pfork grappling w misogyny aka sage francis review

Also, 50 Cent is about as scary as a really muscular blouse.

I think it's a valid question. Maybe everyone's just dimissing it because it's an old one.

about 9xpost

I think this is very OTM. I also think that the role of the emcee as a storyteller as opposed to a moralgiver is germane to this discussion.

(x-post)

(xposts)

what are the other options?

x-post there's always the option of not liking blatantly homophobic raps, mark.

I also don't understand the Suicide Girls asides - why anyone would say the Suicide Girls site is an example of mysogny? (So it's run by self-hating women?!? wtf)

(xposts)

if you believe that listening to people express misogyny, homophobia, and bloodlust is harmful and hurtful, then the vast of majority is, in fact, harmful and hurtful.

Wait, that's exactly what I'm saying I have to do in order to enjoy certain hip hop songs/artists. Listening to the Ying Yang twins just the other day, the line "Faggot you better watch your mouth" slides by and you flinch and just move on. But the finch is exactly that internal moment of thinking "this is fucked up, oh well, whatever, it's not surprising, anyway . . " and then you move on. The positives about the music outweigh its negative side, but the negatives are there. I don't think the claim is "while you are listening to homophobic rap lyrics you are temporarily endorsing them or altering your beliefs".

It's not, but it's weird that this guy's trying to make a point about misogyny, objectivication of women, and how we tune those things out when it's convenient for us, all while there's a Suicide Girls ad banner flashing right beside his review.

(x-post)

xpost

That said, I wouldn't make fun of the paragraph at top; it's totally valid. We all of us kinda suspend that stuff in order to enjoy music that's just good music, but you can't suspend it entirely. And if you do suspend it entirely, you risk running into -- to borrow a phrase from Bush, which I never thought I'd have recourse to do -- the whole soft bigotry of low expectations thing. Similarly, I can rarely bring myself to completely look down on the corny-indie-fuxxor habit of getting ultra-excited about any hip-hop that goes positive or conscious and doesn't have those characteristics; you do enough of that suspension act and it's sometimes a relief to get a break.

imagine that, not always filtering life through your political beliefs!

This sentence reads like it came straight out of The Onion.

shakey, what a completely ridiculous thing to say.

The revenue of which is being used to get this review - making points about misogyny, objectification of women, & willful (or trained) obliviousness re: objectionable material (thank you Nabisco!) - online & out there for folks to talk about DO YOU SEE?

Here's a link to a PDF version of the Elizabeth Mendez-Berry article (posted on S/FJ's site).

x-post

OTM

"Of course, I don't think Sage Francis is going to make anyone change their minds or behavior, and he doesn't seem to think so either."

i don't like this. it makes the album sound pointless.

EXCEPT that there is a relative lack of discourse surrounding misogyny in all MUSIC or maybe even all of LIFE. So the reviewers example is faulty because for people who actually grapple with misogyny OUTSIDE of 50 Cent songs are definitely grappling with the misogyny in 50 Cent songs (esp. if they still like 50 Cent.) But yes for people for whom misogyny isn't something on their radar then yes I think it is very easy to ignore or whatever.

I also agree with Alex in SF in that this a symptom of a wider issue which appears (in the context of this review and in most discourse I see about hip-hop) in the minds of most white people to be the fault of black people.

Oh, I don't object to it -- however PFM pays their bills is fine with me -- but surely Mr. Howe was aware that SG ads: PFM = his point about wilful or trained obliviousness: hip-hop. Or maybe he wasn't aware.

Thank you very much for the link, Dave.

sorry to harp on this, but I really do think this is a weak point, as Suicide Girls is *not* analogous to Snoop rapping about bitch-slapping women or whatever. (I second the request for an example of 50s lyrics, cuz I really don't listen or pay attention to him)

the rationale people use is that rap is so popular and thus hypothetically more damaging to the wee ones listening to it (and thus, a bigger target for the ire of morally outraged folks.).

I mean, am I the only person on this thread that doesn't accept the Dworkin/Mackinnon argument that pornography by its nature is mysogynistic and inherently harmful to women?

I agree with you, Shakey. Seriously.

That Sage Francis record is a drag. He makes it sound like if you respect women, you will become a tedious crank who drops lame, ancient dick-as-mic metaphors. Somehow that doesn't seem to me like the best way to bring about equality and understanding etc.

