3ku1
Member
Posts: 3,009
Location:
|
Post by 3ku1 on Feb 2, 2017 15:46:25 GMT -5
That's 6pm for me. I hope A4 related questions are asked mostly.
|
|
nonotme
Member
Posts: 1,398
Location:
|
Post by nonotme on Feb 2, 2017 15:53:14 GMT -5
Another aspect of public reaction to Adam was due to the fact that he was the first in many ways - first out gay artist signed to a major label, first out gay artist with a number one on the Billboard 200 album chart, etc.
A while ago I read some interesting things about being the first to break through one or another kind of barrier or limitation. The woman who was the first female PM in Australia talked about how being first meant having to have grit and be able to take the constant negative spin and put-downs. She said she expected the misogyny to be at it's worst at the beginning of her tenure as PM, but actually it grew stronger throughout her term in office.
Not that opposition always follows this pattern. Others that I read about had different patterns of opposition to deal with. The point is that being first brings on more of these issues, and they persist for a long time. It is a lot for the person who was a "first" to deal with personally, and takes energy and deliberate effort.
A second part of being first is that the person is often spoken of as "controversial" or "polarizing" just because the very fact that he or she is the first in something is a form of change, and change often gets labelled that way. The labels "controversial" and "polarizing" stick with the person, even after the reason why may have faded from public memory. The end result is a dislike or resistance to the person from some of the population based on a vague sense of something negative seeming to surround the person that was the trailblazer. Thus, besides any out-front negativity, such as the misogyny the Australian PM faced, there is the unfocused and hazy sense of not liking or not connecting with or not trusting the person. At times the trailblazer may wind up being less trusted, less favorably treated in some ways than those who follow, even if that person is also recognized for breaking barriers or leading the way.
This doesn't really do justice to the articles I found so engaging , yet I hope some here will find it a bit interesting.
peace&love
|
|
|
Post by skaschep on Feb 2, 2017 16:13:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by adamrocks on Feb 2, 2017 16:16:53 GMT -5
I haven't seen this here yet...... A twitter party!!!! We haven't had one is so l-o-n-g!!
|
|
|
Post by skaschep on Feb 2, 2017 16:18:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by skaschep on Feb 2, 2017 16:19:01 GMT -5
Ryan Love @ryanjl How was this five bloody years ago already 😩 @robcopsey
|
|
|
Post by skaschep on Feb 2, 2017 16:19:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by skaschep on Feb 2, 2017 16:19:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by adamrocks on Feb 2, 2017 16:19:47 GMT -5
Another aspect of public reaction to Adam was due to the fact that he was the first in many ways - first out gay artist signed to a major label, first out gay artist with a number one on the Billboard 200 album chart, etc. A while ago I read some interesting things about being the first to break through one or another kind of barrier or limitation. The woman who was the first female PM in Australia talked about how being first meant having to have grit and be able to take the constant negative spin and put-downs. She said she expected the misogyny to be at it's worst at the beginning of her tenure as PM, but actually it grew stronger throughout her term in office. Not that opposition always follows this pattern. Others that I read about had different patterns of opposition to deal with. The point is that being first brings on more of these issues, and they persist for a long time. It is a lot for the person who was a "first" to deal with personally, and takes energy and deliberate effort. A second part of being first is that the person is often spoken of as "controversial" or "polarizing" just because the very fact that he or she is the first in something is a form of change, and change often gets labelled that way. The labels "controversial" and "polarizing" stick with the person, even after the reason why may have faded from public memory. The end result is a dislike or resistance to the person from some of the population based on a vague sense of something negative seeming to surround the person that was the trailblazer. Thus, besides any out-front negativity, such as the misogyny the Australian PM faced, there is the unfocused and hazy sense of not liking or not connecting with or not trusting the person. At times the trailblazer may wind up being less trusted, less favorably treated in some ways than those who follow, even if that person is also recognized for breaking barriers or leading the way. This doesn't really do justice to the articles I found so engaging , yet I hope some here will find it a bit interesting. peace&love Nonotme I really appreciated your post. What you says makes so much sense. Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
Post by skaschep on Feb 2, 2017 16:20:46 GMT -5
HQ pic from Time:
|
|