I think what it boils down to is that Eddie is like the rest of us, but everything he says is dissected and discussed and judged waaaaaaaaaaay to vigorously. I'm going to guess that pretty much all of us say shit that is facetious or an exaggeration or off-side on a regular basis, but when poor Eddie does it he is put under this horrible microscope and people take it way too seriously and they apply these types of comments to his overall personality or thought process. It really isn't fair that any of us do this.
no kidding. my sister had to email me an apology as she said something in an email the other day after a bottle of wine that she meant jokingly but she realized later on that it could have been taken as an insult.
imagine doing that in front of 15,000 people live, how many on periscope, and how many will listen to the bootleg of it for years to come.god I can't imagine that type of shit.
Absolutely. And thank goodness that hasn't deterred him from bantering (and even ranting) on stage.
0
Options
KV4053
Mike's side, crushed up against the stage Posts: 1,474
It's really interesting to compare the "mosquito bite" thing and people's reactions to it to something that happened a couple of months ago in Toronto. Ed described an encounter with a blatantly racist cab driver who mouthed off during his ride, while his daughters were present. He went on to say that he won't mind when people like that die. All sorts of people on the internet posted about what an awful thing that was for Ed to say. I vigorously defended him. I see nothing wrong with what he said. He's a passionate man with a fierce sense of social justice. Nothing wrong with expressing your feelings with a sharp edge. (Except apparently on this board, where you'll be called judgmental and pretentious.) To me there's a world of difference between that comment and what he says in the "mosquito bite" video (especially at the very end, which is the only part I find wholly indefensible).
I am not bashing Ed. I am admiring him for doing a phenomenal job at something that is a huge part of my life: helping people find ways to overcome themselves and their often horrid pasts.
This whole thread stems from how blown away I am by this man's journey. I can't admire the progress without making a comparison between where he was at the beginning and where he came to at the end. I am not judging. I'm expressing regret-- because he probably WAS a deeply kind and caring person even then, but I missed those years (the live shows anyway) because I drew hasty conclusions. So please don't bash me as an Ed-basher. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I think part of the (very little) backlash you received is due, in part, to mentioning your profession and then proceeding to analyze a celebrity based solely on media exposure (I'm assuming he's not your patient). Why mention your profession?
I could be wrong (I often am).
I know I was born and I know that I'll die. The in between is mine.
I think what it boils down to is that Eddie is like the rest of us, but everything he says is dissected and discussed and judged waaaaaaaaaaay to vigorously. I'm going to guess that pretty much all of us say shit that is facetious or an exaggeration or off-side on a regular basis, but when poor Eddie does it he is put under this horrible microscope and people take it way too seriously and they apply these types of comments to his overall personality or thought process. It really isn't fair that any of us do this.
no kidding. my sister had to email me an apology as she said something in an email the other day after a bottle of wine that she meant jokingly but she realized later on that it could have been taken as an insult.
imagine doing that in front of 15,000 people live, how many on periscope, and how many will listen to the bootleg of it for years to come.god I can't imagine that type of shit.
Absolutely. And thank goodness that hasn't deterred him from bantering (and even ranting) on stage.
When he does I go get a beer. I'm old enough to know I don't go to a concert to learn how I should vote.
I think part of the (very little) backlash you received is due, in part, to mentioning your profession and then proceeding to analyze a celebrity based solely on media exposure (I'm assuming he's not your patient). Why mention your profession? .
Good point. Thanks for saying it, and saying it nicely.
I thought mentioning my profession would give context to where I was coming from and help clarify what I was saying. I guess I also thought it might make what I was saying more interesting to some people. I claim NO special insight into Ed's mind but I do fancy that I have a bit of insight, by virtue of my profession, into the process of overcoming internal struggles. Ed's always been open about his internal struggle to come to terms with some parts of his personal history.
But you're right, it would have been better not to mention it. This isn't the right place for that.
I was at that Hershey Pa show in '03, it was fantastic. You flop your breasts out at the lead singer, expect to get slammed unless its an 80's glory band. Lets not pretend Vedder hasnt done this before to people/bands. Good Charlotte(MSG?) Big deal.
As for performances, I will absolutely take any PJ performance from lets say '95-'03 any day over present day PJ. Yadda yadda, they may play the songs a little bit better, but there is no substitute for the youthful energy and the way Ed sounded better back then. Shows were 2-2:30 hours, and they let it fly. Better song selections were played(IMO) because the material was more solid.
The "youthful energy" was pretty much gone by 1995, and purposefully so. Ed was standing stock still at the mic and barely moving from a 3-foot radius around it. Stone looked practically comatose. IMO, there was a lot more "energy" at a show in say 2006 than in 1995.
The show I saw on the '95 tour is one of my favorites because it was my first, and because it was during the era when the band was the biggest one on earth. But in terms of pure performance ... I've seen maybe 20 better shows since then.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
My first post on this, and really OP, to me it all depends on WHAT Ed is saying he now regrets. What aspect of his behavior? What does he want a re-do on?
To me, the only thing he might want to re-do or regret is some of the ways they handled personnel decisions (and that is just a guess from reading PJ books and hearing mostly about Dave A's departure and how that went down). But his live show presence? His attitude/suspicion of fame? Seeming avoidance of commercial success?
In some ways, especially after Kurt died, those were healthy concerns, or at least totally understandable ones.
Until you've been minding your own business and someone recognizes you and starts a stampede of people screaming your name, I don't think anyone here can really judge what is "regretful" about how PJ - even when they didn't agree internally - handled fame and the explosion of success they experienced.
So I don't know if I agree with Ed or not, because I haven't seen the film yet and I don't know if he goes into detail about what he regrets. He may be being unduly hard on himself with that 20/20 rear view mirror vision. Or... he may legit be thinking back on maybe some decisions or behaviors we don't even know about that he does know and regrets. Who knows... But I DO know that what I know of his behaviors and what he was reacting to, I have nothing but respect for the most part. I don't know how he did it, and I don't know how the whole band got through some of the experiences they had without totally imploding (I'm sure they came close several times), or without becoming a rock and roll cliche.
Pretty stellar that they're celebrating 25 yrs this year... I remember when Sonic Youth got to 20 yrs and some of the comments Ed made about that milestone for them and how incredible it was, and now PJ is at 25. That really is a testament to their efforts at well-being, and having lives outside of the band (despite what Jeff says on Sirius ), and trying hard not to give too far into the mania and madness that surrounded them now for decades.
Hey, they haven't had a wildly commercially successful album in how long? Yet they sold out 2 nights at Fenway and Wrigley... they've done so much right.
And even the things they did wrong in their early days... were about as right as they could've managed, which makes them not wrong. Just learning opportunities...
I hadn't seen or heard that one before. Beyond cringe-worthy.
That bro-wave shit is pretty reprehensible, and I'd be embarrassed if I were EV on that one, but I do think it's a pretty far outlier (unless I'm being naive). I don't believe that drunk dude is the band or the guy that has put in decades of activism for women's rights, the environment, encouraging voter turnout/registration, fighting monolithic, monopolistic corporations, supporting LBGT rights, etc., etc. They've earned my respect over the years on a lot of fronts.
In summary: OP was pretty dead-on.
I was at that show. I think in his frantic effort to dissuade that from "becoming a thing" as we say now, he just went ALL THE WAY OFF. It was sexist in many ways, but I also think he didn't want ANYONE to mistake him or the band for people who wanted that to happen at their shows or who would respond to that. Also, to be fair, this was either at the same time or soon after Guns and Roses had made a habit of staring their shows an hour or more late, which led to literally an hour plus of camera crews roaming stadiums and finding women to badger into flashing their boobs. For more than an hour this was 'entertainment" and it tainted a lot of shows around that time. So I also always took his hostility towards this act as a bigger hostility to that whole trend.
Not that that makes the specifics of this any less cringe-worthy, but I think it was about a whole lot more than just "Eww, I'm going ot shame you".
0
Options
KV4053
Mike's side, crushed up against the stage Posts: 1,474
I hadn't seen or heard that one before. Beyond cringe-worthy.
That bro-wave shit is pretty reprehensible, and I'd be embarrassed if I were EV on that one, but I do think it's a pretty far outlier (unless I'm being naive). I don't believe that drunk dude is the band or the guy that has put in decades of activism for women's rights, the environment, encouraging voter turnout/registration, fighting monolithic, monopolistic corporations, supporting LBGT rights, etc., etc. They've earned my respect over the years on a lot of fronts.
In summary: OP was pretty dead-on.
I was at that show. I think in his frantic effort to dissuade that from "becoming a thing" as we say now, he just went ALL THE WAY OFF. It was sexist in many ways, but I also think he didn't want ANYONE to mistake him or the band for people who wanted that to happen at their shows or who would respond to that. Also, to be fair, this was either at the same time or soon after Guns and Roses had made a habit of staring their shows an hour or more late, which led to literally an hour plus of camera crews roaming stadiums and finding women to badger into flashing their boobs. For more than an hour this was 'entertainment" and it tainted a lot of shows around that time. So I also always took his hostility towards this act as a bigger hostility to that whole trend.
Not that that makes the specifics of this any less cringe-worthy, but I think it was about a whole lot more than just "Eww, I'm going ot shame you".
You are 100% correct that this was on the heels of GNR and other concerts. Not sure if that played into it, but I recall at the time thinking how different he was from the hair band lead singers
I know I was born and I know that I'll die. The in between is mine.
I saw soundgarden at the aragon brawlroom, must have been 95 or 96...women were flashing their fun bags all over the place...i don't remember exact words but Cornell was promoting it...after all it is rock n roll right???
"Going where the water tastes like wine!"
0
Options
KV4053
Mike's side, crushed up against the stage Posts: 1,474
This thread reminds me that I initially hated Soundgarden because Ben Shepherd spit on a fan in the front row at a show in April 1992 when PJ was opening for them. Don't get me wrong, I loved Soundgarden's music, but Ben's behavior was unacceptable. I still can't stand him because of that incident. Ben needed a wall built between him and the audience.
I know I was born and I know that I'll die. The in between is mine.
I hadn't seen or heard that one before. Beyond cringe-worthy.
That bro-wave shit is pretty reprehensible, and I'd be embarrassed if I were EV on that one, but I do think it's a pretty far outlier (unless I'm being naive). I don't believe that drunk dude is the band or the guy that has put in decades of activism for women's rights, the environment, encouraging voter turnout/registration, fighting monolithic, monopolistic corporations, supporting LBGT rights, etc., etc. They've earned my respect over the years on a lot of fronts.
In summary: OP was pretty dead-on.
I was at that show. I think in his frantic effort to dissuade that from "becoming a thing" as we say now, he just went ALL THE WAY OFF. It was sexist in many ways, but I also think he didn't want ANYONE to mistake him or the band for people who wanted that to happen at their shows or who would respond to that. Also, to be fair, this was either at the same time or soon after Guns and Roses had made a habit of staring their shows an hour or more late, which led to literally an hour plus of camera crews roaming stadiums and finding women to badger into flashing their boobs. For more than an hour this was 'entertainment" and it tainted a lot of shows around that time. So I also always took his hostility towards this act as a bigger hostility to that whole trend.
Not that that makes the specifics of this any less cringe-worthy, but I think it was about a whole lot more than just "Eww, I'm going ot shame you".
Thanks for the context! I had no idea. (Those camera crews were really predatory, and those DVD commercials were all over late night TV.) That makes the clip less cringe-worthy. Someone else mentioned that the size comment may have been directed at the woman's too-young-for this-ness. (Of course, we can't see her in the clip.) Maybe that's why he went full "mad dad" on her. (I realize I'm backpedaling, but context makes a lot of difference.)
I hadn't seen or heard that one before. Beyond cringe-worthy.
That bro-wave shit is pretty reprehensible, and I'd be embarrassed if I were EV on that one, but I do think it's a pretty far outlier (unless I'm being naive). I don't believe that drunk dude is the band or the guy that has put in decades of activism for women's rights, the environment, encouraging voter turnout/registration, fighting monolithic, monopolistic corporations, supporting LBGT rights, etc., etc. They've earned my respect over the years on a lot of fronts.
In summary: OP was pretty dead-on.
I was at that show. I think in his frantic effort to dissuade that from "becoming a thing" as we say now, he just went ALL THE WAY OFF. It was sexist in many ways, but I also think he didn't want ANYONE to mistake him or the band for people who wanted that to happen at their shows or who would respond to that. Also, to be fair, this was either at the same time or soon after Guns and Roses had made a habit of staring their shows an hour or more late, which led to literally an hour plus of camera crews roaming stadiums and finding women to badger into flashing their boobs. For more than an hour this was 'entertainment" and it tainted a lot of shows around that time. So I also always took his hostility towards this act as a bigger hostility to that whole trend.
Not that that makes the specifics of this any less cringe-worthy, but I think it was about a whole lot more than just "Eww, I'm going ot shame you".
