MetaChat - It's probably just me, but...

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

09 March 2007

It's probably just me, but... I found this silly Q & A tiresomely offensive.→[More:]To save you clicking and bugmenot-ing, it's a throwaway little Q & A about the group 'Celtic Woman' that I read in the Boston Globe over lunch. I'm not a CW fan (in fact, the whole act is so manufactured that I find it offputting), but it was all I had to read. CW is a group of five women who perform under that umbrella 'brand,' which is really what it is. But that's not the tiresome part.

The tiresome part is that the music writer who did the Q & A managed to get all of two questions out before asking "Have you ever fought over a song?"

When one of the group responds "There's no competition because we all do something different," you would think the case was closed on the fighting thing. Or at least maybe you'd follow up by asking "What are the different things that each of you do?"

But no. The writer can't resist following up with "No catfights, then?"

Please. This isn't your blog or a comedy show on TV, it's a major U.S. daily paper. As a female and a musician, it just kills me to see it suggested, in this day and age, by a female writer, that a group of women can't collaborate without going at it all hair-and-fingernails. Jeeez! I wrote the Globe about it. The thing is, the reviewer has done a lot of pieces on women in music. It can't be the first time she's ever given thought to gender stereotyping.

I'm just saddened that there was a missed opportunity to talk about what it's really like for musicians to collaborate, because the 'catfight' joke just seemed cuter, or something. Come on. It's not a question you'd ask Aerosmith or the Three Tenors, you know?

Good Lord, this liberation thing is taking forever. *waggles foot impatiently*

post by: Miko at: 15:17 | 78 comments

Good Lord, this liberation thing is taking forever. *waggles foot impatiently*

This is so totally my new favorite phrase and accompanying gesture.

posted by occhiblu 09 March | 15:22

It's not a question you'd ask Aerosmith

Of course not. Aerosmith didn't fight over songs, they fought over drugs.

posted by jonmc 09 March | 15:23

But I bet they couldn't resist pulling all that long, luxuriant hair.

posted by Miko 09 March | 15:25

Good points, but I read the article before your "more inside" and thought your complaint was about how irritatingly precious all the answers were. I haven't been so annoyed by five women since the last time I accidentally listened to Satellite Sisters.

posted by Lentrohamsanin 09 March | 15:25

Write an e-mail to the author and/or editor? Bitchin' always makes me feel better!

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 09 March | 15:25

Miko--I agree with you, but:

Q So how do you blow off steam?
Everyone: Shopping!
Chloe: We watch movies sometimes, too.
Orla: But we’re really deep, as well.
Mairead: We’re extremely philosophical, too.

No one is a winner here.

posted by Prospero 09 March | 15:28

"Have you ever fought over a song?" is a great question to ask a group made up of several artists who perform seperately. The followup question undercuts it completely.

I'm sure liberation of all sorts would be quicker if the liberated were together in it. The outside blame game only works so far. After that, it's about making things happen, helping a sister out.

posted by Hugh Janus 09 March | 15:30

Yeah, but I'm not about to blame the stupid band for the missteps of the interviewer and writer, who is the one responsible for the point of view.

posted by Miko 09 March | 15:30

Once again, I think gender is less of an issue here than general stupidity.

I haven't been so annoyed by five women since the last time I accidentally listened to Satellite Sisters.

Ugh, Satellite Sisters! There's just no excuse for a show like that. Just when I thought that travesty was dead, I discovered it on Air America! Who listens to that drivel!?!?!

posted by pieisexactlythree 09 March | 15:30

Already did, TPS.

posted by Miko 09 March | 15:31

"Do you guys ever fight?" is a pretty standard question for band interviews. I can't see how asking it is stifling liberation.

posted by danostuporstar 09 March | 15:33

It's not the fighting question, dano, it's the 'catfight' followup to a perfectly good answer that led in a different direction.

posted by Miko 09 March | 15:35

I was speaking generally, about liberation. In general. Just meant to agree, and point out, never mind.

posted by Hugh Janus 09 March | 15:37

Satellite sisters is indeed the most painful thing on radio, barring maybe the right-wing ranters, but at least they put on a show. There is no excuse for the sisters. The only thing I've ever heard approaching that show in insipidity is, thankfully, only on a local CT affiliate: Faith Middleton.

