Rock and roll “knowledge” versus clear sexism. Which side are you on?

f

I am not interested in whether a couple of old dudes turned up to a young dude’s party, and got refused entry. Shit happens.

macca

I am certainly not interested in the fact there is (apparently) a TV programme called The College of Rock and Roll Knowledge, and they are outraged by this incident. I mean, duh. The clue is in the title, folk. They ain’t interested in anything that happened after 1975, and certainly ain’t interested in any of that black shit. Fair enough, I guess. Does not make them racist, automatically. They could just be dotards. Personally, I think it’s funny as fuck buncha old white rockers acted all entitled and got turned away from a young dude’s party. Whatev’s.

college 2

I am, however, interested in the fact there is a TV programme called The College of Rock and Roll Knowledge and they are pulling shit like (see below) in 2016 and not only that, but friends on my Facebook feed are encouraging them. This ain’t rock and roll, this is just plain old-fashioned sexism. Puerile objectifying misogynistic pricks.

sexism

2 Responses to Rock and roll “knowledge” versus clear sexism. Which side are you on?

  1. Chris Dunn says:

    as usual Everett, you hit the nail on the head, nothing worse than 60’s 70’s music heads who think the world stopped with the release of Horses and the da bruddus self titled first.

  2. Jackson says:

    >I am, however, interested in the fact there is a TV programme called The College of Rock and Roll Knowledge and they are pulling shit like (see below) in 2016 and not only that, but friends on my Facebook feed are encouraging them. This ain’t rock and roll, this is just plain old-fashioned sexism. Puerile objectifying misogynistic pricks.

    Oh, my god, a programme that didn’t get the politically correct, sex and sexual references are outdated memo, and went out of line?

    I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!

    Let’s scold them like modern day 20-30 year olds that found a new way to channel their prudish puritan ancestors of yore.

    Besides, all sexual references are “objectifying”, in the sense that they isolate one aspect of the person in question. But the same holds true for all references pointing to the persons musical ability, IQ, wealth, clothing or whatever else. Only those seldomly trigger the PC police’s alert, because “sexual” stuff is wired in the anglo-saxon (and especially US) subconscious as what’s really offensive…

    Well, the rest of the world, could not give less fucks.

    Or, actually, here’s one: fuck you Everett True and your BS lip-service to 2016’s sensibilities.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: