While Lady Gaga has shied away from identifying herself as a feminist in the past, this new LA Times interview with the artist reveals not only some feminist admittances, but also her general insight of feminist issues and how it's expressed in her work:
During nearly two hours of conversation, she not only reiterates her assertion of total originality but also finesses it until it's both a philosophical stance about how constructing a persona from pop-cultural sources can be an expression of a person's truth -- à la those drag queens Gaga sincerely admires -- and a bit of a feminist act.'I'm getting the sense that you're a little bit of a feminist, like I am, which is good,' she said. 'I find that men get away with saying a lot in this business, and that women get away with saying very little . . . In my opinion, women need and want someone to look up to that they feel have the full sense of who they are, and says, 'I'm great.' '
Gaga's casual use of the term 'feminist' was interesting; like many female pop stars, she's rejected the term in the past. But she's evolving. She is growing 'more compassionate,' she says, and focusing more on ideas of community, especially the one formed by her core fan base, a mix of gay men, bohemian kids and young women attracted by Gaga's style and her singable melodies.
She also divulged how many of her new songs address body image issues and how much of her style aims to critique notions of the "feminine ideal" and how "unnatural" it actually is. (A latest example is her kick-ass music video for "Bad Romance" which was intended to show "how the entertainment industry can, in a metaphorical way, simulate human trafficking -- products being sold, the woman perceived as a commodity.")
To top it off, much of her statement-makin' (specifically this "unnatural" nature of the feminine ideal) was partly inspired by her admiration for Cindy Sherman. That's right; she's a Cindy Sherman fan too. Swoon!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Gaga for Lady Gaga, "a little bit of a feminist" .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classic.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17569
*Sigh* I must be getting old, I don't find Lady GaGa to be interesting or innovative. Her music sounds like all the rest of the vanity pop out there to me. Now Laurie Anderson was interesting....ooops, I'm dating myself here :) I've been meaning to ask Feministing if there is a cool feminist site for women my age, over 40... I can't always get into the topics here anymore, not because they are not important, but I guess it's more of a generational thing....thanks!
uhhh I'm 23 years old and I swoon over Laurie Anderson pretty much daily. Signed in to say this.
me too! about both the age and the laurie love.
I HEART LADY GAGA!
Not only are her songs ridiculously catchy and fun to dance to, but she is just doing her thing. Sometimes that involves being half naked and "sexy" and sometimes its disturbing and not physically attractive in the least. The Bad Romance video has great examples of both sides.
I hope she keeps rocking it. I also hope she fully embraces the feminist label and rocks that. The feminist messages she projects right now are pretty subtle. It would be fun to see some strong, in your face, can't be missed feminist messages from her in her songs and videos.
I adore her! :)
I will admit that I only really like her music for the dancey beats. Her lyrics...not exactly on my Top 10 list. And her crazy outfits...its a love/hate relationship (although I did make the connection to David Bowie during his glam years)...but after reading that article and making the connection with Cindy Sherman I was like 'hell yeah Lady Gaga!'. This makes me appreciate Lady Gaga more.
While her lyrics still aren't on my top 10, the way she's doing her business I think is a good change for how that industry typically works. I hope she keeps moving in that direction.
She was certainly guilty of the "I'm not a feminist but....." rhetoric which we hear a lot. I think a lot of her problem before was that she bought into the feminist=manhater crap that conservatives like to sell. I'm glad to see she's finally accepting that she actually is a feminist.
I love this woman. It's pretty clear to me that over the last year, as she's grown in the public eye, her own vision has grown, too. She's getting stronger ideas about what she wants to project and why, and I'm glad that has included being more compassionate and more comfortable to embrace the word "feminist." I can't wait to see what she's going to do over the next year, and what her music will sound like as she evolves.
This makes me way more excited that I really like her music. Previously I thought it was a little bit of an anti-feminist guilty pleasure. She seems to have a pretty progressive fan base so it's nice that she's admitting to being "feminist." That seems like such a scary label for anyone in the public eye.
"her style aims to critique notions of the "feminine ideal" and how "unnatural" it actually is."
