Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

To think Suzi Quatro rocks- gender critical thread

76 replies

joystir59 · 10/03/2017 09:32

Just seen Suzi interviewed on BBC morning TV, and she was explaining that she was able to become a successful rock star in a make dominated genre because, when she looks back on her young self, she did not consider gender- she looked at icons like Elvis Presley and said to herself- 'I want to be him'. She dressed simply and didn't wear make up- it was all about being herself and being real- and the music. It was so refreshing to listen to someone who gets it- 'gender identity' only serves to limit us and cause us pain. I've never had one myself, I'm a women who wear all kind of clothes and never lived a typical feminine role. Don't you think this attitude rocks and is exactly what we need right now?

OP posts:

ThisAintALoveSong · 10/03/2017 11:21

I used the word slut because that probably what prejudiced minds would think of me having a night out dressed head to toe in leather. I'd be 'sexually dressed' to narrow minds.

Christ, since when has Mumsnet become The Sun???

ThisAintALoveSong · 10/03/2017 11:22

Presented as one to small minds who can't see beyond the female form

SoupDragon · 10/03/2017 11:26

Isn't the point not what she was wearing but why and what her attitude was?

she was explaining that she was able to become a successful rock star in a make dominated genre because, when she looks back on her young self, she did not consider gender- she looked at icons like Elvis Presley and said to herself- 'I want to be him'. She dressed simply and didn't wear make up- it was all about being herself and being real- and the music.

Original poster

joystir59 · 10/03/2017 11:27

What Suzi was saying this morning is that she was real. She didn't consider gender, she wore what she liked. She was into herself, her music.

She didn't try to dress gender neutral to be accepted, or dress like a man to be accepted, or dress like a woman to be accepted. She did what she liked and she focused on her talent. There was a thread on MN recently in which a mum was expressing concern about her 16 yr old daughter taking a role in a performance with a boy band- she was dressed in scanty clothes and only there as 'eye' candy', but was apparently quite happy to play this role. Suzi is a refreshing role model in a society in which girls still feel they have to 'man-please'.

OP posts:

ThisAintALoveSong · 10/03/2017 11:30

What Suzi was saying this morning is that she was real. She didn't consider gender, she wore what she liked

100% this!!

And yet here people are 40+ years on shaming her for wearing what she likes cos some men may have viewed her as a piece of meat. Unbelievable

WorraLiberty · 10/03/2017 11:34

To be fair, she was a big star during the Glam Rock era.

Did any of the big bands on Top of The Pops at that time, look like they considered their gender when it came to dressing?

Original poster

joystir59 · 10/03/2017 11:35

ThisAintALoveSong Yes, unbelievable, and sad beyond anything that people are still objectifying the female form like this. I'm so sad and arngry on behalf of the girls I teach. The daughters and grand daughters of people posting on these thread who still regard women as meat. Shame on you!

OP posts:

liz70 · 10/03/2017 11:36

Nobody's doing any body shaming here. I agree with the OP that SQ does indeed, both literally and figuratively, rock. Pp are merely pointing out that anyone thinking that she didn't use her femininity and sexuality to her advantage needs to get real. FGS, rock and other popular music is awash with sex. Always has been, always will be. That's not a judgment, it's merely a statement of fact, so let's not kid ourselves.

WorraLiberty · 10/03/2017 11:39

Agree 100% liz70

That's not body shaming or regarding women as 'meat'.

It's simply putting another perspective forward - that she did actually use her femininity and sexuality to her advantage, no matter what she says today.

And good on her, but she seems to be trying to re-write history.

ThisAintALoveSong · 10/03/2017 11:41

I admire Suzi Q, I admire lots of different people for lots of different reasons, both male and female (musically I would say Richie Sambora, Karen Carpenter, John Deacon, Amanda Palmer - too many to list actually).

Funnily enough, I don't admire them based on how they look and what they choose to wear. That's as shallow as it gets.

noeffingidea · 10/03/2017 11:42

She was a product of the times, the 70's. Women didn't have to dress in such an obviously sexual manner to be considered sexy. She was sexually attractive, only not in a blatantly stereotypically female way.
Sex is what rock music is based on whether the performer is male, female or 'sexually ambiguous'.
There might be the odd performer (male or female) that is not considered attractive at all, by any of the fans, but they would probably have to be incredibly talented and hardworking to compensate for that. In any case, Suzi Quattro wasn't in this category.

ThisAintALoveSong · 10/03/2017 11:44

Well either way she wore what she wanted to wear and rocked out. She didn't conform, she did her own thing. What's not to admire about that?

And I still don't think she was overt in how she dressed. And I'm usually the biggest prude going

AgentCooper · 10/03/2017 11:50

Hmm, I'd say not considering gender isn't really the best thing in a social context, it's better to be aware of the crap you and your fellow women face and continuously question and interrogate that. But I think Suze Q definitely did. She was very aware of the fact that she was a woman in a man's world and, in a way, had to 'explain' herself. Good on her for doing her thing, and dressing exactly how she wanted to, but no woman could be a performer in those days and not be aware that her physicality would be more discussed than a man's.

And I don't think Kate Bush, for example, dressing in a more 'feminine' way in the late 70s (leotards, dresses etc) made her any less of a good role model. She was a creative powerhouse.

ThisAintALoveSong · 10/03/2017 11:52

Well said Agent!

ThisAintALoveSong · 10/03/2017 11:57

The other day I asked a male colleague who plays an instrument if he'd like to work on a musical project.

We BOTH work in a Science field. He casually asked (he didn't know I played) "oh would you like to sing?" I replied "No, play bass guitar".

So it is better to be aware of the crap women face and question it, I agree.

seagazer · 10/03/2017 12:06

She knew the impact her leather outfits would have on the young lads at the time. She knew what she was doing, she dressed to please men. I'm not judging her, it helped her to sell records, but let's not be a hypocrite.

Boulshired · 10/03/2017 12:17

This is how it was and will probably always will be. in the 70s men where pushing gender boundaries and are called flamboyant and trend setters, whereas a woman ( delete as appropriate) was dressing like a man/ dressing like a slut. A person born male wears a mini skirt and they are brave a woman wears one and is up for judgement.

RedBullBlood · 10/03/2017 12:17

I was around in the seventies (old fart alert) and I can assure you that skintight leathers weren't standard street wear. I think even today a leather catsuit has slightly fetishistic connotations, they certainly did when Diana Rigg caused a stir wearing one in the Avengers several years before Suzi did. It's hard to believe that someone would wear one and not expect people to find it 'sexy', even if that wasn't the intention.

seagazer · 10/03/2017 12:27

I was around in the 70ss and can say for certain you couldn't have got leather pants in the shops, i'd probably have got some if they had,

FrancisCrawford · 10/03/2017 12:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ThisAintALoveSong · 10/03/2017 12:55

There was a thread on MN the other day, someone was upset that Emma Watson posed topless. I briefly looked to see what the fuss about. You could see a lot more flesh than what Suzi Q is showing in her leather outfit. I certainly wouldn't have called the Emma Watson pic 'sexy' or 'provocative'.

When are women gonna stop beating on each other for what we wear? Even if we aren't judging each other, we end up judging ourselves. 'Am I too fat?', 'Am I too skinny?', 'Does my bum look big?' 'Can they see my bingo wings?' etc.

It's time to pack it in, build a bridge and get over it. If we think we can wear something, wear it. If we believe we can do something, do it.

Society won't change until women start ignoring being told what to wear, how to dress, what make up is 'trending' now and these horrible magazines that delight in pointing out a woman's cellulite or ripping apart a fashion crime. Not to mention the likes of Cosmo magazine telling us on the front covers how we can spice up our sex lives for 'his' pleasure.

Get to fuck!

ThisAintALoveSong · 10/03/2017 12:57

Francis - she was sexy because she was confident enough to be herself. The sexiest thing of all

ShelaghTurner · 10/03/2017 13:04

This thread is nonsensical. Debbie Harry hit the scene only a couple of years later and she exploited the fuck out of her sexuality. Do you think she was any less clued up, any less savvy? She knew what she was doing and it worked. So in other words, it doesn't matter a bit how you present yourself, whether you cover up or not. It's confidence, attitude and talent that gets you noticed.

FrancisCrawford · 10/03/2017 13:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster

joystir59 · 10/03/2017 14:47

1978 Devil Gate Drive

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3 4