I believe in the sisterhood, but gals, gimme somethin' to work with, or you're on your own.

posted by Miko 09 March | 15:38

Well, you know, we all know the only reason women are interesting enough to be in the paper is when they're catfighting, of course.

posted by occhiblu 09 March | 15:40

Also, what makes a catfight a catfight? Simply the presence of women? Can women fight without it being a catfight? Can men have catfights? Do they have dogfights instead? Monkeyfights?

posted by occhiblu 09 March | 15:42

Well, you know, we all know the only reason women are interesting enough to be in the paper is when they're catfighting, of course.
And even then, it's useless without pictures.

posted by pieisexactlythree 09 March | 15:42

Or getting fat, or cutting off their hair in a nervous breakdown.

posted by Miko 09 March | 15:42

I believe in the sisterhood,

why? I sure as hell don't believe in brotherhood.

posted by jonmc 09 March | 15:43

What if they're gay? Does that affect the fight nomenclature? A straight woman vs. a gay man? Two gay men? An MtF transsexual vs. a straight man? What exactly are the rules here? I can't keep score.

posted by Miko 09 March | 15:44

Also also also, I suspect that some journalists feel that mentioning a lack of catfights is somehow feminist, without really paying attention to how stupid the reasoning behind such a stance is. So maybe it was something along those "we're so post-feminist, we can say really stupid shit ironically" lines.

posted by occhiblu 09 March | 15:44

And what if the chicks are ugly?

posted by Miko 09 March | 15:44

(I mean seriously, these people seem like idiots. No reason to defend idiocy simply because of shared gender)

posted by jonmc 09 March | 15:44

Oooooooh, right. I forgot about gay men. Gay men can have catfights, I believe.

So do catfights require all participants to like cock? Is this an actual barnyard metaphor that I'm missing?

posted by occhiblu 09 March | 15:45

Gay men can have catfights, I believe.

Unless they're big hairy gay dudes. then it's a bearfight.

So do catfights require all participants to like cock?

Then it's a cockfight. Jeez louise, I feel like a stumbled into a bar fight on Noah's Ark.

posted by jonmc 09 March | 15:47

Occhi, if I were to talk to that writer, I'd suspect that might be something like how she might describe the question. The problem with calling oneself 'post-feminist' is that you should first know what 'feminist' is before you decide you to be post it.

jon, to be extremely clear, I'm not defending the Celtic Woman crew. Even after reading the interview, I still know next to nothing about them, and the interview didn't really give them a chance to be interesting. I didn't post to defend them, I posted about the trope the writer used.

posted by Miko 09 March | 15:48

Though I would add that stupid women do actually also deserve not to be held back because of their gender.

Discrimination based on stupidity I'm all for, but I'm not going to say that stupid women deserve sexism.

posted by occhiblu 09 March | 15:50

So, what kind of shampoo do you guys use?

posted by iconomy 09 March | 15:50

Well, I suppose it's equality of a sort when women music writers are free to be as clueless as most male ones.

posted by jonmc 09 March | 15:50

(Not that I thought Miko was implying that they do.)

posted by occhiblu 09 March | 15:50

Discrimination based on stupidity I'm all for, but I'm not going to say that stupid women deserve sexism.

Well (and I swear I'm not just being an asshole here), this is where things get confusing. Let's take it as a given that stupid people deserve all the mockery we can muster. Sometimes, however if the stupid person in question is female, the mockery will bring accusations of sexism. But I'll be damned if I show Britney, Martha Stewart, Rosie O'Donnell or Ann Coulter any more mercy than I'd show their male counterparts. That would be sexism of a sort, too, wouldn't it?

posted by jonmc 09 March | 15:56

Incidentally, this--

Q No catfights?
Mairead: As much as people want them, no.[...]

