Yep I read this post http://polemiqueoccasionelle.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/blurring-the-lines-of-feminism-a-criticism-of-the-criticism-of-blurred-lines/ . This post is hard for me to speak against as a man. I feel the discourse surrounding women's rights should be driven by women and men have a role in that conversation, but its a reflective one. Men shouldn't be imposing their own privilege on the conversation. I keep quoting the same person, but I really like this expression: "Be mindful of the space you take up in the room." However, when talking to the person who told me that about whether she could speak out for minorities as a white woman, I told her that I personally felt she could. That's because you shouldn't let misconceptions about your friends and family be perpetuated if you could stop it. So I really seem myself as stepping in not for women, but for my friends, my sister and my mother, who don't need to be ashamed for proudly demanding a world where they are respected, not objectified. The criticism laid out by the author here is twofold. She first argues that feminist have misinterpreted the language of Blurred lines for rape culture rather than sexual liberation. Secondly, she attacked the "Defined lines video", which parodies the song via role reversal. Her criticism of defined lines is that "two wrongs don't make a right" and the parody goes much farther in its objectification of men, then the actual blurred lines does of women. I will start first by defending Defined lines as a clear satire of the misogyny frequently shown in videos with women. Then I will move to strike down some of her interpretation and also draw from other articles, which have shown how Blurred Lines perpetuates rape culture. Finally, I will indict the criticism from the article as perpetuating the negative stereotype of Feminist being self obsessed matriarchal dictators.
Satire not sexism: Exaggeration as a strategy for emphasis
To start with the criticism of the "Defined lines" video, she begins by claiming that the song insinuates rape like behavior. What the author misses is that this video was intended as a parody. The video is supposed to be in bad taste because by doing so it brings emphasis to the sort of objectification women regularly see in the media. The exaggeration in the video is meant to capitalize on the already unsettling prospect of seeing this happen to men. What isn't being examined is why the male community seemed to respond with such outrage over the video. If you are full of outrage, good, then you should direct that outrage towards the music companies that do this to women on a regular basis, as opposed to one of the rare examples of this happening to men. This role reversal isn't even akin to that seen in the videos from Beyonce or other singers. Instead it's clearly being used to draw attention to how problematic the portrayal of women in the media is. The song even says this when it states, "What you see on TV/doesn't speak equality/ it's straight up misogyny." Those who chuckled at the video do so because they see the irony and satire at play here. But these chuckles weren't hearty chuckles. Instead people awkwardly laughed as they recognized that anyone who has this kind of stuff done to them is being degraded. The logical connection from that was supposed to be about stopping this kind of portrayal where it happens the most: the music industries portrayal of women. Finally, the author admonishes the creators, claiming that women should empower themselves, not weaken men. Such a statement is true in most situations. It shouldn't be the goal of the women's rights movement to weaken men. However, if women need to hurt patriarchy, then there is a good chance that men might have to suffer the drawbacks from that. It's not intentional. In fact it's usually brought about by the lack of practical strategies to fight against misogyny.
A bunch of naked women is a sad man's fantasy
The author suggests that the reason the song was misinterpreted is because it misses the mantra of sexual freedom being preached by the song. I could definitely see this if it weren't for a few red flags. First, the video suggests a man's fantasy, not an equal sexual fantasy. It's not the fact that there are several naked women in the video (unrated, actually first think about why an unrated video even fucking exists), but the fact that they find themselves being oogled at by Thicke and his crew (who seem quite comfortable being cloth). This signals to me that this isn't about the sexual freedom of the woman. She's already at this visible state of vulnerability, while the man is still clothed and in control. Those who claim the woman's body is a symbol of power are correct, but not when it's being subjugated by a male dominated environment. Women in this video are clearly attending to men and their needs. They are framed doing menial tasks and are completely silent, while men tell them what their sexual nature is. This is a sad man's fantasy of sexual freedom and unfortunately is a sexual prison for women.
