Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Matchbox 20 and Pink Floyd are the real culprits:
i thought that drownedinsound user jordan_229_2 really didn't realise that the popular song 'blurred lines' has actually been subject to widespread critique and censure and that this undermines the points made in the article linked by drownedinsound user gayguevara!!!
can't believe i've done this
this article only very lightly touches on it but there's probably a relatively interesting analysis to be made of where thicke fits into these kinds of arguments wrt it being maybe less strictly about the race of an individual artist than an issue of genre/subculture/credibility and how those are gendered and racialised
BUT DON'T WORRY I'M NOT GONNA MAKE IT
"Nobody ever asked why a white man had killed President Kennedy or tried to kill President Reagan. The gunmen had names; their stories were presumed to be personal. When Bernie Madoff conned his investors out of billions, nobody asked “What makes a white man do something like that?” or “What should be done about the white male swindler problem?”"
that might be a more interesting angle to take on the subject. particularly genre.
not that you need my permission to do it
This sort of bellendry is less prevalent here than in the states, where it seems far more common for people to be all "I love all music apart from rap lol", or to have "no rap" stations which play songs with the rap verses cut, etc. etc.
so happy someone got the reference
but there's definitely something in what elaina said downthread about people working in certain genres or styles (which happen to be associated with subcultures that are heavily white and male) being afforded a more literary kind of analysis, where anything dodgy can automatically be taken as dramatic monologue (even while other, more innocuous lyrics are presumed to be more straightforwardly expressive of the writer's subjectivity). also possibly relates to the derision of pop or 'mainstream culture' in general being really gendered
is down to how intelligent and focused on genuine issues the genre seemed to be in the 80s and early 90s. It feels that way to me. You go back to old, classic stuff and it's political mostly. But that's what happens when something becomes pop.
It's the same for just about everything: popularity is a surprisingly good gauge for how much shitness there is to be found.
(Not to exempt early hip-hop from scrutiny our criticism, or any other (relatively) niche culture, obv.)
i reckon there's maybe an argument for different *modes* of misogynist expression being more consistent in different genres. eg DiS bedwetter culture might have less 'i fuck loads of bitches' but there is no shortage of 'women are bitches because they won't fuck me'
pretty sure that is confined to zadhif and other parody accounts. Please don't insult my culture.
also, as the article suggests, read bell hooks
i can pretend they're "in character" but deep down we all know the misfits were total pricks
but yeah, feels a bit wrong. Best not do it in the car with your mum
who I struggle to enjoy sometimes because of the lyrics. Don't know why, there are hundreds who I listen to who are equally bad or even worse and it doesn't register, but for some reason it just jars a bit sometimes. It's even stranger that it has that effect because as you say they're singing "in character." I absolutely love Last Caress as a song, but all the bits about raping your mother stuff is a bit urgh.
white people finding it easier to believe that it's just a character/story with white bands or something
surely the opposite is more common, Shirley?
What I meant was, African American musicians are pressured to live up to certain stereotypes of black culture. Threats, violence, misogyny are more tolerated in rap because it is all taken with a pinch of salt, and as being part of rap persona. White artists can dip in and out of personas, black artists are trapped in them.
there's something to do with art vs life going on here where black artists, even when it's granted that they're in a 'persona' of sorts, are more readily assumed to be actually *living* that persona, as opposed to consciously crafting it for the purpose of a specific work of art
for the audience to see them as removed from real life. there was never any pressure on, say, david bowie to pretend he was *actually* in a rock band from space, it was all accepted as theatre. but when your artistic persona is based on authenticity and being more "real" than anyone else, you will be held accountable and you're basically fucked from the start. imagine if bowie was claiming to be a shoplifter from a council estate.
"as one of the most suffered groups of people in this country, even I have become an oppressor to my own people. Because, in order to gain financially and support my own family I have promoted and propagated some lies. And other rappers have, and I’m still doing it to this day" – Killer Mike
It does seem to be the younger, more naive, wannabe-hoodlum guys in rap that get manipulated or convince themselves to put stuff to record that they might later regret.
I do find the progression from early-career antics to late-career maturity to be quite interesting (is it right to say "entertaining"?). Is it right to find the stories of people that have (or allegedly have) lived and profited from the life of crime entertaining? Is it different if the stories are actually fictive? Is it different if the protagonists are African Americans?