Seriously? She's white, thin, blonde, and has big breasts. That sounds like the same beauty ideal women have been stuck with for over a generation. I am not impressed.
body type and race don't equal style! she wears ensembles that range from accentuating her thinness to the point of being grotesque to art piece sweaters that hide practically every inch of her body. she wears make-up that makes her "ugly" by beauty standards, wigs that have no relation to what actual human hair could look like, masks that hide most of her face, and even fake blood and pyrotechnic bras! take a look at the year in gaga post on jezebel.com which shows something like 50 photos of her outfits from this past year to see her style and critique that instead of things she has no control over.
I saw a video on YouTube of her performing before she was Lady Gaga, and I honestly wonder how much of her costuming and whatnot is because as a not-conventionally-attractive woman, she couldn't get noticed in the music business. And I don't know how I feel about that.
A quote from the article:
"...her often physically distorting costumes show that the pursuit of the feminine ideal is far from natural"
But according to you, because she's white, thin, blonde and has big breasts, she shouldn't attempt to critique the feminine ideal.
I guess all the conventionally attractive people should just stop calling themselves feminists...
I'm sure you realize this but being white is not a style, it is a physical characteristic. Body shape and breast size are also physical traits although they can be altered to conform to a beauty ideal (Lady does not have implants nor did she lose a ton of weight once she became famous).
She can't help the body she was born into. Many of her outfits show it off and many of them are grotesque and do challenge the prototype of a sexy woman.
And how exactly do you propose she overcome this? Start overeating? Dye her hair? Get plastic surgery to reduce breasts?
I think it's even more impressive that she's critiquing the very thing that provides her with privilege.
Gaga's actually a natural brunette (there are a bunch of videos on YouTube of her singing in NYC bars a few years ago before she became famous.) Her wikipedia page says she went blond because people kept mistaking her for Amy Winehouse. I never bought that reason. She's clearly using some of the conventional beauty ideal to her advantage.
Just like Megan Fox, Beyonce, Dita Von Teese, and Katy Perry need to dye their hair blond to be attractive enough to be famous and have people consider them beautiful.
I'm pretty sure the blond isn't helping her as much as her body is. I dye my hair from reddish blond to blond, but that does not mean I do it to fit the beauty ideal and use it to my advantage. As someone who gets called "Avril Levine" a lot, I can see where she is coming from.
Point taken. But Beyonce's highlights are often so light that her hair looks blond. And with the possible exception of Beyonce all of the women you listed have used their sexuality and the prevailing feminine beauty ideal to their advantage.
Fun fact- back when Katy Perry was still Christian gospel singer Katy Hudson she never dyed her natural blond hair. Hair color is an important part of one's public image and both LG and Katy Perry (or their stylists) realize this.
While I understand what you are saying, I do not agree that it is impossible for thin, white, blond woman to critique the feminine ideal. I am thin, white, blond, and still like to critique the feminine ideal. Were I a music star, I would try to send off the message that all types of women are beautiful. Would I not be allowed to try and destroy the patriarchy's view of what is beautiful because I naturally fit culture's ideal of beautiful? Do only women like Queen Latifah deserve a platform with which to say "I don't like the pressures that women have to look like Barbie?" Can women dress in an alternative style and still be recognized as challenging the beauty ideal even though they naturally fit into it?
I understand that we need more women in the media that represent all different types of women, but must we really say that any woman that fits the ideal should just admit that she cannot possibly seek to challenge beauty ideals because of how ideally beautiful she is?
I guess the thing that bothers me is that she seems like she's trying to take advantage of how she fits into the beauty ideal while simultaneously critiquing it. While some of the clothes she wears do mess with the conception of what's beautiful a little bit (awesome, she's wearing a pyrotechnic bra, but IT'S STILL A BRA) - do any of us really think she would have been signed to a major label as a pop star and been given the chance she has if she wasn't conventionally attractive? Her costumes may be interesting, but most of them are still revealing or tight, and they do capitalize on her image as a conventionally attractive woman. For her to criticize the beauty ideal, even through costume and style, while using it to her advantage seems like she's talking out of both sides of her mouth.
