Now let’s look at these lyrics: OK now he was close, tried to domesticate you But you’re an animal, baby it’s in your nature Just let me liberate you, You don’t need no paper,That man is not your maker. Kind of sounds like a women’s lib anthem if you ask me. I recently read an article on XO Jane that discusses the problems with women in relationships being seen as a man’s territory. And that is exactly what Robin Thicke’s character is saying! “That man is not your maker”—he’s saying her boyfriend doesn’t own her! Granted he has a vested interest in saying that, in that he wants her to stray from her relationship to be with him, but essentially he’s reminding her that she’s an independent person who can make her own decisions about her sexuality, regardless of whether she has a boyfriend.I think in order to understand why I don’t find the song offensive, we have to ask ourselves what it is really about. Everyone seems to think it’s about a guy slinging a helpless girl over his shoulder or dragging her home by her hair. Not so. It is, in essence, about a guy trying to steal a girl away from her boyfriend/current love interest for some hanky-panky. In this sense, the song is no more offensive than “You Belong with Me” by Taylor Swift (although in this brief side note I would argue that the latter is actually MORE offensive. Look at her lyrics: “She wears high heels/I wear sneakers….She wears short skirts/I wear tee shirts.” Here, Ms. Nice-Girl-Next-Door is actually implying that the clothes she chooses makes her more down to earth, and therefore more worthy of Neighbor Boy’s love. Now THAT is Grade A slut-shaming, and I don’t see anyone batting an eye).
I've gotta say... This makes a lot of sense.
I have to say that I found myself sort of agreeing with this article. But it is a poor argument in a few ways. Taylor Swift is a big slut-shamer but I have heard many people upset about it. It may not have made as big main-stream controversy as blurred lines but it definitely had people batting an eye. So I disagree that people are letting her off the hook and that this is a good argument for why Blurred Lines is not misogynist. Secondly they purposefully ignore the worst lines in the song. I know you want it I know you want it I know you want it You're a good girl Can't let it get past me You're far from plastic Talk about getting blasted I hate these blurred lines I know you want it is what men have been known to say to girls who say no, but they are convinced no means yes. Can't let it get past me just seems a bit rapey again. I hate these blurred lines I don't think it is a stretch to see this as the blurred lines between consent and statutory rape. Later in the song: Maybe less rapey then other lyrics but definitely not the women's rights message this article makes it seem like he is trying to give. Hey, hey, hey What rhymes with hug me? Hey, hey, hey This one isn't as offensive as it is just poor rhyme scheme. I've also heard that he said he has been respectful to women his whole life and this song was like his break from that. But I haven't been able to confirm it with a link, so that is just something I heard. Personally I'm not a big fan of pop (except Macklemore now he seems like a nice guy).And that's why I'm gon' take a good girl
You the hottest bitch in this place
You wanna hug me
I recall having or reading a conversation with theadvancedapes and he said is Thicke was a happily married man to his high school sweetheart. Let's not forget that there was a music video too in which the women were basically sex objects. -Nothing new, but it makes it all the more easy to believe that the lyrics are about empowering women. Still, I enjoyed this read/take on the situation.
The video for this is essentially the women on sex objects. He can be happily married to his high school sweetheart and still be a misogynist. Most men were married when practically everyone was sexist. Plus I'm saying the song is bad, I don't know how much he wrote it.
I liked that take on the situation, but for me it still poses a problem. I'm super down for equality, but what these kinds of discussions communicate to me, is that the only way for people to get along is to be polite and formal with each other, according to arbitrary standards. The problem with being polite all the time is that it does not encourage people to get to know each other beyond mere formality and in some ways makes us less human to each other, which is exactly opposite of what is trying to be achieved. Of course, the issue is really one of respect, not politeness, but there's no way to force people to be respectful unless it's at the point of a knife or a lawsuit and then it's not genuine. I'm not saying I have a solution in mind or anything, but I certainly don't think that everyone walking on eggshells is going to solve anything other than a deficit of resentment (which does not exist).
Spot on with the difference between politeness and respect. I would say that the two are often correlated, but there's is no causal relationship. In my daily life, I am often polite to people that I respect very little (out of expedience at work, for example), while many other times I'm down right rude to people I care about and respect (like when I harp on my sister to get in the gym, for God's sake). Politeness is a very overrated quality, and often times, it causes as many problems as it solves (such as when we're timid about expressing our feelings, because we don't want to come of as an asshole, even though we're sure we're correct, an experience I'm sure everyone can relate to).
Haha, yeah I know what you mean. Sometimes the worst insults come from the most polite people. I have the feeling that our customs of expressing respect somehow devolved into mere politeness, but that those courtesies were originally intended as a neutral starting point from which people would then be able to to learn about each other more. I've read theories on how waving and shaking hands are both intended to show others at a distance that one is not armed or that one is not hiding a weapon in one's sleeve. Similarly, the clinking of glasses is intended to show that there is no poison in one's cup, by allowing the liquids to slosh into each other. However true those theories may be, I think that politeness has its place; but as with so many things, we've taken it entirely too far. This is another reason why I think it's a good idea to travel while one is young. In many countries, what I would consider as merely polite comes off as overly formal and impersonal. There are places where saying "thank you" is a bit offensive, since it implies that one did not expect to receive generosity or hospitality, which in some cultures is a big no-no. Even among friends, these layers of politeness and the desire to give others space out of social custom or respect are different elsewhere. I heard a good example on the radio a while back from a man from Africa who said that the difference between people in America and his home country are how people would react if a friend came into their home and woke them in the middle of the night. In America, people would be perhaps a bit upset that their friend had entered their home without permission and had woken them, asking, "what's wrong?" and other questions before deciding whether or not to help out. In the man's home country, a friend would put on their clothes and simply ask, "where are we going?"
Hey, you, you jerk! (In the interest of still contributing to the discussion I greatly enjoyed this feminist critique of the critiques. I also really liked thenewgreen's dramatic reading of "Blurred Lines;" if anyone hasn't seen it, go check it out on Soundcloud. The song is meant to be shocking. I'm sure Thicke has mostly enjoyed/benefited from all the uproar.)the only way for people to get along is to be polite and formal with each other, according to arbitrary standards. The problem with being polite all the time is that it does not encourage people to get to know each other beyond mere formality and in some ways makes us less human to each other
This underlines the strength and weakness of feminism, and all critical theory: it's about the subtext. And the subtext, ladies and gentlemen, is created part and parcel by the reader/viewer/critic. It's nuanced. And it is (in wanting to be disseminated) inflammatory. Engaged with superficially, critical theory can be pretty damn stifling. But if you watched the video, then read the criticism, then read the criticism of the criticism, and hell maybe even read this analysis of Miley's VMA then you'd have a pretty damned nuanced snapshot of modern american sexuality in mainstream culture. All this is healthy. Only some of it, not so much. Such is politics.
Such a good song. Thicke did a great performance on Colbert's show Just rewatched it and you can see how nice a guy he is or is trying to portray with the song. At around 3 minutes he goes into the audience and serenades two older women. Just check it out.