Ozzy-Era Female Audience

[zzzptm]

Taste is definitely not a topic to fight about. Anyway, while I was wondering if I agree or disagree with your statement, it suddenly hit me that I feel Bill Ward in 1970 was 10 times more handsome than both Dickinson and Bon Jovi at any time. If you watch the Brussels aka Paris 1970 video, don't you think those are handsome guys?

We get to see Ozzy mostly, but Bill Ward sure did clean up good back then. I'll agree that I like the cut of his jib and the sound of his town.

Geezer and Tony, though... hard to tell, since they've got heads down, hair obscuring most facial features for most of the glimpses we get of them. Looking at the California Jam, though, they don't look half bad.

But they're no Vince Taylor...



Another face that, if I woke up one day looking like that, I wouldn't complain one little bitty bit.

[OzzyIsDio]

I remember Bunny Pink who was a regular female member, also fairies wear heels, they haven't been around in awhile.

Tracette, still comes on once in a blue moon, and of course Lillith13, who has interviewed Bill Ward, she was on here a few days ago.

[Sabbabbath]

We get to see Ozzy mostly, but Bill Ward sure did clean up good back then. I'll agree that I like the cut of his jib and the sound of his town.

...and he wore a great sweater or long sleeve or whatever with those stars on it! Ozzy's also looking really sweet on the Brussels show, and so focused - check him out on Hand of Doom, this guy gives everything. I don't know if he was on drugs at the show - his facial expression and the way he stares remind me of people I have seen on speed -, but they definitely don't distract him.

Geezer and Tony, though... hard to tell, since they've got heads down, hair obscuring most facial features for most of the glimpses we get of them.

I agree, though I think that Geezer does have something about him if you look closer. Look how delicate his fingers look on close-ups.

Looking at the California Jam, though, they don't look half bad.

Absolutely. Ozzy and Bill have already loosened a bit since the Brussels show though. Cal Jam is the only time I ever see Tony without his mustache - it's so unfamiliar, LOL.

But they're no Vince Taylor...

Another face that, if I woke up one day looking like that, I wouldn't complain one little bitty bit.

You've got a point there, LOL.

[zzzptm]

You've got a point there, LOL.

I picked him because, in spite of his off-stage BS, bands kept forming around him because he could put butts in seats and then get 'em shakin' all over. (Which was also a hit for him after it was a hit for Johnny Kidd and the Pirates. Taylor also got to be the backup "French Elvis" when Johnny Hallyday had to do his national service.)

[Wicked Cricket]

If were talking fans in the 70's... males outnumbered chicks I'd say 10-1 at a Sabbath show and very few if any girls I knew listened to them in H.S. They were definitely a guy's band. Any females who did go see them live were 99% with their BF's... they're weren't any "older" fans or kids at those shows either we're talking 70's not 21st century. Henry Rollins had it 100% correct in who were the Sab fans.... her nailed it!

[Jeff]

If were talking fans in the 70's... males outnumbered chicks I'd say 10-1 at a Sabbath show and very few if any girls I knew listened to them in H.S. They were definitely a guy's band. Any females who did go see them live were 99% with their BF's... they're weren't any "older" fans or kids at those shows either we're talking 70's not 21st century. Henry Rollins had it 100% correct in who were the Sab fans.... her nailed it!

The problem with this is that you're speaking in absolute terms, when the chances are good that you can only speak for one specific area. The area where you grew up and happened to be.

Recordings speak volumes. And when a band has shows with screaming women in their archive, the "guy's band" tag can only ever be an exaggeration, IMO.

[Wicked Cricket]

The problem with this is that you're speaking in absolute terms, when the chances are good that you can only speak for one specific area. The area where you grew up and happened to be.

Recordings speak volumes. And when a band has shows with screaming women in their archive, the "guy's band" tag can only ever be an exaggeration, IMO.

ha! well I'm only speaking from a specific area and experience yes....

[William_the_Bloody]

I would argue that the vast majority of individual experiences, recordings be damned (and how many shows that were actually filmed weren't staged with hired girls up front or just moving more women to the front for free), most will turn out to be a "Guys only" band.

Ozzy Solo, on the other hand, really opened things up.

Black Sabbath's point-of-view just isn't "Alpha" and that's what the ladies are latching on to. Sabbath is a band for the left-behind, downtrodden, depressed. I'll probably catch hell for that one, but it's true.

The rare female that likes Black Sabbath either likes all the "wrong" songs (Changes, Sweet Leaf because they really like Marijuana, Paranoid because they heard it on the radio) or they like the most "Devil" songs because they are latching on to the Witchy/Tatted up Hardcore trope.

I will catch more hell for that, I'll bet.

Show me a woman who listens to "Megalomania" because she relates to the isolation and escapism and the snarliness of the riff...I mean really...find ONE.

[Sabbabbath]

Show me a woman who listens to "Megalomania" because she relates to the isolation and escapism and the snarliness of the riff...I mean really...find ONE.

Well - me!!!

[Wicked Cricket]

I would argue that the vast majority of individual experiences, recordings be damned (and how many shows that were actually filmed weren't staged with hired girls up front or just moving more women to the front for free), most will turn out to be a "Guys only" band.

Ozzy Solo, on the other hand, really opened things up.

Black Sabbath's point-of-view just isn't "Alpha" and that's what the ladies are latching on to. Sabbath is a band for the left-behind, downtrodden, depressed. I'll probably catch hell for that one, but it's true.

The rare female that likes Black Sabbath either likes all the "wrong" songs (Changes, Sweet Leaf because they really like Marijuana, Paranoid because they heard it on the radio) or they like the most "Devil" songs because they are latching on to the Witchy/Tatted up Hardcore trope.

I will catch more hell for that, I'll bet.

Show me a woman who listens to "Megalomania" because she relates to the isolation and escapism and the snarliness of the riff...I mean really...find ONE.

yea, and the thing is in the 70's, there wasn't a "Heavy Metal" genre crowd, where both sexes mingled, heck even hard rock was predominately male, and the gothic chick thing wasn't even a category. One has to be careful to view concerts back in the 70's, as many multi-band festivals, Cal Jam I for instance, were an eclectic mix of music from funk to country rock to hard rock/metal, drawing crowds from all genres. Like I previously said, my opinion is from personal boots on the ground experience not from watching an old video from California or wherever. For 2nd and 3rd generation fans there's a greater mix of male/female.

[William_the_Bloody]

Well - me!!!

Well, that's really cool...but sometimes the exception proves the rule. I feel a little bit like you should be studied in a controlled laboratory environment by a team of experts, possibly from a secret Military base. Certainly, there are questions.

[Sabbabbath]

Well, that's really cool...but sometimes the exception proves the rule. I feel a little bit like you should be studied in a controlled laboratory environment by a team of experts, possibly from a secret Military base. Certainly, there are questions.

Or maybe it's your stereotypes that need to be studied. :-) Seriously, apart from a few very basic bodily/biological facts, differences between women and men are never a 100% thing. Rather, they work as tendencies and probabilities. There are psychological studies that show that differences in personal traits between individuals are always bigger than those between sexes as groups. Differences between the sexes are differences between the average woman and man, NOT between every single woman and every single man.

