So... women being top of the charts is... wait for it... bad for feminism.

[JadziaD]

This article has annoyed me so much. Here are all the reasons why, apparently, female pop starts, particularly ones at the top of the charts, are BAD for feminism. :

1 because these top pop stars are YOUNG women, it's because they're "easier" to market, so it's excluding older women. BAD feminism.

2 Thes women are signed by major labels. The argument here is fuzzy, but I think it is basically that they're easy to market and the labels throw lots of money at it so that's why they're successful (oh, with the implication that labels like women because they're more biddable).

3 this girl power and empowerment is FAKE and also, it makes young girls think that everything is FINE when it's not.

4 My favourite: female pop wave could be "fuel for misogynists".

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/053a453c-4358-49f6-8444-a9d87e1195b1?shareToken=cb1ec8df09ec501689cc6b631e0e46a8

The role of major labels is an interesting point - because with the rise of the internet, their stranglehold was meant to be largely broken. This article suggests that this has not happened, and their influence remains strong.

So the key question about power in the music industry is who controls and influences those companies? Do any publish gender pay gap stats or proportion of women in senior roles?

Because those same companies promoted, historically, what they thought would sell - both reflecting fashion (what's selling now) and forming it (what's selling next). So it's the same old companies, with slightly more female acts than the previous norm.

I think it's unfair that manufactured bands were dragged in icw The Spice Girls as if that was somehow innovative. Manufactured bands go back at least to The Monkees, and of course The Spice Girls were hot on the heels of Take That. So I don't think it was ever a great feminist statement, rather the female counterpart of the pretty boy band to see if it would sell (and yes it did).

It’s bollocks, but then victim feminism always is. We’re not allowed to celebrate female success or the achievements of individual women.

Also Beyoncé is in her 40s so the ‘young’ argument falls down.

And Kate Bush was topping the charts in 2022 when she was 64.

Madonna is 65. And Cher is 77 - her 2023 album got to number 5 in the charts.

This reminds me of when a friend said something along the lines of “there are no middle aged women on British TV” literally as we were sitting in my parents’ living room with Claudia Winkleman (51) and Tess Daly (54) on the screen as presenters of a prime time Saturday night TV show.

Victim feminists live in a parallel universe.

From the article.
Berenyi suggests that the present female pop wave could even be fuel for misogynists, who can point to the success of Cyrus and Swift and claim the women of today have nothing to complain about.

That is such a reach. We'd better never have any successful women, ever, lest someone make this argument. No women in politics, science, music, film, or anything, in case they make men say there's nothing to complain about!

Tbf you pretty much never see a new rising star that's dumpy and unattractive. Logically, there must be at least as many average looking women that can sing well as there are stunners. The same is not true for men. Plenty of bands out there that are known for their music rather than appearance.

Miley Cyrus and Taylor swift are both over 30...

So young feels like a stretch tbh.

But how many stars actually become famous in their 30s-40s (as opposed to becoming famous in their 20s and staying in the spotlight)?

This article is written by a man.

Sia who is a brilliant artist became famous in the 2010s, in her late 30s.

Anastasia was hugely successful when she came onto the scene in the 2000s, in her late 30s.

Shania Twain first gained commercial success in the late 1990s, in her 30s.

Goldfrapp (lead by Alison Goldfrapp) released their debut album in 2000 when she was 34 and went on to have great success in the 2000s.

Garbage’s debut album was released in 1995 when Alison Manson was 30.

That's a terrible argument based on a strange (but common) type of feminism IMO.

I think there's definitely a type of feminism that requires women to be down-trodden for its existence, and therefore sometimes looks to invent down-troddenness where it does not exist. And I suppose if you're really invested in that, then women succeeding in any field is in fact a threat to your brand of feminism.

It's like someone committed to, say, polio eradication complaining that there's not enough cases of polio anymore so they've got no harrowing stories to tell people about how awful it is, which might stop people working to eradicate polio. (Although, as I say this, I recognise that there's something in that logic - refusal of vaccines has gone up as memories of epidemics fade. But surely the answer isn't to wish for an epidemic!)

*That's a terrible argument based on a strange (but common) type of feminism IMO.

I think there's definitely a type of feminism that requires women to be down-trodden for its existence, and therefore sometimes looks to invent down-troddenness where it does not exist. And I suppose if you're really invested in that, then women succeeding in any field is in fact a threat to your brand of feminism.*

Yes, this is ‘victim feminism’ that I referred to upthread. And I agree it’s very common (even though it’s ridiculous).