Disentangling sexual freedom from the hypersexualization of women: a woman is not an animal
Even if you disagree with me that the author's framing of the video is awry, hopefully you can see that the interpretation of Thicke's lyrics are completely off the mark. The author claims that this verse: "Ok he was close, tried to domesticate you/But you're an animal, baby it's in your nature/Just let me liberate you/You don't need no paper/That man is not your maker" is a "women's lib anthem." First, before we start interpreting the lyrics, we need to interrogate the narrator of the lyrics. This is Robin Thicke, a white well chiseled man, who clearly wants to have sex with this girl. His end goal is for some sort of sexual relations and so his rhetoric is going to be for that aim. So when he says, "Ok he was close, tried to domesticate you", I'm immediately suspect of what this "domestication" entailed. Perhaps domestication is Thicke's way of putting a negative spin on a faithful relationship. It would certainly behoove Thicke to portray the woman's relationship as limiting, regardless of how true it is. If anything Thicke is using the woman's sexual freedom against her, by suggesting that she is less of a woman for engaging in a monogamous relationship. But even if we ignore the clear conflict of interest with the narrator and assume that Thicke was being truthful (i.e. the woman's love interest was indeed trying to limit her sexual freedom), then one must immediately be off put by Thicke suggesting that the woman is animal. To compare her to an animal completely takes away her control over her sexual drive. Animals don't have sex because they want to, but because they need to (except for dolphins apparently). By suggesting that her engaging in sexual relations with Thicke is her state of nature draws connotations of a primal like sexual appetite (which is also visually represented in the song via the goat and humping of the fake goat). A good example of this is when one of the singers points at the goat being held by the woman and says "you the hottest bitch in this place" directly towards it. In that small second the woman is being reduced to the animal and to make matters worse that is when they feel comfortable invoking a derogatory designation for the woman.
But I'm not even done, there's still more poor interpretation to be dealt with. The fact that the woman needs Thicke to "liberate her" is a clear position of subjugation. The woman isn't a free entity without Thicke's sexual liberation in this universe. The author doesn't even address this, in fact the author seems to take no issue with it, citing it as an example of pro women language in the song. I don't see how being reliant on a man to gain sexual freedom is in any way pro women. Then we return to the final line, which the author claims is Thicke's claim to a pro woman platform. Given all the context of the previous lines, I hope such a deduction seems laughable to you. The woman has been reduced to a sexual animal. Her relationship has been caricatured by Thicke. And she's given a sexual freedom ultimatum by him. Of course he wants to end it by creating the facade of control in the situation. This has been the new operation of sexism for men. We deal with women not by actually giving them the equality they want, but by appeasing them with fictional notions of equality. So instead of making a statement like "do what makes you happy, or what pleases you sexually", Thicke cleverly frames it as if her leaving her relationship via sex with him will liberate her from her prison.
Lower case f Feminism is a cop out
I've been particularly free of ad hominems in this post so far, but I think this author deserves to face the repercussions of her writing. When she decided to analogize (insert inside joke here) the accurate feminist critiques of the song to slut shaming, she made herself look like a fool. Her first piece of evidence for this charge was her critique of the "Defined lines" videos, which I already addressed, so I won't do so here. Then she claims the feminist critique of the line regarding spanking, makes that kind of sexual behavior deviant. Again, context is everything. In a video where the woman is completely in control of her own sexual experience this would be a different story, but as shown in the previous section, women are not in control in this video. So when Thicke insinuates that he could meet the woman's sexual desire via these violent acts, the context isn't sexual, but instead one of subjugation. Finally, her first two points about women never saying yes to sexual advances completely misses the point I made earlier about interrogating the narrator. In Thicke's mind this woman "knows she wants it", but I would bet some money that the woman herself probably feels differently about the situation. Furthermore, to validate Thicke's thinking would be to validate the rationale given by many people who rape women. This article http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/09/17/from-the-mouths-of-rapists-the-lyrics-of-robin-thickes-blurred-lines-and-real-life-rape/ shows the connections to rape culture the song has far better than I can, however a huge trigger warning, it uses actual testimonials from survivors.
