"Remember the Ladies..."

fortyshades wrote:

This is once again circular: "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."

No offense, but I really don’t think you understand what circular means. An example is “a is true because b is true; b is true because a is true.” What I said is nowhere near that.

fortyshades wrote:

For some the word "nigger" is used as empowerment for others as a racist slur.

Thank you, you actually just proved my point. You can let a word bother you, or you could let it empower you. It’s your choice.

MG79478 wrote:

fortyshades wrote:

For some the word "nigger" is used as empowerment for others as a racist slur.

Thank you, you actually just proved my point. You can let a word bother you, or you could let it empower you. It’s your choice.

She can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think she meant that words can be used as empowerment, as in, the decision is made by the person using/saying the word (usually to describe themselves) - not the person being called the word by someone else who means it as a slur.

MG79478 wrote:

fortyshades wrote:

This is once again circular: "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."

No offense, but I really don’t think you understand what circular means. An example is “a is true because b is true; b is true because a is true.” What I said is nowhere near that.

fortyshades wrote:

For some the word "nigger" is used as empowerment for others as a racist slur.

Thank you, you actually just proved my point. You can let a word bother you, or you could let it empower you. It’s your choice.

I noticed that throughout this debate, you have a tendency to make arguments personal and try to do so in a very belitteling tone. ("Worrying" in previous mail, "*you* cant think for yourself", "you don't know what circular means" etc.)

I believe that your argument is circular because it goes a bit as followed: words are branded as derogatory, therefore you find it derogatory, and therefore - the reason why you find it derogatory - is because you can't think for yourself. So if I hypothetically make up a word that is derogatory (and think of the contradiction in this sentence!, for how do you make a word derogatory if you don't have a social and cultural model to do so?), and I tell you it is derogatory and you perceive it as such, well, that is because I told you so; hence conclusion: you can't think for yourself. "You worry about what other people think." If this is not circular, I do not know what is. Words are not isolated items; they are connected in a web of social and cultural meaning. Even the choice of "empowerment", as you state above, is always within a social context or movement.

You completly dismiss the social and cultural context in which words come to being or the histography of those words. Derogatory words are derogatory for a reason. They have a specific purpose and this purpose is not a complimenting one. So, for example, I have never met someone who thought that words like "kike" or "filthy Jew" are in any way or sense empowering. And stating: well, I think that "kike" is insulting, because I let other people think for me, is an outreagous one, to say the least.

Some derogatory words are now used (and please notice the nuance) as empowering, but this is not because (as you seem to claim) individuals decide so, but because there is a movement behind it. They take the derogatory word and use it in a different light as a "protest" - and you can't do that, if the word isn't derogatory to begin with! We see this for example, and let me emphasise this, within certain settings. In hiphop for example (which to a certain extent is a movement) the word "nigger" is not always used with the negative connotations attached to them. It is making a statement. It is taking the word back, so to speak and give it a different meaning. But in order to make this statement, in order to reverse the meaning, you have to take the histography of the word into account.

This is not about thinking for yourself (why do you individualize everything?) but because of the social and cultural context in which words are used. Even words that are empowered, are embedded in a collective movement, and are not individualized.

This empowering we now also see with words like "sluts" and "bitch" these days, but to state that Jay Z used the word "bitch" in his song - no matter which interpretation of his song you take - as "empowering" is in fact stretching it a bit. Stating, and I think that is what you mean in your posts, that the word "bitch" is insulting, well because you as a listener think it is insulting, because that is what has been said and taught to you, is because "you can't think for yourself" is dismissing the cultural, social meaning and histography of the word. Bitch is often used as an insult and not as a banner of feminity. No matter what, no matter which interpretation you take, (is he reffering to dogs, is it said in a conversation etc.) Jay Z is using this word on purpose and not because this word is cultural and social meaningless which you implictly claim.

Art / poetry has a specific place in this. It can take derogatory words, place them in a specific storyline and actually criticize the social and cultural meaning and histography of this word - which I think Jay Z is doing. This is not to say, that the "listener" can't think for him- or herself. But rather that context, and not the word, gives the word a specific meaning. The listerner should therefore place it in the context. But lets be honest here, the song of Jay-Z is an ambigious one.

