When Bell Hooks writes about the politics of gangsta culture she makes some really excellent points about wider societal misogyny and racial politics. However, I think some of the critique is a little outdated (it references the Clinton administration and uses the word 'gangsta') and so it cannot acknowledge how the genre of 'gangsta' rap has evolved into  a complex, contextualized meta-narrative, with lyrics that could easily be read as outrageously offensive when they are taken out of, not only their rhythmic structure, but also their multi-layered context. (I feel so silly writing the word 'gangsta', it seems so anachronistic).

The Odd Future crew are the latest in a long history of groups, deemed outrageously offensive and terribly sexist and awful.  The latest criticism of hiphop lyrics reminds me of Tipper Gore and the PMRC in the 1980s. This article on the high traffic Australian mommy-bloggers website mamamia.com is a case in point. *clutches pearls*

When you read the lyrics of Odd Future rapper 'Tyler, the Creator', taken out of their beat and context, yes, I concur, their depiction of violence towards women is terrible.

 And when you know nothing about the group, when you haven't listened to the albums, and when you aren't even a hip hop fan, it's quite simple to frame such groups as misogynist and glorifying violence. It's easy to take a superficially narrow view of a complex meta-narrative that you don't understand, and have no hope to ever completely understand, because you're entirely removed from the language, culture, style and history of a complex, multi-layered self-referential modern linguistic and musical artform. It's so removed from your life that you look a bit silly even talking about it. Yes, YOU, mama mia!!!

I enjoy listening to Tyler, the Creator and Odd Future. Tyler has a distinctly meta kind of style, it's layered and complex and is poking fun at the history of violent lyrics in hiphop, whilst embracing the grossness and indulging in it, pushing the lyrical envelope really far, whilst critiquing the glorification of violence all at the same time. Complex stuff, and hard to read if you dont 'speak the language'. The Odd Future crew are really young, and have grown up in an era where ultraviolence is lauded as entertainment. The lyrics and beats reflect and critique this social and media phenomenon of post post modernity. Some lyrics ARE blantantly childish and disgusting, but there are deliberate, highly contextual layers. Kind of like Eminem, but with way more self-awareness, darkness and complexity, "Tyler" is a character, an exploration of the inner demons and thoughts that dwell inside a disturbed young individual who is in conflict with his urges and fantasies. Its not everyone's cup of tea, for sure, but I think Tyler and the Odd Future crew are doing something really interesting. And also, the beats (made by Syd tha Kyd, a female lesbian member of the crew) are sick.

Oh, and Fuck Censorship.

Rap is a broadly fictional narrative that can be used as metaphor, parable, illustrative demonstrations of what might happen in any given situation. To take lyrics on face value is to misunderstand completely. It's an incredible form of communication, sometimes misused (I'm looking at you Lil' John). At it's best, you can use it to remote view other people's (and fictional) lives.

too posh to push?

Victoria Beckham aka Posh Spice, the poster-girl for elective caesarean

In an increasingly technological and medicalized society, childbirth is becoming less about the 'miracle of life' and more about simply getting a baby out safely and without incident. And there is LOTS of debate over the benefits vs. harm of this fundamental change in childbirth.

'Natural' birth advocates talk about empowering women to make choices but actually all they’re doing is trying to impose an eco-feminist ideology that privileges a problematic ideal of the 'natural'. For some reason, tolerance and pluralism goes out the window when it comes to opinions on how to give birth, breast-feeding, raising kids.

From its Biblical origins, that childbirth pain is punishment for women’s inherent sinfulness, the assumption that women should find the physical pain of birth empowering, or that pain is somehow necessary to an ‘authentic’ experience of childbirth and womanhood,  romanticizes and essentializes women and promulgates a false moral superiority in refusing pain relief or having an operative delivery (Beckett 2005).

The inferred moral highground of ‘the natural’ infers that births which do not conform to the ‘natural’ ideal as being ‘unnatural’

The result of this valourization of 'the natural' is hardly feminist- 

it results in women  feeling guilt and  failure over having chosen an operative birth, receiving  medical  intervention during labour,or deciding to have an epidural.

