Why's everybody all hatin' on Tyler?

I started this post back when Tyler the Creator's first official solo album, "Goblin," had just come out, but I missed the boat on posting it because, quite frankly, there was too much to say. But now "Wolf" is out, and the haters are all making the same mistakes, so I thought it was time to dust it off.

It may strike some as hypocritical that, whereas in a previous post, I lambasted Twilight as being terrible for women, this post is about why Tyler the Creator's music is not. These people are wrong, and I'll tell you why.

First, though, a little introduction to Tyler, in case you don't follow the indie-rap scene. Tyler, as his title suggests, is the originator behind a group of hip hop artists called Odd Future Wolf Gang Kill Them All, hereafter referred to as OF. OF started out as a simple means of expression for a group of skater kids, not from the hood or the projects, but a relatively suburban neighborhood in LA. They started writing songs together, producing albums together, making music videos together, and posting all of it, for free, online. Their following got so huge that they were invited on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, and to SXSW in Austin. Tyler got a record deal. He was 19 years-old.

About the time of SXSW, larger media outlets started paying attention. Jim De Rogatis, as usual trying to rack up enough feminist points to bone a Riot Grrrl, certainly took note and was OUTRAGED by Tyler's treatment of violence against women. By the time they were invited to Pitchfork Music Festival, there were protests, particularly by Between Friends, a group dedicated to fighting domestic abuse. They eventually got a booth at the festival and handed out fans "with a powerful message about violence against women." Point of fact, I was there. They said, "don't be a fan of violence."

I am not a fan of violence. I am not a fan of violence against women. I think that Between Friends is doing admirable work. That said, I don't think a cutesy pun is in any way combating the roots of domestic violence, nor do I think protesting the OF show demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of anger or hate. And yes, I expect those dedicated to ending violence in any form to have an understanding of both. But, for the most part, they get a pass, because, in the end, they aren't interested in music or artistic expression. They are not experts on composition, or the formulation of a concept through an abstracted medium. If they were, they would have come up with a better fan, or a better PSA. To their credit, though, they recognized this, and at the festival, focused their energy into their own work, rather than criticizing Tyler's.

Jim De Rogatis, though. That's another matter. His extreme hypersensitivity toward "sexism" in lyrical content (particularly that of rap music) is actually offensive to me, as a feminist. He seems so intent on telling me, as a woman, what I should take issue with, while basically drowning in his own drool and spunk every time he interviews or talks about some up and coming indie-rock female artist. It's pretty much disgusting. But he's fair game, in my mind, because it's his fucking job to know more about music than the rest of us. Music. Not politics. Not domestic abuse. Music. And his vitriol against Tyler and OF has nothing to do with music. The extent of his musical analysis is to tally up the number of incendiary words used in the album. Words like " bitch" and "faggot." I will not, nor will OF, deny that these words have powerful negative connotations directed at certain people. But, when a huge aspect of the music in question is to be as inflammatory as possible, tallying up inflammatory language is pointless. It's a transparent attempt to delegitimize the artistic expression found within the body of work. With an artistic output like "Goblin," the question is not "how many offensive words are in the album?" but rather, "how is he using them?"  

Context matters. Not only in deriving the full meaning of a word, but also more broadly, in looking for the full intent of a work.

In the evolution of women's rights in this culture, we have moved beyond a point where diction is a definite indicator of prejudice, particularly in the public arena. I don't want to get too political here, but it's such a huge part of the public conversation now that it's hard not to use it as a counterpoint. Since the 2011 the Republican primaries, women's issues have become more and more of a battleground. And it is insidious mostly because of the "acceptable" rhetoric being used. Politicians are using politically correct verbiage to legitimize treating women like sluts and degenerate whores. In fact, in the one instance where Rush Limbaugh went so far as to call Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute," the response from the Romney was to say, "those aren't the words I would have used." Words. Just the words. Not that he disagreed with the sentiment, not that he thought she wasn't a slut or a prostitute, but that he wouldn't have called her one outright. That is the current climate. That is the way language is being used against women today. This isn't to say that using misogynistic terminology is totally fine. It's not. But, at this point in the conversation, continuing to define prejudice through such a limited lens as word choice actually creates a blueprint by which prejudice can avoid detection and disguise itself as legitimate argument.

Again, context matters, which brings me back to OF. The question is not how often they refer to women with misogynistic language, nor is it whether the context of such language within a particular rhyme or song is intended to be taken in such a way. The question is broader, wherein you have to look at how violence, misogyny, and homophobic attitudes are used within the overall work of the album.

For example, this point was made by a friend of mine who studied linguistics to the girls who tended the booth for "Between Friends" at Pitchfork. It's about the word "rape." Now, using that word to describe fantasies in the lyrics could certainly just be another example of them choosing, deliberately, the most offensive word possible. However, it is also interesting, and worth noting, that the word "rape" is victim terminology. The aggressor doesn't call it rape, the victim does. The aggressor tries to legitimize it with statements like, "she was asking for it," or "I could tell she really wanted it." Language like that is why, as much as I respect the musicality of his flow, I have a hard time listening to Li'l Wayne. Just by virtue of calling it rape, OF identify themselves as the villains. Again and again in their music, they adopt the role of aggressor and villain, exaggerate it, embody it, and reject it, turning in on themselves in their disgust and hatred.

Take these three tracks, presented in order of their release as singles:

Yonkers

She

Bitch, Suck Dick

To put it incredibly simply, the themes of these three songs are, respectively, anger and self-loathing, desire and impotence, and money, diamonds, and bitches. Is there misogyny in the first two tracks? Yes. Is it used to convey something deeper and more disturbing, something that ultimately reflects poorly on Tyler, not women? Yes. Those two tracks are legitimately, musically good. The flows are tight-knit, intense, evocative, and harrowing. The production is gorgeous. The third track, not even remotely. It's actually terrible. It features the two guys in the group who are acknowledged not to be rappers. The production is sloppy and ridiculous. There is none of the cleverness, the studied layering of themes, the self-loathing. It is a joke track.

I actually find this track really interesting, though. Because, while the rhymes aren't layered in meaning, the joke is. People who take offense to it tend to say "so what if it's a joke. Punching bitches isn't something to joke about." Sure. Fine. Whatever. That's not the joke. It's not a joke at the expense of women, it's a joke at the expense of themselves, to the point that Tyler actually shoots Jasper and Taco at the end of the track! Seriously! He fucking kills them! So, if they're the butt of the joke, what are they representative of? Hyper-masculinity, misogyny, and violence? Yes. That's the obvious answer.

More interesting to me, though, is that, as I said before, their (for lack of a better term) rhymes are all about money, diamonds, and bitches. Hell, Jasper even tells us he's "ignorant" at one point. This is the assumption by a lot of white people about what rap, as a whole, is all about. And nobody is more guilty of this prejudice than the people who see "Bitch, Suck Dick" as further evidence of OF's misogyny, making no qualitative distinction between this track and the two previous ones. The joke is on the haters. The joke is on the people who are so quick to take them seriously as a threat and so reluctant to take them seriously as artists. And it's driven home by the fact that it was chosen as a single. Tyler plays both sides of the controversy surrounding him so deftly that he's almost daring people to hate him just to prove his point. Sure, that might make him a smart-aleck, but it doesn't make him an ignorant, degenerate, sexist, homophobic asshole.

I also find it a little disgusting, honestly, that the same people who get up in arms over Tyler being recognized at the MTV Music Awards exhibited none of the same vitriol when Chris Brown, who actually beat the living shit out of Rhianna, gets a spot performing at the Grammys. This wasn't a case of separating the art from the individual, either. There have certainly been exceptions, but the Grammys tend to follow a market-based evaluation of work. So this wasn't about artistry, it was about celebrity. And part of Chris Brown's celebrity is the fact that he beat the shit out of his girlfriend. So when young men and women are shown on screen screaming and cheering him on while he performs his uninspired, self-promotional crap, it kind of makes me throw up a little in my mouth. These same people also tend to not get up in arms over artists like Li'l Wayne, who, as I've said before, actually espouses a misogynistic mindset. And, what's interesting to me about these two cases, especially in view of the OF controversy, is that neither Chris Brown nor Li'l Wayne are being recognized as good artists. Certainly they're being recognized as talented musicians. Hell, I even recognize the talent of Li'l Wayne (Chris Brown can suck it), but nobody's making an argument for the artistic merits of their output. It's almost as if people are saying,"whatever, it's just pop and rap, what do you expect?" The argument against pop being an illegitimate art form comes from an elitist attitude that the masses are stupid. But from Michael Jackson to Justin Timberlake, and Madonna to Lady Gaga, some of the best pop artists we have ever seen have used the tropes of the genre to make bolder statements. The argument against rap probably has a lot to do with the fact that the biggest names out there (Kanye excepted . . . mostly) don't experiment as much with form and persona, so the only way to use the form for "good" is to be a "conscientious" rapper like Common or--gag me--Macklemore. I will grant that most people don't go out of their way to find indie rap, and so probably don't see some of the more interesting ways the form has been utilized, and maybe their preconceived notions come from that. Still, when it comes to critics, making broad generalizations without really analyzing the work is a failure to do your fucking job.

Furthermore, I would like to offer up this quote from Ashley Judd's fantastic statementabout the response to her "puffy face" photo:

Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate.

