The Runaways - classic or dud?

don't listen to Little steven's underground garage, because it's boring and he's a supreme asshole regularly and smugly inveighing against anything outside of his rockist agenda (man, 30 years ago, your goal was to end apartheid, and now you complain that kids don't play and listen to music the right way), but I happened to stop on it accidentally, and there was Kim Fowley's show, with him talking about the youngbloods or something…maybe someone at Sirius/XM should see to it that they don't play those shows anymore…heaven knows they have 100s of hours of Giorgio Gomelsky etc etc…

Re LL's "Imagine being a 13 year old": this is played out very explicitly in, of all things, School of Rock. (I'm at the library right now, and can't check the wording of the exchange--hopefully there's nothing that can be misconstrued, as I'm breaking my own pledge to stay clear of these threads at all costs.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHtTRUC2Drs

Feels like this is more a by product of the Hollywood machine than the sexual revolution to me. Stories of this nature were coming out of Hollywood as early as the 30s (okay maybe not NYE rape stories, but certainly similar tales of exploitation/abuse/cover up.)

― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Monday, July 13, 2015 10:33 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

maybe so: http://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/loretta-young

(buzzfeed longform, before you ask)

There's a Fowley interview done for Ugly Things magazine where he definitely frames things in terms of the sexual revolution. I won't quote from it - it's online.

I can definitely see Fowley framing (and excusing) things in that fashion. Just not sure how credible a reading it is.

I don't think the issue is whether it's credible, it's that the wide availability of contraception and the whole idea of women's liberation gave a lot of creeps a cover story. C'mon baby, loosen up, get in touch with your body, blah blah blah. The sexual revolution was real and necessary, but just destigmatizing extramarital sex without altering massive existing power differentials meant that lots of bad things were going to be justified (however dishonestly) in the name of freedom.

C'mon baby, loosen up, get in touch with your body, blah blah blah

"... why are you being so uptight and bourgeois?"

There's a whole chapter about this in Jonathon Green's "Days in the Life", about the UK underground in the 60s/70s.

real short hop from that to "you look tense, lemme rub your back"

I read a story a few years ago, maybe by Rob Lowe (?) about how being a teen in the 70's in LA was like being a pack of stray dogs (at least for some kids of wealthy families) - parents so burned out, disillusioned & self medicating to the point where they are completely checked out & the kids become free range mini adults because there's zero supervision & so much more trouble that you could get into in LA in those days, because of that permissiveness hangover

You mean, "the good ol' days"?

Basically the parents of the free range "what's the worst that can happen?" parents.

ie Robert Downey Sr.

parents so burned out, disillusioned & self medicating

altho really isn't LA still like this

It's the plot of Less Than Zero, right?

Foxes obvs!

lol

Foxes is such a weird movie

LA is still "like this" in terms of neglectful burnt out parents and children with too much money, but between uber and rehab society has definitely created some buffers since the 70s

yeah i didnt mean it was unique to LA,just that it was more heightened bcz of the 60's freelove burnout

real short hop from that to "you look tense, lemme rub your back"

― La Lechera, Monday, July 13, 2015 8:38 PM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^ a favorite line of creeps who want to creepily creep their hands up against the side of your boobs as recently as the early '00s (the last time I was single).

"I don't think the issue is whether it's credible, it's that the wide availability of contraception and the whole idea of women's liberation gave a lot of creeps a cover story."

Right and I'm not sure I find this terribly credible. I think Fowley's perceived industry influence was the "cover story" (as it is for most "creeps" of this type before and after).

When I said that, in that interview, he frames things in terms of the sexual revolution, I didn't mean that he was explaining himself in terms of the revolution's rhetoric. I simply meant that he speaks of the period favorably for some of those reasons.

Carl thx for bringing the clarity :)

re: "sexual revolution" vs "hollywood", this isn't a binary - power and cultural trends can both be exploited

I suppose folks were hoping for an Evil Stig Joan - the one who spoke out about Mia Zapata and not the one who covers that Gary Glitter pedo song and speaks through Kenny Laguna press releases/lawsuits.

Was Glitter a known child molester when she covered that song? More disgusted by dumbass companies who were still using it in adverts as late as a couple of years ago....

Reading up reminds me it was used in the biopic which shows pretty poor judgment on the part of all concerned frankly.

When was Glitter not a known child molester lets be honest. Pedo themes all thru his peak hits.

In fairness I think 99% of America doesn't hardly knew who he is but just recognizes the nah nah nah hey! song from sporting events

Glitter was a known child molester earlier this year when she was playing "Do You Wanna Touch Me There" in concert.

can we not with Gary Glitter

Maureen Herman's piece is really really excellent:

http://boingboing.net/2015/07/13/the-jackie-fox-rape-disclosure.html

wow

it makes me question some of my own reactions and I don't know that I 100% agree with all of it but fuckin excellent regardless

definitely cuts to the heart of the discussion

maureen herman's point about triggers for anger really otm -- that's why i posted about the backlog of rape kits. i'm glad that the backlog came to light, but it took determined reporting, relentless lobbying of state and local politicians, and unmeasurable amounts of emotional stamina to get them tested, finally. then, among other things, some women who had been raped in the early 90s got a call in 2014 that their rapist had -- finally!-- been identified. not only that, but they found over 200 repeat offenders/serial rapists. imagine how much trauma could have been spared. i'm angry that in my lifetime we are still not at a point where the law supports rape victims. i'm super pissed about it. i'm glad it came to light, but i'm super pissed it took so long. here's the interview with terry gross (with a transcript) -- http://www.npr.org/2015/05/19/407766821/reporting-on-rape-kit-backlog-leads-to-new-law-and-arrests-in-ohio

i'm pissed about kim fowley and joan jett, and i'm pissed that this happened to the runaways but more than anything i'm pissed that even if a victim does everything within their power, the power invested in the state to prevent rapists from raping doesn't have their back. that's fundamentally wrong.

booming post

ty

Evelyn McDonnell interviewed in Salon about the Fox story:

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/13/id_known_there_was_a_possibility_this_had_happened_runaways_biographer_evelyn_mcdonnell_on_rape_charges/

Need more interviews like that, and the Maureen Herman article

I just want a flood of this stuff that will disrupt or at least interrupt the monolithic conventional 'wisdom' that's out there

The story presents the victim as a sparkling, pure adolescent girl who was destroyed by a sexual assault, which is exactly what rapists want to accomplish. There is a lot of literature out there now that says that re-inscribes the act of rape. It gives the rapist the power again.

this is so otm

there's something i don't like abt cherkis w/r/t this piece

I'm hesitant to hit Cherkis too hard over this. Writing a piece like this had to have been an absolute minefield. You have 40 years of time past and differing recollections.

You have members of the band and entourage who likely feel complicit in the crime and/or in covering it up.

You have the optics and practicalities of at least two big stars who were part of the story – at least one of whom owes some chunk of her reputation to the accused.

You have the whole aesthetics of the band in the first place which was predicated on sexualizing young girls – and parents who let them go along with it.

And you have, as Cherkis has noted, the Rolling Stone clusterfuck, the true fallout of which we still probably don't understand as of yet.

All things considered, I think he did okay with this piece. I agree that it paints this picture of innocence being violated and possibly irreversibly tarnished. But isn't that, ultimately, what Fox herself says happened here?

That's another minefield with rape pieces in the media – not only are you trying to tell the truth and unmask the perpetrators but you are also becoming part of the victim's healing process itself. Hopefully making it better, but perhaps not.

Who is to say what the *right* approach is here? As a rule, I'd defer to the victim as they seem to have the most on the line. But as the RS piece showed, there are tremendous limitations and drawbacks to that approach.

There IS a right approach though! and it's been pretty clearly explained by these 2 women, both who know the Runaways

I think the tendency to write for the "story" and not for the person/people involved is what is problematic

I have more problems with the article now than at first, bc it took a while to process it all. But I was very jarred and annoyed by his barbs directed to the other runaways, turning into an us vs them split

It's not complicated to write about if you put the women first, if you are reflective enough to understand that the instinctive way to write about it may not be the best way. Shit gets a lot simpler if you serve THEM and not the story.

there seems to be a bit of paternalistic condescension from cherkis towards the others in the band, this "disappointment" in how they supposedly acted, even though it's obviously something that was traumatizing to all parties and everyone handles things in different ways and if there were drugs and alcohol involved combined with the PTSD, who knows what anyone actually remembers or is totally clear on?

I know the term may be seen as more of a buzz word but there is value in this instance having a writer who is an ally, who will help to speak *when they cannot articulate* - rather than a mouthpiece who says what "should" or "needs" to be said

what problems do you all see in the piece itself?

I don't disagree with you VG--I'd have to go back to see just to what extent Cherkis's authorial voice shames the other Runaways--but I do wonder if showing the behavior of the Runaways in the wake of the assault, with all the negative aspects, isn't an important act as well...? In a lot of ways this us a really peculiar situations--as many itt have noted, in a lot of ways the band itself could have only existed under a very specific set of circumstances, the particular time and place being only two of which--but in a situation where the manager assaults one of the band members in front of at least two other members, only for the rest of the band to end up identifying with him rather than her: to me, showing that is kind of crucial not only to convey the extent of the manipulation and exploitation and intimidation that these girls are subject to at the hands of Fowley, but ultimately to show how identification with the assailant was in fact another manifestation of the trauma. I do think that's where the article ends up, and I wonder if it would be obscured had the other hirls been portrayed in a more sympathetic light...

Otoh, I think McDonnell is otm about how Cherkis sentimentalizes Fuchs at least a little, which obscures the story in its own way. And obviously this terrible clickbait culture needs to bring some sort of salacious finger-pointing element to the surface, which nakes any kind of trafficking in ambiguity pretty much impossible. Cherie Currie doesn't appear to have found any redeeming aspect in the way she has been represented in the article so idk

Anyways, this was just what kind of came to mind when I read today's posts, what do you think VG?

No offense but I'm not really one for digging in? idk

I have said how I would have preferred Cherkis to handle the article and honestly it falls pretty much in line with what has already been said by Evelyn McConnell - and tbh she says it better than I could hope to articulate anyway

Ultimately he did help bring Jackie's story to light and that we can have the conversation at all is a good thing so I'm not gonna take to the rooftops over it or anything

Short version: I would be out of my depth if I dug in at any great length :)

i hope that didnt sound dickish