Banning songs that glorify misogynism

[eschemat]

More specifically, songs that glorify domestic abuse and violence.

In this century, rap has essentially been ghettoized, with popular songs such as "Kim" by Eminem showing much violence towards women. The song "Kim" depicts him beating his wife, and more of his songs depict him killing his wife such as in "'97 Bonnie and Clyde. Alcoholism, violence and drug taking have now gained a monopoly over the rap market, and has ended up in further ghettoizing poor communities as well as promoting violence against women.

My stance on the issue is mixed because I believe in absolute liberty, but I also believe that these songs take away the liberty of women in situations of domestic violence as well as lowering social acceptance of ghettoized communities.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

These songs don't take away the liberty of women. It's impossible for someone saying something to take away your freedom unless someone acts on that; at which point the person acting on it is at fault. It's not pretty, it's definitely offensive, but it's like the WBC: you can't ban it because when you do, you are assaulting free speech and that just doesn't fly.

/Civil liberties 101.

 

[ballin4life]

The underlying purpose of Eminem's allegedly misogynistic songs is to illuminate the insanity within us all - hence "there's a Slim Shady in all of us".

Anyway, I happen to like the song Xxplosive

 

[MG9]

It wouldn't possible to ban such songs or any songs that discriminate or objectify women. Not only because it would infringe on the first amendment in the US but also because we live in a patriarchal society.

Although banning wouldn't be possible, I believe it is realistic and quite necessary to push for more respect for females. I suggest a disclaimer that plays after commercials, before songs that are about to play again, especially on radio stations that mainly play rap and hip hop and on albums and songs on itunes that say wrong against women. A disclaimer would be like the disclaimer on alcohol and cigarettes. This disclaimer should basically say that it is wrong to treat women the way the artists describe.

 

[Lord Chair]

Disclaimers on music? I wonder what radio stations would sound like if every 'controversial' is preluded by a disclaimer.

Hardrock/heavymetal fans be hatin'. Also note that if you have to decide which songs to add a disclaimer to and which should be exempted.

Disclaimer: don't call your fellow human beings n1ggers.

Disclaimer: Lady d'Arbanville isn't actually dead.

Disclaimer: Bon Jovi doesn't really have a life.

Disclaimer: Contrary to what Mr. Ozbourne says, the Iron Man described in this song doesn't exist has never existed and will never exist.

 

[Battlecow]

First amendment, yo.

We've been through this.

 

[MG9]

Disclaimers on music? I wonder what radio stations would sound like if every 'controversial' is preluded by a disclaimer.

Hardrock/heavymetal fans be hatin'. Also note that if you have to decide which songs to add a disclaimer to and which should be exempted.

Disclaimer: don't call your fellow human beings n1ggers.

Disclaimer: Lady d'Arbanville isn't actually dead.

Disclaimer: Bon Jovi doesn't really have a life.

Disclaimer: Contrary to what Mr. Ozbourne says, the Iron Man described in this song doesn't exist has never existed and will never exist.

I wasn't suggesting a disclaimer per song on the radio, I was suggesting a disclaimer before a batch of songs that will include disrespect after the commercials end. And the way you're describing it makes my idea sound ridiculous. Making the disclaimers that specific wouldn't be realistic, I am suggesting a general disclaimer that covers all the negativity in a nutshell but keeping it short. Again, just like the disclaimers that always say the same thing on all alcohol and on all cigarette packs.

What do you suggest instead?

 

[ballin4life]

First amendment, yo.

We've been through this.

now now battlecow, there exist other countries too

 

[Battlecow]

We've been through this as well

America's right on this one

 

[MG9]

now now battlecow, there exist other countries too

So which other countries do you think would go for banning such songs? You're from Aussieland right? Do you think Australia would go for it?

 

[Dre89]

I don't think Ballin4death is Australian.

 

[MG9]

I don't think Ballin4death is Australian.

In the "Do you want to be friends with benefits?" thread, he mentioned something about Uluru so I figured he's from Australia.

 

[ciaza]

I can safely confirm that ballin is indeed a proud Australian, hailing from the great landmark of Uluru where he was born and raised.

 

[Lord Chair]

I don't suggest any sort of disclaimer in the first place, I'm very much against some anonymous people telling me what's 'good' for me or my children.

 

[Dre89]

I don't suggest any sort of disclaimer in the first place, I'm very much against some anonymous people telling me what's 'good' for me or my children.

Ironically,you were told that view itself by an anonymous person.