 This TIME magazine article discussing the rise in the number of C-sections in the US in the last decade discusses one woman's decision to have an elective caesarean and the cultural pressure she felt to have a 'natural' delivery; "We put a lot of emotional, psychological and spiritual value around birthing," says Dr. William Callaghan, an obstetrician at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "But perhaps we are coming up with different cultural norms."

If feminists care about empowering women during child birth, they should do so in an evidence-based manner- The data demonstrate that the safest place to deliver is  in a medical environment.

As long as you’re not putting yourself or your baby’s life at immediate risk, you should be 

able to birth however you like and not have to justify it to anyone.

Oh, and you know what else is 'natural'? Small pox, that's what.

Beckett, K 2005, “Choosing Caesarean: Feminism and the politics of childbirth in the United States”, Feminist Theory, Vol.6, No.3, pp. 251-275.

Just a regular everyday normal guy

Hegemonic masculinity is the social ascendency of one 'type' of men, achieved via the embedded values and powers that are inherent within things like religious doctrine, mass media, wage structures and taxation policies... can you imagine a few descriptors for the masculinity that is generally dominant in Australian society? Let me help you out with a few-

He's white. His family is white. He speaks English.
He's heterosexual.
He's aged between 25 and 50.
He has a girlfriend/he's married, but if he's currently single he will almost certainly marry at some point.
He's working/middle class.
He has a job, perhaps he's a tradie or if he's university educated perhaps he's an engineer.
He likes sport. And action movies. And beer.
He's hopeless at domestic chores, and he doesn't care.
He's not very political.


There are so many complex, different, and competing forms of masculinity, so it's debatable whether these qualities are, in fact, examples of hegemonic masculinity, or that these characteristics and traits will remain 'fixed' as cultural ideals. The values of society are fluid and changeable, and the concept of hegemonic masculinity does not infer "total cultural dominance or the obliteration of alternatives" (Connell 1987, p.60). But, do you see what I'm getting at? These are some examples of  the dominant 'cultural ideal' of the Australian male that is currently embedded in the Australian psyche.

I find it interesting how non-hegemonic patterns of masculinity are incorporated into the hegemonic masculinity, like the mainstream adoption of black hip hop culture. (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005). Or the phenomenon of the "metrosexual".


I also find it interesting how  women are central to the processes of constructing and reinforcing masculinities, as mothers, girlfriends, sexual partners, wives, daughters, friends and collegues.  New configurations of women’s identities and their power is going to have a great effect on the interplay of femininities and masculinities. As Connell points out, there is a 'fit' between hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity. . Emphasized femininity is “oriented to accommodating the interests and desires of men”; it's “the display of sociability rather than technical competence, fragility in mating scenes, compliance with men’s desires for titillation and ego-stroking in office relationships, acceptance of marriage and child care as a response to labor-market discrimination against women” (Connell 1987, p. 183- 188- 187).

References:
Connell, R  & Messerschmidt, J 2005, “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept” Gender and Society, Vol.19, No.6, pp. 829-859.

Connell, B 1987,  Gender and Power, Polity, Cambridge.

Traditional philosophical and political science theories say nothing about gender because "they could not see gender where only men where present, where no 'difference was visible"

 (Connell 2009, p.103).  

Parliamentary and governmental-level political systems, such as the UK's Westminster system, were originally structured around men, and it seems politics is still a man's world- Women make up on average only 19.5% of the world’s various parliaments (22% in the UK) and there are only 17 countries with women as head of government, state or both.

Like her or loathe her, Margaret Thatcher  was a trail blazer for women at the highest levels of politics and government. Whether she would have liked it or not (and she probably wouldn't have) Margaret Thatcher will be remembered for this as much as anything else. I assume she would not have enjoyed being thought of as a feminist trail blazer because she constantly downplayed the significance of her gender. For example:

Margaret Thatcher when asked whether she regarded her leadership of the British Conservative Party as a victory for women:

“It is not a victory for women. It is a victory for someone in politics".

Margaret Thatcher when asked whether she was excited at being the first female PM:

“I don’t think of myself as the first woman Prime Minister”.

Margaret Thatcher when asked if she considered herself a feminist:

“No, not necessarily. I think something really rather different”.

Margaret Thatcher apparently regarded feminists as ‘strident’ and said that, “if you get anywhere, it is because of your ability. It’s not because of your sex...I didn't get here by being a strident female.I don't like strident females." 

cough, cough.

The references for those quotes are here:Maggie Thatcher's dubious quotes

Thatcher herself denied having benefitted from what she called ‘women’s lib’. But this is not the same thing as her not having consciously performed gender. 

Feminist critics of Thatcherite policy will often admit a certain respect for her achievement as Prime Minister. Hence, many - both feminist and non-feminist – can agree that her role as Prime Minister was symbolically important. 

She proved that a woman could do the top job; Thatcher broke the political glass ceiling. 

And a number of contemporary conservative female politicians and businesswomen have talked about how she acted as a role model, inspiring their own careers. 

Even while Thatcher demonstrated that a woman could lead, there are those who question, what is commonly referred to as her masculinised leadership style. I suspect that much of the vitriol towards her stems from a widely held contention that women should, and do practice politics in a kinder, gentler way than men.

Margaret Thatcher proves that women come in all political hues,

and

that feminism does not speak to all women.

I think to expect that all female politicians will care about women’s issues in the same way (however we define this) is essentialist, and deeply problematic from a feminist perspective!

  

Even those who have almost nothing good to say about her political policies and decisions, surely have to acknowledge her achievement in getting the top job- The UK’s first, and so far, only woman Prime Minister.

References:

Connell, RW 2009, ‘Gender on the Large Scale’, in Gender, Polity, Cambridge, pp. 115-120.

Ahh, relativism, that ol' chestnut.

I'm pretty anti-relativist. Not to the point to being an absolute objectivist, but pretty close. Close enough to make me role my eyes at comments that deny objective reality, or moral/scientific objective truths.

At its core, I view relativism as the (perhaps well-intended but  nonetheless ridiculous) denial of the existence of rational standards. 

Science-writer and academic Dr. Gary Herstein fleshes out the logical and ethical vacuity of relativism, in a way I find very agreeable and succinct.


The relativistic approach to culture and ethics can be found everywhere, and one could say that it is deeply embedded within the thinking of many people, and is the foundation stone for political correctness. When someone says "This is my truth, that is your truth, they are equally valid, so let's agree to disagree", that's relativism in action.

"What's the problem with that?" you may ask. "Who is anyone to say that one claim to truth is more valid than any other?"

Superficially, I suppose that it's a fairly nice way of looking at things. There are some viciously absolutist systems in this world. The retreat into relativism is perhaps an (intellectually lazy) attempt to find tolerance in an otherwise intolerant world...

However, we must not confuse one’s right to believe what they choose 

with the absurd notion that those beliefs are equally true.

When it comes to scientific knowledge, the claim that there can be no objective truth is philosophically sound, but rather irrational in practice. Are we relativists about the warnings on a box of rat poison? hmmm?

Writer and neuroscientist Sam Harris makes an compelling case against relativism, and asserts that science can show us about moral values and human well-being in his rather infamous TED talk:

Feminist academic Donna Haraway is also very compelling in her rejection of relativism, as a basis in calling for the development of a 'feminist empiricism' in relation to scientific knowledge;  "...partial, locatable, critical knowledges sustaining the possibility of webs of connections called solidarity in politics and shared conversations in epistemology" (Haraway, 1991, p.191)

Stand to your feet and slow-clap over this doozy of a sentence (I know I did):
"Relativism is a way of being nowhere while claiming to be everywhere equally. The 'equality of positioning is a denial of responsibility and critical inquiry. Relativism is the perfect mirror twin of totalization in the ideologies of objectivity; both deny the stakes in location, embodiment, and partial perspective; both make it impossible to see well" (Haraway 1991, p.191).

I read Haraway as having alot in common with Post-positivist thinking and Karl Popper, in that objective knowledge is not denied (relativised), but objectivity is sought by recognising the possible effects of biases.



On a related note, the relativistic phrase "What's true for you is true for you" is frequently used in advertising material for the Church of Scientology.  Yikes.

Reference:
Haraway, D 1991, "Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective", Symians, cyborgs and women; the reinvention of nature, Routledge, New York, pp. 183-201.