rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/15/85)
I'm just wondering. It seems that throughout recent history, there
have been women who dressed sleazily or trashily who were in the public
eye, or who at least flaunted their sexuality as a primary facet to
their public appeal. No one (or at least very few) ever really seriously
complained about them very much as "role models".
Now, along comes Madonna, who not only fits the above description, but who
also promotes her "material girl" philosophy (which some seem to have
interpreted as "use 'em and lose 'em", analogous to a famous similar
expression used among some elements of the male community). Suddenly,
the uproar begins. Could it be that this one element, this difference
between her and those who preceded her, could be the source of the uproar?
Just wondering. Especially considering the position and tone of her
detractors.
I am taking this opportunity to announce that, due to unpopular demand, I am
(finally) discontinuing my series of "Like a dervish (HEY!), whirled for
the very first time..." signature lines. Threats, violence, hate mail,
all failed to deter me from continuing them. The straw that broke the
camel's back was the flurry of new ideas that made the "virgin" lines
seem to be high humor by comparison ("Like a clergyman, defrocked for...",
"About 'like a sturgeon'---is that fishful thinking?"). I thought no one
could invent humor lower and more tasteless than these signature lines.
I was wrong. :-)
In conclusion...
--
"I can hear your watch beep, for the very first time..." :-)
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlrjbuck@epicen.UUCP (Joe Buck) (07/23/85)
> I'm just wondering. It seems that throughout recent history, there > have been women who dressed sleazily or trashily who were in the public > eye, or who at least flaunted their sexuality as a primary facet to > their public appeal. No one (or at least very few) ever really seriously > complained about them very much as "role models". > > Now, along comes Madonna, who not only fits the above description, but who > also promotes her "material girl" philosophy (which some seem to have > interpreted as "use 'em and lose 'em", analogous to a famous similar > expression used among some elements of the male community). Suddenly, > the uproar begins. Could it be that this one element, this difference > between her and those who preceded her, could be the source of the uproar? ... > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Come on. I suppose you never saw "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes", starring Marilyn Monroe. The "Material Girl" video is almost identical (intentionally) to Monroe's number "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" (she's even wearing the same dress! She looks a lot better in it than in the garbage she usually wears). The point is, there's nothing at all new about the image of the golddigger who uses sex to get what she wants. It's a throwback, in fact. Video is ruining opportunities for serious female rock musicians, it seems. There's far too much emphasis on the way the woman looks. I don't object to musicians expressing their sexuality. It's the pandering to juvenile fantasies that I have a problem with. So what female musicians do I respect? Chrissie Hynde (!!), Tina Turner, and many others that you all are less likely to have heard of. These women are sexy, but they don't degrade themselves (or their fans) to be that way. I did like your .signatures though, Rich. -- Joe Buck Entropic Processing, Inc. (epi) UUCP: {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!epicen!jbuck ARPA: dual!epicen!jbuck@BERKELEY.ARPA George Orwell: The slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.