Think about how many times you've seen pictures of Lady Gaga in tight outfits, or wearing a leotard that shows off her legs. Now think about how many times you've seen her wearing clothes that are baggy or shapeless. There's a really big difference there.
(This is certainly not to say that there's anything wrong with wearing clothes that are tight or revealing, but a lot of her outfits are designed to draw attention to the ways in which she is considered conventionally attractive, and I think that's something that needs to be mentioned when we talk about the beauty ideal she presents.)
Soooo... women who are privileged enough to fit into the beauty ideal should say "sorry, but I realize that my privilege is what is allowing me to get into this business, so I must decline." If I could be a rockstar I sure as Hell would, and I would wear tight and revealing outfits along with ones that are baggy and cover most of me. I'm not the type to let others decide what I wear, whether it's conforming or refusing to conform. Granted, I don't have the bust to be a female music star nor do I have the complexion (I'm white but I'm deathly pale) but it's not my fault that I am privileged and I should do what I can to make sure that privilege is revoked, but staying out of the conversation around how unfair it is to privilege "pretty" people is not what I think is a good way to go about it.
So now it's unfeminist to wear a bra? Seriously? We've acknowledged that she has large breasts. Do you have any idea how friggin' uncomfortable it is to go braless when you have a large chest? This is the kind of rhetoric that gives feminism a bad rap.
Oh wow, I was totally never implying that she shouldn't wear one! I just meant that the whole underwear-as-outerwear business isn't something that has traditionally been associated with a rejection of the feminine beauty ideal.
She MIGHT be white, thin, and blonde, but I've seen a lot of hateful comments thrown at her because her face doesn't have society's standards of "beauty" for women. I've heard people making fun of her for looking "Jewish" (she's not Jewish) and that she's super-fug because her face looks different.
She has a hooked nose (which I find totally cute) and doesn't have high cheekbones like other female singers (or models) do.
She challenges society's standards of how a female pop diva should look like. I find her very beautiful and so do many other people, but not everyone thinks she is beautiful, and they resent her for that and for wearing crazy clothes and making awesome music AND being famous.
Just my thoughts.
I completely agree.
And in addition, those people who bash her are taking the whole "shut up and sit down ugly girl" mentality. I think she looks fine (not beautiful not ugly) and could care less, but the people who complain about the way she looks are only reflecting more sexism within our society, especially when they overlook a lot of male musicians who are way less than perfect looking.
I get where you're coming from. I admire her chutzpah, but how successful would she had been if she was a short stocky South Asian dealing with experimental traditional music? Same ideas, same message, but different aesthetic - same attention?
I don't get it. Why all the hype and excitement in feminist circles? Shes a pop star. Nothing more nothing less. Yeah I like her music but I'm not trying to turn her into something shes not. She has not done anything that a thousand others haven't already done. The only real difference I see between her and everyone else is she is a little weirder than is normally excepted in the mainstream music business. Thats about it.
I agree with this. I don't get why she gets so much love in feminist circles. Yeah, it's great that she writes songs about unrealistic body image and sort of challenges the white, male dominated music industry. But folks are acting like she is some sort of feminist icon. She's not. She's a pop star who makes (generic, boring) pop music. I understand that she is important in a culture where women and young girls are socialized to view feminism as bad - and she is (sort of) saying it's OK to be feminist - but fucking come on. It seems like people are setting the bar too low. Lady Gaga says she's "a little bit of a feminist" and people are smitten with her?
Also, as a DJ, I find her songs are just awful. That yelling pseudo-rap in "Paparazzi" and "Just Dance" are cringe inducing.
Thank you for saying this. I do not understand at all the celebration over her in feminist and/or queer circles. She's a pop star. (I feel the same way about Adam Lambert, even though I think his visibility as an openly gay artist is great.) She's not doing anything that hasn't been done before by less media-saturating people.
And I really, really question just how subversive she is. I don't understand why (to echo Stephen A) feminists aren't critiquing her along side celebrating her.
Her epiphany is fine, and I haven't seen her new video, but what about the one for "paprazzi." That's glamification of violence against women and disability if I ever saw it.
http://www.ladygaga.com/player/default.aspx?meid=4931
I saw paparazzi as being about how the public loves watching female celebrities fall than actually glamourizing the falls themselves.
