the world, and she is a fantastic and thoughtful lover.

You seem to be saying that any admission that a woman can be a good lover is somehow offensive. But you wouldn’t be saying such an incredibly sexist thing. Now would you?

Good to know song lyrics aren’t the only thing you can’t read for comprehension. ANyway, as I said, we’re obviously not going to see eye to eye. But when the only good thing you have to say about a woman involves her ability to give head, you just might be sexist. Not to mention the fact that bringing up a woman’s appearance in a negative way serves no good purpose except to show how shallow and dickish you are. I’ve never dated supermodels, but they were attractive to me because I cared about them as people. Hint: That’s nowhere near what the song is saying.

@Blake

Here, let me quote you: “the fact that a song is about the male’s pleasure exclusively seems pretty sexist to me”.

IOW any man writing about what is important to his sexual experiences is immediately sexist because he doesn’t write about what is important to his partner as well. At least according to you.

So can you now please just admit that this is what you said?

Just admit that you said that any man writing about what his sexual experiences is immediately sexist because the song he writes is about the male’s pleasure exclusively.

I’ll amend it to the extent that I mean if the male’s sexual pleasure is exclusively what you sing about, I think you’re sexist. I agree it was poorly worded originally.

@Blake

So I ask once again: provide a single line from a single song quoted prior to your post 55, that suggests that the woman exists song as nothing but a receptacle for his dick.

Already did. The fact that youwant to wave away the Motley Crue and Kiss lyrics are not my concern.

@Blake

I’m not quite sure what your position is. It seems amazingly prudish, misandrist and patronising to women.

You say that describing a woman honestly as anything less than a masterpeice oil painting or supermodel is sexist.

You say that describing a woman as having great sexual technique is sexist.

You say that an man who writes a perfectly accurate description of his physical sensations during sex is sexist.

You say that any man who calls his partner woman is sexist.

I’m not sure at this stage exactly what you are against. Honesty by men and implementation of sexuality by women it seems.

But you sure don’t seem to understand what sexism is.

Then we’re even, because you don’t seem to understand a damn thing I’ve said in this whole thread.

@Blake

Do you think it could be that whole “fighting ignorance” thing? Or did you forget what message board you were posting on?

When someone posts something as ignorant as “if a song written by a male is about the male’s pleasure exclusively makes, that makes it sexist” you don’t really think they’re gonna get an easy ride on these boards do you?

No, that can’t be it. Most men don’t; post statements as ignorant and sexist as “Any honest description of 99% of women is disparaging” and “any time a man describes his experience of sex, that’s sexist”. So it can’t be just the way men are.

Fighting ignorance? I refer you to your interpretation of the “unattractive woman” lyrics you continue to reference.

Anyway, yeah - poor you. I’m assuming you’re a publicist for AC?DC, so it must really smart to hear hard rock singers might be sexist. You call me misandrist, I call you misogynist. And judging from your posts, I have no problem with that.

I’ll post more when I’m off work. I’m quite enjoying this thread.

[Kent_Clark]

@woodstockbirdybird

I realize how oppressed you white males . . .

Felt it necessary to play the race card, did you?

[woodstockbirdybird]

We feminist loonies always use the race card!

[woodstockbirdybird]

@Princhester

Calling a woman a dumbass is not inherently sexist: maybe she’s just a dumbass. If you wouldn’t call a man out for saying another man is ugly, but would call him out for saying a woman is ugly, then you are sexist, not him.

This might make sense if we lived in a society where women haven’t historically valued based mainly on their physical appearance, or if men had, but that’s not the society I live in (maybe you do - do you reside on the moon?). You can’t pretend it’s all equal when it comes to judging appearances and the massive amount of sexist baggage associated with mocking a woman’s appearance.

@Princhester

Treating all women as if they are precious petals who must be elevated onto a pedestal is highly sexist, since you are suggesting they are less resilient than men.

I was unaware that treating women as people rather than fuck-toys constituted putting them on a pedestal, but again, I’m not in my 60s.

@DonLogan

Now I’ve heard everything.

So I did an informal (unscientific, anecdotal, yes, I know) poll of 5 women close to me, ranging in age from 24-35, and they all told me they’d find being referred to as “woman” objectionable. “What’s my gender got to do with the way you address me?” (paraphrasing) was one response; “Anybody who knows me knows my name; it’s a sign of disrespect to refer to me based on my genitals” (another paraphrase) was another. I did ask a couple about the “damn, woman, you clean up nice!” example, and they admitted it wouldn’t bother them, but they said basically they’d see it as a playful, ironic use of the word - kind of making fun of guys who’d say “woman”.

So I guess I’d ask you this: how many women you care about would have to tell you this before you’d change your mind on it? Two? Fifty? As a guy who’s been in a relationship for 15 years and has a lot of women friends, I’m more apt to take their word on what offends them as women than to double down on the “But I don’t mean it in a sexist way!” defense. There have been plenty of times where my intention wasn’t to be a dick, but I ended up hurting feelings anyway; you can keep doing that kind of thing, secure in your righteousness, or you can listen to others and try to understand why their feelings are hurt and stop doing it. It’s surprising how many people choose the former course of action, and then get shocked when people get pissed at them.

Again, I only asked a small sample within a limited age range, so it could very well be a generational thing. But “That’s the way I grew up talking” isn’t a great excuse to keep saying shit that offends people, be they women or minorities (I’ve known a shocking number of old people who used the terms “negro” or “colored” and refused to stop decades after they knew it wasn’t kosher). Calling someone what they prefer to be called isn’t an attack on you and your values, it’s basic courtesy. It’s funny how many people who consider themselves liberal are so conservative when it comes to this type of thing.

[woodstockbirdybird]

@The_Peyote_Coyote

To get back on track, SciFiSam nailed it with James Brown. No other act named, not even the Stones, deserved to be mentioned in the same breath with Soul Brother No. 1.

Oh, and definitely +2 to James Brown. Good call.

[Hector_St_Clare]

I have to say, I thoroughly agree with (and enjoyed) Blake’s point by point demolishing of woodstockbirdybird.