More specifically for Sabbath, again, nobody has denied that the vast majority of fans in the 1970ies were men. What I do deny is the clichés that all women who like some male band's music do it simply because those men are 'alpha men' and/or because they want sex with those men and/or because the band plays some sweet mainstream music and/or between they (the female fans) are the girlfriend of somebody etc. To call it a cliché does NOT mean those things don't happen (of course they do), but that they are not the whole story. And don't forget that there are many rock fans out there who, for some reason or other, never or rarely attend concerts. Yes you didn't meet many women on those gigs back then, but does that prove women didn't like that music. I don't think so. Just to give an example, I know several women who really don't like to go to any big event at all where the majority of people can be expected to be drunk men. And that does not have to do anything with the musical taste of those women. Even today, it is not always funny for a woman to be on such an event, and I would guess it was probably a little worse in the 1970ies. I don't want to raise this as a big issue - it's just meant as an example showing that being attracted by a certain style of music or a specific band does not necessarily lead everybody to regularly attending concert shows. Myself I have only been to one Sabbath show in my life. I attended two Tiamat shows. Does that tell you much about my band preferences? I don't think so!!! I am a HUGE Sabbath fan and collector, and I am also a big fan of Leonard Cohen who I NEVER saw live. Actually Tiamat were special guest for Sabbath and played on the same small festival as Savatage, otherwise I would never have attended a Tiamat show (though I did like Wildhoney a little). Maybe while some of you were attending Sabbath's concert shows, some women were sitting at home listening to their Master of Reality LP. :-)

You mentioned that being a loner predisposes one to be a Sabbath fan. Well, even though you may picture a man when you hear the word 'loner', there are female loners too!

Also, while it is true that the Don Kirshner video may have been intentionally arranged in such a way as to make women in it appear more prominent. Anyway, that's much less likely with audience recordings and shots, and Jeff is right to point out there are some with women screaming all over the mic. And on the Cal Jam video, no matter for which band or with which boyfriend many of those women came to the festival, some of them are obviously enjoying Sabbath's show.

Black Sabbath's point-of-view just isn't "Alpha" and that's what the ladies are latching on to. Sabbath is a band for the left-behind, downtrodden, depressed. I'll probably catch hell for that one, but it's true.

The rare female that likes Black Sabbath either likes all the "wrong" songs (Changes, Sweet Leaf because they really like Marijuana, Paranoid because they heard it on the radio) or they like the most "Devil" songs because they are latching on to the Witchy/Tatted up Hardcore trope.

Man, so many clichés in such a small passage even though you seem to be a smart person, I don't get it. Are women never left-behind, downtrodden, depressed?

[William_the_Bloody]

Man, so many clichés in such a small passage even though you seem to be a smart person, I don't get it.

It's precisely because I am a smart person that I feel comfortable in dealing with clichés. Clichés exist for a reason; they don't really spring forth from a vacuum.

If I have a tool that works 99% of the time, that is and always will be a useful tool. We mustn't throw away such a useful tool simply because every once in a while it fails.

As a society we have painted ourselves into a bit of a corner by assigning a negative connotation to stereotyping, or making blanket statements, or discussing "clichés". The truth is, to get anywhere near the "bottom" of things, we must speak in broad terms, profile and...perhaps most importantly...never fail to assign value to our own personal experiences for fear that they underscore the stereotype.

Where truth can be found and truth can be illustrated with pattern recognition, we must do so.

That you find what I wrote "Cliché" means you are almost certainly personally familiar with what I wrote. Not yourself, of course, but you've seen the pattern in others and you know it's out there and if pressed anyone reading this would concur that they've seen it too.

In conclusion, smart people use useful tools to paint a clearer picture and further discussion.

Brainwashed Social Justice Warriors reject such tools because, when used, they shine light on problems and issues they'd rather not confront because it undermines their "Everyone is a snowflake" narrative.

In my humble opinion. YMMV.


Of course women can be loners, downtrodden, etc and of course women can also be very *into* music in a proper manner. However, I've never really gotten to personally verify that in the real world.

BTW: I also hate events where the main draw is a bunch of drunk guys. I've only ever seen Black Sabbath on Cross Purposes and Dehumanizer tours. I've never seen Ozzy in any capacity, and when I saw Dio it was a small venue on "Master of the Moon" tour.

I hate concerts, really. I like a bootleg now and then, just to see how awful stuff is compared to the studio version.

[Sabbabbath]

It's precisely because I am a smart person that I feel comfortable in dealing with clichés. Clichés exist for a reason; they don't really spring forth from a vacuum.

If I have a tool that works 99% of the time, that is and always will be a useful tool. We mustn't throw away such a useful tool simply because every once in a while it fails.

As a society we have painted ourselves into a bit of a corner by assigning a negative connotation to stereotyping, or making blanket statements, or discussing "clichés". The truth is, to get anywhere near the "bottom" of things, we must speak in broad terms, profile and...perhaps most importantly...never fail to assign value to our own personal experiences for fear that they underscore the stereotype.

Where truth can be found and truth can be illustrated with pattern recognition, we must do so.

That you find what I wrote "Cliché" means you are almost certainly personally familiar with what I wrote. Not yourself, of course, but you've seen the pattern in others and you know it's out there and if pressed anyone reading this would concur that they've seen it too.

In conclusion, smart people use useful tools to paint a clearer picture and further discussion.

Brainwashed Social Justice Warriors reject such tools because, when used, they shine light on problems and issues they'd rather not confront because it undermines their "Everyone is a snowflake" narrative.

In my humble opinion. YMMV.

It's not like I disagree with all of what you're saying here (though I would dispute most of those parts of your statement that seem to deal with your view on the societal situation in your country rather than the opinions voiced in this thread). I do agree there are intelligent and potentially productive ways of dealing with clichés. But when you wrote: "Show me a woman who listens to 'Megalomania' because she relates to the isolation and escapism and the snarliness of the riff...I mean really...find ONE", you clearly proved that you were believing it was a 100% thing, not just a pattern or tendency. Thus, you have yourself demonstrated that your way of using or following clichés can be very misleading. At such a point, you are at high risk of overlooking those facets of the person in front of you that don't fit your cliché, and also at high risk of 'seeing' things in her that are not there simply because those things fit your cliché. When that happens, then a potentially helpful notion of an overall pattern or tendency has turned into an indeed dangerous cliché that reduces an individual to its membership in a certain group and thus deprives it of any truly individual characteristics. I don't know who those "Brainwashed Social Justice Warriors" are that you are talking about (and I guess it wouldn't be a proper topic for this forum since politics is forbidden here), but as you hopefully noticed, and as I have repeatedly pointed out, no-one here has disputed the overall tendency that the vast majority of Sabbath fans are or were male. What Jeff (if I read him correctly) and I are opposing is the habit of exaggerating that tendency in such a way as to make it appear like a 100% thing.

[A Sabbath Historian]

Or maybe it's your stereotypes that need to be studied. :-) Seriously, apart from a few very basic bodily/biological facts, differences between women and men are never a 100% thing. Rather, they work as tendencies and probabilities. There are psychological studies that show that differences in personal traits between individuals are always bigger than those between sexes as groups. Differences between the sexes are differences between the average woman and man, NOT between every single woman and every single man.

