« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
SexNation: The Nation gets a Sex Column
For years I've stopped reading The Nation. I simply found it, well, kind of predictable and boring, telling me things I already knew but not challenging my basic assumptions. But now The Nation is going to tart things up; it's getting a sex column, That's right SEX. You know, that nasty but fun stuff.
According to JoAnn Wypijewski, the columnist for "Carnal Knowledge,"
"It's sex, man! I think that's why they call it popular culture."
Now to some degree, what this confirms to me is an observation that the late Neil Postman made in "Amusing Ourselves to Death," namely serious discourse in American society is driven by entertainment values, and
what this means, as I've noticed with some stories about Obama, that column will be interrogating the intersection of sex and politics, which surely mean it will be hot! Hot! HOT! now that a sexy black man and his bitch-goddess wife may occupy 1600 Penn. Avenue.
But what this may also mean that serious political discourse can't even survive in The Nation without political analysis of the old in-out, in-out.
The left has made a cottage industry out analyzing pop culture, which I think has ruined the left's mind, especially the academic left with has produced all sorts of studies—black, gender, queer, post-modernism, deconstruction, etc. It has basically produced a theoriocracy that can analyze text bit not explain the economy or an relevant sociological facts.
Generally, the left is interested in theory and pop culture while the right is interested in power and has organized over the last 30 years to obtain it.
So, let's see how interesting this going to be. If Wypijewski doesn't delve into the sex crowd wisdom of YouPorn, you know she's faking it.
[Disclosure: I've written one book reviews for The Nation and had a book published by its imprint, Nation Books.]
Comments (43)
Below is the link to the market watch posting regarding the Nation's sex coulmn:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B9CC4695E%2DF2DC%2D4158%2DBF43%2D5C686822A294%7D&siteid=rss
July 23, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Provocative and well-written. Not sure my endorsement will help, but I wish we'd see more pieces like this at TPM instead of the same old, tired material. Highly rec'd.
July 23, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think so? Provocative and well written?
Really? For years? I think he could have stopped just once.
Now, that's, one, long, painful, comma-laden, sentence, there!
Very "generally."
July 24, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't exactly to the topic of your post, but in two days, you've used the term "bitch" twice, both times in reference to women or generally feminine characteristics in a way that I don't feel advances the dialog much.
Further, referring to Michelle Obama as a "bitch-goddess" doesn't exactly work, even as a criticism of the media. Women rarely get to be both because that would make them, oh I don't know, multi-faceted. In narrative terms, one or the other is selected for them.
So, while I don't feel overall that you're being a sexist jerk, I do wish you'd pick another word next time.
July 23, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I read it, he's not speaking in his own voice there, but in the tabloid lingo to make his point --and you point out. So, it's a matter of writing style then. The Tina Fey remark "bitch is the new black" wasn't taken as sexist, right? This guy is an edgy writer, but a real writer.
July 23, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tina Fey said it on Saturday Night Live. It was intended to shock and to get a laugh. And even still, although it was funny and shocking, it was still pushing the envelope pretty darn hard, as far as I'm concerned.
Also, as I mentioned, sometimes these words advance the dialog and sometimes they don't. In this case, I think they don't. It's okay if you disagree. But why don't you take just a second to think about it from the perspective of a woman.
I realize he's not coining a new phrase when referring to the bitch/goddess dilemma, but he's missing the mark, because women are not allowed to be described as both, even though all of us embody both.
As for the "bitchification of Barack," although another choice would not have had the alliterative quality, certainly he could have made his point (which I think was a valid one) without the shock value.
July 23, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"bitchification of Barack," is a perfect example of the use of dysphemism. It would not have had anywhere near the desired effect if he had chosen to use a less offensive word.
July 23, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
In N. Kelly's previous post used the term "bitchification" to describe attributing feminine characteristics to Obama. But bitchification implies more than that (i.e. to make someone into a bitch, to make someone your bitch, etc.). That word implies subjugation. I don't equate the term with feminizing at all. Perhaps that's why the terminology is a little prickly. I'd have said this on that post but it was gone by the time I got back on.
July 24, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will refer you to the entry for bitch godess from the The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. I think refering to Ms Obama as the Bitch Goddess is not correct but not for the reasons you state.
July 23, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
For more on the original bitch/goddess:
http://www.valdobson.co.uk/blog/2005/09/looking-for-lilith/
It could be that I was conflating the bitch/goddess dilemma with the virgin/whore one. But I still think in the mainstream, a women is not allowed to have characteristics of both (in either case).
Take Lilith as the example. The first and ultimate bitch-goddess. What happened to her? She never existed, at least according to everything they taught in Bible school. Because a woman who can be both both is too powerful and too scary. So, it's one or other for me. (Guess which one.)