"Crafting" a persona is outwardly frowned upon by a segment of rap fans and community. Whereas crafting a persona outside the genre of rap is not usually attacked with the same vitriol. Of course there are exceptions to both sides.
At the same time there is this tacit understanding that a lot of the content in rap music is going to be embellished, even by artists that purport to keep it real.
is at a different stage.
the taboo ness of sexism/mysogyny in indie and on indie boards/forums, may be just convention and etiquette to some degree, but that filters down and does influence people within the subculture (not all of course, in fact I am often quite suprised by the crassness of much forum humour on here)
ammo to the anti pc brigade.
a) she is scraping the barrel for any slight evidence of mysogyny
b) many of her examples are from "THE PAST" you know from when we were less enlightened.
c) Songs like Delilah is not 'celebrating' using the knife, it is presenting a tragedy, then again you can try to make words mean all sorts of other things if you dont take into account context.
d) the modern examples of hiphop, RnB mysogyny are very very numerous, you do not have to go searching hard, it is the very casualness, the repetition of it which is dangerous in that it is presenting it almost as an inescapble norm, almost a natural state of affairs, THIS IS REGRESSIVE
conclusion.....the author is an idiot
she might as well have argued that nick cave is a mass murderer
even though a lot of her examples are clunky. it's similar to how the western world spent a hundred years fucking the planet up and then decided to finger wag at poor countries for their excessive carbon emissions.
she just fails at doing it
and if instead you want a debate about the relative morality of different sections of humans then this would be applicable.
However, we are talking about the 'here and now' and the practicality of things......as it is hip hop and RnB are the biggest conveyers of casual mysogyny into most peoples ears through the media......white middle class people are also subject to this, Robin Thicke being the most famous recent example.
I agree that the poodle rock of motley cru and that sort of ethos tended to eulogise the idea of disposable groupies/blondes etc and that was bad, luckily we are now mostly past the hayday of that sort of thing, it is not something that is expanding across the globe, unlike the dominance of hip hop RnB
b) doesn't make any difference whatsoever. an example is an example and using famous old songs is a good way to illustrate the issue. you can't cite every single song in the world
c) plenty of black artists aren't afforded that sort of leeway
d) you don't have to search very hard to find it in any sort of music, which is rather the point.
for having to go back so far, is that it was tolerated back then because society was not as widely enlightened.......why did she not use modern examples? are there not any modern examples? or is it because where there is a modern example, e.g. Robin Thicke, he HAS been castigated to a very great degree.
re a), you say 'nope', OK then go ahead then, mention modern examples of modern misogyny
c) please give me an example
d) you have to search a lot less hard in Rap/hiphop/RnB than in twee indie (although Tiramisu does point out (higher up in thread) that there may be different realisations of sexism/misogyny in different genres.....just that rap tends to have some more extreme and explicit realisations of this)
she does use modern examples. society isn't particularly enlightened. you hardly need to scrape barrels to find misogyny everywhere.
there's already been plenty written in this thread about how black artists are frequently assumed not to be performing in character.
you might not need to search particularly hard to find misogyny in hiphop but that isn't the point of the article at all - misogyny is present in wider culture and the focus is disproportionately on black music and black artists. you might not consider motley crue and guns n roses to be particularly contemporary yourself but the fact they both toured australia last year shows that they're still relevant to a lot of people
the evil misogyny of the Decemberists and Death Cab for Cutie.
I didnt realise all this time, all these years, that I've been polluting my mind with this partiarchal filth.
Best get back to my Tellytubbies sing-along CDs and plain yoghurt
I dont really want to do the research necessary by listening to all the rap and poodle rock lyrics etc.
I did think that motley cru etc were like considered pantomine, so werent really taken as seriously........perhaps I should consider rap to be pantomine, Im just not sure that all young people do see it like that........mind you what do I know about young people, Im well old, and I probably cant judge as well as I could
are NOT modern
Death Cab for Cutie........how on earth is that misogynyst? just lyrics conveying desperation, that might suggest that the person continues with unwelcome advancs
Decemberists........needs more context to work out if this was daterape or what
Alt J .......doesnt sound good, but a) I've never heard of them so its hardly permeating and influencing society b) sounds totally unrealistic and impractical......although I will feel mortified if breeze blocks and soggy clothes are ever used
Matchbox 20.......sounds more like discussion of power struggle in relationships, I have been pushed around by some gf's and vice cersa (to a mild degree) this sounds mild and normal and not misogynyst, every relationship can be subject to someone being able to manipulate the other more easily
misfits.......this does sound like out and out misogyny, and yes they should be castigated for it.