More specifically for Sabbath, again, nobody has denied that the vast majority of fans in the 1970ies were men. What I do deny is the clichés that all women who like some male band's music do it simply because those men are 'alpha men' and/or because they want sex with those men and/or because the band plays some sweet mainstream music and/or between they (the female fans) are the girlfriend of somebody etc. To call it a cliché does NOT mean those things don't happen (of course they do), but that they are not the whole story. And don't forget that there are many rock fans out there who, for some reason or other, never or rarely attend concerts. Yes you didn't meet many women on those gigs back then, but does that prove women didn't like that music. I don't think so. Just to give an example, I know several women who really don't like to go to any big event at all where the majority of people can be expected to be drunk men. And that does not have to do anything with the musical taste of those women. Even today, it is not always funny for a woman to be on such an event, and I would guess it was probably a little worse in the 1970ies. I don't want to raise this as a big issue - it's just meant as an example showing that being attracted by a certain style of music or a specific band does not necessarily lead everybody to regularly attending concert shows. Myself I have only been to one Sabbath show in my life. I attended two Tiamat shows. Does that tell you much about my band preferences? I don't think so!!! I am a HUGE Sabbath fan and collector, and I am also a big fan of Leonard Cohen who I NEVER saw live. Actually Tiamat were special guest for Sabbath and played on the same small festival as Savatage, otherwise I would never have attended a Tiamat show (though I did like Wildhoney a little). Maybe while some of you were attending Sabbath's concert shows, some women were sitting at home listening to their Master of Reality LP. :-)

You mentioned that being a loner predisposes one to be a Sabbath fan. Well, even though you may picture a man when you hear the word 'loner', there are female loners too!

Also, while it is true that the Don Kirshner video may have been intentionally arranged in such a way as to make women in it appear more prominent. Anyway, that's much less likely with audience recordings and shots, and Jeff is right to point out there are some with women screaming all over the mic. And on the Cal Jam video, no matter for which band or with which boyfriend many of those women came to the festival, some of them are obviously enjoying Sabbath's show.



Man, so many clichés in such a small passage even though you seem to be a smart person, I don't get it. Are women never left-behind, downtrodden, depressed?

Excellent comments Sabbabbath! And well stated. Respect. ...

[William_the_Bloody]

It's not like I disagree with all of what you're saying here (though I would dispute most of those parts of your statement that seem to deal with your view on the societal situation in your country rather than the opinions voiced in this thread). I do agree there are intelligent and potentially productive ways of dealing with clichés. But when you wrote: "Show me a woman who listens to 'Megalomania' because she relates to the isolation and escapism and the snarliness of the riff...I mean really...find ONE", you clearly proved that you were believing it was a 100% thing, not just a pattern or tendency. Thus, you have yourself demonstrated that your way of using or following clichés can be very misleading. At such a point, you are at high risk of overlooking those facets of the person in front of you that don't fit your cliché, and also at high risk of 'seeing' things in her that are not there simply because those things fit your cliché. When that happens, then a potentially helpful notion of an overall pattern or tendency has turned into an indeed dangerous cliché that reduces an individual to its membership in a certain group and thus deprives it of any truly individual characteristics. I don't know who those "Brainwashed Social Justice Warriors" are that you are talking about (and I guess it wouldn't be a proper topic for this forum since politics is forbidden here), but as you hopefully noticed, and as I have repeatedly pointed out, no-one here has disputed the overall tendency that the vast majority of Sabbath fans are or were male. What Jeff (if I read him correctly) and I are opposing is the habit of exaggerating that tendency in such a way as to make it appear like a 100% thing.

*Nothing* is ever 100%, and I think that goes without having to say every time a person voices an opinion or observation. If you are the/an exception it is probably *you* who is worried you will be overlooked or marginalized. You are not overlooked or marginalized by my statements. I acknowledge your unique or ultra-rare set of traits to the best of my ability to do so in the capacity of an internet forum. If I do not stop and marvel, forgive me, it's not personal it's that I prefer to focus on the unbelievably massive tendency towards the other direction which does indicate a more measurable phenomenon. Or, in other words, we don't get very far in a discussion when we are compelled to break down the microscopic margin of error.

It's merely a matter of momentum.

[Sabbabbath]

*Nothing* is ever 100%, and I think that goes without having to say every time a person voices an opinion or observation. If you are the/an exception it is probably *you* who is worried you will be overlooked or marginalized. You are not overlooked or marginalized by my statements. I acknowledge your unique or ultra-rare set of traits to the best of my ability to do so in the capacity of an internet forum. If I do not stop and marvel, forgive me, it's not personal it's that I prefer to focus on the unbelievably massive tendency towards the other direction which does indicate a more measurable phenomenon. Or, in other words, we don't get very far in a discussion when we are compelled to break down the microscopic margin of error.

It's merely a matter of momentum.

? What gave you the idea that I, who keeps arguing against the 100% idea, would think that I am 100% anything? I believe I never implied that - rather the opposite I would think. It was you who talked and asked about the Sabbath-and-women thing in a way that clearly and logically implied you expected it to be a 100% thing. If you don't, then the rhetorical question you asked ('show me ONE woman...') was clearly not helpful in expressing your thoughts.

Now it seems like the only thing we do agree on here is indeed that nothing is 100%, at least in social life. Don't worry, I never asked you to "stop and marvel" at me, I wouldn't anybody to do that. This is not about me: I am not worried about you acknowledging anything specifically about me at all. And unlike you, I don't consider those traits of mine as unique or ultra-rare in the first place. What I am worried about is your and some other people's attempt to rehabilitate clichés or stereotypes; and I am not worried so much for myself here, but generally for people who do get marginalized or discriminated against in society. Of course that does not mainly or most importantly happen through words, but through actions. However, words do tend to express the way we think, and the way we think does tend to cause us to DO things as well; plus words totally have, through dialogue, talk, enlightenment or propaganda, the potential to affect other people's thoughts and actions as well. So we have very good reasons to take the words we say seriously.

I have already insinuated that talking about 'general patterns' or 'tendencies' would perfectly do any favourable job that clichés possibly do, and at the same way would help avoid the dangers of clichés. If you practice just a little bit, it is actually pretty easy to talk about group differences and similarities etc. in ways that do NOT negate individual differences. That's a very common task in social and political science, by the way. Your assumption that the "margin of error" is "microscopic" already indicates that you are prejudiced though. For the large majority of possible subjects it is much more reasonable to take the chance of errors more serious since it is a very basic fact of social life that people make mistakes all the time, not just rarely. If you are an exception, you are the one that needs examination in a laboratory. ;-) If you aren't, maybe try and become a little more modest. :-)

For your information: the negative connotation of clichés or stereotypes is definitely NOT, as you suggested, due to any "social justice warriors'" activities. Instead, those words have ALWAYS had negative connotations since the day they first were transferred from printer's jargon to everyday language. Check out any etymological dictionary if you don't believe me (example: <https://www.etymonline.com>, source of my following quotes). In fact, the terms "cliché" and "stereotype" mean what they mean now since the 19th century and early 20th century respectively; before that, the words were only used as technical terms in printer's jargon. The meaning of "stereotype" as a "preconceived and oversimplified notion of characteristics typical of a person or group" is recorded from 1922; note that it is explicitly "oversimplified", unlike just "simplified". Similarly, "cliché" already referred "trite phrase, worn-out expression" in 1888. Your supposed "rehabilitation" of clichés or stereotypes wouldn't be a rehabilitation at all, but a full-blown re-definition of the meaning of those terms. No "social justice warrior", but folk wisdom coined them. I think you should reconsider if oversimplifications and worn-out expressions are really what you or anybody needs. :-)

[BACK TO EDEN]

? What gave you the idea that I, who keeps arguing against the 100% idea, would think that I am 100% anything? I believe I never implied that - rather the opposite I would think. It was you who talked and asked about the Sabbath-and-women thing in a way that clearly and logically implied you expected it to be a 100% thing. If you don't, then the rhetorical question you asked ('show me ONE woman...') was clearly not helpful in expressing your thoughts.