--could be read as a subtle rebuke to the interviewer, if one wants to be charitable and read "people" as "people including you, the interviewer." (But admittedly, it's hard to make that case.)

posted by Prospero 09 March | 15:59

Not if you're attacking them specifically for being a woman, as if that in and of itself was an offense.

"Ann Coulter is a slimy despicable human being" - totally fine by me.

"Ann Coulter is a cunt who looks like a man" - idiotic sexist crap.

The whole "John Edwards is a faggot" thing would be the same thing applied toward men, and that's also idiotic sexist crap.

"This person is stupid so I can attack them in any manner conceivable and it doesn't reflect poorly on me" is a bad thing to believe. If I attack blacks with racist epithets, then that makes my actions racist, no matter what the black person did to raise my ire. If I attack women with sexist names or attitudes, then that makes my actions sexist, no matter what the women did to raise my ire. Etc., etc.

If someone's stupid, there's plenty to pick apart and mock without getting into sexist language, and doing so shows a huge failure of imagination, in my opinion.

posted by occhiblu 09 March | 16:01

Agreed with occhi.

But to support my initial point, which is that the subsurface sexism in the interview structure prevented the public from a full picture of the Celtic Woman crew:

-one of the Celtic Women started playing fiddle at the age of 6 and is a former All-Ireland fiddle champion. She has multiple advanced degrees in music, has played in classical, traditional and pop groups, and has her own band.
-One is an accomplished chamber choir singer with impressive worldwide credits, who has played with a variety of acts including Elvis Costello.
-One is a Gaelic singer and harpist who, early on, had to choose one passion over another, selling her horse to buy her first harp, only to have the money stolen.
-One comes from a musical theatre background and has performed on stage since the age of 7, most recently with Riverdance.
-Chloe, the Green Day fan, is only 16. She was born to performer parents and came to the attention of the CW producer when she approached him with the idea of recording a charity single for the children of Afghanistan after 9/11.

So yeah, they are all total bitches who, like, are totally always stealing each other's clothes. And they are, like, so dumb. And one of them is kinda fat, too. No wonder they're always catfighting. After you've mastered your part in the 15th-century polyphony you're learning and spent the rest of the day on your harp fingerings, what else are you gonna do?

posted by Miko 09 March | 16:02

DUH, link problems. Faith Middleton is not a Celtic Woman, and I screwed up another link. So here's the artist page; you may discover the gals for yourself.

posted by Miko 09 March | 16:05

Aveda iconomy, when I can afford it. :)

posted by tr33hggr 09 March | 16:06

Yeah, I wish I could afford Aveda too. My stylist really pushes it. She knows I'm kinda anti-petrochemical, and the more she pushes, the more I want to buy the stuff. The rosemary-mint is great. I just choke at spending $28 on shampoo...

posted by Miko 09 March | 16:07

Fair enough. Even if bothering to defend such people seems like a tremendous waste of energy, no matter what the reason.

Oh. and rug shampoo. I'm into this whole industrial look now.

posted by jonmc 09 March | 16:09

subsurface sexism in the interview structure prevented the public from a full picture of the Celtic Woman crew

Or maybe the full picture isn't there because it's just a silly, short puff piece in the entertainment section of the Friday paper.

posted by danostuporstar 09 March | 16:10

Fair enough. Even if bothering to defend such people seems like a tremendous waste of energy, no matter what the reason.

Well, if I feel that I shouldn't have to put up with sexist crap, then I can hardly argue that other people deserve to put up with sexist crap, can I? I just see it as a matter of not being a hypocrite. Either I believe all women deserve not to have their gender used against them, or I somehow think I'm a special case who's somehow so much awesomely better than all other women and therefore worthy of being treated like a human being, unlike those other dumb bitches.

Since I don't think that, I'm pretty much left with the idea that no woman (or man) deserves to put up with sexist crap. It shouldn't be a case-by-case judgment call, because that leaves me (and everyone else, no matter how smart) shit out of luck when someone decides I'm lacking.

posted by occhiblu 09 March | 16:16

As a musician myself, I hate to see any press opportunity for other musicians reduced to that level, dano. But even so, I still don't think that was the goal of the piece.

