i see john's still pissing people off...
lennon's treatment of women is complex and paradoxical. was he a piece of shit for the way he treated the women in his life? unquestionably. is this song a statement of solidarity? equally unquestionably.
there's a glaring contradiction underlying it, but it shouldn't negate the value of the song. lennon blamed his upbringing, the drugs, the money - a lot of things. he claimed he changed. i'm not sure the evidence indicates he ever did.
but he seems to have tried to.
consider this: perhaps john lennon was mirroring a more general social evolution, and perhaps he had some effect on it's unraveling.
but, he's dead now. and it's certainly possible to separate the art from the person that created it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Asf4InKVo8k
fwiw, it's still true. and you should still be angry about it and want to do something about it.
John Stark
I certainly do think he tried in his latter years to become a better person, it is a shame we never got to see the man he could have become. This song in itself doesn't cancel out his failings to raise his first children in the way he should have. It does however show that he listened to Yoko as if she was his equal and was happy to proclaim her message to the world.
Daniel Howell
maybe there is something im not privy to here...how was he shitty to women? Really, Im coming with respect here, I just dont know what it is you are referring to. Because he divorced his first wife ?
deathtokoalas
john lennon's abusive relationships with both of the women that he married are well documented.
it's not that yoko worked her way into the sessions. it's that john wouldn't let her out of his sight.
---
(deleted post)
deathtokoalas
how many of the white boys in the audience are going to listen to angela davis say the same thing? it's one thing to say "don't speak for me when i'm standing beside you". it's another to say "don't stand up for me to people that otherwise wouldn't listen to me as a direct result of their existing prejudices".
there was a context to this idea and it had to do with agency. the argument is valid in that context. but you're misapplying it by taking it out of context. it was meant to give a direct voice to the oppressed, not to exacerbate and further racial segregation.