As for the dysphemism, I had to look that one up. And you're right again. Bitchification is a perfect example. It doesn't necessarily follow however, that the same point couldn't have been made just as powerfully with a less offensive word choice.
July 23, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I happen to agree with you. But wonder if this should be the only focus here. The idea discussed is interesting and quite different for TPM, mired at present in endless tape loops.
July 23, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
2. Pinker has writen reams about the use of dysphemism, including the gramaticaly correct use of the word 'fuck'. I saw that speach on CSPAN. It was great.
1. I think that the world is not near as hard on powerfull, sexy, multifaceted women as you think. They kick ass! (and sit on corprate boards)
July 23, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
My two cents:
I like it when writers/artists step out of the constraints of what is considered to be proper decorum. In many cases, it is a conscious strategy to resist the inhibiting conventions so often imposed on them to silence their creativity. I think the point was made so well because the Norman Kelley used the words he used.
That being said, if I thought Kelley's point was to denigrate women, I'd be making another point here. I don't think he was.
Rec'd
PS
I LOVE theriocracy. Did you make that up,Kelley?
PPS
I had to look up dsyphemism too. Gotta love all the learning we do around here. Thanks, LG
July 23, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
fauve? no accent or nothing? Is it a color? How dumb am I?
July 23, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's certainly related to color.
Fauve, as in Fauvism- a group of painters, early 20th century like Matisse, who were fond of strong color, among other things.
Does sound like Mauve, which is indeed a color.
But being a Blue Guy like yourself, I would think you would have known all that.
July 23, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did these Fauve people use a lot of blues? I didn't do well in art history. Everyone was staring at me during part of the Picasso unit.
July 23, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yes! You would be in heaven at any Fauve artist exhibition. Kind of like a "Roots experience" for you, I imagine. Were you studying Picasso's Guernica at the time? That must have been pretty traumatic for you. My sympathies.
July 23, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's over my head.
July 23, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No worries.
July 23, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guernica
July 23, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
July 23, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"bitch goddess
–noun
worldly or material success personified as a goddess, esp. one requiring sacrifice and being essentially destructive: He went to New York to worship the bitch goddess."
from Dictionary.com
July 24, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of us have sex columns every morning.
July 23, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
but would we notice with you in that huddled position?
July 23, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blue guy, I agree. I hijacked the post and I'm sorry. I'll stop now so that the regularly scheduled discussion can proceed.
CT, ew.
Larry, I'll agree that the world is evolving on pretty much every ism. But as with all progress, the backlash is a ...
July 23, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 23, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, you messed up my joke.
July 23, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count me slow because I do not get it.
July 23, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't think you hijacked it all. The use of the word was meant to provoke, surely, and the writer knew it. And your discussion was more than the obvious --the virgin/whore duality, interesting in so many ways, especially as a possible world archetype. Is it innate as Jung suggests, or cultural as many feminists hold? And this speaks to the very nature of myth. Created by men to oppress women? Or something else. And I always think that any offshoot from a thread is good. Makes the whole thing more interesting.
Then there is that "Gospel According to Mary" that didn't make it into the bible, but there we might be headed too far astray.
July 23, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Problem.
July 23, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what I think the piece is about, and its most interesting observation. And one with which I agree:
"The left has made a cottage industry out analyzing pop culture, which I think has ruined the left's mind, especially the academic left with has produced all sorts of studies—black, gender, queer, post-modernism, deconstruction, etc. It has basically produced a theoriocracy that can analyze text but not explain the economy or an relevant sociological facts.
Generally, the left is interested in theory and pop culture while the right is interested in power and has organized over the last 30 years to obtain it."
July 23, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an interesting perspective. I think it depends on what you mean by "the left." In universities, courses have popped up over the last couple decades that elevate the study of pop culture a little higher that I would like. But if you're speaking of the left in the political sense, I always thought (hoped) that liberal politicians were more interested in making things better on a macro scale while conservative politicians were more interested, as you say, in consolidating power. I recognized that this is not only a bit pollyanna-ish but also a bit general, since there are those on the left who are interested only in what their position can get them and those on the right who believe in the ideology they espouse. But still, in broadstokes, I think it's true. Left: do-gooders Right: all-for-me'ers.
July 23, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, no History of Rock as a replacement for the Arts in Western Civilization requirement? I'm down with that in a biggish Beethoven kind of way. Rock on.
July 23, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think the history of rock is at least as important as the history of Gregorian chants, which I was subject too in my freshman year European culture survey course. Because the history of all music is intertwined with the evolution of culture.
I even thing survey-type courses on pop culture have their place.
However, call me a snob, but I believe that studying the history of China may be more important in the modern world than say studying Buffy the Vampire Slayer. (No disrespect to Buffy.)
July 23, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'd be in the weeds of off-threadness if we went on with this one ! Agree with you on China. The immediacy of Rock and Pop music is interesting as cultural history, but its musical stuff a bit meager for deep analysis. Unlike Jazz, for example. And some pop forms just go silly under the scrutiny of an academic. I just dig the blues, anyway, and worship it's 12-bar structure. See, to me, when ya get to studying the 12-bar structure of the blues, you ain't singing nothing. I like Chinese history though. Not more than Mesopotamian, but I understand that it's more relevant these days.
July 23, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose it doesn't matter what you're studying as long as you're learning how to think critically, how to synthesize information, and how to put all that thinking into practice in some meaningful way. In Norman's version of the theoriocracy, I guess that third step is missing.
July 23, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on the learning stuff. Having escaped the academy many years ago with my brain sort of intact, I'm just goofy and old fashioned about what passes for an education these days.
July 23, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
C! So no place for pop culture? How can you separate it from history? (Let's leave Britney Spears out of this for now, I don't want to talk about the current state of pop culture. Too depressing.)
For one, what if pop culture is the doorway to learning history? If that's what peaks someone's interests? If you can use it to tie in the intricacies of history and people and the world?
Can't we learn anything from say, the pop culture of the 40s, 50s, and 60s? Seems to me this is all tied in with the problems of teaching history now - it's just so bloody dry. No drama, no music...devoid of the spirit of the time. Why not use music, or the pop culture of the times to teach? Music, with its timeless and memorable nature, seems like a most efficient and fun way of learning.
Think students are more likely to absorb history if they can carry the melody and lyrics of songs from CCR or CSNY or Country Joe or Marvin Gaye or Bob Dylan with them? Just to name a few. I can't think of a faster way of transmitting the mood, the spirit of the times than in song. Hell. Give the students some Dylan CDs and they can cover a few decades in a couple hours. Or Guthrie. Dust Bowl, Labor movement, support for the second world war, and civil rights.
What about tie dye? Associated with hippies and 60s pop culture, right? The individuality of the time? But did you know it originated with the T'ang dynasty? And this another piece of it too - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikat
Some kid shows up in class wearing tie dye and you've got a history lesson on your hands.
Or films? Schindler's List? Gettysburg? 13 Days, Glory, to name a few. Even Saving Private Ryan, minus the plotline, is historically accurate. I'd even suggest some movies that aren't entirely historically accurate.
The thing here is, if you start out trying to teach or learn history but leaving no room for connections to be made, there's not going to be any learning really happening. If the kids are allowed to use what they may have seen in movies, or heard in songs, as a starting point in any educational discussion, it gives them something to bring to the table. Perhaps even giving them the motivation to determine the historical accuracy of movies. So that even the erroneous ideas they come to the table with provide fodder for discussion, I think.
July 24, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure I went all the way on no place at all for pop culture. But your points, as usual, have me trying to explain myself more than I want. I'm hoping that somehow history will side with me, but I'm not sure that will work out.
July 24, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose I was reacting to the seeming dichotomy of it. History of China or pop culture. When you can actually link the two. Or, History of Rock or Western Civ.
July 24, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truth is I'm in agreement on using pop culture. And did so quite a lot in the days when I taught in the "academy." Received a lot of heat back then, though today that battle is won. But sometimes it's a question of choice. In a choice between Chinese History or History of Horror Movies, I most surely want the student to have Chinese History, regardless of how Horror Movies might seem more interesting. I think history of Rock has a place within an integrated survey course that shows its commonalities with other musics, but if if comes down to a choice between Rock and Beethoven, then the Big guy becomes first, as pop music can be understood these days while classical music needs some help.
It's easy as a teacher to go where your students want to, and it works if done with thought. But when you look back thirty years later and wish you have been a bit more traditional, that says something.
Here's the way I think now. Don't deprive your students of something you take for granted in your own education without thinking first. Then move to the more flexible structure.
Also, pointing to some of the movies you mention, I consider all the films you mention to be art. They all use classical music by the way. So I think we are actually all on the same page, just not enough pages open at the present.
July 24, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another interesting aspect for me is the attention to pop culture itself. Some thirty five or more years ago there was a book (can't remember the name) that suggested that when conservatives were in power, "high culture" flourished as a reaction. But "high culture" meant to that author the classical arts --symphony, ballet --the kind of stuff once found on PBS. Culture (high or low) has undergone a massive shift in the arts, the rise of myriad genres of pop culture as respectable and central in people's lives. A shift.
Maybe relevant to the discussion, maybe not. I have to think on it.
July 23, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, Norman Kelley!
Thanks for the heads up on this.
And good discussion. Thanks Orlando, et al.
Rec'd
July 23, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment