#liking problematic things

He isn’t just someone who made some racially dodgy statements and then got attacked for it. He actually is an unapologetic white supremacist who even murdered a fellow musician on racial grounds. Essentially, Varg Vikernes is the musical version of Richard Spencer.

Consider this thought experiment. It comes out that Justin Bieber enjoys kicking puppies for fun (not real, just hypothetical). Then, shortly afterward, it comes out that so did John Lennon. The fact that you strongly like John Lennon (and/or The Beatles in general) but strongly dislike Justin Bieber should have absolutely *nothing* to do with this!! You can’t demonize people for continuing to like Justin Bieber after the fact if you yourself continue to like John Lennon (and/or The Beatles) after the fact. Either it’s morally wrong to continue to support *either* artist, or it’s not inherently morally wrong to continue to support *either* artist. Your views on one’s musical talent has absolutely *no* correlation with how morally righteous said artists are.

This post is from over four years ago. At that time, I was still pretty big on Led Zeppelin - and I was also (and still am) big on defending women’s right to enjoy hard rock music. It did seem as if the person I was responding to was suggesting that being a “good feminist” means giving up listening to Led Zeppelin, and I didn’t quite buy that.

Incidentally enough, I myself have since also stopped listening to Led Zeppelin - but *not* for the same reason as the other blogger did. For me, it was getting into blues music and learning about the blatant plagiarism that Led Zeppelin was guilty of that did it for me. I recognize that as a person decision that I’ve made, and I still don’t a need to tell others that they should stop liking Led Zeppelin.

It does come with a little stipulation, though. If you’re gonna still like Led Zeppelin in spite of their blatant plagiarism, then you don’t get to vitriolically condemn other bands (such as, say, Avenged Sevenfold) for plagiarism. Unlike Led Zeppelin, Avenged Sevenfold are not known to have copied for black blues artists. The issue I have with such double standards is that Led Zeppelin act of *definite* plagiarism are caused far more harm to those they plagiarized than any of the artists (Metallica, Megadeth, Iron Maiden, etc) that Avenged Sevenfold have been accused of copying.

Whether I ultimately agree or disagree with the criticism, I am far more willing to listen to people express concern over things the Avenged Sevenfold members have said or done than listen to someone who just wants to bash the band (along with anyone who likes them). Conversely, if news came out that the Avenged Sevenfold members are gonna commit a major act, I actually *welcome* comments along the lines of “I don’t care for Avenged Sevenfold, but I really admire what they’re doing”. To me, it gives me hope that people are willing to put their own biases aside to acknowledge that musicians they don’t particularly care for can do great things.

If any of you socially conscious folks are wondering if it’s wrong to celebrate the Fourth of July, considering how fucked up the politics of the nation currently is - I would say that “no it isn’t”. If you like the parades, the picnics/barbecues, and the fireworks - then go for it!! Personally, I probably won’t be doing anything that day - but that’s just me.

At the same time, though, please do be understanding of those who might choose not to celebrate that day for whatever reason. Also of note, one major non-political reason why one might choose not to celebrate the day is that they might have sensory (audible or visual) issues that would hinder their enjoyment for such festivities.

Maybe I should lay off the Led Zeppelin criticism for awhile. Maybe some people think I’m latching onto the “Led Zeppelin as racist blues plagiarists” simply to silence any and all criticism of Avenged Sevenfold, but that’s not quite it.

First off, I *don’t* silence every criticism of Avenged Sevenfold. I myself have discussed some of the problematic things that the band members have done, or some of the views that they’ve expressed - that *especially* being the case of M Shadows back in the day.

I guess I just think it’s more important to critique bands and musicians on the whether they do or say problematic things, than what one thinks about the quality of their music - which, quite frankly, really has no place in social justice!

I can’t speak for the other mods here, but I myself (Serafina) am very anti-authoritarian. I am a firm believer that people should be free to do whatever they enjoy, as long as they aren’t hurting other people. So I just don’t get castigating other people for their musical choices, when such choices really are not hurting other people. I mean, I definitely understand the annoyance of having your neighbours playing their music loudly - especially if it’s music you don’t like. However, in that case, the issue is with your neighbours being inconsiderate (intentional or otherwise) - and no so much with what music they like or don’t like.

I’ve spent the past few days thinking about this, and I think this goes hand-in-hand with my “harm principle” ethos - and my overall position that, if one’s personal choices don’t hurt other people, then they should be left alone!

I’m quite well aware of the fact that the members of my favourite rock band, Avenged Sevenfold, do have a history of engaging in problematic behaviour and expressing some problematic views. Particularly during the City of Evil era, front man M Shadows has expressed some rather questionable views that I don’t exactly agree with - although that doesn’t stop me from liking the band’s music. So, yeah, if you believe that any of the Avenged Sevenfold members have engaged in behaviour that is harmful towards other people - than, yeah, I think it’s something that’s important to talk about. I wanna know if any of the bands or musicians I like have engaged in behaviour that harms others, so I can be conscientious of who I support and whatnot.

