The title of this book really should be “Nobody Ever Asked Me about the [White] Girls”. To say I found this book unpleasant would be an understatement. I was thoroughly disappointed with how such a book could make it to publication. It’s so narrow in scope and frequently nasty for no reason.
Right out the gate it was not off to a good start. The entire first chapter is made up of blurbs detailing the start of various female artists. It's tedious because there's not enough info to be a full summary and it's random facts for each with no consistency across the board. The arbitrary length of the blurbs doesn’t help. Lauryn Hill gets like three sentences about her performance on Star Search while Beyonce and Katy Perry get a lengthy paragraph dedicated to their background and use actual quotes from them and everything. I was confused as to why this was needed in the first place as it was nothing I couldn’t have found myself through casual research.
However, my number one issue is how much this book lacks intersectionality.
Everything Robinson discusses is filtered through the lens of her limited white perspective. Obviously, this book is using her experiences as a music journalist as a foundation so it makes sense that her opinions will set the tone for the subject matter. But, the synopsis and Robinson herself act as if this book is going to be an in depth critique of how all female musicians are treated in the industry. If it’s meant to be all female musicians then I expect Robinson to step outside of herself to ensure she’s not unwittingly operating solely off of her own bias. Like it or not, race is a defining factor in how musicians in general, let alone the female ones, are treated in the industry. To not investigate this difference when applicable means the book is inherently flawed.
In the synopsis two Black artists are name dropped giving the impression that the usage of artists used will be balanced. In reality 90% of the artists she discusses are white female rock artists.. Her idolization of Janis Joplin is dripping from every page. She even calls her the world’s first female rock star which while technically true ignores the theft of rock n roll out from underneath Black people that made that fact possible. Janis wouldn’t be the first if Sister Rosetta Tharpe was given her due. That’s not to say Janis doesn’t deserve acclaim for her own pioneering contributions and to be fair, Robinson does use qualifiers to imply she knows this isn’t correct. Still, why use qualifiers instead of outright stating it to be false? Not everyone is going to be able to pick up on clues or is aware of the long storied history of appropriation regarding Black music.
When it comes to Black artists she sticks primarily to recent acts and the same two or three at that. For example, at one point when talking about hair and makeup standards being so ridiculous she uses Rihanna despite all the surrounding examples being white women in the 60s to the 80s. Why couldn't she have interjected with an example from a Black artist who was current at the time period she's discussing? Janet Jackson would have been perfect here rather than relegated to a single mention 62% of the way into the book - a wild realization for me seeing how influential she has been on the musical landscape.
Her lack of inclusivity ultimately makes for an incomplete conversation. Look at the chapter on the pitfalls of fame. She doesn't discuss at all how much worse it is to be a famous woman of color. The fetishization of your race quadruples the objectification not to mention the average ‘normal’ racism. Nor does she discuss the burden of being Black and needing to be famous as one of the few means of making it out of poverty or the stress of supporting your entire family. The artist can be grateful for the fame yet feels guilty for not wanting it or feels they have to put on the front of being happy because it's what they asked for. Robinson tries to say in a previous chapter we've come far using the fact that unlike in decades past Lizzo has been allowed to be on the cover of magazines as a measurement for it.
Only to then completely ignore how much shaming and fat phobia Lizzo has faced for it or the toll on her emotional state which Lizzo has been extremely forthcoming about. She restricts the entire chapter to a basic 'fame bad, women long for days before fame'. It’s not like she’s wrong, but she's missing a ton of much needed nuance to the situation by centering the topic exclusively around white women.
The chapter on business marks a spike in anecdotes about Black women. Too bad it’s 72% into the book. It’s almost like she forgot to talk about them and needed to make up for it. In the same chapter she uses Black women to make a point about the industry being shady only to reduce it to their sexuality selling and a demonization of rap and hip-hop. The demonization of rap and hip-hop for the same exact practices other musical genres engage in is well documented. Rap and Hip-hop deserve criticism for their failings, however, it’s interesting that the other genres don’t get half as much smoke as the ones with predominantly Black artists at the helm.
Case in point, she singles out Hip Hop albums as having tons of writers working on them as a thinly veiled attempt to cast its validity as a genre into question. But, like so does rock? As well as pop? That's a reflection of how songwriting as an art is becoming less valued. It's not genre based.
She doesn't speak at all about men of color when she casually speaks about white men for comparisons’ sake regularly. It makes me question her reach as a music journalist like were they really not sending her to talk to Black people? Or is it a personal blind spot at play here? I’m willing to blame the music industry too because it’s well known it’s a corrupt institution. I just think she needs to be more open about it if that were true.
Outside of race, are other aspects Robinson has allowed her point of view to skew.
Like the chapter on sex. Robinson is a monogamy isn’t natural kind of person. I already disagree heavily as I believe neither sexual proclivity - monogamy vs polyamory - should be pushed as the one true option. It’s a personal choice everyone has to make for themselves based on what’s comfortable. There is no one size fits all.
She then goes onto assert that when people say that their husband is their best friend it means that they aren't having sex any more? First off, that is an extremely conservative look at relationships. Your partner should ALWAYS be a good friend to you. I won’t say your best friend because people get different things from different people and sometimes it’s fine to not have your partner be the end all be all for you in terms of relationships. But, it’s a great thing if your best friend is your partner. It does not at all have anything to do with your sexual activity.
Now more than ever we are trying to shift the discourse surrounding heterosexual relationships. It is far healthier to have a best friend as a partner. It’s harmful to perpetuate the idea that there is some arbitrary point when two people get too comfortable so the sex dies. There is no level of ‘too comfortable’ to have sex in the confines of a romantic relationship. There are other factors that contribute to a breakdown of sex. Actually, liking one another a lot is absolutely not one of them.
Her overall point seems to be that a lot of people lie about their sex lives. I agree on that front. Where I diverge is I don't think it's a sign of weakness or a sign of a major deficit if you have to work to have more sex when it ebbs. Having a schedule can be helpful for people as life piles up. There’s no reason to degrade what other people do as long as it’s not harmful.
It's also telling that she doesn't even use polyamory or open relationships as alternatives. All she says is that relationships absolutely don’t work.
I cannot possibly see how someone basically implying that ALL people should solely be engaging in one night stands because trying to maintain a relationship is a fool's errand can be considered anything other than jaded and overly self involved. Just looking at it statistically it makes no sense to apply such a metric to everyone.
Secondly, this goes back to my initial point about the whiteness embedded at the core of the book. Promoting hook-ups, one night stands, and situationships as committed relationships are somehow 'unempowering' or 'anti-feminist' is such a white feminist way of viewing the world. Historically marriage has been rooted in female empowerment for Black women or women of color because unlike white women we were not able to marry with a measure of autonomy like them.
Promiscuity inherently is weighted against women in general, but it's a whole other ball game for women of color where we have to consider fetishization, safety and accessibility to an extent white women rarely have to. Yeah a bunch of white women in the 80s rock scene might have feared and faced unfair judgment for their sex lives. On the flip side is as long as they didn't care or ignored the judgment they could typically find willing sex partners. Admittedly the caliber is a different story, though, they still had plenty of viable options. Black women could not do the same because the recrimination would be twice as toxic as well as abundantly more likely to kill their career and they wouldn't have nearly as much as a choice in terms of offerings. White women view their ability to do whatever they want with no consideration for others as freeing because they aspire to be like white cisgender males whereas women of color tend to be more collectivist with their concerns.
In the end of the book I was stunned by the revelation that she was married for 49 years and was married until her husband died. Where did all that 'we aren't made for monogamy’ come from then? She talked of each cheating on one another so I suppose that soured her on the concept to some extent. But, it further solidified in my mind that she was using that rationale to justify her personal failings i.e. their inability to stay faithful to one another. That doesn't make monogamy bad. It merely means it was bad for them, the two were just poor partners or their feelings about divorcing outweighed the cheating.
This is more beef with how Robinson thinks of relationships, which is her prerogative. Still, since that opinion informs her outlook as a whole I feel comfortable speaking on it.
Bear with me, I’m going to let a little of my inner Swiftie out for a moment. Lisa Robinson joins the hordes of elitists who hate Taylor Swift for twisted reasons that boil down to buying into misogynistic rhetoric against her. I’m not saying you can’t hate Taylor Swift. She has done plenty of problematic things. For all my love for her I fully acknowledge she’s the embodiment of white feminism. Or maybe you just don’t like her music. Perfectly fine, not all music is for everyone. What I am saying is that there is a certain way certain people talk about her that lets you know their criticism is in bad faith.
She specifically states of a complimentary article about her '”how dare anyone think [Taylor] and Joni Mitchell be mentioned in the same sentence or be part of the same species or on the same planet is laughable'. I have never listened to Joni Mitchell though I do know she’s highly praised. I can’t speak to her quality. I do know Taylor Swift who is a great songwriter especially for her age. We can argue about it all day long - it’s subjective. Still, Taylor Swift has rightfully been acclaimed for it by legitimate sources for years. She may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but there’s no arguing she’s got the goods. I don’t think this level of derision is warranted.
She goes onto say ‘[Taylor Swift]made a fool of herself with an inane song called Welcome to New York'. Why even bring this up? Is it the pinnacle of songwriting. No. Is it a cute, snappy tune that reflects Taylor’s specific mindset at that time? Yes. So what’s the problem?
She’s not half as critical about the other singers as she is about Taylor Swift. It's also interesting how she's all judgy about Taylor Swift for making sure she has perfectly paparazzi curated outfits when going to and from the gym right after a whole chapter where she said that she has so much sympathy for female performers today who are under so much strain based on their looks. Yet, she derides Taylor whose clearly terrified of what the media will say about her if she’s seen as less than perfect. It’s a defense mechanism and a fear response. She’s contemptuous of Taylor for being happy in what she calls her little gilded cage as if there isn’t bucket loads of evidence about how awful the impact of fame has been on Taylor Swift.
She's so considerate of the struggles of every other artist yet is so catty about Taylor Swift. Right after Taylor she brings up Beyonce but because she respects her music she lets her off even though Beyonce has done equally as performative gestures as Taylor Swift.
She does this again, to a lesser degree, later in the book with a snide remark about Britney Spears not having as much talent as Aretha Franklin. Whether or not I agree isn't the point, it's that it doesn't add anything to mention that she thinks so in this context because it's such a throwaway remark. Her providing her own opinion about being childfree and not believing in monogamy are expanding on her viewpoint going into her interviews or on the topic at hand. A rude comment to make her contempt clear is unnecessary. If this were a memoir I'd argue it was mean-spirited, but she'd have every right to say it since memoirs by definition reflect the innermost thoughts of a person whatever they may be.
Many chapters are rehashes of the same issue. None of the information she presents is particularly new. All that she has to say on motherhood, beauty, abuse, etc in the confines of the music industry has been said before in better ways. The writing style is stiff and detached.
I have nothing good to say about this book. Steer clear or suffer the consequences. You have been warned.