The Din of Inequity

The Din of Inequity

...yes, I spelled it that way on purpose.

Monday, January 17, 2005

If it's THAT good, why do you have to advertise?

So I've been thinking about this off and on for the last couple of weeks. As is often the case, Girlygirl and I got into a couple of pretty good discussions during a longish car trip down to stand guard while my Dad had his hip replaced*. OK, trips for hip replacements don't happen that often, in fact this is the first, but the discussions on car trips are common. Sheesh. Literalists.

One of the things we discussed, but which I may revisit later, is why women, by and large, do not Rock. We personally know a couple who Rock locally, and there are a few in the world at large that do it famously, but really hardly any in the grand scheme of things. Worse, why do women who attempt to Rock get so much slack cut for them, even when they suck (I'm looking at you, Sleater-Kinney)? Hey, everybody's free to make music I don't like, but I draw a line at doing music I don't like, playing and recording it poorly, and still being hailed as the next Beatles or Fugazi or whatever. Taste aside, those guys could really play, and they had to or they'd have been dismissed. This standard does not seem to hold for women in Rock.

Alright--I went way further with this than I intended. Suffice it to say that I suspect the double standard for women in rock is at least partly responsible for the dearth of famous/popular/good women making rock, and that it sucks. I listen to women make all kinds of other music, but the Rock, with a few exceptions, seems to elude them. I'll just leave this in its possibly provocative and unfinished state--maybe I'll come back and try to make a better (or clearer) case later.

The other thing we discussed, and this is really the point of all this, was the supposed rise of the neocons or the radical right, or whatever you want to call them. The folks who support Bush and all his cronies--those people. Anyway, after the election, we saw a lot of talking heads on TV saying how the Republicans had been tireless in the trenches, winning one tiny battle at a time, and working steadfast and united in the pursuit of the single goal of winning over more citizens to their way of thinking for the last 20 or 30 years. They'd developed a plan, used classic marketing strategy and generally worked the crowd really hard. What the commentators and pundits and most everybody seemed to take away from this talk is that the Democrats just didn't do the work. They slacked off, and just got outworked by the Republicans' well-oiled machine, so they lost.

I cannot, and indeed will not, argue that this isn't mostly true. The Republicans have made a science out of it, and have indeed been most determined. The Democratic party has been kind of lost for the last few years, unable or afraid** to clearly articulate what we really should be about in this country--looking after each other (the poor, the old, the helpless) peace, cooperation internally and with other countries to improve the lot of everyone, not just particular groups, protecting decent people from heartless profit machines, etc. Real "Sermon on the Mount" stuff, and what I think most Americans like to believe is how things should be.

OK, so the Democrats didn't work it very effectively, and the Republicans have busted ass for 20 years. But did you notice? With all their super hard work, the huge amounts of money they've spent, the outright lying and fearmongering, the general "do whatever it takes to push the cause" attitude of the Republicans for 20 fucking years--all they managed was 51%. Those guys killed themselves, and had an amazing confluence of events all going their way, and they just barely won, with a "wartime" incumbent!

You've seen Hollywood and the record industry do it for the last few years--the incredible pushing of the marketing machines, only for the movies and records to bomb***, and all the executives worrying they'll lose their jobs and wondering why people don't go to the movies like they used to. We all know why that happens. The records suck. The movies suck. They're stupid and insulting. They are shitty product.

So let's put it all together--the Republicans have to kill themselves for decades to squeak out the tiniest margin of victory. Why? Because people know, deep down, that it's a shitty, shoddy, dangerous product they're pushing.

Take heart progressives, liberals, Democrats, anti-Republicans. We have a better product, and a small recommitment to both marketing and defining the product could set the Republicans back another 20 years--easy.

*It went very well, thanks.
**What's so bad about being liberal? Hell, I even think it's OK to have socialist tendencies--that's what the New Deal was all about, after all.
***Yeah, yeah, some of them don't bomb--but they stink and everyone kind of knows it.


|| Bikeboy 5:08 PM || (0) comments

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

I know you know it's up in there

OK. I was walking back to work after a decidedly unpleasing lunch at Chick-Fil-A*, and after seeing the people I saw on the street, I just had to blog it out.

I've always wondered, and though it's probably too late, since I probably don't have any readers anymore, and no new ones are likely to wander by anytime soon, but I have to ask: Women, when you sport a massive camel toe,** what the hell are you thinking? Is it particularly comfortable, or Oooh, Ick, pleasurable? Do you think it actually looks good? And if so, in what way? Let's leave out what men think of this for the time being (I think it's weird-looking), I just want to know what makes a woman think that looks good, or even right. How can you look in a mirror, see your pants all up in your _____***, and decide that's just the natural way of things?

I guess it could be seen as roughly equivalent to showing a lot of cleavage. Breast-type cleavage, that is, in which case what men like or want could have something to do with it. Could be advertising, and I have to say that the most avid displayers of nether-cleavage I know is definitely challenged to display even the faintest hint of having breast-type cleavage equipment. If you're advertising, or even showing off, and you're shaved down there, I suppose it's almost like you're not wearing pants at all, at least from the "preserving the mystery" angle.

Anyway, I just had to ask, though I'm sure I'll never get an answer, and I don't have the nerve to actually ask in person. And yes, I know that men sport the toe sometimes too--that's a mystery to me too, though I suspect that's mostly an advertising thing, or a "can't be fucked to dress properly" thing--so if any guys want to weigh in on the man-camel-toe, feel free.

* The experience pretty much sucked on every level. First, it's goddamn Chick-Fil-A. What was I doing in a place that's almost called Chicken-Fuckin-A in the first place? It's close, and it's not the place next door that has lost my confidence after providing a free cucaracha with my cow-orker's taquito platter, that's why. Anyway, I started out with the 16-year-old trainee--he was polite, but a little scattered, and everything took an eternity. Then there's the tray, or rather the lack of one--they don't do trays. You can spread out the sack they give you and eat on that, or you can just eat right off the table. Ick. The food? Eh. I've had worse chicken sandwiches, though this one does take the prize for being on the soggiest bun ever, but the idea of serving a fried chicken sandwich with nothing on it but two (always two) pickles seems suspicious to me. Mostly I hate the place because they are closed on Sundays--all Chick-fil-a's, not just the local--and that can only mean management is a bunch of religious freaks. That's ALL it could POSSIBLY mean. Shut up. That's all. Plus the only newspaper they have in the store is the frigging Washington Times, an impossibly right-wing rag, though you'd think it would be unpopular with actual Christians, seeing as it's also Moonie-owned.

** Only those who habitually do it, please. I think most people have a pair of pants that for one reason or other look, let's say, less aesthetically pleasing than others. I'm after the women who obviously think they're improving their look with a good solid no-guessing-necessary nether outline.

*** Boy, that was a tough sentence there. What word do you use? Do you go clinical and say vulva? Or do you let it hang out, for potentially humorous results--cooze, cootchie, giggie, cunt? I've never been much for referring to that particular female bit at all if I don't have to, so I took the coward's way out. Sort of.


|| Bikeboy 1:20 PM || (0) comments