"Remember the Ladies..."

megslovesstone wrote:

I remember the way how upset many folks were when Sandra Fluke was called a slut, and when Akin coined the phrase "legitimate rape". People respond really viscerally, powerfully, and in pain, to certain words and phrases because it touches something deep down in them.
For meme, and for some others, when Pearl Jam participates, even for a few minutes, in something that is connected to that painful spot, she, and anyone else, responds...because that's what we do. We analyze everything the band is doing, saying, singing about because we love them so much. I'm surprised (sorta) that so many seemed SO annoyed that she had strong feelings about it and decided to write about it in a carefully thought out way. To be sure, I spend A LOT OF TIME on the Hey, Girl pages and the "where Ed looks hot" pages ( 8-) , but I also love this forum for being provocative & serious, and for challenging me to think about how I view the world..and words.

I remember one time Oprah said to Jay-Z, " I don't like that you use the n word--it's the last word black men in this country heard before being lynched." And Jay-Z disagreed. Same deal with pejorative words about women. For some people, those words--bitch, whore, ho, slut, etc.--have been used in ways that carry an extraordinary weight no matter what. For others, it's no biggie, or the seriousness depends on how it's being used (as a joke, as a parody, as a play on words versus to attack someone or make them feel bad).

It's been interesting to read the views of both sets of people.

Pearl Jam has a way with words that has felt life-saving to me, and I know many of you. So no wonder that some fans might react profoundly to any words they use or endorse.

Interesting thread!!!

LeafsJaysCubsRaptorsFan wrote:

cp3iverson wrote:

It was Ed and Jay Z who did the communicating in the month leading up to the festival. They both were obviously excited to play together. It's an edgy rapper and an edgy rock group. They shouldn't care if they offend anyone.

where did you read the bolded part? I thought I read today in the billboard magazine article that it was a last minute decision before the band took the stage

_ wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

i think bottom line, this was a collab between 2 artists who respect one another. To read into this as PJ endorsing Jay-z's lyrics or the lifestyle he presents in lyrics I think is disingenuous and not correct. He obviously respected them enough to have them be one of the headliners, and I think the band was being nice and courteous in having him on stage during their set. Its kind of like if they were playing Lolla and Perry Ferrell and PJ decided to jam for a song. That doesnt mean PJ endorses everything Perry has ever written, it just means they respect one another. Thats life really. Even on the same bill, during regular touring, I dont think Ed and the guys necessarily endorse everything the opening band says or does or sings. And to be fair vice versa. I dont think every band they've toured with have felt they agreed with everything PJ has written or said either.

I dont think it would have been appropriate to lecture Jay about the topic. This wasnt an appropriate place to bring it up. For one, Jay encounters people who criticize his obscene language all the time. And two, they were playing HIS festival. They were guests. Headlining guests. You could maybe argue when Jay brought up the song to them, they could have said "we'd rather not play that one, how about another one". But for all we know, ed and the guys SPECIFICALLY requested this song. And lets face it 99 problems is a great song. And as was mentioned earlier has a pointed critique of racial profiling in it so makes sense they'd enjoy it. I dont think WMA being the groove in the background was coincidence.

The song is one of Jays biggest hits, so he was going to play it with or without PJ backing. So either way they'd be at the same festival with Jay.

It is possible to hold 2 opinions at the same time, to think the song is genius, which it is, and to dislike some of the language used.
Im sure Ed didnt applaud Robert Plant for his notorious lifestyle of the past and his lyrics, but without a doubt Plant is one of the greatest frontmen ever. They played the same bill. Means nothing really.

I don't think anyone has suggested that playing on the same bill as someone or collaborating with someone on a song implies an endorsement of his lyrics as a whole or his lifestyle or everything he says or does or sings. Nor do I think anyone has suggested that PJ should have lectured Jay-Z about his lyrics. Nor do I think anyone has suggested that Jay-Z shouldn't have played this song. I don't think anyone has even suggested that the song's critique of racial profiling - or even Jay-Z himself - isn't genius. The only critique I've read is the one I bolded above.

fortyshades wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

wow so I scanned all the pages of this thread, and maybe im missing something, but only about 3 posters mentioned Satans Bed, which uses the same word Jay-z uses. In fact, Ed seems quite furious when he utters the word on the album. Im not really seeing the difference between Ed using that word and Jay-z using it. Both are males. I dont think PJ should ban that song from their reprotoire.

The intent of the usage of the word is different though (I know, I know ugly sentence, but can't make it better this morning; still waking up with a cup of coffee. And what do I do? I check TenClub - says something about me I guess.) The word used in Satan's Bed - the whole song as a matter of fact - is without a doubt criticism, an indictment almost, to our ideals of beauty and bodily practices. (As I believe that the whole album is a criticism to conformity. The book "Vitalogy" as a matter of fact was a book in the 19th century that basically told/ preached people how to live; what was healty / unhealthy etc.) It is also a song about the temptation that comes with these bodily practises ("I sucked Satan's dick") and how hard it is to escape social and cultural conformity. The song of Jay Z is more ambigious. The way I interpret the lyrics of Jay Z, this word is placed within a dialogue and conversation, where the meaning of the word and aim of the word is more obscured.