 

[Ocean]

Ironically,you were told that view itself by an anonymous person.

yes, because it's completely impossible for someone to come to that conclusion on their own.

on topic; I'm against it, since it limits free speech.
why limit yourself at songs? what about other forms of media? for example, a clockwork orange very much 'glorifies domestic abuse and violence'.

 

[Battlecow]

Ballin's from the bay area in the US

 

[MG9]

I don't suggest any sort of disclaimer in the first place, I'm very much against some anonymous people telling me what's 'good' for me or my children.

That's a very far out statement. Everyone listens to some extent as to what's healthy and not healthy to do and to eat, that it's not good to try to drive drunk, etc. And there are disclaimers for other forms of media such as movies. What do you think the ratings are? And you can not tell me that you won't restrict your kids from watching movies with high violence, obscene language and sex by a certain age.

 

[ballin4life]

Ballin's from the bay area in the US

Now now battlecow, if you want to make it to the Debate Hall you'll have to start presenting the reasoning behind your conclusions.

That's a very far out statement. Everyone listens to some extent as to what's healthy and not healthy to do and to eat, that it's not good to try to drive drunk, etc. And there are disclaimers for other forms of media such as movies. What do you think the ratings are? And you can not tell me that you won't restrict your kids from watching movies with high violence, obscene language and sex by a certain age.

There's a difference between voluntary recommendations and force.

 

[MG9]

How's a disclaimer force?

 

[Lord Chair]

And you can not tell me that you won't restrict your kids from watching movies with high violence, obscene language and sex by a certain age.

I think you're asking the wrong person, I'll just withhold from answering in order to prevent the discussion from derailing.

 

[MG9]

I think you're asking the wrong person, I'll just withhold from answering in order to prevent the discussion from derailing.

Just because you can not admit that I made a point doesn't me you have to go ahead and say I'm derailing the thread when I am clearly not. I was providing the example for other form of media, movies, and their disclaimers, very much relating to the thread.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Kim's a great song.

I think this is one of those "I don't like it and neither can anyone else" situations. It doesn't necessarily affect you personally if someone else listens to things you don't think are appropriate and there's nothing that makes you justified in not allowing others to enjoy whatever they want. There's obvious exceptions (most people don't like ****, but we don't make **** illegal just because we don't think it's cool), but not in this case. It's music, simple as that. Music doesn't physically hurt anyone. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Also, the "Dead Wrong" remix of Biggie Smalls with Eminem on Curtain Call: The Hits deluxe edition is really hype.

 

[Lord Chair]

Just because you can not admit that I made a point doesn't me you have to go ahead and say I'm derailing the thread when I am clearly not. I was providing the example for other form of media, movies, and their disclaimers, very much relating to the thread.

No, you're asking the wrong person because I would barely limit my children in what they view and/or read. I wouldn't mind my 11 year old kid watching Baise Moi or my 3 year old boy watching all sorts of death and decay. I don't have high regards for morality or taboos and I grew up happily having parents with the same mindset.

This has little to do with the discussion, hence me saying I would rather not reply to your statement. Withhold yourself of challenging me anyway, I don't want to counter null arguments simply because supposedly "silence=defeat".

 

[MG9]

No, you're asking the wrong person because I would barely limit my children in what they view and/or read. I wouldn't mind my 11 year old kid watching Baise Moi or my 3 year old boy watching all sorts of death and decay. I don't have high regards for morality or taboos and I grew up happily having parents with the same mindset.

This has little to do with the discussion, hence me saying I would rather not reply to your statement. Withhold yourself of challenging me anyway, I don't want to counter null arguments simply because supposedly "silence=defeat".

I apoligize for the assumption.

But I still stand behind my idea of a disclaimer, it's not necessarily the best idea, but a push for improvement in this department is necessary, especially if one just looks at what rappers sing about nowadays.

 

[Le vieux lapin]

I like this point, but putting restrictions on expressive creativity is never acceptable.Regardless of whether the songs were banned or not, it would be unlikely to
cause a difference in the selected environment( i.e. the " ghetto "), because behavioral
tendencies such as being abusive or violent are not caused by music, but by the experiences
in their childhoods and how they were raised. It's understandable how one could see
un-feminist degrading music could promote such misogyny, but it is not a major factor
in it;s development or sustainability.

 

[#HBC | J]

There shouldn't be a ban on these type of songs because some songs like these could be applied to the eye of the beholder. I really agree to the line said by Rapture, "It's music, simple as that. Music doesn't physically hurt anyone. Guns don't kill people, people kill people." because it's really true.

If you do bring up Kim though as a song with regards to domestic violence by Eminem, there is another one that is on the same spectrum a bit: Love the way you lie. That's a song that is about domestic violence and it received accolades(being grammies). If you haven't heard this song, it's about Domestic Violence for one and it's sung a majority by Rihanna. Rihanna had been in some domestic violence situations herself which made the song more powerful because she could relate to it. Its about her always going back to her abuser when she knows he is lying about him getting better/not abusing her because she still loves him (and therefore loves the way he lies).

Basically this is "glorifying domestic abuse and violence" through rap/singing however I think it takes more of an anthem type thing. People(women mainly) will relate to this song because they are/were in similar settings. Also it doesn't seem that Rihanna had her liberty taken away by this song but moreso took it back and also gave people a message to follow.

I really don't think songs like these should be banned nor should they be given a disclaimer. It's a civil liberty to have songs like these out there(as said above), but people look at songs differently as well.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

You've also got to remember that some of these songs may actually be against misogynism, and be subtly satirising it. This would analogous to the Pink Floyd song In The Flesh. It has lyrics that if taken literally would be considered racist and homophobic. However, when actually considered in its context, ie. the rest of the album, it is used to show how utterly insane the main character has become. And by the same token, it actually shows that these people who are racist and homophobic probably have issues deep down inside them. It's therefore possible that a supposedly misogynist song getting banned, even though it is meant to highlight the stupidity of misogynism or something of that sort.

I would imagine that banning supposedly misogynistic songs would also pave the way to banning songs like this. I object to that because I actually liked this song, but not because I'm a homophobic or racist bigot. I also object to it because I believe in free speech, unless it's ludicrously hateful or violent.

Disclaimers... Nah. I think they'd ruin these sorts of satires. I just think that point of these, to closely parody these sorts of bigots would be impeded by a disclaimer.

 

[Sucumbio]

no need to ban stuff. just don't buy it, that's passive aggressive to a fault, but it's the best option considering the first amendment issue.

and there are disclaimers on albums, the so-called parent advisory label. radio songs are edited for content already, so a disclaimer is redundant, and would be suicide for the radio station. can you imagine?

what I find interesting is that this topic suggests degrading women in rap is a new motif. it's always been that way, even back when rap was in its wee early stages.

take "The Coldest Rap" by Ice-T, circa 1982...

Spoiler

I-C-E B-E-R-G

What's that spell? Iceberg, *****, can't you read?

Time to bleed, slaughter, slice

Try to say I wasn't nice as we waxed them punks like lab mice

Dice 'em up, slice 'em up, dissect

Put you in a boilin' pot and let your *** sweat

Cos I rap on game you think I'm weak in a freestyle?

Well 911 you should dial

Before my posse makes a move on your mom's crib

Think we got knives and guns? We got bombs, kid

Blow up your whole block, ya hear the gunshots

Throw you in the Syndicate cellar and let your body rot

Cos I'm the coldest mother****er that you ever heard

Call me The Ice...or just The Iceberg

Evil E was out coolin' with a freak one night

****ed the ***** with a flashlight

Pulled it out and left the batteries in

So he could get a charge when he begin

Used his ****, the **** was tight

*****'s ******s start blinkin' like tail lights

Rolled her over to change a connection

The *****'s ugly face cold spoiled his erection

I'm the Ice rhymer, a big timer

And yes I'm a pimp and a player and a hustler and kinda

A mack and a poet, impressive I know it

Don't only rhyme for *****s cos I live my life co-ed

On the mic it's livin' breathin' hype

A 1989 type Dolemite

Cool mother****er, word

Call me The Ice...or just The Iceberg

Charlie Jamm ****ed a freak on a ski-lift

10 below, gave her the ****

It was cold and she said "Quit!"

Charlie Jamm said "Bull****!"

She said "Oh, oh, oh my god!"

Charlie's **** was frozen hard

But she said she never felt it

Maybe Charlie's **** melted

Yes, I'm the rhyme kicker, the hard liquor

Parental Guidance Sticker? Yeah, I'm the *****

Triple X is how I rate

I'm the one your parents hate

I'm as cold as cold can get

Under pressure never sweat

Cool mother****er, word

Call me The Ice...or just The Iceberg

Out with the posse on a night run

Girls on the corner, so let's have some fun

Donald asked one if she was game

Back Alley Sally was her name

She moved on the car and moved fast

On the window pressed her ***

All at once we heard a crash

Donald's **** had broke the glass

Yes, I'm the big wheeler, the girl stealer

And if we play cards don't let me be the dealer

The Ice, cool as water, hard as stone

The black mack of the microphone

Talkin' **** the way I do

Rhyme Pays, the posse grew

Did you like Power? Word

Well this is The Ice...or just The Iceberg

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

If you don't like it, don't listen to it. You can't just ban things you don't like, that infringes on freedom of speech.

 

[Dre89]

If you don't like it, don't listen to it. You can't just ban things you don't like, that infringes on freedom of speech.

So what if in artist makes songs saying he desires sex with children? Should that be tolerated too?

Remember, you can't play the "it's wrong because it's condoning something illegal" card, because songs you are endorsing condone many illegal practices such as drug use, violence, murder etc.

And by your logic personal distaste towards paedophilia can't be a reason either, as you said it's wrong to ban something simply because you don't like it.

 

[_Keno_]

First of all, even paedophiles are people, Dre.. Everyone one, including them, have sexual desires. They just can't ever act on theirs legally or (sometimes) morally, so a song about "wanting" to have sex with them is neither immoral (to me) nor illegal.
And so what if someone makes a song about their sexual desires? That isn't going to persuade a single person to become a paedophile, or even become tolerant of paedophilia. In fact, it would likely have the opposite effect.

Songs about drugs, ****, sex with children, murder, etc should ALL be legal, though I personally wouldn't listen to any of them.

Do you think a person who doesn't like those things is going to listen to one of those songs and somehow love it enough to engage in it? I have my doubts. If anything, it would sicken the person, not make them tolerant of it. I know I become less tolerant of **** and drugs when I hear people sing about them.
Its much more likely that people who already are inclined to do those things are the ones listening. Whether it persuades those people to actually engage in it, or just engage in it more often, I have no idea.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

So what if in artist makes songs saying he desires sex with children? Should that be tolerated too?

Remember, you can't play the "it's wrong because it's condoning something illegal" card, because songs you are endorsing condone many illegal practices such as drug use, violence, murder etc.

And by your logic personal distaste towards paedophilia can't be a reason either, as you said it's wrong to ban something simply because you don't like it.

I like how the second part of your post is you telling me what not to say. I'm not five years old.

As much as I don't condone paedophilia, I'd say yes, it still fits under free speech. But that's just a big what if unless you show me a song that says that. 'Oh hey, what if a song details a plan to kill the president, is that okay too?'

With violence and drugs etc. it's the same thing. Someone saying "I want to kill somebody" should not be censored. If someone doesn't like the song, they are in no way obligated to listen to it. It's not like it's being written on a billboard with flashing lights around it in a public place where it's unavoidable. The same goes for any 'distasteful' lyrics in my opinion.

 

[theeboredone]

I personally don't think any actions would be taken to banning, putting disclaimers, or suiing artists unless a major event occurred. By that, I mean...for whatever reason a song or artist attracted a cult like fanbase that took into practicing what the lyrics preach seriously. Even then, that would not be enough to warrant banning such songs over radio play.

If anything, I would ask about the music videos themselves. I recall a Rihanna video during the beginning of Summer got a lot of attention, because she shoots someone in the head, and they show the guy getting shot. For a video like that, which is easily accessible to anyone...that's some pretty sensitive stuff to show.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Spoiler

In a world owned by me, I'd have all such things banned completely.

But considering that isn't happening except when I lucid dream, that can't happen.

As many others have previously said, it's freedom of speech.
Hell, you have things like the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK speaking their minds to the public; they piss multitudes of people off, numbering in the hundreds of thousands to millions, but they are not suppressed.
Problem is, if you did ban such music, it and the culture surrounding it would go underground and continue to produce, with a small chance of becoming more dangerous than it already is.

I'm just surmising that gangster culture would do that, considering that's how

Spoiler

brutish and uncivilized cultures generally work.

 

[sooshi shef]

The reason most of these things have a parental advisory is to deter kids from this type of music. Considering that ages 13-30 is pretty much the target audience and the fact that most kids even 10-13 listen to it means that parents don't censor this stuff. So I blame parents on this one.

 

[Dre89]

Cheap Peach- Songs always influence the way people think. The reason why you don't think songs about paedophilia would influence people is because they haven't been the subject of main-stream music for the last couple of decades.

The whole "free speech" argument confuses me. Would you allow paedophilia songs and other supposedly vile material to be markedted in places where children are exposed to it? If not, despite still allowing people to produce and listen to these songs in privacy, you're still disinguishing between what is right and what is wrong.

 

[Lord Chair]

If not, despite still allowing people to produce and listen to these songs in privacy, you're still disinguishing between what is right and what is wrong.

You keep regarding every ruling or law that is being suggested as 'distinguishing between right and wrong'. You then proceed to conjecture how abstract those terms are, even though you're the one interpreting made statements with those terms.

To be strict, you keep rejecting your own interpretations rather than what's actually being said.

What about you stop using those terms yourself, and instead use terms like 'desirable' instead? Synonym to 'right'? Nah, because you can actually put desirable in a relevant context, be it a democratic, cultural or rational one, that's up to you.

In this case the question is not whether pedophilia should be banned from song or should be regulated, it's more a discussion of whether or not 'we' view the subject as being 'harmful' to children or for some reason humans in general.

Yeah, the term 'harmful' is abstract and ridiculous. We don't regulate music about drug use and violence (regardless of the message the relevant music tries to bring across) and 'we' are therefor being inconsistent if we were to ban/regulate the subject of pedophilia from music.

OF COURSE DRE. YOU WOULD NOW LIKE TO DISCUSS THE VALUE OF INCONSISTENCY but that's the reason debating is balls with you and several other people here because you will never come to agree on any terms regarding anything. You make every term abstract and a real discussion is not possible with you ever because you can't use a single word without having the subject interrupted by another discussion regarding definitions.

Thank you kindly.

 

[_Keno_]

Songs always influence the way people think.

Really? Can you ever back things up without making baseless assertions? I can quite honestly say that the entire set of songs I've ever listened to has not even had a minor effect on the way I think. I know some people are affected, like kids who listen to rap may have their parents to buy the "ganster" clothes because its "cool". But really, what do you expect to happen with these songs about paedophilia or mysogysim? A kid will beat his wife or kids if his parents show him that, not because a song says so. A kid won't somehow become a paedophile because its cool or something absurd.

The reason why you don't think songs about paedophilia would influence people is because they haven't been the subject of main-stream music for the last couple of decades.

I dont think they've ever been part of mainstream music. And no....that has nothing to do with my reason. Sure, I haven't ever seen the effect of paedophiliac music, but neither have you. And I never presumed to know for a fact what would happen. Neither of us can ever say for sure, one way or the other, whether or not it will affect people and how.
That is why I am trying to, you know, debate why I think it would not have an effect. And if it did have an effect, it would not influence people to become paedophiles or something like that.... I dont even know what you think the effect might be.

Even with mysogynism, would kids or adults who listened to that music be influenced enough by it to engage in it? Kids have parents for a reason, and I sincerely doubt an adult could be swayed to beat people by a song. Like I said, the target audience of these songs are the people who already practice it.

The whole "free speech" argument confuses me. Would you allow paedophilia songs and other supposedly vile material to be marketed in places where children are exposed to it? If not, despite still allowing people to produce and listen to these songs in privacy, you're still distinguishing between what is right and what is wrong.

I'm distinguishing nothing. In fact, I was saying that despite the fact that I would scowl upon hearing any such music, I still think it should still be legal. You are the one saying "right" and "wrong." I'm saying that "free speech" should mean....the freedom to say, or sing if you prefer, about anything you want.

And these things are marketed to kids? Really? Can you tell me how you know that? Even if it was solely marketed at kids, and I'm not saying they are, I'm pretty sure its up to parents whether the kids are allowed to, either through negligence or not, to watch certain things.

And if anything, you're the one making moral judgements. Is simply being a paedophile wrong, even if you aren't a child molester? Should someone be able to sing about their lack of social acceptance because of an innate desire that they will never be able to legally or potentially morally fill? I think so, even though I would never listen to it.
Why do you refer to these types of material as "vile"? Not everyone may agree with you, especially those listening to it. Your posts are always so presumptuous.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'd just like to point out that Amazon.com sold that pedo handbook for a while before it was pulled due to the incredible backlash they received from outraged patrons. Point being that free speech was upheld until it was decided it was better for business to pull the product. The same can be said of a pedo-song (lolwut?). If it suits the publisher or distributor free speech would protect it as a work of art, but I don't think any respectable business owner would sell it.