Paparazzi highlights the level of performance that is required of a celebrity in her daily life, and the danger of refusing to participate in that performance culture. The female corpses suggest how the industry chews up and spits out women with no regard for the actual circumstances of their lives.
I think its also especially interesting to look at the video in the context of Rihanna's treatment by the media post-Chris Brown.
I'm not clear on the difference between glamization and glamorization, but I will suggest that it is not all art's job to be unambiguously clear in terms of politics. The music videos of "Bad Romance" and "Paparazzi" depict women being victimized followed by the victimizers getting their comeuppance. A little simple, yes, but art is supposed to do multiple things at once. If you can sneak a little message in there with the dance moves, all the power to you. Subversion is often a more effective delivery system than didacticism.
i don't think it's fair to critique her because she's thin and blonde; that's as troubling as when people critique celebrities for being over weight. her size isn't a statement, but how she carries herself is. she's made a point of never featuring her body on album covers, only her face, because she's tired of pop stars using their bodies to sell albums. even though the industry may embrace her physique, she constantly shits on typical beauty standards with her avante-garde fashion and her offbeat makeup. she's not looking to be a sex icon, despite the fact that she has the build for it, and that's more important than the fact that she was born white and has big boobs.
I'm not really impressed. I watched the "Bad Romance" video just now, and I feel that it is perhaps trying to make a statement concerning human trafficking, but could easily be confused by people who don't know that much about or don't get the issues with human trafficking. If you are a fifteen year old girl with little to no exposure to the troubles of world, are you really going to see that drugging and then forcing a woman to perform for men is bad, or is it just another stunt that she is perform to attract men? And then when things don't go great, what, blow them up with a fire shooting bra?
I don't buy it. I'm going to need a lot more proof. Half assed attempts to making a political statement are not going to change how her audience views sex trade.
I don't know; if we limited our critiques to things that the average person (who isn't into social commentary, hasn't yet been exposed to more than their own neighborhood) could understand, we'd be severely limited in what we say. How do you ever move the conversation forward?
Not like this?
Believe me, I'm not saying that we should not expose the un-exposed or educate about political/hot topics.
I just don't believe that this is the way to do it. For the very same reason that we get pissed off at the "Boobyball," or "Support Our Rack" slogans during Breast Cancer Awareness Month (removing the point of the awareness, making one aware of the wrong reason, or distracting), I feel that this video does all of that.
Glamorization.
The thing that strikes me is the vocals on "Bad Romance." They're really low, they're in chest voice, they're not trying to sound soubrette/AutoTune-attractive like a lot of female pop vocals do. That's pretty cool.
Actually, you can do a comparison with just her music. Listen to "Just Dance" and then listen to this, you'll see what I mean.
Agreed. I like her music, even if it is trash pop (and I generally listen to heavy metal!) and love her hooked nose because I have one too. :]
Are we setting the bar too low? Erm, since when is a discussion setting any bar too low? Lady GaGa isn't the only topic of debate on Feministing.com
Perhaps she gets so much attention because she's so accessible to the masses - dare I say it, perhaps some activists could learn something from her 'in your face' sensationalism to get messages across to huge amounts of people.
Can I ask what's wrong with the "I'm not a feminist but..." rhetoric?
I know that it's annoying to hear women not want to associate themselves with the feminist movement just because of the horrible, sexist stereotypes people attach to the feminist label, but if a person is saying right and doing right, is the label really that important?
Personally, I identify explicitly as a feminist, but I've been thinking lately that maybe I should stop pushing the label itself onto people. It should really be about the ideas and their merit. If Lady Gaga can grasp these ideas and she's using her work to bring the message to others that's pretty damn good. It's more than I've done as an "official" feminist.
Now whether Lady Gaga's videos are actually DOING that is a different question. It's hard for me to reconcile her intent with her product (ex: says she doesn't like social beauty standards, then embodies them in her videos with no apparent sarcasm).
