![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I love the panels that BET (and other black focused media, but particularly BET, for the way it mixes academia, religion and pop culture seamlessly), does on hip hop. I especially love watching these mainstream MCs, these men who are paid to behave as childishly, as ridiculously and oftentimes as shamefully as they possibly can, grappling with things like patriarchy and false consciousness.
It's become a cliche to talk about how so many pop rappers are smart businessmen (as in the Jigga model), but I love seeing them as they are, as smart, intellectually flexible and genuinely interesting people. It's a shame how contemporary hip pop encourages artists to conceal vital parts of themselves and to pander to white, middle America's fantasies of blackness.
Like, you expect Chuck D to be awesome, but seeing Nelly hold his own still blows too many people's minds. Of course, some of them really are the giant douche's that they appear to be. (Kanye West, I'm looking at you, you big doof). Still, just presenting black men, and particularly these black men, as having a voice outside of hip hop itself, as being capable and worthy of commenting on hip hop and their own culture, is crucial.
Hip Hop vs. America and a look at its impact, Hip Hop vs. America (The World) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
M. Dot provides some excellent commentary on HHVA day two, over at Racialicious, picking up on David Banner's comment that if Black women want to change society, they need to close their legs. She goes on to talk about the unwillingness of rappers and individual audience members to own their responsibility.
***
As usual for a Margaret Wente column, there are things in It should be safe and fair, but it should also be rare that I agree with, things I disagree with, and something that makes me uncomfortable. A lot of the time something about her work bothers me, even disturbs me, and I have to go back and poke at it. I mean, as a current affairs columnist she's trying to bug me - her job is to push my buttons and keep me interested. Still, some things.
Her tendency to fudge the numbers, or frame them in such a way that they work for her and the framing is invisible is always troublesome. She says:
Would they really agree? Most of which group of Canadians? How many of those pregnancies ended in miscarriage? Or in child abandonment? If 30 percent (really?) is too high, what's the magic ratio of abortions to full-term pregnancies?
I've always interpreted the slogan "Safe, legal and rare" as meaning that we should work to create social conditions that make abortion less necessary, not that women should choose to have abortions only in rare and particular circumstances. Wente says that women who've had more than one abortion are 'irresponsible' and using abortion as birth control. Being as she has no idea of the circumstances of these women's lives, I hardly think she can judge them as being irresponsible. Too lazy to pop a pill and use a condom.
Yes, thank you middle class white lady, for telling us like it is.
Listen, any form of birth control that requires you to lose a day (or more) of work, temporarily give up sex and even baths, is one terrible form of birth control. I wonder what kind of strange women would choose to abort a potential child, rather than take the pill or use a condom? Let me see... a woman who, for one reason or another, can't make the better choice. I'm not talking about 'desperate circumstances.' I'm talking about living day to day, in a community that proscribes your choices as a woman and as a human. If you honestly think that there aren't women in Canadat living under these circumstances, you are blind. So damn blind I don't even know how to make you see.
Even taking the example of some privileged, happy teen, who decides not to use a condom and ends up getting an abortion, I hardly think that 'carelessness' is the ultimate explanation for what's going on there. Reall, Ms. Wente? Carelessness? A young women would serially undergo a surgical procedure in order to rid herself of an unwanted pregnancy because she couldn't be bothered? Right.
It's become a cliche to talk about how so many pop rappers are smart businessmen (as in the Jigga model), but I love seeing them as they are, as smart, intellectually flexible and genuinely interesting people. It's a shame how contemporary hip pop encourages artists to conceal vital parts of themselves and to pander to white, middle America's fantasies of blackness.
Like, you expect Chuck D to be awesome, but seeing Nelly hold his own still blows too many people's minds. Of course, some of them really are the giant douche's that they appear to be. (Kanye West, I'm looking at you, you big doof). Still, just presenting black men, and particularly these black men, as having a voice outside of hip hop itself, as being capable and worthy of commenting on hip hop and their own culture, is crucial.
Hip Hop vs. America and a look at its impact, Hip Hop vs. America (The World) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
M. Dot provides some excellent commentary on HHVA day two, over at Racialicious, picking up on David Banner's comment that if Black women want to change society, they need to close their legs. She goes on to talk about the unwillingness of rappers and individual audience members to own their responsibility.
We don’t want the rappers to have any personal responsibility because we don’t want to hold ourselves accountable. The minute we hold them accountable we have to hold ourselves accountable.
Its like this, if your momma is telling you not to smoke and drink, but she smoking and drinking, you ain’t gonna listen to her.
If we start talking about the rappers and their music and the effect it has on the kids, then we have to start looking ourselves, the fact that we buy and listen to the music and the message that this sends to the kids.
***
As usual for a Margaret Wente column, there are things in It should be safe and fair, but it should also be rare that I agree with, things I disagree with, and something that makes me uncomfortable. A lot of the time something about her work bothers me, even disturbs me, and I have to go back and poke at it. I mean, as a current affairs columnist she's trying to bug me - her job is to push my buttons and keep me interested. Still, some things.
Her tendency to fudge the numbers, or frame them in such a way that they work for her and the framing is invisible is always troublesome. She says:
Fortunately for the public conscience, morally troubling late-term terminations are quite rare. But routine abortions are not. Maybe the pro-choice lobby could begin addressing the fact that nearly 30 per cent of pregnancies in Canada end in termination. In 2005, there were 96,815 reported abortions in this country (and certainly some that were not reported, according to Statistics Canada). Most Canadians would probably agree this figure is too high. “Safe, legal and rare,” went the mantra back in the 1970s. But we're only two-thirds of the way there.
Would they really agree? Most of which group of Canadians? How many of those pregnancies ended in miscarriage? Or in child abandonment? If 30 percent (really?) is too high, what's the magic ratio of abortions to full-term pregnancies?
I've always interpreted the slogan "Safe, legal and rare" as meaning that we should work to create social conditions that make abortion less necessary, not that women should choose to have abortions only in rare and particular circumstances. Wente says that women who've had more than one abortion are 'irresponsible' and using abortion as birth control. Being as she has no idea of the circumstances of these women's lives, I hardly think she can judge them as being irresponsible. Too lazy to pop a pill and use a condom.
Yes, thank you middle class white lady, for telling us like it is.
Listen, any form of birth control that requires you to lose a day (or more) of work, temporarily give up sex and even baths, is one terrible form of birth control. I wonder what kind of strange women would choose to abort a potential child, rather than take the pill or use a condom? Let me see... a woman who, for one reason or another, can't make the better choice. I'm not talking about 'desperate circumstances.' I'm talking about living day to day, in a community that proscribes your choices as a woman and as a human. If you honestly think that there aren't women in Canadat living under these circumstances, you are blind. So damn blind I don't even know how to make you see.
Even taking the example of some privileged, happy teen, who decides not to use a condom and ends up getting an abortion, I hardly think that 'carelessness' is the ultimate explanation for what's going on there. Reall, Ms. Wente? Carelessness? A young women would serially undergo a surgical procedure in order to rid herself of an unwanted pregnancy because she couldn't be bothered? Right.