Laughing City
Author Message
Painaporo
Sea Post King


I appreciate that Texas is home to the Duprees, but telling your friends you like a band from Texas these days just sounds bad. This is even more true when you tell them its a band fronted by three (amazing) women. Why would a bunch of kick ass ladies take the crap that Texas has been throwing at them? Sure, I'm being facetious when I suggest that Eisley should relocate in protest, but shouldn't we as a community of fans be standing up together to say enough is enough? Women have rights and who is Rick Perry to strip them away? It's a messed up time to be from Texas!

What do you think, Eisley fans?

http://gothamist.com/2013/07/18/video_lewis_black_releases_anti-tex.ph p
Joined: 21 Jul 2004 | Posts: 15 | 
Last edited by Painaporo on Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
tahruh
Vintage Newbie


Hate to break it to you, but I'm quite certain those ladies are all very much pro-life.

And I used to hate Texas. Alas.

_________________
Albert Camus wrote:
Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth.
Joined: 04 May 2007 | Posts: 3862 | 
View user's profile Send private message
helloworld
Sea Post King


Believe it or not, but not everyone thinks like you.
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 | Posts: 263 | Location: SF
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Painaporo
Sea Post King


I totally support the Dupree's right to choose life for themselves, but I also suspect that they would not support denying the rights of other women to make that decision for themselves. That would be a rather draconian belief to be held by anyone, but especially by the frontwomen of an indie rock band!

This band is at ground zero in the women's rights debate at the moment (well, Texas, not Tyler). So, what would it take for this trio of sisters to take a stand? I'm sure their fans would stand behind them!
Joined: 21 Jul 2004 | Posts: 15 | 
View user's profile Send private message
tahruh
Vintage Newbie


Painaporo wrote:
I totally support the Dupree's right to choose life for themselves, but I also suspect that they would not support denying the rights of other women to make that decisions for themselves. That would be a rather draconian belief to be held by anyone, but especially by the frontwomen of an indie rock band!

This band is at ground zero in the women's rights debate at the moment (well, Texas, not Tyler). So, what would it take for this trio of sisters to take a stand? I'm sure their fans would stand behind them!
Why do you assume that? The truth is that I don't know for certain, but I do know a few things about them that would seem to be at odds with your conclusion (one thing in particular, which at this stage I think is probably inappropriate to discuss).

Christie, their sister, fronts her own indie rock band and is a fairly outspoken conservative, who does not believe in evolution. Kim, their mom, has made tweets affirming her anti-abortion rights stance. The three Eisley girls tend to not get too explicit about their poltical beliefs, but occasionally they'll hint, and at best one may be moderate. I'm kind of glad I don't know, because while I respect differences to some degree, some of the ego I've seen attached to Christie's political posts, coupled with the fact that she is fairly uneducated and uninformed, has honestly somewhat turned me off to her endeavors.

Pretty much anyone who knows anything about the band beyond silly articles referencing barbies tends to file them under "Christian Right."

That said, I personally struggle with this topic, and I'm FAR left. I've discussed it at length on here at least twice, and am kind of not up for it again, but I do believe it's important to keep early-term abortions legal and without restriction, but outside of preventing likely death and rape, do not support that choice on a personal level at all (although my feeling with rape is that there are two victims involved, but nevertheless). Unless coercion is involved, sex is a choice, and I find it bizarre that there's such a strong movement to whitewash that fact from the scenario. 1984-esque frankly. That it's become a left vs. right paradigm is kind of sickening; what's more taboo than a pro-life leftist, right? Anyway, here I am (ideally-speaking). I do tend to like to highlight that I'm pro-life across the board (animals, anti-death penalty, and other unnecessary acts of that kind of violence; also pro-nourishment and medical care via a strong social safety net if we must have a state) though.

_________________
Albert Camus wrote:
Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth.
Joined: 04 May 2007 | Posts: 3862 | 
View user's profile Send private message
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


Ugh, I hate that you posted that while I was still typing. But it's all good, cause what's better than seeing your own personal views affirmed in those of another person you respect? (irony in regards to the aim of this thread intended for those who see what I did there).

Painaporo wrote:
I totally support the Dupree's right to choose life for themselves, but I also suspect that they would not support denying the rights of other women to make that decision for themselves. That would be a rather draconian belief to be held by anyone, but especially by the frontwomen of an indie rock band!

This band is at ground zero in the women's rights debate at the moment (well, Texas, not Tyler). So, what would it take for this trio of sisters to take a stand? I'm sure their fans would stand behind them!


I guess ground zero in the US, but globally, our ground zero has a pretty small blast radius compared the issues regarding women's rights in Africa, the Mid East, and parts of continental Asia.

I'm anti-elective abortion. I'd rather the procedure be reserved for medical cases of potential harm not unlike other invasive surgeries that as used as a type of severe intervention. I would rather choice be proactively applied prior to conception to prevent it.

I think there are a myriad of women's issues that are of equal concern as reproductive rights, but I think that issues is one of the most personal and polarizing because it deals with the essence of life itself, and also the responsibilities (or as some feel, consequences) that come with perpetuating it.

I'd think that at this point in our culture, nothing would be more "Indie" than an Indie Rock band actually being individual enough to not align themselves with what some would consider stereotypical liberal positions of the counter-culture. Nothing wrong with having liberal or progressive views, but being beholden to them because you happen to be in an indie rock band is like me having to play basketball because I'm very tall and black. It's a variation of prejudice, though some would give it a positive connotation because it affirms their own values, but to others it's an unfair expectation that minimizes their ability to be individuals and free to self-actualize personally and professionally without external pressures based on the opinions others have of them.

You should watch Citizen Ruth. Seriously.

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9610 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
Last edited by wilsmith on Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tahruh
Vintage Newbie


wilsmith wrote:

I'd think that at this point in our culture, nothing would be more "Indie" than an Indie Rock band actually being individual enough to not align themselves with what some would consider stereotypical liberal positions of the counter-culture. Nothing wrong with having liberal or progressive views, but being beholden to them because you happen to be in an indie rock band is like me having to play basketball because I'm very tall and black. It's a variation of prejudice, though some would give it a positive connotation because it affirms their own values, but to others it's an unfair expectation that minimizes their ability to be individuals and free to self-actualize personally and professionally without external pressures based on the opinions others have of them.
Also, this.
_________________
Albert Camus wrote:
Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth.
Joined: 04 May 2007 | Posts: 3862 | 
View user's profile Send private message
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


Thanks for the nod.

You had it handled, I just didn't know it until I posted. You got my vote.


So yeah, what she said, the 1st and 2nd time.

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9610 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
The Man In The Moon
Lost at Forum


personally, i've never seen christie post anything political, but then again i don't follow her on anything. i did go through her twitter just now and didn't see anything. i always got the impression the three sisters were moderates, but i don't know for sure. i remember randomly seeing a while back someone asking sherri why she liked the band Gossip due to their homosexual tag and her being a christian. She pretty much responded with to the effect that she didn't look down on people just for their sexuality.

----

and personally, i don't like abortion, but i think it's something that'll happen regardless of whether or not it's legal, so it's better for it to be safe than sketchy. also, being a guy, i don't think i can really be part of the decision for women.

_________________
Oneironaut

http://www.facebook.com/ChengBand
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 | Posts: 1156 | Location: Nashville
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
boone
Vintage Newbie


I don't really have much to contribute to this discussion, but I really wanted to say to Tara that I really appreciate what she said. In a time when there are so many association fallacies and appeals to fear going around, it's really nice to see somebody far on the left who is really considering the issue for the morally complex thing that it is. You made my day.

And also...

The Man In The Moon wrote:
and personally, i don't like abortion, but i think it's something that'll happen regardless of whether or not it's legal, so it's better for it to be safe than sketchy. also, being a guy, i don't think i can really be part of the decision for women.

I understand why you have to phrase things the way you do, but think of this: if you think that abortion is wrong, say, like theft maybe, there aren't a lot of people who would say, "I think theft will happen whether it's illegal or not, so I think it's better that people are safe when they take stuff." And also, just because people say that men can't have opinions about abortion, doesn't mean that that's so. If a woman has a baby, the father is legally required to support that baby whether he wanted it or not. Men have a stake in the issue, so they should have somewhat of a say. (Note that I mean "men" as in the gender, not "The Man" as in those who try to bend people to their power and influence.)

_________________
Scriptozoology, a screenwriting blog .. Facebook
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
The Man In The Moon
Lost at Forum


boone wrote:


The Man In The Moon wrote:
and personally, i don't like abortion, but i think it's something that'll happen regardless of whether or not it's legal, so it's better for it to be safe than sketchy. also, being a guy, i don't think i can really be part of the decision for women.

I understand why you have to phrase things the way you do, but think of this: if you think that abortion is wrong, say, like theft maybe, there aren't a lot of people who would say, "I think theft will happen whether it's illegal or not, so I think it's better that people are safe when they take stuff." And also, just because people say that men can't have opinions about abortion, doesn't mean that that's so. If a woman has a baby, the father is legally required to support that baby whether he wanted it or not. Men have a stake in the issue, so they should have somewhat of a say. (Note that I mean "men" as in the gender, not "The Man" as in those who try to bend people to their power and influence.)


