In the wake of Don Imus' racial slur about the Rutgers Women's Basketball team, his subsequent firing and the ongoing debate about misogynistic language used in rap lyrics, I thought I would discuss the origins of rap, it's inherent misogyny and how we can change it.
Rap music, which is commonly synonymous with Black music, emerged in the 1980s as a form of expression where music knowledge was not necessary but required the ability to craft words into rhythmic patterns. From the beginning, rap music reflected the inner-city Black youth experience in America, which focused on the alienation and social and economic deprivation of ghetto communities (Verney 95).
Rap and hip hop lyrics have evolved into a form of nihilism, which Professor Cornel West in the documentary "The Darker Side of Black" defines as "meaninglessness." Because mild to severe death, disease and destruction are what African American youth face on a daily basis, they over-dramatize it in their music, creating greater consequences than they probably realize.
Feminist writer bell hooks wrote that rappers are acting out the stereotypes of predatory and violent Black males in order to cater to the 70 percent of rap music consumers who are White. If this is true, then rap music is like the minstrel shows of the 19th century where Black people demeaned themselves for profit (Verney 99).
Rapper Chuck D, in "The Dark Side of Black" confirms that young rappers "are a product of what the [racial] hate produced. We disrespect ourselves. [Young rappers] are only going to talk what they know or what they think they know."
What rappers know is that African American power in this country is very limited. So to combat their disenfranchisement, music is used as an expression of power. Because Blacks cannot rap about running Fortune 500 companies (because they historically do not), they exercise their power in the bedroom. According to the documentary, sex is the only arena in which African American men can honestly feel and showcase their power, besides the ownership and use of guns. This combination of sex and violence has morphed into a fusion-theme in hip hop (especially Gangsta rap), what historian Michael Dyson calls "femiphobia." The language routinely refers to women as "bitches" and "hoes" and depicts them "as objects for male sexual gratification rather than as equal partners." While now there are female rappers and rap groups that use just as sexually-explicit lyrics, rap is still a men's club, reinforcing the denigration of women as a way to boost male self-esteem (Verney 96).
Rapper Ice Cube, whose 1990 album AmeriKKKa's Most Wanted sold over one million copies, performed the following lyrics in the song "It's a Man's World,"
Women they're good for nothing no maybe one thing
To serve the needs to my ding-a-ling
I'm a man who loves the one-night stand
Cause after I do ya
Huh I never knew ya
Ice Cube's defense of the lyrics at the time were that he had seen "a certain kind of woman" who used her body to make men do anything she wanted. He (who now, ironically, stars in kiddie movies like Are We There Yet?) also reaffirmed the idea that African American men use the exploitation of women to assert their manhood "in a society that has denied him the power that white men have consistently yielded (Streitmatter 157)."
And it has only gotten worse. America has puritan roots, making sexuality a taboo subject. In the last 100 years, America has gone from sexually repressed to sexually obsessed. From Girls Gone Wild commercials to Nelly's Tip Drill video, women are portrayed on the radio, television and Internet as objects. In "The Darker Side of Black," two Black women were interviewed as saying that they liked hip hop music but did not like the way it affected Black men's behavior. "A lot of young children," one explains. "Are changing their attitude because of the music."
Nobody has widely addressed the problem of misogynistic rap lyrics and the objectification of women in music videos since 2 Live Crew's album As Nasty as They Wanna Be was ruled obscene by a U.S. District Court Judge in Florida. The ruling was overturned by an appeals court due to the First Amendment. Now, after shock jock Don Imus used the term "nappy-headed hos" on his CBS radio program, the music industry and the Black community are discussing the possibility of banning three words from rap music: bitch, ho, and the N-word (which was recently debated after Michael Richards tirade at the Laugh Factory in Los Angeles earlier this year).
What we need to realize is Imus and other shock jocks are not journalists. They are not even upstanding, decent citizens. They are comedians who make jokes in lewd, crude manners. Howard Stern, the king of all raunch, was fined repeatedly for indecent language and content on his terrestrial radio program. In Robert L. Hillard and Michael C. Keith's book Dirty Disclosure: Sex and Indecency in American Radio, they explain that "it is not unusual for Howard Stern and his on-air staff to cajole a female guest into disrobing as Stern details her anatomy for his listening audience (77)."
