Also I can't for the life of me understand why you think this has no artistic merit.

Even if you take away your issues with her being a woman, I can understand not liking this album, but not claiming that there is no art here whatsoever.

And if it were made by a man, it probably would've sounded a lot differently given how much of the music is directly related to her experience as a woman and her woman voice. If it were made by a man with similar experiences and it were as good, it would probably be like a Xiu Xiu record and I'd like it just as much, given that it's just as good.

For me the "no artistic merit" argument should really be reserved for the ultra generic and derivative. I can see an "Is this art?" argument being applied to this record for some, but to me though it's not even that weird or avant-garde.

Written by Mercurial on 27.08.2019 at 14:02

I guess I'll expand on your point a little more because it invites more questions.

Metal hasn't become more poppy. What it has done is expand toward both extremes. A lot of metal has an extemity not found in older bands; the inclusion of noise, hyper-dissonance and other unpalatable elements is something specific to modern metal. Doom, black, death and others can be a hell of a lot more extreme than they used to be so I'd say your argument is somewhat void.

Also, the notion that preferring melodic or poppy music is more superficial is not something I can really get behind. A person can personally love their poppy power metal as I love my dissonant black metal, or maybe more. I think the idea of superficiality comes from this false notion of working for what you like or being in a niche: "I like dissonant black metal because I understand bleh bleh musical structures and flumph textures and grebebbenn tonality" etc. For me personal taste is just that: personal. People flocking to some of the poppier sides of metal doesn't to me engender a "superficial" tag, it just means they have taste which is easier to appeal to.

Metal has become more accessible and poppy, particularly after the mid 90s when innovation has kinda stopped due to various reasons, but particularly because technology has kinda stopped evolving in this regard and that metal music as a musical genre kinda reached the its development peak. You just couldn't play faster than what has already been played or slower than what has already been played until then. As such, the only way it could go was down.

There are today essentially two sides in the metal spectrum, the happy-go-lucky-pop-leaning sub-genres such as power metal, symphonic metal, modern gothic metal, melodic metal, etc. and the edgelord type of music composed of the other extreme atonal death metal bands, caveman black metal, etc. with very little in between. As Tom Angelripper said in an interview long ago, essentially 80% of the metal bands play a variation of pop with distorted guitars.

Of course, nothing wrong with playing pop metal. I like some too. But saying that today metal is stronger than ever before is a travesty. In quantity, it is. There are probably more metal bands today and more metal music today than it has ever been before. But the quality has dipped seriously. And since the offer is so strong today, it is becoming harder and harder to search for quality in metal music as a lot of capable bands are overshadowed by crappy ones but with more popularity and exposure. The golden age of metal was in the 80s to mid 90s. That is when the there was a huge number of high quality bands and high quality music being released, particularly after the advent of thrash who made a small revolution within the heavy metal music genre. After this period, the number of quality bands and releases have diminished year by year. Of course, there are still good bands and good albums, but compared to the offer, they are very few.

Written by ManiacBlasphemer on 27.08.2019 at 14:40

Metal has become more accessible and poppy, particularly after the mid 90s when innovation has kinda stopped due to various reasons, but particularly because technology has kinda stopped evolving in this regard and that metal music as a musical genre kinda reached the its development peak. You just couldn't play faster than what has already been played or slower than what has already been played until then. As such, the only way it could go was down.

There are today essentially two sides in the metal spectrum, the happy-go-lucky-pop-leaning sub-genres such as power metal, symphonic metal, modern gothic metal, melodic metal, etc. and the edgelord type of music composed of the other extreme atonal death metal bands, caveman black metal, etc. with very little in between. As Tom Angelripper said in an interview long ago, essentially 80% of the metal bands play a variation of pop with distorted guitars.

Of course, nothing wrong with playing pop metal. I like some too. But saying that today metal is stronger than ever before is a travesty. In quantity, it is. There are probably more metal bands today and more metal music today than it has ever been before. But the quality has dipped seriously. And since the offer is so strong today, it is becoming harder and harder to search for quality in metal music as a lot of capable bands are overshadowed by crappy ones but with more popularity and exposure. The golden age of metal was in the 80s to mid 90s. That is when the there was a huge number of high quality bands and high quality music being released, particularly after the advent of thrash who made a small revolution within the heavy metal music genre. After this period, the number of quality bands and releases have diminished year by year. Of course, there are still good bands and good albums, but compared to the offer, they are very few.

Well that's definitely an opinion. It's not one I feel requires a rebuttal though given how personal that opinion is. Needless to say it's one that doesn't resonate with my tastes and perception of metal as a current state.

The "edgelord" comments really don't help with the merits your case though. I find it weird that anyone making a point wouldn't look back on that and think "Yeah, that kinda tanks the validity of everything else I was saying a bit" but maybe that's just me.

Written by RaduP on 27.08.2019 at 14:32

Will I be the first one to notice that the person who complains about metal being poppy and commercial is the one with the Kamelot profile pic?

Which I stated that I like some pop metal too. For some reason my last comment got deleted.

EDIT: Actually not, it passed to the other page. LOL

I still can't wait to hear some metal made by gamers, the true oppressed folk

Written by RaduP on 27.08.2019 at 14:35

Also I can't for the life of me understand why you think this has no artistic merit.

Even if you take away your issues with her being a woman, I can understand not liking this album, but not claiming that there is no art here whatsoever.

And if it were made by a man, it probably would've sounded a lot differently given how much of the music is directly related to her experience as a woman and her woman voice. If it were made by a man with similar experiences and it were as good, it would probably be like a Xiu Xiu record and I'd like it just as much, given that it's just as good.

You presume I have an issue with her being a woman. I don't. I just noticed that her being a woman has a lot to with her popularity. If you can find art in her music then good for you. I don't.

The music essentially evokes no emotion other than boredom. I don't find emotion or some life experience in elevator music with weird vocalizing. Had it been made by a man with or without similar circumstances, it wouldn't have even a quarter of this artist's exposure and most likely it would have went beyond the radar. Even beyond your radar. And my radar too.

Written by ManiacBlasphemer on 25.08.2019 at 17:05

No music here folks. Avoid. This stuff is just bad. I gave it a few spins trying to find a reason why this artist is so hyped these days but this is mostly edgelord material. Probably most people have a tendency to be sympathetic with her due to her dramatic situations she has been through (the review done here underlines it even), but there is no redeeming musical quality in this record. Minimalist for the sake of it, ugly for the sake of it, it tries to be overtly emotional but in the end falls flat as the music is of low quality. Some tracks feel like somebody having a mental breakdown on ambient music. Had it been a man making this shit up it would've went beyond the radar. Since it is a woman with tragic past, it attracted many flies.

This is laughable almost to the point of being painful. It's almost as if you have no understanding whatsoever of the context within which Kristin's (Lingua Ignota) music originates. You seemingly are aware of the fact that she's a woman who's survived domestic abuse, but you don't understand in the slightest why that past results in the type of music she makes or generates the type of positive feedback that it's receiving.

Yes, Kristin is a survivor of physical abuse at the hands of men, she documents and explains it in several interviews. So of course her music is minimalist, ugly, and overtly emotional, not for the sake of just being those things for no reason but for the purpose of recreating the anguish and emotional turmoil that such experiences have put her through. I'm not sure what other type of music you would expect to reinforce a lyrical theme such as this: something pretty and flowery and polished? Prog metal perhaps? That simply does not work for the theme the way harsh noise and operatic darkwave do, sorry to tell you. You say there's nothing redeeming in it, I personally find it bold and courageous, and indeed beautiful in a way because it means Kristin has managed to take negative, traumatizing experiences and turn them into something positive and personally fulfilling. And that serves "revenge" against abusers like no act of physical or verbal retaliation ever possibly could.

Yes, I'm well aware that in your imaginary fantasy world where feminists are the enemy of all men and any claim by a woman of abuse at the hands of men must be some sort of evil Feminazi conspiracy, a woman doing what Kristin is doing with her music elicits little more than grumbles and eye rolls from you. But you make the point that "had this been made by a man it would've went beyond the radar" and that is just an absolutely ridiculous comment that reeks of entitlement worthy of the MRA movement. Do you even grasp that men do not suffer domestic abuse and harassment at the hands of men the way that women historically have and still do, and that women discussing their abuse at the hands of men in an open manner is a relatively recent phenomenon within society? Understandably so, due to women outing men for their violence still being a somewhat under discussed area (much less one that results in creative outlets such as Lingua Ignota), combined with the fact that there is something of a greater societal interest in women telling tales of their abuse, this album receives the attention that it does.

It seriously blows my mind that you need this explained to you and that instead of trying to understand why this artist and album are eliciting such a positive response from people, you instead bitch about "oh if a man had made this it'd be getting no attention." A classic move of sexists is to whine about things that women can do that don't gather the same kind of response when men do them and to question why that is, so thank you for showing your true colors in so blatant a manner.