Thanks for the context! I had no idea. (Those camera crews were really predatory, and those DVD commercials were all over late night TV.) That makes the clip less cringe-worthy. Someone else mentioned that the size comment may have been directed at the woman's too-young-for this-ness. (Of course, we can't see her in the clip.) Maybe that's why he went full "mad dad" on her. (I realize I'm backpedaling, but context makes a lot of difference.)
I respect people who will back-peddle when given relevant context. No need to explain
I hadn't seen or heard that one before. Beyond cringe-worthy.
That bro-wave shit is pretty reprehensible, and I'd be embarrassed if I were EV on that one, but I do think it's a pretty far outlier (unless I'm being naive). I don't believe that drunk dude is the band or the guy that has put in decades of activism for women's rights, the environment, encouraging voter turnout/registration, fighting monolithic, monopolistic corporations, supporting LBGT rights, etc., etc. They've earned my respect over the years on a lot of fronts.
In summary: OP was pretty dead-on.
I was at that show. I think in his frantic effort to dissuade that from "becoming a thing" as we say now, he just went ALL THE WAY OFF. It was sexist in many ways, but I also think he didn't want ANYONE to mistake him or the band for people who wanted that to happen at their shows or who would respond to that. Also, to be fair, this was either at the same time or soon after Guns and Roses had made a habit of staring their shows an hour or more late, which led to literally an hour plus of camera crews roaming stadiums and finding women to badger into flashing their boobs. For more than an hour this was 'entertainment" and it tainted a lot of shows around that time. So I also always took his hostility towards this act as a bigger hostility to that whole trend.
Not that that makes the specifics of this any less cringe-worthy, but I think it was about a whole lot more than just "Eww, I'm going ot shame you".
Thanks for the context! I had no idea. (Those camera crews were really predatory, and those DVD commercials were all over late night TV.) That makes the clip less cringe-worthy. Someone else mentioned that the size comment may have been directed at the woman's too-young-for this-ness. (Of course, we can't see her in the clip.) Maybe that's why he went full "mad dad" on her. (I realize I'm backpedaling, but context makes a lot of difference.)
Doesn't change it for me...any focus on the size brings it in the wrong direction.
That said, he's human and I am not suggesting that it's unforgivable; even the most staunch male feminists have less-than-feminist thoughts. It was just unfortunate; I don't think it's the direction he really wanted to go...Kinda like a Wrigley when it appeared he immediately regretted bringing up Bartman...he probably pretty quickly realized that that's not the way he should be talking about it. But I will go to my grave that ripping her for the size implies that it's not quite as bad if a larger-breasted woman does the same thing. That's probably not quite what he meant...he probably more or less just took the "let's caller her out and humilate her" thing one step in the wrong direction.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I hadn't seen or heard that one before. Beyond cringe-worthy.
That bro-wave shit is pretty reprehensible, and I'd be embarrassed if I were EV on that one, but I do think it's a pretty far outlier (unless I'm being naive). I don't believe that drunk dude is the band or the guy that has put in decades of activism for women's rights, the environment, encouraging voter turnout/registration, fighting monolithic, monopolistic corporations, supporting LBGT rights, etc., etc. They've earned my respect over the years on a lot of fronts.
In summary: OP was pretty dead-on.
I was at that show. I think in his frantic effort to dissuade that from "becoming a thing" as we say now, he just went ALL THE WAY OFF. It was sexist in many ways, but I also think he didn't want ANYONE to mistake him or the band for people who wanted that to happen at their shows or who would respond to that. Also, to be fair, this was either at the same time or soon after Guns and Roses had made a habit of staring their shows an hour or more late, which led to literally an hour plus of camera crews roaming stadiums and finding women to badger into flashing their boobs. For more than an hour this was 'entertainment" and it tainted a lot of shows around that time. So I also always took his hostility towards this act as a bigger hostility to that whole trend.
Not that that makes the specifics of this any less cringe-worthy, but I think it was about a whole lot more than just "Eww, I'm going ot shame you".
Thanks for the context! I had no idea. (Those camera crews were really predatory, and those DVD commercials were all over late night TV.) That makes the clip less cringe-worthy. Someone else mentioned that the size comment may have been directed at the woman's too-young-for this-ness. (Of course, we can't see her in the clip.) Maybe that's why he went full "mad dad" on her. (I realize I'm backpedaling, but context makes a lot of difference.)
Doesn't change it for me...any focus on the size brings it in the wrong direction.
That said, he's human and I am not suggesting that it's unforgivable; even the most staunch male feminists have less-than-feminist thoughts. It was just unfortunate; I don't think it's the direction he really wanted to go...Kinda like a Wrigley when it appeared he immediately regretted bringing up Bartman...he probably pretty quickly realized that that's not the way he should be talking about it. But I will go to my grave that ripping her for the size implies that it's not quite as bad if a larger-breasted woman does the same thing. That's probably not quite what he meant...he probably more or less just took the "let's caller her out and humilate her" thing one step in the wrong direction.
I wasn't going to say this but since you raised the comparison on size and all I'm just going to say it: her boobs weren't that small. You wil go to your grave believing he was implying bigger-boobed women wouldn't have been so bad; I absolutely believe and will go to my grave believing that actually, they WERE NOT that small and his point was much more about "You aren't as impressive as you think you are" and shaming them for being tiny when actually they weren't tiny. It was about shaming her - which I TOTALLY understand the discomfort with (it made me uncomfortable), but it really was not a commentary on her actual size from my view (I was there, very close to the front, and saw this all go down).
I totally understand why you see it as you do, and since most people hearing the tape or watching the video will not actually see the woman herself, I didn't say this. And I appreciate that you said he probably didn't actually mean that and that he probably took his "call her out and humiliate her" a few steps in a wrong direction. But that is my impression.
It's like taking someone who's got a perfectly normal/healthy/average size ___________ (whatever, fill in the blank) but who is showing it off like it's the best in the world and acting an ass about it, and wanting to take them down 10 notches while also trying to dissuade anyone else who thinks it's a way to get attention from trying it. It may not at all be that the person's whatever is tiny or truly unimpressive, it's more about the embarrassment and trying to keep them from doing it again. NOT saying that justifies this approach (I still call the whole incident cringe-worthy) but I absolutely do NOT feel it was Ed showing unconscious sizism (size-ism?) or hypocrisy. I think his desire to kill and destroy this trend just made his other judgement go out the window.
Going back to the OP who is a therapist, Ed is a very good, intuitive judge of character and human interaction. I think he went to "What will make this young woman never ever EVER want to do this again..." and that's what came out of his mouth. Doesn't justify it, but also doesn't condemn him as a closet sexist.
I hadn't seen or heard that one before. Beyond cringe-worthy.
That bro-wave shit is pretty reprehensible, and I'd be embarrassed if I were EV on that one, but I do think it's a pretty far outlier (unless I'm being naive). I don't believe that drunk dude is the band or the guy that has put in decades of activism for women's rights, the environment, encouraging voter turnout/registration, fighting monolithic, monopolistic corporations, supporting LBGT rights, etc., etc. They've earned my respect over the years on a lot of fronts.
In summary: OP was pretty dead-on.
I was at that show. I think in his frantic effort to dissuade that from "becoming a thing" as we say now, he just went ALL THE WAY OFF. It was sexist in many ways, but I also think he didn't want ANYONE to mistake him or the band for people who wanted that to happen at their shows or who would respond to that. Also, to be fair, this was either at the same time or soon after Guns and Roses had made a habit of staring their shows an hour or more late, which led to literally an hour plus of camera crews roaming stadiums and finding women to badger into flashing their boobs. For more than an hour this was 'entertainment" and it tainted a lot of shows around that time. So I also always took his hostility towards this act as a bigger hostility to that whole trend.
Not that that makes the specifics of this any less cringe-worthy, but I think it was about a whole lot more than just "Eww, I'm going ot shame you".
Thanks for the context! I had no idea. (Those camera crews were really predatory, and those DVD commercials were all over late night TV.) That makes the clip less cringe-worthy. Someone else mentioned that the size comment may have been directed at the woman's too-young-for this-ness. (Of course, we can't see her in the clip.) Maybe that's why he went full "mad dad" on her. (I realize I'm backpedaling, but context makes a lot of difference.)
Doesn't change it for me...any focus on the size brings it in the wrong direction.
That said, he's human and I am not suggesting that it's unforgivable; even the most staunch male feminists have less-than-feminist thoughts. It was just unfortunate; I don't think it's the direction he really wanted to go...Kinda like a Wrigley when it appeared he immediately regretted bringing up Bartman...he probably pretty quickly realized that that's not the way he should be talking about it. But I will go to my grave that ripping her for the size implies that it's not quite as bad if a larger-breasted woman does the same thing. That's probably not quite what he meant...he probably more or less just took the "let's caller her out and humilate her" thing one step in the wrong direction.
I wasn't going to say this but since you raised the comparison on size and all I'm just going to say it: her boobs weren't that small. You wil go to your grave believing he was implying bigger-boobed women wouldn't have been so bad; I absolutely believe and will go to my grave believing that actually, they WERE NOT that small and his point was much more about "You aren't as impressive as you think you are" and shaming them for being tiny when actually they weren't tiny. It was about shaming her - which I TOTALLY understand the discomfort with (it made me uncomfortable), but it really was not a commentary on her actual size from my view (I was there, very close to the front, and saw this all go down).
I totally understand why you see it as you do, and since most people hearing the tape or watching the video will not actually see the woman herself, I didn't say this. And I appreciate that you said he probably didn't actually mean that and that he probably took his "call her out and humiliate her" a few steps in a wrong direction. But that is my impression.
It's like taking someone who's got a perfectly normal/healthy/average size ___________ (whatever, fill in the blank) but who is showing it off like it's the best in the world and acting an ass about it, and wanting to take them down 10 notches while also trying to dissuade anyone else who thinks it's a way to get attention from trying it. It may not at all be that the person's whatever is tiny or truly unimpressive, it's more about the embarrassment and trying to keep them from doing it again. NOT saying that justifies this approach (I still call the whole incident cringe-worthy) but I absolutely do NOT feel it was Ed showing unconscious sizism (size-ism?) or hypocrisy. I think his desire to kill and destroy this trend just made his other judgement go out the window.
Going back to the OP who is a therapist, Ed is a very good, intuitive judge of character and human interaction. I think he went to "What will make this young woman never ever EVER want to do this again..." and that's what came out of his mouth. Doesn't justify it, but also doesn't condemn him as a closet sexist.
Respectfully, the actual size doesn't really matter. I think everyone here agrees he was trying to let her know she was doing something stupid, but the way it came out sounded clumsy and insulting. It is amazing that a clip from 2003 is readily available to watch after a 10-second internet search. I don't even like seeing old pictures of myself, and shudder to think there were 1000's of videos online of me saying shit I may not even remember thinking, let alone saying. And with that massive volume of material available online, I'd wager the cringe-worthy clips are pretty damn rare, even with all the wine flowing and the cameras rolling. These guys all seem good dudes, they're inspiring activists, and agents for positive change. That I think we all agree on.
And I think that was kinda the point of the OP. Stories like these are not part of the Pearl Jam canon, and as outliers, they're pretty interesting to dissect. Looking at this vid, I don't think any of us could envision this scene going down in 2016, as I think as humans, the dudes have probably all continued to improve and evolve. Good thread, cool topic, sez me.
Gotta disagree. I think if a young woman flashed him in 2016, he would indeed shame her and be harsh about it, especially as a dad of 2 girls. The last hardcore part is what I find most disturbing, although certainly facetious; hopefully he wouldn't go that far again.
Can you imagine the things we all might have said in front of large crowds in our twenties?? With the spotlight on every fucking move you made?? Shit, Im not sure anyone would like me...
Gotta disagree. I think if a young woman flashed him in 2016, he would indeed shame her and be harsh about it, especially as a dad of 2 girls. The last hardcore part is what I find most disturbing, although certainly facetious; hopefully he wouldn't go that far again.
Nah, I guess I do mostly agree with you then. If some woman flashed him in 2016, I would prob expect him to say something, maybe even be harsh about it, but because he's dude in his 50's now with 2 girls, I'd be surprised if it wasn't expressed differently, with more way more tact or respect than the mosquito bite thing.
Can you imagine the things we all might have said in front of large crowds in our twenties?? With the spotlight on every fucking move you made?? Shit, Im not sure anyone would like me...
This thread reminds me that I initially hated Soundgarden because Ben Shepherd spit on a fan in the front row at a show in April 1992 when PJ was opening for them. Don't get me wrong, I loved Soundgarden's music, but Ben's behavior was unacceptable. I still can't stand him because of that incident. Ben needed a wall built between him and the audience.
That's nothing. Shannon Hoon PISSED on the crowd at a Vancouver show. I remember that was a big deal. It made the local news. However, it didn't dissuade me as a Blind Melon or Shannon Hoon fan in the slightest. I also recall being at a Vince Neil show where he started throwing beer bottles at the fans. It is not news to me that sometimes rock stars do or say some crazy shit. Eddie berating a chick who won't stop flashing her tits at him is absolute child's play and doesn't bother me in the least.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I hadn't seen or heard that one before. Beyond cringe-worthy.
That bro-wave shit is pretty reprehensible, and I'd be embarrassed if I were EV on that one, but I do think it's a pretty far outlier (unless I'm being naive). I don't believe that drunk dude is the band or the guy that has put in decades of activism for women's rights, the environment, encouraging voter turnout/registration, fighting monolithic, monopolistic corporations, supporting LBGT rights, etc., etc. They've earned my respect over the years on a lot of fronts.
In summary: OP was pretty dead-on.
I was at that show. I think in his frantic effort to dissuade that from "becoming a thing" as we say now, he just went ALL THE WAY OFF. It was sexist in many ways, but I also think he didn't want ANYONE to mistake him or the band for people who wanted that to happen at their shows or who would respond to that. Also, to be fair, this was either at the same time or soon after Guns and Roses had made a habit of staring their shows an hour or more late, which led to literally an hour plus of camera crews roaming stadiums and finding women to badger into flashing their boobs. For more than an hour this was 'entertainment" and it tainted a lot of shows around that time. So I also always took his hostility towards this act as a bigger hostility to that whole trend.
Not that that makes the specifics of this any less cringe-worthy, but I think it was about a whole lot more than just "Eww, I'm going ot shame you".
Thanks for the context! I had no idea. (Those camera crews were really predatory, and those DVD commercials were all over late night TV.) That makes the clip less cringe-worthy. Someone else mentioned that the size comment may have been directed at the woman's too-young-for this-ness. (Of course, we can't see her in the clip.) Maybe that's why he went full "mad dad" on her. (I realize I'm backpedaling, but context makes a lot of difference.)
Doesn't change it for me...any focus on the size brings it in the wrong direction.
That said, he's human and I am not suggesting that it's unforgivable; even the most staunch male feminists have less-than-feminist thoughts. It was just unfortunate; I don't think it's the direction he really wanted to go...Kinda like a Wrigley when it appeared he immediately regretted bringing up Bartman...he probably pretty quickly realized that that's not the way he should be talking about it. But I will go to my grave that ripping her for the size implies that it's not quite as bad if a larger-breasted woman does the same thing. That's probably not quite what he meant...he probably more or less just took the "let's caller her out and humilate her" thing one step in the wrong direction.
I wasn't going to say this but since you raised the comparison on size and all I'm just going to say it: her boobs weren't that small. You wil go to your grave believing he was implying bigger-boobed women wouldn't have been so bad; I absolutely believe and will go to my grave believing that actually, they WERE NOT that small and his point was much more about "You aren't as impressive as you think you are" and shaming them for being tiny when actually they weren't tiny. It was about shaming her - which I TOTALLY understand the discomfort with (it made me uncomfortable), but it really was not a commentary on her actual size from my view (I was there, very close to the front, and saw this all go down).
I totally understand why you see it as you do, and since most people hearing the tape or watching the video will not actually see the woman herself, I didn't say this. And I appreciate that you said he probably didn't actually mean that and that he probably took his "call her out and humiliate her" a few steps in a wrong direction. But that is my impression.
It's like taking someone who's got a perfectly normal/healthy/average size ___________ (whatever, fill in the blank) but who is showing it off like it's the best in the world and acting an ass about it, and wanting to take them down 10 notches while also trying to dissuade anyone else who thinks it's a way to get attention from trying it. It may not at all be that the person's whatever is tiny or truly unimpressive, it's more about the embarrassment and trying to keep them from doing it again. NOT saying that justifies this approach (I still call the whole incident cringe-worthy) but I absolutely do NOT feel it was Ed showing unconscious sizism (size-ism?) or hypocrisy. I think his desire to kill and destroy this trend just made his other judgement go out the window.
Going back to the OP who is a therapist, Ed is a very good, intuitive judge of character and human interaction. I think he went to "What will make this young woman never ever EVER want to do this again..." and that's what came out of his mouth. Doesn't justify it, but also doesn't condemn him as a closet sexist.
Interesting. I have two totally conflicting reactions: 1) So? It still sends a bad message that size matters and 2) OK, he just wanted to knock someone who thought she was all that down a peg. Either way, he kinda blew it. But either way, the rest of his history renders it beyond forgivable.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Well, I'm sure we can all agree that Eddie's comments about a silly girl's tits on display have had zero impact on how breasts are perceived in the world.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I hadn't seen or heard that one before. Beyond cringe-worthy.
That bro-wave shit is pretty reprehensible, and I'd be embarrassed if I were EV on that one, but I do think it's a pretty far outlier (unless I'm being naive). I don't believe that drunk dude is the band or the guy that has put in decades of activism for women's rights, the environment, encouraging voter turnout/registration, fighting monolithic, monopolistic corporations, supporting LBGT rights, etc., etc. They've earned my respect over the years on a lot of fronts.
In summary: OP was pretty dead-on.
I was at that show. I think in his frantic effort to dissuade that from "becoming a thing" as we say now, he just went ALL THE WAY OFF. It was sexist in many ways, but I also think he didn't want ANYONE to mistake him or the band for people who wanted that to happen at their shows or who would respond to that. Also, to be fair, this was either at the same time or soon after Guns and Roses had made a habit of staring their shows an hour or more late, which led to literally an hour plus of camera crews roaming stadiums and finding women to badger into flashing their boobs. For more than an hour this was 'entertainment" and it tainted a lot of shows around that time. So I also always took his hostility towards this act as a bigger hostility to that whole trend.
Not that that makes the specifics of this any less cringe-worthy, but I think it was about a whole lot more than just "Eww, I'm going ot shame you".
Thanks for the context! I had no idea. (Those camera crews were really predatory, and those DVD commercials were all over late night TV.) That makes the clip less cringe-worthy. Someone else mentioned that the size comment may have been directed at the woman's too-young-for this-ness. (Of course, we can't see her in the clip.) Maybe that's why he went full "mad dad" on her. (I realize I'm backpedaling, but context makes a lot of difference.)
Doesn't change it for me...any focus on the size brings it in the wrong direction.
