The other day, Jezebel.com published an
article criticising a piece on xoJane.com about a 30-something single
man's experience with one of those “crazy” women who, like, tell
guys that they're interested in them and reply to texts and stuff.
Jenna took the opportunity to briefly explore the history of calling
women crazy, and she made some interesting points which moved me to
think of how this cultural framework has affected/is affecting women
in music.
She writes, “As a term, 'crazy' is
entirely of a piece with the long and nasty tradition of
pathologizing female emotion (and particularly sexuality). Hysteria
comes from hystera, the Greek word for uterus, after all:
"crazy" has been a gendered trait in Western culture for
thousands of years. The male gaze was for virtually all of human
history synonymous with the medical gaze, and men assigned themselves
the authority to determine which bodies are sick and which are hale.
(In some U.S. states, they still arrogate that right.)” I would add
that this “pathologizing (of) female emotion” applies
particularly to creative women, and can do the most harm in this
area.
I don't think I'd be reaching in saying
that women who are especially atypical or outlandish in their art
inspire a certain brand of dismissiveness which their male (or
mainstream) counterparts do not. They're “crazy”, “eccentric”
and rarely, if ever, exalted as musical geniuses the way men like
Brian Eno, Thom Yorke or David Bowie are. Their music is almost never
reviewed in a positive way without first being prefaced as something
crazy, seemingly by virtue of it being strange and being created by a
woman. Yoko Ono, Lydia Lunch and Nina Hagen come to mind.
A few years ago, not long after Björk's
album Volta
had been released, Luiza Sauma wrote a great article for the
Independent about this phenomenon. She proposes (and I'm inclined to
agree) that their lack of mainstream feminine indicators like diets
and plastic surgery – à
la Madonna or Dolly Parton – is off-putting to a lot of men. Sauma
asks, “Why is it that one of the greatest musicians of the last 15
years is still pigeonholed as an elfish eccentric, when so many of
her male peers (Oasis, Blur, Nirvana, Radiohead - the list goes on)
are so readily accepted into the pantheon of musical immortality?”
And then there's this: “Rowan Pelling - journalist and Kate Bush
super-fan - has various theories on why brilliant female musicians
never reach the god-like status of, say, Bob Dylan. 'Music critics
are historically quite macho,' she explains. 'So that Dylan worship,
for example, is a given... I'm a huge Kate Bush fan; she sings the
interior landscape for women, just as Paula Rego paints it. I think
it leaves men bewildered.'”
All
good points, but a disheartening situation nonetheless. Is there
something inherently threatening or ridiculous about a woman who
makes experimental music and is asking to be taken seriously as an
artist? A woman who isn't interested in denying or simplifying her
gender? As Luiza Sauma points out, musicians like Björk
and Kate Bush and, more recently, Joanna Newsom, are frequently
burdened with adjectives like “pixie” and “elfin” as if
they're mythical creatures from another universe. Apparently one
where women can make creative music without being treated like
medievil novelties.
But
the thing is, they're actual humans with actual butt loads of talent.
And if a music critic can't take these incredible artists seriously,
then I think we all need to stop and think about who the crazy one
is.
