… and I’m not talking about I’m OK, You’re OK.
In honour of Valentine’s Week (yes, I know I’m late, it’s been a busy week, okay), I’m posting for your enjoyment this video for one of my favorite songs about, yes indeed, female masturbation. While debates rage on, Cyndi Lauper is busy, well, getting busy.
I also appreciate the grammer lesson in this song: “She bop, he bop-a we bop, I bop, you bop-a they bop…” Everybody now!
A few more for the self-service playlist:
Missy Elliott - Toyz
Liz Phair - Turning Japanese (covering The Vapours)
The Divinyls - I Touch Myself (duh)
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
18 comments
What do you think about the song "Turning Japanese"? The lyrics always make me kinda uncomfortable.
Posted by Thea
February 17, 2008, 5:40 PM
Ah, I was hoping you would ask. Which lyrics? The ones about the guy who spends all his time looking at a picture of his girl and jerking off, or the ones about how repeated orgasms will apparently make you into someone of Japanese descent? It's all pretty questionable. And when Liz Phair sings it it's even more confusing. For some reason I am drawn to this kind of confusion - I don't know, the song's pretty indefensible on political grounds, but it comes from a history of rock 'n' roll that's full of stereotypes, Orientalism, the male gaze, obsession, girlie mags, and so on. Does that make it okay? Not really. But does that make me not want to listen to it? No again.
What's your relationship with songs you like that also give you the PC willies? I know it's a tricky one that I struggle with a lot. If only 50 Cent had never entered my life.
Oh yeah, let's not forget the lyric about getting a doctor to take a picture "so I can look at you from inside as well". Creepy? Kind of. But also kind of sweet - rare is the lover who actually wants to get a good solid look at your cervix.
Posted by Anna
February 17, 2008, 6:23 PM
Oh yeah, and for what it's worth the band Orient Express created a parody song called "Turning Hakujin" in protest of Turning Japanese. Ah, democracy of the free market.
Posted by Anna
February 17, 2008, 6:25 PM
As you might've guessed, what irks me is the suggestion that having squinty eyes makes you Japanese. Or associating a habit that's widely considered perverse with a "foreign" culture. I guess it's the cheerful thoughtlessness about it that gets my goat.
When you say "it's confusing" do you mean you were confused about the meaning of the lyrics, or confused as to whether or not it's ok to listen to the music? I think it's actually the en masse consumption of "Turning Japanese" that really makes me feel, well, sad. Like thinking about times when I've been in dance clubs and the song has come on, and everyone around me starts singing along. As someone said to me earlier, writing your racism into a hit pop song is so much worse than making an off-hand comment - because then that lyric is replicated over and over again, during sing-alongs, lip synching competitions and karaoke parties.
Re: songs whose lyrics hurt my feelings or conflict with my politics - I think if music conflicts with my politics ENTIRELY, I can't really stomach it. For e.g. super commercial hip hop - I can handle the misogyny because there are other things about the music that I appreciate, like it asserts a black world view in a culture that pushes a white world view, or it talks about classism or racial profiling or sumthin'. And there have been lots of times that I've just had to stop listening to a song because of the painful lyrics. For e.g. Jay-Z's "I Just Wanna Love You." Such a pity.
I do think that being constantly conscious of the problematic lyrics in songs that we like, and making note that the lyrics are problematic when we talk about said song, is a step in the right direction.
Posted by Thea
February 18, 2008, 2:23 AM
"For some reason I am drawn to this kind of confusion..."
Anna, you just perfectly described my Led Zeppelin obsession. Why does dirty rock misogyny get me so hot?
And Busta Rhymes? "I love my bitch?" Don't even get me started.
Posted by Stacey May
February 18, 2008, 10:36 AM
Moving a little off topic, but I wish someone could explain to me why misogynistic content in music, literature, and art is deemed to be so acceptable (and why when female artists say anything even remotely negative about men, they are vilified).
Anyways, the worst for me is the Rolling Stones' "Under My Thumb" ("a squirming dog of a girl") and "Midnight Rambler" (where Mick reenacts the murders of women on stage).
Posted by John
February 18, 2008, 2:38 PM
Perhaps because music and lyrics are an act of storytelling, and therefore fiction and fantasy? And you certainly wouldn't not read a book or not see a movie because there was a racist/sexist/homophobic character in it. You might, however, not read or buy a book or watch a film because the author/filmmaker/actor is openly any of those things.
So if the content of a Rolling Stones song is sexist that is very different than Mick Jagger saying he thinks women are dogs or that he's interested in murdering them.
Art is supposed to create dialogue and make us think, even if the "voice" in the song is against our personal belief systems. When people write songs or books in the first person, they're not necessarily speaking in their own voice. One of the greatest victories in art is the ability to make an otherwise deplorable character sympathetic.
A lyric or a poem or a scene is not an opinion, its an observation/creation and needs to be divorced from the person who created it. That's not to say that sometimes the two are one in the same, but they need to be assessed independently to come to that conclusion.
Posted by Stacey May
February 18, 2008, 4:14 PM
But I personally would not see a movie or read a book with overtly sexist content or characters (unless it depicts how people overcome such obstacles, the characters get what's coming to them, and provided the content is not unnecessarily graphic). And yes, that makes it difficult to find entertainment I enjoy.
If an artist writes a song that intentionally demeans women, is that not in fact an expression of the person's belief system?
Posted by John
February 18, 2008, 4:48 PM
To answer Thea's question, my confusion stems from feeling ambivalent about the song - admittedly I probably wouldn't even bother with the original, since it's (a) problematic in the ways Thea has pointed out and (b) not especially amazing. But I am drawn to Liz Phair's cover since it is indeed rare and kind of thrilling to hear a woman singing so aggressively about masturbation, especially in Ye Olde Mid-90's. I'm not saying that makes the racial stereotyping cool, but to me it does add a layer of intrigue to the song that otherwise wouldn't be there.
Part of me wishes I lived in a world where all music was made by Sleater-Kinney and Ian Mackaye, all writers were Ralph Ellison and Ann Marie MacDonald, all movies were made by Spike Lee, and Charles Bukowski gave his wife foot massages and brought her hot cocoa in bed. But another part of me (and this is, I think, the part that prompts me to do things like karaoke to P.I.M.P.) knows that this is not the world I live in. And I have some strange burn-collecting desire to confront that world, by listening to the music and reading the books and seeing the movies, and talking about them until I feel like I come to some sort of balance. I don't know if Stacey May feels the same about her relationship with Led Zepp, but maybe this is part of the draw for music (and other art) that doesn't square with your politics at all.
Posted by Anna
February 18, 2008, 10:33 PM
Also - John, it's cool that you go out of your way to avoid things you view as demeaning to women, but there is also a certain amount of privilege inherent in being able to make those choices. If I tried to avoid every cultural product or system I found demeaning (to myself and others) I would NEVER LEAVE THE HOUSE. Which might be okay, since there's lots of Sleater-Kinney and Spike Lee over here, but one day I may have to, like, buy groceries or something. So sometimes life necessitates finding other ways of dealing with misogyny. That doesn't mean accepting it, but it doesn't mean shutting it out completely either.
Posted by Anna
February 18, 2008, 11:39 PM
I have love for The Lauper (the cover of True Colors is burned in my brain), and I had no clue that was what She Bop was about. I have to go tell everyone I know now, excuse me.
Brilliant, thanks Anna. :)
Posted by Catherine
February 18, 2008, 11:52 PM
And what about those songs by women which we can read as misogynistic? Can we listen to that? Can Dave Chapelle be using racist stereotypes unwisely when he endlessly uses the word "nigger"? Where can we draw these lines? They are muddy, indeed.
And what about performers who supposedly intentionally use demeaning representations of themselves/their culture/their political stance and try and turn them around? Ha! I'm thinking of Margaret Cho's representations of her family members.
Or am I just seeing things with my own lens, since irony isn't something that many performers preface an act with. Can you imagine? "I'm going to perform an ironic song about the commodification of women's sexual pleasure, so please interpret it that way..." Ha!
What we read as demeaning has to do with who we are... and I think that's the bigger clue here. The key is to question and we do that well on this blog.
For example, I love how many of the bloggers post links and say "This makes me feel icky" or "This makes me feel great" and ask everyone to chime in with their reactions.
Posted by piKe
February 21, 2008, 11:43 AM
I think there is a MASSIVE difference between performers of colour using stereotypes to critique racism, and white performers or performers of colour just using stereotypes to make people laugh. I will go out on a limb here and say that I don't think that the line is necessarily that muddy - most of the time I'm all for people having their own experiences, but when it comes to offensive language I'm pretty ready to classify some things as across-the-board, objectively hurtful.
I think the question is, who is the audience? When Dave Chappelle drops n-bombs or uses stereotypes that are considered racist, is he addressing his act to a white audience, and in that sense maligning his own people? Or is he addressing his act to a black audience who are laughing with him - often as a way of laughing at something that is so horrible the only thing you can do is laugh about it?
(I should say for the record that I do find some of his comedy icky!)
Posted by Thea
February 21, 2008, 2:50 PM
Great debate! John - you ask why anyone would make art that intentionally demeans women if it didn't express their opinion. For my english course this year, I'm about to read Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. The story is entirely told through the narration of a pervert who victimizes a little girl. Why? You don't see critics arguing that Naqbokov is himself sympotheti with his narrator. When I read it, I hope it'll shed some light on the issues. As for music, sence it's such short poetry, my view is you should be able to tell from each individual song in isolation that what's being said is meant in some other-than-direct way if it has hate in it. That said, I listen to all kinds of fluff music for purely musical value that I really don't love lyrically. I won't listen to folks who through around slurs though (granted I haven't seen some of the more appropriate uses of them.) When I hear it, it gives me a chill and the more you hear something like that said, the more likely it is to come rolling out of your own mouth. I actually find this music video itself kind of confusing in it's messages. The burger-eating masses are brilliant, but is it really such commendable behavior for her to flaunt herself that way in front of a strange motorcyclist? What about that "kidnappng" sequence in the cartoon car? Lines blurry indeed!