With Stern objectifying women repeatedly on his program, it is not surprising that Imus, who claims to appeal to the intelligentsia while Stern is a "garbage mouth," uttered the racial slur. He was making a joke about the perception of the female African American basketball player. Much more offensive slurs have been stated prior and after the Imus incident, but he, unfortunately for him, was made an example (Hillard and Keith 88).
But in the aftermath, all people can ask is, what do we do now? Some say we must clean up rap music. Reverend Al Sharpton stated in an article, "We must deal with the fact that ho and the b-word are words that are wrong from anybody's lips. It would be wrong if we stopped here and acted like Imus was the only problem. There are others that need to get this same message."
However some rappers think the Imus incident and rap lyrics are not related. "Comparing Don Imus' language with hip-hop artists' poetic expression is misguided and inaccurate and feeds into a mindset that can be a catalyst for unwarranted, rampant censorship," hip hop mogul Russell Simmons stated in the same article.
Although unpublicized, women are standing up against this misogyny. In 2004, rapper Nelly wanted to visit Spelman College to conduct a bone marrow drive for his ill sister. Because of the demeaning portrayal of women in his video Tip Drill, the students protested his visit unless he participated in a discussion about the video. He declined. This is just one example of the small protests against misogyny in music that are occurring frequently. The perception that Black women do not care about their portrayal is incorrect.
So, again, what do we do now? The First Amendment gives us Freedom of Speech and rap music is exercising that right. Don Imus exercised that right and lost his job. Black women are exercising that right and do not seem to be making any progress in changing rap music's violent and misogynistic language.
At the core of this issue is race and the inherent inequality on which this country was founded. Until we are truly equal will we be able to express our power in ways that do not demean other groups of people. This "us versus them" complex that we have as Americans, African Americans, men and women is what creates conflict, prejudice and hate, which is reflected in our music, comedy and broadcasting. Equality and justice will not come from limiting the First Amendment. As hopeless as this situation appears, many people do believe Don Imus' example is a positive step forward. People are more aware of the ramifications of violent, racist and misogynistic language and in a free country, that is about all we can do to start the cycle of change. As long as people mobilize for change, the culprits, whether racist shock jocks or misogynistic rappers, cannot help but take notice.
Cultural critic, author and columnist Stanley Crouch said at the end of the Detroit Free Press article, "I was in the civil rights movement. I know it takes a long time when you're standing up against extraordinary money and great power. But we're beginning to see a shift."
Franklin, Marcus. "After Imus, is rap music now in the crosshairs?" Detroit Free Press. 13 Apr 2007.
Hillard, Robert L. and Michael C. Keith. Dirty Discourse. Ames [IA]; Iowa State Press, 2003.
Streitmatter, Rodger. Sex Sells!. Cambridge [MA]; Westview Press, 2004.
The Darker Side of Black. Dir. Isaac Julien. Black Audio Film Collective/ Normal Films for BBC Television and the Arts Council of Great Britain, 1993.
Verney, Kevern. African Americans and US Popular Culture. London; Routledge, 2003.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Imus Played the Race Card. And Lost.
People love controversy. People love listening to talking heads and shock jocks who push the limits. That is why Imus, Stern and all of those highly-offensive, not-very-compelling personalities became popular. They say things of immediate consequence that fade into oblivion within minutes in our attention-deficit society. But in the aftermath of Imus' slur, the public outrage, Imus' suspension, and subsequent firing, the race card is being played on many different levels. Imus is a white guy who insulted a successful women's basketball team as black women. He apologized for his words but then exposed the double standard that appears in rap lyric and music videos (of course, most rap artists are black and feature derogatory portrayals of women, mostly black women). This back and forth, which is both an acceptance of responsibility but also a red flag against popular culture, had spawned discussion about the condition of our media and why targeted social groups passively accept their image.
I think what most people are neglecting to talk about is the deep, underlying race issue. If the slur, which I will not repeat because we all know what it is, was cut down to the last word, would the public be so up in arms?
I think not; well, not to extent it was taken. This is not a gender issue, this is a race issue. First of all, Imus had no need to add the racially-specific adjective. Why was that necessary? But of course one could argue why is anything Imus says necessary, but he knew what he was doing. I hardly doubt Imus would say those three words together in his off-air life, so why bring it out on the air when he knew the consequences?
But maybe he didn't know the consequences. In the shock jock business, very few are fired. They are brought in to stir up the waters, to bother people, to (duh) SHOCK people. That is their thing. It is not pretty, not nice, not necessary at all, but the radio industry embraced it. Imus probably thought he would say the slur, ruffle the feathers of a few people, maybe get slapped on the wrist, and life would go on as normal. Unfortunately for him, that did not happen and his career in this incarnation is over.
Is Imus really to blame? In a country where Mad Max can drunkenly insult Jews, where Kramer can drop the N-word at a comedy club and where our cheap labor (and not the war we are fighting) is blamed for all our economic problems, is it really shocking for some radio personality to use racially-charged language on the air? I am not defending the slur, but I am just floored when people claim that America no longer has a race problem. Clearly there are people in this country, even famous people, who have racial prejudices. Racial stereotypes are still being used as punchlines, from Chris Rock's jokes about "crackers" to stealing a watermelon from a grocery store, and we laugh. But we did not laugh at Imus. Why? Because he is white. Black people can tell jokes about white people and themselves, but white people cannot return the laugh. The double standard is present and justified, but unfortunately for Imus, he tried to be funny and now nobody is laughing.
Yes, this reflects badly on the media. Rap music is the perfect example; it objectifies black women to the point where they will have someone swipe a credit card between their butt cheeks (see Nelly's Tip Drill video...but view at your own risk). The media allows this indecency to broadcast and be heard or viewed by whoever happens hear or see it on radio or television. However, this reflects even worse on our society. Why we (African American women as well as all women) accept this is beyond me. I would never allow myself to be portrayed that way and yet I am accepting it by allowing these songs and videos to be play without public outrage.
Imus will be a footnote in the book on Race in American Media. To avoid this happening again, we need to address the bigger issue and not worry about what those stupid shock jocks are saying just to get a laugh or a groan.
I think what most people are neglecting to talk about is the deep, underlying race issue. If the slur, which I will not repeat because we all know what it is, was cut down to the last word, would the public be so up in arms?
I think not; well, not to extent it was taken. This is not a gender issue, this is a race issue. First of all, Imus had no need to add the racially-specific adjective. Why was that necessary? But of course one could argue why is anything Imus says necessary, but he knew what he was doing. I hardly doubt Imus would say those three words together in his off-air life, so why bring it out on the air when he knew the consequences?
But maybe he didn't know the consequences. In the shock jock business, very few are fired. They are brought in to stir up the waters, to bother people, to (duh) SHOCK people. That is their thing. It is not pretty, not nice, not necessary at all, but the radio industry embraced it. Imus probably thought he would say the slur, ruffle the feathers of a few people, maybe get slapped on the wrist, and life would go on as normal. Unfortunately for him, that did not happen and his career in this incarnation is over.
Is Imus really to blame? In a country where Mad Max can drunkenly insult Jews, where Kramer can drop the N-word at a comedy club and where our cheap labor (and not the war we are fighting) is blamed for all our economic problems, is it really shocking for some radio personality to use racially-charged language on the air? I am not defending the slur, but I am just floored when people claim that America no longer has a race problem. Clearly there are people in this country, even famous people, who have racial prejudices. Racial stereotypes are still being used as punchlines, from Chris Rock's jokes about "crackers" to stealing a watermelon from a grocery store, and we laugh. But we did not laugh at Imus. Why? Because he is white. Black people can tell jokes about white people and themselves, but white people cannot return the laugh. The double standard is present and justified, but unfortunately for Imus, he tried to be funny and now nobody is laughing.