I don't like hearing "I'm not a feminist, but (insert very feminist idea here)" because it tends to give away that the person isn't very well read. We had a lot of people saying "I'm not a feminist, but" at the beginning of my gender studies class this semester. This was at a small liberal arts college which went 10 to 1 for Obama last year. As the year went, a number of these students started adopting the f-word. We had one reading which described different types of feminism. While discussing it in class, I brought up that I believed everyone in the class was a feminist, whether s/he wanted to admit it or not. If you have the ideas, why not adopt the label? I think it sounds unintelligent when someone makes a feminist statement, and then shies away from the word, or says something about bra burning or manhating (the latter of which, lady gaga implied).
Should everyone really have to study the whole of feminism, its history, etc before making a feminist statement of any sort though? I mean, that seems kinda elitist...
Of course, expecting people to label themselves as feminist even if they don't know what exactly that label entails isn't really any better. Labeling them as feminist against their will is probably even worse - it's tying them to a whole set of ideas just because they've shown agreement with one or two of them.
As I understand it, there's also a problematic history of some feminists labeling other women as feminists against their will as a way of, essentially, forcing them to participate in their own oppression. For example, some anti-BDSM feminists do this, forcing BDSM-practicing women who fight for women's rights to associate themselves with a group that considers them evil.
Basically, every time you see a feminist say to someone "if you care about women's rights, you're a feminist", ask yourself why? Why is it so important to the person saying it that everyone fighting for women's rights associate themselves with the feminist movement?
"I don't like hearing "I'm not a feminist, but (insert very feminist idea here)" because it tends to give away that the person isn't very well read."
This is actually the response I was most afraid I would get. Statements like this really make me cringe because I think what you really mean is that those people haven't read the same books YOU'VE read. It's weird that even though you might have very similar ideas, you wouldn't respect the person's mind as much because they don't have the same reading list that you have. Especially considering that the people most likely to be exposed to feminist literature are those people who can afford a college education. I think there's a fine line between valuing one's education and devaluing the ideas of others (or more importantly, the way they express their ideas) because they haven't had the same opportunities.
Feminist literature has done a lot for me and the thought of passing it on to my friends really excites me. It's one thing to say "oh, well if that's what you think maybe you'd be interested in reading this book." It's another thing to assume a lack of intelligence on the part of another person, who may very well have a rich inner life that you can't see because you're too busy making sure they can name-drop the right authors. This sounds a lot like some sort of hipster-feminism to me. It's certainly not my feminism, but to each her own I guess.
The problem with being a pop star--aka having an enormous amount of influence on young women--and saying "I'm not a feminist but..." is failing to acknowledge your particular woes with a collective experience--to connect your individual annoyances and roadblocks with the rest of your peers. It's
It would be one thing if Lady Gaga was rejecting "feminist" because she didn't like labels, or if she knew a lot about feminism and chose to reject it. But she wasn't and she didn't--she was perpetuating the idea that feminism is man-hating. That doesn't exactly help to spark constructive conversations about feminism and restrictive gender roles.
Count me in as someone who LOVES Lady Gaga.
While on the surface it might seem that she is perpetuating some of the old feminine ideals, I think any closer look reveals some tweaking or mocking of said ideal.
Furthermore, how people seem to perceive Lady Gaga is very different from how they perceived, say, Christina Aguilera, or any incarnation of Britney Spears. It might just be my impression, but it seems that she is being taken somewhat more seriously.
If this is the case and there is even a kernel of feminism in her work, I say we mark it as a small victory.
I agree that it should be marked a small victory for feminism when a prominent pop star "comes out," so to speak, and discusses her feminism (as she sees it). But what I don't understand is peoples reticence to critique her work. All the feminists I know just blindly follow whatever she does... which seems to be counter-intuitive to her message of individuality.
I loooooooooove her. She gets a lot of criticism but dammit she uses her sexuality in a different way and I love it. Her outrageousness is just so awesome and funny to me and her lyrics kinda make sense and then they don't...You just gotta decipher them sometimes.
Oh and I'm starting to like Britney Spears again.
"The thing that strikes me is the vocals on "Bad Romance." They're really low, they're in chest voice, they're not trying to sound soubrette/AutoTune-attractive like a lot of female pop vocals do. That's pretty cool."
