1. thatjonesboy wrote:

Thanks for this one Matt. I used to host a open mic in Bed-Stuy and we would frequently have a multi-generational crowd. My partner and I would always make a point to stress to the poets/singres/rappers that there were elders and children and adults for that matter in the room. We would always start the night off with an open dialogue and on occassion the individuals screaming revolution the most were the ones who exhibited the most glaring sexism and reluctance to respect the presence of the children. i know language is a fluid thing and we can have differing perspectives on what should be said in certain groups, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I’m glad you drew the line:

If you aren’t talking about making the lives of all human beings better, you’re not talking about creating a better world

2. Clifton Harrison wrote:

I definetly agree that we need to make the lives of all human beings better, and quite frankly, watch your language and understand that if you are performing for an all-women, progressive thinking crowd, your song “do what i say bitch” might not be the best song to open up with, but i must say that we should always have balance.

I heard Talib Kweli say something that i now hold very true,

“their is different music for different times of the day”.

I don’t believe that it is a problem that an artist expresses their true feelings about a subject (and in this case, women). The problem that i have with Hip Hop is that it seems as though some artists are not being true to themselves and expressing that. An example would be an aritst talking about pimpin females and having sex with 5 or 6 women every night, but also being married with 2 daughters.

And for the people who make the sexist music, i wish that more prominent figures in Hip Hop who don’t feel that sexism is right, to speak out.

In terms of the revolutionaries behaving in ways in which they speak out against, that definetly is a problem. The same level of critique that we have towards the music, or the message, we also should have towards the people making the critiques. That’s not to say that they aren’t fit to make critiques, but no one’s perfect….

3. thatjonesboy wrote:

Clif,

i can see some of your points. everyone is up for critique. thats how accountability is acheived. as far as talib’s quote about music….at some point music can be destructive. people have the right to do and say as they please. i am an artist so thats a must, but ultimately if that “different music for different times of the day” is destructive then its destructive. i am sure talib believes that there are some ideas that should not be applauded.

4. Clifton Harrison wrote:

I believe i should elaborate. I feel that if someone is truly expressing their life and the truth as they see it (minus the motivation for money and the allure of fame), than we cannot, and should not disrespect or ban their artistic expression.

What should happen is that people should reach out for more understanding and find ways to improve that situation, which in theory would eliminate that expression, for that person (atleast as him or her expressing it as something that they currently are living through).

What happens all too often is that the hardships and problems of society are exploited (and in Hip Hop sometimes glorified) and that’s what shouldn’t be applauded. This is what i see happening with Lil’ Wayne. He openly expressed that he has a drug problem and even went as far as saying that he tried to quit but it was too painful.

What should happen instead of the music industry and fans praising him for his music and selling a million records in a week is that his close friends and family should help him become clean (if not the weed, which Hip Hop pretty much excepts as the sponsored drug of choice) atleast the cough syrup (and any other more dangerous drugs) that he is using.

But ultimately, every person has a right to do as they please (within the laws). So i think that more than stopping someone else’s music might not be as effective as creating a movement which makes their music a joke and irrelevant, forcing them to either change their music or fade away…

5. thatjonesboy wrote:

Elaboration duly noted. i think that movement you speak of already exists it just isn’t as mainstream or as accepted.

6. Clifton Harrison wrote:

Exactly…that is the problem…It isn’t “Cool”….yet, haha

7. thatjonesboy wrote:

Clif,
a few questions:
What are your thoughts on making that movement “cool”?
Do you work with youth or adults?
Are you a artist, musician, designer , etc.?

8. Clifton Harrison wrote:

haha,

Well, i believe that Hip Hop is on the verge of making “politically conscious, socially aware and progessive” “cool”, but it all depends and has always depended on the fans, the people demanding it and not settling for less. All you need is that one spark to get the ball rolling, and i think that could be Obama being elected President. I also don’t have much faith, because i would have thought the Sean Bell verdict would have been the motivation neccessary, but it’s faded away..

I don’t work with youth or adults as a mentor or counselor-type role if that is what you are asking (although it is a career goal of mine).

I am part time Hip Hop artist, giving it full-time effort (when i can), with a volunteer’s budget!

9. thatjonesboy wrote:

Cool,

Just wanted a context for some of your thoughts. I work with kids and I find it an important part of that movement you’re talking about.

I think that spark will come from the fringes.

10. DCI74 wrote:

Another great read Matt.

Cosign thatjonesboy. Like you I’ve also hosted/promoted open mics and had to make it a point to do the same thing in terms of encouraging a multigenerational perspective and creating a safe space where no one felt uncomfortable with the performances.

