bahamianpride
05-20-07, - 10:10 PM
RAPPERS' MISOGYNY
Art & Life
By Clyde McKenzie
Sunday, May 20, 2007
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/lifestyle/html/20070519T230000-0500_123231_OBS_RAPPERS__MISOGYNY.asp
In the wake of my article in the Observer of Sunday, April 21, looking at the Don Imus broadcasting faux pas and its attendant fallout, I received a call from my close friend Curtis Myrie who informed me that he had read my article and wished to point to some omissions in the piece.
Peon, as I fondly call him, told me that as a broadcaster Don Imus had used the public airwaves to promote misogyny and racism and the punishment meted out to him was appropriate. He noted that the hip hop community was coming under increasing scrutiny as a result of Imus' fall and pointed out that even if a rapper's misogyny should find its way on the public airwaves, it would be someone else who would be directly responsibly (the programme manager, presenter) for putting it there. He added that making such utterances on a stage show, though reprehensible, is now the same as making similar statements on the public airwaves.
He went on to point out that when the rappers speak they are referring to no one in particular. According to Myrie, these rappers are largely referring to products of their imagination not to real people. Yet there are those who might take issue with Myrie and his position that the lack of specificity is less egregious than Imus' direct approach. Such persons deem the generality of the approach as being all-inclusive.
Myrie however, thinks that Imus' insults were directed at real people, the members of the Rutgers women's basketball team. In Myrie's mind, there is a world of a difference between a rapper saying '*****' and 'ho' to an imaginary female and a white broadcaster making similar utterances to a group of real black women.
Yet one could ask if you denigrate yourself and your kind am I justified in treating you in a similar fashion? If you call yourself "big and stink", should I disagree with you? If you call yourself an idiot, am I entitled to address you in a similar fashion? Is there a matter of context at play here? Does it matter who says what?
Lest we think that white talk show hosts are the only persons personalised for their perceived misogyny, it is important to point out that rapper Ludacris had his endorsement agreement with Pepsi cancelled as a result of his being labelled misogynistic by talk show host Bill O'Riley. Interestingly, some of those who would support the action against Ludacris do not condone a similar move against Imus and vice versa.
Ironically, it is important to note that a number of true believers in the sanctity of the free market would have no problem seeing the government intervene to regulate the dissemination of hip hop. When one realises how much the likes of O'Riley, Sean Hannity, Don Imus and those of their ilk are paid, one would have to conclude that the market is an ***.
There are those in Jamaica who believe that the backlash against rap music will be felt within the dancehall fraternity. What is clear to me is that Jamaican artistes will have to make a strategic decision about their content, both locally and internationally. While I totally disagree with the banning of an artiste, I believe the European approach to the matter of offensive lyrics is quite reasonable. European promoters are asked to get assurances from the acts whom they book that they will not include offensive material in their repertoire.
In such a circumstance, an artiste could perform the more innocuous portions of his catalogue without any problems, if one assumes there are songs in his repertoire which can be so described. The debate on sex and violence in music will continue for a long time as we contemplate what is considered to be their harmful effects on society. The issue of sex in music and art is a very emotive one, as there are some who think that these errant artistes should be consigned to the farthest reaches of hell for corrupting the public morals.
Some think that the issue is not in need of debate. The solution is simple, 'ban the reprobates'. Those who seek to understand the underlying causes for certain types of behaviour are sometimes labelled deviants. One should, however, make a distinction between trying to understand the root cause of a particular phenomenon and actually celebrating it. My trying to determine the causes of diabetes is not the same as saying it is a beautiful condition. Looking at the root cause of violence in music should not necessarily be construed as finding an excuse for its expression.
Yet, in everything, context is important.The fact is that art serves a number of functions including those of preservation and negotiation. It also fulfills the quest for immortalisation. Art is the effort to make permanent that which is transient; to make real that which is ideal.
The Impressionists sought to achieve this in their attempts to capture some of our fleeting visual sensations. Yet this is the very essence of art - to make the fleeting lasting. Could this explain our obsession with sex in our art? The pervasive influence of sex in art might be a subconscious effort at immortalising the pleasures of coitus. Art which has sex as its subject might well be an attempt at prolonging the short-lived pleasures of sex.
Is it possible that some of our artistes are trying to gain control of the violence which surrounds them by depicting it in their art?
Is the act of artistic creation an attempt to exercise control over one's circumstance? Are the monsters running amok in Japanese movies and literature reflections of a subconscious effort to cope with the current military impotence of what was once a nation with a vast and powerful arsenal?
Are these literary and cinematic monsters supposed to do in the realm of fantasy what the Japanese army cannot attain in the sphere of reality?
There are those who ascribe cathartic qualities to art. Does metaphorical violence reduce or negate the need for its creator to commit actual harm. Does the verbal violence which Eminen commits against his mother Debbie and his ex-wife Kim in his music reduce the chance of his wanting to physically hurt them? Do his utterances normalise violent behaviour and make it easier for those who wish to do others harm? These are some of the issues which we need to face in this debate.
Yet it must be conceded that even some of the most empathetic among us find much of the current artistic offerings distasteful, to say the least. In many instances, it is not the sentiment but the crudity of the expression which is of concern. Artistes such as Tanya Stephens and Wayne Marshall are able to navigate touchy issues with their clever wordplay. Professor Barry Chevannes describes the cruder form of artistic expression as uncooked. It is important that as parents, we try to minimise our children's exposure to 'uncooked' material.
Artistes must understand that their treatment of certain issues can help to normalise those types of behaviour. Ironically, the constant reference to homosexuality in the music might be helping to normalise such a behaviour rather that helping to reduce its expression. If our artistes really want to see a reduction in homosexual activities then it might be wise to minimise their reference to such a behaviour.
Yet we must have dialogue on these sensitive issues. Artistes must understand that it is irresponsible to make certain types of utterances in certain public spaces, particularly in the presence of children. Self-righteous posturing on either side of these debates will not help. God knows we have had more than enough chest-beating.
Artistes as well as their detractors, must understand that they do not have all the answers to how we should behave. Recently I read a statement which said 'humility is the best antidote for hypocrisy'. Many of us who pontificate seem oblivious of that portion of the Bible we call the New Testament.
As a result, many of us are pompous in our manner and intolerant in our behaviour. If we could admit to our own deficiencies, we would be further along the way in persuading others to change their ways. "He who is without sin." It is only when we can appreciate that our differences provide a reflection of our valuable diversity that we will be truly able to call ourselves civilised.
Art & Life
By Clyde McKenzie
Sunday, May 20, 2007
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/lifestyle/html/20070519T230000-0500_123231_OBS_RAPPERS__MISOGYNY.asp
In the wake of my article in the Observer of Sunday, April 21, looking at the Don Imus broadcasting faux pas and its attendant fallout, I received a call from my close friend Curtis Myrie who informed me that he had read my article and wished to point to some omissions in the piece.
Peon, as I fondly call him, told me that as a broadcaster Don Imus had used the public airwaves to promote misogyny and racism and the punishment meted out to him was appropriate. He noted that the hip hop community was coming under increasing scrutiny as a result of Imus' fall and pointed out that even if a rapper's misogyny should find its way on the public airwaves, it would be someone else who would be directly responsibly (the programme manager, presenter) for putting it there. He added that making such utterances on a stage show, though reprehensible, is now the same as making similar statements on the public airwaves.
He went on to point out that when the rappers speak they are referring to no one in particular. According to Myrie, these rappers are largely referring to products of their imagination not to real people. Yet there are those who might take issue with Myrie and his position that the lack of specificity is less egregious than Imus' direct approach. Such persons deem the generality of the approach as being all-inclusive.
Myrie however, thinks that Imus' insults were directed at real people, the members of the Rutgers women's basketball team. In Myrie's mind, there is a world of a difference between a rapper saying '*****' and 'ho' to an imaginary female and a white broadcaster making similar utterances to a group of real black women.
Yet one could ask if you denigrate yourself and your kind am I justified in treating you in a similar fashion? If you call yourself "big and stink", should I disagree with you? If you call yourself an idiot, am I entitled to address you in a similar fashion? Is there a matter of context at play here? Does it matter who says what?
Lest we think that white talk show hosts are the only persons personalised for their perceived misogyny, it is important to point out that rapper Ludacris had his endorsement agreement with Pepsi cancelled as a result of his being labelled misogynistic by talk show host Bill O'Riley. Interestingly, some of those who would support the action against Ludacris do not condone a similar move against Imus and vice versa.
Ironically, it is important to note that a number of true believers in the sanctity of the free market would have no problem seeing the government intervene to regulate the dissemination of hip hop. When one realises how much the likes of O'Riley, Sean Hannity, Don Imus and those of their ilk are paid, one would have to conclude that the market is an ***.
There are those in Jamaica who believe that the backlash against rap music will be felt within the dancehall fraternity. What is clear to me is that Jamaican artistes will have to make a strategic decision about their content, both locally and internationally. While I totally disagree with the banning of an artiste, I believe the European approach to the matter of offensive lyrics is quite reasonable. European promoters are asked to get assurances from the acts whom they book that they will not include offensive material in their repertoire.
In such a circumstance, an artiste could perform the more innocuous portions of his catalogue without any problems, if one assumes there are songs in his repertoire which can be so described. The debate on sex and violence in music will continue for a long time as we contemplate what is considered to be their harmful effects on society. The issue of sex in music and art is a very emotive one, as there are some who think that these errant artistes should be consigned to the farthest reaches of hell for corrupting the public morals.
Some think that the issue is not in need of debate. The solution is simple, 'ban the reprobates'. Those who seek to understand the underlying causes for certain types of behaviour are sometimes labelled deviants. One should, however, make a distinction between trying to understand the root cause of a particular phenomenon and actually celebrating it. My trying to determine the causes of diabetes is not the same as saying it is a beautiful condition. Looking at the root cause of violence in music should not necessarily be construed as finding an excuse for its expression.
Yet, in everything, context is important.The fact is that art serves a number of functions including those of preservation and negotiation. It also fulfills the quest for immortalisation. Art is the effort to make permanent that which is transient; to make real that which is ideal.
The Impressionists sought to achieve this in their attempts to capture some of our fleeting visual sensations. Yet this is the very essence of art - to make the fleeting lasting. Could this explain our obsession with sex in our art? The pervasive influence of sex in art might be a subconscious effort at immortalising the pleasures of coitus. Art which has sex as its subject might well be an attempt at prolonging the short-lived pleasures of sex.
Is it possible that some of our artistes are trying to gain control of the violence which surrounds them by depicting it in their art?
Is the act of artistic creation an attempt to exercise control over one's circumstance? Are the monsters running amok in Japanese movies and literature reflections of a subconscious effort to cope with the current military impotence of what was once a nation with a vast and powerful arsenal?
Are these literary and cinematic monsters supposed to do in the realm of fantasy what the Japanese army cannot attain in the sphere of reality?
There are those who ascribe cathartic qualities to art. Does metaphorical violence reduce or negate the need for its creator to commit actual harm. Does the verbal violence which Eminen commits against his mother Debbie and his ex-wife Kim in his music reduce the chance of his wanting to physically hurt them? Do his utterances normalise violent behaviour and make it easier for those who wish to do others harm? These are some of the issues which we need to face in this debate.
Yet it must be conceded that even some of the most empathetic among us find much of the current artistic offerings distasteful, to say the least. In many instances, it is not the sentiment but the crudity of the expression which is of concern. Artistes such as Tanya Stephens and Wayne Marshall are able to navigate touchy issues with their clever wordplay. Professor Barry Chevannes describes the cruder form of artistic expression as uncooked. It is important that as parents, we try to minimise our children's exposure to 'uncooked' material.
Artistes must understand that their treatment of certain issues can help to normalise those types of behaviour. Ironically, the constant reference to homosexuality in the music might be helping to normalise such a behaviour rather that helping to reduce its expression. If our artistes really want to see a reduction in homosexual activities then it might be wise to minimise their reference to such a behaviour.
Yet we must have dialogue on these sensitive issues. Artistes must understand that it is irresponsible to make certain types of utterances in certain public spaces, particularly in the presence of children. Self-righteous posturing on either side of these debates will not help. God knows we have had more than enough chest-beating.
Artistes as well as their detractors, must understand that they do not have all the answers to how we should behave. Recently I read a statement which said 'humility is the best antidote for hypocrisy'. Many of us who pontificate seem oblivious of that portion of the Bible we call the New Testament.
As a result, many of us are pompous in our manner and intolerant in our behaviour. If we could admit to our own deficiencies, we would be further along the way in persuading others to change their ways. "He who is without sin." It is only when we can appreciate that our differences provide a reflection of our valuable diversity that we will be truly able to call ourselves civilised.