Now it seems like the only thing we do agree on here is indeed that nothing is 100%, at least in social life. Don't worry, I never asked you to "stop and marvel" at me, I wouldn't anybody to do that. This is not about me: I am not worried about you acknowledging anything specifically about me at all. And unlike you, I don't consider those traits of mine as unique or ultra-rare in the first place. What I am worried about is your and some other people's attempt to rehabilitate clichés or stereotypes; and I am not worried so much for myself here, but generally for people who do get marginalized or discriminated against in society. Of course that does not mainly or most importantly happen through words, but through actions. However, words do tend to express the way we think, and the way we think does tend to cause us to DO things as well; plus words totally have, through dialogue, talk, enlightenment or propaganda, the potential to affect other people's thoughts and actions as well. So we have very good reasons to take the words we say seriously.

I have already insinuated that talking about 'general patterns' or 'tendencies' would perfectly do any favourable job that clichés possibly do, and at the same way would help avoid the dangers of clichés. If you practice just a little bit, it is actually pretty easy to talk about group differences and similarities etc. in ways that do NOT negate individual differences. That's a very common task in social and political science, by the way. Your assumption that the "margin of error" is "microscopic" already indicates that you are prejudiced though. For the large majority of possible subjects it is much more reasonable to take the chance of errors more serious since it is a very basic fact of social life that people make mistakes all the time, not just rarely. If you are an exception, you are the one that needs examination in a laboratory. ;-) If you aren't, maybe try and become a little more modest. :-)

For your information: the negative connotation of clichés or stereotypes is definitely NOT, as you suggested, due to any "social justice warriors'" activities. Instead, those words have ALWAYS had negative connotations since the day they first were transferred from printer's jargon to everyday language. Check out any etymological dictionary if you don't believe me (example: <https://www.etymonline.com>, source of my following quotes). In fact, the terms "cliché" and "stereotype" mean what they mean now since the 19th century and early 20th century respectively; before that, the words were only used as technical terms in printer's jargon. The meaning of "stereotype" as a "preconceived and oversimplified notion of characteristics typical of a person or group" is recorded from 1922; note that it is explicitly "oversimplified", unlike just "simplified". Similarly, "cliché" already referred "trite phrase, worn-out expression" in 1888. Your supposed "rehabilitation" of clichés or stereotypes wouldn't be a rehabilitation at all, but a full-blown re-definition of the meaning of those terms. No "social justice warrior", but folk wisdom coined them. I think you should reconsider if oversimplifications and worn-out expressions are really what you or anybody needs. :-)

Linda , I've come to enjoy how fired up you get on certain subjects .... but I have also recognized that you jump to conclusions and "stereotypes" very quickly yourself , maybe without even knowing it ,,,, see in America - lots of people say words based on upbringing and ideas in ones own head , "cliches" included , just to make a point , yet it has absolutely nothing to do with ones actions , nothing.

If you want to assume something about William based on his words alone , you will never get anywhere .... a true assumption about William is that he is a God fearing man that does not lack common sense , and enjoys a little back and forth on a Black Sabbath forum ,, everything else is an old wives tale

[William_the_Bloody]

? What gave you the idea that I, who keeps arguing against the 100% idea, would think that I am 100% anything? I believe I never implied that - rather the opposite I would think. It was you who talked and asked about the Sabbath-and-women thing in a way that clearly and logically implied you expected it to be a 100% thing. If you don't, then the rhetorical question you asked ('show me ONE woman...') was clearly not helpful in expressing your thoughts.

Now it seems like the only thing we do agree on here is indeed that nothing is 100%, at least in social life. Don't worry, I never asked you to "stop and marvel" at me, I wouldn't anybody to do that. This is not about me: I am not worried about you acknowledging anything specifically about me at all. And unlike you, I don't consider those traits of mine as unique or ultra-rare in the first place. What I am worried about is your and some other people's attempt to rehabilitate clichés or stereotypes; and I am not worried so much for myself here, but generally for people who do get marginalized or discriminated against in society. Of course that does not mainly or most importantly happen through words, but through actions. However, words do tend to express the way we think, and the way we think does tend to cause us to DO things as well; plus words totally have, through dialogue, talk, enlightenment or propaganda, the potential to affect other people's thoughts and actions as well. So we have very good reasons to take the words we say seriously.

I have already insinuated that talking about 'general patterns' or 'tendencies' would perfectly do any favourable job that clichés possibly do, and at the same way would help avoid the dangers of clichés. If you practice just a little bit, it is actually pretty easy to talk about group differences and similarities etc. in ways that do NOT negate individual differences. That's a very common task in social and political science, by the way. Your assumption that the "margin of error" is "microscopic" already indicates that you are prejudiced though. For the large majority of possible subjects it is much more reasonable to take the chance of errors more serious since it is a very basic fact of social life that people make mistakes all the time, not just rarely. If you are an exception, you are the one that needs examination in a laboratory. ;-) If you aren't, maybe try and become a little more modest. :-)

For your information: the negative connotation of clichés or stereotypes is definitely NOT, as you suggested, due to any "social justice warriors'" activities. Instead, those words have ALWAYS had negative connotations since the day they first were transferred from printer's jargon to everyday language. Check out any etymological dictionary if you don't believe me (example: <https://www.etymonline.com>, source of my following quotes). In fact, the terms "cliché" and "stereotype" mean what they mean now since the 19th century and early 20th century respectively; before that, the words were only used as technical terms in printer's jargon. The meaning of "stereotype" as a "preconceived and oversimplified notion of characteristics typical of a person or group" is recorded from 1922; note that it is explicitly "oversimplified", unlike just "simplified". Similarly, "cliché" already referred "trite phrase, worn-out expression" in 1888. Your supposed "rehabilitation" of clichés or stereotypes wouldn't be a rehabilitation at all, but a full-blown re-definition of the meaning of those terms. No "social justice warrior", but folk wisdom coined them. I think you should reconsider if oversimplifications and worn-out expressions are really what you or anybody needs. :-)

I feel as if we've gone off-the-rails (on a crazy train?) here. We seem to no longer be talking about proper, female Black Sabbath fans, should there, in fact, be more than one.

[Billy Underdog]

I feel as if we've gone off-the-rails (on a crazy train?) here. We seem to no longer be talking about proper, female Black Sabbath fans, should there, in fact, be more than one.

Wow. Not a very honourable way to declare defeat when your previous arguments have been butchered so thoroughly...

[William_the_Bloody]

Wow. Not a very honourable way to declare defeat when your previous arguments have been butchered so thoroughly...

In short: I don't know what happened here. There seems to be a call for political correctness to the detriment of general, long-since-acknowledged and accepted as common knowledge truth. I'm always going to favor what is generally true versus what is the rare exception.

IRL: When I meet a female (ahem) "Fan" of Black Sabbath, I will always offer them the opportunity to disprove the narrative.

I ask "What's your favorite song?"
"What's your favorite album?"


With these two questions, I feel I can properly ascertain whether or not the female in question is a proper fan. We could argue about the definition of "Proper Fan" but suffice it to say, on my part, I do not limit the answers to things that I prefer. I try to look at a jewel from all possible facets and their angles.

But if you come at me with "Sweet Leaf" and I happen to know or am pretty certain marijuana is a major thing in your life, I'm going to assume that you like "Sweet Leaf" because it underscores that aspect of yourself. It tells me that if you put the lyrics to "Sweet Leaf" on top of "Cherry Pie" that you would probably like "Cherry Pie" as much as you like "Sweet Leaf" and therein lies a problem.

If you come at me with "Changes" I am going to assume that the soft, ballady tripe appeals not to a sense of fandom but to (what are commonly regarded as) female tendencies. Since "Changes" is not a good representation of what Black Sabbath typically does or is about.

If you come at me with "Paranoid" I am going to assume that is because you heard it on the radio, you don't own any albums, don't know the names of the bandmembers besides *maybe* Ozzy.....

Etc.

