Sexism in Rap Music

For this week's prompt #1, I consulted my rap-loving boyfriend, as I know nothing about rap or hip hop myself. He suggested Dr. Dre's "Bitches Aint Shit" would be a song that would horrify me (he was correct) but that particular song is a bit old, and it doesn't have a music video to accompany it. In my search,however,  I found a song by the same name by YG, featuring Nipsey Hussle and Tyga, which is arguably more offensive, although they're quite similar in content.

The way masculinity is constructed in this song is fairly predictable - the lyrics attempt to put men in a position of power by belittling women. The song consists of a male listing off his various sexual partners (who he refers to as his "bitches") as he outlines why they are worthless and how he does not need any of them. He calls them each out on their various shortcomings and physical attributes, all while making it clear that he is just using them, and considers himself above them.

He is very proud of himself for his mistreatment of women, and proudly proclaims that he "need a bitch that can f*ck, cook, clean right." According to this way of thinking, women are only meant to serve men and look a certain way, while these men degrade, abuse, replace, and use them.

The music video matches the lyrics. As is typical with this genre, men are shown driving around, reciting offensive words about women while said women dance around them in a scandalous manner, completely unaffected. This presents women as willing and eager to fill this role of brainless slaves to men with no desires of their own. It suggests that they are ok with (and should be expected to enjoy) having to share a man, and that they are on this earth to serve as eye-candy and servants to misogynistic men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Bm_yxsMCpE 

Advertisements and Journalistic Images - What Worldview is Being Sold?

Advertisements are often extremely sexist. Advertisers seem to believe that any product will sell better if a women is being sexualized and/or degraded, from clothes to food to beer. Evidence suggests that this is not accurate. Sex does not, in fact, sell (unless the item being sold is sexual in nature). Despite this, advertisers continue to flood the public with images of half naked women holding unrelated products, or suggestive images like the one below.

In this image, hamburgers at Arby's are being sold. Although beef is not something one typical sexualizes, the advertisers chose to place the burgers side by side with a woman's arms covering them as if they are breasts. The tagline reads, "we're about to reveal something to drool over." 

The worldview they are selling here is that women are pieces of meat, and no more valuable than a fast food burger. Women are merely objects to be drooled over. The aim here is clear - they are gearing their argument towards men who may want to enjoy a cheap hamburger with a side of misogyny. It is meant to evoke feels of lust and hunger and men, simultaneously.  

One might believe (or at least hope) that journalistic images are less biased than advertisements. Sadly, this is not always the case. Just as advertisers are trying to sell us products, news sources are trying to sell us one version of the truth.

And unfortunately, news sources can be just as sexist as advertisements - and even more damaging. The New York Post, which is the 7th most widely circulated newspaper in the US, printed the below image of Hillary Clinton, with the accompanying title: "NO WONDER BILL'S AFRAID Hilary explodes with rage at Benghazi hearing." 

This title, and accompanying picture, plays into the narrative that women are irrational, hormonal creatures that the men in our lives must simply learn to deal with. Hilary Clinton's passion about her chosen profession has caused her to be painted as overly emotional, while a man with the same reaction would be respected. This newspaper is suggesting that Bill Clinton, a former president of the United States, if afraid of his wife because she's so "crazy,"as sexists love to deem women. The worldview being sold here is sadly one that no doubt contributed to Clinton's loss in the 2016 presidential election. The media has called her boring, angry, and old. It has commented on her outfits and her appearance, and shamed her for her husband's indiscretions. Despite what many may believe, our country is still extremely sexist, and Hillary Clinton is proof of that.

Political Proposition - Who is Funding and Benefiting

When you take the time to look into propositions and pieces of legislation (and who is donating to them and why) you may find alternative, selfish motives, or logical motives, that nevertheless propel an agenda of the donator forward. 

I looked into California's Proposition 60. Voting "yes" on this prop. meant that voters supported "requiring the use of condoms and other protective measures during the filming of pornographic films, as well as requiring pornography producers to pay for certain health requirements and checkups." Voting no, on the other hand, meant a voter opposed the use of condoms and other safety measures during the filming of pornographic films. 

Surprisingly, "no" won with a 53.67% majority, meaning Prop. 60 was defeated, and porn actors are not required to wear protection or practice sexual health when filming. 

Curious as to why a proposition meant to help adult film workers from disease and have a safe workplace environment would be shut down, I looked into the amount of money given to each side. I was shocked to find that those in support of the prop actually donated far more money, and still lost. ($4,687,830 compared to just $555,354). 

Those who donated in support of the proposition included: Aids Healthcare Foundation and Healthy Los Angeles, a corporations in favor of sexual health. The main contributor against was California Against Worker Harassment, Sponsored by the Free Speech Coalition. 

While the passing of this bill would have reduced state and local tax by several million dollars a year, it would also increase state costs (to a lesser degree) to license and regulate adult film production.