Written by Mercurial on 27.08.2019 at 14:39

I can see an "Is this art?" argument being applied to this record for some, but to me though it's not even that weird or avant-garde.

I don't think I'd call it Avant-garde either but then again, what else really sounds like Lingua Ignota? I'd say Diamanda Galas is probably the easiest comparison but even that's a little flat as Lingua is a lot more noisey and abrasive.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 19.09.2019 at 02:18

I don't think I'd call it Avant-garde either but then again, what else really sounds like Lingua Ignota? I'd say Diamanda Galas is probably the easiest comparison but even that's a little flat as Lingua is a lot more noisey and abrasive.

Not much. Her sound is fairly unique, but I guess I found it almost straight forward in an odd sort of way, in that her sound followed certain expectations I had when listening to it. I guess that could be construed as "predictable" in a roundabout way, though I wouldn't use the word in this case personally.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 18.09.2019 at 23:39

bla bla bla

Bla, bla, bla. All this wall of text about her issues with domestic violence and not a single argument about her music. Thanks for confirming my views. The overtly focus on her extra-musical background pretty much shows that the hype is non-musical related. And it is a given. There is no music whatsoever to be found here. Put a a randomly picked hobo from the street with a history of physical abuse, make him scream like a moron (on elevator music) in the mic some sentimental or nihilistic shenanigans and voila, you are an artiste! A great musician! Creme de la creme! My ass!

This purely ideologically driven, and the attention she got from the media, even mainstream media is merely for her background, not for the music (there is no music anyway). When a toilet paper such as The Guardian goes the extra mile to write articles about you, then you know this is ideologically driven. Another wannabe artiste, selling her past as a sob story to sell a few more records.

Those negative, traumatizing experiences should have been taken to a shrink, not to a musical studio. I wouldn't have bothered writing that comment had this been decent music, but there is no music at all. Just edgelord material posing as music and a lot of NPC's praising her non-talent. Even they are hypocritical as they focus a lot more on her background than on her music. Figures, when there is no music to analyze, you venture into non-musical fields to explain how you like her 'music'.

Men historically speaking have been suffering more abuse than you would ever imagine. Not from women, but from other men especially. And historically they have always been discarded. Their needs have always been met with disdain by society in favor of protecting women, who are (sometimes rightfully so) viewed as weak (yeah, feminists won't admit it, but they love posing as victims when the situation requires, so much for the concept of independent women). Anyway, the feminist movement died the moment women received the same rights as men, and that was about 70 years ago in most of the Western world. Since then we have Feminazis, seeking to impose ideological agenda and wanting to obtain privileges towards their own gender, at the expense of the other gender (and yes, there are 2 genders only, not 27 as some Commiefornia moron would like to say).

Spare me the explanation. You only confirmed my thoughts about this. I was willing to doubt my impression at first, but after I read your senseless text that is just a mindless NPC-like explanation about how her music is great because society has a great interest in hearing her story, that pretty much confirmed that there is no music here. I will repeat once again. Had it been a healthy young man with a non-abusive past making this music, it would have gone unnoticed. But since the 'artiste' has a vagina (or not?) and a sob-story to tell you have the perfect hipster fodder recipe. Music may not always sell, but sob-stories do, particularly in these leftist-infested 'muh feelings' society of today.

Socio-political (and feminist lol) debate aside, this did absolutely nothing for me. I knew ahead of time it wouldn't as the review explained exactly what I wouldn't like about it, so kudos for that, but I like to give things a chance before writing them off now that I'm older. I enjoy steamed veggies so who knows if noise and drone and whatnot will tickle my fancy some day.

I think a significant reason the discussion takes place about her trauma as opposed to her music is that, really, there isn't much to discuss musically about this album. At least not for me and the majority of people out there. Che and Radu may be able to dissect differences between noise and drone, but it's all just buzzing guitars and ambience to me. So when her story becomes slightly more known outside of metal circles, people have no clue how to discuss her music. Even people with more insight into extreme music struggle to describe this kind of thing. Don't blame mainstream media for not publishing a dissertation on the merits of drone music and where she falls on the chart of best all-time artists within the genre. The editor probably just learned the other day that noise is an actual name for a genre and not just what comes out of the bullpen. So of course, they resort to the story behind the music.

