December 30, 2013 · 4:46 pm
I like this article on anti-gay language in hip hop (although the title seems unnecessary). The above graphic is from the much hated rapgenius.com (not affiliated with the GZA). But the graphic was included in a nice long write up on Gawker by Rich Juzwiak where he does some lyrical analysis. While discussing a Frank Ocean lyric Juzwiak writes:
“This is a conversation that hasn’t made its way to mainstream hip-hop before now. It’s probably not as tidy as the most sensitive listeners would prefer. There’s ambiguity there as to whether Ocean’s proposed gunplay is a reaction to homophobia (because saying “faggot” is wrong) or an insult (because being “faggot” is wrong). Ocean is typically terse and selective on these identity matters—it’s possible that he’s still working out this question himself.”
When talking about the number of hit records that seemed to have made it without needing verbal violence toward gay people, Juzwiak explains:
“Hip-hop doesn’t hate gay people. Not all of it, at least. Even when it stumbles in these attempts, even when rappers don’t exhibit the full enlightenment that we’d want from them (Too $hort: “Just go with it, it’s just a lifestyle, you know, so whatever“), it’s still making attempts at engagement, which is more than it was doing even last year and far more than it was doing two years ago.
Still, we’re talking about a vast, varied pool of points of view and opinions. There’s still plenty of homophobic language.”
Here is the link to the article.
Filed under communication, Gay, hip hop, music, representation
Tagged as critical hip hop, cultural change, culture change trough language, Frank Ocean, Gawker, graph of hateful language, hateful language in hip hop changing, hip hop, hip hop and "no homo", hip hop and anti-gay language, representation and fight between Chris Brown and Frank Ocean
June 13, 2012 · 6:17 pm
I spent some time last semester talking about the phrase “no homo” as gender policing. My argument is that it verbalized patterns of behavior that were not generally sexualized. Quite often bringing sexual attention to something that was previously mundane. Consider rap intellectual Dallas Penn’s use of “no homo” to ensure heterosexuality is mapped when getting a compliment about his Polo scarf.
He didn’t introduce himself as a rapper, a graff artist or anything spectacular. All he did was compliment me on the ‘Lo scarf I was rocking. No homo, of course.
via dallaspenn.com » Blog Archive » MEYHEM LAUREN IS REALITY….
I have traditionally argued that “no homo” is simply gender policing. Making sure that people around you know that it is not acceptable for your version of a man to compliment another man on a scarf for instance. It seems like this is an extension of pathological homophobia. Not just fear of gay sex, but fear that non-sexual acts would be read as the precursor for gay attraction.
It seems like an interesting subject because it makes an easy map to see the boundary lines for modern masculinity. The rules for men-to-be-real-men are seldom as explicitly verbalized as with “no homo.”
I’m a fan of Michael Kimmel. I think he is a smart man who gets a lot of the power dynamics of gender. In the case of “no homo” he argues that this is a kind of linguistic development which marks a loosening of the boundaries of new heterosexual masculinity.
I think we’re a little less homophobic. There’s good evidence that young men are less homophobic than older men are. And I illustrate this often by the difference between “that’s so gay” and “no homo.” Because “that’s so gay” is a way of policing other guys, saying don’t do that, that’s gay. But “no homo” says “you can do it, no homo.” Or “I love you, no homo.” It gives us permission to say something but then back away from it. That’s really different than not being able to do it at all. It’s a small step. The next step is to be able to say it and then not back away from it at all. I think it’s a little bit progressive, not a lot bit progressive.
via An Interview with Michael Kimmel | fbomb.
I think this is quite interesting. It seems as though the “permission-with-commentary” may come with substantial linguistic homophobic baggage.