It's possible that the difference in music between men and women is so vast (typically) that the very definition of "fandom" can't even be agreed on.

[Billy Underdog]

In short: I don't know what happened here. There seems to be a call for political correctness to the detriment of general, long-since-acknowledged and accepted as common knowledge truth. I'm always going to favor what is generally true versus what is the rare exception.

IRL: When I meet a female (ahem) "Fan" of Black Sabbath, I will always offer them the opportunity to disprove the narrative.

I ask "What's your favorite song?"
"What's your favorite album?"


With these two questions, I feel I can properly ascertain whether or not the female in question is a proper fan. We could argue about the definition of "Proper Fan" but suffice it to say, on my part, I do not limit the answers to things that I prefer. I try to look at a jewel from all possible facets and their angles.

But if you come at me with "Sweet Leaf" and I happen to know or am pretty certain marijuana is a major thing in your life, I'm going to assume that you like "Sweet Leaf" because it underscores that aspect of yourself. It tells me that if you put the lyrics to "Sweet Leaf" on top of "Cherry Pie" that you would probably like "Cherry Pie" as much as you like "Sweet Leaf" and therein lies a problem.

If you come at me with "Changes" I am going to assume that the soft, ballady tripe appeals not to a sense of fandom but to (what are commonly regarded as) female tendencies. Since "Changes" is not a good representation of what Black Sabbath typically does or is about.

If you come at me with "Paranoid" I am going to assume that is because you heard it on the radio, you don't own any albums, don't know the names of the bandmembers besides *maybe* Ozzy.....

Etc.

It's possible that the difference in music between men and women is so vast (typically) that the very definition of "fandom" can't even be agreed on.

Alot of assuming and generalization there, Willie. One thing is that if you base if someone is a "fan" or not on such simple questions, you're totally missing the whole point.
The other is that that whole post doesn't change the fact that you simply tried to steer away from the conversation with Sabbabbath when you were out of arguments. Is it really that scary for you that there exist female Sabbath fans?
Simply laughable...

[BACK TO EDEN]

Billy , I would have to believe this falls under your 95% is "bullsh*t" for the fun of it statement .... because anyone with the slightest bit of common sense can entirely understand exactly what William is saying , said , and implied ,,, he probably also has a job , and does not have time to respond to such "insanity" in the form of a book (no offense) from out in left field to counter balance a very simple viewpoint.

My goodness.

[Billy Underdog]

Billy , I would have to believe this falls under your 95% is "bullsh*t" for the fun of it statement .... because anyone with the slightest bit of common sense can entirely understand exactly what William is saying , said , and implied ,,, he probably also has a job , and does not have time to respond to such "insanity" in the form of a book (no offense) from out in left field to counter balance a very simple viewpoint.

My goodness.

Man, what hatred must be festering inside you when you just keep turning up everywhere, jumping in with your cheap low blows. You're an evil man, John.

[Sabbabbath]

Wow. Not a very honourable way to declare defeat when your previous arguments have been butchered so thoroughly...

One thing is that if you base if someone is a "fan" or not on such simple questions, you're totally missing the whole point. The other is that that whole post doesn't change the fact that you simply tried to steer away from the conversation with Sabbabbath when you were out of arguments. Is it really that scary for you that there exist female Sabbath fans?

You name it. :-)

In short: I don't know what happened here. There seems to be a call for political correctness to the detriment of general, long-since-acknowledged and accepted as common knowledge truth.

I'll tell you what's happening: Not sure whether you're doing it intentionally or not, but you keep switching the subjects every time your argument is not working out. I simply asked you for logic, now you are starting about "political correctness". That's funny, because the sources of my rebuttals didn't exactly include the Manifesto of the Communist Party, but instead consisted in (1st) a perfectly normal and conservative etymological dictionary (rather unsuspicious of leftist political activism I would say) and (2nd) your own posts. How about admitting when you're wrong, or admitting and asking back when you don't understand what I am saying, or trying to answer my claims if you think they are wrong? Would any of that be an unmanly thing to do?

A little earlier here, you brought up "social justice warriors" who allegedly are the forces responsible for the bad reputation of sterotypes or clichés. When you were confronted with positive evidence showing that those two things have had their bad reputation for at at least one century, and thus both words were by definition negatively evaluating terms from the very beginning of their use in human rather than printing affairs, you simply ignored it (and changed the subject).

Also a little earlier, you asked to present you "ONE" woman who was a real Sabbath fan, and you pretty obviously insinuated that would count as a rebuttal of your theory. Quickly presented with a female Sabbath fan, you were equally quick to dismiss her (me) as that exception that proves the rule, and even suggested that she must be a very strange human being, precisely because she doesn't fit your "truth".

Along the way, I suggested you might simply use better-fitting words like "tendency" or "pattern" rather than "cliché" or "stereotype" because the lexical meanings of "cliché" or "stereotype" simply don't match what you are (according to your own posts) trying to say. Again, no reply. Instead this announcement:

I'm always going to favor what is generally true versus what is the rare exception.

Yes, obviously you are, even if several of your points about those "general truths" have already been refuted. Rather than re-thinking your claims, you're now playing the 'I am the innocent victim of a mass of evil social justice political correctness warriors" card. Very brave of you, I am sure it is difficult to speak out in face of my stupendous power. :-)

When I meet a female (ahem) "Fan" of Black Sabbath, I will always offer them the opportunity to disprove the narrative.

Oh, now that's really, really generous of you, William! I cannot imagine that any real female Black Sabbath fan in the world will ever have anything better to do than answering your questions, because they all have the same one great goal: to be graciously acknowledged by you as a real (though female!) Sabbath fan. (You're really lucky that I apparently have got nothing else to do these days - possibly your only chance ever to talk to a real female Sabbath fan.)

I ask "What's your favorite song?"
"What's your favorite album?"
With these two questions, I feel I can properly ascertain whether or not the female in question is a proper fan. We could argue about the definition of "Proper Fan" but suffice it to say, on my part, I do not limit the answers to things that I prefer. I try to look at a jewel from all possible facets and their angles.
But if you come at me with "Sweet Leaf" and I happen to know or am pretty certain marijuana is a major thing in your life, I'm going to assume that you like "Sweet Leaf" because it underscores that aspect of yourself. It tells me that if you put the lyrics to "Sweet Leaf" on top of "Cherry Pie" that you would probably like "Cherry Pie" as much as you like "Sweet Leaf" and therein lies a problem.
If you come at me with "Changes" I am going to assume that the soft, ballady tripe appeals not to a sense of fandom but to (what are commonly regarded as) female tendencies. Since "Changes" is not a good representation of what Black Sabbath typically does or is about.
If you come at me with "Paranoid" I am going to assume that is because you heard it on the radio, you don't own any albums, don't know the names of the bandmembers besides *maybe* Ozzy.....
Etc.

NOW this is starting to get pretty amusing. You really have the gift or being able to read a woman's mind, William, don't you? I am sure any real fan will be extremely impressed by those congenial questions.

And I see you have already prepared a whole lot of "arguments" for your inquisitional questioning of the alleged "female Sabbath ahem fan", arguments designed to "confirm" your "general truth" even if confronted with possible counterevidence. You should become a scientist and write an article entitled "How to protect the validity of my assumptions even in case that reality is very reluctant to conform to them". It is a very compelling methodology you're revealing here to us. Now that I am reading your great questionnaire, it is all the more surprising that you had nothing prepared that would save your claims from my rebuttals above.

