Log In
Register
3.32pm
18 April 2013
Offline
I’m not calling anyone here racist or misogynist, unless they want to claim it. I’m saying, and I think John would agree based on what I’ve seen and read, that much of the original hatred of Yoko was racist and misogynist. Since times have changed, and those things are no longer acceptable, Yoko haters have had to find more politically correct reasons to hate her.
And John and Paul broke up The Beatles.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
3.48pm
8 November 2012
Offline 
Expert Textpert said
Since times have changed, and those things are no longer acceptable, Yoko haters have had to find more politically correct reasons to hate her.
Oh dear lord, I can’t take this anymore.
One, just because people dislike Yoko’s art or her personality, it doesn’t make them downright “haters.”
Two, you definitely implied that people who dislike her are doing so for racist and misogynistic reasons, even if they’re coding it in other language, when you said:
It’s revisionist history, the same old racist, misogynist bile being recycled under a new, politically correct banner.
And by doing so, you’re suggesting that Yoko’s art can’t be judged ON ITS OWN MERIT, but because she’s an Asian woman. Or that someone can’t possibly dislike her because she helped wreck a marriage, separated a man from his loved ones, or appears to cash in on his legacy, or because she comes across as a narcissist. No, it’s because she’s an Asian woman and we can’t possibly understand that the things she does are… part of her culture and her gender, I guess? Relying on that race/gender argument as an excuse is a form of racism and sexism. As a woman of color, this is offensive to me. As a human being, this is offensive to me.
It’s great you love Yoko, but please find more constructive, less reductive ways to defend her. This is just tired.
parlance
The following people thank parlance for this post:
Starr Shine?, Oudis, Wigwam, C.R.A., Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, BeatleSoul, KyleKartan4.13pm
18 April 2013
Offline I’d like to add a few more thoughts on this topic.
The basic reasons that people dislike Yoko (you can choose which one fits you)
1. Racism.
2. Misogyny.
3. The belief that she has no talent.
4. Dislike of avant garde music or art.
5. Dislike of her voice.
6. Dislike of that Japanese vocal technique she borrowed from kabuki theater.
7. The belief that she is responsible for taking John away from The Beatles.
I’ll address the first two: You don’t have to go very far to see the racists and the misognyists, even today. Look at Internet user comments on any performance by Yoko. You’ll see, and I’m actually quoting from memory here, comments such as that she is a “dumb bitch” who “should commit suicide” and “should be raped.” Going back to the late 60’s, early 70’s, you have examples of fans ripping Yoko’s hair and yelling insults at her.
The belief that she is talentless is often presented as fact because of the intensity of the dislike on the part of the person presenting the argument. However, this is entirely subjective, which leads us to reason # 4. If you don’t like the avant garde, fine, but don’t say that avant garde artists have no talent because you don’t like them. As John said to a critic once, is Yoko’s art any different than Marcel Duchamp’s urinal, for example? And yet people accept Duchamp.
Dislike of her voice: Many people have an irrational dislike of Yoko’s voice. Sean Lennon has noted this. He happens to like his mother’s voice, but apparently many people just cringe when they hear her voice for some unknown reason.
Dislike of that “chirpy, gutteral, screamy” thing she does with her voice, which is actually a technique that she borrowed from Japanese kabuki theater. Most people take this for evidence that Yoko has not talent or can’t sing, or that she is “trying to sing,” which I have heard on a number of occasions. This particular dislike is either based in ignorance or is taken as evidence to support one of the other dislikes listed above. Or, often, it is just a result of the irrational reaction of cringing that one has when hearing the sound. Yoko is most likely having a good laugh at the expense of those who hate this sound. Much of Yoko’s art is aimed at eliciting strong responses from the audience, and whether they are positive or negative doesn’t matter to her.
And lastly, the idea that she somehow stole John away. John was a grown man who made his own deicisions, as he himself pointed out a number of times. I believe it was Ray Coleman who stated the implicit contradiction in this belief, which is: John was A) A spokesperson for a generation, a genius, and a strong willed individual, and B) A spineless person who was so easily influenced by a “gold digger” that he broke up The Beatles and became a househusband.
There are, of course, many people who like to argue that Yoko was in fact a witch who cast a spell on John (take May Pang, for example, who obviously has another motive here because she was Yoko’s competition). Even under hypnosis, a person cannot do anything he or she does not want to do. John is solely responsible for his own decisions.
On this count, the Yoko haters should just come out and admit they are John haters, since what they are dointg is using Yoko as a scapegoat for his decisions.
This leads us to the basic, underlying issue: People are angry that the Beatles broke up and they don’t want to blame the Beatles for it. So hey, here’s this funny Asian lady who makes weird sounds, and she’s also a feminist, so she’s an easy target!
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
4.17pm
8 November 2012
Offline Expert Textpert said
So hey, here’s this funny Asian lady who makes weird sounds, and she’s also a feminist, so she’s an easy target!
Wow, you’re still doing it. *smh*
parlance
4.19pm
1 November 2013
Offline
Expert Texpert,
parlance said
or appears to cash in on his legacy, she comes across as a narcissist.
I have seen thous reason a lot on this forum and in other places yet it isn’t in your list. Why is that?
4.22pm
18 April 2013
Offline I’ll address those:
She’s his widow, and responsible for his legacy, so what is she supposed to do? Give the money away and sell the catalogue?
The “narcissist” idea is based on hearsay from individuals who knew Yoko in person and had a personality conflict with her. If you want to accept someone else’s opinion of a person you have never met, feel free.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
4.24pm
8 November 2012
Offline Expert Textpert said
The “narcissist” idea is based on hearsay from individuals who knew Yoko in person
In my case, it’s based on how she comes across on TV.
Expert Texpert, has it occurred to you that there’s a middle ground?
parlance
4.28pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline I’m with @Expert Textpert here, while thinking some of his phrasing could have been better.
I suggested a couple of weeks ago that much of the “hate” aimed at Yoko was based on “prejudice”. I was not suggesting that any person here was being prejudiced, just that the portrayal of her in various media over the years has been prejudiced and biased against her, seeking to portray her as one of the big villains in the Beatles story, rather than giving an honest portrayal of her.
Believe it or not, as I’m often seen defending her, I’m not a great fan. I do believe she has been unfairly maligned in much Beatles literature over the years though, and represented as something she simply isn’t – the Dragon Lady, the Witch – and it all started as soon she was revealed to the public as John’s new partner, and – yes! – much of the early publicity surrounding her was deeply racist and sexist.
As to the point about whether she’d be remembered now were it not for her association with John, you can ask that about almost any Beatle partner with the sole exception of maybe Jane Asher. In fact, most Beatle partners would never have been heard of (Cynthia, Maureen, Olivia) had it not been for their Beatle. One might also suggest that Linda would be a much more obscure ’60s photographer than she is now considered had she not hooked up with Paul. And looking at Fluxus movement, virtually all are forgotten now, and certainly not considered as major artists (Cage may be the only other one involved still widely known of).
My argument is with the portrayal of her as the villain of the piece. Dislike her art (in its many forms) by all means, but damning her as a person because she is Yoko and that’s what the Beatle books, etc., say should be done is wrong to me.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Expert Textpert"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
4.34pm
1 November 2013
Offline Ron Nasty said
As to the point about whether she’d be remembered now were it not for her association with John, you can ask that about almost any Beatle partner with the sole exception of maybe Jane Asher.
Barbara Bach had a role in a James Bond Movie so I think she would also be included with Jane Asher.
4.36pm
8 November 2012
Offline I think we’re all well aware of the history of Yoko’s portrayal in media, and I’m appalled she faced racism and misogyny, as I am when anyone faces that. And I’m not surprised that there might be people who are annoyed/mystified/enraged that John spent his last years with an Asian woman. But I haven’t seen here at this particular forum, The Beatles Bible, indications that people are judging Yoko on the basis of her gender or race.
That said, I don’t believe in separating the art from the artist. I think who they are informs their art. I’m not talking in terms of who broke up the Beatles – I don’t think anyone who are familiar with actual Beatles history believes that Yoko did, and I think most active posters the forum are familiar.
That said, I think this topic was ripe for controversy, and that’s why I’ve largely avoided it. You can’t know what’s going on in someone’s mind.
I admire Yoko as a feminist, but I don’t think she’s always behaved as one.
I admire that she pushes boundaries in art, but I don’t care for the output.
I can’t stand her voice, and that’s probably not going to change.
That doesn’t make someone a “hater.” Again, there’s that middle ground where I think most people exist.
parlance
The following people thank parlance for this post:
Starr Shine?, Wigwam, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, BeatleSoul4.49pm
18 April 2013
Offline Parlance, I’m glad that as a woman of color you don’t use race or gender as an excuse. There should be more people like you.
Certainly, I am not using those things as an excuse, but I do think they play a part in most peoples’ assessment of Yoko, or at least they did originally in her media portrayal. Since this original media portrayal shaped a negative image of Yoko that has been carried on to this day, you can’t really eliminate race or gender from the picture, which is what I’m saying. What lingers today is a a general “dislike” or “hatred” (choose your own word) that may find expression in any of the reasons I have listed above.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
5.05pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Annadog40 said
Ron Nasty said
As to the point about whether she’d be remembered now were it not for her association with John, you can ask that about almost any Beatle partner with the sole exception of maybe Jane Asher.
Barbara Bach had a role in a James Bond Movie so I think she would also be included with Jane Asher.
@Starr Shine? I wouldn’t agree, I’m afraid. She was a minor actress who didn’t have a major career, as opposed to Jane who has had starring roles in film and TV, published novels and cookbooks, is a famous (in the UK, at least) cakemaker/designer. Barbara’s career is a footnote, while Jane had a major career (one of Paul’s problems with her) and is still widely respected. Virtually all I know about Barbara is that she was a Bond girl, was in Caveman, married Ringo. Note (sorry @Mr. Kite) I also don’t think Patti would be remembered were it not for her part in George and Eric’s life.
@parlance The point I was attempting to make, maybe badly – that’s for others to judge, is that there’s a middle ground, but that too many, including in this thread and on this forum, are just anti-Yoko – and that that is largely based on the biased portrayal of her in the media over the years. I’m not labelling everyone here who dislikes Yoko as a hater, just pointing out that a largely negative portrayal of her over the years, which some take as the gospel truth, is bound to result in a negative reaction.
Just as there are some people you can never convince that Paul isn’t dead, there are those who will believe that Yoko is the Wicked Witch of the East, and no argument you make will convince them to view her with less disdain.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
5.12pm
8 November 2012
Offline Expert Textpert said
Parlance, I’m glad that as a woman of color you don’t use race or gender as an excuse. There should be more people like you.
Oooh, let me make one thing clear lest the message gets muddied. If I see racism or sexism, I will call it out, and I’ve done so on this forum. That’s not the same as using race/gender as an excuse.
Certainly, I am not using those things as an excuse, but I do think they play a part in most peoples’ assessment of Yoko, or at least they did originally in her media portrayal. Since this original media portrayal shaped a negative image of Yoko that has been carried on to this day, you can’t really eliminate race or gender from the picture, which is what I’m saying. What lingers today is a a general “dislike” or “hatred” (choose your own word) that may find expression in any of the reasons I have listed above.
You’re still engaging in absolutist thinking, though, first in equating “dislike” and “hatred” and then in assuming that Yoko’s race and gender still informs most people’s perception. Remember, there are fans who weren’t around in the 60s or 70s, and for whom the idea of one woman breaking up a powerful band would be alien to them and would read as sexist. They’re more likely to have grown up with pop culture examples like “Gilmore Girls” that explicitly debunk the myth than the outdated myth itself. I think if anything, more people find her amusing at worst and admirable at best; she’s an older woman still plugging along and doing her thing, and I think a casual fan would be unaware of much of the animosity towards her. The ones who still say she broke up the Beatles and call her racist and sexist names come across as Archie Bunker anachronisms.
parlance
5.55pm
18 April 2013
Offline Yes, it is possible that people may be ambivalent toward Yoko, rather than for or against.
The following people thank Expert Textpert for this post:
parlance"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
7.45pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline I and many folk i know couldn’t give a damn what race Yoko is, what her background is and their views are not based on the fact she is a woman. Yes there are some who did and continue to so but to suggest that race and gender is the main reason behind disliking her is quite simply wrong (a lot of social media comments are given by folk for a reaction or as a bad joke and you’ll find the same comments made about a host of other celebrities (male and female) of all kinds of race etc).