It is short, but a couple of the other questions aim to take the piece beyond puff level. For instance, "What do you say to critics who claim that Celtic Woman isn’t authentic, that you present a watered-down, new age version of Irish music and culture?" or "Do you understand why it became a global sensation?"

Those aren't puff questions. Puff questions are more on the order of 'what's your favorite food, describe your ideal getaway', and so on. There are a few of those in there, too ("How do you blow off steam?")

Sure, the writer was trying to provide some light human interest in a quick Friday piece. It's her choice of question that's lame.

posted by Miko 09 March | 16:22

Oh, I get it occhi, I'm just saying that, as a human, it must really chafe to find yourself put in that position. I know that's how I'd feel.

posted by jonmc 09 March | 16:28

I see your point, Miko, and I'm not really disagreeing with it. It's just your reaction and occhi's we all know the only reason women are interesting ... seems somewhat exaggerated.

posted by danostuporstar 09 March | 16:29

I just choke at spending $28 on shampoo...

My Kiehl's shampoo is expensive, but it's concentrated, and a big bottle lasts forever (6+ months).

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 09 March | 16:30

I agree with dano. I can easily dismiss this as puff. I also find it worth mentioning that their moniker is Celtic Women. Not Celtic Master Keepers of the Musical Tradition, and as such, it opens the field up for the puff to drift toward pastry. I'm thinking Celtic Men might have been asked about drinking habits. Dixie Chicks, Backstreet Boys - I wonder if one searched interviews of bands with gender signifying names if there would be a higher prevalence of gender specific questions. Seems like that's fair to me.

posted by rainbaby 09 March | 16:32

Good for you Miko for writing the paper. I agree with you, the author probably thought it would be a cute addition to the Q & A. I thought they handled the stupid question quite nicely.

I never buy expensive shampoo, but I will spring for expensive conditioner.

posted by LoriFLA 09 March | 16:33

Exaggerated? Nah. It's just another straw on a lifetime of witnessing the same. Each time you think the culture's settled down, it pops up somewhere else. This, to me, is certainly not on the order of reproductive rights or female genital mutilation. It's in perspective - it's just that it's so dispiriting, and this is a good place to show exasperation and be reasonably sure that you will be understood.

But if my impression on you is that my reaction is exaggerated, think about the impression you are creating. Why work so hard to defend the idea of asking a group of women if they have catfights? Should I consider your support for the question exaggerated?

posted by Miko 09 March | 16:35

Well, except that the whole "catfight" thing comes up all the frickin' time when speaking about women in the media. It's not like they only ask when there have been rumors of major arguments; it's just assumed that women can't get along with each other.

Yes, if you take this as an isolated incident, it's really not a big deal. When you look at an overall pattern of how women are portrayed by the media, it does become part of a really big deal.

posted by occhiblu 09 March | 16:37

maybe everybody needs to cool out a bit here, questioning one factoid does not warrant accusing a valued member of our community of sexism, however veiled the accusation. There's supposed to be converastion going on here, two-way street, remember?

posted by jonmc 09 March | 16:40

I hope I haven't suggested this thread shouldn't exist. I certainly didn't mean to, and I don't mean to "work hard" to support the question. I'm sharing my opinion that (to me) this doesn't seem like something worth getting worked up about.

posted by danostuporstar 09 March | 16:42

Hey, jon, I'm not uncool. Does it seem to you like anyone's angry at anyone here? From my end, that's not going on.

Where the word 'catfight' is concered, it's true that it shows up in the media pejoratively quite often. That's probably one reason I so strongly object. For instance, here's something about how Fox News labelled a dispute about Nancy Pelosi a "Congressional Catfight." There are certainly more, if you search.