I am sure that even if the female (ahem) fan in question simply laughed about your questions and asked you if you would like to listen to any of her 2.06 terabytes of Sabbath audio recordings, or watch any of the 1.90 terabytes of Sabbath footage she owns, you would quickly be able to point out that her very way of asking the question somehow shows that she cannot be a real Sabbath fan, wouldn't you? Or even better: maybe simply stop questioning her Sabbath fandom and instead start focusing on her sex: if she is a real Sabbath fan, she cannot be a real woman - so she has to be a man. (I cannot wait to hear the questions you would ask to prove that theory.)

But what if SHE suddenly asked YOU something, namely how many different audio recordings and films of Sabbath's Nov. 13, 1992 concert show in Oakland are circulating in trading circles? Well, I guss you would probably just change the subject to something else (e.g. to the heavy burdens of political correctness), right? (Or you take a note now, and you will be able to answer that question in the future: AFAIK it's 6 audios and 2 videos - yep, at least 6 tapers and 2 filmers at the same show, pretty amazing, isn't it?)

Anyway, you know what? I think the (very surprising) fact that there is no waiting line of at least 50 supposed "female Sabbath ahem fans" in front of your house, anxiously waiting for their turn to answer your very subtle questionnaire, irrefutably shows there are no real female Sabbath fans in the world. Nowhere. Ever. The truth has won, once again.

It's possible that the difference in music between men and women is so vast (typically) that the very definition of "fandom" can't even be agreed on.

Yes, but don't worry: the way you are describing your conversation (read: interrogation) with the supposed female Sabbath fan, you will probably never find out anything about her conception of fandom anyway, because she will be busy all the time giving the 'right' answers to your questions, and you will be so busy waiting for her to say the 'wrong' thing that you will hardly be 'listening' to her in any deeper sense of the word.

If I may draw a conclusion from my own experiences (as you seemed to encourage in one of your posts above, though I am now suspecting you were exclusively talking about YOUR own experiences, or rather what your pre-formed assumptions make of them): Perhaps you should alternatively consider the possibility that the difference between you and a few other male Sabbath fans on the one hand and some (or many or all?) "female Sabbath ahem fans" on the other hand is so vast that you and those other few men are simply incapable of ever having a serious conversation or discussion with any of those women. The experiences on which this hypothesis is based are my interactions with hundreds of other male Sabbath (ahem?) fans during 12 years of extensive free bootleg trading, downloading and sharing. It may come as a surprise to you that about 99% of those hundreds of men never seemed to be irritated at all by the fact that I am a woman; and you are the very first one ever who considered creating a questionnaire to reveal her non-fandom. Thus, you seem really, really different from the typical male Sabbath fan. So please allow me to borrow your own words to conclude (and don't worry, I will not bore you with further lengthy posts in this thread):

I feel a little bit like you should be studied in a controlled laboratory environment by a team of experts, possibly from a secret Military base. Certainly, there are questions.

[BACK TO EDEN]

Man, what hatred must be festering inside you when you just keep turning up everywhere, jumping in with your cheap low blows. You're an evil man, John.

Man by nature is evil .... I've been anything but ,,, and you know that you are fuelin a truly "insane" situation ..... do with it what you must , it will never change my love for ya , just "think" as your doing it.

You name it. :-)


I'll tell you what's happening: Not sure whether you're doing it intentionally or not, but you keep switching the subjects every time your argument is not working out. I simply asked you for logic, now you are starting about "political correctness". That's funny, because the sources of my rebuttals didn't exactly include the Manifesto of the Communist Party, but instead consisted in (1st) a perfectly normal and conservative etymological dictionary (rather unsuspicious of leftist political activism I would say) and (2nd) your own posts. How about admitting when you're wrong, or admitting and asking back when you don't understand what I am saying, or trying to answer my claims if you think they are wrong? Would any of that be an unmanly thing to do?

A little earlier here, you brought up "social justice warriors" who allegedly are the forces responsible for the bad reputation of sterotypes or clichés. When you were confronted with positive evidence showing that those two things have had their bad reputation for at at least one century, and thus both words were by definition negatively evaluating terms from the very beginning of their use in human rather than printing affairs, you simply ignored it (and changed the subject).

Also a little earlier, you asked to present you "ONE" woman who was a real Sabbath fan, and you pretty obviously insinuated that would count as a rebuttal of your theory. Quickly presented with a female Sabbath fan, you were equally quick to dismiss her (me) as that exception that proves the rule, and even suggested that she must be a very strange human being, precisely because she doesn't fit your "truth".

Along the way, I suggested you might simply use better-fitting words like "tendency" or "pattern" rather than "cliché" or "stereotype" because the lexical meanings of "cliché" or "stereotype" simply don't match what you are (according to your own posts) trying to say. Again, no reply. Instead this announcement:


Yes, obviously you are, even if several of your points about those "general truths" have already been refuted. Rather than re-thinking your claims, you're now playing the 'I am the innocent victim of a mass of evil social justice political correctness warriors" card. Very brave of you, I am sure it is difficult to speak out in face of my stupendous power. :-)


Oh, now that's really, really generous of you, William! I cannot imagine that any real female Black Sabbath fan in the world will ever have anything better to do than answering your questions, because they all have the same one great goal: to be graciously acknowledged by you as a real (though female!) Sabbath fan. (You're really lucky that I apparently have got nothing else to do these days - possibly your only chance ever to talk to a real female Sabbath fan.)


NOW this is starting to get pretty amusing. You really have the gift or being able to read a woman's mind, William, don't you? I am sure any real fan will be extremely impressed by those congenial questions.

And I see you have already prepared a whole lot of "arguments" for your inquisitional questioning of the alleged "female Sabbath ahem fan", arguments designed to "confirm" your "general truth" even if confronted with possible counterevidence. You should become a scientist and write an article entitled "How to protect the validity of my assumptions even in case that reality is very reluctant to conform to them". It is a very compelling methodology you're revealing here to us. Now that I am reading your great questionnaire, it is all the more surprising that you had nothing prepared that would save your claims from my rebuttals above.

I am sure that even if the female (ahem) fan in question simply laughed about your questions and asked you if you would like to listen to any of her 2.06 terabytes of Sabbath audio recordings, or watch any of the 1.90 terabytes of Sabbath footage she owns, you would quickly be able to point out that her very way of asking the question somehow shows that she cannot be a real Sabbath fan, wouldn't you? Or even better: maybe simply stop questioning her Sabbath fandom and instead start focusing on her sex: if she is a real Sabbath fan, she cannot be a real woman - so she has to be a man. (I cannot wait to hear the questions you would ask to prove that theory.)

But what if SHE suddenly asked YOU something, namely how many different audio recordings and films of Sabbath's Nov. 13, 1992 concert show in Oakland are circulating in trading circles? Well, I guss you would probably just change the subject to something else (e.g. to the heavy burdens of political correctness), right? (Or you take a note now, and you will be able to answer that question in the future: AFAIK it's 6 audios and 2 videos - yep, at least 6 tapers and 2 filmers at the same show, pretty amazing, isn't it?)

Anyway, you know what? I think the (very surprising) fact that there is no waiting line of at least 50 supposed "female Sabbath ahem fans" in front of your house, anxiously waiting for their turn to answer your very subtle questionnaire, irrefutably shows there are no real female Sabbath fans in the world. Nowhere. Ever. The truth has won, once again.


Yes, but don't worry: the way you are describing your conversation (read: interrogation) with the supposed female Sabbath fan, you will probably never find out anything about her conception of fandom anyway, because she will be busy all the time giving the 'right' answers to your questions, and you will be so busy waiting for her to say the 'wrong' thing that you will hardly be 'listening' to her in any deeper sense of the word.

