[Moshe]

From The Sunday Times

June 28, 2009


I am what I am: Kim Gordon

 

(Steve Schofield/Camera Press)
Kim Gordon, 56, is the singer and guitarist in Sonic Youth, who have just released their 16th album, The Eternal. She lives in Northampton, Massachusetts, with her husband and bandmate, Thurston Moore, and their daughter, Coco, 14
- I went to quite an extreme progressive school and left not understanding about competition or grades.
- I wasn’t exactly a hedonist when I was younger, but I rebelled early and got it out of my system. It was things like hiking to Malibu and getting stoned. I had an older brother who was a bad example.
- My mother was a seamstress. I abhorred sewing, but she always bought my clothes in thrift stores and adapted them, hence my eclectic dressing.
- The band has been together for 28 years. We have survived by becoming more aware of what bickering is — that’s what being a band is: bickering. You have to get over it.
- I don’t feel old. Most people don’t think of themselves as the age they are. It’s different when you don’t work nine to five. Asking when I’ll retire is like saying, “When are you turning your brain off?”
- The idea of women empowering themselves by becoming sexual objects is backward. It seemed brilliant at one point, but it had really bad ramifications. Things lose their context so quickly.
- It’s intense being with your husband all the time. I try not to think about it too much on tour — it’s not a good time to analyse. It can be hard to recognise why someone is acting bad.
- Rock’n’roll? To me, the idea of being a junkie is so passé. [Thurston and I] are into creative things — they strengthen us.
- It’s harder to eat so much now I’m older — I’m a little heavier than I should be. But I don’t stress out about it. Touring is so strenuous, it’s like a spa tour.

[mil_pl]

it’s like a spa tour.

haha good one.

[greenlight]

i was just about to posted it this afternoon (and I was taking my time) Moshe! damn!

 

no point to edit picture now ;-).

[Dead-Air]

- The idea of women empowering themselves by becoming sexual objects is backward. It seemed brilliant at one point, but it had really bad ramifications. Things lose their context so quickly.

This from the voice on "Halloween"???

[Rupert 'Stiles' Stilinski]

"Halloween" always sounded sort of sarcastic to me. Maybe not sarcastic, but like it was a take on groupie mentality--really fucking dark. I don't think Kim was being sincerely herself on that song.

- The idea of women empowering themselves by becoming sexual objects is backward. It seemed brilliant at one point, but it had really bad ramifications. Things lose their context so quickly.

This was my favorite of her quotes. I completely agree with this and think this needs to be taught in modern feminist theory.

[Dead-Air]

I totally disagree. I think both men and women should embrace and define their sexuality on their own terms (including the ways in which they wish to be objectified). Which is what I think Kim does (including in songs like "Halloween" and "Panty Lies" that mock the very type of sexuality that they invoke at the same time).

Certainly, allowing yourself to be objectified entirely on society and the media's terms leads to train wrecks like Britney Spears. However, Poison Ivy and Eartha Kitt come immediately to my mind as examples of highly empowered women who certainly enjoyed using their objectification as a weapon.

[Rupert 'Stiles' Stilinski]

I see what you're saying. My thoughts are that women should be sexual and unrepressed, but sexuality shouldn't define the woman (or the man). Brains should. (And brains is not a snarky code word for breasts.)

I'm thinking she's referring to the likes of Kathleen Hannah, Courtney Love who (for two very different reasons in two very different cases for two very different types of women) stripped progressively. I don't see stripping or this lame ass burlesque fad progressing women at all.

Objectification as a weapon seems moronic because all they're doing is is getting some sort of comeuppance on men that are walking erections.

[notyourfiend]

Originally Posted by Rupert 'Stiles' Stilinski

I'm thinking she's referring to the likes of Kathleen Hannah, Courtney Love who (for two very different reasons in two very different cases for two very different types of women) stripped progressively. I don't see stripping or this lame ass burlesque fad progressing women at all.

Much more Courtney than Kathleen. Kathleen was trying to talk about how, as a former sex worker, she was immediately alienated from the feminist circles. She stripped to be able to get through college and has openly stated that, for her, it was a much more economical choice than, say, waiting tables (where, as a woman, she would also be treated like shit) Kathleen and most other riots grrrls were talking about taking ownernship of one's sexuality.

There was third wave feminist mentality that taking ownership of ones sexuality is empowering. That's fine but, as Kim was saying in this interview, this political empowerment often looses its context and women wind up just turning themselves into objects. The message is gone. Think Spice Girls.

It's my opinion that Kim sings about female sexuality because it's a part of the/her female experience. She never REDUCES women to their sexuality, turning them into objects. Rather, sexuality she sings about provides the audience with narratives, turning the female characters into subjects to recon with. Now that is some true blue feminist empowerment!

[Dead-Air]

Originally Posted by Rupert 'Stiles' Stilinski

I see what you're saying. My thoughts are that women should be sexual and unrepressed, but sexuality shouldn't define the woman (or the man). Brains should. (And brains is not a snarky code word for breasts.)

I'm thinking she's referring to the likes of Kathleen Hannah, Courtney Love who (for two very different reasons in two very different cases for two very different types of women) stripped progressively. I don't see stripping or this lame ass burlesque fad progressing women at all.

Objectification as a weapon seems moronic because all they're doing is is getting some sort of comeuppance on men that are walking erections.

Is that really what you think Poison Ivy or Eartha Kitt did? Objectification as a weapon allows one to be as sexy as one wants to whoever one wants, male, female or in between.

Mind, I'm married to a stripper at the moment, who has danced to Sonic Youth songs in the past. So I take exception when people, especially males (but not exclusively), act like she can't also be a feminist on her own terms. She's definitely doing it for money rather than to make a statement, but it is not devoid of any expression. While brains may not be the main reason people (and they aren't all men either) go into the club, it hasn't hurt her take home dollars to speak intelligently - actually quite the opposite.

As notyourfriend sums up, it's not really about "stripping progressively" so much as making your own decisions about how you wish to use your sexuality.

I also have a hard time with the whole idea that objectification is always such an evil thing. I've never had a lover who didn't in some way objectify me and want to have me do the same. People like to be told they are hot, and brains can be very much a part of what makes it that.

Objectification of a woman that makes her less than a man, of course that's bad. And yes there has been and continues to be plenty of that in our society. However, there is nothing wrong with an intelligent person of either gender wanting to be sexually hot, and if it isn't empowering for them, then I don't see how being told how to act by puritanical dogma would be.

[notyourfiend]

Originally Posted by Dead-Air

She's definitely doing it for money rather than to make a statement, but it is not devoid of any expression. While brains may not be the main reason people (and they aren't all men either) go into the club, it hasn't hurt her take home dollars to speak intelligently - actually quite the opposite.

Expression is extremely powerful. Feminists are constantly discussing the importance of getting women's voices out/creating safe spaces to express oneself. I think that a lot of people both within and outside the feminist community forget how sexuality can be used as an expressive and artistic tool. The problem is when people get so stuck on the naked body that they can't allow their minds to go past that...

I consider myself to be a (sex-)radical feminist. As a both a sex-radical and just plain old fervent radical feminist, I think that it's really important to always remember that, while nudity and sexuality might be great in some cases, it can also become dangerous and be used as a tool against many women. Privledge def factors in here. Some sex workers are in positions where they are safe and secure whereas others certainly are not. Another problem with perpetuating the idea that reducing oneself to ones sexuality is empowering is that it ignores some of the horrible consequences that can arise.

I personally think that Kim Gordon was trying to address some of this in Mailbu Gas Station - how the oversexualized empowered young Hollywood actress has become a disaster for all of us. What do you think?

About the whole objectification thing, I personally think that a major problem arises when you stop being able to see the full person. It is dangerous when a partner becomes an object and you ignore the complex layers that make up thier being. Once again, Kim uses her sexuality to talk about the complexities of female experience. Amazing.

[Rupert 'Stiles' Stilinski]

I agree with you for the most part (previous two posters), though I don't know if what you are talking about is what Kim was talking about.

I respect your decision to date a stripper. I dated one once, and I didn't like it. Not because I was jealous, but because it seemed like an idiotic profession. I'm someone that feels profession or at least hobbies should dictate a significant part of one's identity. After I got over the initial thrill that I was dating a stripper, I realized that there was little substance as to why she was making her life choices outside of a desire for money.

I don't think Kathleen Hannah has much to go on by saying that it's ok to strip because she needed money. Whenever anyone else says they do things solely for money, we call them ASSHOLES!

One thing I am sure of, the woman in "Halloween" is obviously not Kim. Another, the woman in "Halloween" is objectifying the man in the song (it seems like). He (in turn) has complete control of her, turning her into a groupie of sorts.

