228A: A Woman’s History of The Beatles part one

My guest today is Dr. Christine Feldman-Barrett, author of A Women’s History of The Beatles – an essential new work exploring the group’s story through the lens of the women they interacted with and influenced, as well as how they were received and experienced by female fandom. Christine was also once a musician herself, and listen as she describes both her journey as well as what was experienced by young women and girls during the group’s lifetime.

4 thoughts on “228A: A Woman’s History of The Beatles part one”

  1. Like the stupid spoiled overprivileged male I am, I was going to ignore this, thinking, I won’t relate… was so wrong. Christine and her work touched me so much. I listen to your podcasts before bed and sleep/dream to their sounds – was hearing “life force” in my dreams and “one of the biggest phenomena of the 20th century”. That was so perfect. And how that goes to the mystery at the heart of it — and how it really is a religion now, not just in the sociological sense, but in the truest sense of the word, with a divinity at its root. Maybe this is kinda what the sprout-painting girl is expressing (could listen to her forever: she could inspire a book on her thoughts).

    Really was moved by Christine’s comment on how, for either and all sexes, they gave an example of how to live life (even if they did go off the tracks themselves maybe) — how not to be brummerstrivers but be creative, joyful, adventures and free. With the power of Julie and Linda and Yoko they deepened further than most rockers of their day, trying to reject their macho upbringings. Years after the singularity, Mick is singing Under my thumb; John, Woman.

    I can’t wait to finish the rest of this and check out your book, Christine. I loved your ideas and spirt! Some of your insights made me weep. There will be a lot of lucky students out there thanks to you as their teacher.

  2. Like the stupid spoiled overprivileged male I am, I was going to ignore this, thinking, I won’t relate… was so wrong. Christine and her work touched me so much. I listen to your podcasts before bed and sleep/dream to their sounds – was hearing “life force” in my dreams and “one of the biggest phenomena of the 20th century”. That was so perfect. And how that goes to the mystery at the heart of it — and how it really is a religion now, not just in the sociological sense, but in the truest sense of the word, with a divinity at its root. Maybe this is kinda what the sprout-painting girl is expressing (could listen to her forever: she could inspire a book on her thoughts).

    Really was moved by Christine’s comment on how, for either and all sexes, they gave an example of how to live life (even if they did go off the tracks themselves maybe) — how not to be brummerstrivers but be creative, joyful, adventures and free. With the power of Julie and Linda and Yoko they deepened further than most rockers of their day, trying to reject their macho upbringings. Years after the singularity, Mick is singing Under my thumb; John, Woman.

    I can’t wait to finish the rest of this and check out your book, Christine. I loved your ideas and spirt! Some of your insights made me weep. There will be a lot of lucky students out there thanks to you as their teacher.

  3. Thanks for the interesting podcast and thank you to Dr. Christine for the interesting work.

    Early in the episode, I was struck by the words of a male reporter who talks to a young female Paul fan. She describes, at length, her artwork that she’d like to give to Paul. After her enthusiastic and aspirational conversation, all the reporter can think to ask her is, “Do you think you have any chance of meeting him?” She gives him a realistic answer, that some people do get to meet the Beatles but they tend to be well connected, and all he can say is, “You seem to have a crush on Paul.”

    So stereotyping, so insulting — the type of thing that drives me nuts. She adores Paul for sure, but she shared a lot of thoughts that the reporter seemed incapable of hearing. All he can see is “girl with crush.” This is a micro-example of why so much early and later rock/pop commentary is untrustworthy: they go in with a prejudice against their subjects, a prejudice that’s shared by almost everyone, in this case sexism and infantilization of a young person’s feelings and dreams.

    Another example of pre-existing prejudice shows up in the talk-show guys and reporters who talked to the Beatles and the Stones and always had to ask, “How long do you see your career lasting?”, obliging them to say “Well I can’t see us doing it at thirty,” ie making the subject denigrate their own prospects. Or asking about that crazy long hair, as if nobody had ever asked about it before. Coming in with a prejudice (against youth culture in this case) makes the reporting almost not valuable. It’s just pandering to the previous generation’s investment in their own biases.

  4. Thanks for the interesting podcast and thank you to Dr. Christine for the interesting work.

    Early in the episode, I was struck by the words of a male reporter who talks to a young female Paul fan. She describes, at length, her artwork that she’d like to give to Paul. After her enthusiastic and aspirational conversation, all the reporter can think to ask her is, “Do you think you have any chance of meeting him?” She gives him a realistic answer, that some people do get to meet the Beatles but they tend to be well connected, and all he can say is, “You seem to have a crush on Paul.”

    So stereotyping, so insulting — the type of thing that drives me nuts. She adores Paul for sure, but she shared a lot of thoughts that the reporter seemed incapable of hearing. All he can see is “girl with crush.” This is a micro-example of why so much early and later rock/pop commentary is untrustworthy: they go in with a prejudice against their subjects, a prejudice that’s shared by almost everyone, in this case sexism and infantilization of a young person’s feelings and dreams.

    Another example of pre-existing prejudice shows up in the talk-show guys and reporters who talked to the Beatles and the Stones and always had to ask, “How long do you see your career lasting?”, obliging them to say “Well I can’t see us doing it at thirty,” ie making the subject denigrate their own prospects. Or asking about that crazy long hair, as if nobody had ever asked about it before. Coming in with a prejudice (against youth culture in this case) makes the reporting almost not valuable. It’s just pandering to the previous generation’s investment in their own biases.

Leave a Comment

0