That said, he's human and I am not suggesting that it's unforgivable; even the most staunch male feminists have less-than-feminist thoughts. It was just unfortunate; I don't think it's the direction he really wanted to go...Kinda like a Wrigley when it appeared he immediately regretted bringing up Bartman...he probably pretty quickly realized that that's not the way he should be talking about it. But I will go to my grave that ripping her for the size implies that it's not quite as bad if a larger-breasted woman does the same thing. That's probably not quite what he meant...he probably more or less just took the "let's caller her out and humilate her" thing one step in the wrong direction.
I wasn't going to say this but since you raised the comparison on size and all I'm just going to say it: her boobs weren't that small. You wil go to your grave believing he was implying bigger-boobed women wouldn't have been so bad; I absolutely believe and will go to my grave believing that actually, they WERE NOT that small and his point was much more about "You aren't as impressive as you think you are" and shaming them for being tiny when actually they weren't tiny. It was about shaming her - which I TOTALLY understand the discomfort with (it made me uncomfortable), but it really was not a commentary on her actual size from my view (I was there, very close to the front, and saw this all go down).
I totally understand why you see it as you do, and since most people hearing the tape or watching the video will not actually see the woman herself, I didn't say this. And I appreciate that you said he probably didn't actually mean that and that he probably took his "call her out and humiliate her" a few steps in a wrong direction. But that is my impression.
It's like taking someone who's got a perfectly normal/healthy/average size ___________ (whatever, fill in the blank) but who is showing it off like it's the best in the world and acting an ass about it, and wanting to take them down 10 notches while also trying to dissuade anyone else who thinks it's a way to get attention from trying it. It may not at all be that the person's whatever is tiny or truly unimpressive, it's more about the embarrassment and trying to keep them from doing it again. NOT saying that justifies this approach (I still call the whole incident cringe-worthy) but I absolutely do NOT feel it was Ed showing unconscious sizism (size-ism?) or hypocrisy. I think his desire to kill and destroy this trend just made his other judgement go out the window.
Going back to the OP who is a therapist, Ed is a very good, intuitive judge of character and human interaction. I think he went to "What will make this young woman never ever EVER want to do this again..." and that's what came out of his mouth. Doesn't justify it, but also doesn't condemn him as a closet sexist.
Respectfully, the actual size doesn't really matter. I think everyone here agrees he was trying to let her know she was doing something stupid, but the way it came out sounded clumsy and insulting. It is amazing that a clip from 2003 is readily available to watch after a 10-second internet search. I don't even like seeing old pictures of myself, and shudder to think there were 1000's of videos online of me saying shit I may not even remember thinking, let alone saying. And with that massive volume of material available online, I'd wager the cringe-worthy clips are pretty damn rare, even with all the wine flowing and the cameras rolling. These guys all seem good dudes, they're inspiring activists, and agents for positive change. That I think we all agree on.
And I think that was kinda the point of the OP. Stories like these are not part of the Pearl Jam canon, and as outliers, they're pretty interesting to dissect. Looking at this vid, I don't think any of us could envision this scene going down in 2016, as I think as humans, the dudes have probably all continued to improve and evolve. Good thread, cool topic, sez me.
Your comments make sense overall, but I was responding to a VERY SPECIFIC post that DID comment that the size or the hinted message about size mattered. That was all I was responding to. If you read the rest of my comments, you'll see I don't disagree with you.
0
Options
KV4053
Mike's side, crushed up against the stage Posts: 1,474
Well, I'm sure we can all agree that Eddie's comments about a silly girl's tits on display have had zero impact on how breasts are perceived in the world.
Indeed.
I know I was born and I know that I'll die. The in between is mine.
I hadn't seen or heard that one before. Beyond cringe-worthy.
That bro-wave shit is pretty reprehensible, and I'd be embarrassed if I were EV on that one, but I do think it's a pretty far outlier (unless I'm being naive). I don't believe that drunk dude is the band or the guy that has put in decades of activism for women's rights, the environment, encouraging voter turnout/registration, fighting monolithic, monopolistic corporations, supporting LBGT rights, etc., etc. They've earned my respect over the years on a lot of fronts.
In summary: OP was pretty dead-on.
I was at that show. I think in his frantic effort to dissuade that from "becoming a thing" as we say now, he just went ALL THE WAY OFF. It was sexist in many ways, but I also think he didn't want ANYONE to mistake him or the band for people who wanted that to happen at their shows or who would respond to that. Also, to be fair, this was either at the same time or soon after Guns and Roses had made a habit of staring their shows an hour or more late, which led to literally an hour plus of camera crews roaming stadiums and finding women to badger into flashing their boobs. For more than an hour this was 'entertainment" and it tainted a lot of shows around that time. So I also always took his hostility towards this act as a bigger hostility to that whole trend.
Not that that makes the specifics of this any less cringe-worthy, but I think it was about a whole lot more than just "Eww, I'm going ot shame you".
Thanks for the context! I had no idea. (Those camera crews were really predatory, and those DVD commercials were all over late night TV.) That makes the clip less cringe-worthy. Someone else mentioned that the size comment may have been directed at the woman's too-young-for this-ness. (Of course, we can't see her in the clip.) Maybe that's why he went full "mad dad" on her. (I realize I'm backpedaling, but context makes a lot of difference.)
Doesn't change it for me...any focus on the size brings it in the wrong direction.
That said, he's human and I am not suggesting that it's unforgivable; even the most staunch male feminists have less-than-feminist thoughts. It was just unfortunate; I don't think it's the direction he really wanted to go...Kinda like a Wrigley when it appeared he immediately regretted bringing up Bartman...he probably pretty quickly realized that that's not the way he should be talking about it. But I will go to my grave that ripping her for the size implies that it's not quite as bad if a larger-breasted woman does the same thing. That's probably not quite what he meant...he probably more or less just took the "let's caller her out and humilate her" thing one step in the wrong direction.
I wasn't going to say this but since you raised the comparison on size and all I'm just going to say it: her boobs weren't that small. You wil go to your grave believing he was implying bigger-boobed women wouldn't have been so bad; I absolutely believe and will go to my grave believing that actually, they WERE NOT that small and his point was much more about "You aren't as impressive as you think you are" and shaming them for being tiny when actually they weren't tiny. It was about shaming her - which I TOTALLY understand the discomfort with (it made me uncomfortable), but it really was not a commentary on her actual size from my view (I was there, very close to the front, and saw this all go down).
I totally understand why you see it as you do, and since most people hearing the tape or watching the video will not actually see the woman herself, I didn't say this. And I appreciate that you said he probably didn't actually mean that and that he probably took his "call her out and humiliate her" a few steps in a wrong direction. But that is my impression.