Yea, i get what you mean, but i think stuff such as theft and drug use are different from abortion. whereas theft and drug use are universally viewed to be wrong and harmful in our society, there's a gray area on how people feel about abortion being okay or not; i'm not sure if there's a general consciences. all of this is also depending on the views and beliefs of many different people too. In terms of men also having a say in the issue, there's also many different views people have on that. on one hand it can be a woman's rights issue as pregnancy is something that the woman has to experience and not the man, but on the otherhand, if the man is expected to support the child too... i don't know, it's a very uncertain area for me.

by the way, is "The Man" reference in your post is a humorous poke to my screen name? cause i like it! Laughing

_________________
Oneironaut

http://www.facebook.com/ChengBand
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 | Posts: 1156 | Location: Nashville
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
boone
Vintage Newbie


That's what I was getting at. There are a lot of those issues where there are two or more pretty strong opinions about a matter, but for some reason or another one of the opnions becomes the one that the rest of the opinions have to be sensitive toward. So you feel you have to say, "I don't agree with it, but it's going to happen anyway..." or "I don't like it, but other people should have the freedom..." or "I shouldn't have an opinion because..." or you will be ridiculed or told to "check your priviledge." But you don't need to kowtow to hyperbole, just believe what you believe and be civil.

I didn't even notice the connection to your name, but I'll take the laugh. I just wanted to differentiate an ordinary man who is just trying to make it in this world and take care of his own, from the proverbial Powerful White Male who does something disgusting, like say forcing his mistress to get an abortion with his White Male powers. He shouldn't speak for us, and I was trying to inb4 an extreme example like that got brought up to kill my point.

_________________
Scriptozoology, a screenwriting blog .. Facebook
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
gundamit
Golly, Poster


Seems like this thread would be better suited for the "General" section. The specifics on the law and the general legislative direction/strategy of the anti abortion forces are interesting. But linking it to the band seems odd. Their views are their own and I have as much interest in their views on it as I would have on banking reform or deregulation.
_________________
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 | Posts: 995 | 
View user's profile Send private message
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


On the subject of men and abortion:

I think, and have experienced personally, the stake men have in abortion. It's not a 50-50 stake with women across the board, but in some areas it is:

1.) Conception (between consenting partners) - men and women have a 50-50 responsibility to each other.

2.) Gestation & Birth - women have to bare this particular part of the life creation experience directly, at best with external support from a partner, who could happen to be male.

3.) Parenting - in the ideal relationship this would also be a 50-50 stake, but often is not.

4.) Material Support - what's considered normal or ideal varies with cultures. In my ideal, it should be balanced between who has the means to provide, and whoever doesn't, should facilitate to support the material support by taking on an expanded parenting role whenever possible.


I also think it's fair to say, that if men lived up to a higher standard and jad a reputation that purported they :

A. Didn't lie about their feelings or intentions to bed a woman

B. Were consistently faithful and less selfish in their choices romantically

C. Were materially capable of, and willing to support & parent their children

D. Predisposed to and skilled at fostering positive interpersonal communication and emotional support to the women they were involved with

then the case for men having no stake in the issue of abortion would be undermined by the logical conclusion that there would be less abortions because in the case of consenting adults who have a "scare" the reasons to not see a pregnancy through (outside of health related issues) are nullified.

Basically, if "men weren't dogs" as the saying goes, but Prince Charming most of the time, where would the case for elective abortion be?

Men share a hefty burden in this issue, and it doesn't take extreme examples, though they have their place. Not all men contribute to the problem, but negating ourselves from the issue when we think we don't creates a "false positive" response for those who would argue that men deserve no voice in the debate.

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9610 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Painaporo
Sea Post King


I find this to all be very interesting. Clearly I was mistaken when I assumed that Eisley would support women's rights. I had never really stopped to think about their politics until all this Texas/abortion stuff came up. It just sounded like a horrible law was being passed in Texas that aims to deny women of their legal right to control what they do with their own bodies (hello! Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut). I assumed, incorrectly, that a band of women from Texas might want to take a stand against such a thing.

I too am saddened by what I've read here. Not just about Eisley's stance on women's rights issues, but also that they probably don't believe in evolution. It raises some red flags where home schooling is concerned. Maybe they need a kickstarter to help fund a college education for Christie?

Now I'm worried about the band's position on gay rights too. It makes me cringe to think that I could have been buying music all these years from a band that doesn't believe in equal rights for all.

Like I said, I never really considered Eisley's political beliefs before yesterday. This thread has been extremely enlightening. Perhaps the reason Eisley doesn't talk much about their beliefs is that they are scared of offending people, which at this point seems like a totally legit decision.
Joined: 21 Jul 2004 | Posts: 15 | 
View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Display posts from previous:   



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB, coffee, and Eisley fans worldwide.
phpBB is © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group