Jewel visited recently and performed a song from her new album of children's songs titled "The Merry Goes Round". It's called the "Supermarket Song", but she sang a special version for us.
Best YouTube comment by far, "It's difficult to rhyme 'mechanically separated chicken'."
Jewel's new album of children's songs was released under the Fisher-Price label. Interestingly, it shares two traditional cover songs ("She'll Be Comin Round The Mountain" and "Oh Susannah") with fellow folkie Neil Young's latest Crazy Horse album. (Fun fact: She recorded her debut album in a studio on Neil Young's ranch, produced and backed by members of another of his classic bands, The Stray Gators.) But I'm guessing from the video above that her "Oh Susannah!" is a little less hardcore.
The video was posted back in March, but I just caught it on Jezebel last week.
It's not the fact that she has picked up a sponsor that's sad. It's not even that that sponsor is a symbol of the big boxification of America. It's that her sellout is so low budget that it went relatively unnoticed.
The whole thing started as a visceral reaction to one cop's poor choice of words when addressing women, that they "should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized". The women who organized it simply wanted to take to the streets and express their rage against victim-blaming by authorities.
From the beginning some critics noted that Slutwalk appeared to be a movement of privileged white women, noting that the participants did not reflect Toronto's famous diversity. Nonetheless, the movement spread as slutwalks sprung up, in localized versions, as far afield as India.
But the criticisms continued, hitting a crescendo with polarized reactions to a NYC Slutwalker's decision to quote Yoko Ono's early feminst slogan (via John Lennon, who wrote a song about it):
The Racialicious blog noted, "But can you appropriate a term like nigger if your body is not defined/terrorized/policed/brutalized/diminished by the word? Can we use it in a context that is supposed to belie gender solidarity, without explicitly being in racial solidarity? I think not. And I am not alone."
Last month, a partnership of activists representing black women's issues in the US and Canada wrote An Open Letter from Black Women to the SlutWalk in which they explained why they felt excluded by the movement:
"We are perplexed by the use of the term “slut” and by any implication that this word, much like the word “Ho” or the “N” word should be re-appropriated. The way in which we are perceived and what happens to us before, during and after sexual assault crosses the boundaries of our mode of dress. Much of this is tied to our particular history. In the United States, where slavery constructed Black female sexualities, Jim Crow kidnappings, rape and lynchings, gender misrepresentations, and more recently, where the Black female immigrant struggle combine, “slut” has different associations for Black women. We do not recognize ourselves nor do we see our lived experiences reflected within SlutWalk and especially not in its brand and its label.
As Black women, we do not have the privilege or the space to call ourselves “slut” without validating the already historically entrenched ideology and recurring messages about what and who the Black woman is. We don’t have the privilege to play on destructive representations burned in our collective minds, on our bodies and souls for generations. Although we understand the valid impetus behind the use of the word “slut” as language to frame and brand an anti-rape movement, we are gravely concerned. For us the trivialization of rape and the absence of justice are viciously intertwined with narratives of sexual surveillance, legal access and availability to our personhood. It is tied to institutionalized ideology about our bodies as sexualized objects of property, as spectacles of sexuality and deviant sexual desire. It is tied to notions about our clothed or unclothed bodies as unable to be raped whether on the auction block, in the fields or on living room television screens. The perception and wholesale acceptance of speculations about what the Black woman wants, what she needs and what she deserves has truly, long crossed the boundaries of her mode of dress.
We know the SlutWalk is a call to action and we have heard you. Yet we struggle with the decision to answer this call by joining with or supporting something that even in name exemplifies the ways in which mainstream women’s movements have repeatedly excluded Black women even in spaces where our participation is most critical. We are still struggling with the how, why and when and ask at what impasse should the SlutWalk have included substantial representation of Black women in the building and branding of this U.S. based movement to challenge rape culture?"
What's interesting about this letter is the assumption that Slutwalk was some kind of carefully organized and branded American movement that had gone forward without full consultation.
In a response posted today, the Toronto organizers tried to set the record straight:
"SlutWalk Toronto has endeavoured from the beginning to not operate outside of our knowledge and experience, which for us has meant doing our best to not cross geo-political boundaries or speak for communities and SlutWalks outside of our home city of Toronto. We are not a formal NGO, or non-profit organization, and what has happened across SlutWalks as a movement to date has been a collaboration. While SlutWalk Toronto as the inaugural SlutWalk is often looked to as the ‘head’ of SlutWalk, we are not involved with organizing other SlutWalks and we are not structured to oversee and determine what all of SlutWalk will look like. We do not envision our activism as a hierarchical dictation of our ideas upon others, whether across Canada or across the world. In recognition of this, SlutWalk Toronto is committed to engaging with our community here in Toronto for direct feedback, so that we can hear more from people in Toronto what criticisms, concerns, feedback and ideas they have, and how they’d like to see SlutWalk Toronto move forward and evolve as we hopefully move collectively towards organizing our second year in 2012. We’ve been having many conversations and exchanges to better understand the experiences and criticisms of people within our own city and outside of Canada and now we would like to turn these conversations into actions to make SlutWalk Toronto better, more anti-oppressive and more inclusive."
In other words, they are not responsible for what women in other cities do with the "brand" because it has been given away freely. They don't even have a structure or formal organization. They did, however make broad promises to do everything they can to be more open and inclusive.
Personally, I found both letters full of polite attempts at trying to be respectful of each other, but at the end of the day every Slutwalk organizer has to make a decision about what they want to say. The message, in Toronto and in other early Slutwalks, was all about the word — and concept of — "slut". It was a re-appropriation of women's sexual identities, in public, to make the point that sexual dress and behaviour should never be seen as an invitation to sexual violence.
Slutwalk may not be about branding, but I am. And I think they need to hold their ground on this one. Just be what they are, and say what they set out to say. If that message attracts supporters from only some socioeconomic and cultural groups, so be it. Nobody can be all things to all people. Instead of one anti-victim-blaming-movement that has its message determined by a completely diverse committee, the activist world is more enriched by many movements that clearly and concisely express a diversity of views. There is no need for everyone to agree.
Take FEMEN, from Ukraine. They do their feminist and anti-corruption protests topless because they say that it's the only way to get noticed. Other feminists, worldwide, might applaud or denounce their sexualization of activism. They don't care. They just do their own thing and find allies along the way.
In my opinion, "solidarity" is overrated in activism. It means compromising the complexity of your unique vision to create the appearance of a hive mind. Just look at Occupy Wall Street's struggle to agree on why they're camping out in the first place. Everyone has their own ideas about what's broken.
Agreeing to disagree on some issues, while still teaming up to take action towards reaching common goals, is far more respectful of human diversity. Even if, to quote Facebook, "it's complicated".
It must feel like the good old days for Lou, being banned for being too "street".
Animal's Marina Galperina reports that posters depicting the cover of the new Lou/Metallica album, Lulu, have been banished from the Tube. Not for the armless and nippless bust, mind you, but for featuring lettering that looks too much like graffiti.
This can be nothing but good publicity for the album, to be released this Halloween.
So far, I'm not sure it's sounding like a great combination of talents:
I've written plenty about the idiocy of Facebook's policy of acting instantly on any complaint about inappropriate content, whether justified or not, and leaving the victimized user to prove they were wronged. It has been used by prudes to complain about non-sexual nudity, by political movements to ban social ad campaigns they disagree with, and who knows what else?
Well, YouTube has a similar policy of "yank first, ask questions later." And this policy was used today by a troublemaker called iLCreation who made an unsubstantiated copyright claim on every single Justin Beiber video on his official Vevo channel — leading to their wholesale removal — according to TMZ.
But considering the unbelievable power that Facebook and YouTube have put into the hands of every single internet loser with a chip on his or her shoulder to stifle argument and destroy multi-million dollar marketing campaigns, maybe it's time to put smarter moderation in place?
What the hell was wrong with us? Beaten down, cynical, angry young brats is what we were. Slackers. Proof that the world was truly going to hell. Generation X.
The 13th Generation (Nomad, born 1961–1981) survived a “hurried” childhood of divorce, latchkeys, open classrooms, devil-child movies, and a shift from G to R ratings. They came of age curtailing the earlier rise in youth crime and fall in test scores — yet heard themselves denounced as so wild and stupid as to put The Nation At Risk. As young adults, maneuvering through a sexual battlescape of AIDS and blighted courtship rituals—they date and marry cautiously. In jobs, they embrace risk and prefer free agency over loyal corporatism. From grunge to hip-hop, their splintery culture reveals a hardened edge. Politically, they lean toward pragmatism and nonaffiliation, and would rather volunteer than vote. Widely criticized as “Xers” or “slackers,” they inhabit a Reality Bites economy of declining young-adult living standards. (AMERICAN: Tom Cruise, Jodie Foster, Michael Dell, Deion Sanders, Winona Ryder, Quentin Tarantino; FOREIGN: Princess Di, Alanis Morissette)
Whaa, whaa, whaa. Or in the parlance of our times: "Whatever..."
There was actually a lot of truth to Gen-X stereotypes in my life in the early '90s. I dropped out of university (slacker move), became a freelance writer (slacker career), and was constantly just planning my next trip to Europe (slacker ambition). Today, dealing with people 14-15 years younger than me at work, I can't believe how organized and driven many of them are just out of school. If you had predicted my future from age 24, you probably would've assumed I'd end up now as a used bookstore manager who kept waiting for his 'zine to take off. But it didn't happen.
I wasn't the only late bloomer. Many of my high school friends struggled to find their direction in university. Some dropped out, and followed alternative career paths. Others stayed in, taking degree after degree until they got it right. When we started grade 9 in 1984, we were told that we had to think about our careers from day one, learn computers (BASIC, actually), and get high marks so we could get into the best programmes, at the best schools, for the highest starting salary.
As far as I know this message continues to be hurled at unwitting teens, but it our case something weird happened around graduation. The stock market crashed, recession hit, good entry-level jobs became scarce, and we just lost steam.
You mean like career? Uh, I don't know. I've, I've thought about this quite a bit sir, and I'd have to say considering what's waiting out there for me, I don't want to sell anything, buy anything or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or... process anything sold, bought or processed, or repair anything sold, bought or processed, you know, as a career I don't want to do that. So, uh, my father's in the army, he wants me to join, but I can't work for that corporation, so what I've been doing lately is kickboxing, which is really a, uh, new sport, but I think it's got a good future. As far as career longevity goes, I don't really know, because, you know, you can't really tell. Your training sticks as a fighter, you know, but it's no good, you know, you have to be great, but I can't really tell if I'm great until I've had a couple of pro fights. But I haven't been knocked out yet. I don't know, I can't figure it all out tonight sir, I'm going to hang with your daughter.
Ouch. And yet I didn't do much more than that until my first agency job at age 25. But then something happened. I went from Junior Copywriter to Creative Director in five years, and basically "got a life" (marriage, house, kid) in four more. How did we end up turning out okay?
This kind of thought is what makes me take stock of my cohort. Older or younger, I'd like to give you five good reasons why we are now rocking business, the family, culture, science and sports.
1) Business — our world is flat. Sure, the boomers lost the ties and burned the bras, but we were the ones who really made the workplace casual and equitable. We started out a little timid, but once we got into positions of power, we started demanding more work-life balance (especially maternity rights), better access to upper management, and made our bosses cringe with our serial career attitude. We distrust formality, like innovation, and value coworkers more on what they do than how hard they appear to work. We hate sycophants. If anything, our biggest challenge as managers is to remember that we're the boss. Because telling people what to do "just because I said so" just doesn't feel cool.
2) Family — We're really involved. I realize that X parents drive non-parents nuts. We bring babies to pubs and nice restaurants, we demand flexibility and support to be hands-on two-income families, and we treat our kids like superstars. But the upside is, we want to have relationships with our kids from Day 1. We have pushed for changes that bring the family back into everyday life, rather than just keeping kids "out of the way". Isn't that what "family values" really are?
3) Culture — recycling ideas. Yeah, that's right: we're creative environmentalists. This actually sounds kind of lame, but it's not. Everyone knows that there is rarely true innovation in human ideas, but rather building on the trials and successes of others. We accept that. Our best bands, like The White Stripes, Radiohead, The Beastie Boys or Wilco, just shamelessly recombine sounds from rock's 50+ year history in clever new ways. Directors like Paul Thomas Anderson and Quentin Tarantino talk openly about their influences in every scene. It may not be new under the sun, but it sure is honest.
4) Science – A more balanced approach. I'm reading the book "Supersense" by Bruce M. Hood right now. Like other Gen X social scientists I've read, he seems to take a much more balanced approach to human nature than angry single-minded Pre-Boomers like Richard Dawkins. In fact, he takes a few good jabs at the inflexible extremism of the old atheist evangelist. Very Gen X of him!
5) Sports. Okay, we're getting a little old for professional athletics, but let's just end this with our finest representative in the field (or, rather, "course"): Tiger Woods. Rising above old ideas about ethnicity, adding charisma to a stuffy old game, and carefully managing his persona as a brand.
Maybe another Gen-X band, Smashing Pumpkins, were right on the button with their sneering faux-optimism:
