The Rolling Stones and Philosophy_ It's Just a Thought Away - Luke Dick [140]
Mick wouldn’t go. Elvis went into the army, you know? That is how he became acceptable to the manly men. And didn’t they love cutting off his hair? But Mick called the Kouretes to himself and kept them under his thumb. That’s what Dionysus will do if you don’t watch out. It really is Mick’s band, as much as Keith and Charlie chafe at the suggestion. Yeah, he’s no good without them, it’s true, but that doesn’t change the fact that She’s the Boss, and Mick is her Golden Boy. No Mick, no Stones.
The story of the Dionysian frenzy is the story of the girly-men, and it isn’t often well-told. But it is lived every day. So let me ask you a question: which group is cooler, the Beatles or the Stones? If you said the Beatles, you may not be a man at all, of either kind. The Beatles are cool, and they were girly men, but they aren’t dangerous enough to be cooler than the Stones. And here’s what I want you to think about for a minute. The Beatles pressed androgyny only just a bit (pretty mop-tops that they were), but as far as I can tell, they never went in drag (the closest they came was when John and Ringo borrowed their wives’ coats for the rooftop concert in January of 1969, their last public performance). The Stones made a point of their femininity. Why do you suppose they did that? Let’s think about it for a little bit.
“They’re So Ugly It’s Appealing”
This was a direct quote from a screaming teeny-bopper who was asked by a newsman outside a Stones concert in about 1965 why she liked The Stones so much. It’s a fact. Those boys were just odd looking, every one of them. Big lips, square jaws, deep set eyes, pointy features—and they were all odd looking in almost the same way, except for Ian Stewart, who was sidelined from the band early because he didn’t look like the rest of them (Life, p. 129). Ian Stewart looked like a man, was built like a man, and not a bad looking man at that. The others looked androgynous, like ugly, pretty, dirty things. One can barely recover from the picture they put on the cover of their single “Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby.” The picture is so good it’s disturbing. These guys set out to violate our gendered expectations. On purpose. These weren’t just a bunch of guys who bent the rules, they were off-sides.
The complex psychology of the Dionysian libation bearers, at least in this patriarchal day and age, involves compensation for their effeminacy. That is how I would account for the blatant misogyny of the Stones lyrics. These days you have to keep the manly men, the Dick Cheneys and George Bushes of the world, and their cops and lawyers, at arm’s length. So to do that, our girly Kouretes had to bite the womanly hand that fed them—or at least that’s the way it had to look (it appears that only Brian Jones actually abused women). Back in the bad old days, back when the women got the orgies going and no cops existed to tell them it was immoral, guys like the Stones probably didn’t need to be faux-macho. They just needed an invitation to the banquet. And boys like The Stones were always welcome (well, except for Brian). They were good toys to keep around. But that was then, and we weren’t there.
Pleased to Meet You
So, now we’re getting somewhere. According to me, it’s The Father of All Pissing Contests (I mean the Cold War) that obliges good English boys like Keith and Mick (who don’t hate women, they love women) to write songs like “Stupid Girl” and “Yesterday’s Papers,” and “Under My Thumb” and “That Girl Belongs to Yesterday,” and two dozen others that seem, if anything, outright hostile to women. Compare it with the message in their song “Bitch,” which might have been named “Under Your Thumb.” What is the message here?
If these guys are serving the