No Rock And Roll Fun

WOMEN IN ROCK: We keep tripping over the concept of "Women In... [insert genre of choice here]. We've said before that we don't think that a question about the influence of gender on the way people react to a female rapper, dj, guitarist or manager is an invalid approach, to use it as the basis of an article, a gig, or a movement seems to be a little bit self-defeating and backward-looking. So, with that in mind, welcome the RollingStone Women In Rock edition.
No, that's not from the seventies, the current RS is treating Women as an amorphous grouping, and attempting to form some sort of scene based on the simultaneous possession of vaginas by Britney, Sharon Osbourne, the Dixie-Chicks and Stevie Nicks. And some others.
Now, doing a Woman-powered issue isn't a bad idea - although "idea" is perhaps over-endowing the concept with inventiveness; it's the music mag equivalent of a special Festive Food number of Martha Stewart Living. It's the "... In Rock" bit which rankles, and sets you up for the inevitable tone of the writing:"These artists think for themselves, calling their own shots, and the audience has responded." Well done, little ladies! How astonishing that you think as well as play the piano.
I don't have the screaming font embedded but: it's 2002, for pity's sake - don't you think that "Women have brains" is slightly stale news?
Of course, the whole issue is an example of the new, lad-tastic Rolling Stone trying to have its urinal cake and eat it - while the copy may bang on about "resisting defintions and restrictions", the cover bangs off over Britney and Shakira...