I wasn't referring to SG = "the content on the SG site", I specifically meant the situation where we have SG ads appearing all over PFM. Anyway, this is off-topic, and I wasn't intending to derail the thread.

That said, I'm sure as you trend away from the radio-friendly you get much more active and cringe-worth forms of misogyny and homophobia; and of course even the extreme-objectification is problematic, hugely problematic. And really I think the only thing that'll tone it down is the presence and hopefully the vocal protest of women as a market category for these records. I mean, you're not gonna clean up rap by having white people complain about it; you're not gonna clean up rap by having older black people complain about it in some paternalistic way; but when college-aged black women -- a money market! -- are getting annoyed at Nelly, that might do something. And I don't think the result will be to neuter hip-hop, but just to expose the market that's always existed for people talking in different modes. Hell, look at Tupac: Thug Life or not, the guy pulled a massive female audience just by occasionally getting emo-earnest about stuff.

This thread reminds me of how I can only listen to half the songs on Death Certificate these days and virtually none on Efil4zaggin

No I agree. I think thats one of those examples of Liberals, by attempting to be super-liberal, winding up extremely conservative.

That's funny, I always thought that white critics were more likely to single Eminem out as the symbol of hip-hop homophobia because they didn't want to be accused of being racist for criticizing a black artist.

x-post

goddamnit pitchfork is down and I sooooo want to link to that fuck-crazy Air 50.000 hz Legend review.

I'm sure this was addressed at various points, based on my skim -- I think Drew in particular -- but is there any reason (or rather, *should* there be any reason) to expect a consistency in your own reactions to art based on specific subject matter and reference?

(Then again what do I know, I don't listen to lyrics. ;-))

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/a/air/10000-hz-legend.shtml

I can't wait to write a review that includes a sentence starting "The obvious comparison that my girlfriend should have made..."

Wow! What a prick!

Scratching in your henhouse
Sniffing at your feedbag
Slipping out your back door
I'm leaving my spray

Sex farm woman
I'm gonna mow you down
Sex farm woman
I'll rake and mow you down

Sex farm woman
Don't you see my silo risin' high
Working on a sex farm
Hosing down your barn door
Bothering your livestock
They know what I need

Working up a hot sweat
I'm scretching in your pea patch
Plowing through your beanfield
Planting my seed

Sex farm woman
I'll be your hired hand
Sex farm woman
I'll let my offer stand
Sex farm woman
Don't you feel my tractor rumbling by
by-by-byyyy

Working on a sex farm
Wolfing down some cornbread
I'm turning on the tv
Joining the grange.

---

I wouldn't say she was a lost cause, but my girlfriend needed a music doctor like I needed, well, a girlfriend. That is, desperately. Call it a perfect match. She'd spent too many years clubbing to have more than a passing knowledge of non-techno music, and I'd spent too many years shucking to have more than a passing knowledge of monogamous sex. The results have been fast, effective, and largely painless. She's taken to the Pixies, and I've taken to, um, lots of sex.

Air's debut, 1998's Moon Safari, is not only a pop classic of retro-futurism; it also provides a damn fine soundtrack to the otherworldly act of sex. Needless to say, we became well acquainted with the album, which both of us were already fond of to begin with. Their soundtrack to Sofia Coppola's directorial debut, 2000's The Virgin Suicides, was a similarly fluid pour of analog synths, but the album was a less pop-oriented, more minor-key affair. And if you've seen the movie, you can understand why I wouldn't want to do "the beast with two backs" while listening to its irrevocably-linked score.

So would Air's official follow-up to Moon Safari be a return to coital form? I'll let my girlfriend do the talking:

"Weird."

That would be the opener, "Electronic Performers." She wasn't necessarily turned off by the deep bass thumps that rip into electronic handclaps. Or the occasional heavy rapping, like the landlord at your door a day after the rent's due. And it definitely wasn't the radar beeps or the fluctuating machinations of the keyboard. I think it was the vocals. Accompanied by a natural piano, a distorted voice sings, "We are the synchronizers/ Send messages through time code." And it is weird, like something Dean and Gene Ween would come up with. But with lines such as, "We need to use envelope filters/ To say how we feel," the track is also an oddly beautiful lament.

"The Radiohead voice!"