I severely dislike her handling of the Lennon catalogue as its been cheapened by all the awful merchandise (i hold and voice the same opinion on Apple’s handling of the Beatles) and how John’s songs and image are used to sell cars and whatnot. I remember the ridiculous reason given (by Sean i believe) of doing it so John remained in the public conscious. I dont believe for a second John would have wanted his legacy to go that way – and Yoko and Sean could not do all that and live without ever giving money a second thought. No one is saying sell the catalogue just don’t sell John so cheaply.
I dislike her music, not because its Yoko and therefore it must be bad but because its not to my taste.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
parlance, Expert Textpert, Wigwam, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, BeatleSoul"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
8.57pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline Expert Textpert said
Zig said
Expert Textpert said
If Cage “largely ignored” Yoko, then why did he invite her to go on tour with him in 1962, and why are there recordings of the performances?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bro…..ears_.htmlThat would be a great question for Mr. Gould. Could it be that those two performances were the “two failed attempts at shows in NY” that he referred to? I’m not sure why she would leave NY to go to London by invitation (only after Cox wrote about her in a British art magazine, mind you) if the shows were successful.
I understand your defense of Yoko because I know you admire her. More power to you. I still maintain she would have faded away into further obscurity had she never met John. Horses for courses.
No, the performances with Cage took place in Japan.
Thanks for the correction. If that is the case, these could be the performances Gould cited “where her work was rudely received by Japanese avant-gardisits causing her to attempt suicide.” It would certainly fit better into the timeline. And, to clarify another item, she was largely ignored during the perfomances held in the loft. It did not say by whom, Cage or otherwise.
I want to make my position clear. Whether or not I get into her art is irrelevant – for the record, I do not except for a couple of songs on the SINYC album she made with John. To be fair, I have not heard or seen everything she has ever performed. But the majority of what I have seen/heard gives me no indication that I would enjoy any more of it.
One point I was trying to make is that I do not believe she was anywhere near as “famous” prior to meeting John as we have all been led to believe. Another point I was trying to make is that there was a pattern made by Yoko of fornicating her way into the public eye.
Expert Textpert said
It just seems very clear to me that people will say anything to support their dislike of Yoko Ono…It’s revisionist history, the same old racist, misogynist bile being recycled under a new, politically correct banner.
Wow. Where do I start with this? Let’s try here. I did not get the impression that Gould disliked Yoko. He did not say that any of these events were biased by gender or race. He simply reported, over two or three pages of a 606 page book, what went on over this short period of time in Beatles and cultural history and moved on. He did not belabor any of this as one would expect from someone with an axe to grind. One could wonder is it revisionist history or the debunking of myths perpetuated over time? There does seem to be evidence that she lied about not knowing who the Beatles and John were. What else did she lie about?
For the record, I do not hate or like Yoko. I’ve made it clear that I am simply aware of her existence. I will give her credit for making John happy because all indications say it is so. Coincidentally, while listening to music last night in shuffle mode, ‘Oh Yoko!’ was played and I cranked it up. I love how happy John sounds while singing this song.
I respect you and your admiration for Yoko ExTex. I am not trying to change any of that – simply offering up information that I came across that is contrary to what you wrote about her fame. You or anyone else can take it or not.
The following people thank Zig for this post:
parlanceTo the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
9.07pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline The whole johnandyoko story from beginning to end is based on lies perpetuated by johnandyoko.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
BeatleSoul"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
9.24pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline meanmistermustard said
The whole johnandyoko story from beginning to end is based on lies perpetuated by johnandyoko.
Just as many of the most negative portrayals of their life together come from those with vested interests or axes to grind. The truth is somewhere in between.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Zig, Expert Textpert"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
9.29pm
Reviewers
4 February 2014
Offline I partially agree with you @Ron Nasty. I don’t think Pattie would have been remembered this long if not for George and Eric, but she was influential in her own right. She was a very sucessful model, had a few vogue covers, and most importantly in assessing a ‘legacy’ she has been cited as Twiggy’s modeling influence. Twiggy for some reason (don’t ask me why, I know nothing of modeling beyond Pattie) is remembered.
In the modeling world that’s like how we might remember Carl Parkins. If he didn’t influence The Beatles we wouldn’t remember him, but he did and we do.
Back on topic, I like Yoko as a person, not an artist. I do believe she loved John though.
I also agree that they aren’t really using his image in the best ways.
9.33pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Re Barbara, just wait until ‘Caveman’ is back out on DVD.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