If I may draw a conclusion from my own experiences (as you seemed to encourage in one of your posts above, though I am now suspecting you were exclusively talking about YOUR own experiences, or rather what your pre-formed assumptions make of them): Perhaps you should alternatively consider the possibility that the difference between you and a few other male Sabbath fans on the one hand and some (or many or all?) "female Sabbath ahem fans" on the other hand is so vast that you and those other few men are simply incapable of ever having a serious conversation or discussion with any of those women. The experiences on which this hypothesis is based are my interactions with hundreds of other male Sabbath (ahem?) fans during 12 years of extensive free bootleg trading, downloading and sharing. It may come as a surprise to you that about 99% of those hundreds of men never seemed to be irritated at all by the fact that I am a woman; and you are the very first one ever who considered creating a questionnaire to reveal her non-fandom. Thus, you seem really, really different from the typical male Sabbath fan. So please allow me to borrow your own words to conclude (and don't worry, I will not bore you with further lengthy posts in this thread):

Linda , what are you doing? ..... seriously , I left you a post explaining what and why ,, yet you somehow , deep inside yourself , believe this rhetoric to be the case here - YOU need to seriously look at yourself and find that light inside you , this here is not the way you want to "shine" ..... be that beautiful person I know YOU are.

Said with love , truly.

[Sabbabbath]

Man by nature is evil .... I've been anything but ,,, ]

Did you ever notice that you tend to talk about yourself as if you were God? I don't know how it sounds to you from the inside, but from the outside it is quite obvious.

I have to add I am surprised about your heretical claim that man (who, as you keep saying yourself, was created by God, wasn't he?) were evil by nature. Of course we cannot discuss that here, just wanted to inform you that it does look, well, a tiny little bit inconsistent.

yet you somehow , deep inside yourself , believe this rhetoric to be the case here

I honestly doubt you are in the position to question other people's supposed use of rhetoric.

he probably also has a job

???????????????

and does not have time to respond to such "insanity" in the form of a book (no offense) from out in left field to counter balance a very simple viewpoint.

For your information, Doc, when you're posting such obviously and intentionally offensive statements, just adding "no offense" does not make them any less offensive. Same goes for using the word "love" all the time while actually practicing the opposite.

Just leave us alone, Doc, and stop the bullying. Nobody here us has asked for your "deep" psychological analysis and ongoing "love" talk only designed to hurt others and make yourself appear superior. If you're not interested in the contents of the discussion, and you obviously aren't, go away and find yourself some people who are willing to play with you. I am sure you will find some if you just offer them expensive gifts.

[turch118]

I enjoy reading your posts Linda and I think you make a lot of sense. You are truly a Sabbath "Superfan" and your knowledge is seconded only by (I know you don't like him) the Doc. I'd rather see you two in some serious Sabbath discussions because I surely enjoy new info coming my way. What do you think Doc?

All respect to you Linda.

Paul

[The Sabman Cometh]

This discussion became personal very quickly. The utilization of tendencies can be a useful tool when researching a topic, however any common generalizations must be refined by the specifics of a group, or individual, involved in the analysis. Unfortunately, the mindset of applying a label to individuals and groups often leads to inaccurate conclusions. Black Sabbath has never been pretentious, therefore, it is unlikely that an absolute fan profile exists. Individual personalities and preferences will always be variable.

Perhaps a more interesting follow-up would be a discussion of the evolution of the typical Black Sabbath fan base. WC's first-hand account of his 1970's experience was interesting. Did Ozzy era Black Sabbath draw a different fan base than other eras? How do the later Ozzy era tours compare? My experiences with the 13 and End tours match those described previously by the White Wizard(NID).

[OzzyIsDio]

This discussion became personal very quickly. The utilization of tendencies can be a useful tool when researching a topic, however any common generalizations must be refined by the specifics of a group, or individual, involved in the analysis. Unfortunately, the mindset of applying a label to individuals and groups often leads to inaccurate conclusions. Black Sabbath has never been pretentious, therefore, it is unlikely that an absolute fan profile exists. Individual personalities and preferences will always be variable.

Perhaps a more interesting follow-up would be a discussion of the evolution of the typical Black Sabbath fan base. WC's first-hand account of his 1970's experience was interesting. Did Ozzy era Black Sabbath draw a different fan base than other eras? How do the later Ozzy era tours compare? My experiences with the 13 and End tours match those described previously by the White Wizard(NID).

Sabman Cometh, good to hear from you!

Ah yes, good ol’ White Wizard, wonder what he’s up to these days, hope he and Mrs. NID are doing well.

[William_the_Bloody]

I do have a job, I work midnights six days per week at the Post Office, throwing parcels around. I have 3 young children and a spouse (who is most decidedly NOT a Black Sabbath fan, no need to ask her any questions) and a Photography hobby. Forum argument time is mostly spent elsewhere, as there typically isn't much to argue about here, especially if Black Sabbath is mostly considered a band for men, by-and-large. I believe that Black Sabbath is the source for the joke in Spinal Tap about the band being mostly for teenage adolescent boys. (Black Sabbath was the source for a great deal of Spinal Tap's comedy.)

I no longer even know what the end-game of this argument is supposed to be. Am I supposed to admit that there might be more female Sabbath fans out there because there is one here on this board? Or am I supposed to have some Christmas Morning Scrooge awakening and denounce profiling and stereotyping as something useful? Am I supposed to vow to never ever use a blanket statement ever again? Am I supposed to agree to end every statement with "IMVHO"? I just don't even know what this is about anymore.

The person whose name seems to be Linda, evidently, seems to feel marginalized or alienated because I, William, have no personal evidence (outside of the existence of the forum entity whose name is allegedly Linda) that any "real" female Black Sabbath fans exist.

My criteria of asking a few conversational questions is now an Interrogation...pro tip: It's only an interrogation if you've got something to hide, and you've only got something to hide if you're feeling shame. If you're a fan, you WANT to talk about your favorite album, song, era, etc. I know I do...ask away, I won't sweat.

Linda, if that is your real name, you do not need my validation. You are a Sabbath fan and nothing I think or believe will take that away from you. I am entitled to my personal experiences, opinions and statistics, and no amount of (whatever this is you're doing) is going to change that.

If the situation were reversed, and you made a statement like "There are no Male Blondie fans" I would simply say "Hey, I LOVE Blondie (I do) I even like some of the newer stuff, and her re-recordings of the hits are very good considering she's 70+" and I would move on, you are free to process that however you like. If it changes your narrative, great, if not, If you find the exception proves the rule, great! Have fun with that. No skin off my back.

So again, not sure what we're doing here or what the end-game is supposed to be.

[Sabbabbath]

I do have a job, I work midnights six days per week at the Post Office, throwing parcels around. I have 3 young children and a spouse (who is most decidedly NOT a Black Sabbath fan, no need to ask her any questions) and a Photography hobby. Forum argument time is mostly spent elsewhere, as there typically isn't much to argue about here, especially if Black Sabbath is mostly considered a band for men, by-and-large. I believe that Black Sabbath is the source for the joke in Spinal Tap about the band being mostly for teenage adolescent boys. (Black Sabbath was the source for a great deal of Spinal Tap's comedy.)

I no longer even know what the end-game of this argument is supposed to be. Am I supposed to admit that there might be more female Sabbath fans out there because there is one here on this board? Or am I supposed to have some Christmas Morning Scrooge awakening and denounce profiling and stereotyping as something useful? Am I supposed to vow to never ever use a blanket statement ever again? Am I supposed to agree to end every statement with "IMVHO"? I just don't even know what this is about anymore.