11. Regkam2 wrote:

What disappoints me is that Jeru and the other MCs are not 19 yr olds who are performing and calling females ‘biches’, these are 30 something yr old males who probably have children and maybe married. We have too many males who are scared of manhood and responsibility (actions, words, and spirit). These cats seemed to be following the current trends that the young rappers are doing instead of acting like mature adults who have shedded their childish and immature behaviors. Much love to Chubb Rock!!

12. james wrote:

matt, as a critic, surely you must realize that you cannot affect content or sales. governments, promotions, and audiences do. our government is fairly committed to free speech, particularly when it comes to the arts and entertainment. our promoters are fairly committed to making money. and our audiences are fairly committed to enjoying themselves at just about any cost.

if you don’t like a particular act, then why show up at the act? and then, once you’ve seen the offending act, why stay? nowadays, most people, when they don’t like a performance, they simply get up and leave. in the old days, they would abuse the performers by hurling overripe tomatoes.

13. james wrote:

incidentally, matt, curiosity always gets the best of my kitten, i just read the lyrics to jeru’s “the bitches.”

to me, the lyrics seem pointed at illuminating, for one particular man, whom he might consider a bitch and the basic qualities of a bitch. his definition seems to fall right in line with webster’s definition of bitch. so matt, while the artist is obviously working in and around cliched territory, is the song really sexist?

14. DCI74 wrote:

“matt, as a critic, surely you must realize that you cannot affect content or sales. governments, promotions, and audiences do.”

james just because someone considers himself to be a social critic doesn’t mean they aren’t also in a position to affect content or sales. Notice Matt was an audience member just like everyone else, not a journalist backstage with a different perspective; he was right there im the mix with the crowd not rubbing shoulders with the press pass crew. Critics are audience members and consumers too so their influence is just as relevant and in some cases even more so than simply the buying public.

15. james wrote:

dc174, why would a journalist have a different perspective of the show? does the show sound different from backstage?

16. matt wrote:

Hey James,
Thanks for reading and for asking questions.

A couple things. First, as DC pointed out, I’m not only a critic, I’m also a consumer, and in a consumption based capitalist society, consumers have collective power. If we don’t consume and aim to get something else produced, we can.

I stayed because I wanted to hear the last two songs of the show, which were going to be performed right after Jeru left the stage.

Secondly, Jeru’s song is sexist. As you’ve pointed out, it is one man’s description of the qualities of a bitch and it pretty much fails in line with a dictionary definition. What makes it sexist is the application of the dictionary definition of bitch to women. Not all women in his case, but a segment of the black female population. Additionally, Jeru’s song is sexist because he divides women into two categories, queens and bitches. Women are not taken on an individual basis, but are lumped into one of two categories, queen or bitch. This, because it strips individual women of individual traits women, amounts to sexism.

I hope I answered your questions.

17. clifton harrison wrote:

One of the strongest things you’ve said matt is that consumers (and people in general) have collective power.

I recently watched Spike Lee’s Malcolm X movie a few weeks back and was able to take in much more meaning then when i watched it in 6th grade making jokes with my friends.

In that movie, Malcolm X and the people of the community demonstrated the power we can wield when we unify and bond together.

I think that changing the mind state of people like the woman who was waiting to hear that song is the first step because it’s hard to fight the oppressors when the oppressed don’t see the problem.

18. james wrote:

consumers only have the power to make their own individual decisions about what not to purchase. there is no consumer collective. we currently live in an era niche markets.

did you read these lyrics?

“I’m not talking about the queens
But the bitches
Not the sisters the bitches
Not the young ladies the bitches
The bitches, the bitches”

there is clearly more than a simple dichotomy at work. and isn’t the song more about a condemnation of shallow materialism than some sort of sexist rant. or does the perception of sexism, via the foul language, preclude further reading?

incidentally, tony soprano is also a sexist thug of sorts. do you believe the sopranos, or any future shows with objectionable characters, should be vetted for isms and cleaned up before they reach consumers?

19. james wrote:

essay of interest:

http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2003/11/sympathy_for_th

20. m.dot wrote:

James,

Madonna/whore, Queen/ Bitch, Wife/Slut are all categories that serve to keep women in their places (of respect).

As a teenager in the 90’s dating a 5 percenter, “I” had a problem
with being called a queen by these dudes. It was very clear to me
that their anointment was temporary and based on my willingness
to cover my head, my body and to feel “better” than the women who did not receive such an anointment.

I always felt, shit, If I am a queen, then who are these other women? Why are you telling us who/what we are?

21. clifton harrison wrote:

Well, james, i personally don’t feel any women is a bitch. Every woman was someone’s daughter, and possibly someone’s mother or sister. Regardless of what problems they may have, i don’t feel it’s right to disrespect them by calling them a bitch.

I’m not very familiar with the Sopranos…

22. matt wrote:

hey James,
Thats a good question. In your eyes, is the condemnation of shallow materialism a condemnation of all shallow materialism? Or, is Jeru’s condemnation of shallow materialism associated with women in particular?

Can you explain how our existence as niche market consumers limits our collective power as consumers/citizens, please? I don’t see the connection.

In regards to the Sopranos, no. I don’t think Jeru the Dmaja should be cleaned up before he reaches consumer’s either. My whole point is that we as consumers need to assert our collective power to make the production of products that do not contribute positevely to the whole betterment of society unprofitable to produce.

23. james wrote:

how would you decide which art is making a positive contribution, matt? by your standards? how are you going to decide which endeavors to boycott? who is going to listen to you? and then, even if you had some listeners, isn’t there going be some sort blowback from the other side? your notion of consumer censorship is unachievable in a society that believes in free speech, has so much income, and can purchase any kind of entertainment at the push of a button.

in the context of jeru’s song, i would say his condemnation surrounds women in particular. but look, even if i can agree that this song is sexist, so what? without censorship–formal or self–there are no incentives for artists not to produce whatever they want.

24. matt wrote:

James,
All those important questions you raise should be handled collectively. If people collectively decide not to buy a sexist product there is no material incentive to produce it.

However, I’m assuming you won’t buy that because you’ve said that consumers have no collective power because we live in an era of niche markets.

However, because you’ve not answered my question about your position (comment 20), there is not much more I can do in terms of discussing where we differ and/or agree.

Additionally, can you explain where I presented a position in favor of censorship, please? I’m confused about where you gained evidence for the idea that I support cesorship.

Thanks.

25. m.dot wrote:

Senor Matt, you have the “rappers ain’t sexist” and I have the “rappers don’t raise kids, mommas do”.

What in the sam hell is going on?

I swear, that “Is Hip Hop Your Daddy” post is about to crawl out of me onto the page whether I want to write it or not.

I hate that about writing. Its like love. There, whether you
want it to be or not.

26. james wrote:

matt, to my mind, organized pressure by consumers on certain artists to produce materials for the “betterment of society” would amount, ethically speaking, at the very least, to an infringement on free speech; at worst, it approaches a lighter brand of fascism.

27. matt wrote:

James, putting pressure on artists to produce a certain kind of entertainment is very different from collectively deciding to not purchase something.

How does our existence as niche market consumers limit our collective power as consumers/citizens?

28. james wrote:

yes, matt, very subtle differences aimed at a very similar outcome: diluting art that you deem menacing to society.

as for the niche market, there is way too much choice and disposable income spent on arts and entertainment of every ilk from all kinds of consumers from all over the world to gather enough attention to influence consumers on a large enough basis for an effective boycott based solely on charges of sexism.

the charge of sexism, while it’s an undeniably important subject in the realm of arts and entertainment, asking people not to support their favorite artists or programs, because of questionable characters or lyrics, goes too far and would only serve to bury the undesirable trait in a very shallow and temporary grave.

29. matt wrote:

James i’ve never discussed the need to dilute art. I’m interested in seeing people care enough about eliminating sexism that we cease to buy sexist material. Keep making it, lets just not buy it. Power has to be used by consumers.

Your position on niche markets contradicts your earlier statement on niche markets. If it could be organized around more than sexism, would consumers then have collective power?

Your point that sexism is not important enough to organize around speaks to the reality that we don’t take sexism seriously as an issue.

30. james wrote:

matt, i certainly do take sexism seriously as an issue (i have a wife and a daughter, and i am probably sexist to some degree); but i’ve also come to understand that most art is meant to be viewed through cautionary glasses, and that the only way to understand most messages is through education and personal development, not by collectively organizing boycotts against the purchase of offensive materials, which would eventually mean eliminating a whole lot of great art all the way back to the greeks.

art is not the same as bad tuna fish practices that harm the environment and ecosystem. you cannot treat art as a corporate commodity. not paying for it will not eliminate its presence. most art is bad and already barely profitable. any rapper worth his/her salt is not going to be influenced by any kind of boycott. if anything, a boycott would probably increase the boycotted artist’s visibility.

what you need to do, if you truly want to make a tolerable difference is to continue offering your educated opinion on why you think something is sexist, and then to not attend shows or purchase items that you think might possibly be offensive.

you should not try to shortcut the cultural education and personal development of others via collective consumer actions.

incidentally, why are you singling out the sexism in rap? surely, rap does not have a corner on the sexist market.

and then, after you’ve successfully eliminated sexism, what other topics are you hoping to stigmatize and make taboo? references to drugs, alcohol, guns, violence, name-calling in general, or simply any song that isn’t very nice?

31. *M* wrote:

Oh so it also the progressive rappers that have issues with women. Excuse me while I go back to my Oasis collection.

“Your point that sexism is not important enough to organize around speaks to the reality that we don’t take sexism seriously as an issue.”
Great words Matt. Great words.

17.7 million American women are rape survivors.