Following Jessie J's revelation that she is Bi-sexual, and that on occasion she really does do it like a dude (snort) I got thinking about hip-hop in general and whether if it was a male star who had admitted their bisexuality, they would have been accepted so eadily. And I think the answer is, sadly, no. For a genre that began as a way for a persecuted minority to express their views, it seems glibbly ironic that they would so readily use that platform to denounce another minority. One of the most mocked Hip-Hop videos of recent times is this:
But I am the only one who finds the rather quaint and old fashioned subject matter of dating a girl rather charming? I mean it's infinitely preferable to this:
Which is the most offensive video I've seen since I watched a documentary on the Nuremnberg address. Basically, mainstream hip-hop has problems.
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Thursday, 3 February 2011
In response to........
Over at the New Statesman, Helen Lewis- Hasteley has written a blogpost lambasting anyone with left leaning principles who happen to enjoy football. The crux of her argument being that the game is homophobic, rife with sexism and dangerously proliferate with money. All points that are, on the surface, very hard to argue with. However, if you dig a little deeper you will find that her argument is not based on anything approaching Football's disregard for her base principals, but rather the fact she simply doesn't like football.
Hasteley describes the modern footballers relationship with women as “like something out of the 1650s -- they are the omnipotent monarchs, surrounded by sycophants and flunkies, and they have their pick from among the poor damsels who clamour for their favour.” Ignoring the fact that during 1650's England was actually a republic governed by Oliver Cromwell and the Commonwealth of England, Hasteley's point, though valid, subscribes little free will to the women in question. There's no doubt that a majority of footballers are misogynistic and view women as trophies to be bragged about in their locker room. But these women can still say no, if they don't want to sleep with a footballer, they don't have to. There's no law forcing the “favoured waif” into John Terry's “mock Tudor mansion.” My guess is that these women want the range rover and the small dog and are perfectly happy to sacrifice their dignity to get them. You just have to look at the countless double page spreads about how Abbey Clancey has forgiven Peter Crouch for his “mistakes” to see that. If she was unhappy with the trinkets on offer she could have left, but she didn't and that was her decision. Hasteley challenges us to show her a football marriage that is a partnership of equals: Jamie and Louise Redknapp, Sir Alex and Cathy Ferguson, Jose and Matlide Mourinho and, for a while, Ashley and Cheryl Cole. I think what Hasteley meant was show me a football marriage in Heat magazine and I'll show you a look of surprise. Footballers like Paul Scholes are very seldom found in their turgi scrolls. Hasteley's problem is that she has tarred all Footballers with the morals of gutterdogs like Wayne Rooney and John Terry, which is where her arguments falter.
Hasteley argues that football is sexist, however when you look at the growth of Women's football, the opening match of this years Womens World Cup has sold 50,000 tickets, it suggests otherwise. Indeed, much of the backlash against Andy Grey and Richard Keys was precisely because of Football's popularity amongst women; travel to any football match, be it premier league or the conference, and you will find a healthy female contingent, and not because their husband and boyfriends dragged them there.
Football is homophobic. I can't argue with that, I wish I could but I can't. I don't feel that this is a problem limited to just football though and is one, again, that football suffers from as a consequence of society- how many people in parliament or the city are openly homosexual? Very few. Recently, the only top level sportsman to openly admit they were gay was Gareth Thomas, and he now has to suffer the indignity of Mickey Rourke playing him in a film. This is something that we, as a society, should look at. Although I can admit that the dressing room culture doesn't help, I feel the under representation of homosexuals outside of industries involving the arts is a larger problem within our society, and not one which can be laid soley at Football's door.
Money in the modern game has long been an issue with many fans, you just have to speak to a supporter of AFC Wimbledon and FC United to see that. Hasteley comments that “We carp about bankers' bonuses but Liverpool FC has just spent £35m on Andy Carroll, who has little track record and is currently injured. Who is he? What wonderment is he going to weave to justify spending more than a thousand times the average salary on securing his services? It's just part of a growing trend where even those who are only moderately good at kicking a bit of leather about are handsomely rewarded for the privilege.” and this is true: £35 million for Andy Carroll is ridiculous. However, so is someone earning £3 million pound a week to write about wizards, paying someone £255,000 pound a week to pretend to be a doctor and people earning £100,000 a year for guessing where to invest other peoples money. Hasteley's problem here isn't football; it's Capitalism. Football is an effect rather than a cause, and unfortunately we live in a society where entertainers are paid inordinate amounts in relation to their actual skills, and, while the premier league is our biggest export, they will earn sickening amounts. I am more comfortable with rewarding people for “the rewarding of people for a fluke of genetics” as Hastley puts, than rewarding someone for a fluke of birthplace as seems to be the criterion for most city jobs, including journalism. To paraphrase Nick Hornby in Fever Pitch: you can either kick a ball or you can't. The good thing about football is that there is no hiding place. If you are no good you will be found out, which is more than can be said about many other professions, and the fact that many of the top level footballers come from working class backgrounds is something a leftie would applaud, surely? It's one of the few industries where connections get you nowhere and talent get's you everywhere.