And "Panty Lies" would be hard to analyze at all. I can't think of a song that merits less analysis than that one--it's a silly little song that I'm sure the band is not particularly proud of.

[notyourfiend]

Originally Posted by Rupert 'Stiles' Stilinski

And "Panty Lies" would be hard to analyze at all. I can't think of a song that merits less analysis than that one--it's a silly little song that I'm sure the band is not particularly proud of.

I actually really fucking love that song. I think it's a really cute mockery of feminine expectations, breaking the rules, how easy it is to be a "bad girl" etc.

About Kathleen Hanna - in my opinion she was more trying to say that work is objectifying in itself and sex work is trade like all others. It's dangerous to exclude sex-workers from feminist circles and discourse becaues sex workers are people too who also deserve to have a voice. Also, sex work is not going away and for some people is a better opinion than others.

Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what Kim is saying. That's just a meaning which I've personally derived. :-)

[Shifty Prophet]

Originally Posted by Dead-Air

I also have a hard time with the whole idea that objectification is always such an evil thing. I've never had a lover who didn't in some way objectify me and want to have me do the same. People like to be told they are hot, and brains can be very much a part of what makes it that.

Objectification of a woman that makes her less than a man, of course that's bad. And yes there has been and continues to be plenty of that in our society. However, there is nothing wrong with an intelligent person of either gender wanting to be sexually hot, and if it isn't empowering for them, then I don't see how being told how to act by puritanical dogma would be.

This is about as close to my sentiment as another person could articulate.

Well done Dead-Air. I agree completely with this. Objectification (at least between sexually intimate partners) definitely has its place in a relationship. I too have a hard time remembering any of my past lovers not wanting, at some point to be objectified, and the same goes with myself. I may have not been cogniscent of my desire, but when a woman objectifies you within the proper context, it is completely natural to feel good about it.

[summer]

Um just dropping in to check on something, when you mention "Halloween", you do mean just the way she interpreted and sung it, right, because I.. think..? that it was Mudhoney's first? I actually don't know for sure wow. Regardless I like both Sonic Youth's and Mudhoney's probably Mudhoney's slightly more.

[Rupert 'Stiles' Stilinski]

Isn't objectification within a relationship completely different than objectification in a profession (or out on the street)?

[Rupert 'Stiles' Stilinski]

Originally Posted by summer

Um just dropping in to check on something, when you mention "Halloween", you do mean just the way she interpreted and sung it, right, because I.. think..? that it was Mudhoney's first? I actually don't know for sure wow. Regardless I like both Sonic Youth's and Mudhoney's probably Mudhoney's slightly more.

No biggie, but Mudhoney covered Sonic Youth's Halloween while Sonic Youth covered Mudhoney's "Touch Me I'm Sick" on a split record.

Sonic Youth's version of the song is better x1000 in my opinion.

[pantophobia]

this quickly turned into the best thread on here i have seen in a very long time

Mike, you should be owed a bottle of your choice, or i'll mix you something up real nice

[Dead-Air]

Originally Posted by Rupert 'Stiles' Stilinski

I agree with you for the most part (previous two posters), though I don't know if what you are talking about is what Kim was talking about.

I respect your decision to date a stripper. I dated one once, and I didn't like it. Not because I was jealous, but because it seemed like an idiotic profession. I'm someone that feels profession or at least hobbies should dictate a significant part of one's identity. After I got over the initial thrill that I was dating a stripper, I realized that there was little substance as to why she was making her life choices outside of a desire for money.

Important point of clarification. I am not "dating a stripper". My wife and life partner of eight years so far recently made the decision to return to a job she hadn't done in ten years because of the economy right now and the need for a schedule that allows her to spend more time with our son. I don't have a problem with what she does, because I know who she is a lot deeper than that and so does she. I don't at all dig people denigrating her or anyone like her for making her own decisions about what to do with her life, including to make money. I don't know anyone who hasn't at some time done something to make money less valid than being in the Peace Corps. As a matter of a fact, the Peace Corps, doesn't pay money at all. My wife is also a grad student in public health administration, so if she has a little fun at a somewhat silly job expressing her sexuality on her terms, I still think she's way ahead of lots of people out there.

[automatic bzooty]

"when are you turning your brain off?"

i love kim.

[frades]

could someone explain the principe of this interview? why is there no questions between the hyphens and kim's answers??