How ironic. Regarding black greatness in many musical genres, the exact opposite is true. Didn’t black artists originate Blues, Soul, Rock n Roll etc No one played the electric guitar like Hendrix. I play in a local rock band and a couple of years ago we had an awesome female singer. I grew up with 70’s prog rock and female rockers were sadly underrepresented in the top British bands.
"...the problem is not that some people feel like they are imposters, but that too many people with power see them that way." Spot on. Patriarchal and bigoted gaslighting have been things since Adam. And it survives to this day because entrenched power has a distinct advantage and the majority of society have capitulated. Harsh, but I don't know any other way to describe the core of this ongoing injustice. We keep complaining but nothing changes because the people we are complaining about are shameless. In fact, the more pathological types take pleasure in our discomfort. History teaches an honest lesson for those with the courage to look. Social progress is won by organization, pain and a mighty effort. Boycotts, civil disobedience, strikes and focused leadership prevail when words fail.
It's another reason to question authority and group think. I spent the last 35 years working with various business leadership teams and encouraging non white males to be heard and given the advancement they earned. Some leadership teams were diverse and more objective and fair. The tough ones didn't self reflect and were stubborn with their expectation that their way was the right way. I always attributed this to an immature handle on their own ego, which is more about power and fear of self reflection, than your race. Though I acknowledge senior leadership teams have more than their fair share of white males.
There is a privilege that comes from being a white man that what you think is "the truth" and unless that inherited belief is questioned it will be a factor in how you see the world. Most men I know these days are questioning that and working to see life through a broader lens--that's what made the interview so jarring. It's one thing to have done this in the past. It's another to proudly declare it in the present.
I have had the same experience in the workplace. Always stunned at the rates many gatekeepers charge out to clients. So often their work was not up to scratch, was subpar. What makes me the maddest is when the clients were vulnerable. But these people were so full of confidence, self importance and has such little self insight, they didn’t care about the impact on these clients.
How did Jan Wenner’s book impact the careers of countless women and Black people? My comments are about his book, the interview and the subsequent reactions to the interview. I am privileged to be a part of your group, but my words offended you. I apologize for offending you. Thank you for your work and I will do some unpacking.
mayne I misrread the level of emotion in the response, it seemeed angry - sure a public figure, but 77 years old and after the UVa fiasco quite diminished. Not sure it was worth a post. Tackling McCarthy, Bobert or Trump seems more important now - or Bannon.
After reading this post I was reminded of my Mother’s saying “Fifty lashes with a wet noodle” - there’s no need to to over-respond to Wenner’s interview. Why? It was his subjective choice to showcase 7 white men who made history in the rock and roll world of music. He would have been disingenuous if he chose to include Joni Mitchell, Chuck Berry and Stevie Wonder in this book. The interpretation is he disrespected the intellect of these artists - well yes in terms of their contribution to white male rock n roll they aren’t in the same league as Jagger. Musically they are geniuses/Masters and that was acknowledged. I wish Robert Draper’s great book on Rolling Stone was still available - that would shed a better light on Wenner, not a quick interview in the Times. Give kudos to the reporter for nailing him on the Virginia fiasco.
the idea that nobody needs to respond because he made a subjective choice is odd. He's a public figure and has had enormous influence over people's careers. Also I don't know who "over responded" ?
The last portion of my comments were cut off, so I’ll just summarize and say Wenner’s contributions to American culture and journalism were huge, but I hated reading those comments.
My closest friend, a brilliant journalist, attended a private school with Jann Wenner in eighth grade. Wenner started a school newspaper and my friend very much wanted to write for it. No, was Wenner’s response—only boys would be allowed on the staff.
In 1980, after RS had published since
1969, a woman contributing editor was added to RS’s all-male contributing editor’s list, Gerri Hirshey. It was such a coup, Hirshey includes the milestone on her CV. In 1985, I was the second woman to be named a contributing editor at RS. For years and years, it remained so-the two of us. Things have changed over the decades. I see many more women’s by-lines on hard news stories in recent years.
Wenner is a complex figure, and it was sad to see these comments recently. But I don’t think he should be demonized solely for them or that his legacy should be all about his comments in this interview. He was for many years one of the few remaining independent press barons who let his writers write the way they wanted to write. There was no RS “style” one had to adhere to the way there was a Vogue style or Town&Country style or a New York Times style or a Vanity Fair style. It was liberating to write for RS. The magazine gave stories as much space as they needed. The journalism published in RS over the years was often groundbreaking and memorable. You could take on big subjects and write about them in ways that went against the mainstream grain. I loved writing for RS. The magazine published important stories that other publications would never have taken on.
That’s probably why, while shocked by Wenner’s unfiltered comments, I can’t dismiss him as someone who is simply sexist or racist and has no redeeming value or importance to the culture. His impact on American journalism and the culture was huge. And yet, I hated reading those remarks.
I don't think anyone said he has no redeeming value. Also responding to his comments is not "demonizing." He's a public figure who has, as you said, has had an enormous influence on our culture and so what he says matters.
"His impact on American journalism and the culture was huge." Yes, and same can be said for Hugh Hefner and Playboy. Obviously one publication was celebratory in its exploitation and the other "exclusionary", but both were products of the postmodern, smug bro culture common to the age.
What’s interesting here (I hope) is the what I feel is a need to separate a lot of the journalism that Wenner published over the decades in his magazine from his 1950s, sexist mentality about women, in particular.
He gave writers a lot of freedom or leeway and in my memory, I don’t recall stories in which his sexism or racism bled into the journalism in his magazine.
In 1985, I proposed a piece to Wenner about the Playboy “empire” and Hugh Hefner. Peter Bogdanovich was accusing HH of fostering an environment that promoted rape. Wenner wanted the story. Ultimately, the piece was an extremely damning appraisal of HH and his pathetic world, a take down of his publishing venture, his self-delusion, and vile history of legitimizing pornography. I don’t think many if any other mainstream magazines, most them helmed by men, would have published the piece. That was the freedom Wenner offered writers. Why it seems a distinction be made between the unfiltered sexist, racist comments he made recently and the independent nature and value of his magazine.
How ironic. Regarding black greatness in many musical genres, the exact opposite is true. Didn’t black artists originate Blues, Soul, Rock n Roll etc No one played the electric guitar like Hendrix. I play in a local rock band and a couple of years ago we had an awesome female singer. I grew up with 70’s prog rock and female rockers were sadly underrepresented in the top British bands.
"...the problem is not that some people feel like they are imposters, but that too many people with power see them that way." Spot on. Patriarchal and bigoted gaslighting have been things since Adam. And it survives to this day because entrenched power has a distinct advantage and the majority of society have capitulated. Harsh, but I don't know any other way to describe the core of this ongoing injustice. We keep complaining but nothing changes because the people we are complaining about are shameless. In fact, the more pathological types take pleasure in our discomfort. History teaches an honest lesson for those with the courage to look. Social progress is won by organization, pain and a mighty effort. Boycotts, civil disobedience, strikes and focused leadership prevail when words fail.
I could not agree more with you Kirsten. Sad that he had that mindset.
It's another reason to question authority and group think. I spent the last 35 years working with various business leadership teams and encouraging non white males to be heard and given the advancement they earned. Some leadership teams were diverse and more objective and fair. The tough ones didn't self reflect and were stubborn with their expectation that their way was the right way. I always attributed this to an immature handle on their own ego, which is more about power and fear of self reflection, than your race. Though I acknowledge senior leadership teams have more than their fair share of white males.
There is a privilege that comes from being a white man that what you think is "the truth" and unless that inherited belief is questioned it will be a factor in how you see the world. Most men I know these days are questioning that and working to see life through a broader lens--that's what made the interview so jarring. It's one thing to have done this in the past. It's another to proudly declare it in the present.
I have had the same experience in the workplace. Always stunned at the rates many gatekeepers charge out to clients. So often their work was not up to scratch, was subpar. What makes me the maddest is when the clients were vulnerable. But these people were so full of confidence, self importance and has such little self insight, they didn’t care about the impact on these clients.