Yes, a whispery version of the fitter, happier Macintalk voice makes an appearance on the love song, "How Does It Make You Feel?" But a real voice-- resident keyboardist Roger Joseph Manning Jr.-- sings the ELO-inspired chorus. The beat, meanwhile, is cut from the exact same mold as The Virgin Suicides-- from the dark, ambling pace all the way down to the angelic voices coalescing in the background. But whereas that album-- and "the Radiohead voice," for that matter-- remain serious to the end, this song concludes with a funny moment. After listing off his feelings, the male computerized voice receives an abrupt retort from a female computerized voice: "Well, I really think you should quit smoking."

"It's like rock-n-roll."

"The Vagabond" makes you wish for a full-length Beck/Air collaboration. But at first, it's all Beck: a harmonica solo, folky acoustic strumming, Beck's distinctive, marble-mouthed vocals, and tolls ringing in the background. You'd think he donated a b-side from Mutations. That's when Air's laser-gun atmospherics shoot forth. The drums that kick in midway are also decidedly more similar to Air's previous work. Beck even ends the number with his trademark falsetto and a cackling laugh a la "Hollywood Freaks," so yes, she's right: this is rock-n-roll. But then again, a moment later she said, "Honey, isn't rock-n-roll a weird name?"

"Is this the same album?"

By the halfway mark, "Lucky and Unhappy," the poor girl had been thrown for more than one loop-- not to mention "Radian," Air's most overwrought Bacharach-inspired track to date. And now here was this untraceable throbbing, this eerie computerized whirring, voices of different distortions, and an acoustic guitar to ground it all; then a skittering beat and a swirling orchestra; and even later, static popping and off-key keyboards.

Songs from the album's second half provided little relief. "Sex Born Poison" pairs a vocoderized voice with the Japanese vocals of Buffalo Daughter; then, for good measure, adds what sounds like digital Ping-Pong-- or maybe the noises "Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!" makes while Little Mac is popping King Hippo in the gut and mouth. After opening with a thick electro-pulse and digi-congos, the chantey "People in the City" reaches a simple acoustic epiphany-- think the Beta Band's "Dry the Rain"-- before descending into muddled feedback and heavy electronic gurgling. And the final number, "Caramel Prisoner," is an ambient come-down-- kind of like a rollercoaster coming to rest with a bloody, broken-nosed Fabio aboard.

"I like it, but it's kind of all over the place."

I'm a little scared to admit it, but we're on the same page here. The barely cohesive 10,000 Hz Legend is both a concern and a relief. There's only one truly catchy song-- the Low-era Bowie-esque "Radio #1"-- but it doesn't have quite the same bounce (not to mention single potential) as "Sexy Boy." So you probably won't hear any of these songs on the radio, and I can say with absolute certainty that this won't be Details' album of the year, as Moon Safari was. I don't say this because it matters, but rather to indicate that Nicolas Godin and Jean-Benoît Dunckel have steadfastly refused to be pigeonholed. For better or worse, this is not Moon Safari Redux.

The obvious comparison that my girlfriend should have made is to the Chemical Brothers, who took a similar stylistic leap on their last album, 1999's Surrender, even though staying the big-beat course would have been the easier and more profitable thing to do. But for some reason Spike Lee's work also comes to mind: there are plenty of hits and misses, but the experience is worth it for the invigorating knowledge that this critically established artist isn't afraid to take his art in new directions. Plus, my girlfriend and I love that Spike always slips a hot sex scene into his films.

-Ryan Kearney, May 29th, 2001

"the otherworldly act of sex"!!

(oh man now it's part of the thread?)

i don't dream. (Saddle Creek.) i emo much.
you know what i mean. Yay "Electric Dreams."
and my Numan League with the Radiohead and my Jay-Z.
this is my beautiful dream.

so, ned, you voted for pig destroyer in the pazz & jop based on the music, not on the lovely and poetic lyrics???

11. Torture Ballad

the tape across your mouth says more than your words ever could you're
squirming and screaming as I tease your eyes with glowing needles crawl slug
drag your shattered legs behind I know no matter how much I hurt you she'll
always love you more than me but all of this isn't for the sake of her love
it's for the sake of my jealousy

Okay, answering myself to get back on track more:

is there any reason (or rather, *should* there be any reason) to expect a consistency in your own reactions to art based on specific subject matter and reference?

