Gerard in Rock Sound

[ofyourdeath.livejournal.com]

MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE
Interview: Andrew Kelham

Have you thought about how My Chemical Romance will reintroduce themselves to music fans in 2010? Do you ever wonder if your band is still needed in music?
Says Gerard Way (vocals):
"It's funny because the musical landscape is ever changing, but I think there's always a place for us and I think we're absolutely needed, especially now. I don't say that with any arrogance, I just really believe in my band and I believe that our band does what it does better than anybody else. There's no one that can do this like us. I feel a gap when we are gone and I hope people do too, if they don't then we're not doing our job properly. I think we're absolutely needed, but I'm glad we're coming back in 2010 because, as much as people need us, I think they needed a break from us too. I hope we got the balance of that right."

What have you tried to achieve with your forthcoming fourth album? How is it different from you past work?
"With this record we tried to ignore all the cosmetic nonsense and focus on becoming a truly great rock band. We felt that the world needed a really straight and pure rock band, you're hard pressed to find a lot of those these days. It was less about the theatricality and more about how we become the greatest young American rock band musically."

How are you adapting to fatherhood?
"It's great, it's amazing. Obviously we just wanted a healthy baby, but I was excited to have a girl as there are things I can see myself helping a girl with that I could never do with a guy, things like picking out clothes and stealing eyeliner, all that sort of stuff!"

Mod note: As happy and excited as we are that people are starting to discuss and converse in the comments, we'd like to remind everyone to play nicely.

Comments

[tempore.livejournal.com]

Something I've come to realize is that there's an inherent sexism to always denying societal gender roles, too. It's okay to be a girl, and that's what he's saying, here. Besides, he's obviously, in my opinion, pointing out that he breaks gender roles without judging or denouncing either male or female roles.

His assumption about things he could see himself doing or not doing with a guy rather than a girl says more about himself-- maybe he'd be intimidated by sharing this with his son for any number of reasons that he doesn't from a girl, in large part because to an extent, I'm willing to bet he sees his wife in his daughter, or maybe he sees himself as more of a girl?

[(Anonymous)]

It's just an odd comment in general and I'm not sure I buy the interpretation you're putting forth but it's interesting.

- K. Does not have a journal.

[tempore.livejournal.com]

You don't have to buy my interpretation. I just get sick of the fact that every time he opens his mouth people criticize every little thing just so they can be disappointed in how he doesn't live up to their expectations. I'm offering an alternative interpretation that maybe the few people like me who don't want him constantly torn down for can appreciate or that people can think about.

I just find it interesting that so-called feminists are the first to decry anything that girls might actually be interested in and it's just as insidious and damaging when it implies what women shouldn't or can't be.

Language is imperfect, but from the fact that he's talking about sharing something with his daughter, can we not assume from that that maybe he isn't making a statement that is exclusionary of boys, but simply pointing out something that doesn't have the same social stigma for girls that he enjoys?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not sure I can have this debate with you as you are extremely defensive. I wasn't attacking you and I wasn't attacking him or "tearing him down" and neither is anyone else in these comments. People are having a fascinating debate on the issue and some pretty educated dialogue.

- A "so-called feminist"

[tempore.livejournal.com]

So don't.

[(Anonymous)]

I just find it interesting that so-called feminists are the first to decry anything that girls might actually be interested in and it's just as insidious and damaging when it implies what women shouldn't or can't be.

That's not at all what people are saying, they're saying that breaking it down into gender roles AT ALL is not okay, not that girls can or cannot like anything. That's not the point.

[tempore.livejournal.com]

Gender roles in and of themselves aren't bad. They're categories. He's not limiting the category like people assume because he's put himself into the category of liking and sharing eyeliner. Yes, is he making certain assumptions about a boy not being interested? Sure, but if he did have a boy and he did force the boy into eyeliner, would he not still be forcing a gender role upon him?

The only time gender roles become damaging is when they become a box, and I'm sorry if I find the argument ridiculous because of all people to start nitpicking on about conforming to gender roles, it's Gerard Way? He's not only broken out of that box, but smashed it to splinters. Give the guy a break.

I don't even know why I'm arguing this; arguing on the internet is ridiculous, especially with someone who won't put a name to it.

[(Anonymous)]

Have you ever noticed how people always rush to pull out the "anonymous = stupid" defense as soon as someone anonymous says something they can't argue with?

-not the original anon, just looking to make a (possibly cheap) point

[tempore.livejournal.com]

No, I have always noticed that "anonymous" makes things real easy to deny and not stand behind. You are correct, you made a cheap point, especially since I didn't say anonymous was stupid. I said it was stupid to argue with someone who remains anonymous. There's a difference.

