Much has been made in recent months concerning the amorphous group of corporations and artists who make up the “Entertainment Industry.”
As Nov. 3 looms on the not-to-distant horizon, the question of sex, violence and all things illicit in film, video games and music has been fodder for politicians and pundits of all persuasions.
On the music end of this debate, rapper Marshall Mathers, better known by his stage moniker Eminem, has been a polarizing figure. To his critics, Mathers’ brand of cursing, drug abusing and woman-killing bravado is a neon-colored emblem of what the public must be shielded from. To his fans and supporters, Mathers is a rebellious provocateur clawing against the grain of conservative America.
I feel both sides have missed the point. In no way should the public be shielded from Mathers’ work.
Far from being a pillar of iconoclasm and in any way provocative or interesting, Mathers is in fact the product of the same close-minded annals of America repulsed by him.
A look at the success of this summer’s “The Marshall Mathers LP” is testament to how easily Americans accept his words. Media venues such as MTV, Rolling Stone, Spin, and, TheSource, have placed little judgment on Mathers’ content. They promote it as testament to how certain forms of hatred and discrimination are still very much acceptable in our society.
ome decry the amount of profanity in Mathers’ music, others his glorification of drug abuse, and still others his fantasized violence against his wife and mother.
The truly insidious aspect of his art is his explicit hatred toward gays and lesbians. In Mathers’ tune “Criminal” he informs the listener, “I’ll stab you in the head, whether you’re fag or les/Or a homosex, a hermaph or a trans-a-ves./Hate fags? The answer’s yes.”
What is more insidious than Mathers’ words, though, is the way the American public eats them up.
A Rolling Stone review of “The Marshall Mathers MP” CDthat features “Criminal” mentions homophobia but it is excused as part of Mathers’ attempt to “piss the world off.” Would Mathers’ media proponents be as forgiving if he substituted “fag” or “les” with various ethnic slurs?
Let me make this clear: the writer of this article is not a wilting petunia of political correctness. But, I am a believer in basic human kindness. So, when an artist encourages violence or hatred toward an entire group of people, it disturbs me.
When asked by interviewer Anthony Decurtis if Mathers would use the word “nigger” on a record, Mathers answers “That word is not even in my vocabulary … Those are two completely different things. A gay person can be of any race.”
Um … okay Mathers.
Of course, Mathers is not really the issue here. We live in a society that has made certain hatred socially unacceptable while nurturing others. Mathers and his popularity are merely symptoms of said society. When looking closely we see that Mathers actually has more in common with right wing lifestyle police like Dr. Laura Schlessinger than with the portrait of an artistic outlaw that has been painted of him.