Feminism is spelled with a capital F
Women who have a high standard for the society around them aren't nuisances, they are liberators. They are our mothers, sisters, daughters, friends, aunts. They deal with our male privilege when they shouldn't have to and many of them graciously educate us when we clearly are ignorant to the "space we take up". And when someone attacks these women for being too zealous, then all I have to say is shame on you. Shame on you for not being brave enough to continue the conversation when nobody wants to hear it. Shame on you for being a hindrance to those who want a full equality and who intend to not only change law and policy, but hearts and minds. Shame on you who think that I am less of a man for writing this because I know there is nothing more manly then standing up for the people I love. I write this to draw my lines in the sand. I hope the author thinks about doing the same.
To start with the criticism of the "Defined lines" video, she begins by claiming that the song insinuates rape like behavior. What the author misses is that this video was intended as a parody. The video is supposed to be in bad taste because by doing so it brings emphasis to the sort of objectification women regularly see in the media. The exaggeration in the video is meant to capitalize on the already unsettling prospect of seeing this happen to men. What isn't being examined is why the male community seemed to respond with such outrage over the video. If you are full of outrage, good, then you should direct that outrage towards the music companies that do this to women on a regular basis, as opposed to one of the rare examples of this happening to men. This role reversal isn't even akin to that seen in the videos from Beyonce or other singers. Instead it's clearly being used to draw attention to how problematic the portrayal of women in the media is. The song even says this when it states, "What you see on TV/doesn't speak equality/ it's straight up misogyny." Those who chuckled at the video do so because they see the irony and satire at play here. But these chuckles weren't hearty chuckles. Instead people awkwardly laughed as they recognized that anyone who has this kind of stuff done to them is being degraded. The logical connection from that was supposed to be about stopping this kind of portrayal where it happens the most: the music industries portrayal of women. Finally, the author admonishes the creators, claiming that women should empower themselves, not weaken men. Such a statement is true in most situations. It shouldn't be the goal of the women's rights movement to weaken men. However, if women need to hurt patriarchy, then there is a good chance that men might have to suffer the drawbacks from that. It's not intentional. In fact it's usually brought about by the lack of practical strategies to fight against misogyny.
A bunch of naked women is a sad man's fantasy
The author suggests that the reason the song was misinterpreted is because it misses the mantra of sexual freedom being preached by the song. I could definitely see this if it weren't for a few red flags. First, the video suggests a man's fantasy, not an equal sexual fantasy. It's not the fact that there are several naked women in the video (unrated, actually first think about why an unrated video even fucking exists), but the fact that they find themselves being oogled at by Thicke and his crew (who seem quite comfortable being cloth). This signals to me that this isn't about the sexual freedom of the woman. She's already at this visible state of vulnerability, while the man is still clothed and in control. Those who claim the woman's body is a symbol of power are correct, but not when it's being subjugated by a male dominated environment. Women in this video are clearly attending to men and their needs. They are framed doing menial tasks and are completely silent, while men tell them what their sexual nature is. This is a sad man's fantasy of sexual freedom and unfortunately is a sexual prison for women.
Disentangling sexual freedom from the hypersexualization of women: a woman is not an animal
Even if you disagree with me that the author's framing of the video is awry, hopefully you can see that the interpretation of Thicke's lyrics are completely off the mark. The author claims that this verse: "Ok he was close, tried to domesticate you/But you're an animal, baby it's in your nature/Just let me liberate you/You don't need no paper/That man is not your maker" is a "women's lib anthem." First, before we start interpreting the lyrics, we need to interrogate the narrator of the lyrics. This is Robin Thicke, a white well chiseled man, who clearly wants to have sex with this girl. His end goal is for some sort of sexual relations and so his rhetoric is going to be for that aim. So when he says, "Ok he was close, tried to domesticate you", I'm immediately suspect of what this "domestication" entailed. Perhaps domestication is Thicke's way of putting a negative spin on a faithful relationship. It would certainly behoove Thicke to portray the woman's relationship as limiting, regardless of how true it is. If anything Thicke is using the woman's sexual freedom against her, by suggesting that she is less of a woman for engaging in a monogamous relationship. But even if we ignore the clear conflict of interest with the narrator and assume that Thicke was being truthful (i.e. the woman's love interest was indeed trying to limit her sexual freedom), then one must immediately be off put by Thicke suggesting that the woman is animal. To compare her to an animal completely takes away her control over her sexual drive. Animals don't have sex because they want to, but because they need to (except for dolphins apparently). By suggesting that her engaging in sexual relations with Thicke is her state of nature draws connotations of a primal like sexual appetite (which is also visually represented in the song via the goat and humping of the fake goat). A good example of this is when one of the singers points at the goat being held by the woman and says "you the hottest bitch in this place" directly towards it. In that small second the woman is being reduced to the animal and to make matters worse that is when they feel comfortable invoking a derogatory designation for the woman.
But I'm not even done, there's still more poor interpretation to be dealt with. The fact that the woman needs Thicke to "liberate her" is a clear position of subjugation. The woman isn't a free entity without Thicke's sexual liberation in this universe. The author doesn't even address this, in fact the author seems to take no issue with it, citing it as an example of pro women language in the song. I don't see how being reliant on a man to gain sexual freedom is in any way pro women. Then we return to the final line, which the author claims is Thicke's claim to a pro woman platform. Given all the context of the previous lines, I hope such a deduction seems laughable to you. The woman has been reduced to a sexual animal. Her relationship has been caricatured by Thicke. And she's given a sexual freedom ultimatum by him. Of course he wants to end it by creating the facade of control in the situation. This has been the new operation of sexism for men. We deal with women not by actually giving them the equality they want, but by appeasing them with fictional notions of equality. So instead of making a statement like "do what makes you happy, or what pleases you sexually", Thicke cleverly frames it as if her leaving her relationship via sex with him will liberate her from her prison.
Lower case f Feminism is a cop out
I've been particularly free of ad hominems in this post so far, but I think this author deserves to face the repercussions of her writing. When she decided to analogize (insert inside joke here) the accurate feminist critiques of the song to slut shaming, she made herself look like a fool. Her first piece of evidence for this charge was her critique of the "Defined lines" videos, which I already addressed, so I won't do so here. Then she claims the feminist critique of the line regarding spanking, makes that kind of sexual behavior deviant. Again, context is everything. In a video where the woman is completely in control of her own sexual experience this would be a different story, but as shown in the previous section, women are not in control in this video. So when Thicke insinuates that he could meet the woman's sexual desire via these violent acts, the context isn't sexual, but instead one of subjugation. Finally, her first two points about women never saying yes to sexual advances completely misses the point I made earlier about interrogating the narrator. In Thicke's mind this woman "knows she wants it", but I would bet some money that the woman herself probably feels differently about the situation. Furthermore, to validate Thicke's thinking would be to validate the rationale given by many people who rape women. This article http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/09/17/from-the-mouths-of-rapists-the-lyrics-of-robin-thickes-blurred-lines-and-real-life-rape/ shows the connections to rape culture the song has far better than I can, however a huge trigger warning, it uses actual testimonials from survivors.
Feminism is spelled with a capital F
Women who have a high standard for the society around them aren't nuisances, they are liberators. They are our mothers, sisters, daughters, friends, aunts. They deal with our male privilege when they shouldn't have to and many of them graciously educate us when we clearly are ignorant to the "space we take up". And when someone attacks these women for being too zealous, then all I have to say is shame on you. Shame on you for not being brave enough to continue the conversation when nobody wants to hear it. Shame on you for being a hindrance to those who want a full equality and who intend to not only change law and policy, but hearts and minds. Shame on you who think that I am less of a man for writing this because I know there is nothing more manly then standing up for the people I love. I write this to draw my lines in the sand. I hope the author thinks about doing the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment