Metal Storm logo
Sexism in Metal?



Posts: 117   Visited by: 106 users

Original post

Posted by Zombie94, 14.10.2016 - 13:14
Recently Sam Dunn (the guy that made Headbanger's Journey) put out a 'debate' video with some female metal musicians about sexism in metal. I'd be interested to hear what metal storm users think about this. I've posted the video but it's quite long, so the tl;dr version of some of the points they make is the following:

1) It's hard to walk into a room and not look like anyone else (referring to things like gigs)

2) Women are given a 'pop quiz' of sorts by men about their knowledge of metal. They essentially have to go above and beyond to prove themselves.

3) Metal lyrical themes and imagery are often based around the sexual objectification of women and glorification of masculinity.

4) The gender/appearance of female band members tends to be the focus of fans, rather than their musical ability.

5) It is annoying being the only female band on a lineup.

6) It is condescending when promoters run gigs with only female bands on the lineup.



My thoughts on the above points would be the following:

Points 1-2 are not unique to women. Metalheads in general will walk into a room and not look like anyone else in any setting other than a metal gig. And anyone wearing an A7X t-shirt at a Suffocation gig would be likely to also get a pop quiz, regardless of gender (I think this point says more about general elitism in metal). In addition, is it really men's fault that so few women choose to attend gigs/listen to metal?

3 - I agree that metal caters to male sexual preferences, but that is because the bulk of it's audience and artists are male. These women could just as easily flip the script and write about their sexual ideals if they so please.

4 - I agree with. However some female artists completely play into this.

5/6 - This doesn't really make sense to me. If a promoter doesn't have more than one or 2 female bands it's sexist, but putting on an all-female lineup is also sexist?

In summary I think that this video misses the mark big time. There is very real sexism that occurs in metal (women being groped at concerts, told they don't belong in metal, etc.) that these women ironically did not mention. Also I find it laughable that this was presented as a 'debate', when all of the contributors had the exact same opinion, and most of the Qs were also cherry picked from people that supported their viewpoint, while ones who disagreed were scoffed at. And the comments have been disabled. Sounds like they're not interested in allowing people to challenge their views.

Your thoughts?

04.11.2016 - 12:05
tominator
At best deranged
The funny thing here is that I wrote: "but that's just my opinion". Meaning that people don't have to care about it and well knowing that my take on the topic doesn't matter that much.

And look where we are now...
Loading...
04.11.2016 - 13:13
Zombie94

Written by Ganondox on 02.11.2016 at 09:29


If you're not a woman your opinion on the article is garbage. You can have an opinion, but it's an uninformed opinion as it's not about something you have to deal with. Women DO get harassed a lot in extreme metal (though I heard it's still pretty tame compared to even indie rock fans). That being said, the sure absurdity of the misogyny in goregrind makes the fantasy harmless.


This is in my opinion a logical fallacy. If you're saying that an opinion on sexism toward women is only valid if it comes from a woman, then that would also make my female friend (who is vehemently against modern feminism and 99% of its claims) correct. In fact only a few posts earlier in this thread there was a female commenter who disagreed with quite a few of the points that the women in this video made. So you can't say that the person's sex predicts correctness on sexist issues.

What you're essentially promoting is identity politics, such that the person's identity (be it sex, skin colour, nationality etc.) is of more importance than the content of their argument. This is not how answers to questions are reached.
Loading...
04.11.2016 - 15:19
Vombatus
Potorro
Written by Ganondox on 04.11.2016 at 05:34

I said something stupid that I didn't entirely mean because I was annoyed. I elaborated on things I actually mean. Still, how is " you're talking about subjects you have no experience with it's by default uninformed. / if you're not a woman in the metal scene, you're opinion is probably uninformed" just dumb? By default doesn't mean that's the only option, if means it's the state of things unless something else overrules it. People are by default ignorant on topics, as you need to learn about them. If you have learned about them, you are no longer in the default state. And would you not agree that someone who consistently lives something is probably more knowledgeable about it than an outsider looking in for a moment??


My problem with your argument was that it assumed that a person was uninformed based on what they have between their legs. But knowledge on an issue isn't determined by biological parameters. Unless someone comes up with reliable data proving the contrary, one can't consider it to be a rational argument.

There isn't much more to say.
Loading...
05.11.2016 - 10:01
Ganondox

Written by Zombie94 on 04.11.2016 at 13:13

Written by Ganondox on 02.11.2016 at 09:29


If you're not a woman your opinion on the article is garbage. You can have an opinion, but it's an uninformed opinion as it's not about something you have to deal with. Women DO get harassed a lot in extreme metal (though I heard it's still pretty tame compared to even indie rock fans). That being said, the sure absurdity of the misogyny in goregrind makes the fantasy harmless.


This is in my opinion a logical fallacy. If you're saying that an opinion on sexism toward women is only valid if it comes from a woman, then that would also make my female friend (who is vehemently against modern feminism and 99% of its claims) correct. In fact only a few posts earlier in this thread there was a female commenter who disagreed with quite a few of the points that the women in this video made. So you can't say that the person's sex predicts correctness on sexist issues.

What you're essentially promoting is identity politics, such that the person's identity (be it sex, skin colour, nationality etc.) is of more importance than the content of their argument. This is not how answers to questions are reached.


You're a bit late to the punch. Considering you obviously didn't read the rest of the thread, you're opinion is uninformed and thus can be ignored.

Written by Vombatus on 04.11.2016 at 15:19

Written by Ganondox on 04.11.2016 at 05:34

I said something stupid that I didn't entirely mean because I was annoyed. I elaborated on things I actually mean. Still, how is " you're talking about subjects you have no experience with it's by default uninformed. / if you're not a woman in the metal scene, you're opinion is probably uninformed" just dumb? By default doesn't mean that's the only option, if means it's the state of things unless something else overrules it. People are by default ignorant on topics, as you need to learn about them. If you have learned about them, you are no longer in the default state. And would you not agree that someone who consistently lives something is probably more knowledgeable about it than an outsider looking in for a moment??


My problem with your argument was that it assumed that a person was uninformed based on what they have between their legs. But knowledge on an issue isn't determined by biological parameters. Unless someone comes up with reliable data proving the contrary, one can't consider it to be a rational argument.

There isn't much more to say.


That was NEVER my argument. It's not sex which is contributes, but gender, as it's not what's between you legs that determines how you are treated and thus see the world, but how you are perceived.
Loading...
05.11.2016 - 17:50
Zombie94

Written by Ganondox on 05.11.2016 at 10:01




You're a bit late to the punch. Considering you obviously didn't read the rest of the thread, you're opinion is uninformed and thus can be ignored.



You're right, I didn't see that you had commented more recently because I thought that the previous page was all comments on lyrics. However I have now gone back and looked at your responses and I still feel that there is a logical flaw in your thinking that you haven't really reconciled.

So you appear to admit that a male sociology professor could be more knowledgable on sexism than a woman who does not know the research. What you don't seem to be acknowledging though is that you don't require a PhD to have a better grasp on sexism research than someone of the opposite sex. There are many females for example, who believe that the gender wage gap is indicative of women being payed less for the same work that a man does. However anyone (male or female) who looks into the research on this will learn that this phenomenon is actually quite well explained by the different professional decisions that men and women make, and of course the massive factor of maternal leave.

So your belief that a man's opinion on this subject is inherently worth less than a woman's is still nonsensical because anyone who is more informed on the actual facts should always have more weight given to their opinion, regardless of what sex they are. Telling someone that they cannot be taken seriously in a debate because of their sex, without even taking the time to address their points, is the very definition of sexism.
Loading...
05.11.2016 - 19:24
Vombatus
Potorro
Written by Ganondox on 05.11.2016 at 10:01

That was NEVER my argument. It's not sex which is contributes, but gender, as it's not what's between you legs that determines how you are treated and thus see the world, but how you are perceived.


You didn't make a distinction in your previous posts. And discrimination can be sex and/or gender based.
Loading...
06.11.2016 - 04:15
Ganondox

Written by Vombatus on 05.11.2016 at 19:24

Written by Ganondox on 05.11.2016 at 10:01

That was NEVER my argument. It's not sex which is contributes, but gender, as it's not what's between you legs that determines how you are treated and thus see the world, but how you are perceived.


You didn't make a distinction in your previous posts. And discrimination can be sex and/or gender based.


Written by Zombie94 on 05.11.2016 at 17:50

Written by Ganondox on 05.11.2016 at 10:01




You're a bit late to the punch. Considering you obviously didn't read the rest of the thread, you're opinion is uninformed and thus can be ignored.



You're right, I didn't see that you had commented more recently because I thought that the previous page was all comments on lyrics. However I have now gone back and looked at your responses and I still feel that there is a logical flaw in your thinking that you haven't really reconciled.

So you appear to admit that a male sociology professor could be more knowledgable on sexism than a woman who does not know the research. What you don't seem to be acknowledging though is that you don't require a PhD to have a better grasp on sexism research than someone of the opposite sex. There are many females for example, who believe that the gender wage gap is indicative of women being payed less for the same work that a man does. However anyone (male or female) who looks into the research on this will learn that this phenomenon is actually quite well explained by the different professional decisions that men and women make, and of course the massive factor of maternal leave.

So your belief that a man's opinion on this subject is inherently worth less than a woman's is still nonsensical because anyone who is more informed on the actual facts should always have more weight given to their opinion, regardless of what sex they are. Telling someone that they cannot be taken seriously in a debate because of their sex, without even taking the time to address their points, is the very definition of sexism.


I didn't say anything about PHDs.

Regarding the gender pay gap, there are two problems with that argument. The first is that is statistical trend, while the article we were talking about is about a personal experience. It's specifically the personal experiences with sexism that I was saying men's opinions on are garbage (though I have since recanted that). Second, the gender wage gap controlled differences in professional and position, but yes, professional choices relating to family like maternal leave is a major factor. However, that is not the end of the discussion, because that still creates a difference which still isn't quite fair as there is no corresponding paternal leave. The system is coercing women into taking the options that result them being paid left, because husband doesn't have the option to take paternal leave. So while it's not the problem some people make it out to be, it's still a problem.

When it comes to personal experience, personal experience gives you more of the facts than being a random commentator does. Anyway, the actual reason I don't take what some people say seriously is not because of their sex, but because they are saying ignorant, vapid stuff.

Written by Vombatus on 05.11.2016 at 19:24

Written by Ganondox on 05.11.2016 at 10:01

That was NEVER my argument. It's not sex which is contributes, but gender, as it's not what's between you legs that determines how you are treated and thus see the world, but how you are perceived.


You didn't make a distinction in your previous posts. And discrimination can be sex and/or gender based.



No, I didn't make the distinction, but you decided to pick the most ridiculous interpretation as opposed to the slightly less ridiculous interpretation. Generally people are less ridiculous rather than more ridiculous.
Loading...
06.11.2016 - 13:38
Vombatus
Potorro
Written by Ganondox on 06.11.2016 at 04:15

No, I didn't make the distinction, but you decided to pick the most ridiculous interpretation as opposed to the slightly less ridiculous interpretation. Generally people are less ridiculous rather than more ridiculous.


Hmmmm, no? If you base understanding and knowledge on experience/being affected by an issue, there is nothing ridiculous about sex based discrimination when talking about sexism in metal. But whatever man, whatever.... :
Loading...
06.11.2016 - 15:01
Zombie94

Written by Ganondox on 06.11.2016 at 04:15



I didn't say anything about PHDs.

Regarding the gender pay gap, there are two problems with that argument. The first is that is statistical trend, while the article we were talking about is about a personal experience. It's specifically the personal experiences with sexism that I was saying men's opinions on are garbage (though I have since recanted that). Second, the gender wage gap controlled differences in professional and position, but yes, professional choices relating to family like maternal leave is a major factor. However, that is not the end of the discussion, because that still creates a difference which still isn't quite fair as there is no corresponding paternal leave. The system is coercing women into taking the options that result them being paid left, because husband doesn't have the option to take paternal leave. So while it's not the problem some people make it out to be, it's still a problem.

When it comes to personal experience, personal experience gives you more of the facts than being a random commentator does. Anyway, the actual reason I don't take what some people say seriously is not because of their sex, but because they are saying ignorant, vapid stuff.



You said that there are men who are experts who can have a more valid opinion on sexism than women. So a PhD would be the best example of that. And I'm not denying the existence of a wage gap. I'm saying the reasons why it exists is often misrepresented by females and if we were to just take them on their word because they're a woman who has had sexist experiences, we would be accepting false information.

I have three counter points to your main points:

1) If a woman's opinion personal experience is such a valuable form of evidence, then how do you reconcile the wide variance in women's personal experiences and their perceptions of this? For instance, polls have found that roughly 30-40% of American women do not identify as feminists. Clearly their personal experiences and how they have perceived them are very different and can't be used as a measure for deciding if something is sexist. Likewise these 3 female metalheads find 'x' number of things in metal offensive and sexist. However I have a female friend who has watched the video and thought they were a bunch of sensitive crybabies. So your assertion that being a woman gives you more facts than a man is not necessarily true, either because there is disagreement among women on what constitutes as sexism, or it is not the case that all women experience sexism to a similar degree and thus we cannot give very much weight to a woman's experience when deciding if something is sexist.

2) With this in mind, I disagree with your belief that determining if something like a metal song/genre etc. is sexist is based solely on personal experience. I think you are much more likely to arrive at an objective answer if you keep in mind what sexism means, and analyse the subject under that definition. Sure there are songs that are very hard to interpret because of abstract lyrics, but in an instance where a song is talking about masculine subject matter, that can't be defined as sexist because it is not saying anything discriminatory or bad about the other sex, regardless of how offended three women on a youtube video feel. Oh and actually debating these objective observations in a forum like this (not telling people they're uninformed because they're a man) will also help reach an answer.

3) 'the actual reason I don't take what some people say seriously is not because of their sex, but because they are saying ignorant, vapid stuff.'

Well if it's so ignorant and vapid it would supposedly be very easy for you to present an argument that illustrates why those statements are false. Instead you've had to retract your main point of rebuttal after it didn't hold up to scrutiny: "and when you're talking about subjects you have no experience with it's by default uninformed." Now you've since changed tact to saying that in a situation where there is a man and a woman who are equally ignorant on facts of sexism, the woman by default will have a better opinion because she's more likely to have experienced sexism. This is true, but only when you assume that the man doesn't understand what sexism is or the subject matter (e.g. a specific song) they're discussing. So really your argument only holds true in a very hypothetical scenario of total ignorance of facts by the male party, which I don't think is a fair representation of the arguments that the other commentators in this thread have put forward.
Loading...
07.11.2016 - 23:16
Ganondox

Written by Vombatus on 06.11.2016 at 13:38

Written by Ganondox on 06.11.2016 at 04:15

No, I didn't make the distinction, but you decided to pick the most ridiculous interpretation as opposed to the slightly less ridiculous interpretation. Generally people are less ridiculous rather than more ridiculous.


Hmmmm, no? If you base understanding and knowledge on experience/being affected by an issue, there is nothing ridiculous about sex based discrimination when talking about sexism in metal. But whatever man, whatever.... :


In most contexts sexual discrimination is based on gender, not what is in someone's pants. That's the point I was making.

Written by Zombie94 on 06.11.2016 at 15:01

You said that there are men who are experts who can have a more valid opinion on sexism than women. So a PhD would be the best example of that. And I'm not denying the existence of a wage gap. I'm saying the reasons why it exists is often misrepresented by females and if we were to just take them on their word because they're a woman who has had sexist experiences, we would be accepting false information.

I have three counter points to your main points:

1) If a woman's opinion personal experience is such a valuable form of evidence, then how do you reconcile the wide variance in women's personal experiences and their perceptions of this? For instance, polls have found that roughly 30-40% of American women do not identify as feminists. Clearly their personal experiences and how they have perceived them are very different and can't be used as a measure for deciding if something is sexist. Likewise these 3 female metalheads find 'x' number of things in metal offensive and sexist. However I have a female friend who has watched the video and thought they were a bunch of sensitive crybabies. So your assertion that being a woman gives you more facts than a man is not necessarily true, either because there is disagreement among women on what constitutes as sexism, or it is not the case that all women experience sexism to a similar degree and thus we cannot give very much weight to a woman's experience when deciding if something is sexist.

2) With this in mind, I disagree with your belief that determining if something like a metal song/genre etc. is sexist is based solely on personal experience. I think you are much more likely to arrive at an objective answer if you keep in mind what sexism means, and analyse the subject under that definition. Sure there are songs that are very hard to interpret because of abstract lyrics, but in an instance where a song is talking about masculine subject matter, that can't be defined as sexist because it is not saying anything discriminatory or bad about the other sex, regardless of how offended three women on a youtube video feel. Oh and actually debating these objective observations in a forum like this (not telling people they're uninformed because they're a man) will also help reach an answer.

3) 'the actual reason I don't take what some people say seriously is not because of their sex, but because they are saying ignorant, vapid stuff.'

Well if it's so ignorant and vapid it would supposedly be very easy for you to present an argument that illustrates why those statements are false. Instead you've had to retract your main point of rebuttal after it didn't hold up to scrutiny: "and when you're talking about subjects you have no experience with it's by default uninformed." Now you've since changed tact to saying that in a situation where there is a man and a woman who are equally ignorant on facts of sexism, the woman by default will have a better opinion because she's more likely to have experienced sexism. This is true, but only when you assume that the man doesn't understand what sexism is or the subject matter (e.g. a specific song) they're discussing. So really your argument only holds true in a very hypothetical scenario of total ignorance of facts by the male party, which I don't think is a fair representation of the arguments that the other commentators in this thread have put forward.


So you were just making a blatant logical fallacy. While having a PhD makes you an expert, you don't need to be a PhD to be an expert.

1. Things need to be kept in context. When it comes to personal experience, people can have different person experiences, and someone not having an experience someone else had does not invalidate that. I was talking about opinions, not objective fact, and what value can be cleaned from them. I guess it up for the people in power to synthesize the differing opinions and decide to make a choice, but it's the opinions of the people who the issue concerns which are actually relevant. Also, your idea of "measure for deciding if something is sexist" shows you fundamentally do not understand how sexism works. It's not an isolated trait, it's a quality in a system.

2. The problem is that you think I'm talking about deducing if a specific song or band is sexist. That's not what I was talking about, I was talking about opinions on an article. As for deducing if a song is sexist, in one sense it's impossible to know if you define it by the attitudes of the greater rather than the work itself, but there are metrics for determining if the content of something is sexist...but you can't take it on it's own, you can only apply the metrics in context. It's the context which makes it clear that a lot of sexist content is in fact sexist. You clearly weren't paying attention to what songs were actually being referred to in the article I was referring to if you think it's about "song is talking about masculine subject matter, that can't be defined as sexist because it is not saying anything discriminatory or bad about the other sex" because the songs which actually about raping and mutilating women.

3. I had nothing to critique because the comment I was referring to basically just said "I disagree with the article". As for the video that was criticizing that article, it was stupid because his argument was basically "because fantasy" while that exact argument was EXPLICITLY ADDRESSED IN THE ARTICLE.
Loading...
07.11.2016 - 23:21
BitterCOld
The Ancient One
I'm into metal and i'm sexy. what do i win?
----
get the fuck off my lawn.

Beer Bug Virus Spotify Playlist crafted by Nikarg and I. Feel free to tune in and add some pertinent metal tunes!
Loading...
07.11.2016 - 23:24
Ganondox

Let's try taking a different approach:

Say a man is selling candies in different flavors. This one flavor comes in this particular sort of packaging. Some likes that flavor, but they have a disability making it hard from them to open the packaging, so they write a complaint about the packaging. Then some guy without the disability comes along and says they disagree with the disabled person, even though they don't even like that flavor of candy. Do you think the man producing the candy should give a damn about the second guy's opinion on the subject?
Loading...
08.11.2016 - 09:10
Cynic Metalhead
Paisa Vich Nasha
Written by BitterCOld on 07.11.2016 at 23:21

I'm into metal and i'm sexy. what do i win?


A candy.
Loading...
08.11.2016 - 10:32
M C Vice
ex-polydactyl
Written by BitterCOld on 07.11.2016 at 23:21

I'm into metal and i'm sexy. what do i win?

The wet spiky wristband contest.
----
"Another day, another Doug."
"I'll fight you on one condition. That you lower your nipples."
" 'Tis a lie! Thy backside is whole and ungobbled, thou ungrateful whelp!"
Loading...
08.11.2016 - 10:34
M C Vice
ex-polydactyl
Written by Ganondox on 07.11.2016 at 23:24

Let's try taking a different approach:

Say a man is selling candies in different flavors. This one flavor comes in this particular sort of packaging. Some likes that flavor, but they have a disability making it hard from them to open the packaging, so they write a complaint about the packaging. Then some guy without the disability comes along and says they disagree with the disabled person, even though they don't even like that flavor of candy. Do you think the man producing the candy should give a damn about the second guy's opinion on the subject?

Is the 2nd guy complaining on behalf of himself or another?
----
"Another day, another Doug."
"I'll fight you on one condition. That you lower your nipples."
" 'Tis a lie! Thy backside is whole and ungobbled, thou ungrateful whelp!"
Loading...
08.11.2016 - 14:34
IronAngel

Ganondox phrased his initial argument poorly and admitted that. You're missing the point by trying to catch him in a fallacy and being a general smart ass.

All political and moral issues are a matter of subjective value judgements, at a certain point in the argumentation. We can make rational arguments and evaluate to coherence and consequences of different points of view, but final criterion is our gut feeling. What he was clearly getting at is this: once we have established that some phenomena in metal (or elsewhere) are gendered and, we might even admit, sexist, it comes down to the question: is this a problem? Is it a big deal, or are people just "sensitive crybabies"? We can approach the issue by analogies like the candyman, sure. But when it comes to that subjective judgement, are you really arrogant enough to deny that a man's (lack of) experience might make him feel the issue less acutely?

If you were asked whether it's seriously wrong that a guy questions a woman on her metal competence and proceeds to make sexual advances, you would probably say it's not a big deal. And I would agree with you, to the extent that the guy alone is not doing anything formally illegal or immoral. But then, I am not one of the ten women in a crowd of a hundred guys getting barraged daily with similar "quizzes" and suggestions. I really have no personal sounding board to know whether it's an acute problem people encounter in their lives.

A good argument proceeds from evidence. This is an empirical question, and the experiences of women are the evidence. They have no monopoly on evaluating the evidence, but statistically women are more likely than men to be affected by (this kind of) sexism and have an opinion grounded on experience rather than internet smart-assery.
Loading...
09.11.2016 - 08:43
Ganondox

Written by M C Vice on 08.11.2016 at 10:34

Written by Ganondox on 07.11.2016 at 23:24

Let's try taking a different approach:

Say a man is selling candies in different flavors. This one flavor comes in this particular sort of packaging. Some likes that flavor, but they have a disability making it hard from them to open the packaging, so they write a complaint about the packaging. Then some guy without the disability comes along and says they disagree with the disabled person, even though they don't even like that flavor of candy. Do you think the man producing the candy should give a damn about the second guy's opinion on the subject?

Is the 2nd guy complaining on behalf of himself or another?


He is saying he disagrees specifically with the disabled person's opinion.
Loading...
09.11.2016 - 08:46
Ganondox

Written by IronAngel on 08.11.2016 at 14:34

Ganondox phrased his initial argument poorly and admitted that. You're missing the point by trying to catch him in a fallacy and being a general smart ass.

All political and moral issues are a matter of subjective value judgements, at a certain point in the argumentation. We can make rational arguments and evaluate to coherence and consequences of different points of view, but final criterion is our gut feeling. What he was clearly getting at is this: once we have established that some phenomena in metal (or elsewhere) are gendered and, we might even admit, sexist, it comes down to the question: is this a problem? Is it a big deal, or are people just "sensitive crybabies"? We can approach the issue by analogies like the candyman, sure. But when it comes to that subjective judgement, are you really arrogant enough to deny that a man's (lack of) experience might make him feel the issue less acutely?

If you were asked whether it's seriously wrong that a guy questions a woman on her metal competence and proceeds to make sexual advances, you would probably say it's not a big deal. And I would agree with you, to the extent that the guy alone is not doing anything formally illegal or immoral. But then, I am not one of the ten women in a crowd of a hundred guys getting barraged daily with similar "quizzes" and suggestions. I really have no personal sounding board to know whether it's an acute problem people encounter in their lives.

A good argument proceeds from evidence. This is an empirical question, and the experiences of women are the evidence. They have no monopoly on evaluating the evidence, but statistically women are more likely than men to be affected by (this kind of) sexism and have an opinion grounded on experience rather than internet smart-assery.


Thank you.
Loading...
09.11.2016 - 10:53
M C Vice
ex-polydactyl
Written by Ganondox on 09.11.2016 at 08:43

Written by M C Vice on 08.11.2016 at 10:34

Written by Ganondox on 07.11.2016 at 23:24

Let's try taking a different approach:

Say a man is selling candies in different flavors. This one flavor comes in this particular sort of packaging. Some likes that flavor, but they have a disability making it hard from them to open the packaging, so they write a complaint about the packaging. Then some guy without the disability comes along and says they disagree with the disabled person, even though they don't even like that flavor of candy. Do you think the man producing the candy should give a damn about the second guy's opinion on the subject?

Is the 2nd guy complaining on behalf of himself or another?


He is saying he disagrees specifically with the disabled person's opinion.

This actually can apply loosely to me, not having a working right thumb. And I'd have to say the 2nd guy's opinion is valid. The proposed change from the 1st may make the packaging more difficult for another person to open, after being made easier for the 1st. Where do you stop?
----
"Another day, another Doug."
"I'll fight you on one condition. That you lower your nipples."
" 'Tis a lie! Thy backside is whole and ungobbled, thou ungrateful whelp!"
Loading...
09.11.2016 - 10:56
M C Vice
ex-polydactyl
Written by IronAngel on 08.11.2016 at 14:34

Ganondox phrased his initial argument poorly and admitted that. You're missing the point by trying to catch him in a fallacy and being a general smart ass.


If that's directed at me, I wanted him to clarify because a lot of people (in this country, at least) get offended by things on behalf of others, who were not always offended in the first place.
----
"Another day, another Doug."
"I'll fight you on one condition. That you lower your nipples."
" 'Tis a lie! Thy backside is whole and ungobbled, thou ungrateful whelp!"
Loading...
09.11.2016 - 13:20
Ganondox

Written by M C Vice on 09.11.2016 at 10:53

Written by Ganondox on 09.11.2016 at 08:43

Written by M C Vice on 08.11.2016 at 10:34

Written by Ganondox on 07.11.2016 at 23:24

Let's try taking a different approach:

Say a man is selling candies in different flavors. This one flavor comes in this particular sort of packaging. Some likes that flavor, but they have a disability making it hard from them to open the packaging, so they write a complaint about the packaging. Then some guy without the disability comes along and says they disagree with the disabled person, even though they don't even like that flavor of candy. Do you think the man producing the candy should give a damn about the second guy's opinion on the subject?

Is the 2nd guy complaining on behalf of himself or another?


He is saying he disagrees specifically with the disabled person's opinion.

This actually can apply loosely to me, not having a working right thumb. And I'd have to say the 2nd guy's opinion is valid. The proposed change from the 1st may make the packaging more difficult for another person to open, after being made easier for the 1st. Where do you stop?


If you're thumb is working properly, than you're not the second guy. And the second guy isn't making an argument about the specific changes one may be suggesting, just complaining the one is even complaining. It's not that first's suggestion should be made manifest, but first's opinion is more relevant than second's.
Loading...
09.11.2016 - 14:40
IronAngel

Written by M C Vice on 09.11.2016 at 10:56

If that's directed at me, I wanted him to clarify because a lot of people (in this country, at least) get offended by things on behalf of others, who were not always offended in the first place.


Not specifically, although even despite the clarifications I still don't quite see your point either. It's just the overall direction of the last page, setting up straw men about Ganon's stance and (unsuccessfully, I might add) shooting them down with "logic". If I started picking apart every inaccurate or clumsy formulation made in every MS topic, we'd never get to the actual issues.
Loading...
11.11.2016 - 22:36
Zombie94

Written by Ganondox on 07.11.2016 at 23:16

So you were just making a blatant logical fallacy. While having a PhD makes you an expert, you don't need to be a PhD to be an expert.

1. Things need to be kept in context. When it comes to personal experience, people can have different person experiences, and someone not having an experience someone else had does not invalidate that. I was talking about opinions, not objective fact, and what value can be cleaned from them. I guess it up for the people in power to synthesize the differing opinions and decide to make a choice, but it's the opinions of the people who the issue concerns which are actually relevant. Also, your idea of "measure for deciding if something is sexist" shows you fundamentally do not understand how sexism works. It's not an isolated trait, it's a quality in a system.

2. The problem is that you think I'm talking about deducing if a specific song or band is sexist. That's not what I was talking about, I was talking about opinions on an article. As for deducing if a song is sexist, in one sense it's impossible to know if you define it by the attitudes of the greater rather than the work itself, but there are metrics for determining if the content of something is sexist...but you can't take it on it's own, you can only apply the metrics in context. It's the context which makes it clear that a lot of sexist content is in fact sexist. You clearly weren't paying attention to what songs were actually being referred to in the article I was referring to if you think it's about "song is talking about masculine subject matter, that can't be defined as sexist because it is not saying anything discriminatory or bad about the other sex" because the songs which actually about raping and mutilating women.

3. I had nothing to critique because the comment I was referring to basically just said "I disagree with the article". As for the video that was criticizing that article, it was stupid because his argument was basically "because fantasy" while that exact argument was EXPLICITLY ADDRESSED IN THE ARTICLE.


You don't need a PhD to be an expert? If I'm choosing someone with or without a PhD, I'm gonna choose a PhD because at least that is some proof that they have formally proved their expertise in an area. I think this is a moot point anyway and off topic.

1. It doesn't invalidate their opinion. You just happen to be picking the side of the women in the video/the article, whereas I agree with women on the other side of the argument (who, whether you believe it or not, do exist). Whether or not you're offended by something is all just opinion and varies person to person. When it comes to sexism I don't see much point in debating highly subjective topics about what could or could not be perceived as offensive, because you will never get anywhere as clearly people don't agree. Objectively speaking, sexism is something that directly infringes on people's rights or else expresses an opinion that is demonstrably false. Saying women don't belong in metal, that they aren't as smart or talented, that they're only useful for sex etc. all fall into that category for me. So would not allowing a female band to play just because they are females.

However if what you're discussing is a subjective opinion on sexism, then that is a very grey area and thus I don't see much point in discussing it further as we clearly have different ideas on what constitutes as offensive, and so do women themselves.

Also the definition of sexism being part of a greater system is just one definition of many. And I don't think it's an accurate one, because what then would you call it when a woman is discriminating against a man based on his gender?

2. The songs in the article can certainly be perceived as sexist. But I think that you saying that context is important to determine if something is sexist is a highly ironic statement, because you're ignoring what a large segment of death metal as a culture is about and where its origins are. Death metal bands from the beginning have prided themselves on deliberately writing lyrics on the gross and obscene, whether that was to disgust and horrify (which has obviously had its intended impact on the Noisey author) or to push lyrical content to the extreme just for extremities sake. So a band like Cannibal Corpse writing a song that glorifies rape (which is probably nestled in between a host of other songs on an album that discuss brutal murdering, cannibalism, necrophilia etc.) is very different to a country artist writing a song that glorifies rape. Also, the idea that these songs feed into DM fans being sexists holds about as much merit as saying that they give them homocidal tendencies because they glorify murder.

3. 'Because fantasy' isn't an argument that I would agree is a good reason to write songs about murder and rape either. In fact I find that viewpoint kind of worrying (who the fuck fantasises about that stuff?) Look, if I was a musician, I wouldn't write that kind of material. And I don't have any interest in looking at the lyrics of bands who do because they're usually crap and uninspired. But, you have to remember that these lyrics are not intended as a statement, they're intended to offend people. The author of the article and yourself don't have to listen to that kind of music if you don't like it. There are plenty of DM bands with lyrics on non-offensive topics. Same for people who are offended by the lyrics of anti-religious bands. Unless she wants the songs censored, (ala Tipper Gore..god help us) I don't know what her article is trying to achieve.
Loading...
12.11.2016 - 05:31
Ganondox

Written by IronAngel on 09.11.2016 at 14:40

Written by M C Vice on 09.11.2016 at 10:56

If that's directed at me, I wanted him to clarify because a lot of people (in this country, at least) get offended by things on behalf of others, who were not always offended in the first place.


Not specifically, although even despite the clarifications I still don't quite see your point either. It's just the overall direction of the last page, setting up straw men about Ganon's stance and (unsuccessfully, I might add) shooting them down with "logic". If I started picking apart every inaccurate or clumsy formulation made in every MS topic, we'd never get to the actual issues.


And speak of the devil, more of that just started happening. I'm not even going to bother with the latest one.
Loading...
12.11.2016 - 11:32
IronAngel

Written by Zombie94 on 11.11.2016 at 22:36


1. It doesn't invalidate their opinion. You just happen to be picking the side of the women in the video/the article, whereas I agree with women on the other side of the argument (who, whether you believe it or not, do exist).

--- I don't know what her article is trying to achieve.


What does it matter whether there are women who disagree with the points? If, say, 30% of women feel that there is a problem and 70% don't see, that does not mean there's no problem. It means that one in three women experiences unacceptable sexism, and the ones who don't should be both grateful and eager to stop what the others are experiencing. If you haven't experienced the problem, good for you, but what right does that give you to dismiss it and hamper that minority (if indeed it is a minority) who feel it acutely?

Because it is not like distributing slices of pie, where an increase in someone's portion means a decrease for someone else. The benefit that stands to be gained is a lot more than the supposed cost (of stopping to act like jerks, not writing lyrics that are deliberately offensive in the first place - whatever the topic, I don't see why music should be somehow the exception to normal civil discourse - and whatever). If you stop making sexist jokes and doubting women's sincerity about their music tastes, it comes at virtually no cost to you but a considerably improved experience for many women. (Gatekeeping, referenced in the original post, is a real phenomenon that is highly gendered, and it has been documented in other fandoms and communities. There's really no point claiming that it happens to men too - no it does not, not to the same extent statistically.)


What is it trying to achieve? Not banning such lyrics (which are a minor part of the problem, but the most clearly unacceptable individual act), but convincing enough of us fans/consumers, venue hosts, record labels and artists themselves that rape (for instance) is not a funny thing to casually glorify (even if tongue-in-cheek). That maybe in the future, people have enough good sense and taste not to buy, publish or record such music in the first place. Metal Storm does not feature Nazi bands; that is a moral decision the owners made not to support the ideology. This is no different: it may be that when it's spelled out clearly enough, people will eventually realize it's not cool. It does not need to be criminialized, but we have every right to say what we like and don't like and have no obligation to support ideologies and practices we find uncool.

It would be a funny experiment to take some metal lyrics, album art and media coverage featuring women, and replace them with reference to black people in similar contexts. "Black metal's never been this black: big cocks and buzzing guitars." Black people kneeling on all fours, supporting a throne for some colonial plantation owner. "I drag the nigger into the woods, YOU SHOULD BE MY SLAVE, stuff my alabaster scepter into his black hole and then lynch him like a dog." I wonder how many would think it's OK and just part of the genre.
Loading...
12.11.2016 - 13:19
tominator
At best deranged
Written by IronAngel on 12.11.2016 at 11:32

It would be a funny experiment to take some metal lyrics, album art and media coverage featuring women, and replace them with reference to black people in similar contexts. "Black metal's never been this black: big cocks and buzzing guitars." Black people kneeling on all fours, supporting a throne for some colonial plantation owner. "I drag the nigger into the woods, YOU SHOULD BE MY SLAVE, stuff my alabaster scepter into his black hole and then lynch him like a dog." I wonder how many would think it's OK and just part of the genre.


I do understand where you are coming from. But what if we did the same thing but we would change the lyrics and instead of women or black people, we would use men. I honestly don't think it would get much attention tbh. Maybe I'm wrong, but the problem is that no matter what you use as a subject for those lyrics. It's always not going to be OK if you already think that the lyrics are too extreme. Whether you use men, women, different races,... the lyrics will always stay as extreme as they are.

So yeah you are probably right that less people would find it OK when black people would be used in those lyrics. Just as I think more people would find it OK if men were used instead of women in those lyrics. It's almost a hierarchy of what's acceptable in lyrics, which is imo not a thing to be proud of. Because isn't that hierarchy the thing that most people want to change.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that, if you are not OK with the lyrics that are used, you also shouldn't be OK with them if another demographic is used. But like you said that is not the case. So then I would rather say that the lyrics are the problem and not the demographic that's used in them.
Loading...
12.11.2016 - 15:05
Zombie94

Written by IronAngel on 12.11.2016 at 11:32



What does it matter whether there are women who disagree with the points? If, say, 30% of women feel that there is a problem and 70% don't see, that does not mean there's no problem. It means that one in three women experiences unacceptable sexism, and the ones who don't should be both grateful and eager to stop what the others are experiencing. If you haven't experienced the problem, good for you, but what right does that give you to dismiss it and hamper that minority (if indeed it is a minority) who feel it acutely?

Because it is not like distributing slices of pie, where an increase in someone's portion means a decrease for someone else. The benefit that stands to be gained is a lot more than the supposed cost (of stopping to act like jerks, not writing lyrics that are deliberately offensive in the first place - whatever the topic, I don't see why music should be somehow the exception to normal civil discourse - and whatever). If you stop making sexist jokes and doubting women's sincerity about their music tastes, it comes at virtually no cost to you but a considerably improved experience for many women. (Gatekeeping, referenced in the original post, is a real phenomenon that is highly gendered, and it has been documented in other fandoms and communities. There's really no point claiming that it happens to men too - no it does not, not to the same extent statistically.)


What is it trying to achieve? Not banning such lyrics (which are a minor part of the problem, but the most clearly unacceptable individual act), but convincing enough of us fans/consumers, venue hosts, record labels and artists themselves that rape (for instance) is not a funny thing to casually glorify (even if tongue-in-cheek). That maybe in the future, people have enough good sense and taste not to buy, publish or record such music in the first place. Metal Storm does not feature Nazi bands; that is a moral decision the owners made not to support the ideology. This is no different: it may be that when it's spelled out clearly enough, people will eventually realize it's not cool. It does not need to be criminialized, but we have every right to say what we like and don't like and have no obligation to support ideologies and practices we find uncool.

It would be a funny experiment to take some metal lyrics, album art and media coverage featuring women, and replace them with reference to black people in similar contexts. "Black metal's never been this black: big cocks and buzzing guitars." Black people kneeling on all fours, supporting a throne for some colonial plantation owner. "I drag the nigger into the woods, YOU SHOULD BE MY SLAVE, stuff my alabaster scepter into his black hole and then lynch him like a dog." I wonder how many would think it's OK and just part of the genre.


It doesn't mean there's no problem, it means that it's a contentious problem with no right or wrong answer. And in such a scenario where it really depends on the person, I'm not going to stop listening to a certain kind of music because a certain percentage of a group are offended by it. Except if it is something that is explicitly infringing on people's rights, spreading false information or just pure hatred, then I won't listen to it.

I would be interested in seeing these stats about gatekeeping. Do you have a link?

It's absolutely a woman's right to write an article highlighting what she sees in the scene as sexist. But I think the likelihood of such opinions having any real effect on what BDM bands write about, is about as likely as the opinion of religious people having any effect on what black metal bands write about. I think her taking offense is completely missing the point of what those bands are trying to do. I think it's pretty clear that they're not making a political statement or saying that you really should go out there and kill/rape people. It's clearly meant for shock value. Also there is no proof to suggest that these lyrics are shaping the attitudes of men towards women. That's the same argument as saying that violent video games turn children into violent adults. It ignores the fact that people can seperate something that is clearly meant for shock value from what is real life.

I think it's worth noting that it's a lot easier for people to overlook the lyrical content in extreme metal genres where the vocals are sometimes incoherent. You could listen to a whole album and not know what they sang about unless you bothered to look up the lyrics. I think that explains a lot of the apparent apathetic attitudes about the lyrics from fans.

Your example of metal music glorifying murdering black people and using racist slurs is certainly where I draw the line, and I think a lot of others on here would agree.

My question to you would be, where do YOU draw the line? Extreme metal bands explore all kinds of weird and fucked up concepts that we would never accept someone acting on in a society. Should bands also be discouraged from making songs about murder, necrophagy, serial killers, etc? Is there no room for taking these things in context of a genre that sets out to make people uncomfortable and create a horror-movie like atmosphere? I think a lot of death metal is deliberately trying to illuminate the darker side of humanity and remind us that the world has evil in it as well. If anything, looking at BDM lyrics about rape only serve to remind me just how hideous an act it is. It certainly doesn't normalise the act. I'd hope I'm not an exception in this case.
Loading...