Yes, this reflects badly on the media. Rap music is the perfect example; it objectifies black women to the point where they will have someone swipe a credit card between their butt cheeks (see Nelly's Tip Drill video...but view at your own risk). The media allows this indecency to broadcast and be heard or viewed by whoever happens hear or see it on radio or television. However, this reflects even worse on our society. Why we (African American women as well as all women) accept this is beyond me. I would never allow myself to be portrayed that way and yet I am accepting it by allowing these songs and videos to be play without public outrage.
Imus will be a footnote in the book on Race in American Media. To avoid this happening again, we need to address the bigger issue and not worry about what those stupid shock jocks are saying just to get a laugh or a groan.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
The Triangle Becomes a Sqaure
This week on "The Internet Engine/Media Company Love Triangle":
Today Google, who I called "the other woman" in my last post about the Yahoo/Viacom agreement, announced a long-term deal with Clear Channel Communications Inc. in which Google can place advertising for its online customers on Clear Channel's plethora of radio stations. This comes on the heels of Yahoo and Viacom's advertising agreement, which is another slap in Google's face by Viacom and is Yahoo's attempt to reclaim the title of Internet search engine giant.
But now Google has found just what she needed; an equal partner in an untouched media outlet. Google has not gone wrong yet and this is just another high-profile notch in her proverbial bedpost.
However, the real question is not whether Google will prosper after this agreement. It is whether Google could help the ever-struggling consolidated radio business. Clear Channel, the largest radio station owner, represents all that is wrong with radio: consolidation, lack of on-air talent, nationally-spun play lists, and just total lack of consideration for the listeners. Endorsement from a popular and trusted company like Google might bring Clear Channel back into the public's good graces. Drew Hilles, Google Audio's national sales director, even said in this Associate Press article, "This radio partnership with Clear Channel is a pretty big statement that Google is in the radio industry to stay and have a big impact." Yet, one of the major problems identified in radio is advertising, which is the focus of the deal. Google will bring new advertisers to Clear Channel while Clear Channel gives Google a new media outlet. The content will not change, advertising might become even more cumbersome and the public will not be aware of any change unless they read my sources and or my blog. Who cares if Google and Clear Channel are advertising bedfellows if radio still plays obnoxious commercials and radio content still sucks?
The Viacom/Yahoo and the Google/Clear Channel deals are just the beginning of the consolidation of media. We thought the club could not get much smaller and now it has. I think that these companies are going to make a great amount of revenue from each other and I supposed that is the point of multi-year, undisclosed but mostly likely multi-million dollar agreement. I would just like to know when these companies are going to start including their consumers in their love-fests. All we want is a little consideration, a little power of suggestions and a little love. Then maybe the companies can roll in their dough and the consumers can roll in their good-quality entertainment (with a few commercials here and there brought to you by Google and Yahoo).
As always, tune in next week. Or maybe even tomorrow. You never know how quickly things heat up, or cool down.
Today Google, who I called "the other woman" in my last post about the Yahoo/Viacom agreement, announced a long-term deal with Clear Channel Communications Inc. in which Google can place advertising for its online customers on Clear Channel's plethora of radio stations. This comes on the heels of Yahoo and Viacom's advertising agreement, which is another slap in Google's face by Viacom and is Yahoo's attempt to reclaim the title of Internet search engine giant.
But now Google has found just what she needed; an equal partner in an untouched media outlet. Google has not gone wrong yet and this is just another high-profile notch in her proverbial bedpost.
However, the real question is not whether Google will prosper after this agreement. It is whether Google could help the ever-struggling consolidated radio business. Clear Channel, the largest radio station owner, represents all that is wrong with radio: consolidation, lack of on-air talent, nationally-spun play lists, and just total lack of consideration for the listeners. Endorsement from a popular and trusted company like Google might bring Clear Channel back into the public's good graces. Drew Hilles, Google Audio's national sales director, even said in this Associate Press article, "This radio partnership with Clear Channel is a pretty big statement that Google is in the radio industry to stay and have a big impact." Yet, one of the major problems identified in radio is advertising, which is the focus of the deal. Google will bring new advertisers to Clear Channel while Clear Channel gives Google a new media outlet. The content will not change, advertising might become even more cumbersome and the public will not be aware of any change unless they read my sources and or my blog. Who cares if Google and Clear Channel are advertising bedfellows if radio still plays obnoxious commercials and radio content still sucks?