Trauma is morally relative -- we all experience it in our own way. If she gets any sense of solace or closure by expressing her trauma through her art, then good for her, as it's good for any man or woman who does so. What other people enjoy and for what reason, especially when it comes to music, really shouldn't drive anyone to such levels of personal anguish and stress. But I understand the ability to find and argue the politics in anything. I have early grey hairs from doing that throughout my early 20s.

Just chill. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head and made them listen to this as far as I know. (Radu, blink twice if this review was written under any precarious circumstances.)

Written by Troy Killjoy on 19.09.2019 at 09:00

Socio-political (and feminist lol) debate aside, this did absolutely nothing for me. I knew ahead of time it wouldn't as the review explained exactly what I wouldn't like about it, so kudos for that, but I like to give things a chance before writing them off now that I'm older. I enjoy steamed veggies so who knows if noise and drone and whatnot will tickle my fancy some day.

I think a significant reason the discussion takes place about her trauma as opposed to her music is that, really, there isn't much to discuss musically about this album. At least not for me and the majority of people out there. Che and Radu may be able to dissect differences between noise and drone, but it's all just buzzing guitars and ambience to me. So when her story becomes slightly more known outside of metal circles, people have no clue how to discuss her music. Even people with more insight into extreme music struggle to describe this kind of thing. Don't blame mainstream media for not publishing a dissertation on the merits of drone music and where she falls on the chart of best all-time artists within the genre. The editor probably just learned the other day that noise is an actual name for a genre and not just what comes out of the bullpen. So of course, they resort to the story behind the music.

Trauma is morally relative -- we all experience it in our own way. If she gets any sense of solace or closure by expressing her trauma through her art, then good for her, as it's good for any man or woman who does so. What other people enjoy and for what reason, especially when it comes to music, really shouldn't drive anyone to such levels of personal anguish and stress. But I understand the ability to find and argue the politics in anything. I have early grey hairs from doing that throughout my early 20s.

Just chill. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head and made them listen to this as far as I know. (Radu, blink twice if this review was written under any precarious circumstances.)

I can understand not being moved by the album, whether because you're not much into the genre in general or just not into this one in particular. I can't understand thinking that there's no artistic merit to it.

Caligula would've been a really good album even without its background, but it is because of it that its emotional impact feels more authentic. An album about abuse is of course going to be tied to the abuse of the person who made it. The same reason why something like A Crow Looked At Me is so emotionally impactful, it would seem really off if it was just some dude making an album about the death of his wife without that actually happening. The difference is that Caligula has more purely musical merit than A Crow Looked At Me while also having almost as much emotion from its background, but it would stand on its feet about as well if you completely ignore that.

The politics about why this is promoted instead of something else is just empty whataboutism.

Written by RaduP on 19.09.2019 at 11:25
I can't understand thinking that there's no artistic merit to it.

Caligula would've been a really good album even without its background, but it is because of it that its emotional impact feels more authentic. An album about abuse is of course going to be tied to the abuse of the person who made it. The same reason why something like A Crow Looked At Me is so emotionally impactful, it would seem really off if it was just some dude making an album about the death of his wife without that actually happening. The difference is that Caligula has more purely musical merit than A Crow Looked At Me while also having almost as much emotion from its background, but it would stand on its feet about as well if you completely ignore that.

The politics about why this is promoted instead of something else is just empty whataboutism.

You won't catch me claiming anything is without artistic merit. Originality has artistic merit. Derivation has artistic merit. Parody has artistic merit. Life is art, and thus has merit. Music has an inherent artistic merit. It just happens to be extremely subjective and so one person's trash is another's treasure type of situation -- or vice versa.

You say this would be a good album even without the background. For me, this is... un-listenable. I went in with an open mind, as there are times where drone- or noise-related albums have pleased me, but there was absolutely nothing I wanted to do with this after 2 tracks. I continued merely out of curiosity, but it killed this cat.

That said, I'm glad she has an audience of willing listeners. I'm happy that you and others found something in her music that spoke to you. It didn't for me, but that's the beauty of subjectivity. What I think is a masterpiece you might think is bottom of the barrel trash.

What I can say is that my opinion was formed independent of any political nonsense. I more closely align with Che's stance when it comes to separating art from artist. I was separate from her life story from the start, and the music didn't do anything to bridge that gap for me. Then again, that's why I don't claim to know much about this style or attempt to review it. It's like asking me to review power metal (which has happened before).