Posted by Myra
February 21, 2008, 9:39 PM
Wow, Myra, I can't believe you have to read "Lolita" for an English class. I would refuse to read that, as all it really is is a story legitimizing pedophilia, yet somehow this is considered to be a literary masterpiece. (In my unversity English class, I refused to read "Rocking Horse Winner," by DH Lawrence; instead I got to write an essay comparing Iron Maiden's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" to the poem by Coleridge.)
Posted by John
February 21, 2008, 10:25 PM
The Rocking Horse Winner? I read that too. I didn't love it. I can be critical, but the themes in it can be read in different ways. Competition and a since that his family, particularly his mother is dependent on him drives this young boy into a culture of male competition driven by money and charged with negative sexual undertones that have more to do with achevement than self-love and quickly become addictive and work their way into his psychologie, taking the joy from his life and eventually killing him. A causionary tale. Maybe even a femmenist one. Please explain! Surely there's more than one interpretation. I haven't read Lolita yet, so I won't defend what I don't know, but surely it's better to grapple with these stories and ,if we ultimately find them destructive, to say so in our essays. This is litterature. It has depth and many layers. By refusing to read something you exempt yourself from the debate around it. You insiuate that it has no scholorly value and is propagandistic and hateful. It's not like refusing to dissect an animal in science class, or refusing to sing the national Anthum. It limits your understanding, your exposure. I feel judgemental spitting all this at you, but I don't understand John. Please explain. Boycott is not the answer to everything. I understand not liking artwork but . . . Me? I watched a Sherlie temple movie in history and ripped it apart in my essay afterwards, to my teacher's great surprise, but I learned about what passed for entertainment in the Great Depression and why. This is all very tangential, sorry. John, please explain. I don't get it. I feel I should note (so you can breath a sigh of relief) that I am in first year university and not high school.
Posted by Myra
February 22, 2008, 2:43 PM
Well, I see Rocking Horse Winner as a story about a boy's Oedipal conflicts. I did actually read the story, but I wasn't in the mood to write an essay about how perverted it really is. Personally, I don't buy into Freudian theory (to me, it is a just another example of a man who hated women being hailed as a hero).
As for Lolita, this story is commonly held by pedophile (so-called "girl lover") groups as somewhat of a sacred text; not to mention that the term "lolita" is a commonly used metaphor for child pornography (do an internet search for "lolita" and you will see what I mean).
The world is so completely saturated with pornography, violence, and with images that portray children as sexual objects, that I personally do not feel a need to expose myself to more. While an understanding of where these problems originate is important, I really feel the need to question why it is deemed to be acceptable by so many people.
I agree that literature is a world of wonders, but it also has quite sordid undertones. So many of the tales that are held to be literary classics are thinly veiled patriarchal propaganda ("Little Red Riding Hood," for instance). And so many of the men who have written the "classics of literature" had questionable pasts.
I would be interested in your professor's reasons for studying this novel. There are so many other wonderful tales which go unstudied, so many authors who lived lives worthy of celebration, and so many classics to choose from, why "Lolita?"
Posted by John
February 22, 2008, 4:55 PM
Thanks. If you read it, okay. That's utterly different. And I do understand your reading. Haven't had the class yet so I'll get back to you on Lolita. Meanwhile. . . Freud was in some ways sexist and had some wacky ideas but his work was key for Virginia Woolf's work To The Lighthouse, as it deals largely with the uncontious mind. Sexist people have done great things, even for women, unwittingly. You'll find it funny that I just finnished that work for the same course. I'll give you the best context I can from what I think is the logic of the course now. We just finished that book and Albee's play Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf. With Modern literature comes the idea of focusing on everyday people whose psychology was before passed over (eg underachevers, women) in literature that focused on heros (before Virginia Woolf we did The Oddysey, Othello ) Anyway, then comes Brave New World & 1984, both of which I've sadly read before and compared for school already (I'm just praying I can use the essay twice.) I find them both hopelessly depressing. Maybe I'll appraise the essay and consider petitioning for another book, like you. Then come Lolita and an essay on that. I guess the idea is that as writers examine the lot of the everyman and ideas that life sometimes has no inharrent purpose (after the impact of war), then comes a probing of why war happens and tears things all to pieces and once you've examined why things go wrong on the outside, then there's the demons on the inside to deal with. And whose interior is the ultimate challenge to the idea that life has meaning the true departure from the glorious hero? Either the victim of the mindless violence of live (Who Afraid of Virginia Woolfe) or the one perpatraitor of evil who is morally bereft enough to find some way to rationalise it (proveing that unlike in Greek Myths, evil is highly rational.=Lolita) Does any of this make sence John? I'll try to remember to put the question to the teacher. The course is about genres and approaches to literature. I find it all quite sad (though I can't debate it's relivence). Why not study something happy? Oh well. Distopias, here I come!
Posted by Myra
February 23, 2008, 1:08 AM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.