[(Anonymous)]

Please don't use the argument that because I don't have a journal somehow my argument does not carry weight. That is a cop-out. To me gender roles are problematic because despite you not putting them in a box people DO put them in a box ESPECIALLY society. And it's interesting to discuss it regarding Gerard's quote because he has in the past been interested in gender roles and has spoken about them.

That however does NOT give him the right to make problematic statements and not get called out on them. Your interpretation may differ and that's perfectly valid but accusing everyone in this post of bashing him, tearing him down is ridiculous. THAT is a ridiculous argument. So now because he's done some things and said some quotes we can't criticize him when we feel he's made a problematic statement? That is RIDICULOUS.

[strobelighted.livejournal.com]

No one is tearing Gerard down. Most people have actually expressed delight at this interview. We're just analyzing a phrase he used because it is relevant to a broader subject that interests us and we happen to think is important.

No one is saying what girls or women should or should not be interested in. We're just remarking upon how gender roles and society's expectations of what girls should/should not like are so deeply ingrained and how that comes across in Gerard's somewhat self-contradictory statement.

[tempore.livejournal.com]

Fair enough, because that's my point, too, it is somewhat self-contradictory. And to be fair, I've made an assumption I shouldn't have, partly based in prior experience in other communities where it's a pastime for fans to immediately start tearing everything he says and does apart.

[jezrana.livejournal.com]

I just get sick of the fact that every time he opens his mouth people criticize every little thing just so they can be disappointed in how he doesn't live up to their expectations. I'm offering an alternative interpretation that maybe the few people like me who don't want him constantly torn down for can appreciate or that people can think about.

I'm not interested in getting into a big debate about gender roles, but I think you're letting defensiveness cloud your view of things here. I'm not saying people aren't overly critical of Gerard at times, because I've seen that happen and it bothers me, too, but also I don't think it's overly critical or tearing him down to point out that something he said is potentially problematic.

[cheshireempress.livejournal.com]

I just find it interesting that so-called feminists are the first to decry anything that girls might actually be interested in and it's just as insidious and damaging when it implies what women shouldn't or can't be.

Where, exactly, did anyone say that? Pointing out that it's strange that Gerard, a guy who likes dressing up and eyeliner, seems to think that he could share those interests with a son but not a daughter, has nothing in common with "decrying things girls are interested in".

replying to self because I can't edit:

[cheshireempress.livejournal.com]

"he could share those interests with a son but not a daughter" should obviously be the other way around. My bad.

[liescontinue.livejournal.com]

iawtc.

[tempore.livejournal.com]

:)

[p0mba.livejournal.com]

YES

[tempore.livejournal.com]

:)

[roadmarks.livejournal.com]

I think it's problematic when you negatively judge people who do fit into societal gender roles and enjoy doing so, but I don't think there's anything sexist about wishing that they weren't pushed upon us.

[tempore.livejournal.com]

no, there's not, you're correct. But again, the problem with interpretations of comments (and this is something he's talked about in other interviews lately) is that people are pushing their own agenda on him and his music.

I have no problem taking him at his word; but the second people start putting spins on it -- oh, he's not being feminist, he's pushing his own agenda -- well, so are they. It's interpretation, it's semantics, and given that the statement is in itself inherently contradictory -- he's a boy, ergo, sharing traditional roles with a girl, not a boy, makes the assumption that he's pushing a gender-based role is problematic. And now I'm tripping over my words trying to explain.

My goal is to point out that not everyone sees his statement in the same way and that the interpretation put forth does damage as well because it makes me wonder what's wrong with being a traditional girl?

[spuzz.livejournal.com]

My goal is to point out that not everyone sees his statement in the same way and that the interpretation put forth does damage as well because it makes me wonder what's wrong with being a traditional girl?

What does "traditional girl" mean to you?

[tempore.livejournal.com]

Probably not what it means to a lot of other people, and probably nothing I can convey in a comment box. It maybe starts with sharing eyeliner with my daddy, though. :)

[strobelighted.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but if your definition does not agree with the majority of other people's, then it is not traditional.

[spuzz.livejournal.com]

I guess my issue with your comment is the use of "traditional". This makes the implication that it's something that is given to us, taught to us from birth and that it's a set of likes and dislikes, attitudes etc. that would make us that specific girl. That, to me, is not something to strive after. There's nothing wrong with liking what you like, disliking what you like etc etc, do what you will. But as a society we do expect girls to act a certain way and think a certain way and I dislike any statements that seem to be playing into that. Further using "traditional" versus "non-traditional" may set up (and has historically) a hierarchy of sorts wherein people may view someone who is following "tradition" as a girl who is more "girl" than another.

I, personally, can't view these things without the larger context. Just like I can't view Gerard's statement without the context of his history, our society and my views on the subject.

Edited to fix spelling.