Sexism isn't something men do to women, or something women do to themselves, but rather a more complex ideology of hetero-normative gender roles. As such, sexism affects both sexes. Somehow, though, the only acceptable way to combat sexism is to "empower" women. Fighting sexism by examining the effect it has on men, and the examples of masculinity that are ascribed to them, isn't embraced. Take the difference between the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts for example. Both were founded around the same time. Both were founded on the principles of strict gender roles. But look at them now, and there is a vast difference in their ideologies. The Girl Scouts have evolved to be an organization promoting female empowerment. They are tolerant of different sexualities. They have a partnership with Planned Parenthood. They have grown. The Boy Scouts, however, have resisted such changes. They are still an organization that trains boys to be "men." The psychology behind this is fairly simple. We are much more inclined to be in favor of promoting changes in a power structure when we see it as giving someone power. But, when we see it as taking away power, we balk. The truth is, you can't have one without the other. And to assume that the power dynamics and gender roles that place men above women are only damaging to women is simplistic and, at times dangerous. Because allowing one side to grow and evolve, while simultaneously stymying the other side is a recipe for confusion and frustration, breeding either self-loathing or aggression.

In listening closely to many of the "sexist" or "misogynistic" excerpts or tracks from Tyler's albums, I find evidence of this type of confusion and frustration. In many instances, he allows it to be expressed in aggression, but most of the time, he retracts from that and transforms it into self-loathing. Whether this is intentional or not isn't really important. If it is, then he's damn clever. If it isn't, he's just expressing something symptomatic of this problem. (Also, to bring this all back around, addressing this sort of masculine frustration has much more to do with the roots of domestic violence than a fan that says "don't be a fan of violence.")

The best men in my life have struggled with sexism as much as the best women in my life have, especially when it comes to fatherhood, as being nurturing isn't considered a masculine trait. Which brings me to something at the root of Tyler's music. He was abandoned by his father. And trust me when I say that if you have never experienced that pain and confusion and self-doubt, you're fucking lucky. I have. And you know what, that experience has had more to do with my personality and identity than my sex. As such, I take issue with any critic who tells me that what I should care about is how many times Tyler says "bitch," rather than the more complex and painful experience of wanting the approval of a father you resent. I relate to that. I find his exploration of that dilemma engaging and heartbreaking. And fuck anyone who tells me that I should disavow that connection to this music because you arbitrarily condemn it as being sexist, and as a self-respecting woman, I should condemn it, too.

I am really tired of having to defend my title as a feminist just because I have a sense of humor. I think it is possible to use derogatory language and motifs ironically to good effect. It's not easy, and a lot of people that try it tend to think they're cleverer than they are, which is downright obnoxious. But I will not let hipsterdom co-opt irony and make it an illegitimate artistic device, dammit! And for those of you wondering where my sense of humor was when I was talking about "Twilight," I will simply say that while irony can be inflammatory in the producer, it is dangerous in the consumer. People who give their money to bad people in the name of irony do much more harm than any artist using irony to make a point, whether or not that point is unanimously understood. It's like the difference between not voting for someone who made a politically incorrect joke, though his or her policies show the opposite attitude, and voting for a politician whose policies are reprehensible because you think it's funny. We create the culture we live in. Using that power to encourage culture you find ugly so that you can then mock it is elitist, irresponsible, and honestly, fucking boring.

And finally, just to be clear, this is not about personal taste. If you're the type of person who takes offense to music with a ridiculous amount of profanity in it, that's fine. Don't listen, by all means. If you're the type of person who takes offense at the word "faggot" no matter the context, because it reminds you of bigotry you've experienced or witnessed, I fully understand. Tyler isn't for you. I'm the type of person who takes offense at pretentious, derivative, mediocre art. As a result, I don't listen to people like Bon Iver. But what critics like Jim De Rogatis are saying isn't about personal taste, it's about trying to delegitimize the group as artists. That's a whole different bag. I may not like Bon Iver, but I don't think that him being recognized at the Grammys with four nominations and one win is in any way a threat to our children by placing value on the mundane instead of on artists who are pushing boundaries, taking risks, and doing something new with the standards that have already been set. . . Okay. Maybe a little. But that's not about Bon Iver, that's about the Grammys. Bon Iver does his thing just fine. I don't really care for it. You may disagree. That's fine. You may disagree with my interpretation of Tyler's songs. That's fine. The question is whether you can see that there's something there to be interpreted at all. And if so, it has artistic merit. 

I mean, seriously! Check out this video that Tyler directed himself:

No artistic merit, my ass! Is it terrifying, unsettling, not necessarily something you want to think too hard about because you'd rather look at LOLcats? Sure, maybe. But your discomfort is your problem. Things with true artistic merit are hardly ever comfortable. But don't encourage the dilution of artistic conversation just because you don't want to feel icky, or, god forbid, have to think. If you want to be a lazy artistic consumer, go ahead, but don't go around telling others they should be, too. Because, you know, if the arts all focused on rainbows and flowers and shit, all the societal problems art used to deal with would go away, right? Right. Enjoy your protective bubble, Jim De Rogatis. I'll be over here.