Written by RaduP on 19.09.2019 at 11:25

Caligula would've been a really good album even without its background, but it is because of it that its emotional impact feels more authentic. An album about abuse is of course going to be tied to the abuse of the person who made it.

The politics about why this is promoted instead of something else is just empty whataboutism.

Thank you for making this point so I didn't have to.

In ManiacBlasphemer's response rant to me above, he claims that my comment include no discussion of her artistic merit whatsoever. Frankly, I didn't feel I had to, as the fact that I'm defending her should be clue enough that I feel she has artistic merit. Shouldn't that go without saying? And as you said, it's not Kristin's background of abuse that makes her album good, the album is good enough already and it's the expression of her background in such a spine chilling, dramatic manner that is a part of what makes it so good. That's the key idea here behind why people are enjoying it so. We're not just mindless idiots who get immediately aroused by albums from female abuse survivors purely because they're albums from female abuse survivors, as Mr. Blashphemer would believe.

I think an issue some people may find with this album as well, as Troy sort of mentioned, isn't so much the idea of "oh this is only receiving attention because it's made by a female survivor of abuse" but because of the type of music Kristin has chosen as a medium of artistic expression. I maintain that that type of music is a lot more suitable for such topics, than, say, symphonic metal or power metal or prog or something more technical and "pretty sounding" would be. But Troy is right in implying that if one isn't much of a fan of drone, ambient music, or noise industrial in the first place, one probably won't get much out of it. And that's totally fine. Different strokes.

But don't try to tell me the album is only receiving attention because of the background of the artist, or descend into fallacious arguments about how it would be received differently if the person making it had a penis, no domestic abuse background, etc. That's a pile of rubbish. You do not see me going to party dude thrash albums on here whining about "oh this album wouldn't have gotten any attention if it had been stay at home housewives making it." So that foolish rhetoric can get shoved right back where it came from as far as I'm concerned.

Written by ManiacBlasphemer on 19.09.2019 at 08:23

"There is no music whatsoever to be found here."

"on elevator music"

Hmmmm

Written by ManiacBlasphemer on 19.09.2019 at 08:23

Men historically speaking have been suffering more abuse than you would ever imagine. Not from women, but from other men especially. And historically they have always been discarded. Their needs have always been met with disdain by society in favor of protecting women, who are (sometimes rightfully so) viewed as weak (yeah, feminists won't admit it, but they love posing as victims when the situation requires, so much for the concept of independent women). Anyway, the feminist movement died the moment women received the same rights as men, and that was about 70 years ago in most of the Western world. Since then we have Feminazis, seeking to impose ideological agenda and wanting to obtain privileges towards their own gender, at the expense of the other gender (and yes, there are 2 genders only, not 27 as some Commiefornia moron would like to say).

Wow, it's almost as if you're ignoring centuries of history of women being barred from voting and holding property, driving, inheriting the property of their husbands, being raped, tortured, stoned, and beaten without consequence, being required to throw themselves on the funeral pyres at their husbands' funeral and more examples of how women have tended to receive drastically lower sociocultural privileges than men in global society practically since the Neolithic revolution. It's also almost as if you're ignoring the fact that many of these phenomenons still take place regularly in today's world, perhaps not so much in the Western world but certainly elsewhere. And yes, in case you were wondering, Western society is not representative of global society as a whole, especially when nearly 4 billion of the planet's 7 billion people reside in the Eastern hemisphere.

Traditionally, over time there have been two major groups that often ignore history and observable facts on the ground for the sake of legitimizing their own bias-fueled rhetoric and their absurdly asinine revisionism: racists and sexists. In light of the quoted comment I have no doubt as to which of those two groups you fall into. You thank me for proving the points you made about the album? I'll thank you for responding in exactly the manner I predicted you would, exaggerating as usual and drawing up a whole host of absurd points about history and society from the emasculated, self pitying male perspective that are virtually unrelated to the initial conversation.

Ah, the rotten, disgusting, racist and misogynistic underbelly of metal that keeps making me feel like shit for just existing, long time no see.
For one this makes me want to listen to this. No matter what I will end up thinking about the music, it's great to see albums like this seeing the light of day.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 19.09.2019 at 16:24

Wow, it's almost as if you're ignoring centuries of history of women being barred from voting and holding property, driving, inheriting the property of their husbands, being raped, tortured, stoned, and beaten without consequence, being required to throw themselves on the funeral pyres at their husbands' funeral and more examples of how women have tended to receive drastically lower sociocultural privileges than men in global society practically since the Neolithic revolution. It's also almost as if you're ignoring the fact that many of these phenomenons still take place regularly in today's world, perhaps not so much in the Western world but certainly elsewhere. And yes, in case you were wondering, Western society is not representative of global society as a whole, especially when nearly 4 billion of the planet's 7 billion people reside in the Eastern hemisphere.