I don't think there is a reason but I don't think that one can or should assume is the case with any other potential listener -- which may seem obvious but as the MIA threads showed, what could seem to be abstract and/or noncontroversial for one could have a very specific and grounded meaning for another, and that brought a lot of people up sharp. Not a unique or sudden development, merely a new example of same.

this is actually a pretty clever line even if you are anti-torture.

sage hatin on VICE magazine yet?
m.

I also don't get the mentality that says you can enjoy a song even though the lyrics are sickening--for me anyway the lyrical content is inseparable from the musical form. Eminem is a great example. I definitely have friends who think Eminem is deep and ironic and think 50 Cent is misogynist and hateful and are fine with it--which, obviously, has a pretty inescapable racial subtext.

I hope this changes--there are a lot of songs I want to love, but can't because of it.

I also don't get the mentality that says you can enjoy a song even though the lyrics are sickening--for me anyway the lyrical content is inseparable from the musical form. Eminem is a great example. I definitely have friends who think Eminem is deep and ironic and think 50 Cent is misogynist and hateful and are fine with it--which, obviously, has a pretty inescapable racial subtext.

I hope this changes--there are a lot of songs I want to enjoy, but can't because of it. And the Vibe article was great. You don't have to argue for some inseparable connection between art and action to see the connection that does exist between them in these particular instances.

So wait, how is it a good paragraph again? Isn't what you are saying (that YOU do think about how misogynistic/homophobic is and that it does affect your enjoyment ability to listen) in exact opposition to what the writer is claiming (that well meaning progressive people like you switch off that ability to think critically about music when confronted with viewpoints that you might find repugnant and just listen anyway)?

Suicidegirls aside, there is a kind of creepy anti-female vibe to a good number of pfork pieces. That's why I can't take this article too seriously.

me! I'm sorry, if I was less drunk I'd post a decently though out post, but all I can say now is that I see nothing inconsistent with believing certain opinions and enjoying art which ostensibly propagates opposing opinions. I mean, you may as well ask how atheists can enjoy music which is explicitly Xtian eg "Jesus Walks".

the homophobia/dancehall issue does concern me a lot, but more as a facet of the wider homophobia/Jamaica issue. misogyny/hip-hop stopped concerning me when I realised that Trina/Missy/Kim gave a lot better than they got, and all would wipe the floor with Fiddy let alone Sage Francis. hip-hop's always been a bit camp anyway.

I think music / movies / art are gray areas where you're allowed to believe, for a limited time, in things you wouldn't believe in otherwise, which can be fun. Lots of art works this way. I agree with nabisco though about "working-class black = 'dumb enough to be a misogynist' ... middle-class white = 'too smart to actually be racist.'" I.e., I suspect that my friends also find this stuff objectionable, but that many of them think they're above it and it doesn't bother them quite as much as it bothers me. In fact it's the apparent firmness of their political beliefs that lets them feel this way. It's the idea that you can be above the words you read / the music you dance to / the lyrics you sing along to that weirds me out. Maybe that's more nabisco's point than the article's--but a lot of people think that way. You might be right that their politics simply aren't that developed, but it's still a real phenomenon that I see all the time.

I don't think it's inconsistent at all actually. But I also don't think that people ignore the differences between their opinions and the opinions espoused by the music they listen to (esp. when the rifts between the two are massive.) And I think Atheists listening to "Jesus Walks" or Gospel or roots reggae are hyper aware of their respective differences.

xpost

not at the moment of listening, not if it's as powerful as "Jesus Walks". maybe at the time of thinking about it afterwards, but that's a different matter. great songs can take you there whether you believe in it or not.

I'm not sure how misogynistic I become when eg "Wait" 'takes me there' but then I don't think it's that misogynistic anyway (I explained why on the original thread).

http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/swift/english/e_swift

"If one is capable of intellectual detachment, one can perceive merit in a writer whom one deeply disagrees with, but enjoyment is a different matter. Supposing that there is such a thing as good or bad art, then the goodness or badness must reside in the work of art itself- not independently of the observer, indeed, but independently of the mood of the observer. In one sense, therefore, it cannot be true that a poem is good on Monday and bad on Tuesday. But if one judges the poem by the appreciation it arouses, then it can certainly be true, because appreciation, or enjoyment, is a subjective condition which cannot be commanded. ... And aesthetic judgement can be upset just as disastrously — more disastrously, because the cause is less readily recognized — by political or moral disagreement. If a book angers, wounds or alarms you, then you will not enjoy it, whatever its merits may be. If it seems to you a really pernicious book, likely to influence other people in some undesirable way, then you will probably construct an aesthetic theory to show that it has no merits. Current literary criticism consists quite largely of this kind of dodging to and fro between two sets of standards. And yet the opposite process can also happen: enjoyment can overwhelm disapproval, even though one clearly recognizes that one is enjoying something inimical. Swift, whose world-view is so peculiarly unacceptable, but who is nevertheless an extremely popular writer, is a good instance of this....