The Viacom/Yahoo and the Google/Clear Channel deals are just the beginning of the consolidation of media. We thought the club could not get much smaller and now it has. I think that these companies are going to make a great amount of revenue from each other and I supposed that is the point of multi-year, undisclosed but mostly likely multi-million dollar agreement. I would just like to know when these companies are going to start including their consumers in their love-fests. All we want is a little consideration, a little power of suggestions and a little love. Then maybe the companies can roll in their dough and the consumers can roll in their good-quality entertainment (with a few commercials here and there brought to you by Google and Yahoo).
As always, tune in next week. Or maybe even tomorrow. You never know how quickly things heat up, or cool down.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Internet Love Triangle
Yesterday Viacom and Yahoo announced a multi-year advertising deal. Although the financial terms were not disclosed, Viacom is expected to get 70-80% of the revenue generated by the text-based ads that will appear with search results on content-related Viacom websites.
This "marriage" is Viacom's latest slap in Google's face, after suing them last month for $1 billion in damages from YouTube's copyright infringing content (which Google denies existed after Viacom demanded their content be removed from the video sharing site earlier this year). Google has the largest Internet advertising network, with partnerships with AOL.com, MySpace.com and Ask.com, so for Viacom to go with Yahoo is a bit of a gamble and some might say that they could do better. Everyone would have thought that Viacom and Google would have partnered up in this world of uncertainty. But you never know, do you?
At the same time, this is a great relationship for Yahoo. After being the number one engine on the Internet in the "early days," the younger Google has taken over the market, leaving Yahoo without strong advertising partners like those listed above. But the squabble between Viacom and Google has left Yahoo reaping all the benefits. Now with Viacom on its side, Yahoo may be able to garner the profits it has lost to its arch-nemesis.
This is a dramatic, messy and sexy love triangle worthy of a soap opera. Now that Viacom and Yahoo are tied together for an indefinite amount of years to come, we have plenty of time to see if their partnership will be all that they had hoped. Will their love eclipse Google, who is the other, younger woman in this scenario? Google has the market on its knees with its advertising partnerships and its acquisition of YouTube. If Yahoo does not come through, Viacom may have to get on one knee and beg Google to forget the $1 billion lawsuit and ask her to marry...it.
Tune in next week.
Liedtke, Michael. "Viacom, Yahoo Reach Multiyear Ad Deal." ABCNews.com. 10 Apr 2007.
This "marriage" is Viacom's latest slap in Google's face, after suing them last month for $1 billion in damages from YouTube's copyright infringing content (which Google denies existed after Viacom demanded their content be removed from the video sharing site earlier this year). Google has the largest Internet advertising network, with partnerships with AOL.com, MySpace.com and Ask.com, so for Viacom to go with Yahoo is a bit of a gamble and some might say that they could do better. Everyone would have thought that Viacom and Google would have partnered up in this world of uncertainty. But you never know, do you?
At the same time, this is a great relationship for Yahoo. After being the number one engine on the Internet in the "early days," the younger Google has taken over the market, leaving Yahoo without strong advertising partners like those listed above. But the squabble between Viacom and Google has left Yahoo reaping all the benefits. Now with Viacom on its side, Yahoo may be able to garner the profits it has lost to its arch-nemesis.
This is a dramatic, messy and sexy love triangle worthy of a soap opera. Now that Viacom and Yahoo are tied together for an indefinite amount of years to come, we have plenty of time to see if their partnership will be all that they had hoped. Will their love eclipse Google, who is the other, younger woman in this scenario? Google has the market on its knees with its advertising partnerships and its acquisition of YouTube. If Yahoo does not come through, Viacom may have to get on one knee and beg Google to forget the $1 billion lawsuit and ask her to marry...it.
Tune in next week.
Liedtke, Michael. "Viacom, Yahoo Reach Multiyear Ad Deal." ABCNews.com. 10 Apr 2007.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
A DRM-Free World
April 2, 2007 will mark the day that DRM began its inevitable downfall. EMI announced a deal with Apple's iTunes that they will license their entire catalog of music without digital rights management (copyright protection) for $1.29, 30 cents more than the standard 99 cent rate for iTunes music. This DRM-free revolution began with Apple CEO Steve Jobs' letter to the music industry back in February and now EMI has set the precedent for the rest of the industry to follow suit. Now that consumers are getting what they have been asking for, will they stop file sharing?
This is my opinion. As a former file sharer and a current consumer of the iTunes 99 cent model, I do not believe that consumers will stop file sharing just because they can use EMI files any way they want. First, music consumers today do not think of music in terms of labels. People will not choose EMI over other labels just because their music does not have copyright protection; they will choose the content they want. I cannot imagine EMI assumes they will make more money from this innovation unless all of their content is outstanding. Secondly, the average consumer does not even know what DRM is and how it affects their music consumption. People file share because they do not want to pay for music, not because they think DRM cramps their style. Some people, whether industry or technology enthusiasts or people who just like to share their music like myself, do feel the effects of DRM and will appreciate this legal option, but that population is very small relative to all the music consumers in this country. Lastly, iTunes is charging 30 cents more for DRM-free downloads than regular downloads. That is the biggest mistake in this agreement. Why would consumers pay more for DRM-free music when they can get the same thing for free through file-sharing? Yes, the sound quality on these songs will be better than even the average 99 cent download, but sound quality matters to about the same small percentage of consumers that like to share all of their music. If given the choice to change all of my current EMI iTunes music to DRM-free for 30 cents a piece, I would not do it. I should not have to re-purchase my music. I will be much more picky about my purchases if they are over a dollar than if they are 99 cents. Its merely change but we are a frugal society.
There are positives to this new development. Although the single downloads are $1.29, albums are still $9.99. Since online downloading has become a large portion of music distribution, we have become more of a singles culture, which I think has contributed to the decrease in CD revenues. If singles are more expensive but albums remain constant, consumers might be more inclined to buy albums. This could be a very positive element of the new DRM-free world.
So we are forging ahead into a DRM-free world. Steve Jobs called it and EMI stepped up to the plate. We just have to wait to see if they hit the ball out of the park or strike out. But, like all of Apple's endeavors, they will look good in their uniform.
This is my opinion. As a former file sharer and a current consumer of the iTunes 99 cent model, I do not believe that consumers will stop file sharing just because they can use EMI files any way they want. First, music consumers today do not think of music in terms of labels. People will not choose EMI over other labels just because their music does not have copyright protection; they will choose the content they want. I cannot imagine EMI assumes they will make more money from this innovation unless all of their content is outstanding. Secondly, the average consumer does not even know what DRM is and how it affects their music consumption. People file share because they do not want to pay for music, not because they think DRM cramps their style. Some people, whether industry or technology enthusiasts or people who just like to share their music like myself, do feel the effects of DRM and will appreciate this legal option, but that population is very small relative to all the music consumers in this country. Lastly, iTunes is charging 30 cents more for DRM-free downloads than regular downloads. That is the biggest mistake in this agreement. Why would consumers pay more for DRM-free music when they can get the same thing for free through file-sharing? Yes, the sound quality on these songs will be better than even the average 99 cent download, but sound quality matters to about the same small percentage of consumers that like to share all of their music. If given the choice to change all of my current EMI iTunes music to DRM-free for 30 cents a piece, I would not do it. I should not have to re-purchase my music. I will be much more picky about my purchases if they are over a dollar than if they are 99 cents. Its merely change but we are a frugal society.
There are positives to this new development. Although the single downloads are $1.29, albums are still $9.99. Since online downloading has become a large portion of music distribution, we have become more of a singles culture, which I think has contributed to the decrease in CD revenues. If singles are more expensive but albums remain constant, consumers might be more inclined to buy albums. This could be a very positive element of the new DRM-free world.
So we are forging ahead into a DRM-free world. Steve Jobs called it and EMI stepped up to the plate. We just have to wait to see if they hit the ball out of the park or strike out. But, like all of Apple's endeavors, they will look good in their uniform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
