Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:53 pm
Panacea's above pic, Geddy thinks,
i've got a method for trying to obtain a fair ethical and aesthetic evaluation of love songs against my jealous instincts, which tend to impute chauvanism to singers, particularly male singers. if the singer is male i try to imagine alternately that he is a woman singing the same lyrics to me personally, and that he is me, singing to a woman. often i find that 'she' couldn't be singing to me at all if she had any idea what i admired, and that were i the singer, i'd loathe to present what prove to be at once too ambitious promises and too great demands to some particular person whom i presumably loved, or even the idea of such a person.
a man boasting of unusual weakness, compliance and dedication can seem unremarkable and even approvable to feminists; we might judge him to be the opposite of chauvanistic, since his claims on the surface oppose his superiority to the fairer sex. when these boasts, however, are translated into a feminine voice, i find that i don't want to hear them, would never accept that someone should want to be completely dependent on me emotionally, and would be reluctant to encourage them because they'd be deceiving themselves in devaluing their need for independence and strength, and would soon realize what a mistake they'd be making by proposing such a hyperbolic demonstration of my value to to them. my assumption is that no one can function without a resilient, independent core of selfhood, and i'd be aghast that anyone would deny themselves for me --not at all flattered, just worried! either they'd be crazy and bound for a major disillusionment, or they wouldn't be self-delusional, but would have such negative feelings about sexuality that they'd deliberately feed a lover such implausible lies. the fact that feminists wouldn't want women to express the like means that it is not predicated on equality. i see the intention of self-abasement, in the context of some love songs sung by men, as a mendacious variety of ordeal, ultimately a condescention that derives from selfconscious reaction to their own assumption of the superior 'strength' and primary agency of the male, designed to refute criticism by ostensible vulnerability ironically showing nothing admirable (and indeed nothing substantial) about a real or imaginary woman serenaded, but only that the man can heroically volunteer to be exactly as weak as he thinks the woman is, and therefore that he has all the right qualities and is certainly not reproachable for chauvanism.
i'm not equally offended by all cliches regarded to be lovers' lies. 'i'd die for you' is an incomparable sentiment if truly meant with realistic contingencies in mind. i might say that to someone and if it were said to me i'd have to take it pretty seriously. people die for other people every day, are sometimes willing to die for strangers or infants. some people make a career out of risking their lives for strangers and infants. and in any case dying is normal. on the other hand, 'i'm lost without you' indicates that something is very wrong: if sincere it means 'i'm fucked up and i think you, in particular, are the only possible answer to my problems, and i'm making a point of telling you this, as if it's a good thing, as if there is nothing wrong with the rationale that if you know that i need you, you might feel more sympathetic, maybe obligated not to hurt me, or maybe validated by the power that i've given you by saying that i need you, depending on how i feel today.' if insincere, of course, 'i'm lost without you' just means 'i expect you to believe any ridiculous thing i tell you. hey, next girl, i'm lost without you, too.'
am i twisting words? some words need twisting.
in one of the songs of which i am skeptical --i haven't bothered to remember the artist but will research a few things if pressed-- the claims of dependency progress into an intense series of imperatives e.g. 'tell me what to be', which i did not see primarily as an appeal for assitance, but as covert expression of frustration and anger from which honest existential fear is undifferentiated, obscured by focus on an object of desire; an act of blame, i think.
the reason on one wants to have anything to do with me, for fuck's sake, is that they perceive my neediness, the fact that i want to be 'saved', even while i've been trying my best to avoid even indirectly suggesting such impossible requests to people who have their own fucking shit to deal with. in other words, i never have and don't think i ever will address someone with an (imperative) request such as to 'save me', or whatnot!
in other words, some of these pop stars make a mockery of my deepest concerns, just bulldoze over the fucking minefield where i'd had to step so carefully, because someone gave them enough money not to have even to try living in the real world anymore.
fuck.
i think i might at this point seem the hypocrite. i abase myself continually and often share my thoughts with others, women in particular, thinking all the while vaguely of ideal love, but i haven't lied so carelessly as a pop song. even when i was unrequitedly in love i knew i'd be doing bloody wrong to go to the woman and say 'look how miserable and worthless i am without you --that's why you should be with me!' i knew i'd be doing both of us a disservice. eventually i did send her a story recounting that i had indeed been miserable, but which i'd hoped successfully conveyed that the misery had already worked itself out and need not be of concern to her unless, perhaps, she wanted me. (instead of finding that she might want me, she almost called the cops, i think).
i've got a method for trying to obtain a fair ethical and aesthetic evaluation of love songs against my jealous instincts, which tend to impute chauvanism to singers, particularly male singers. if the singer is male i try to imagine alternately that he is a woman singing the same lyrics to me personally, and that he is me, singing to a woman. often i find that 'she' couldn't be singing to me at all if she had any idea what i admired, and that were i the singer, i'd loathe to present what prove to be at once too ambitious promises and too great demands to some particular person whom i presumably loved, or even the idea of such a person.
a man boasting of unusual weakness, compliance and dedication can seem unremarkable and even approvable to feminists; we might judge him to be the opposite of chauvanistic, since his claims on the surface oppose his superiority to the fairer sex. when these boasts, however, are translated into a feminine voice, i find that i don't want to hear them, would never accept that someone should want to be completely dependent on me emotionally, and would be reluctant to encourage them because they'd be deceiving themselves in devaluing their need for independence and strength, and would soon realize what a mistake they'd be making by proposing such a hyperbolic demonstration of my value to to them. my assumption is that no one can function without a resilient, independent core of selfhood, and i'd be aghast that anyone would deny themselves for me --not at all flattered, just worried! either they'd be crazy and bound for a major disillusionment, or they wouldn't be self-delusional, but would have such negative feelings about sexuality that they'd deliberately feed a lover such implausible lies. the fact that feminists wouldn't want women to express the like means that it is not predicated on equality. i see the intention of self-abasement, in the context of some love songs sung by men, as a mendacious variety of ordeal, ultimately a condescention that derives from selfconscious reaction to their own assumption of the superior 'strength' and primary agency of the male, designed to refute criticism by ostensible vulnerability ironically showing nothing admirable (and indeed nothing substantial) about a real or imaginary woman serenaded, but only that the man can heroically volunteer to be exactly as weak as he thinks the woman is, and therefore that he has all the right qualities and is certainly not reproachable for chauvanism.
i'm not equally offended by all cliches regarded to be lovers' lies. 'i'd die for you' is an incomparable sentiment if truly meant with realistic contingencies in mind. i might say that to someone and if it were said to me i'd have to take it pretty seriously. people die for other people every day, are sometimes willing to die for strangers or infants. some people make a career out of risking their lives for strangers and infants. and in any case dying is normal. on the other hand, 'i'm lost without you' indicates that something is very wrong: if sincere it means 'i'm fucked up and i think you, in particular, are the only possible answer to my problems, and i'm making a point of telling you this, as if it's a good thing, as if there is nothing wrong with the rationale that if you know that i need you, you might feel more sympathetic, maybe obligated not to hurt me, or maybe validated by the power that i've given you by saying that i need you, depending on how i feel today.' if insincere, of course, 'i'm lost without you' just means 'i expect you to believe any ridiculous thing i tell you. hey, next girl, i'm lost without you, too.'
am i twisting words? some words need twisting.
in one of the songs of which i am skeptical --i haven't bothered to remember the artist but will research a few things if pressed-- the claims of dependency progress into an intense series of imperatives e.g. 'tell me what to be', which i did not see primarily as an appeal for assitance, but as covert expression of frustration and anger from which honest existential fear is undifferentiated, obscured by focus on an object of desire; an act of blame, i think.
the reason on one wants to have anything to do with me, for fuck's sake, is that they perceive my neediness, the fact that i want to be 'saved', even while i've been trying my best to avoid even indirectly suggesting such impossible requests to people who have their own fucking shit to deal with. in other words, i never have and don't think i ever will address someone with an (imperative) request such as to 'save me', or whatnot!
in other words, some of these pop stars make a mockery of my deepest concerns, just bulldoze over the fucking minefield where i'd had to step so carefully, because someone gave them enough money not to have even to try living in the real world anymore.
fuck.
i think i might at this point seem the hypocrite. i abase myself continually and often share my thoughts with others, women in particular, thinking all the while vaguely of ideal love, but i haven't lied so carelessly as a pop song. even when i was unrequitedly in love i knew i'd be doing bloody wrong to go to the woman and say 'look how miserable and worthless i am without you --that's why you should be with me!' i knew i'd be doing both of us a disservice. eventually i did send her a story recounting that i had indeed been miserable, but which i'd hoped successfully conveyed that the misery had already worked itself out and need not be of concern to her unless, perhaps, she wanted me. (instead of finding that she might want me, she almost called the cops, i think).
