I haven't written a rant in a long time.
But here is one.
I
have been ruminating on this first day of the 2016 calendar about an article in
The New Yorker, ‘Reconsidering the
Groupie’-
Why
am I so irritated by this article?
My
first thought is that I love the New Yorker, so even a small opinion piece
missing the mark is distasteful to me.
My
second thought is ‘Who is this author? What are her credentials?’ This is my
ageism coming into play as I have already decided she must be at least half my
age. (I did not use a search engine to try and unravel this mystery, but I did
look at other articles she has written, and we do not share the same taste in
music…and for me that means I can just stop investigating.)
Now,
in 2016 I no longer inhabit the days when ‘Groupie’ was a term I had to deal
with on a daily basis. I remember how appropriate I thought it was that Anna
Gordy Gaye got a divorce settlement that was the proceeds from her (soon to be)
ex-husbands next album. I used to think
that musicians fought with their partners to increase drama and the potential
for writing songs. To be involved with any person that lives off their
creativity, in a life where the personal and public are tangled is always
slanted towards the male. If you put
Laurie Anderson’s name into a search engine all the results will be meshed with
Lou Reed- but this doesn’t happen in the same frequency if you search for Lou
Reed. This is an exemplifier of the world.
I
have a friend who is excellent at pointing out when people are being lazy about
language. I am also at fault of this
sometimes, when the word isn’t in my personal sphere. I am thinking I should give people some
slack, maybe the word just isn’t salient for ‘them’.
Well,
at least I am thinking that while I think of how the word ‘Groupie’ because a
normal part of our vernacular. How
‘Groupie’ is in the Chambers Dictionary’ (Australian) and the meaning as: ‘a fan who follows pop groups or
celebrities to all their performances with the hope of having sexual relations
with them’
I
think about all the job interviews where I was asked if I “dated guys in bands”
or if I planned on “having children”.
I
think about that time I was told that I didn’t get the job because their
biggest grossing act included a singer of whom I was “his type”. I remember
still thanking the person for bringing me (across the country for sobbing out
loud) in and giving me the chance to interview.
I
remember thinking how ‘killer’ it was that now I was out of the running for a
job simply because of sexual potential.
I used to use the analogy of nurses dating doctors
when defending women in the music industry dating musicians. The analogy is weak. I was trying to explain that the industry
means long hours, a lack of boundaries, close quarters (when touring).
There
is no time for hobbies, for an ‘outside’ life, so as a young woman in the
industry – most people I would meet in my age range were musicians. Also, many were like myself ‘trying to build
a career’. I always viewed the date
offers from successful businessmen (men who worked at record companies, producers,
managers) at least ten years older than I- as a move that would discredit me
much faster than dating a musician that was my age, and in my economic bracket.
Of course, now I can see that my having to
think out any of these scenarios were all part of the same trap. That my long hours of committed work could be
discredited by whom I dated was reprehensible.
When
thinking of the term ‘groupie’, I always pictured some disgruntled guy making a
quip- to discredit some woman being the source of the word ‘groupie’. This was then spread around like some
‘insider’ word that was then seized upon by a journalist and voilà an insult is
born.
This
insult is just like any other that is invented to dis-credit and divide
women.
To
justify passing them over for jobs, or paying them less money for equal
work. Being a child of the 1960s, I
thought I was going to change the system from the inside. I never feared that the title would be adhered
to me, but I was guilty perhaps of adhering the label to other women.
I
was also guilty of thinking that a woman like Janis Joplin was an exception, I
did not believe that because she could be a success that other women could
also. In fact, my thinking that was
perpetuated by how many times I heard a man in power say “We already have a
female artist on our roster”. There is
only room for one.
I
was also let down that in this article of ‘reconsideration’ that the women so
deemed by Rolling Stone (and perhaps by themselves) as ‘groupies’ were not credited
with at the very least by leaving traditional rolls behind (we are talking
early to mid-1960s here) to seek out a life of adventure and comparative
freedom. To choose and go after the
sexual partner of their choice, not wait to be chosen.
Then
there is was what I see as the hypocrisy that women are allowed to, and in fact
are dominate in selling products, often barely clothed and that is fine.
Modeling
is a profession and sadly for many an ideal. In fact, Models are almost
expected to date musicians, they are not groupies, they are a prize.
But
women who are just spending their youth in a counter-culture of their choosing,
they are somehow lesser than, being taken advantage of, being ‘groupies’.
In
my case apparently a moniker I must avoid at all costs to be ‘taken seriously’. Taken seriously! Interning for free. Scouting out music for labels (of course if a
musician talked to me after a gig, and gave me insight into what he or she
wanted from their career that was a perk just overlooked).
Working
for minimum wage or worse in trade for free tickets and bar tab (neither of
which I needed, I was ‘in the scene’).
All
these were expected steps towards my serious career.
In
the end I can’t see that my trying to hold some male ideal of the moral high
ground helped me in any way. Whichever
label is applied, I am a woman, and thus can just be dismissed.
Of
course I want to believe that 2016 is better, that the current generation of
females are standing on ground that is more level. However, this article made me think otherwise.