I know football isn't perfect, but I don't think for one minute it is mutually exclusive from leftist principles. I think Hasteley's main problem is that she has confused football with Premiership Football. There are lots of ways to indulge your football fix without ascribing to the Sky Juggernaut and Yes, there are problems but there are problems with every industry if you look closely enough. To use Hastley's logic I might as well never eat another hamburger ever again simply because I don't like MacDonalds. And that is something, as a leftie, I wouldn't agree with.
Hasteley describes the modern footballers relationship with women as “like something out of the 1650s -- they are the omnipotent monarchs, surrounded by sycophants and flunkies, and they have their pick from among the poor damsels who clamour for their favour.” Ignoring the fact that during 1650's England was actually a republic governed by Oliver Cromwell and the Commonwealth of England, Hasteley's point, though valid, subscribes little free will to the women in question. There's no doubt that a majority of footballers are misogynistic and view women as trophies to be bragged about in their locker room. But these women can still say no, if they don't want to sleep with a footballer, they don't have to. There's no law forcing the “favoured waif” into John Terry's “mock Tudor mansion.” My guess is that these women want the range rover and the small dog and are perfectly happy to sacrifice their dignity to get them. You just have to look at the countless double page spreads about how Abbey Clancey has forgiven Peter Crouch for his “mistakes” to see that. If she was unhappy with the trinkets on offer she could have left, but she didn't and that was her decision. Hasteley challenges us to show her a football marriage that is a partnership of equals: Jamie and Louise Redknapp, Sir Alex and Cathy Ferguson, Jose and Matlide Mourinho and, for a while, Ashley and Cheryl Cole. I think what Hasteley meant was show me a football marriage in Heat magazine and I'll show you a look of surprise. Footballers like Paul Scholes are very seldom found in their turgi scrolls. Hasteley's problem is that she has tarred all Footballers with the morals of gutterdogs like Wayne Rooney and John Terry, which is where her arguments falter.
Hasteley argues that football is sexist, however when you look at the growth of Women's football, the opening match of this years Womens World Cup has sold 50,000 tickets, it suggests otherwise. Indeed, much of the backlash against Andy Grey and Richard Keys was precisely because of Football's popularity amongst women; travel to any football match, be it premier league or the conference, and you will find a healthy female contingent, and not because their husband and boyfriends dragged them there.
Football is homophobic. I can't argue with that, I wish I could but I can't. I don't feel that this is a problem limited to just football though and is one, again, that football suffers from as a consequence of society- how many people in parliament or the city are openly homosexual? Very few. Recently, the only top level sportsman to openly admit they were gay was Gareth Thomas, and he now has to suffer the indignity of Mickey Rourke playing him in a film. This is something that we, as a society, should look at. Although I can admit that the dressing room culture doesn't help, I feel the under representation of homosexuals outside of industries involving the arts is a larger problem within our society, and not one which can be laid soley at Football's door.
Money in the modern game has long been an issue with many fans, you just have to speak to a supporter of AFC Wimbledon and FC United to see that. Hasteley comments that “We carp about bankers' bonuses but Liverpool FC has just spent £35m on Andy Carroll, who has little track record and is currently injured. Who is he? What wonderment is he going to weave to justify spending more than a thousand times the average salary on securing his services? It's just part of a growing trend where even those who are only moderately good at kicking a bit of leather about are handsomely rewarded for the privilege.” and this is true: £35 million for Andy Carroll is ridiculous. However, so is someone earning £3 million pound a week to write about wizards, paying someone £255,000 pound a week to pretend to be a doctor and people earning £100,000 a year for guessing where to invest other peoples money. Hasteley's problem here isn't football; it's Capitalism. Football is an effect rather than a cause, and unfortunately we live in a society where entertainers are paid inordinate amounts in relation to their actual skills, and, while the premier league is our biggest export, they will earn sickening amounts. I am more comfortable with rewarding people for “the rewarding of people for a fluke of genetics” as Hastley puts, than rewarding someone for a fluke of birthplace as seems to be the criterion for most city jobs, including journalism. To paraphrase Nick Hornby in Fever Pitch: you can either kick a ball or you can't. The good thing about football is that there is no hiding place. If you are no good you will be found out, which is more than can be said about many other professions, and the fact that many of the top level footballers come from working class backgrounds is something a leftie would applaud, surely? It's one of the few industries where connections get you nowhere and talent get's you everywhere.
I know football isn't perfect, but I don't think for one minute it is mutually exclusive from leftist principles. I think Hasteley's main problem is that she has confused football with Premiership Football. There are lots of ways to indulge your football fix without ascribing to the Sky Juggernaut and Yes, there are problems but there are problems with every industry if you look closely enough. To use Hastley's logic I might as well never eat another hamburger ever again simply because I don't like MacDonalds. And that is something, as a leftie, I wouldn't agree with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)