The person whose name seems to be Linda, evidently, seems to feel marginalized or alienated because I, William, have no personal evidence (outside of the existence of the forum entity whose name is allegedly Linda) that any "real" female Black Sabbath fans exist.

My criteria of asking a few conversational questions is now an Interrogation...pro tip: It's only an interrogation if you've got something to hide, and you've only got something to hide if you're feeling shame. If you're a fan, you WANT to talk about your favorite album, song, era, etc. I know I do...ask away, I won't sweat.

Linda, if that is your real name, you do not need my validation. You are a Sabbath fan and nothing I think or believe will take that away from you. I am entitled to my personal experiences, opinions and statistics, and no amount of (whatever this is you're doing) is going to change that.

If the situation were reversed, and you made a statement like "There are no Male Blondie fans" I would simply say "Hey, I LOVE Blondie (I do) I even like some of the newer stuff, and her re-recordings of the hits are very good considering she's 70+" and I would move on, you are free to process that however you like. If it changes your narrative, great, if not, If you find the exception proves the rule, great! Have fun with that. No skin off my back.

So again, not sure what we're doing here or what the end-game is supposed to be.

Dear person whose name seems to be William,

it is pretty ironic that you are now exactly doing what I, sarcastically, suggested in my post: if no more doubt is possible that the "female Sabbath ahem fan" is a real fan, why not start questioning her sex rather than her fandom? Of course my existence is not the only available counterevidence against your cliché, Jeff did mention there were many female Sabbath fans on Facebook, and there are at least a few more women on this very forum. Anyway, it is obvious that you decided to stick with your viewpoint no matter how often it gets refuted. That's sad; but of course it's your decision if you're willing to learn and sometimes question your views, or rather not. You seem to be wondering what's expected of you. Well, I hoped you would specifically respond to my rebuttals of some of your claims, so I spelled them out once again in my super-long post above. Billy shortly popped in and gave you a hint too. No use, you are obviously not interested in seriously responding to my arguments, let alone in learning anything new. I won't even try to start explaining why IMO your idea of a "conversation" with a "female Sabbath ahem fan" is not truly a conversation at all, but indeed an interrogation. I personally don't know many women who would be willing to be interviewed in such a way to "prove" they are true Sabbath fans (and truly female of course). "It's only an interrogation if you've got something to hide"? No sir, there's a lot more that distinguishes a proper conversation from an interrogation, as almost everybody should know from personal experience. If you don't, I am sorry for you. I won't waste any more words on you.

Best,
the person whose name seems to be Linda

[Sabbabbath]

I agree with your OP Jeff. Any Sabbath show or Ozzy show I've been to was crawling with chicks, old farts like me, and older farts and couples in the 60+ category. I think it comes from the folklore of people who want to think that they are part of some exclusive club, and don't want to admit that they are fans of one of the biggest bands in the world. It plays to the sense of self when people say that Sabbath is a guys band, and somehow an obscure entity that they latched on to. My wife is one of those chicks that is at those shows, and she is a large part of the reason as to why we are flying 1/4 of the way across our country to see 2 shows in April. One other thing that might factor into the folklore is that Sabbath were pretty ugly dudes, except Ozzy, and did not have the centerfold look that some bands had. Tony's bowl cut bangs were just too far ahead of their time . Sabbath are a band for all music fans. I mean, my Mom even appreciates them, although that took time.

The Beatles are arguably the best and biggest band ever, and they certainly had a massive female following. By some people's standards here, the Beatles might even be called the ultimate chick band. If female interest in a band is somehow considered to be a bad thing, then I would suggest that there are some people out there with serious identity issues. It takes no effort to alienate a gender, or any other demographic, for that matter. It takes huge talent to speak to both genders and maintain their interest. Fortunately, the Sabbath shows that I have been to have been reflective of a very mixed demographic, including lots of chicks. Besides, what male Sabbath fan truly wants to be surrounded by a sweaty sausage fest? Are girls really that scary? I know my wife would agree, Sabbath is for all people who appreciate cool music, no matter what their gender.

Very good points in my opinion, NiD, and very refreshing.

The utilization of tendencies can be a useful tool when researching a topic, however any common generalizations must be refined by the specifics of a group, or individual, involved in the analysis. Unfortunately, the mindset of applying a label to individuals and groups often leads to inaccurate conclusions.

Exactly. If everybody acted that way, we would still believe that that the earth is flat and that every ship that gets too close to the edge of the earth will fall down. (I wouldn't be surprised though if there were indeed people on this forum who still believe that.)

Perhaps a more interesting follow-up would be a discussion of the evolution of the typical Black Sabbath fan base. WC's first-hand account of his 1970's experience was interesting. Did Ozzy era Black Sabbath draw a different fan base than other eras? How do the later Ozzy era tours compare? My experiences with the 13 and End tours match those described previously by the White Wizard(NID).

I think a few posts earlier in this threat were already gesturing in that direction. I believe I remember someone suggesting that Sabbath's fan base seems to be more mixed (at least in terms of gender) in Europe (or maybe specifically in Northern Europe?) than in the USA (or even the whole American continent?). Some people suggested that Ozzy's solo career helped in attracting female fans. Some suggested that the proportion of female Sabbath fans was much lower in the 1970ies than later (but when later?), while at least Jeff, if I remember, was wondering if Dio-Sabbath possibly attracted less women than Ozzy-Sabbath. I cannot contribute much in terms of personal experience here, because I only attended one Sabbath show here in Germany in 1995, they were touring with Tiamat back then. As I already said above, I believe there were about 20% women, most of them dressed like die-hard metal fans and many with Sabbath shirts, while many others were mainly there because of Tiamat of course (at least in my region, Wildhoney was a hugely more successful album than Forbidden). Age varied pretty wildly from 16 to 58 I would say.

[OzzyIsDio]

Linda you bring some new energy and excitement to this forum, thank you.

I know you’re a real Sabbath fan.

[Sabbabbath]

Linda you bring some new energy and excitement to this forum, thank you.

I know you’re a real Sabbath fan.

Thank you! :-)

[William_the_Bloody]

Dear person whose name seems to be William,

. I won't waste any more words on you.

Best,
the person whose name seems to be Linda

I mean you should definitely take this one thread and then make a huge big scary deal out of it.

I'm like at a 3 here, and you seem to be at 11.

So if I ever ask anyone what Sabbath song is their favorite, I'm issuing an interrogation. So that avenue of conversation is closed to me, I suppose. I guess I'll stick to "How's the weather?" from now on, should I meet any female Black Sabbath fans.

Sad.

[Rollerjoint]

1972. United States of America. Virginia Davies, a true pioneer.

Doesn't go for Iron Man, Paranoid, Sweet Leaf or any of that lightweight stuff, but straight to the heaviest song ever recorded by anyone at the time, Electric Funeral.

[Sabbabbath]

1972. United States of America. Virginia Davies, a true pioneer.
Doesn't go for Iron Man, Paranoid, Sweet Leaf or any of that lightweight stuff, but straight to the heaviest song ever recorded by anyone at the time, Electric Funeral

Awesome work again, Roller, thank you very much. What a fantastic archivist you are. Do you know anything else about Virginia Davies?

[OzzyIsDio]

1972. United States of America. Virginia Davies, a true pioneer.

Doesn't go for Iron Man, Paranoid, Sweet Leaf or any of that lightweight stuff, but straight to the heaviest song ever recorded by anyone at the time, Electric Funeral.

Who is Virginia Davies Roller?

[OzzyIsDio]

Man, what hatred must be festering inside you when you just keep turning up everywhere, jumping in with your cheap low blows. You're an evil man, John.

Take a look at what you’re saying Bill, I don’t think you believe that.