Now, on the other hand, if all you wanna do is lecture me on having “shitty taste in music” - than, no, you can just get the fuck away from me with *that* shit! I do not feel that one’s musical choices based strictly on Musical Talent™ has any bearing on the worth of a person or how morally righteous one is! Hell, if concepts had faces, I’d cheerfully spit right in the face of the concept that one’s musical choices based strictly on Musical Talent™ has bearing whatsoever on how morally righteous a person is! Hell, I’ll cheerfully punch it repeatedly in the face! I fully acknowledge that it’s a position I am very unapologetic with upholding - and I see no reason why I should feel bad about my position on this issue!

The thing is, I see plenty value in *moral* criticism of artists - but not so much in *artistic* value of artists… particularly concerning those who use *artistic* criticism in an attempt to try to dictate the artistic choices of others, and judgement of them thereof.

I’m more than willing to acknowledge that Avenged Sevenfold, at times, *can* be a problematic band. I may not necessarily *agree* that certain qualities can make Avenged Sevenfold a problematic band - but I am, at least, willing to listen and consider.

However, if you wanna use *artistic* criticism alone to try to tell me that I’m wrong for liking Avenged Sevenfold - then you can fuck off with that!!

First, apologies for the potato quality. 

Second, this cover annoys me so much. I recognize the straining (diagonal stretch marks from her boobs to the coat’s waist) and it looks like they just shoved her into a men’s jacket without fitting it or that her chest is too big in proportion to her waist. 

One of the storylines in this book is that the heroine crossdresses as a man because she has to hang out in taverns, bars, and assorted sketchy places that women were allegedly not supposed to be seen in. One of the reasons I love the Enola Holmes series by Nancy Springer is that Enola also hangs out in sketchy places but she does it without crossdressing. She disguises herself as the women that were actually in those places because they lived there and it was where they lived. None of this stuff about how women don’t go to sketchy places, because not all women are noblewomen worried about their reputation. Some of them actually live and exist in these places. 

I’ve been looking up women who crossdressed in the Regency period, which is when this novel takes place, but there weren’t a lot of sources when I googled “lgbtqia women crossdressing”. Most of the women were photographed starting in around the 1850s or so. Dr. Mary E. Walker habitually wore men’s clothes and it was not easy to tell her gender in the photos of her. 

Obviously, bigger boobs makes it harder to crossdress, especially if one has a small waist as well. The cover model might also be wearing modern underwear under her coat, which means a combination of a modern female silhouette of boobs pushed forward and center and generally standing out colliding with a male silhouette. 

But look at Albert Nobbs, with Glenn Close: 

You can’t see any of those stretch marks in her costume. That suggests that the book cover’s problem is probably underwear related, because Glenn Close is kind of curvy in a way that would show if she didn’t bind somehow. This entire movie is about a woman being a man to get a better life. 

This cover is all about showing a woman looking acceptably feminine in men’s clothing not about actually showing the events of the book accurately. It bothers me when the cover art is more about gender coding. 

Since starting this blog, I have become quite open about addressing some of the issues I have with the “mainstream” social justice community. Although, all things considered, I still have bigger issues with the “anti-SJW” side of Tumblr- due to their propensity of throwing out the baby with the bath water, and also criticizing SJ bloggers (if not outrightly mocking them) for even more harmless views that they hold.

That being said, I’ve actually always found the whole “liking problematic things” discourse to be fairly nuanced. Interestingly enough, I started liking Avenged Sevenfold at around the same time that I started exploring feminism - and there were times when I was worried that people would be like “you can’t be a feminist and like Avenged Sevenfold”, when learning about some of the problematic viewpoints and behaviour of the band members (particularly M Shadows) back in the day. After all, I had issues with the prescriptive side of feminism who seems to think that hating the colour pink is practically a requirement to being a feminist - and, being someone who loves the colour pink, that just didn’t sit right with me.

That being said, there are definitely disagreements over what exactly it means to consume media critically. Generally, I’m of the belief that it’s enough to recognize that our faves definitely are/were capable of doing wrong - and also respect the fact that some may not like our faves for those reasons. There do seem to be two extremes: hardcore fans who refuse to accept that their faves can do wrong, and prescriptive SJ militants who think liking problematic things means that you aren’t serious about fighting injustice. Some may even go as far as to insist that it’s actually worse to like problematic things whilst acknowledging that they are problematic versus liking problematic things and being clueless of the things that make them problematic - which, of course, is the quickest way to push people into not wanting to recognize that their faves are capable of doing wrong.

Certainly, if one likes Nazi music, then it is hard to not question their morality - but, aside from such extreme cases, it’s far from being a black-and-white issue.