Gaga for Double Standards

Though she denies being a feminist on the basis of loving “male culture–beers, bars and muscles cars” Lady Gaga sure is acting like one. In this video she is quick to pick up on some of the daily double standards women in the music industry face. Also, she has amazing purple hair and says that her current muses are “monsters and play girls”. What does that even mean? Ah, to be an artist…


Filed under Uncategorized

21 responses to “Gaga for Double Standards

  1. Bhakthi

    This video was first linked to me from Perez Hilton’s website, in which he just laughed at her. Or, in his words, had a “LOLgasm”. More proof Perez is a misogynist (not to mention homophobic) prick.

  2. Brad

    Um, if she thinks that feminists can’t like beer, bars and muscle cars then she has a pretty reductive view of what a woman is.

    Also – the reason she likes gays is that they don’t think critically about how sex functions in art. They just fork over their money – which is all she really cares about.

    Basically, she pulled out the sexism card because she didn’t want to explain her dumb music.

    Compare this with eighties Madonna who would probably explain that her overt sexuality was a strident political expression in the face of conservative morality.

  3. Captain Nick

    “Um, if she thinks that feminists can’t like beer, bars and muscle cars then she has a pretty reductive view of what a woman is.”

    Followed by:

    “Also – the reason she likes gays is that they don’t think critically about how sex functions in art. They just fork over their money – which is all she really cares about.”

    …. is a spectacular piece of Double Think about reductive labelling.

    • Brad

      I’m sorry you misunderstand me. I’m using the word gay to designate a marketing group rather than as an identifier of sexuality.

      I myself am “gay” (as in I like dick) but often refer to “the gays” when I mean mainstream gay culture.

      • Captain Nick

        But she’s a woman: doesn’t she have the same right therefore to use “feminism” or “talking as a female” in exactly the same way? As in designating, or appealing to, marketing niches?

    • Brad

      Also, your use of the term ‘Doublethink’ is as apt as Alanis Morisette’s use of the term ‘ironic’.

      • Captain Nick

        “Also, your use of the term ‘Doublethink’ is as apt as Alanis Morisette’s use of the term ‘ironic’.”

        You were simultaneously slamming one-dimensional labelling while using it as the main plank of your argument, thus simultaneously supporting and opposing it.

        I’d be delighted if you could enlighten me how this isn’t doublethink.

        (and Alanis Morriestte’s Ironic is fine if taken as an extended piece of dramatic irony)

      • Brad

        And what’s this ridiculous notion of the ‘right’ to use feminism in a particular way. Sure you have a right to say whatever you want. It can still be a stupid thing to say. Gaga’s account of feminism reinforces gender binaries: “I am not a feminist because I like men things”. By contrast, my account of “the gays” does not attempt to describe all gay men but rather certain social practices that link gay identity to particular patterns of consumption.

  4. Brad

    If you read my comment as using reductive labelling (which, as I have explained, it is not) then it is merely a contradiction in reasoning as opposed to Doublespeak. (Labelling = bad vs. gays = dumb)

    Doublespeak refers to maintaining contradictory beliefs that paradoxically reinforce one another. It’s a deliberate use of illogic to assert power.

    • Captain Nick

      I was referring to doublethink, not doublespeak (I’m not aware of a deeper meaning of that beyond the standard deliberately obtuse word mangling).

      Doublethink, as I have always understood it, is inculcated blindness to the contradictions within an ideology. A quick check ad Wikipeda confirms I haven’t gone mad.

      I think that describes the appearance of your first comment, prior to explaining it, perfectly well (ie when I made the comment).

      • Brad

        Well that’s the thing. The contradictions must prop up a singular ideology. I made two separate comments (in the same comment thread sure) that you read as contradictory – that doesn’t make it doublethink.

        Just as someone who professes to hating eggs in all forms and then loves pancakes isn’t engaging in doublethink.

      • Captain Nick

        Well, with fear of taking of Bhakti’s blog (although she loves it)

        You said “has a pretty reductive view of what a woman is”, from which I took you rejected such thinking, to what appeared, without the further explanation, as embracing it in the next comment.

        That’s two contradictory views of “reductive views” and perfectly doublethinky.

      • Brad

        Let’s explain this with an example:

        Orwell described how the government of ‘1984’ would spread deliberately false propaganda and would contradictorily believe their own propaganda. Both belief in the truth and falsity of the propaganda served a common purpose – to consolidate the government’s power.

        Doublethink does not describe mere contradictions. It describes contradictions that reinforce one another and in doing so serve a common purpose.

        Now take the example where a person argues that one-dimensional labelling is bad: This is Contention A. This person simultaneously calls gays shallow: This is Contention B. Contention A contradicts Contention B. But Contention B does not support Contention A in any way. Therefore, this is not Doublespeak. It is mere contradiction.

      • Captain Nick

        I’d disagree.

        To quote Orwell, via the sticky fingers of Wikipedia:

        “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them….To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary.”

        I think this perfectly describes the first comment (when taken at face value).

        You (this is the Not You, as you have since clarified) rejected her argument on its reductive basis, and then explained her motives with an identically reductive argument.

        It’s not about contradiction, it’s about simultaneously rejecting and embracing the same idea.

  5. Captain Nick

    The notion of a “right” came from you.

    You mentioned you were gay when describing “the gays” as a sub-consumer group, suggesting you were thus more qualified to pass comment (else why mention it?). It would be logical on that basis therefore that as a “woman”, Lady Gaga can comment of “the feminists”, a sub-consumer group of women.

    Lady Gaga#s comment comes across no differently than your first comment on “the gays”, before you had right to reply. There is a strong history in a sect of radical feminism that *does* reject societally “male” activities, as opposed to collapsing gender binaries.

    Perhaps this is what she was referencing?

    You’re basically saying “my argument has nuance, her’s does not”, when on face value, both your arguments were equally woolly.

    You had the chance to reply and explain your position. Maybe if she had the same chance, her argument would be equally nuanced?

    I think this is a little bit like the Left’s loathing of anti-choice, conservative feminists. “You’re not *my* type of feminist, thus you are no feminist at all”.

  6. Captain Nick

    But can’t people apply reductive labels to themselves?

  7. Captain Nick

    Ah, I get you drift.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s