It is not enough to make the usual answer that of course Swift was wrong, in fact he was insane, but he was ‘a good writer’. It is true that the literary quality of a book is to some small extent separable from its subject-matter. Some people have a native gift for using words, as some people have a naturally ‘good eye’ at games.... But not all the power and simplicity of Swift's prose, nor the imaginative effort that has been able to make not one but a whole series of impossible worlds more credible than the majority of history books — none of this would enable us to enjoy Swift if his world-view were truly wounding or shocking. Millions of people, in many countries, must have enjoyed Gulliver's Travels while more or less seeing its anti-human implications.... The explanation must be that Swift's world-view is felt to be not altogether false — or it would probably be more accurate to say, not false all the time. Swift is a diseased writer. He remains permanently in a depressed mood which in most people is only intermittent, rather as though someone suffering from jaundice or the after-effects of influenza should have the energy to write books. But we all know that mood, and something in us responds to the expression of it. Take, for instance, one of his most characteristic works, The Lady's Dressing Room: one might add the kindred poem, Upon a Beautiful Young Nymph Going to Bed. Which is truer, the viewpoint expressed in these poems, or the viewpoint implied in Blake's phrase, ‘The naked female human form divine’? No doubt Blake is nearer the truth, and yet who can fail to feel a sort of pleasure in seeing that fraud, feminine delicacy, exploded for once? Swift falsifies his picture of the world by refusing to see anything in human life except dirt, folly and wickedness, but the part which he abstracts from the whole does exist, and it is something which we all know about while shrinking from mentioning it. Part of our minds — in any normal person it is the dominant part — believes that man is a noble animal and life is worth living: but there is also a sort of inner self which at least intermittently stands aghast at the horror of existence. In the queerest way, pleasure and disgust are linked together....

It is often argued, at least by people who admit the importance of subject-matter, that a book cannot be ‘good’ if it expresses a palpably false view of life. We are told that in our own age, for instance, any book that has genuine literary merit will also be more or less ‘progressive’ in tendency. This ignores the fact that throughout history a similar struggle between progress and reaction has been raging, and that the best books of any one age have always been written from several different viewpoints, some of them palpably more false than others. In so far as a writer is a propagandist, the most one can ask of him is that he shall genuinely believe in what he is saying, and that it shall not be something blazingly silly. To-day, for example, one can imagine a good book being written by a Catholic, a Communist, a Fascist, pacifist, an anarchist, perhaps by an old-style Liberal or an ordinary Conservative: one cannot imagine a good book being written by a spiritualist, a Buchmanite or a member of the Ku-Klux-KIan. The views that a writer holds must be compatible with sanity, in the medical sense, and with the power of continuous thought: beyond that what we ask of him is talent, which is probably another name for conviction. Swift did not possess ordinary wisdom, but he did possess a terrible intensity of vision, capable of picking out a single hidden truth and then magnifying it and distorting it. The durability of Gulliver's Travels goes to show that, if the force of belief is behind it, a world-view which only just passes the test of sanity is sufficient to produce a great work of art."

Worth pondering with regard to hip hop misogyny, esp. that second paragraph.... Anyway, this is a more aesthetic explanation of what we've been talking about in purely racial / political terms, e.g., "In the queerest way, pleasure and disgust are linked together" when you disagree with the content but enjoy the form of a work of art.

like Burzum?

Sure. Men are paid less than women, for one thing. But on the other hand, it's very rare that a video will feature men being slapped around, tied up, pissed on, etc., by women. On the other hand, I've seen videos where women were being screwed while having their heads shoved in buckets of water for almost a minute at a time. Hard not to call that exploitation, no matter the paycheck at the end.

Talking actual prices is instructive. Since I'm in the porn business, I know what the prices are. If a girl does a blowjob scene, she'll get $200-250. She'll get an additional $50 if the guy pisses in her mouth afterward. Is that exploitation (by the standards that, say, third world garment workers are exploited - i.e. they should be getting more money for what they're doing)? Would you let someone piss in your mouth for $50? Or, to go up the scale, would you let six guys fuck you in the ass, without condoms but with paperwork "assuring" that they were HIV negative (not assuring that they were free of, say, gonorrhea or chlamydia), for $1000? How about $1200? That's about the price ceiling, unless you're a big star (Jenna doesn't do boy-girl anal, under any circumstances).

But on the other hand, it's very rare that a video will feature men being slapped around, tied up, pissed on, etc., by women.

Because the business ASSUMES women don't like that sort of thing. I am sure there are women who do enjoy this. It's just that people still have the idea that only men enjoy porn. This is not the case at all. It's slowly changing but there's still this idea that women don't like "hard sex." (to put it in a simplistic way)

(x-post)

If I punch you in the eye, you get a black eye. If I wait until a guy with a hand-held video camera yells "action," then give you that black eye, how is that different?

anyway, maybe i go about life the wrong way but i tend to laugh at the most misogynistic rap out there because obviously i understand that some of these things are terrible portrayals of women and totally irresponsible, but i dunno, i feel like it creates a balance in the genre. if there isn't that shit, the check will not be created in order to balance it.

can i vote necessary evil?

note: sage francis is a nice dude. after that review i wrote him, he sent me some more obscure records (joe beats 'reverse discourse', for example). good times. i've yet to hear the new album.

Alex in SF be running this misogyny in rap thread shit. So OTM.

If Swift's argument is that because millions in many countries enjoy Swift, there must in fact be something true about his worldview, is the same true about Eminem/50 Cent/controversial rapper du jour? I feel the Orwell piece is On The Money, but I don't think it's arguing what you think it is.

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but WHERE exactly is this "balance" in rap....the misogynistic stuff is everywhere...I don't see a whole lot of differing views (in the mainstream stuff that I come across, I don't really pay attention to underground rap anymore)....

and xpost re porn: if those Americans among us (although we don't exclusive rights to it) lived in a full employment economy, it might be a different matter to employ the victorian morals that everyone knows are bogus and hypocritical anyway - there would be "civilized" options outside of sex work, and then the rational choice theorists among us could sneer, or harbor jealousy, at those who felt that porn/stripping/prostitution gave them the best return for their time spent at work. if anything the argument should be made that porn should be better regulated for workers and that salaries should be raised across the board. this doesn't mean that the freaky stuff would stop, but that it would be better compensated - after all, it's estimated that it's an industry as big as Hollywood, and after all, it keeps a number of independent rental houses afloat. You didn't think Antonioni and Bruckheimer rented that well anyway, right?

http://citypages.com/databank/19/893/article4117.asp

He's right, but I guess I just don't believe in, and will never believe in, "objective" art criticism. I want to read about why someone loves or hates something. And part of that is recognizing the aesthetic merits in evil art.

See also Pauline Kael's review of Straw Dogs, which she called the first fascist work of art in movies, and rightly panned as such...

I am not joking, but I really don't understand what you are saying. Sorry, English isn't my first language. This ties in with the fact that English lyrics never *jump out* at me, I don't pay as much attention to'em and by the time I do, I have usually made my mind up about the song.

Kael also recognized the turn-on of Straw Dogs, I should add.

Where does Dumpster Juice singing about porker punks fit into all this?

http://www.tt.net/vault/discos/dumpster.html

"How many cunts does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"

"How many?"

"None!"

*laughter all around*

I thought that joke summed up what DJ is all about pretty well.

Sincerity trumps snarkiness any day.

Xgau made the argument that the Marshall Mathers LP actually unpacks the type of misogyny that was a big part of male pop-culture in the 1990s, and I agree with that - "drips" is the first time he didn't give himself the out clause, and I skip it because it is just misogynistic - something that can't be said for "Kim".

There are literally hundreds of hip hop records that either make something of thematic material that is broadly offensive in some way, or whose musical conception is so compelling that you recognise the artists as young people who you hope will learn some lessons in life and go with the music anyway. Such is life. Complacent misogyny is rarely worth pissing in the direction of, but someone tackling dangerous material, when they're up to it, can be thrilling, and holds out the possibility of staking out new political ground, meat and drink for staunch progressives.

Dont be such an angry stalker, dude