That said however, I think that this is also the underlining importance of this conversation; it is not the word itself, but the context in a way this word is used. Or: what is the aim and intent of this word. I believe that Jay Z uses this word to make a point that is actually the opposite of what this word intents. (See my previous comments about Money for Nothing.) By making it multi-interpretable however (Satan's Bed is quite straightforward and has in my opinion one of the best lyrics), he obscures, probably on purpose, the meaning. Is this word used by the cop? Is he reffering to the word to describe the dogs (as he claims in interviews - which btw doesn't make the word necessarily less derogatory for he makes an intersting methaphorical comparisson; but I don't want to throw oil on fire here) or is he reffering to his girlfriend? It is a bit in the dark. (And I know, I know about Jay Z's explanation, but sometimes artists like to obscure their meaning. Look at Ed for example.) So the only thing you can do is contextualize the song. What is the aim of the song. And the song is obviously about racial profiling. It has a point to make. Therefore I believe, after reading the lyrics, that the word is used in the conversation by the cop and the presumption that the cop make about what the driver thinks. Mind you, this is my intepretation. Either way, this word can be used to make a (political) statement and is not necessairly used to objectify or degrade women. Context is everything.

Either way, this is turning out to be a good and thoughtful debate.

_ wrote:

LeafsJaysCubsRaptorsFan wrote:

cp3iverson wrote:

It was Ed and Jay Z who did the communicating in the month leading up to the festival. They both were obviously excited to play together. It's an edgy rapper and an edgy rock group. They shouldn't care if they offend anyone.

where did you read the bolded part? I thought I read today in the billboard magazine article that it was a last minute decision before the band took the stage

I thought I read in the same article that Jay-Z had mentioned it to Ed about a month prior, but they didn't decide about it for sure until the last minute.

fortyshades wrote:

With this I disagree. Words are never "words". Words carry meaning, have an aim and an intent. Words are a way in which we express our (inner) world, values and ideas and can therefore never be "neutral". If you make up a "disgusting and derogatory word" up right now, as you state, your aim is to create a "disgusting and derogatory word" and is therefore in nature offensive. Or to put it in other words: you are using a circular argument here. In this sense Meme is raising a valid concern. PJ has been a political band. (And not just talented musicians.) PJ has raised female issues and has addressed openly topics as abortion, groupies, equal rights etc. I do think however that this discussion is not on the use of words, but on the interpretation. Sometimes you can use derogatory words to in fact state the opposite - see my previous comment in this thread.

MG79478 wrote:

fortyshades wrote:

With this I disagree. Words are never "words". Words carry meaning, have an aim and an intent. Words are a way in which we express our (inner) world, values and ideas and can therefore never be "neutral". If you make up a "disgusting and derogatory word" up right now, as you state, your aim is to create a "disgusting and derogatory word" and is therefore in nature offensive. Or to put it in other words: you are using a circular argument here. In this sense Meme is raising a valid concern. PJ has been a political band. (And not just talented musicians.) PJ has raised female issues and has addressed openly topics as abortion, groupies, equal rights etc. I do think however that this discussion is not on the use of words, but on the interpretation. Sometimes you can use derogatory words to in fact state the opposite - see my previous comment in this thread.

I am not using a circular argument; you just completely missed the point. If I make up a word and tell you it is "disgusting and derogatory word", only you can let that word offend you. If you believe me that the word is bad, and you get offended by it because I told you it was bad, then you are not thinking for yourself. You are too concerned with what others think… you just admitted that the made up word "is in nature offensive” based solely on my opinion. You shouldn't worry about what other people think.

_ wrote:

Regarding "worrying" about what others think, again, I'm not sure if you mean the part where others define a word or the part where they use a word. As I said above, we have to care about how people define words because that's how we communicate. But if you're saying we shouldn't care about (note that caring - which is what people are doing here - is not the same as worrying - a word that is used to belittle)... anyway, if you're saying we shouldn't care about the words people use, I wholeheartedly disagree. The words people use don't just define them - they define our entire society. They shape - and are shaped by - our values & collective perspective. And it is the values & perspectives of other people that define the world in which we are allowed to live. The word "bitch," though it may be used innocently/ignorantly by some (or most), is part of a larger set of values that allows us as a society to disregard women and their rights and their worth, which in turn is accepting of public policy that affects the amount of money women make, the ability for women to control their own healthcare, the funding of social services that primarily affect women, etc. So, yes, actually, all of us should care about what other people think.