Garbage rock
Great piece ["Rock 'n' roles," 9/21]. I'm in complete agreement. But these misogynistic creeps and bare-midriffed Barbie dolls of rock aren't rising to the top on the strength of talent (for sure!). Someone's choosing to promote them. I'd love for you to dig deeper and find out who's on the corporate boards deciding to market this garbage. Are they just not thinking or do they have an agenda?
RITA BRUUN AKHTAR
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN
Levin uses big words
I just finished reading Hannah Levin's article "Rock 'n' roles: The music industry's hate-fueled gender gap and its chart-topping front men" [9/21]. Levin may have some valid arguments, but she gets bogged down in Women's Study Speech (see article's title). It's tough going when you have to plod through verbage [sic] like "has dubbed the 'macha quotient,' the degree of feminine self-determination in our developing self-image."
She correctly criticizes the "Britney, Christina, Jessica, and Mandy . . . as buxom, blonde, pubescent Barbies/Lolitas with bare midriffs," but fails to mention the grandmother of Slut-Rock: Madonna. If you're going to chronoclize [sic] the evolution of women's rock in the last 10 to 15 years she can't be ignored.
And finally, let's be fair, Levin misinterprets Kid Rock's pose for Rolling Stone. In this instance he is not so guilty of misogyny as of bad taste. We're supposed to believe he carved those well-endowed women out of wood, not that he plans to destroy them.
ANDREA FOX
VIA E-MAIL
Europe on rock
["Rock 'n' roles," 9/21] is a timely article that highlights what, I think, is an ever more worrying trend that transcends sexual discrimination.
Being that I'm not American, I've never really understood the policies regarding censorship in this country. In an attempt to lure the supposedly most lucrative demographic, TV and record producers know no bounds of how low their bad taste can stoop. However, I can't help but think that middle America actually endorses this type of behavior with its hypocritical conservatism and bland indifference to things that really matter. To a European, it seems totally weird that kids can see endless streams of unedited violence in movies, yet a bare breast is censored, as are various expletives. If there was a more liberal attitude towards sexuality, nudity, and colloquial language, then I seriously doubt that there would be so much fascination with these seemingly taboo subjects.
Yes, this is a free country where people are free to express themselves as they wish, but it's not the only fucking country that maintains that principle, and it's time that common sense prevailed and greenbacks became the opportunity cost of righting a seriously skewed outlook towards sexuality and other seemingly hush-hush subjects of this country.
JASON GOWANS
SEATTLE
Us bitches
As an intelligent young woman I suppose that I should agree with the "Rock 'n' roles" article [9/21] and also blast such artists like Kid Rock and Eminem. But I found the article rather appalling. Ah hell, it pissed me off to be quite honest. It's not Kid Rock or other such artists that offend me as a woman—it's OTHER women like Mariah Carey or Christina Aquilera. Check out any picture of them and you will agree. To see a woman with her legs spread, boobs pushed out, and a "come hither" pout—that infuriates me. THAT is what ultimately oppresses us as a gender. We are doing it to ourselves and then blame the current males of the moment for our demise. The writer stated, "strutting and preening like a date rapist on an after-school special, Kid Rock appeared on Saturday Night Live with two buxom blondes. . . ." Who cares if they were buxom or blonde? Whether male or female, all us fans were glued to the TV to listen to his music, which included a soft acoustic song for you non-rockers. The fact that the author can throw around such a bold and ugly phrase such as "date rapist" too easily makes me understand the inclination for Kid Rock and others to use a term like "bitch" so easily.
CHRISTINA
VIA E-MAIL
Great! Now I have another reason to avoid giving my money to Starbucks [see "Bitter brew," 9/21]. If they refuse to carry the Seattle Weekly, I will refuse to carry their "free trade coffee" cups in my hot little consumer's hands. I object to yet another conscious corporate yuppie effort to eliminate all that is unique, charming, and relevant about Seattle. If Starbucks doesn't respect good journalism, they shouldn't expect any positive coverage from the media.
I gave up on Starbucks long ago when they covered up the mermaid's breasts on their logo. It seems that a few folks found the sight of naked breasts frightening. Haven't you ever seen a William Waterhouse painting? They even have naked breasts at the Frye Art Museum! Maybe someone should run over there and cover them up before someone starts to feel uncomfortable.
I have some surprising news for the Starbucks mega millionaires—many of your stockholders read the Seattle Weekly along with most of your customers. If they can't read the "official" weekly magazine at Starbucks in Seattle, you will look stupid and out of touch. It may be an appropriate but unfortunate corporate image which will not help to improve your sales.