Now, you may use my last statement and see it as evidence of your point. But this is simplyfying the matter. It is not (only) the listener that decide - the artist, the context, the genre, the movement all play a part in this. So, it is not that the listener "can't think for him- or herself" asn you previously claimed; this trail of thought and argument is individualizing words and devoiding them of social meaning. It is the context that gives the word meaning. This is something else than you have stated in previous posts. You (and now it is my turn to be personal) have the tendency to simplify complex matters and place them in a raster of personal decision. Choices are rarely personal or individualized; we are all connected within a social web of meaning and our actions, thoughts and yes, even words, are rarely devoid of cultural or social context.

fortyshades wrote:

I noticed that throughout this debate, you have a tendency to make arguments personal and try to do so in a very belitteling tone. ("Worrying" in previous mail, "*you* cant think for yourself", "you don't know what circular means" etc.)

I believe that your argument is circular because it goes a bit as followed: words are branded as derogatory, therefore you find it derogatory, and therefore - the reason why you find it derogatory - is because you can't think for yourself. So if I hypothetically make up a word that is derogatory (and think of the contradiction in this sentence!, for how do you make a word derogatory if you don't have a social and cultural model to do so?), and I tell you it is derogatory and you perceive it as such, well, that is because I told you so; hence conclusion: you can't think for yourself. "You worry about what other people think." If this is not circular, I do not know what is. Words are not isolated items; they are connected in a web of social and cultural meaning. Even the choice of "empowerment", as you state above, is always within a social context or movement.

You completly dismiss the social and cultural context in which words come to being or the histography of those words. Derogatory words are derogatory for a reason. They have a specific purpose and this purpose is not a complimenting one. So, for example, I have never met someone who thought that words like "kike" or "filthy Jew" are in any way or sense empowering. And stating: well, I think that "kike" is insulting, because I let other people think for me, is an outreagous one, to say the least.

Some derogatory words are now used (and please notice the nuance) as empowering, but this is not because (as you seem to claim) individuals decide so, but because there is a movement behind it. They take the derogatory word and use it in a different light as a "protest" - and you can't do that, if the word isn't derogatory to begin with! We see this for example, and let me emphasise this, within certain settings. In hiphop for example (which to a certain extent is a movement) the word "nigger" is not always used with the negative connotations attached to them. It is making a statement. It is taking the word back, so to speak and give it a different meaning. But in order to make this statement, in order to reverse the meaning, you have to take the histography of the word into account.

This is not about thinking for yourself (why do you individualize everything?) but because of the social and cultural context in which words are used. Even words that are empowered, are embedded in a collective movement, and are not individualized.

This empowering we now also see with words like "sluts" and "bitch" these days, but to state that Jay Z used the word "bitch" in his song - no matter which interpretation of his song you take - as "empowering" is in fact stretching it a bit. Stating, and I think that is what you mean in your posts, that the word "bitch" is insulting, well because you as a listener think it is insulting, because that is what has been said and taught to you, is because "you can't think for yourself" is dismissing the cultural, social meaning and histography of the word. Bitch is often used as an insult and not as a banner of feminity. No matter what, no matter which interpretation you take, (is he reffering to dogs, is it said in a conversation etc.) Jay Z is using this word on purpose and not because this word is cultural and social meaningless which you implictly claim.

Art / poetry has a specific place in this. It can take derogatory words, place them in a specific storyline and actually criticize the social and cultural meaning and histography of this word - which I think Jay Z is doing. This is not to say, that the "listener" can't think for him- or herself. But rather that context, and not the word, gives the word a specific meaning. The listerner should therefore place it in the context. But lets be honest here, the song of Jay-Z is an ambigious one.

Now, you may use my last statement and see it as evidence of your point. But this is simplyfying the matter. It is not (only) the listener that decide - the artist, the context, the genre, the movement all play a part in this. So, it is not that the listener "can't think for him- or herself" asn you previously claimed; this trail of thought and argument is individualizing words and devoiding them of social meaning. It is the context that gives the word meaning. This is something else than you have stated in previous posts. You (and now it is my turn to be personal) have the tendency to simplify complex matters and place them in a raster of personal decision. Choices are rarely personal or individualized; we are all connected within a social web of meaning and our actions, thoughts and yes, even words, are rarely devoid of cultural or social context.