Never listened to them though and not heard this song.
However I have heard much rap/hiphop/RnB misogyny, beamed into me via mass media, and yes, maybe my non familiarity with the genre means that I cannot get the subtle subtexts that indicate that it is all just a joke when big rap stars dis women, but I am not the only one who doesnt get it.
as long as they're white.
I am well known for my racism and misogyny on here.
(or maybe I have been backed into a corner here by the ongoing argument)
to eradicate my arguments points.
I am countering the poor argument of the columnist that is mentioned in the OP, because the argument is very poor.
Snoop Dog is perhaps not being barred because he is black, but because he performs rap and being a rap artist has meant that he has performed some misogynyst seeming songs.
Today we have more rules and regulations that can be invoked to try to do such barrings, because society has moved on from when the majority of white act type genres were more sexist.
I have no problems if they wanted to bar the misfits or Robin Thicke, because they have sung very negative things that would appear to endorse said attitude.
Perhaps you would like to try to read the arguments that I have put forward rather than try to work out what 'SIDE' you feel you are on and what 'SIDE' you feel I am on before deciding your response to me?
in which case we could examine, this aspect.
Or we could examine the whole its ok when white folk do it but not when others do, like mentioned above when talking say about climate change and polluting, unfortunately you could then end up in the situation of saying, yeah, because the western world polluted/carbon emitted in the past, we cannot now say that this is a bad thing for everyone to do, even if we are now more 'enlightned'.
which is counter logic.
I do not think that there is anything in genetic make up that makes black men worse behaving to women than white men, however there are some genres of music which carry casual messages of worse behaviour to women, these genres of music are consumed by all colours of youth and young men and some believe that this has the potential danger of influencing them equally.
I do not care to phrase in those terms but this is the way in which the argument is couched.
I did not create the historical aspect of racism or sexism, so should I still have to moderate my logic/argument to the detriment of helping a regression in the struggle to lessen one of these isms?
and we would like to lessen that, which is perhaps this is why they are focussing on rap/hiphop and RnB because there is a belief that exposure to certain things might help propagate it (see also (much smaller issue) suicide messages in heavy metal/emo)
It's the *consistency* of misogyny by individual artists, and within the rap/hip hop genres as a whole, over an extended period of time, that sets them apart from the likes of Pink Floyd.
The Pink Floyd one is simply a bad example.
Don't think mate, you're shit at it.
what about the consistency of misogyny by individual artists within the noise genres as a whole?
i feel your viewpoint would be invaluable here.
has a contextual role to play.
i certainly don't think you could base your entire argument on that considering that with the internet and a rich musical history the audience for noise music is wider than ever!
Are they necessarily all about women?
and not Mister-ogyny.
BA DOOM TSH
A heroine that fights sexism everywhere, but whose creator has a massive blind spot towards racism as she's written as a Japanese woman and the comic strip employs crude stereotypes to portray her as she fights misogyny.
It'll make the heavy-handed satire thread in no time.
tiny little ginger leprechaun doing the same shit.
A comic about someone who loves miso soup, and is also heavily misogynistic
can't say i'm surprised
most cringey verse ever before i even knew how dickheaded it is as well
Is anyone up for a big, uncomfortable, mud-slinging debate about how all the Yewtree suspects are purveyors of low-brow culture, whereas the likes of Polanski and John Peel basically get away with whatever because they're more high-brow?
Let me know.
More Peel than Polanski though
peel and polanski were both known about much closer to the actual events, right?
is basically class war, then i'm already rolling up my sleeves
University educated dinner party baby boomer types or shitty proles:
voted maxim's number 10 all-time living sex legend for copping a 14 year old
reading keef autobiography, it seems he was pretty much a nonce from the off
And John Peel was long dead when all this started.
i.e. shut up
And boo hoo poor Roman Polanski in exile. It's not like he's in Siberia. And when he was going to get extradited then all the Guardianista pulled-pork $4.50 toast brigade got their knickers in an absolute megatwist.
Is that not your point? Unless we're going off into a side argument about extradition laws.
John Peel would be going through the same thing as all of these guys were he still alive. Savile is getting extreme publicity because his crimes were extreme - he appears to have been one of the worst sexual predators in the country's recent history in terms of length of offending - and they also emerged immediately after his death.
on the grounds that he's a wonderful sensitive artist. If he made lowbrow schlock he'd have been shipped out years ago.
And re: Peel, whenever his paedo-ing is mentioned then the Guardian flies into a 'how very dare you' rage as if he should be judged differently.
There's a clear double-standard that I don't think is adequately explained by any disparities in the cases themselves.
He's the litmus test.
and an unprovable guess that the French - who generally love nothing better than antagonising the US government - would have acted differently if Polanksi was a game show host?
I think I'm outgunned.
Nice flailing though.
where the culprit has got away with it. That's all I'm asking. Don't see how John Peel is any more high brow than Rolf Harris anyway.
Glitter is low brow
Wyman (&the stones) is more popular with teh toffs thus higher brow
See also: John Lennon, celebrated wife beater
I can't figure out if you're suggesting public opinion treats them differently (probably true/who cares?) or if the law does (actually important). If it's the former, it's probably because other than being famous, there's no comparison between the crimes of Jimmy Savile and Bill Wyman. One is a prolific offender for several decades who appears to have fiddled with the dead among other things, and one slept with a woman that he later married. You can clearly argue the morals of whether they should be considered differently in people's heads, but that is the reason.
As for Dave Lee Travis and John Peel, both are radio DJs so it's hardly like they're from hugely different sectors. John Peel had higher cachet among a certain segment of the population, but hardly anything to insulate him from the law were he still alive. He'd almost certainly be up on charges right now were he around.
And Rolf Harris has had the Queen sit for a portrait. That's pretty much the most highbrow thing any person you're talking about has done. And he probably has the most goodwill of anyone behind him, and he's currently in the dock as we speak.
Basically what I'm saying is your argument is shit, you're shit, and your hair and clothes are probably shit too.
in your terrible, halfwitted mind. When did I compare Savile and Wyman? And if you can't differentiate between the audiences of DLT and John Peel then...I dunno, I feel like you're being deliberately thick about this.
I think that's a very simple way of settling this. According to your argument, he wouldn't be because he's slightly cooler than DLT.
I'm not so much interested in the law, more the ease and willingness with which some people are vilified compared to others.
I'm not even making an argument as such. Do you not find it even slightly remarkable that it's pretty much exclusively low-brow 'mass' entertainment types who have had their collars felt by Officer U Tree?
Mainly because the sample size of what you call lowbrow is so vast - Painters (Rolf Harris), Musicians (Gary Glitter), DJs (DLT), Actors (Bill Roache) - that it pretty much covers most celebrities, so it's no surprise there are a lot who fit into those categories. I'm not sure what's left - Shakespearean stage actors?
that's a paddlin'
Different description, same diff.
Get back to Walkabout, you big dag.
and emotional attachment clearly changing that.
Obviously the sort of things we're talking about here are the very extreme end, but you only have to read that thread cat_race did about sleeping with someone else's girlfriend to note it happens everywhere. Loads of people have friends (admittedly, of varying levels of closeness) who have done things they don't personally approve of, but because they're friends it gets hit to the side.
Going back to these sorts of allegations, of course people will judge Savile more harshly than Peel or Wyman: Savile's victims were numerous, of many different ages, and apparently both traumatised and had their complaints ignored. Peel and Wyman had relationships that were illegal, dubious, but specific; and clearly morally wrong.
Anyway, the double-standard has less to do with high brow or low and lot more to do with likeability and the nature of the crimes. If someone had uncovered a similar allegations to Savile for Peel no one would be defending him.
If it were purely high brow vs. low brow sort of snobbery then Chris Langham wouldn't be ostracised in the way he was.
about the number of DiSers that voted Lolita as one of their top five books, but call Jimmy Page a semi-paedo* and hate the blurred lines video because seeing naked models dance around clothed men might stir up the proles into some kind of misogynist frenzy.
*(he is though)
Its elitist to censor pop musicians just because proles like them.
Though if the arguments are about protecting children from sexist pop music, then fair enough, but most peoples arguments didn't seem to focus on that.
Actually, its more to do with the way media commentary circle-jerks itself into a frenzy. Lazy commentary journalists seem to read what some other one has written and wade in with their take. Thus we get a glut of articles on one thing, that serve to progressively erase nuance from the issue thanks to bandwagoneers and professional shit stirrers more concerned with website hits. Several talking head on some godawful "countdown of the year" tv program I watched over Christmas called "blurred lines" a "rape anthem"!
Then we get slightly more sensible people, like me (though still blessed with idiotic moments) that wonder "hang on a minute, why is "blurred lines" getting so much stick when no one is making a fuss about a probable actual rapist like R Kelly is still churning out albums?"
This also helps to bury the main point about "blurred lines" (IMO that its content is not suitable for the kids) because the fuss looks like such a storm in a teacup compared to other issues.
This is why the author of the original Guardian piece in this thread pisses me off. We are making similar points - that bigger issues are being ignored - but why is she starting her article with trivial song lyrics? Surely surely surely DOING sexist, misogynist things is much worse than JUST SAYING these things? Am I wrong?
that turns up now and again.
I'd say often hip hop gets a pass for misogyny due to the slightly racist attitude of ''well it's their culture'' and indie bands often get picked up on it.
I don't know loads of hip hop so looking at the indie bands mentioned does the author really not tell the difference from a story song like Where the Wild Roses Grow and something like that Misfits lyric (which is pretty horrible). You might as well decry most folk/blus/country music for doing the same, it's not exactly new and story telling is an important part of those genres.
Is there a difference between telling a obvious (and often historical) story and a rappers alter-ego singing a song with misogynstc content as if it's from he perspective? idk
I think context is important, take a song like The Throes by Two Gallants, about domestic violence - you could easily take some lines from that out of context and say they are misogynist.
Also some of her examples are they even misogyinistc? The Decemberists one is about a class divided couple killing themselves, I really don't think it implies rape (maybe I'm naive).
The Alt-J one could be a metaphor (I don't know the song) and the Death Cab one doesn't imply any kind of mysogyny at all - sounds more needy.
When you have to clutch at vague straws the argument doesn't really stand up.
''well it's their culture'' and indie bands often get picked up on it.
Do you perhaps live in Opposite World
''accepted''. There's not articles like this everytime a hip hop album comes out, more just a shrug and ''well that's part of the genre'' attitude.
it's just that nothing you're writing seems to actually be engaging with what she's saying, just your vague, not-massivley-informed feelings of grar about the subject in general
I thought I'd post my vague, not-massivley-informed feelings of grar about the subject in general.
Anyway I'm the context debate around folk music/story songs which is what my post of about. I said I don't know loads about hip hop and that's why I pssed over it.
just like there are no articles every time a twee indie album comes out asking why the band views women as some infantile, cake baking, polka dot wearing ideal
you need to listen to some better stuff.
''Does context make lyrics like this ok?''
If you don't apply context to critisism it's pretty much worthless.
Brian McFadden date rape song?
Drunk as shit standing at the bar!
I can't wait to do some damage,
Take you home and take advantage!
In fairness, his career has totally disappeared since.
^ esp the bit about the obscenity trial of 2 Live Crew.
everyone just stop being thick, smug cunts.
it's just a link, and calling everyone "smug cunts"
the posting equivalent of a wet nappy
is that supposed to be a criticism?
I am not referring to an opinion in the "professional" sense - a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.
I am talking about a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective.
u silly cunt
I always enjoy these threads.
but like DarwinDude, I doubt you've actually... gah whatever. Bad as each other.
WE GET IT
Said Jay Zed
please keep these diamonds coming
but I STAY for thewarn's snide post thread snipes
WHAT an entertainer
has got me to waste my lunch break reading a long, boring thread. Curse you sean, you've done it again.
I think it's the other way around. Noone bats and eyelid when a black rapper refers to women as bitches and hoes.
Imagine Keane or the Arctic Monkeys doing that.
THINK ABOUT IT.
that what would have been the hugely regrettable impulse to post as Miso Jenny has passed.
There would have been at least one "check your privilege" with the Ls replaced by Rs. That would have happened.
perhaps we need to incorporate attitudes towards lbgt and predjudices against such things