This is exactly what I like about her (power to the altos!!! Yay!!!). She has one powerhouse, dynamite voice, and is famous for her outrageousness, yes, but also her talent. She has a great belt range and she can sing where most pop singers don't dare go.
Personally I love her and I think she's really fantastic. And this article made me very happy. :)
I agree.. But have to say it - they without a doubt use auto-tune on her vocals. If I'm wrong I'll be thunderstruck, but those are way to perfectly on pitch, and she's working with major labels. She just doesn't need it as desperately as some other young female and male pop stars out there, because she has some seriously amazing pipes...
I agree, definitely, and you can really hear it in "Paparazzi" when comparing the live version with the studio version-- live it's much more kickass because it's not in that weird autotune high range, it's lower and has more power.
Personally, I can overlook it (slightly-- fake shit drives me insane) when I hear the acoustic "Poker Face." Wow.
I initially found both the videos for "Paparazzi" and "Bad Romance" to be problematic because I thought they glamorized violence against women and human trafficking, but it's interesting to hear Gaga's interpretation. I have a lot more respect for her now.
I am a HUGE Lady Gaga fan!!!! While she is a pop artist, her music is classic pop, but sounds nothing like the pop-y trash that is so often cranked out by female artists. Her lyrics are so original- and with them she is not afraid to explore things that pop music usually doesn't. I personally love that she's not afraid to ascertain her sexuality or that she wants sex (LoveGame). I've watched a bunch of her music videos- and I was very happy to see that she wasn't sexualizing herself just because she can, she has something to say with each of her songs.
Wait... her music sounds nothing like pop trash being churned out today...? It's the same crappy production and auto-tuned vocals. Sounds the same to me. First time I heard her I thought it was Britney Spears.
Same here. When I first heard Paparazzi I thought it was Britney Spears. The funny thing is her whole career is based on being the anti-Britney or the edgy Britney, but she is not brining anything new to the game. There is nothing innovative about her style, or music, but her songs are catchy.
The difference is listening to how they sound without the auto-tune. Lady Gaga can actually sing, and play piano. Britney can do neither.
What about the whole Saturday Night Live "girl kiss" with Madonna for the dudes? The guys on the show were egging them on.. right? Did I misinterpret this? I didn't know she was a lesbian.. and if she's not.. why the girl kiss? That's not very groundbreaking or feminist to me.
I agree with someone earlier that said "are we setting the bar too low?"
Lady Gaga is bisexual. Although I'm not sure if she's used that exact word to describe herself, she admits to being attracted to both men and women and to having sexual relationships with both men and women. A quick Google for "Lady Gaga" and "bisexual" turns up a bunch of articles with direct quotes from the superstar confirming this.
I have seen and read interviews in which she identifies as bisexual (yeah, us bisexuals exist too), there's a song on The Fame Monster where she sings about being turned on by a girl (although the line is "I love that lavender blonde," so maybe she's talking about herself, which is fine, too), and she's also stated that "Poker Face" is about being with a man but being attracted to women. Just to put it out there, I
I should prly also mention that "I love that lavender blonde" is followed by "The way she moves, the way she talks," since dudes can be blonde, too. :)
I read that she is bisexual.
A great deal of what is being discussed or loved about Lady Gaga seems to be about her image, which I assume to be the product of (paid-for-by-someone) stylists, make-up artists, hair stylists, wig makers, fashion designers, costume makers, accessory designers, choreographers,etc. which then dovetails with the marketing of Lady Gaga. Let us not forget the record executives who make decisions about who will produce and remix the music product, and package the new "star". How much of what is being loved about Lady Gaga is even really about Lady Gaga ? It's great that she mentioned Cindy Sherman, but has she even specifically addressed any aspect of Cindy Sherman's work ? Let us not forget that Cindy Sherman dressed herself, styled herself, contextualized herself and photographed herself(I am unaware whether she also did her early printing herself). I would feel much better about Lady Gaga if she created her image herself, because I do not get that sense at all. I don't know her history at all, but I haven't heard talk of her ground-breaking indie self-created or self-produced recording a la early PJ Harvey or Peaches for example. I have seen a couple of her videos that looked like they were VERY EXPENSIVE to create with a zillion wardrobe changes with the latest fashions(crazy Alexander McQueen lizard/alien monster outfit) and special effects but I keep asking myself -- where in this is Lady Gaga, really, herself ? I just don't get it or feel it. Please everyone, go look at some Nina Hagen YouTube videos from the late 70's or early 80's to see what I perceive as innovative self creation and performance(without a billion dollars in marketing) -- not that there is only room for one feminist or female to do this.
I want more -- I want more intense, literate, costumed performers who can really perform a set that leaves me weak and breathless and amazed. I don't know why, but I feel a taste of aspartame in my mouth when I start to consider Lady Gaga. I want some basic nutrition, not the charade of sugar.
My understanding is that she DOES have input on her style.
She's stated before that she's always been really into fashion, and she's designed some of her own stuff before.
She's also said that her costume designers are friends of hers.
To comment above me:
Yes, she is bisexual. She has said in interviews that she's had sexual relationships with women, and that she used to fantasize about women when having sex with her boyfriend.
To others:
The woman is a freaking ARTIST. She's a visual/imaginative thinker, not an analytical thinker. So of COURSE her connections between concepts are sometimes more abstract than logical.
She's an extremely talented musician, and she loves visual creativity. She does her wacky thing, as opposed to just trying to make herself into the best mainstream sex object she can (which is what virtually every other female pop star does).
She is definitely not as conventionally attractive as most other female pop stars. She has gotten called "ugly" and "manly-looking" by many, many people over the internet -can you imagine being her age and dealing with all that and being a strong enough person not to let you bother you? She continues to do her own thing. I agree her "difference" is what gets her noticed, but there's also somewhat of a real difference in her fanbase, compared to, say, Britney. If Gaga was even less conventionally attractive than she is, perhaps she would not be famous. But, that could be said for virtually any famous person. There are a lot of uncertainties.
Then there is the issue of sexuality. There is certainly room for disagreement on the issue of how subversive she's really being, but in her songs she definitely portrays a young woman who is more of a subject than an object, which is in fact something a lot of pop songs are lacking. Personally, I love her song Poker Face, because I can relate. It's not necessarily a positive message, but it speaks to a very real experience that a lot of young women have had.
Basically, for what she is (a musician, not an academic, and not a politician), I think she's pretty freaking cool.
Are there more meaningful people out there? Sure. I feel like Amanda Palmer is probably smarter, for instance, and definitely has deeper lyrics. But then Amanda Palmer would never be as famous as Lady Gaga, because their styles are so different.
Ok, I have mixed feelings about Lady Gaga. Maybe she dresses a little more sexily in the UK than she does in the States but I've never seen her wandering around London wearing baggies, basically because if she did, she wouldn't sell. And I'm not even really talking her albums, a lot of money made by pop stars comes from calendars, posters, and other paraphernalia that people buy to use to ogle them. An example of this over here was a funny TV news report I saw when the Spice Girls were playing Manchester (back when they started) - the interviewer was asking random people how long they'd been waiting to see them and did they own all the singles, stuff like that. It got to a group of young lads and they asked them the same question - one answered "Yeah, of course, I have ALL the albums... Nah, only joking, I do have some posters, though..." Nothing wrong with that but let's be honest, it's not about feminism, it's about marketability - she dresses funky enough to make a lot women think it's all about subversion, but sexily enough that a lot of guys will buy her stuff too (even if it's for a different reason).
That didn't have anything to do with my disappointment at hearing her music, though - in fact I also bought into the clothes/look thing, and thought "wow, she looks pretty cool, I'll have to listen out for her stuff". Imagine my surprise when I realised it was unoriginal pop a la Britney, Christina, Pink, Kylie, Girls Aloud, etc. etc. I mean, if that's your thing then that's ok, but I just thought by her dress sense she might have come up with something a little different. Just goes to show the old adage - don't judge a book by it's cover"!
I will never be so glad as to see her 15 minutes run out. All she is is a cheap copy of Madonna with none of the art.