Very well-said! :thumbup: But, regarding the sentence I bolded above, where exactly is Jay-Z's critique of the word "bitch" in this song? Perhaps his use of the word is different (which I'm not buying), but even then I see no actual critique.

megslovesstone wrote:

anyways, I don't know if the line between being bothered and being empowered is all that clear...Others may see it differently :-).

I think, as "-" emphasised, and also how I meant it, that not the person receiving the slur is making the decision of empowerment or racist, but the person making the statement. And as you perfectly state (and here is where the cultural and social context comes in): when a white person in the States use the "n" word, it has a complete diff. resonance, than when an African American tries to do so. Then it can be used as something provocative or as a new "ownership" (empowerment). Here also, setting and context, is everything.

I cannot see, in any shape of form, that the word "bitch" in the song of Jay Z is meant as empowering women. Even if the word is used to the dogs (as Jay Z has been claiming). I do think however that he is using the word to address the issue of racial profiling, which was a big issue when the song came out.

Edit: And is still unfortunately a big issue today.

CanNotStay wrote:

There's a reason it came after WMA and not Fuck Me in the Brain

that was a very smart comment!!!well done...

fortyshades wrote:

_ wrote:

Very well-said! :thumbup: But, regarding the sentence I bolded above, where exactly is Jay-Z's critique of the word "bitch" in this song? Perhaps his use of the word is different (which I'm not buying), but even then I see no actual critique.

I think, and please read this as a personal interpretation, that within the song, the words "bitch" is used in a conversation between the cop and a drugdealer. The way I read and interpret the lyrics, the cop is actually making the statement, presuming - and here is where racial profiling comes in - that the drugdealer is using this form of terminology. (You could compare it to the famous lines "Faggot with earrings and the make up" in Money for Nothing of Dire Straits that I made a few pages back.) I know that this is not the interpretation that Jay Z advocates and I also think that the lyrics in this song are actually quite ambigious - so the best I can do is give my interpretation based on the context and theme of the song. (Which is about racial profiling and the presumption of people on how African Americans actually talk.) In this sense, the song makes a political statement and the word "bitch" here is a verhicle to show the prejudices people have on how other people (in this case African Americans) think and talk. The song is therefore anti-racist. The song however is not necessarily anti-sexist. There are actually only a few songs which are anti-sexist in my opinion. I think in certain music genres, including hiphop, but not exclusively (look at Kid Rock for example) females are actually quite objectified. (I would argue that Satan's Bed is in fact one of the few anti-sexist songs I know of.) This is the reason why I think that Meme had some valid points. Not that I agreed with her interpretation, but def. that this should be discussed. Why are the words "bitches" and "whoes" so integrated in popular culture and other forms of isms are not? If Jay Z had sung: "99 problems but that kike aint one", the whole Jewisch commumity would have protested and I think a few people on this board would have been quite upset. That we are not so upset, or to a lesser degree, with the word "bitch" - for it is so much engrained in our day to day language - is actually quite telling and to a certain extent disturbing... That is why I parttook in this debate.

While I am writing this down, I have a three year old begging for my attention, so I hope (for I get distracted every minute) I make some sense.

Ps: I use the word "kike" above here to make a point about accepted and unaccepted derogatory words, not because I am anti-semite. I also would like to add, I actually enjoyed the collaboration, mainly due to the fact that songs are about racial profiling and that I always applaud when two music genres are mixed. I just thought that the original poster made points that should be discussed, thats all - in case this got lost in the translation and in my (very) long and maybe even somewhat drawnout posts. Everything I said above you can undoubfully say with a thousand of less words. I was never good at minimizing.

So you're saying you think the lyrics, "If you're having girl problems I feel bad for you son I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one" are said by the cop? But the cop is saying this to kind of mock Jay-Z, so as to say that he thinks this is how Jay-Z talks? I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly. I'm having trouble seeing that though.

To me, even if he is supposedly referring to the dogs the whole time (in which case, how does hat fit with the preceding line?), at the very least he's still using the word bitch specifically for its shock value, which serves to retain - not re-write or critique - its popular meaning. It reminds me of children who, when being reprimanded for using the word, say they were just referring to a dog & then get all proud of themselves for supposedly being so clever. Or people who scratch their heads with their middle finger pointing at someone.

Regardless of this particular song, I think your comment that I bolded above gets to the real issue at hand.

Ed called models "skinny little bitch"(es), he did so a long time ago. Was that ok with you Meme? Its ok for Ed to call models bitches but when Jay-Z says it as a play on words its the end of the world, I dont get it. Not to mention the other hip hop collaboration in which B-real talks about shooting people with Pearl Jam.

Does not compute.... :fp:

Another thing, If I'm having "woman problems" ie relationship problems I am not going to refer to "her" as the "sweet nice lady that is making me upset" Just like I would refer to a guy that was pissing me off, Id call him an "asshole". This whole idea that ALL women are awesome and dont need to be called out once in a while is kind of ridiculous and unrealistic. Asshole and bitch mean the same thing to me and I'm sorry but some women are bitches just like some guys are assholes, Now I think you might have a point if it was "I got 99 problems and a Hoe ain't one", but if you read the third verse Jay goes further with the world play and calls men he has problems with ""Hoes".

Bottom line if you are "offended" with the complexities of language then hip hop is Mos Def. Not For You.

_ wrote:

So you're saying you think the lyrics, "If you're having girl problems I feel bad for you son I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one" are said by the cop? But the cop is saying this to kind of mock Jay-Z, so as to say that he thinks this is how Jay-Z talks? I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly. I'm having trouble seeing that though.

To me, even if he is supposedly referring to the dogs the whole time (in which case, how does hat fit with the preceding line?), at the very least he's still using the word bitch specifically for its shock value, which serves to retain - not re-write or critique - its popular meaning. It reminds me of children who, when being reprimanded for using the word, say they were just referring to a dog & then get all proud of themselves for supposedly being so clever. Or people who scratch their heads with their middle finger pointing at someone.

Regardless of this particular song, I think your comment that I bolded above gets to the real issue at hand.

Even though my interpretation is somewhat diff. than what Jay Z advocates (and I think you summarize it fine) and is changing after what CanNotStay wrote, I think that we are in complete agreement with the bolded statement above. This is in my opinion the issue that should also be discussed. However (and here I have to do the difficult job of copying and pasting) I am in complete agreement with (the bolded part) and a bit more critical with the cursive part of CanNotStay:

CanNotStay wrote:

I appreciate that we able to have this debate here. I just wanted to bring to light that this is not JayZs lyric. I think this is a critical piece of information to understand the song. There is no lyrics in the song that JayZ wrote that is misogynistic or references bitches. There is the line about the K-9 unit tho.

He's taking a lyric from a notoriously misogynistic song and changing it's meaning. It's no secret that misogyny is prevalent in hip hop and JayZ knew people were going to here the lyric and associate that, but upon further inspection realize that's not what he was referring to at all. It's ironic and I believe satirical to misogyny in rap.
Even if this song made you uncomfortable I hope it didn't ruin the show for you. This was just one of a few political statements weaved into the setlist in a more subtle way than usual. I believed it catered to the thematic concept of the show while, at the same time, celebrating our diversity.
I'm glad this thread has helped ease your disappointment. You have every right to still be disappointed though. People react differently to different things and are more sensitive to some words than others. I wouldn't consider myself to be a feminist but I don't appreciate when people are demeaning to woman. I had no problem with this collab. tho as I don't find it to be demeaning to woman at all. Contrarily I believe it to be a clever satire at the prevalent misogyny in hip hop.

A bit critical for I think that misogyny is not only prevalent in rap and also that I do not always think it is meant sarcastically or satirically. (I saw too many "booties" - just to use another word here - shake on MTV for that.) That said however, I do think that the song (99 problems) has an important value, for I believe that the subject of racial profiling is an important one. I also think, especially in the United States today ( a topic that is not addressed here, but is of equal importance), that the celebration of diversity itself is with the upcoming election very crucial. Combining these two genres together is almost a political statement by itself. I am not sure if this also soften your dissapointment Meme, but I do think that it is an element worth considering...

On more general terms however, I do think that the use of misogyny in lyrics is an important one...

To CanNotStay: thanks for the contribution. Six posts only, but very interesting ones.

To everyone here in general: I am glad we can discuss these issues in an intellectual way.