It's like taking someone who's got a perfectly normal/healthy/average size ___________ (whatever, fill in the blank) but who is showing it off like it's the best in the world and acting an ass about it, and wanting to take them down 10 notches while also trying to dissuade anyone else who thinks it's a way to get attention from trying it. It may not at all be that the person's whatever is tiny or truly unimpressive, it's more about the embarrassment and trying to keep them from doing it again. NOT saying that justifies this approach (I still call the whole incident cringe-worthy) but I absolutely do NOT feel it was Ed showing unconscious sizism (size-ism?) or hypocrisy. I think his desire to kill and destroy this trend just made his other judgement go out the window.
Going back to the OP who is a therapist, Ed is a very good, intuitive judge of character and human interaction. I think he went to "What will make this young woman never ever EVER want to do this again..." and that's what came out of his mouth. Doesn't justify it, but also doesn't condemn him as a closet sexist.
Interesting. I have two totally conflicting reactions: 1) So? It still sends a bad message that size matters and 2) OK, he just wanted to knock someone who thought she was all that down a peg. Either way, he kinda blew it. But either way, the rest of his history renders it beyond forgivable.
Hopefully you understand that the *entire* rest of my post says similar things, but we end up on different conclusions because I think just about everything is "forgivable" if the person who does it demonstrates they see the folly in their ways. He seemed to almost immediately. And has not said anything like that particular thing before or since (Bartman notwithstanding).
Well, I'm sure we can all agree that Eddie's comments about a silly girl's tits on display have had zero impact on how breasts are perceived in the world.
Nah, I don't agree on that one. Lots of people take their kids to shows, and if I had a young daughter who heard that comment, it could very well influence how she thinks men see women's bodies and how she perceives her own body, and I'd want to talk to her about it what she heard and what it meant.
I think part of the (very little) backlash you received is due, in part, to mentioning your profession and then proceeding to analyze a celebrity based solely on media exposure (I'm assuming he's not your patient). Why mention your profession? .
Good point. Thanks for saying it, and saying it nicely.
I thought mentioning my profession would give context to where I was coming from and help clarify what I was saying. I guess I also thought it might make what I was saying more interesting to some people. I claim NO special insight into Ed's mind but I do fancy that I have a bit of insight, by virtue of my profession, into the process of overcoming internal struggles. Ed's always been open about his internal struggle to come to terms with some parts of his personal history.
But you're right, it would have been better not to mention it. This isn't the right place for that.
Ah man, so much I want to say here mostly in response to @KV4053 's post, but I think you hit the nail on the head ladydoc.
I hadn't seen or heard that one before. Beyond cringe-worthy.
That bro-wave shit is pretty reprehensible, and I'd be embarrassed if I were EV on that one, but I do think it's a pretty far outlier (unless I'm being naive). I don't believe that drunk dude is the band or the guy that has put in decades of activism for women's rights, the environment, encouraging voter turnout/registration, fighting monolithic, monopolistic corporations, supporting LBGT rights, etc., etc. They've earned my respect over the years on a lot of fronts.
In summary: OP was pretty dead-on.
I was at that show. I think in his frantic effort to dissuade that from "becoming a thing" as we say now, he just went ALL THE WAY OFF. It was sexist in many ways, but I also think he didn't want ANYONE to mistake him or the band for people who wanted that to happen at their shows or who would respond to that. Also, to be fair, this was either at the same time or soon after Guns and Roses had made a habit of staring their shows an hour or more late, which led to literally an hour plus of camera crews roaming stadiums and finding women to badger into flashing their boobs. For more than an hour this was 'entertainment" and it tainted a lot of shows around that time. So I also always took his hostility towards this act as a bigger hostility to that whole trend.
Not that that makes the specifics of this any less cringe-worthy, but I think it was about a whole lot more than just "Eww, I'm going ot shame you".
Thanks for the context! I had no idea. (Those camera crews were really predatory, and those DVD commercials were all over late night TV.) That makes the clip less cringe-worthy. Someone else mentioned that the size comment may have been directed at the woman's too-young-for this-ness. (Of course, we can't see her in the clip.) Maybe that's why he went full "mad dad" on her. (I realize I'm backpedaling, but context makes a lot of difference.)
Doesn't change it for me...any focus on the size brings it in the wrong direction.
That said, he's human and I am not suggesting that it's unforgivable; even the most staunch male feminists have less-than-feminist thoughts. It was just unfortunate; I don't think it's the direction he really wanted to go...Kinda like a Wrigley when it appeared he immediately regretted bringing up Bartman...he probably pretty quickly realized that that's not the way he should be talking about it. But I will go to my grave that ripping her for the size implies that it's not quite as bad if a larger-breasted woman does the same thing. That's probably not quite what he meant...he probably more or less just took the "let's caller her out and humilate her" thing one step in the wrong direction.
I wasn't going to say this but since you raised the comparison on size and all I'm just going to say it: her boobs weren't that small. You wil go to your grave believing he was implying bigger-boobed women wouldn't have been so bad; I absolutely believe and will go to my grave believing that actually, they WERE NOT that small and his point was much more about "You aren't as impressive as you think you are" and shaming them for being tiny when actually they weren't tiny. It was about shaming her - which I TOTALLY understand the discomfort with (it made me uncomfortable), but it really was not a commentary on her actual size from my view (I was there, very close to the front, and saw this all go down).
I totally understand why you see it as you do, and since most people hearing the tape or watching the video will not actually see the woman herself, I didn't say this. And I appreciate that you said he probably didn't actually mean that and that he probably took his "call her out and humiliate her" a few steps in a wrong direction. But that is my impression.
It's like taking someone who's got a perfectly normal/healthy/average size ___________ (whatever, fill in the blank) but who is showing it off like it's the best in the world and acting an ass about it, and wanting to take them down 10 notches while also trying to dissuade anyone else who thinks it's a way to get attention from trying it. It may not at all be that the person's whatever is tiny or truly unimpressive, it's more about the embarrassment and trying to keep them from doing it again. NOT saying that justifies this approach (I still call the whole incident cringe-worthy) but I absolutely do NOT feel it was Ed showing unconscious sizism (size-ism?) or hypocrisy. I think his desire to kill and destroy this trend just made his other judgement go out the window.
Going back to the OP who is a therapist, Ed is a very good, intuitive judge of character and human interaction. I think he went to "What will make this young woman never ever EVER want to do this again..." and that's what came out of his mouth. Doesn't justify it, but also doesn't condemn him as a closet sexist.
Respectfully, the actual size doesn't really matter. I think everyone here agrees he was trying to let her know she was doing something stupid, but the way it came out sounded clumsy and insulting. It is amazing that a clip from 2003 is readily available to watch after a 10-second internet search. I don't even like seeing old pictures of myself, and shudder to think there were 1000's of videos online of me saying shit I may not even remember thinking, let alone saying. And with that massive volume of material available online, I'd wager the cringe-worthy clips are pretty damn rare, even with all the wine flowing and the cameras rolling. These guys all seem good dudes, they're inspiring activists, and agents for positive change. That I think we all agree on.
And I think that was kinda the point of the OP. Stories like these are not part of the Pearl Jam canon, and as outliers, they're pretty interesting to dissect. Looking at this vid, I don't think any of us could envision this scene going down in 2016, as I think as humans, the dudes have probably all continued to improve and evolve. Good thread, cool topic, sez me.
Your comments make sense overall, but I was responding to a VERY SPECIFIC post that DID comment that the size or the hinted message about size mattered. That was all I was responding to. If you read the rest of my comments, you'll see I don't disagree with you.
Yeah, I'm with you. You're even talking to me, I don't think. I just jumped in and started talking like an arsehole
Well, I'm sure we can all agree that Eddie's comments about a silly girl's tits on display have had zero impact on how breasts are perceived in the world.
Nah, I don't agree on that one. Lots of people take their kids to shows, and if I had a young daughter who heard that comment, it could very well influence how she thinks men see women's bodies and how she perceives her own body, and I'd want to talk to her about it what she heard and what it meant.
Find me just one person who actually heard what he said who felt impacted like that and I'll agree with you, but hypotheticals about it don't really work for me.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
I could be wrong (I often am).
I thought mentioning my profession would give context to where I was coming from and help clarify what I was saying. I guess I also thought it might make what I was saying more interesting to some people. I claim NO special insight into Ed's mind but I do fancy that I have a bit of insight, by virtue of my profession, into the process of overcoming internal struggles. Ed's always been open about his internal struggle to come to terms with some parts of his personal history.
But you're right, it would have been better not to mention it. This isn't the right place for that.
The show I saw on the '95 tour is one of my favorites because it was my first, and because it was during the era when the band was the biggest one on earth. But in terms of pure performance ... I've seen maybe 20 better shows since then.
for the least they could possibly do
To me, the only thing he might want to re-do or regret is some of the ways they handled personnel decisions (and that is just a guess from reading PJ books and hearing mostly about Dave A's departure and how that went down). But his live show presence? His attitude/suspicion of fame? Seeming avoidance of commercial success?
In some ways, especially after Kurt died, those were healthy concerns, or at least totally understandable ones.
Until you've been minding your own business and someone recognizes you and starts a stampede of people screaming your name, I don't think anyone here can really judge what is "regretful" about how PJ - even when they didn't agree internally - handled fame and the explosion of success they experienced.
So I don't know if I agree with Ed or not, because I haven't seen the film yet and I don't know if he goes into detail about what he regrets. He may be being unduly hard on himself with that 20/20 rear view mirror vision. Or... he may legit be thinking back on maybe some decisions or behaviors we don't even know about that he does know and regrets. Who knows... But I DO know that what I know of his behaviors and what he was reacting to, I have nothing but respect for the most part. I don't know how he did it, and I don't know how the whole band got through some of the experiences they had without totally imploding (I'm sure they came close several times), or without becoming a rock and roll cliche.
Pretty stellar that they're celebrating 25 yrs this year... I remember when Sonic Youth got to 20 yrs and some of the comments Ed made about that milestone for them and how incredible it was, and now PJ is at 25. That really is a testament to their efforts at well-being, and having lives outside of the band (despite what Jeff says on Sirius
Hey, they haven't had a wildly commercially successful album in how long? Yet they sold out 2 nights at Fenway and Wrigley... they've done so much right.
And even the things they did wrong in their early days... were about as right as they could've managed, which makes them not wrong. Just learning opportunities...
Not that that makes the specifics of this any less cringe-worthy, but I think it was about a whole lot more than just "Eww, I'm going ot shame you".
That makes the clip less cringe-worthy. Someone else mentioned that the size comment may have been directed at the woman's too-young-for this-ness. (Of course, we can't see her in the clip.) Maybe that's why he went full "mad dad" on her. (I realize I'm backpedaling, but context makes a lot of difference.)
That said, he's human and I am not suggesting that it's unforgivable; even the most staunch male feminists have less-than-feminist thoughts. It was just unfortunate; I don't think it's the direction he really wanted to go...Kinda like a Wrigley when it appeared he immediately regretted bringing up Bartman...he probably pretty quickly realized that that's not the way he should be talking about it. But I will go to my grave that ripping her for the size implies that it's not quite as bad if a larger-breasted woman does the same thing. That's probably not quite what he meant...he probably more or less just took the "let's caller her out and humilate her" thing one step in the wrong direction.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I totally understand why you see it as you do, and since most people hearing the tape or watching the video will not actually see the woman herself, I didn't say this. And I appreciate that you said he probably didn't actually mean that and that he probably took his "call her out and humiliate her" a few steps in a wrong direction. But that is my impression.
It's like taking someone who's got a perfectly normal/healthy/average size ___________ (whatever, fill in the blank) but who is showing it off like it's the best in the world and acting an ass about it, and wanting to take them down 10 notches while also trying to dissuade anyone else who thinks it's a way to get attention from trying it. It may not at all be that the person's whatever is tiny or truly unimpressive, it's more about the embarrassment and trying to keep them from doing it again. NOT saying that justifies this approach (I still call the whole incident cringe-worthy) but I absolutely do NOT feel it was Ed showing unconscious sizism (size-ism?) or hypocrisy. I think his desire to kill and destroy this trend just made his other judgement go out the window.
Going back to the OP who is a therapist, Ed is a very good, intuitive judge of character and human interaction. I think he went to "What will make this young woman never ever EVER want to do this again..." and that's what came out of his mouth. Doesn't justify it, but also doesn't condemn him as a closet sexist.
And I think that was kinda the point of the OP. Stories like these are not part of the Pearl Jam canon, and as outliers, they're pretty interesting to dissect. Looking at this vid, I don't think any of us could envision this scene going down in 2016, as I think as humans, the dudes have probably all continued to improve and evolve. Good thread, cool topic, sez me.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin