The idea is simple enough. Each year, Revolver publishes a collection of features focused on female bands and band members (and often more
inexplicable choices, like tattoo artists or actresses) replete with lots of big pictures splashed across its pages. Ostensibly, the goal is to provide
exposure to the women of metal, and celebrate them for their talent and brains as well as their beauty—think Miss America's "scholarship"
competitions with less world peace and more devil horns. But the ladies' musical backgrounds and achievements often play second fiddle to
their luminous cheekbones or dangerous curves.
It usually ends up as Revolver's highest grossing and most popular issue of the year. That doesn't mean everyone likes it. Critics—I'm among them—ask
why it is that the magazine sees the need to put together a "special edition" once every 12 months, instead of choosing to allocate equal coverage to
start with. Revolver seldom gives in-depth coverage to female musicians or bands during the rest of the year; the women are almost always relegated to the now-regular "Hottest Chicks in Metal" one-page feature that graces each issue. The insistence upon segregation, separation, and sexuality has plenty of feminists
baying for blood.
Gazelle Amber Valentine of experimental doom duo Jucifer posted a series of tweets that sum up the gripes: "Singling out females for a special implies we can't equal men. Focusing on 'hotness' implies that it's okay to judge us for that alone ... I want to live in a world where nobody gets more or less because of traits they're born with. ALL women are hot. It's not an accomplishment. Why not value real ability and contributions?"
This year, the controversy has been loud enough that editor Brandon Geist has shot back, diving into Twitter discussions (including a running argument
with Valentine, as well as with a number of female metal fans) and posting an
of rebuttal to the chorus of haters, outlining a handful of valid arguments as well as baiting his critics once again.
One of his most thought-provoking points: "To my mind, it is extremely condescending to the women involved to act as if YOU know better than they do
what is right for THEM. A lot of women consider it to be a compliment to be asked to be part of the issue. A lot of women like to feel sexy, dress
sexy, and be photographed looking sexy. A lot of women lobbied vigorously for their inclusion in the issue (and, historically, some girls have been
approached and declined to participate, and we've always respected that choice)... Now, you could respond that the women who want to be in the issue
have clearly been brainwashed by a paternalistic society into thinking that the only way they will be valued and gain attention is to use their
physical appearances. Or you could respond that these girls have sold out, allowing themselves to be exploited and using their physical appearances as
promotional tools to get their music/bands out there. But, first off, who are you to divine what their motives are? And secondly, when you make such
claims, aren't YOU the one demeaning these women?"
Geist seems more than a little defensive here. I'd argue he ignores the greater problem—that of the portrayal of female musicians within the metal/rock media—and instead attempts to assign blame to feminists and other concerned detractors of the magazine by accusing them of misogyny and condescension. He
ends with, "Really all we're trying to do is put out a fun issue that spotlights some rad female musicians without taking ourselves too seriously and
getting all didactic 'Women in Rock' on anyone. But again, if you wanna get your panties all in a bunch about it, that's fun to watch, too." Plenty of
panties (and more than a few pairs of boxers) are still bunched up over this issue, and the one-two punch of blaming others and trivializing the
problem did little to endear Geist to his critics.