My music is officially available on Spotify, Apple Music, and all major streaming platforms (again). You can find it, add it to your playlists, and share it however you like. It's also available on Bandcamp and Soundcloud as always.
My tracks are also cleared for use on Instagram, Youtube, Facebook, and TikTok, so feel free to use them in your reels, stories, or video clips.
More releases are coming- Thanks for your support!
Spotify
Apple Music
Thursday, August 20, 2026
Wednesday, August 12, 2026
Women don’t get to be irreverent. We get to be “hysterical.”
A man can be vulgar, profane, obsessive, theatrical, unserious, sexually inappropriate, dark, bizarre, self-indulgent, contradictory, funny, cruel, violent, sentimental, absurd, whatever. He can make something completely fucking insane and people will often just call it a "creative choice." A woman does the same thing and suddenly somebody is taking her temperature.
This is especially noticeable with art, because apparently women are not allowed the basic luxury of making something that is not a direct transcription of their personal history.
I write music. I compose everything myself- I have literally had men ask me what I’ve “sampled,” which is funny on its face because I am sitting there thinking, “Nothing. I composed it.” A friend of mine said that's a compliment- No, it most definitely isn't, because of the implication... But it’s also a familiar kind of assumption: there must be some external source. Some explanation. Some man, some record... Surely I didn’t just create the thing, myself.
And then there’s the autobiographical assumption. I wrote a song a long time ago that involved drinking, drugs, fighting, and a particular kind of Saturday night. I wasn’t writing about my own life. I was narrating. I was writing a scene. I was playing with a voice. I had an idea and I wrote the fucking song.
Men do this all the time.
A man can write about a drug addict without everyone asking whether he’s using. He can write about a woman without everyone assuming he’s secretly confessing his feelings about her. He can write about murder, infidelity, alcoholism, drug abuse, psychosis, violence, whatever, and there is usually at least some recognition that he may be writing from imagination. Women have to submit supporting documentation.
The funny thing is, I’m not even famous. There is no great public interest in my personal life, no army of fans waiting to decode my lyrics, no cultural event happening every time I release something. I’m just some random woman creating things. And I still get subjected to this shit. People still assume, speculate, narrate, project, reverse-engineer my work into my personal life, and occasionally act like they know more about what I meant than I do. Apparently you don’t need to be famous for people to feel entitled to explain you.
If I write about drinking, I must be drinking- I don't drink. I learned years ago that I hated how I felt and behaved, and stopped doing it to "fit in" or mingle. I hate being around drunk people, as a "goody two-shoes teetotaler."
If I write about drugs, I must be doing drugs- I've NEVER done hard drugs, and I have some legitimate grievances (...to put it lightly) with hard drug addicts and alcoholics who have left me with lasting trauma. I also despise weed. I despise pot heads, and their assumption that everyone else is one, or hasn't "discovered the right strain of cannabis" (OMFG they're the worst and THE SMELL...) At least a junkie has the decency to HIDE their addiction (I'm just talking shit here, and I wish better resources existed for these folks, despite my contempt)... If I write about sex, NOOOOW we’re doing an investigation... I HAVE done that, but I haven't in over a decade...
And then, when something actually is autobiographical, there is another bizarre little maneuver: the sanitization.
Something that was abuse becomes “a toxic situation that the artist grew from.” Something that was genuinely frightening becomes “a difficult relationship.” Something that involved an actual person doing something terrible becomes a vague story about “growth.” I know the difference.
Sometimes I am writing something I invented. Sometimes I’m writing something I lived or am living. Sometimes I'm being performative and completely removed. Sometimes I’m doing something in between. That’s part of being an artist. While people taking on their own interpretations IS SORT OF THE POINT OF ANY ART, what I resent is being turned into an unstable caricature based on the things I create.
This is one reason I’ve moved toward more abstract, stream-of-consciousness writing. I like being able to follow an image somewhere without having to stop every three lines and explain who the characters are, whether they’re me, whether the man is real, whether the drink was real, whether the event happened on a Tuesday or a Saturday, whether I was “going through something” when I wrote it. Sometimes I don’t want to give the fucking police report. Sometimes I just want to write, and sometimes writing is more fluid when you completely remove yourself.
Women are denied a very basic kind of artistic agency because there is such a strong societal impulse to treat what we make as evidence about us. Men get personas. Women get pathology. Men get satire. Women get called bitter. Men get to be "eccentric." Women are unstable. Men get to be sexually explicit. Women are either confessing or attention-seeking. Men get to be angry. Women are hysterical. Then people act offended when women become guarded.
Of course some women write autobiographically. Of course some songs are confessions. Of course art can be an extremely direct way of processing experience. That’s not the point.
The point is that it should be possible for a woman to write something without immediately turning the woman herself into the subject. Sometimes the song is the subject. Sometimes the narrator isn’t me. Sometimes the narrator is me. Sometimes I don’t even fucking know yet. Sometimes I wrote the line because it rhymed and because it didn't. I don’t think that’s particularly radical.
Women should be allowed to be as strange, funny, profane, theatrical, abstract, horny, angry, stupid, ridiculous, serious, unserious, experimental, excessive, irreverent, brilliant, and completely full of shit as men are allowed to be... Without somebody standing over us with a clipboard trying to determine what it says about our "mental health."
Women don’t get to be irreverent. We get to be “hysterical.”
I’m tired of the fucking quotation marks.
This is especially noticeable with art, because apparently women are not allowed the basic luxury of making something that is not a direct transcription of their personal history.
I write music. I compose everything myself- I have literally had men ask me what I’ve “sampled,” which is funny on its face because I am sitting there thinking, “Nothing. I composed it.” A friend of mine said that's a compliment- No, it most definitely isn't, because of the implication... But it’s also a familiar kind of assumption: there must be some external source. Some explanation. Some man, some record... Surely I didn’t just create the thing, myself.
And then there’s the autobiographical assumption. I wrote a song a long time ago that involved drinking, drugs, fighting, and a particular kind of Saturday night. I wasn’t writing about my own life. I was narrating. I was writing a scene. I was playing with a voice. I had an idea and I wrote the fucking song.
Men do this all the time.
A man can write about a drug addict without everyone asking whether he’s using. He can write about a woman without everyone assuming he’s secretly confessing his feelings about her. He can write about murder, infidelity, alcoholism, drug abuse, psychosis, violence, whatever, and there is usually at least some recognition that he may be writing from imagination. Women have to submit supporting documentation.
The funny thing is, I’m not even famous. There is no great public interest in my personal life, no army of fans waiting to decode my lyrics, no cultural event happening every time I release something. I’m just some random woman creating things. And I still get subjected to this shit. People still assume, speculate, narrate, project, reverse-engineer my work into my personal life, and occasionally act like they know more about what I meant than I do. Apparently you don’t need to be famous for people to feel entitled to explain you.
If I write about drinking, I must be drinking- I don't drink. I learned years ago that I hated how I felt and behaved, and stopped doing it to "fit in" or mingle. I hate being around drunk people, as a "goody two-shoes teetotaler."
If I write about drugs, I must be doing drugs- I've NEVER done hard drugs, and I have some legitimate grievances (...to put it lightly) with hard drug addicts and alcoholics who have left me with lasting trauma. I also despise weed. I despise pot heads, and their assumption that everyone else is one, or hasn't "discovered the right strain of cannabis" (OMFG they're the worst and THE SMELL...) At least a junkie has the decency to HIDE their addiction (I'm just talking shit here, and I wish better resources existed for these folks, despite my contempt)... If I write about sex, NOOOOW we’re doing an investigation... I HAVE done that, but I haven't in over a decade...
And then, when something actually is autobiographical, there is another bizarre little maneuver: the sanitization.
Something that was abuse becomes “a toxic situation that the artist grew from.” Something that was genuinely frightening becomes “a difficult relationship.” Something that involved an actual person doing something terrible becomes a vague story about “growth.” I know the difference.
Sometimes I am writing something I invented. Sometimes I’m writing something I lived or am living. Sometimes I'm being performative and completely removed. Sometimes I’m doing something in between. That’s part of being an artist. While people taking on their own interpretations IS SORT OF THE POINT OF ANY ART, what I resent is being turned into an unstable caricature based on the things I create.
This is one reason I’ve moved toward more abstract, stream-of-consciousness writing. I like being able to follow an image somewhere without having to stop every three lines and explain who the characters are, whether they’re me, whether the man is real, whether the drink was real, whether the event happened on a Tuesday or a Saturday, whether I was “going through something” when I wrote it. Sometimes I don’t want to give the fucking police report. Sometimes I just want to write, and sometimes writing is more fluid when you completely remove yourself.
Women are denied a very basic kind of artistic agency because there is such a strong societal impulse to treat what we make as evidence about us. Men get personas. Women get pathology. Men get satire. Women get called bitter. Men get to be "eccentric." Women are unstable. Men get to be sexually explicit. Women are either confessing or attention-seeking. Men get to be angry. Women are hysterical. Then people act offended when women become guarded.
Of course some women write autobiographically. Of course some songs are confessions. Of course art can be an extremely direct way of processing experience. That’s not the point.
The point is that it should be possible for a woman to write something without immediately turning the woman herself into the subject. Sometimes the song is the subject. Sometimes the narrator isn’t me. Sometimes the narrator is me. Sometimes I don’t even fucking know yet. Sometimes I wrote the line because it rhymed and because it didn't. I don’t think that’s particularly radical.
Women should be allowed to be as strange, funny, profane, theatrical, abstract, horny, angry, stupid, ridiculous, serious, unserious, experimental, excessive, irreverent, brilliant, and completely full of shit as men are allowed to be... Without somebody standing over us with a clipboard trying to determine what it says about our "mental health."
Women don’t get to be irreverent. We get to be “hysterical.”
I’m tired of the fucking quotation marks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)