Both Taylor Swift and Myley Cyrus are attractive women and I suppose there is the point about how many women with obvious physical imperfections can make it to the top? I think there is a greater possibility of making it to the top of the music business of you are not that attractive if you are male.

Also do we think wearing leotard like costumes on stage is empowering or using sexuality as a major selling point for an act. I am not going up at all on the dress but is there more pressure for women to dress in more scanty clothing than men even when they are huge stars e.g. Taylor or Beyonce?

It's not a very well written article but I kind of get the point. It's like all the "girl power" stuff in the 90s / 2000s. Female singers were marketed at independent/powerful etc. but they were just as much controlled by men and packaged for the male gaze as ever.

There's a conservative writer who says that sexual liberation is bad for women and bad for feminism and I have some sympathy with that argument.

The article seems to be taking what was happening in the era of ‘Britpop’ and The Spice Girls and applying it to now. Some things have changed, other things haven’t. Madonna was a massive star then, but she played around with pornographic imagery of herself in a way that men didn’t.

The thing about ‘girl power’ and The Spice Girls, was that it came across as a bit shallow, purposely using the objectification of women to get ahead, in a sense ‘pimping’ themselves. I don’t think their young fans would have been inspired to do much beyond their own self-pimping, but TSG were still a breath of fresh air in an era when women were being deliberately belittled and squeezed to the margins. At the time, people believed that there would simply be no market for a girls band.

Alison Bechdel’s ‘Bechdel Test’ gained a lot of traction in the noughties and teens, and that is why we now see phenomena like Claudia Winkleman and Tess Daley presenting together, replacing the formula of ‘old guy’ and ‘glamorous young female’, for presenters or alternatively a male double-act. The phenomenon of the Disney movie Frozen - featuring two female characters seemed like a risk at the time, but the thirst was so strong, it was a huge success, similar to The Spice Girls. Things have definitely improved.

I think there's actually some valid points in that but it's a bad headline.

These women topping the charts is a victory for feminism. But it would be a mistake for anyone to think this means the war is won. I think that's what he's trying to say - it's no cause for complacency. However, I don't think many feminists are actually falling into that trap and there will be always be MRA types who take the 'women have nothing to complain about' line.

Isn't the more interesting point about their music? What are they singing about? What's the message of their songs? Is it all just about sex and relationships and men? Are they actually any good?

Adele not necessarily conventionally attractive either and has been a huge star. Personally not my thing musically. Cardi B as well and it's insulting to women to call WAP empowering.

I've noticed that women are quite dominant in mainstream chart music nowadays but you want women artists with something to actually say beyond just sex and the male gaze.

I like Billy Eilish's style of bagybswaeatshirt and pants as it removes everything but he singing from the performance to an extent i.e. the body doesn't matter. With may of the new generation of female pop stars the lyrics are quite powerful from a feminist perspective but there is still the reliance (?) on revealing clothing as part of the image.

To what extent do female singers felt on having to dress in a certain way to 'make' it then once established they can call the shots? (Maybe a comparison actors that do naked scenes early on in their careers but then can demand not to once establsihed)

Is it Bechdel though or is it the ubiquity and rise of Botox, fillers and make up to keep middle aged women looking young and pretty on TV?

@User135644

Taylor swift and Mi ley sing a lot of break up songs. I guess a lot of lyrics are quite strong in terms of showing independence and self worth. Musically whether some of it is brilliant I don't know.

But a man who quotes his wife so that's ok then 🤣

I like Taylor a lot but I know a lot of her material is usually centered around her latest relationship. Musically and lyrically I think she's fab.

A lot of these other artists aren't to my taste but if they're just singing about men and sex all the time then it's not necessarily empowering. There is more to life. I prefer music that's a bit deeper.

It’s absolutely a victory of feminism and the Occam’s razor of the BT highlighting how sexist the lack of female representation was. There have also been many, many feminists collectively fighting for change, which led to it. At the time of having two women fronting strictly, it was seen as radical. Women had been absolutely squashed to the edges. Women’s representation was generally pairings like Paul Daniels and Debbie McGee before that - the glamorous female counterpart to the male ‘personality’.

Yes the older women tend to have facelifts, Botox, fillers, etc (I have a sense men are starting to do this too- hair transplants and toupees are very common too), but I don’t think it’s absolutely the BBC insisting on it. For example, Kate Humble said in an interview, words to the effect that she doubted anyone would want to look at her aging, weathered face, and she completely accepted as right and fair that she wouldn’t be getting any more work on TV, and yet she has been invited to make lots of TV, benefiting from the work of feminists, since saying that.