On top of that, add the experience of a lifetime in which, every time you had an argument, even a very serious one, with a member of the same gender, someone else was liable to dismiss your conflict as a 'catfight.' The word definitely starts to, um, rub you the wrong way after a while.

posted by Miko 09 March | 16:51

Yeah, once I got to "catfight" I rolled my eyes and pretty much stopped reading. It's not a huge deal, like dano's saying, but it's still annoying. It's like "woman doctor". That level of annoying. And worth writing the paper about, good for you, Miko.

posted by gaspode 09 March | 16:52

It is probably also safe to assume that when I am discussing monkeyfights and cocks, and saying things like "we all know the only reason..." about anything, that there is a large degree of tongue-in-cheek conscious hyperbolizing going on.

And I don't think anyone's particularly worked up. The only time I have been particularly engaged with this topic is when responding substantively to people here; the rest of this (from me and others, I think) has been mainly mocking the writer.

posted by occhiblu 09 March | 16:52

("Writer" being "journalist of the posted article.")

posted by occhiblu 09 March | 16:53

Hey, jon, I'm not uncool. Does it seem to you like anyone's angry at anyone here?

Maybe not on your end, but oftentimes it seems (to me at least) that if a male user questions any female user on any point into a discussion of sexism, he gets relegated to the 'enemies of freedom' pile, which I feel is unfair.

posted by jonmc 09 March | 16:56

You're probably being overly sensitive, at least in this instance.

posted by Atom Eyes 09 March | 16:58

I don't see where anyone relegated anyone to the pile of enemies of freedom.

posted by Miko 09 March | 16:58

I can imagine another interview that goes something like this...

Q. So, Joan Anderman, you've won a lot critical acclaim for the book you collaborated on with [other woman journalist].

JA: Yes, we felt like it was a good story, but you never know how something will be received; we're both thrilled by the reaction.

Q. Did you two have a lot of disagreements about what direction to take with the narrative?

JA: Not at all; we've worked together on other projects, so we are very accustomed to creative soundboarding with each other, and our styles tend to complement each other.

Q. So, no catfights then?

JA: WTF?

posted by taz 09 March | 17:56

"... The word definitely starts to, um, rub you the wrong way after a while."
posted by Miko 09 March | 16:51

I used to manage about 250 women, in 3 seperate plant locations, in a 24/7 manufacturing operation. These were blue collar people, and although there was nothing about the jobs or the hiring situation that was particularly specific to women, our pay rates were for unskilled labor, and we got mostly women with little education. About 98% of my workforce was female, and turnover was about 100% annually. About once a week, there would be a disagreement that got physical, usually breaking out in the breakroom, or the washroom. And more than once, I've had women run up to me, telling me I needed to "Come quick, there's an awful catfight in the breakroom." I use the term, still, occasionally, because I learned it from women who used it, and it describes, vividly and poetically, the kind of screeching, scratching, hair pulling, spittin' contest I've had the misfortune to try to control on a number of occasions.

It probably does irk many women on this site, who aren't themselves the blue collar protagonists of such pecking order rituals. So be it. But it's still apt metaphor, enough to have power, and until it isn't, it'll be used.

posted by paulsc 09 March | 18:22

I don't use shampoo. I just let my cat lick my hair. Unless he's fighting with my other cat, of course.

posted by matildaben 09 March | 18:32

Regardless of how many women you managed, though, paulsc, the point remains that it's a silly and insulting term for a professional journalist to use in an interview.

posted by taz 09 March | 18:39

How do cats even pull hair? They don't have any thumbs!

posted by wimpdork 09 March | 18:40

I try to rub women the right way.

posted by pieisexactlythree 09 March | 18:41

"... the point remains that it's a silly and insulting term for a professional journalist to use in an interview."
posted by taz 09 March | 18:39

Could be, taz. But she's hardly alone.

posted by paulsc 09 March | 18:59

Yeah, -- I would go even further and say it's a silly and insulting term, period.

It's not an unusual concept that oppressed groups often unwittingly participate in their own oppression through the use of language or through a victim mentality. Paulsc, would you feel free using racist terminology if you managed a plant that was 98% black people, because they used it? Also, just because no woman objected, you cannot be at all sure that they weren't offended, even though you presume that because of their social class or intellect they didn't care.

Again, let me be clear that I didn't post to start a fight, just to commiserate. However, it always interests me that there will always be a few who argue for another side that's really hard to defend. Sure you can argue for it, but why? What's the point? What kind of world do we want to create? Why participate in/support something that results in no change for the better?

Colored water fountains were no big deal either, and Woolworth's lunch counters served notoriously lousy food. But there was more at stake in these 'little things' that people got worked up over. You know?

And hee hee, taz, your scenario was funny.

posted by Miko 09 March | 19:05

I found a lot of articles on my Google search about catfights, too, paulsc.

Most of them were about how the use of the term was object to as offensive.

posted by Miko 09 March | 19:06

We don't know how many of those articles are from gossip rags, veterinary magazines, or Cat Fanciers Magazine. ;)

You can certainly have your opinion as former manager of women, and as a former managing editor, I can have mine; I would have cut it.

posted by taz 09 March | 19:11

Colored water fountains were no big deal either

I thought jon was off target when he said you were indirectly accusing me of sexism. Apparently he was right.

posted by danostuporstar 09 March | 19:32

Don't compare a fart of a quetion in a puff piece that effects nobody to systematic oppression encoded in law, please.

posted by jonmc 09 March | 19:50

"...Paulsc, would you feel free using racist terminology if you managed a plant that was 98% black people, because they used it?..."

Funny you should mention that. Here are some white guys makin' bank, doing that. But, as always, context is everything, and they play with that, too. If you're cool enough, you can tell any joke, or laugh at them.

"...Also, just because no woman objected, you cannot be at all sure that they weren't offended, even though you presume that because of their social class or intellect they didn't care. ..."

So, do you feel comfortable presuming what I presume?

"...Sure you can argue for it, but why? What's the point? What kind of world do we want to create? ..."

Certianly not one in which South Park loses its raison d'etre. :-) You can get too serious about any cause, and lose your humanity, doing so. Preaching is one poor way of converting infidels, and shooting is another.

posted by paulsc 09 March | 20:04

Simmer down there, kitten! Rowr!

posted by Miko 09 March | 21:16

would you feel free using racist terminology if you managed a plant that was 98% black people, because they used it?

It's been my experience that it's not the terminology that's racist (*-ist), but the attitude behind it.

posted by Eideteker 09 March | 21:30

Can men have catfights? Do they have dogfights instead? Monkeyfights?

Yes. Monkeyfights. That's what we call them when the ladies aren't around.

You did not hear this from me, of course.

posted by jason's_planet 09 March | 21:47

Yeah Eide, true enough. Same with sexism.

Now, back to the monkeyfight!

Monkeys fight dirty, too. They spit and throw poop!

posted by Miko 09 March | 21:53

Hm. This is the kind of an expression that would make my eyes roll very far back. I would not get offended per se, but rather annoyed. Like, jeez, did somebody fart just now?

But far more than the expression, it is the very idea behind it that bothers me: women fight/argue differently than men. It is sexism, of the worst kind, I might add, because it is used jokingly, in passing, almost defenselessly. I have heard colleagues refer to two women arguing (no raised voices, full arguments etc) as "catfight", so clueless: dude, I could draw blood with a touch of my front paw.

posted by carmina 09 March | 22:16

Monkeys fight dirty, too. They spit and throw poop!

They do? Then send some monkeys over to my place. We've got a mouse loose and he's leaving little tokens of his esteem all over the place. Bleah.

(Plus I was just taking out the trash and I noticed that the dentist on the ground floor was just closing up. Granted, it's one of those dentists whose sign is a smiling anthroporphized tooth with the word 'dentist' in 15 languages around it, but still..it's 10pm. Who the hell is getting their teeth drilled this late?)

posted by jonmc 09 March | 22:19

Your mouse vs. my bat!

posted by Miko 09 March | 22:56

You know, I still don't understand what happened here.

posted by danostuporstar 12 March | 14:58

← So how's your Friday going? || Wyclef does Johnny Cash. →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN