The media and misogynism

[Nathan]

Consider the music that dominates our "music charts" today. As some of you may be aware, "music charts" are essentially rigged. Producers and distribution companies are in close contact with radio stations, trading big money for "high saturation" of a particular artist. Certainly, this is only one element of flooding the charts with what the PTB want to see as number one. So why do they want such artists flooding the charts? What sort of music do we see as "popular" today?

Remember the days when music actually made a statement? When there was something to be said? When artists and bands refused to fall into the party line? Well, neither do I, but I'm sure it did happen.

Think of the popular genres of music and the audiences they target today. The most targeted audience appears to be 16-24 - the highest consumers.

For men in this age group, the most common genre is Hip Hop and Rap. I don't need to go into too much detail as to what messages this genre carries, but needless to say it's blatantly about sex and, in almost all cases, degrading to women. To offer an example, we have "50 Cent" (who can't even spell his moniker right, preferring to go by the trendy "Fitty") and his masterful lyrics such as "I take you to the candy shop/ I'll let you lick the lollypop/ Go 'head girl, don't you stop/ Keep going 'til you hit the spot (woah)" and how could we forget the quick-witted shout-out to the Mars Candy Company, "I melt in your mouth, girl, not in your hand (whoa)".

But for women in this age group, the most common genre is RnB. The message behind this genre is infinitely more subtle and, consequently, infinitely more insidious. Beyonce, formerly of Destiny's Child and their "Independent Woman" single, has resigned herself to the role of the ever-subservient wife whose purpose in life is to clean the house, prepare dinner for her husband and have his slippers ready for the morning. I recall seeing that video clip for the single (the name escapes me, if anyone knows, do tell) back in 2005. Destiny's Child were perhaps the only RnB group who portrayed a message contrary to the misogynism so prevalent in today's popular music. And what's happened to them now? They have dissolved into nothing. Beyonce has dissolved into nothing, opting instead to feature with rappers and sing, "Tonight I'll be your naughty girl/I'm callin all my girls/We're gonna turn this party out/I know you want my body".

Eh? What happened to the independent woman?

But don't expect to see too many "subservient wife" video clips any time soon. The message has achieved such a degree of subtlety that even the most fervent woman's rights groups out there fail to see the writing on the wall.

Speaking of writing on the wall, below are some lyrics from a currently popular RnB song:

[Hook]
I got friends, and you got friends
They hop out, and you hop in
I look fly, and they jockin
The way you drop, drop makes me wanna pop [2x]

[Chorus]
Is ya man on the flo?
If he ain't...
Let me know
Let me see if you can run it, run it
girl indeed I can run it, run it [2x]

[Verse 2]
You'll see
Girl I can set you off
Don't believe my age is gonna slow us down
I can definitly show you things
that's gon have you sayin I can't be 16
Once I get in you won't wanna go
(and I...)
I'll have yo girls wishin they were you
(and I...)
I know your heard about me, but guess what's goin down if we leave
[Hook 2x]

[Chorus 2x]

[Breakdown]
Girl you feel right
(Feel right)
Make me feel like...
(feel like...)
I wanna do a little somethin
(do a little somethin)
Ain't no thing let you do it fo sho
Girl the way that your wearin them jeans is turnin me on
I'm the hottest thing thats in these streets so baby won't you rock me...
[Rap]
Make it drop honey...
Make it pop honey...
Whip, whop..
Tick, tock to da clock fo me
don't stop doin that
and shawty know I mean what I say so she won't stop doin dat
Plus I heard if you can dance you can bump
Well dance, time is up, let's go, let's go (yup)
we can get it in...
we can get some friends
do it like the ying yang twins
[start whisperin']
wait til' you see my...
wait til' you see my...
let me fall back
You ain't ready for all dat
have you sleep late
real late
yeah takin a long nap
now you tell your friends...
to get wit my friends
we can be friends
switch and meet friends (switch)
we can do it all night long, and...
til' da clock hit mornin ya dig

[Chorus 2x]

[Outro]
oooh, oooh, oooh, ooh

Just a cursory glance at these lyrics told me the following: the author of these lyrics, who we assume to be Chris Brown, speaks of finding a girl who is not dancing with her boyfriend. So he moves in for the kill, so to speak, proving that, despite being only 16 years of age, he can go all night with her. Add in the obligatory references to genitalia size, and you have a nice little recipe for objectifying women as sex objects.

Out of curiosity, I asked twenty or so female friends (around the age of 18-25 who liked this song) what they thought of it in general and, secondly, what they thought of the lyrics. I am not happy to report that none were aware of the subtext. When asked what the song was about, they assumed it related to dancing and nothing more. When I pointed out the subtext behind this, most at first refused to believe me. To prove my point, I read out the lyrics to them, which shocked them to say the least. And that isn't the worst of it. Of the twenty or so women, only two changed their opinion of the song. The rest? Well, they decided to ignore the lyrics. It should be noted that some of these friends were very much "pro women's rights". Yet these very same women, when asked would they continue to dance to this song in the future, said they would. Why? Because they "liked the beat".

Forgive me for nit-picking here, but I doubt I could continue dancing to a song that conveyed such a degrading message to me or to anyone else. Yet it seems the audience, even when informed of the subtext, are more than happy to ignore it and continue dancing to the Pied Piper that is our music industry.

So what is happening here? Is the programming so clever that it can enslave the majority of the audience or are the people who like these songs so inculcated with the belief that they are little more than a "booty at da club" that, to them, becoming a subservient wife or sex object is actually something to aspire for? Or perhaps, a third possibility, they have become apathetic and couldn't care less? Who cares, it's just a song. Is that really how this is being treated?

When you take a moment to consider the role models of today for impressionable teenage girls (and to an increasing degree, impressionable teenage boys), it's not really surprising. The front covers of magazines are plastered with actresses from "Desperate Housewives", Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton and other heads on a stick. What does this say to younger generations? To be successful and popular, you must be "sexy"? And not only sexy, you must be dumb? Well, better start replacing those thick boring books without pictures with some glossy chick mags. You know, the ones with "templates" for your future body and misleading information about relationships, sex and handbags.

I must say, it was quite an eye-opener for me when I realised most of the young women I have met have intentionally been playing dumb. I'm not exactly sure whether they were concerned guys of this age group may be intimidated by a woman's intellect or whether they simply believe "sexy" and "intelligent" to be incompatible in this apparent game of "Survival of the Skankiest". Well, if that's what the glossy mags say, then it must be true. But perhaps lyrics such as "lick my salty balls" are an honourable request? Who am I to judge?

 

[Ryan]

Interesting observations Nathan. I remember reading an article a while ago in the Sydney Morning Herald about the "Rise of Raunch Culture", and thought there were some good points made by the author, Ariel Levy.

I find the promotion of the gross materialism inherent in the commerical hip-hop/R'nB scene to be pretty distasteful. Many in the media would say that they are simply giving people "what they want" and would deny any kind of claims to shaping attitudes or "brainwashing", but I don't think they can wash their hands of it that easily. Considering the state of things on planet Earth at the moment, it seems that anything "popular" is put into place with a deliberate agenda in (someone/thing's) mind. At the very least, it's a distraction from many other issues of global importance that could really use the media "real estate", and I don't think anyone alive could claim that sex doesn't focus people's attention!

IMO there's also an element of "orgiastic ritual" to it that corresponds to "primitive" notions of cyclical death/rebirth - Laura refers to it as "primitive chiliasm" in her book "Secret History". Interesting to consider these things in terms of where humanity itself might be in the larger macro-cosmic cycles...

 

[Nathan]

After reading the article mentioned above, the following made my jaw drop:

Women had come so far, I learnt, that we no longer needed to worry about objectification or misogyny. Instead, it was time for us to join the frat party of pop culture where men had been enjoying themselves all along. If male chauvinist pigs were men who regarded women as pieces of meat, we would beat them at their own game and be female chauvinist pigs: women who make sex objects of other women and of ourselves.

An amusing parody of today's role models is Pink's new single, "Stupid Girls". Still photos here. 80MB video here.

I love the "Die Hipster Scum" t-shirt. :P

 

[Marie]

There is a lot to say there - basically, back when I used to watch TV, I barely ever saw any female character that didn't seem intended to put the whole gender down, and I have also had the experience of seeing other girls just deny what this was all about. Many girls my age see no problem with women being shown as merchandise because "those girls are hot" (I am quoting). What I make of it is that it is the "Stockholm syndrome" that has been mentioned on Cassiopaea - that literally, many girls/women will go for what they have been told men want.

This "Rise of Raunch culture" article really hits the spot. I think it is not only weird, but worrisome to see women humiliate and demean themselves and then claim it's "liberating". It's not. All they do is act like good little slaves, and help our society sweep so-called "sexual violence" under the carpet. Last time I checked, one of the principal aims of the women's rights movement was to have us seen and accepted as human beings. Most will say that if we can ever live in a culture that respects us as men's equals, our equality will translate into being paid decently for the work we do and protected from violence under the law. What this whole "female chauvinist pig" thing is all about is making sure we are never seen as people, but instead as "new and improved" inflatable dolls, the merchandise of the month...

 

[Guest]

I think both men and women are merchandise in this culture. Because we come from a predominantly male chauvinist past, and because women are more often victims of violence (but not exclusively so) the focus is predominantly there. There are also the "hunks" and "boy-toys" as well in this, both for male and female "users".

And this to me is a matter of "rewards" provided for such an attitude. I read an article about promiscuity on college campuses and highschools, and the women state that this is what makes them feel accepted. They become popular amongst their peers of both genders and gain status that way. It's "what works".

I think people in general are conditioned to see that being human doesn't get one along in life. Being a product does. Western culture has adopted a "market yourself" attitude for quite a while now. I see the "good little wife" and "good little sex-kitten" aspect as the promoted supply and demand motif for female behavior. We should also look for parallels in male behaviour, which mostly relate to being a successful, agressive and wealthy male, who would fight and die for their country.

I think that this is not JUST a gender issue, but part of a larger social engineering to make people agree to define themselves in terms of "usage" or "marketing potential". Those who promote these "ideals" (who fund book publications, movies, research and other hype they claim is "what the people want") are creating confusing feedback where valued human qualities are converted into their base versions of product supply and demand.

We should look at the common link in all these conditioning attempts, which is to define people as slaves or chattel. Meat for sex, meat for war, meat for labour, and eventually meat for food. Otherwise we get lost in seeming contradictions where some try to promote women, for example, in "traditional" roles, while others in "liberated" ones. Both sides promote humans as meat.