2009-07-22
2009-07-20
letter to a young poet
July 2oth, 2009
I'm interested in continuing the debate because I took some time to think about your point regarding the sociological aspect of the term "gender".
First off I would like to repeat my point, and maybe add a better contextual situation to what I said this weekend. Which is to say that I think the idea of gender from the societal norms or expectations has it's roots in the evolution of the species. To repeat, if every woman decided that they wanted to be the hunters, and every man decided he was homosexual and wanted to be with other men our species would not have continued to exist. So at one time I think there were probably understood guidelines of how things worked in order to not disappear as a tribe / community / society.
I guess then you can fast forward to modern civilizations and look at the existence of gender in society. What it seems like to me, which could be wrong, is that this is where your opinions of gender begin. I kind of have this opinion that I feel like you chastise the improprieties, but don't take the time to explore why they exist and where they came from. This opinion is definitely based on little or no prior experience in hearing your thoughts on all this. Your opinions are strong, but I haven't heard really why except that you think they're unfair. Which is pretty easy to agree with, since most of the things you have a problem with seem to be legitimately unfair.
Anyways I guess I just wanted to bring up one point that I have kind of been going over in my head regarding the continuance of gender misappropriation. It's hard for me to drop the fact that the roots still lay in basic natural instinct for survival. It kind of led me to a question I wanted to ask you about. I'm expecting that you don't take this as anything more than me trying to understand if I am still missing something, but also wondering if I might be able to raise your own awareness. If gender doesn't exist then why do you bother doing things to make yourself look attractive? I say "you" to ask you pointedly, but it's not like it couldn't be a more general question. I ask you, because you are the one who says that gender doesn't exist, and I feel like any type of attempt or act that plays into society's definition of gender only validates it's existence. I guess I'm just wondering what your stance in on the justification of at least partially adhering to gender roles for someone who so vehemently fights the inequities that gender roles create in society.
Maybe I have it wrong. To me, I both hate and love labels (or generalizations) for reasons that at least for the moment take a back seat to the current subject. Societal rules to me are both unavoidable and at least to some extent also necessary. I feel that there was no way to avoid their institution because they're rooted in our natural development as humans. And I think that even if we could somehow remove the existence of gender that they would probably naturally reappear again anyways. I think if not that we could possibly then run a risk of extinction (though we seem to be doing good at that in plenty other ways).
I can't offer anything more that that I guess. Maybe I feel it's necessary to defend myself because I'm defending acceptance of an idea that seems completely the opposite from yours. Maybe part of that also is my defense of my own ideologies. Am I shallow because I accept the things I cannot change, and find it suitable that I find a comfortable level of understanding? It's pretty clear to see why that stance would seem shortsighted. After all I am of the gender that has been the benefactor not the one that has been unjustly deterred in their search for their destiny. So even then, even with what I believe to be an open minded attempt at idealism because I existed at one point within society's gender role I am innately unable to ever fully grasp the other's perspective. But then the same must be true for the other gender, and so where does that leave us?
I would say that maybe this gets us to the final questions in the arena. First, if we cannot change the past, and there are two disparate sides that almost certainly could never take the same perspective, then how could they ever agree on the benefits and impediments? Would the right thing to do be to focus on changing the future? Which is better, fighting to change inherent behavior, or learning to work with the current construct, and why is it better? For what reasons? What is the potential fallout from these sea changes? If we could change things, and the fastest way would also be the most devastating across all genders would it be worth it?
Again, my point was not to put down any one's beliefs but rather to maybe look for conviction in my own. Though I would be lying if I tried to deny that I hope some of my thoughts shared provided a medium for someone else to also weigh their own judgments, and hopefully find their own level of understanding in both themselves and the ideas of others.
Yours,
Anthony Wilson
I'm interested in continuing the debate because I took some time to think about your point regarding the sociological aspect of the term "gender".
First off I would like to repeat my point, and maybe add a better contextual situation to what I said this weekend. Which is to say that I think the idea of gender from the societal norms or expectations has it's roots in the evolution of the species. To repeat, if every woman decided that they wanted to be the hunters, and every man decided he was homosexual and wanted to be with other men our species would not have continued to exist. So at one time I think there were probably understood guidelines of how things worked in order to not disappear as a tribe / community / society.
I guess then you can fast forward to modern civilizations and look at the existence of gender in society. What it seems like to me, which could be wrong, is that this is where your opinions of gender begin. I kind of have this opinion that I feel like you chastise the improprieties, but don't take the time to explore why they exist and where they came from. This opinion is definitely based on little or no prior experience in hearing your thoughts on all this. Your opinions are strong, but I haven't heard really why except that you think they're unfair. Which is pretty easy to agree with, since most of the things you have a problem with seem to be legitimately unfair.
Anyways I guess I just wanted to bring up one point that I have kind of been going over in my head regarding the continuance of gender misappropriation. It's hard for me to drop the fact that the roots still lay in basic natural instinct for survival. It kind of led me to a question I wanted to ask you about. I'm expecting that you don't take this as anything more than me trying to understand if I am still missing something, but also wondering if I might be able to raise your own awareness. If gender doesn't exist then why do you bother doing things to make yourself look attractive? I say "you" to ask you pointedly, but it's not like it couldn't be a more general question. I ask you, because you are the one who says that gender doesn't exist, and I feel like any type of attempt or act that plays into society's definition of gender only validates it's existence. I guess I'm just wondering what your stance in on the justification of at least partially adhering to gender roles for someone who so vehemently fights the inequities that gender roles create in society.
Maybe I have it wrong. To me, I both hate and love labels (or generalizations) for reasons that at least for the moment take a back seat to the current subject. Societal rules to me are both unavoidable and at least to some extent also necessary. I feel that there was no way to avoid their institution because they're rooted in our natural development as humans. And I think that even if we could somehow remove the existence of gender that they would probably naturally reappear again anyways. I think if not that we could possibly then run a risk of extinction (though we seem to be doing good at that in plenty other ways).
I can't offer anything more that that I guess. Maybe I feel it's necessary to defend myself because I'm defending acceptance of an idea that seems completely the opposite from yours. Maybe part of that also is my defense of my own ideologies. Am I shallow because I accept the things I cannot change, and find it suitable that I find a comfortable level of understanding? It's pretty clear to see why that stance would seem shortsighted. After all I am of the gender that has been the benefactor not the one that has been unjustly deterred in their search for their destiny. So even then, even with what I believe to be an open minded attempt at idealism because I existed at one point within society's gender role I am innately unable to ever fully grasp the other's perspective. But then the same must be true for the other gender, and so where does that leave us?
I would say that maybe this gets us to the final questions in the arena. First, if we cannot change the past, and there are two disparate sides that almost certainly could never take the same perspective, then how could they ever agree on the benefits and impediments? Would the right thing to do be to focus on changing the future? Which is better, fighting to change inherent behavior, or learning to work with the current construct, and why is it better? For what reasons? What is the potential fallout from these sea changes? If we could change things, and the fastest way would also be the most devastating across all genders would it be worth it?
Again, my point was not to put down any one's beliefs but rather to maybe look for conviction in my own. Though I would be lying if I tried to deny that I hope some of my thoughts shared provided a medium for someone else to also weigh their own judgments, and hopefully find their own level of understanding in both themselves and the ideas of others.
Yours,
Anthony Wilson
2009-07-16
Yeasayer Live Blogged Transcript
Lucky you. Here's the unreadable pile that was my liveblog last night. You will notice not too much besides vague, incomprehensible tweets once yeasayer actually went on. This is do to:
1. The fact that I was squeezed like roadkill under a tire because I wanted to not have to stand in the very back.
2. At that point the number of Dead Guy Ale's ingested had reached the tipping point from happy to inebriated.
Here goes:
1. The fact that I was squeezed like roadkill under a tire because I wanted to not have to stand in the very back.
2. At that point the number of Dead Guy Ale's ingested had reached the tipping point from happy to inebriated.
Here goes:
- a couple of new tracks that make white people dance poorly some classics and a diss on first timers <- what u missed
- no wait for the wintertime but I made a proper jackass out of myself losing my ess to sunrise.
- burned by 2nd chances
- ps. I'm in a shizpile
- they do own soundcheck
- time for anarchy up to the front . tightrope=my face in t-minus
- props from ponygirl. feels like the lid is coming off yep
- pile of kids in the front keeping it real ba for ponytail... very cool
- now I know what it's like to be at a lightning bolt show. ponytail is playing on the floor! face=melted
- on a side note the house that anarchy built is being moved into same weekend as boulderfest which is now.. free admission. welc to tha wedge
- damn fine opening. but why no ahc on vinyl. time to storm the merch table
- it's like Wayne coyne's pop techno side project. might need to check the price of the album. def look it up!
- phantograms are laying sick beats. awesome.
- first thing noticed: no all hours cymbals vinyl. plan #1 foiled
2009-07-13
Heh, would you look at that?
Turns out I have a minute or two to indulge in this. It's seriously been a very long time since I've had a few minutes to just openly ramble. Even the BestOF0.5Edish was a struggle to get done. I fucking went to Bonna-god-damn-roo and didn't have a single post about it. 4 Months of anticipation, several hundred dollars, enough alcohol and idoicy to fill the pacific, and an endless supply of music, enough to go deaf and remain happy for the rest of my life .... and not one fucking post.
That should tell you how rare this is, at least lately. So what's been up lately you ask? Fudged if I can remember. However I've got just enough time to update the masses with the upcoming content related information. Here go the quick shouts ... Yeasayer in two days, tightrope from 3ft away might make me cry. Wilco next sunday. Got the new ablum, is pretty effin blah. I'm hoping they go apesies and play sky blue sky top to bottom, but i'm not going to hold my breath for that one. Didn't they cover radiohead once?
Uhh besides that A. Bird, Matt and Kim, poss Fever Ray, and god pray, oh fuck me in my eye, god pray ATP September 12th. Animal Collective, Panda solo (ess=lost), Deerhunter, Atlas Sound ... yes, that is really going to happen. Throw in Deerhoof and Akron/Family ... How can you say no?
I might go see gang gang dance (i feel obligated), and cursive.
I'm basically tripping balls to the Beatles. I've always had a decent knowledge base, but i'm actually listening to albums. Instead of flossing over them, recognizing the 5 or 6 i've already heard, making note of what album they're on, and moving on.
Also I bought my first Sinatra album. I immediately love it and can't wait to amass a collection of them. He is so fucking epic it blows my mind. I should watch all of his movies.
I'm only ending here because I feel this is all dragging on. And blogs should be succinct, unless their intent is to bore the reader. Am I right or what? So no news except personal shit for now. There's more, hopefully it will happen.
That should tell you how rare this is, at least lately. So what's been up lately you ask? Fudged if I can remember. However I've got just enough time to update the masses with the upcoming content related information. Here go the quick shouts ... Yeasayer in two days, tightrope from 3ft away might make me cry. Wilco next sunday. Got the new ablum, is pretty effin blah. I'm hoping they go apesies and play sky blue sky top to bottom, but i'm not going to hold my breath for that one. Didn't they cover radiohead once?
Uhh besides that A. Bird, Matt and Kim, poss Fever Ray, and god pray, oh fuck me in my eye, god pray ATP September 12th. Animal Collective, Panda solo (ess=lost), Deerhunter, Atlas Sound ... yes, that is really going to happen. Throw in Deerhoof and Akron/Family ... How can you say no?
I might go see gang gang dance (i feel obligated), and cursive.
I'm basically tripping balls to the Beatles. I've always had a decent knowledge base, but i'm actually listening to albums. Instead of flossing over them, recognizing the 5 or 6 i've already heard, making note of what album they're on, and moving on.
Also I bought my first Sinatra album. I immediately love it and can't wait to amass a collection of them. He is so fucking epic it blows my mind. I should watch all of his movies.
I'm only ending here because I feel this is all dragging on. And blogs should be succinct, unless their intent is to bore the reader. Am I right or what? So no news except personal shit for now. There's more, hopefully it will happen.
So worth it
I just haven't had time to do this blog right. But when I saw this there was just no way I could pass it up. Enjoy
2009-07-01
random statement post tonight here yes now read
I think meatplow by The Stone Temple Pilots was the first time I realized what Track 1 Side 1 meant. I think that was 1994.
I totally told my friend Sheila that The Pains of Being Pure at Heart sounded like The Smiths. I still kind of think they do.
I totally told my friend Sheila that The Pains of Being Pure at Heart sounded like The Smiths. I still kind of think they do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)