Here you are taking a groupe that was concocted, no doubt by men, to sell records, etc. plain and simple. About as radical as you can get. right. If the level of discussion cannot rise higher than this,we are in trouble. If you want to see how radical the girls and boys who listened to this crap get when they are older, come visit my classes.
michael yates
Frances Bolton (PHI) wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Oct 1998, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > Oh but Judy herself destabilizes notions of identity, a la the Lesbian
> > Phallus, but anyway, the Spice Girls don't have much to do with JB. How is
> > their citation of the iconography of babe-hood the least be subversive? You
> > could argue - I wouldn't, but you could - that Madonna's citations of such
> > are destabilizing and/or subversive, but Ginger, Posh, and Baby? Please.
>
> I think it's QUITE telling that you left out Scary Spice, Doug. I think
> it's a sign of intellectual dishonesty. Quite clearly, it is in the person
> of Scary that the subversive messages regarding gender and race are found.
> By deliberately erasing her from the Spice Girls, you take their project,
> which is one of challenging traditional norms of gender, and particularly
> the power of female friendship, and you make it peripheral, if not
> completely invisible. In so doing, you recreate them in a way that is less
> threatening to white, male, heterosexual norms.
>
> Frances