Traditionally, over time there have been two major groups that often ignore history and observable facts on the ground for the sake of legitimizing their own bias-fueled rhetoric and their absurdly asinine revisionism: racists and sexists. In light of the quoted comment I have no doubt as to which of those two groups you fall into. You thank me for proving the points you made about the album? I'll thank you for responding in exactly the manner I predicted you would, exaggerating as usual and drawing up a whole host of absurd points about history and society from the emasculated, self pitying male perspective that are virtually unrelated to the initial conversation.

You also conveniently overlook the fact that democracy and human rights are essentially new constructs. They have barely prevailed in the Western world 100 years and overall in the world, democracies outnumbered autocracies only since the 2000s. Expecting women rights in a period when human rights were unknown is rather comical. Women rights came, part and parcel with the declaration of human rights, but it took time to reach this stage. The process of democratizing a society takes time.

Also, there is a reason why societies functioned the way they functioned like that for thousands of years. You are only spouting the same all socialist propaganda about women being historically discriminating, overlooking the fact that maybe, maybe, they were also contempt with their status. After all, they were not obliged to join military service, they were not obliged to get a job, they were not obliged to do any kind of intellectual or crafting job. Essentially, their task was reduced to taking care of the household. Many women even today choose this lifestyle. Sure, there might have been the occasional woman breaking the bubble, but exceptions only enforce the rule. The vast majority of women were cozy with their status and it was only when the paradigm within their own society shifted that they started to want more and to overcome their social status. Same as when before the Neolithic revolution, there was a transition from a matriarchy to a patriarchy (for some reasons as well). Even before the Neolithic period the role of women was primordial, and the role of men was essentially to protect them as a higher number of deaths among females would mean the end of the community. This attitude was perpetuated throughout millennia, even after the Neolithic revolution, the only change being that the role of men become more important while the role of women shifted from being the leader of the community to that of the leader of a particular household BUT dependent on men, who were the ones who were, until recently, bringing revenue and the resources for both of them to survive and to build a family. It was the impulse of protecting women against danger that lead some societies to impose more draconian limits on women, however the consensus is that, for a sane society to thrive, it was essential to find an equilibrium between giving women the freedom to choose her path in life and the necessity to protect them and meet their needs. While in the past, the focus was on protecting them and ensuring their needs are met, in the last 200 years, with the advent of democracy, the focus became more balanced, shifting more towards allowing them more freedom. However, the idea that the restrictions that were imposed on them was to turn them into mere objects is false and contrary to the way human society has been built since the advent of civilization. Back then, as it still is now, women and children have always come first in dire need.

You are also ignoring some facts too. Women earn less than men, they are net beneficiaries (and not because the society pays them less, but because choices and human nature). Women are not obliged to enroll in a military service (men do, particularly in times of war when forced conscription may be enforced). Women are most likely to be granted child custody, 95% of the time. Women live longer and spend fewer years working than men, proportionally with their life expectancy. 93% of casualties at workplace are men (a man is 20 times more likely to die at work than a woman). Woman needs were prioritized in policies related to suicidal prevention (the number of male suicides is 4 times higher than female suicides), domestic violence (although about a third of victims are men), sexual abuse (about a half are men, especially young boys), institutional sexism (being sexist or harassing a male is halal, a woman is haram), educational investment (leaning towards educating women more than men, thus explaining the explosion of the female demographic in universities), homeless shelters (vast majority of homeless people are men), new workplaces financed by the government, etc. So how can you say that women are less important than men, when the needs of women were and still are prioritized by the state and the society overall and men continue to be viewed as disposable? Want more? Car accidents kill more than four times as many men as women. Men don't readily seek support in their concerns or insecurities which loads them to isolation and depression. Most sexually transmitted diseases are higher among men than women; as many as one in eight admissions to hospital casualty departments is alcohol related and most of the patients male. Drug addiction among men is also doubling every 10 years. One in three men dies from heart attack or stroke. Four times as many men die from prostate cancer as the number of women who die from cervical cancer; men die every year from testicular cancer, almost none of whom needed to die had they acted in time; and, although more women than men get melanoma, it nonetheless kills more men than women.

The only thing feminism succeeded in doing is to make men put everyone above them, especially women. Security and aid given to women, their material and emotional welfare are above everything else. In fact they are now an entitlement. In fact feminism is nothing more than the modern term of what used to be, in medieval times old school chivalry. Both concepts are built on female egotism. But it was in the interest of humanity for females to be egotistic and males to be sacrificial pawns. However this dynamic is outdated, as our species is no longer in danger of going extinct like it was centuries or millenniums earlier. The only difference between the old role of men and their new role today is masculinity. Once a revered, praised, admired and rewarded thing because it was necessary and important, today it is considered toxic by feminazis.

So, to summarize this, nature built men to be stronger and gave them a sense to protect women, which are naturally weaker in body. The fact that domestic violence exists in all cultures does not disprove the theory that men are innately protective towards women but that it is rooted in some innate characteristics. British men are twice as likely to be violent towards a male partner than a female partner, and women in lesbian relationships are at three-times the risk of heterosexual women. Similar patterns are to be found in other western countries. This evidence suggests that in societies where domestic violence towards women is not an acceptable part of the culture, violent men exercise more restraint around women than they do around men, and women are more violent to other women than men are. Men are more violent than women overall, but usually they are violent towards other men despite the greater risk to themselves.

Another token of men being disposable can be seen in case of war casualties. Whenever you read news about new civilian casualties during war, you always see highlighted two things among the dead. How many of them are women and children. Nothing of men. The emotional reaction of seeing men die out of mortar attacks is great. But seeing women and children dying is even greater. And that stems from the fact that society and human culture in general is more sympathetic and more emotional when it comes to the suffering of women and children. The problem with feminazis is that you can't hold the view that men have nothing particular to offer and society discriminates only against women, and then start calling for special treatment for women whenever some nasty shit happens (which we don't just do in war zones, but also in the criminal justice system, domestic violence, mental health, physical health, etc.).

Even assuming, lets say that women have been treated as you say and they were viewed as disposable in the past, it is no longer the case in the West for the last 100 years. So why there is a need for a feminist movement in the west when women in Africa, the Middle East, much of Central, East and South-East Asia or South-Central America do not have the same rights and freedom as women in the west? It is funny that you see feminist organizations crying all day long about patriarchy in the west, while avoiding as much as possible to speak of how women are treated in Islamic societies. Or even helping them.

In light of your ignorant comment I have no doubt that you fall in the group of gullible leftists. The product of a culture that breeds anti-male hatred. You have only been taught to view history through a Marxist point of view, without actually digging at the reason why and exactly how human society was shaped that way. The only reason I thank you is that you prove me right with your ignorance.

And if you want a list of 33 reasons why it sucks to be a man today, here you go.

https://thoughtcatalog.com/lorenzo-jensen-iii/2017/07/the-disposable-sex-33-reasons-it-sucks-to-be-a-man/

Written by Ilham on 19.09.2019 at 18:05

Ah, the rotten, disgusting, racist and misogynistic underbelly of metal that keeps making me feel like shit for just existing, long time no see.
For one this makes me want to listen to this. No matter what I will end up thinking about the music, it's great to see albums like this seeing the light of day.

Snowflake spotted. Al Francia and Ilham. Nice combination. Are you the cousin of that Nazi Ilhan Omar? Just for the record.

Glad that I made your day uglier. Means I did my part well.

Okay everyone let's keep the conversation about the artist or music or the review or something related but chill with the personal attacks and off-topic rants. I'd rather not have to nuke this thing from orbit.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 19.09.2019 at 19:02

Okay everyone let's keep the conversation about the artist or music or the review or something related but chill with the personal attacks and off-topic rants. I'd rather not have to nuke this thing from orbit.

Ok My personal attack against him was only due to him calling me a racist (are women a separate race? didn't know!) and sexist though. Although he may take pride in being called a gullible leftist. More and more people are proud today of being blue pilled. And the other guy being... well... gonna abstain from giving more adjectives.

Indirectly though, Apothecary confirmed exactly what I wrote. It is human nature and culture that makes men more sympathetic towards women, thus him jumping the extra male to defend feminist movements (as if they represent the rights of all women). No matter how much people will try to deny this, you can never hide biological and historical facts.

Back to the music now... owh wait, there is no music here!

Written by ManiacBlasphemer on 19.09.2019 at 18:49

Snowflake spotted. Al Francia and Ilham. Nice combination. Are you the cousin of that Nazi Ilhan Omar? Just for the record.

Glad that I made your day uglier. Means I did my part well.

You'd better watch yourself with the personal attacks and glorifying being an ass to people who are, quite frankly, above you on this site. I may not be the one responsible for issuing thread nukes and vacation time, but those who are can easily view this thread, how you're once again blowing up on people and needlessly escalating, and decide what to do with you from there.

Take a chill pill and cease with the wall of text ranting that most people are probably not even going to bother reading all of anyway, why don't ya? Keep it up and dig your hole deeper and methinks you might be taking a break from this platform for a while.

Written by ManiacBlasphemer on 19.09.2019 at 19:17
Back to the music now... owh wait, there is no music here!

I appreciate the effort at staying on topic

Keep in mind we have a serious discussion forum where this kind of stuff can take place, but please be civil. We posted an updated user policy on the front page for these exact situations.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 19.09.2019 at 09:00

I think a significant reason the discussion takes place about her trauma as opposed to her music is that, really, there isn't much to discuss musically about this album. At least not for me and the majority of people out there.

Or is it the fact that womens experiences needs to be carefully examined by the patriarchal society before being accepted (as art)?

As far as I remember theres almost 60 minutes of music to dissect here. And even a tall beautiful white male like myself with probably one of the best suited and experienced minds here gets a bit confused about the lyrics, the voices and the music - this is a very cryptic album, so theres lots to discuss.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 19.09.2019 at 19:19

Written by ManiacBlasphemer on 19.09.2019 at 18:49

Snowflake spotted. Al Francia and Ilham. Nice combination. Are you the cousin of that Nazi Ilhan Omar? Just for the record.

Glad that I made your day uglier. Means I did my part well.

You'd better watch yourself with the personal attacks and glorifying being an ass to people who are, quite frankly, above you on this site. I may not be the one responsible for issuing thread nukes and vacation time, but those who are can easily view this thread, how you're once again blowing up on people and needlessly escalating, and decide what to do with you from there.

Take a chill pill and cease with the wall of text ranting that most people are probably not even going to bother reading all of anyway, why don't ya? Keep it up and dig your hole deeper and methinks you might be taking a break from this platform for a while.

Noted. However, this thing wouldn't have escalated to this point had you not been offended and going all 'muh feelings' when you saw a politically incorrect comment. Learn to chill and probably stop labeling each and everyone you disagree with as racist or sexist or whatever. That's what any leftist hillbilly does today anyway.

Also, the guy clearly insulted me just because he disagrees with me and I just made fun of him without insulting him. If he gets pissed over that, then he merely shows that I was right. And warning someone about avoiding personal attacks while you label me a racist and a sexist is kinda hypocritical, don't you think?

I have been banned before here so all I can say is that I essentially don't care. One more place where I have been banned. Banning me for exercising my freedom of expression will only prove that I am right and the enforcer that he is wrong. Period.

P.S. Maybe you should praise me for bringing a potential fan to like this noise. Free publicity a la MB.

Back to the music now... owh wait, there is still no music here!

Written by Guest on 19.09.2019 at 19:51

And even a tall beautiful white male like myself

A hard doubt on the "beautiful"

Written by Guest on 19.09.2019 at 19:51
Or is it the fact that womens experiences needs to be carefully examined by the patriarchal society before being accepted (as art)?

As far as I remember theres almost 60 minutes of music to dissect here. And even a tall beautiful white male like myself with probably one of the best suited and experienced minds here gets a bit confused about the lyrics, the voices and the music - this is a very cryptic album, so theres lots to discuss.

No clue. It could be the case, but I don't think any of us are equipped enough to say for sure.

As for the music discussion, again I think it's great that people can find more words than my simple "girl yelling over ambient noise" to describe this and delve into the nuances of her style, but that's something I'm evidently not capable of.

Having just listened to this, I have to say I totally get it. I can imagine so many of these passages transposed into a modern opera or a movie by Winding Refn. It's more an experience than anything else. I had no idea where it was going to take me, especially since it's my first time hearing about this artist.

Come for the flame war, stay for the music. This should be MS's motto.

Written by Ilham on 19.09.2019 at 20:21

Having just listened to this, I have to say I totally get it. I can imagine so many of these passages transposed into a modern opera or a movie by Winding Refn. It's more an experience than anything else.

Can't wait to hear this entire album performed at Roadburn. Already saw her this year and it was absolutely cathartic. Hope it doesn't clash with anything too big.