I'm rather perturbed at the editorial/article New Punks on the Block," (July/August 1994, #8) an article whose pointlessness can only be matched by the blatantly confused interpretation of femininity it expresses. As the basis for the long-winded pseudo-feminist jargon that it spews, the article describes femininity as anything that isn't derived from the "young-angry-man aesthetic (volume, aggression, rawness)," leaving a huge hole in its argument. If feminism can be defined as an opposition to young-angry man aesthetics, why can't "punk rock" be defined as an opposition to mainstream, major label mush? Simply, they both can.
Punk, to me, is a genre of music. I do not live a "punk lifestyle" in Calvin Johnson terms or Ian MacKaye terms or anybody's terms. I just buy music that gives me a sense of independence, a sense that something can be accomplished without Spin or MTV or even radio. To me the punk community has always strived to be anti-homophobic, anti-sexist, anti-racist and despite this paper's love of "indie-rock," there are more ways of accomplishing these goals without abandoning your mental progression. Who needs to regress to childhood to prevent the cancerous "adulthood" from spreading? When we (as punks as feminists) must resort to un-shelving painful memories of our shit-childhood, we only propagate ourselves by saying these things are okay because we're cool now...
The whole article bugs me more because it seems to be a veiled attempt at criticizing zines like MRR for limiting their ad and review space to bands they define as "punk." But why shouldn't they get defensive and exclusive when their lifestyle, their whole "community" is being submerged?
Besides, MRR and other zines seem to fully support women in Lydia Lunch to K Records' very own Cockpit. But punk is punk --it's first a musical genre with bands like Minor Threat, Screeching Weasel, etc. It's also an aesthetic that allows Born Against, Bikini Kill, Men's Recovery Project, and hell even alternative gods Superchunk (nice move, Chunk, staying on Merge and not Matador, indie all the way!!) to exist on the same plane.
I mean, Mecca Normal?!?!? Unsane?!?! Halo Benders?!?!?! Aaarh! It's just crap. They are boring, non-threatening, mainstream, slacker crap. I hate them.
And as far as femininity goes -- aggression is not wholly male. I mean, where do you people get this stuff? Anger is not a male trait. Men use aggression to stymie the growth of each other and women especially. Calvin Johnson's fucked-up, do-nothing aesthetic only augments this mentality. If CJ truly represents the "indie-rock" philosophy, then his followers are doomed to excessive commercialism that befell the `60's revolutionaries. In fact, the idea of regression into childlike, "feminine" innocence is entirely hippy in origin -- men getting in touch with their feminine side will not change society. Men will have an even greater advantage over women then. It's okay to be pro-women, even anti-male. But to insist that men and women who love to rock should pick up an acoustic guitar or play jangly pop with obscure lyrics is ridiculous and defeatist. I mean, come on!
In closing, I'd like to say to all those interested in real punk, write me at H-2 Luci Drive, Greenville, NC 27858. We can start a zine for which I already have interviews for; or we could do some political ACTION. I love you all, people. I just want you to love this young-angry aggressive feminist back, OK?
Alex Smith
Greenville, NC
The article I wrote did not define feminism (or femininity) as an opposition to young-angry man aesthetics; and it did not state that aggression is wholly male. It did say that aggression is considered a masculine trait.
-- Carrie McLaren