How did Jan Wenner’s book impact the careers of countless women and Black people? My comments are about his book, the interview and the subsequent reactions to the interview. I am privileged to be a part of your group, but my words offended you. I apologize for offending you. Thank you for your work and I will do some unpacking.
mayne I misrread the level of emotion in the response, it seemeed angry - sure a public figure, but 77 years old and after the UVa fiasco quite diminished. Not sure it was worth a post. Tackling McCarthy, Bobert or Trump seems more important now - or Bannon.
After reading this post I was reminded of my Mother’s saying “Fifty lashes with a wet noodle” - there’s no need to to over-respond to Wenner’s interview. Why? It was his subjective choice to showcase 7 white men who made history in the rock and roll world of music. He would have been disingenuous if he chose to include Joni Mitchell, Chuck Berry and Stevie Wonder in this book. The interpretation is he disrespected the intellect of these artists - well yes in terms of their contribution to white male rock n roll they aren’t in the same league as Jagger. Musically they are geniuses/Masters and that was acknowledged. I wish Robert Draper’s great book on Rolling Stone was still available - that would shed a better light on Wenner, not a quick interview in the Times. Give kudos to the reporter for nailing him on the Virginia fiasco.
the idea that nobody needs to respond because he made a subjective choice is odd. He's a public figure and has had enormous influence over people's careers. Also I don't know who "over responded" ?
The last portion of my comments were cut off, so I’ll just summarize and say Wenner’s contributions to American culture and journalism were huge, but I hated reading those comments.
My closest friend, a brilliant journalist, attended a private school with Jann Wenner in eighth grade. Wenner started a school newspaper and my friend very much wanted to write for it. No, was Wenner’s response—only boys would be allowed on the staff.
In 1980, after RS had published since
1969, a woman contributing editor was added to RS’s all-male contributing editor’s list, Gerri Hirshey. It was such a coup, Hirshey includes the milestone on her CV. In 1985, I was the second woman to be named a contributing editor at RS. For years and years, it remained so-the two of us. Things have changed over the decades. I see many more women’s by-lines on hard news stories in recent years.
Wenner is a complex figure, and it was sad to see these comments recently. But I don’t think he should be demonized solely for them or that his legacy should be all about his comments in this interview. He was for many years one of the few remaining independent press barons who let his writers write the way they wanted to write. There was no RS “style” one had to adhere to the way there was a Vogue style or Town&Country style or a New York Times style or a Vanity Fair style. It was liberating to write for RS. The magazine gave stories as much space as they needed. The journalism published in RS over the years was often groundbreaking and memorable. You could take on big subjects and write about them in ways that went against the mainstream grain. I loved writing for RS. The magazine published important stories that other publications would never have taken on.
That’s probably why, while shocked by Wenner’s unfiltered comments, I can’t dismiss him as someone who is simply sexist or racist and has no redeeming value or importance to the culture. His impact on American journalism and the culture was huge. And yet, I hated reading those remarks.
I don't think anyone said he has no redeeming value. Also responding to his comments is not "demonizing." He's a public figure who has, as you said, has had an enormous influence on our culture and so what he says matters.
"His impact on American journalism and the culture was huge." Yes, and same can be said for Hugh Hefner and Playboy. Obviously one publication was celebratory in its exploitation and the other "exclusionary", but both were products of the postmodern, smug bro culture common to the age.
What’s interesting here (I hope) is the what I feel is a need to separate a lot of the journalism that Wenner published over the decades in his magazine from his 1950s, sexist mentality about women, in particular.
He gave writers a lot of freedom or leeway and in my memory, I don’t recall stories in which his sexism or racism bled into the journalism in his magazine.
In 1985, I proposed a piece to Wenner about the Playboy “empire” and Hugh Hefner. Peter Bogdanovich was accusing HH of fostering an environment that promoted rape. Wenner wanted the story. Ultimately, the piece was an extremely damning appraisal of HH and his pathetic world, a take down of his publishing venture, his self-delusion, and vile history of legitimizing pornography. I don’t think many if any other mainstream magazines, most them helmed by men, would have published the piece. That was the freedom Wenner offered writers. Why it seems a distinction be made between the unfiltered sexist, racist comments he made recently and the independent nature and value of his magazine.