[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

that was a great review!

Thanks! Sonic Life

[ann ashtray]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

anyone can claim to judge anyone as an individual, but everyone brings a set expectations to said individual judgments (otherwise judgment would be impossible, as there would be no standard against which to judge).

those expectations are formed by many socially-received preconceptions which are biased. with that, people of different genders are habitually judged differently.

e.g., we're talking here about "men and women". as if there were only 2 genders. so we try to put everyone into those boxes. with expectations that go with them. that in itself makes it impossible to judge everyone as an individual correctly-- referring them to a standard that doesn't necessarily suit them.

just like patricia arquette asking for equal pay for women who are "mothers" to every gay and person of color and taxpayer what?

one can try to avoid that sort of bias, but anyone claiming to be totally free of socially-acquired biases is delusional/in denial. it's nearly impossible to see things or people outside categories.



that was a great review!

So, in other words you're stating that everyone is a racist to some degree?

Just kidding. ;0

I see what you are saying, and from that angle it makes sense. Even though there's big difference between being somewhat biased due to preconceived notions that someone else is different because of the way they look, and all out hatred however because of whatever differences.

You were alluding to people being hateful toward women, in the plural sense,...which I've not witnessed in this thread. Certainly one can dislike one woman...or even hate several women...and not be a "woman hater". That's absurd.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by ann ashtray

So, in other words you're stating that everyone is a racist to some degree?

YES. though not on purpose-- the software is just there floating around people's heads.

with this i'm not naturalizing racism, i.e., i'm not saying that because it's out there we should embrace it, or something like that. it needs to be fought at the software level, but it's not like we can reboot the planet and start with a clean OS (failed revolutions have proved that). change takes a long time.

Originally Posted by ann ashtray

Just kidding. ;0

really?

Originally Posted by ann ashtray

I see what you are saying, and from that angle it makes sense. Even though there's big difference between being somewhat biased due to preconceived notions that someone else is different because of the way they look, and all out hatred however because of whatever differences.

it's not just the way someone looks, it's also them fitting one's expectations of what they're supposed to be, and when they don't, social condemnation ensues. those expectations are more often than not gendered.

poor thurston tried to turn things on their head when he launched into his misguided "jezebel is gender fascism" facebook comments. in a way, he was on to something; in another way, he was completely off the mark-- because men do get judged differently, and in some cases they get more shit than women for certain types of failures. but the public rage was not about him being a man-- it was about him having kept a lie going for years. so his shots backfired-- just made him look more like an entitled male. though people were projecting a lot of their personal issues onto him as well.

Originally Posted by ann ashtray

You were alluding to people being hateful toward women, in the plural sense,...which I've not witnessed in this thread. Certainly one can dislike one woman...or even hate several women...and not be a "woman hater". That's absurd.

well maybe i'm going too far in making the connection, but there are A LOT of people who want women to just shut the fuck up. here's an example provided by google:

http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com...t-the-fuck-up/

it's not just the guy who writes it but the comments. if i read that out of context i'd have to think this is a sendoff, pure comedic bullshit, a satire of misogyny, but no, i think it's serious, and look at the comments too. those people exist and and their software is real, unbelievable as it seems.

when people say kim shouldn't write about this or that or why is she still sore about getting fucked over or that men think with their dicks and get used to it-- i can't help to smell the percolating stench of that mob-- diluted maybe, but still there.

[ann ashtray]

Symbol guy has been repped. For the record, I'm just tipsy enough to openly admit that hes amongst my top 5 fav posters. If there was, even though there is not, one person here I could be more like....


Everyone tear me a new one and post pics of my 19 year old self now


Go....

[whorefrost]

Sleater-Kinney's Carrie Brownstein and Kim talk about Sonic Youth and Kim's new memoir, 'Girl in a Band,' in an hour-long video interview

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by whorefrost

Sleater-Kinney's Carrie Brownstein and Kim talk about Sonic Youth and Kim's new memoir, 'Girl in a Band,' in an hour-long video interview

THIS whenever the fuck i find a spare hour out of my 16 hour work days and grading/homework im going to listen

[thewall91]

I finished the book this week. One thing I don't understand is so many fans' disinterest in, borderline anger about her writing about the affair. The person who's been the mysterious, cool, collected, strong silent one in the band finally opens up and gets backlash for doing so - accusations of the book making her "more like celebrities," or doing it "just to sell books." How about it's a book about her life, and this is obviously a huge part of her life? How could she leave it out? I don't understand how Thurston can have a six-year affair and people somehow aren't as angry with him as they are with Kim for talking about it. She wasn't the one who broke up the band - he was. It wasn't a momentary lapse of judgment - it was a full-blown affair. Anyone who's ever been in a band knows that the band is like a marriage - so he didn't just cheat on her, he cheated on the band. I thought the first chapter of the book was so powerful and so emotional - why aren't self-proclaimed fans feeling empathy instead of apathy? Who cares how you feel? Can you just cut the crap and please tell me what Beauty Lies in the Eye is about? Instead, people are just sad to find out that our idols are actual humans and don't live up to our fairytale ideals of them. I get it - like Rob Instigator's review said, it did feel like your parents getting divorced. Maybe seeing the details in stark print just confirm what everyone knew but didn't want to admit. But that's not Kim's fault - that's just life.

Having gotten that off my chest, as a rock autobiography, I found it average (though to be fair, I read it right after Al Jourgensen's book - so the contrast was stark and anything would seem tame in comparison.) As a piece of art, I found it above average. I thought her writing was a lot like SY's music - bursts of emotion and energy, some poetic, mixed with some noise, some of which went on for a bit longer than I'd have liked.

[greenlight]

Originally Posted by thewall91

I finished the book this week. One thing I don't understand is so many fans' disinterest in, borderline anger about her writing about the affair. The person who's been the mysterious, cool, collected, strong silent one in the band finally opens up and gets backlash for doing so - accusations of the book making her "more like celebrities," or doing it "just to sell books." How about it's a book about her life, and this is obviously a huge part of her life? How could she leave it out? I don't understand how Thurston can have a six-year affair and people somehow aren't as angry with him as they are with Kim for talking about it. She wasn't the one who broke up the band - he was. It wasn't a momentary lapse of judgment - it was a full-blown affair. Anyone who's ever been in a band knows that the band is like a marriage - so he didn't just cheat on her, he cheated on the band. I thought the first chapter of the book was so powerful and so emotional - why aren't self-proclaimed fans feeling empathy instead of apathy? Who cares how you feel? Can you just cut the crap and please tell me what Beauty Lies in the Eye is about? Instead, people are just sad to find out that our idols are actual humans and don't live up to our fairytale ideals of them. I get it - like Rob Instigator's review said, it did feel like your parents getting divorced. Maybe seeing the details in stark print just confirm what everyone knew but didn't want to admit. But that's not Kim's fault - that's just life.

Having gotten that off my chest, as a rock autobiography, I found it average (though to be fair, I read it right after Al Jourgensen's book - so the contrast was stark and anything would seem tame in comparison.) As a piece of art, I found it above average. I thought her writing was a lot like SY's music - bursts of emotion and energy, some poetic, mixed with some noise, some of which went on for a bit longer than I'd have liked.

I feel empathy for Kim, no doubt.

my book arrived only today, must find a proper time to read it now.

nice to see you around thewall91!

[Rob Instigator]

Kim Gordon FABULOUS AT ANY AGE in Harper's
http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture...m-gordon-0415/

[nancykitten]

Originally Posted by Magic Wheel Memory

You don't know the whole story. Maybe Kim's side is the whole story and Thurston was just selfish. But none of us knows what happened prior to his affair.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Kim does not have a right to feel angry? The man she married cheated on her and lied to her, and you are saying, "you have to know the fully story". What a stretch. If Thurston was unhappy with Kim's behaviour he could have left her; cheating on the mother of your only child and lying to her on a daily basis is wrong. You'd have to be pretty low to disagree with that.

I'm not suggesting Kim never did anything wrong, I am saying she has a right to feel angry when her husband cheats on her.

[nancykitten]

Originally Posted by confusion is next

i must disagree with that, the soul of sonic youth was and will be Thurston, since the early days until now, sonic youth it's his vision about rock n' noise.

and yeah if i gave 30 years of my life to a person who ended up lying to me and cheating on me i will be angry.

To me, Thurston is the inexhaustible energy and excitement of Sonic Youth, but not the emotional depth/soul, which is Kim.

[Rob Instigator]

Lee is SY's subconscious!

[confusion is next]

and what about steve...?

[Magic Wheel Memory]

Originally Posted by nancykitten

Are you seriously trying to argue that Kim does not have a right to feel angry? The man she married cheated on her and lied to her, and you are saying, "you have to know the fully story". What a stretch. If Thurston was unhappy with Kim's behaviour he could have left her; cheating on the mother of your only child and lying to her on a daily basis is wrong. You'd have to be pretty low to disagree with that.

For some of us, marriage has a foundation of love. And what is love? In the context of marriage it should include, at the very least, caring for each other's needs and trying to make each other happy. I would never have married my wife if I were not committed to her needs and happiness. Thankfully, she is equally committed to mine.

So, what do people need? The answer depends on the individual, but there are some general truths about men and women. For example, I have found that most women need someone to listen as they talk about their feelings, while men are more likely to bottle up their feelings. A good husband will listen. Whatever his wife wants to talk about (or in some cases, "vent" about) might be the least interesting thing to him. But it matters to him because it's important to the woman he loves, so he listens with sincere interest. A wife might also need to be made to feel beautiful. If so, then a good husband will compliment her looks (even as she ages and becomes wrinkled), bring her flowers once in a while or offer other romantic qestures. And when a wife is tired and sore, a good husband won't mind giving an occasional backrub. In my book, a husband who knowingly neglects to do these things is cheating on his marriage, unless his marriage was understood by him and his wife to be based on something other than love.

So, what do men need? Most normal men need sex, among other things. And they need it later in life than most women do. (There are obvious biological reasons for this, as women lose the ability to reproduce at a younger age.)

Now, consider a scenario in which a husband and wife are band mates. They make a good living, but not millions of dollars. They need to keep the band going in order to support their child until she reaches adulthood. Their band mates also need the band, in order to make their living. Now, let's say the husband is loving and attentive, doing whatever he can to make his wife happy. But his wife, after having their only child, lost interest in sex, as some women do. As a result, she no longer has sex with her husband, despite knowing that sex is one of his basic human needs. Not only has the husband been deprived of this need, but he also feels hurt and at least somewhat unloved. He wonders why his wife, who is supposed to love him more than any other woman does, would not care how he feels. As hard as it is having no sexual outlet, this is even more difficult.

So, what should the husband do in this scenario? Should he accept a life sentence of celibacy, knowing that one of his most basic human needs will never again be fulfilled? That doesn't seem fair or reasonable, just as it would not be fair or reasonable for his wife to accept not being able to discuss her feelings with anyone for the rest of her life. (If his wife had been paralyzed by an injury or somehow rendered UNABLE to have sex, then it would be a different story.)

Should the husband just end the marriage, as you suggested? It's easy enough to say that, but what if their daughter were still a child living at home? Should he subject her to the heartbreak of a divorce in the middle of her childhood? What if they still need to keep the band going so they can support their daughter? And what about his band mates and their children? Do they not matter? Do you just yank the plug on their livelihood because of sexual problems having nothing to do with them?

Please explain to me what a man should do in this scenario?

By the way, even though it is obvious, I will point this out: I am not suggesting that the scenario described above is what happened. The point is that we don't know.

[tasteinmen]

I got the book this week, really looking forward to reading it!

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by hiland

Honestly, their post SY releases have proven this IMO.

I agree in regard to thurston but Lee has put out some of his best music

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Magic Wheel Memory

For some of us, marriage has a foundation of love. And what is love? In the context of marriage it should include, at the very least, caring for each other's needs and trying to make each other happy. I would never have married my wife if I were not committed to her needs and happiness. Thankfully, she is equally committed to mine.

So, what do people need? The answer depends on the individual, but there are some general truths about men and women. For example, I have found that most women need someone to listen as they talk about their feelings, while men are more likely to bottle up their feelings. A good husband will listen. Whatever his wife wants to talk about (or in some cases, "vent" about) might be the least interesting thing to him. But it matters to him because it's important to the woman he loves, so he listens with sincere interest. A wife might also need to be made to feel beautiful. If so, then a good husband will compliment her looks (even as she ages and becomes wrinkled), bring her flowers once in a while or offer other romantic qestures. And when a wife is tired and sore, a good husband won't mind giving an occasional backrub. In my book, a husband who knowingly neglects to do these things is cheating on his marriage, unless his marriage was understood by him and his wife to be based on something other than love.

So, what do men need? Most normal men need sex, among other things. And they need it later in life than most women do. (There are obvious biological reasons for this, as women lose the ability to reproduce at a younger age.)

Now, consider a scenario in which a husband and wife are band mates. They make a good living, but not millions of dollars. They need to keep the band going in order to support their child until she reaches adulthood. Their band mates also need the band, in order to make their living. Now, let's say the husband is loving and attentive, doing whatever he can to make his wife happy. But his wife, after having their only child, lost interest in sex, as some women do. As a result, she no longer has sex with her husband, despite knowing that sex is one of his basic human needs. Not only has the husband been deprived of this need, but he also feels hurt and at least somewhat unloved. He wonders why his wife, who is supposed to love him more than any other woman does, would not care how he feels. As hard as it is having no sexual outlet, this is even more difficult.

So, what should the husband do in this scenario? Should he accept a life sentence of celibacy, knowing that one of his most basic human needs will never again be fulfilled? That doesn't seem fair or reasonable, just as it would not be fair or reasonable for his wife to accept not being able to discuss her feelings with anyone for the rest of her life. (If his wife had been paralyzed by an injury or somehow rendered UNABLE to have sex, then it would be a different story.)

Should the husband just end the marriage, as you suggested? It's easy enough to say that, but what if their daughter were still a child living at home? Should he subject her to the heartbreak of a divorce in the middle of her childhood? What if they still need to keep the band going so they can support their daughter? And what about his band mates and their children? Do they not matter? Do you just yank the plug on their livelihood because of sexual problems having nothing to do with them?

Please explain to me what a man should do in this scenario?

By the way, even though it is obvious, I will point this out: I am not suggesting that the scenario described above is what happened. The point is that we don't know.

Sorry magic but ending a 30 year marriage over being horny (if that was the case) is pathetic. Men need their wives beyond being living sex toys, only teenage boys can't see beyond that.

[dead_battery]

fuck her right in the pussy

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

 

[Magic Wheel Memory]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Sorry magic but ending a 30 year marriage over being horny (if that was the case) is pathetic. Men need their wives beyond being living sex toys, only teenage boys can't see beyond that.

That's not what I'm saying at all, SuchFriends. Of course, marriage is much more than sex. And men need more than just sex from their wives. But I used sex as the example in my scenario, since the discussion was about extramarital sex. And while sex is not everything, it IS one important part of a healthy marriage. That's why we choose our marriage partners based on our sexual orientation. When one partner chooses to no longer have sex with the other, then the problem in their marriage is something deeper than just lack of sex.