Right. Following on from my earlier post 'Music, lyrics and the PMRC', I've done a bit more thinking about what I said, particularly about the political side of things. For a start, I'm going to emphasize that I stand by everything detailed in that post, and still hold those beliefs. But a question that did occur to me is whether censorship is ever truly appropriate. To clarify, in my earlier post, I did not mean that I thought that the lyrics of Green Day should be censored; far from it, I just felt that these are some of the most extreme cases in the mainstream.
However, outside of the mainstream there are some murky things to be found. What I want to explore is whether music should ever be completely censored. The three famous cases of censorship that spring to mind are Cannibal Corpse albums being banned due to the artwork, similarly, The Scorpions' album 'Virgin Killer' being banned due to its artwork (which depicted a naked prepubescent girl) - and even recently the wikipedia page was blocked for a while to all UK IP addresses - and the case in which Earache records were raided by the police for possibly illegal content of some of their records; Digby Pearson has since complained that he never got his Alice Cooper poster back, even though they were found to be not guilty.
However, even these seem practically tame compared to some things which aren't censored due to their limited availability, and I should probably make it clear that I am strongly against censorship in the aforementioned cases. There are two cases in which I feel universal censorship is appropriate. These are the more extreme cases of the pornogrind genre (the name of which probably speaks for itself), and NSBM, which stands for National Socialist Black Metal. I daresay that there are similar cases in other genres, but metal, and metallic music, is my area of so-called expertise, and so these are appropriate case studies for me to look into.
Pornogrind has developed for a few years, and varies from grindcore with innuendo, to the stuff with endless porn samples and frankly disgusting artwork and lyrics. A case of the latter, and a case that I will use to argue for censorship to be introduced to this part of the genre, is XXX Maniak's album 'Harvesting The Cunt Nectar'. This album contains frequent extreme song titles and samples, often referring to paedophilia and its practise, although the artwork is comparatively tame. After reading a review in Terrorizer magazine, I decided to give it a listen, almost as some sort of initiation rite, and was nearly sick at some of the stuff contained; and I have a strong stomach!
At the other end of the should-be-censored spectrum is NSBM. This is something that I am strongly against; anything that encourages prejudice against a race or group should be strongly discouraged in my eyes, and although it is debatable whether it is a suitable topic for an art form (in my eyes, it's reasonably okay if one doesn't actually believe in the politics), anybody who is highjacking art and using it to spread Nazi propaganda in general ought to be shot. That this is now viewed as a legitimate strain of the black metal genre is frankly ridiculous, on two fronts: firstly, the actual belief in the lyrical content itself, which is turning one or two black metal kiddies with malleable minds into anti-Semitic wannabe Nazis; and that they're adding an extra genre classification based on lyrical content? Really?
So, although there is very little music, and indeed all other art forms, that I would encourage censorship of, I think to summarise, all the things which encourage highly illegal activity (the adjective being there as I don't mind 'UGH! LET'S SMOKE SOME DOPE!' lyrics, just find them pathetic), such as Nazism and paedophilia. Of course, there are one or two exceptions - the one that springs to mind is that 'Mein Kampf' and other texts are interesting and useful in a historical context, and thus should not be censored. But the principal as a whole, I think, is sound.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Thursday, 24 June 2010
One cook makes a broth.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... exams are finally over. I expected a sort of climactic feeling, but I have none, just one of calm relief, the sort that you'd expect you'd get lying on your deathbed at the end of an ordeal. I expected to have a feeling of euphoria akin to several hundred simultaneous orgasms, but no. Just this feeling of freedom.
It could just be that it's taking a while for the feeling to settle in; I certainly have to keep pinching myself to remind myself that yes, I am actually free of my shackles, binding me to the feeling that I have to keep grinding, trying to pull these GCSE results out of the bag. I've always been sure that I had the potential, I just wasn't too sure about the willpower. But now I'm quietly confident of decent enough results to continue my Oxbridge aspirations.
Anyway, let's move off the ego-trip. As I now have GLORIOUS freedom, I will be blogging a lot more. Thus I need stuff to blog about. I feel that this can be partially sated by keeping a closer eye on the news, but I would like people to suggest interesting topics for me to cast my ire upon. Or praise, it depends what it is. But probably ire. As you may have guessed, I don't praise much.
I would write briefly about the budget which has just been released, but in all honesty, right now I neither know enough already or can be bothered to do enough research to write a suitable piece on it. So there is one planned, but how close to fruition it is, or indeed whether or not it will actually come into existence is unsure. In the meantime, those of you who are desperate to hear more of my political omniscience, I want to write a small summary of my views on extreme right politics.
Whilst in years gone long by, extreme right politics were the norm, as in the poor continued to be poor, the rich continued to be rich, and anyone different was burned at the stake, but nowadays, thankfully they are something of a minority belief. We haven't really had a bad case of extreme racial prejudice since the demise of the original Nazis in 1945, although we have had other smaller cases, for instance apartheid, the National Front (who, I might add, might have considered rhymes before choosing their name to protect against misnomers) against immigrants in the UK, and America against all who don't follow their 'Christian' conservative values.
However, extreme right wing parties are certainly getting a lot more mainstream press coverage, enough so that a UKIP candidate stood at my school's mock election (although fortunately he only got 3% of the votes), and that the EDL are planning to make a series of demonstrations across the UK that are well-publicised enough for counter-demonstrations to have to be planned. If there was one in York, I'd be going, but hopefully the whole thing will have been crushed to nothing by the time they get to such low population cities.
Let me get this straight, if I haven't already; extreme right political believers are scum. They should not be persecuted based on it, otherwise one becomes as bad as them, but rather exposed to their flaws and absolutely demonised. A great number of them are ill-educated, and thus their malleable minds will instantly jump to anyone who offers a scapegoat to their problems that are often their own fault. Case in point: Germany in 1933 had extreme economic problems, so the public voted the Nazi party in. As this was such an extreme time, even those who would normally have more political nonce felt obliged to vote Nazi based on the 'common enemy' principal.
Along similar lines, this is why I feel that better political education should be enforced in schools. Starting in year 6, or the last year of primary school, children would be taught about politics about once a week, which could replace some of the less useful lessons about. Although it is argued that this education already exists through citizenship lessons, having experienced 3 years of those myself, I can say they're frankly inadequate in terms of politics, albeit quite effective in scaring year 7 kids off sex and alcohol for a year or two.
However, it could be very difficult to get enough teachers to teach this from truly impartial perspectives. Those who have no political views would be useless, as they are generally just dumb by the time they get to their mid 20s if none have yet developed, and those who are keen enough to teach the subject would also have developed strong political views that would be difficult to hide during lessons. I still wonder how a friend of mine's father - who is a professor of politics at Leeds - manages.
Anyway, I sort of derailed from the initial intention of my post, but let's face it, that happens in most posts, and I still managed to put across my point, I feel. Back to my simmering in a half-slumberous position in this spinny computer chair, to those of you that have read my early posts.
It could just be that it's taking a while for the feeling to settle in; I certainly have to keep pinching myself to remind myself that yes, I am actually free of my shackles, binding me to the feeling that I have to keep grinding, trying to pull these GCSE results out of the bag. I've always been sure that I had the potential, I just wasn't too sure about the willpower. But now I'm quietly confident of decent enough results to continue my Oxbridge aspirations.
Anyway, let's move off the ego-trip. As I now have GLORIOUS freedom, I will be blogging a lot more. Thus I need stuff to blog about. I feel that this can be partially sated by keeping a closer eye on the news, but I would like people to suggest interesting topics for me to cast my ire upon. Or praise, it depends what it is. But probably ire. As you may have guessed, I don't praise much.
I would write briefly about the budget which has just been released, but in all honesty, right now I neither know enough already or can be bothered to do enough research to write a suitable piece on it. So there is one planned, but how close to fruition it is, or indeed whether or not it will actually come into existence is unsure. In the meantime, those of you who are desperate to hear more of my political omniscience, I want to write a small summary of my views on extreme right politics.
Whilst in years gone long by, extreme right politics were the norm, as in the poor continued to be poor, the rich continued to be rich, and anyone different was burned at the stake, but nowadays, thankfully they are something of a minority belief. We haven't really had a bad case of extreme racial prejudice since the demise of the original Nazis in 1945, although we have had other smaller cases, for instance apartheid, the National Front (who, I might add, might have considered rhymes before choosing their name to protect against misnomers) against immigrants in the UK, and America against all who don't follow their 'Christian' conservative values.
However, extreme right wing parties are certainly getting a lot more mainstream press coverage, enough so that a UKIP candidate stood at my school's mock election (although fortunately he only got 3% of the votes), and that the EDL are planning to make a series of demonstrations across the UK that are well-publicised enough for counter-demonstrations to have to be planned. If there was one in York, I'd be going, but hopefully the whole thing will have been crushed to nothing by the time they get to such low population cities.
Let me get this straight, if I haven't already; extreme right political believers are scum. They should not be persecuted based on it, otherwise one becomes as bad as them, but rather exposed to their flaws and absolutely demonised. A great number of them are ill-educated, and thus their malleable minds will instantly jump to anyone who offers a scapegoat to their problems that are often their own fault. Case in point: Germany in 1933 had extreme economic problems, so the public voted the Nazi party in. As this was such an extreme time, even those who would normally have more political nonce felt obliged to vote Nazi based on the 'common enemy' principal.
Along similar lines, this is why I feel that better political education should be enforced in schools. Starting in year 6, or the last year of primary school, children would be taught about politics about once a week, which could replace some of the less useful lessons about. Although it is argued that this education already exists through citizenship lessons, having experienced 3 years of those myself, I can say they're frankly inadequate in terms of politics, albeit quite effective in scaring year 7 kids off sex and alcohol for a year or two.
However, it could be very difficult to get enough teachers to teach this from truly impartial perspectives. Those who have no political views would be useless, as they are generally just dumb by the time they get to their mid 20s if none have yet developed, and those who are keen enough to teach the subject would also have developed strong political views that would be difficult to hide during lessons. I still wonder how a friend of mine's father - who is a professor of politics at Leeds - manages.
Anyway, I sort of derailed from the initial intention of my post, but let's face it, that happens in most posts, and I still managed to put across my point, I feel. Back to my simmering in a half-slumberous position in this spinny computer chair, to those of you that have read my early posts.
Friday, 18 June 2010
Music, lyrics and the PMRC
Sitting here writing this, I'm listening to some of the most profane music that I could possibly find. It gets me in the mood for this topic. I want to write about the PMRC.
Although this isn't really a relevant topic any more, I want to talk about their legacy. I'm sure anybody who's a fan of Twisted Sister (I'm not personally, I'm just aware of this) is aware of the court case in which Dee Snider testified against the PMRC, and in particular Tipper Gore. The PMRC had placed 'We're Not Gonna Take It' on a list called the 'Filthy 15', which recommended that these songs be banned. It was apparently there for being violent, which, reading over the lyrics now, is not a theme that appears to be present in any way, instead, Gore was probably offended by the anti-establishment themes to be found there. Ironically, a song by Judas Priest (who I have nothing but respect for) called 'Eat Me Alive', with mild sexual connotations, was also included for 'sexual' themes, that, although being present, are minor, and certainly not on par with the antics that she and Al got up to later!
Also, I feel that musical censorship is less important than many other forms of censorship. Aside from the god awful 'Don't Want You Back'/'Fuck You Right Back' stuff that emerged several years ago, mainstream music is never particularly offensive, and at the ages that people usually start hearing less popular stuff, they're usually mature enough to handle the lyrical topics. The two possible exceptions that I can think of are the popularity of Eminem, who is fortunately (for my argument) falling out of popularity, and Green Day, due to the political ideas of the more modern stuff. In addition to that, I feel that they can often be a portal to more politically minded and aggressive music: for instance, once, in my youthful folly, whilst looking through Green Day albums on Amazon, I was presented a link (through the 'Customers who bought this item') to Discharge's album 'Hear Nothing See Nothing Say Nothing'.
Although in this case, most kids will not care too much about the political standpoint on the lyrics, but there will be one or two who take the opportunity to read deeply in the lyrics, and possibly develop predetermined political sentiments based on it - I should know, I was one, Green Day fanboy as I was (I'm nonetheless happy to have these sentiments now, and have taken several opportunities to re-evaluate my politics over the years, so as I feel that I would now feel this way anyway).
Despite this, I still feel that this sort of possible indoctrination of juveniles is morally wrong. Frankly, I couldn't care less about what Green Day's politics are, I just feel that young people should have the chance to develop political views of their own, whether they're the same as mine. I wouldn't mind so much if the lyrics offered reasons why they felt the way they do (and in fact, given the musical direction they've taken over the past ten years, is rather hypocritical), but the fact is that they simply present a mindless 'FUCK THE GOVERNMENT' stand without offering arguments (although in the context of music, there may not be a chance). This is therefore the music that I feel should be censored. I couldn't give a damn about music that promotes violence - someone who has a malleable enough mind to follow that shit will probably feel right at home in jail - nor, indeed, do I particularly mind music that talks overtly about occult or sexual topics, as these are frankly nothing major any more, and the music which goes deeply into these topics, as I said before, is usually unavailable to those who would be immature about it.
However, I know that nothing's going to change, less standards getting more and more relaxed, and that young people will continue to be influenced by the music they listen to; I think I'm personally past that stage (aside from apparel), but I have been in the past. Unless a nouveau Ms. Gore comes along, I think that we can rest safe in the knowledge that the lyrical content of what children listen to will largely be controlled by their parents and the output of the music industry, rather than the state.
Persona 101
Although this isn't really a relevant topic any more, I want to talk about their legacy. I'm sure anybody who's a fan of Twisted Sister (I'm not personally, I'm just aware of this) is aware of the court case in which Dee Snider testified against the PMRC, and in particular Tipper Gore. The PMRC had placed 'We're Not Gonna Take It' on a list called the 'Filthy 15', which recommended that these songs be banned. It was apparently there for being violent, which, reading over the lyrics now, is not a theme that appears to be present in any way, instead, Gore was probably offended by the anti-establishment themes to be found there. Ironically, a song by Judas Priest (who I have nothing but respect for) called 'Eat Me Alive', with mild sexual connotations, was also included for 'sexual' themes, that, although being present, are minor, and certainly not on par with the antics that she and Al got up to later!
Also, I feel that musical censorship is less important than many other forms of censorship. Aside from the god awful 'Don't Want You Back'/'Fuck You Right Back' stuff that emerged several years ago, mainstream music is never particularly offensive, and at the ages that people usually start hearing less popular stuff, they're usually mature enough to handle the lyrical topics. The two possible exceptions that I can think of are the popularity of Eminem, who is fortunately (for my argument) falling out of popularity, and Green Day, due to the political ideas of the more modern stuff. In addition to that, I feel that they can often be a portal to more politically minded and aggressive music: for instance, once, in my youthful folly, whilst looking through Green Day albums on Amazon, I was presented a link (through the 'Customers who bought this item') to Discharge's album 'Hear Nothing See Nothing Say Nothing'.
Although in this case, most kids will not care too much about the political standpoint on the lyrics, but there will be one or two who take the opportunity to read deeply in the lyrics, and possibly develop predetermined political sentiments based on it - I should know, I was one, Green Day fanboy as I was (I'm nonetheless happy to have these sentiments now, and have taken several opportunities to re-evaluate my politics over the years, so as I feel that I would now feel this way anyway).
Despite this, I still feel that this sort of possible indoctrination of juveniles is morally wrong. Frankly, I couldn't care less about what Green Day's politics are, I just feel that young people should have the chance to develop political views of their own, whether they're the same as mine. I wouldn't mind so much if the lyrics offered reasons why they felt the way they do (and in fact, given the musical direction they've taken over the past ten years, is rather hypocritical), but the fact is that they simply present a mindless 'FUCK THE GOVERNMENT' stand without offering arguments (although in the context of music, there may not be a chance). This is therefore the music that I feel should be censored. I couldn't give a damn about music that promotes violence - someone who has a malleable enough mind to follow that shit will probably feel right at home in jail - nor, indeed, do I particularly mind music that talks overtly about occult or sexual topics, as these are frankly nothing major any more, and the music which goes deeply into these topics, as I said before, is usually unavailable to those who would be immature about it.
However, I know that nothing's going to change, less standards getting more and more relaxed, and that young people will continue to be influenced by the music they listen to; I think I'm personally past that stage (aside from apparel), but I have been in the past. Unless a nouveau Ms. Gore comes along, I think that we can rest safe in the knowledge that the lyrical content of what children listen to will largely be controlled by their parents and the output of the music industry, rather than the state.
Persona 101
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
Feminism - the male perspective.
Time for another serious post. This time, I want to look at feminism. Now having a female member of the team, I'm sure I will be corrected, re-corrected, and castrated if I say anything good ol' -Spanner deems incorrect, but I want to talk about its relevance, and indeed impact, nowadays.
I've grown up in a family with a laid back father politically, and a mother who would be incredibly politically active; marches, demonstrations and all that shizz, if her job as a civil servant (oh the irony) didn't occupy approximately 110% of her waking hours, with cooking, cleaning (although she does that less now we've got a cleaner who comes every other Thursday) occupying the rest, this encompassing everything from her quasi-socialist political outlook to her take on neo-feminism.
Of course, this means I've been 'subtly' indoctrinated with her ideals from the year dot, and I must say it has largely worked - although I believe that sexism as a playful joke is fine, I believe that there is no reason why women should be in any way seen as inferiors, and as I've probably made clear with previous posts, I've come to have quite left-wing politics, although not quite so extreme as said mother (who nonetheless votes Labour as 'none of the REAL left parties have a hope in hell').
However, there have been some areas where I've disagreed with her, and these are that women should get absolutely equal wages, and that feminism is still particularly relevant in today's world. Now, -Spanner, before you respond with a knee-jerk reaction that would be trademark of Persona 102, (who has yet to grace us with her presence - and trust me, she's a brilliant writer), allow me to explain my reasoning.
The thing is, whilst in essence, women and men should have exactly the same rights, INCLUDING the right to equal pay, there is the simple biological difference in that women are the unfortunate half of the human race to have to harbour babies before young'un chooses to finally face the light of day. The point is, whilst it is no fault of women's, it would be unfair on employers to have to offer exactly equal pay all the time, with no guarantee that female workers aren't going to get pregnant (although things are obviously different for those who can't, or choose not to have babies), and then having to offer all of the maternity rights that come with the package (quite reasonably).
I am aware of the existence of certain paternity rights, for instance the right to paternity leave, but these or drastically lower than those of the mother - quite rightly too - and often, if a man chooses to take paternity leave, it is on his own back. For this one reason, I believe it is reasonable to expect men to earn slightly more than women who may become pregnant. In this situation, couples are at an advantage financially to single mums, so I believe benefits in this respect may have to be increased.
Secondly, the relevance of feminism. I think most people today would agree that feminism is not as relevant now as it was during the female liberation movements of the 60s and 70s, and certainly not as relevant as during the early 20th century struggle for suffrage. However, does it have any relevance at all?
The aforementioned mother's feminist views are certainly stuck in the past - I think she feels that she almost missed her opportunity when feminism was at large, and is now attempting to jump onto the bandwagon when the train has long since left the station. However, she does make one or two interesting points; predominantly in the way that many, many more derogatory terms exist - particularly about sexual behaviour - for females than do for men, and that there still seems to be some sort of glass ceiling in place for females, particularly in politics.
Whilst these are two points which certainly need addressing, I worry that these are the only two real points that still exist, and so latter-day feminism is in danger of making a mountain out of a molehill, making a fuss about nothing. It is certainly not warranted for there to be any high-scale demonstrations about these issues, as still exist (admittedly predominantly in America), some violent, and especially whilst far greater problems still exist in the world - the plight of many poorer nations, and MEDCs' tendencies to exploit this, for instance.
To conclude, I feel that whilst there are still one or two things that could be altered with gender politics nowadays, I believe that they are largely minor, and that some of the 'issues' that people are making a large fuss about are irrelevant and unrequired. I'm sure -Spanner, Persona 102 (if she ever shows up) and any members of my audience who are female will have something to comment on this, and once again, I urge you; please do! Just remember, the rule's in the name: anonymity.
Persona 101
I've grown up in a family with a laid back father politically, and a mother who would be incredibly politically active; marches, demonstrations and all that shizz, if her job as a civil servant (oh the irony) didn't occupy approximately 110% of her waking hours, with cooking, cleaning (although she does that less now we've got a cleaner who comes every other Thursday) occupying the rest, this encompassing everything from her quasi-socialist political outlook to her take on neo-feminism.
Of course, this means I've been 'subtly' indoctrinated with her ideals from the year dot, and I must say it has largely worked - although I believe that sexism as a playful joke is fine, I believe that there is no reason why women should be in any way seen as inferiors, and as I've probably made clear with previous posts, I've come to have quite left-wing politics, although not quite so extreme as said mother (who nonetheless votes Labour as 'none of the REAL left parties have a hope in hell').
However, there have been some areas where I've disagreed with her, and these are that women should get absolutely equal wages, and that feminism is still particularly relevant in today's world. Now, -Spanner, before you respond with a knee-jerk reaction that would be trademark of Persona 102, (who has yet to grace us with her presence - and trust me, she's a brilliant writer), allow me to explain my reasoning.
The thing is, whilst in essence, women and men should have exactly the same rights, INCLUDING the right to equal pay, there is the simple biological difference in that women are the unfortunate half of the human race to have to harbour babies before young'un chooses to finally face the light of day. The point is, whilst it is no fault of women's, it would be unfair on employers to have to offer exactly equal pay all the time, with no guarantee that female workers aren't going to get pregnant (although things are obviously different for those who can't, or choose not to have babies), and then having to offer all of the maternity rights that come with the package (quite reasonably).
I am aware of the existence of certain paternity rights, for instance the right to paternity leave, but these or drastically lower than those of the mother - quite rightly too - and often, if a man chooses to take paternity leave, it is on his own back. For this one reason, I believe it is reasonable to expect men to earn slightly more than women who may become pregnant. In this situation, couples are at an advantage financially to single mums, so I believe benefits in this respect may have to be increased.
Secondly, the relevance of feminism. I think most people today would agree that feminism is not as relevant now as it was during the female liberation movements of the 60s and 70s, and certainly not as relevant as during the early 20th century struggle for suffrage. However, does it have any relevance at all?
The aforementioned mother's feminist views are certainly stuck in the past - I think she feels that she almost missed her opportunity when feminism was at large, and is now attempting to jump onto the bandwagon when the train has long since left the station. However, she does make one or two interesting points; predominantly in the way that many, many more derogatory terms exist - particularly about sexual behaviour - for females than do for men, and that there still seems to be some sort of glass ceiling in place for females, particularly in politics.
Whilst these are two points which certainly need addressing, I worry that these are the only two real points that still exist, and so latter-day feminism is in danger of making a mountain out of a molehill, making a fuss about nothing. It is certainly not warranted for there to be any high-scale demonstrations about these issues, as still exist (admittedly predominantly in America), some violent, and especially whilst far greater problems still exist in the world - the plight of many poorer nations, and MEDCs' tendencies to exploit this, for instance.
To conclude, I feel that whilst there are still one or two things that could be altered with gender politics nowadays, I believe that they are largely minor, and that some of the 'issues' that people are making a large fuss about are irrelevant and unrequired. I'm sure -Spanner, Persona 102 (if she ever shows up) and any members of my audience who are female will have something to comment on this, and once again, I urge you; please do! Just remember, the rule's in the name: anonymity.
Persona 101
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