So why did people vote yes on a prop. that would make them pay more in taxes, and increased adult film workers chances of disease? It seems that people feel regulating porn infringes on free speech: 
According to one case: "The measure also required producers of adult films to pay an annual fee to Los Angeles County's Department of Public Health. Vivid Entertainment, a pornography firm, initiated a lawsuit in an attempt to get Measure B overturned. Kayden Kross and Logan Pierce, pornography workers, joined as plaintiffs. Paul Cambria, the plaintiffs' attorney, viewed the initiative as violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He argued that the measure imposed an unconstitutional restraint on workers' freedom of expression."

This was never the aim of the proposition, according to supporters. Their goal was to hold producers/agents/directors accountable, not performers. But according the the argument against, on voterguide.com, "The proponent wants you to believe this is about worker safety. But this disguises the real impact of the measure: the creation of an unprecedented LAWSUIT BONANZA that will cost taxpayers "millions of dollars" and threatens the safety of performers."

Those against claim that, "The proponent wants you to believe this is about worker safety. But this disguises the real impact of the measure: the creation of an unprecedented LAWSUIT BONANZA that will cost taxpayers "millions of dollars" and threatens the safety of performers."
And perhaps they were correct, because the proposition was not passed, despite having far more funding. 

Sources:

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_in_Pornographic_Films_(2016)

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1356566&session=2015

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1385139&session=2017

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/60/arguments-rebuttals.htm

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/09/501405749/condom-mandate-for-porn-industry-falls-short-in-california

Media and Politics

I believe that media organizations are beginning to get back to their purpose of challenging the claims that our political leaders make. More and more lately, I've seen examples of news segments "calling out" our politicians (in particular, our incompetent new president).

The below news clip points out how Trump chastised former President Obama for taking vacation days, while he spends so much of his time at his "Winter White House." It also discusses the social security costs for our current president, and why they are much higher than they should be. Pointing out this sort of hypocrisy and misuse of power is very important. One man on the segment, however, argues that this is "fake news" simply because he disagrees, and the news caster tells him off, saying: "do you actually know what the definition of fake news is?" and proceeding to explain to him what fake news actually is. "fake news" he explains, is putting out an incorrect story meant to intentionally deceive someone. Heated, he adds "please stop it with this stupid talking point... don't call them fake because you don't agree with it." When the man continues to call the story fake news, he cuts him off and says "goodnight."

I liked that he took a stand and decided to educate the man speaking, as well as the American public as to what fake news actually is.

http://latest.com/2017/02/watch-don-lemon-abruptly-walks-off-his-own-show-over-trumpkins-fake-news-bs/

Guns and Video Games

I do believe that shootings are sometimes encouraged (although not caused) by video games. I don't think that someone who was not inclined to kill could become murderous after playing hours of video games, but I do think that someone who already had violent tendencies could play video games and think of such an unspeakable act as more... speakable. When killing is normalized and discussed casually, the results can be dangerous.

There was an example of a young man names Chris Harper-Mercer, who killed 10 people (including himself) and injured 7 more. He was obsessed with playing violent video games, and had open conversations online with other gamers who supported his plan to shoot up a school. He told some anonymous supporters on 4Chan what he was going to do the night before he did it, and was met with encouraging comments, with language similar to language that might be used to discuss a video game. After he did it, people on the same conversation talked about what happened in terms of a "score," suggesting that they thought of the real world in vide game terms.

http://www.charismanews.com/culture/52651-14-mass-murders-linked-to-violent-video-games 

Happy Violence

"Happy Violence" is when violence is normalized in the media, by appearing to be funny or glamorous. 

One example of "happy violence" that I've seen is Taylor Swift's "Bad Blood" music video. She, along with a group of models and pretty actresses dance around in sexy outfits, pretending to beat up bad guys and blow things up. They kick, punch, fall out of buildings, box, use swords, knives and weapons, and set things on fire, all with no real consequences. They are a very glamorous group, and the scenes depicted are far from frightening. The video is clearly meant to be unrealistic and glamourous. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcIy9NiNbmo

Who Owns the Media?

I was shocked to find out how few media conglomerations control so many of the channels and shows that are currently on television. Disney, for example, owns Disney Chanel, Lifetime, and ABC - to name only a few. With this in mind, I thought back to one of my favorite shows growing up: Boy Meets World. Boy Meets World played on both Disney Channel and ABC family, and I remember hearing in an interview once that there were certain episodes that Disney Chanel would not play, due to more adult content. ABC Family, on the other hand, had no problem playing these episodes. I did a little research and found out that what I remembered was true - there were at least 3 episodes that Disney Chanel deemed too mature to show, yet ABC family aired each one.

This is interesting to me, because Disney owns both Disney Chanel and ABC Family, so why would they feel some themes were fit for one channel and not another? It seems that Disney wants to put forth a squeaky clean image, free of any topics related to sex, drugs, or alcohol. But for ABC Family, (which, as the name suggests, is still very family friendly) the corporation is a little more lenient.