The Thicke of It: Condemn and Remove Blurred Lines

Maria Finnerty of the Condemn and Remove group explains why removing Blurred Lines from Guild playlists and condemning its message is necessary to safeguard against, “trivialisation and victim-blaming” in modern rape culture.

We are all aware of the controversy over Robin Thicke’s infectiously catchy summer hit Blurred Lines and there is little debate between the two sides of the on-campus campaign over the sexist nature of the song. While both concede that it does, in some capacity, promote misogyny and back the Guild to release a statement condemning it, the question dividing the two campaigns is what further action, if any, ought to be taken? Should the Guild condemn the song by popular demand?

“We only bid they steer away from hypocrisy. If we condemn it then why should we play it?”
Photo Credit: Law Revue via Huffington Post

The demeaning nature of both the lyrics and video is difficult to deny. The very title of the song draws from the rhetoric of rape apologists who present sexual assault as a ‘grey area’. The video depicts barely-clothed models with vacant expressions being touched and gawked at by fully-clothed men in a way that suspiciously resembles harassment. Women are required to wear next to nothing while men have the privilege of remaining fully-clothed and still earn at least the same degree of attention.

This is an image that is all too familiar across our media landscape. Emily Ratajkowski, the brown-haired model in the video (who for some reason I have a feeling you’ll remember) has claimed that the video celebrates women. She is right, the women in the video are celebrated. Unfortunately, however, they are not celebrated for their wit, intelligence or talent. They are not even celebrated for their individual beauty. They are celebrated as sexual objects.

According to Thicke, the song does “everything that is completely derogatory towards women”. “What a pleasure it is to degrade a woman,” he declared in an interview with GQ. It’s this light-hearted indifference to sexism that makes it so insidious. Studies have shown time and time again that exposure to images of objectified women gives men a ‘greater tolerance of sexual harassment’ and leads to an increased view of women as ‘less competent’ and ‘less human’.

Campaigns against the song have been criticised for focusing on only one of many popular chauvinistic chart-toppers. However, it is precisely the fact that this brand of blatant sexism is such a media norm that makes it so damaging, and renders any claim that the video is ‘ironic’, or ‘makes fun of’ misogyny invalid. Thicke cannot mock a culture that’s still hugely prevalent by becoming an extension of it. Sexism, in the form that is inherent in the images associated with the lyrics and video, is still absolutely widespread; it doesn’t parody itself.

The most damning criticism of Burred Lines can come only from the women for whom those ‘blurred lines’ were used as real excuses or justifications by the men who abused them. One in five women in England and Wales experiences some form of sexual violence before the age of 60, and the majority of these abuses are carried out by an aggressor already known to the victim.

The concept that there is anything ‘blurry’ about consent is deeply ingrained in the way sexual assault is represented in the media, our culture and, dangerously, our judicial system. Trivialisation and victim-blaming, as alluded to in lyrics such as ‘I know you want it’, contribute to a society in which only 15 per cent of rape victims will report the offense, while 97 per cent of sex offenders never see a day behind bars.

Though the unsavoury nature of the song has been widely recognised, the action to be taken if the student body condemn the song continues to divide opinion. While Condemn and Remove request that the Guild remove the song from its playlists should an official statement of condemnation be decided by popular vote, their opposition argue that this infringes on students’ rights.

Aside from my serious doubt over any student having been deprived of the opportunity to hear the song that has been relentlessly blasted out of bars, clubs, shops and radios across the country for an entire summer, removing the song from Guild playlists would impose no infringement on students’ listening rights. The two drinking outlets of the Guild, the Ram and the Lemmy, hardly hold a monopoly over Exeter’s nightlife… And students would, of course, remain perfectly at liberty to listen to the song from any other source.

Far from dictating over anyone’s individual freedom to get a wiggle on to Thicke’s musical epitome of misogyny, we suggest simply that the Guild, given a vote of popular condemnation, do not actively play the very song they condemn. Quite simply, the use of the term ‘censorship’ to describe this action is pure hyperbole. We only bid they steer away from hypocrisy. If we condemn it then why should we play it?

It is encouraging that both sides of the on-campus campaign are putting forward motions recognising the damaging nature of the lyrics. However, having considered the seriousness of the points highlighted above, and should the student body democratically denounce the song, I fail to recognise why follow up action should be opposed. It seems nonsensical that the Guild should continue to actively play and promote a song it has officially condemned on its own premises. Taking the track off Guild playlists would simply be in-keeping with its official stance and, crucially, would send out the message that as a student body we recognise the seriousness of issues surrounding consent and objectification.

Maria Finnerty

[poll id=”51″]

For the views of Comment’s Online Editors on the Blurred Lines referendum as a whole, read The Thicke of It: Comment on Blurred Lines. Is condemning and removing Blurred Lines the right way to go? Is the term “censorship” hyperbole or technically accurate? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

You can read Robin Thicke’s defence and explanation of the Blurred Lines video in full, in his interview with GQ, which Maria quotes from above.

The Thicke of It: Comment on Blurred Lines

It’s going to be a busy week for Exeposé Comment Online with the arguments for and against Blurred Lines gathering momentum. Before that, here’s what Online Editors Dave Reynolds and James Bennett make of the situation at large.

Across the University, the debate concerning what to do about Robin Thicke’s Blurred Lines is set to kick off with the recently amended three-way vote due in the coming weeks. Shouldn’t we all keep in mind though, that at the end of the day it is just a crappy pop song that no one will even have an interest in putting on a Lemmy playlist six months from now anyway?

“Really, it might be that the only winner out of this whole process is Robin Thicke himself. His song is now being discussed by people who, prior to the past few weeks, could quite happily have gone their whole lives without knowing who he is or what his mediocre pop-song sounded like in full.”
Photo Credit: Robin Thicke via Madame Noire

Some lines have been drawn between this referendum and the one concerning the distribution of The Sun in Guild outlets. While the Anti-Ban campaigners seem to be citing issues of censorship on both accounts, their argument may not stack up as well here as it did concerning The Sun. Reading The Sun and enjoying Page 3 is a relatively private experience wherein you buy the paper and you read it and nobody else needs to get involved, not that it stops some from trying.

When the issue becomes the song being played in the Lemmy or the Ram it becomes a much more public experience and more difficult to avoid without totally removing yourself from a social situation on campus. It’s a bit like passive smoking but with a different kind of disease! In this case, somebody’s enjoyment of the medium can, arguably, be detrimental to others.

Is Blurred Lines any worse than the plethora of other not only sexist or misogynistic, but also violent, racially orientated or drug tolerant music available to people today? There are so many arguably outrageous music videos out there at the moment and Miley Cyrus licking a hammer and swinging about naked is not something we really have any interest in seeing while tucking into our chicken bites and curly fries at the Ram either. How is it that some blowjobs in The Ram are responsible for the SSB being cancelled but more commercially viable videos with content of a higher definition and clarity are put up on our TV screens for all to enjoy?

“How is it that some blowjobs in The Ram are responsible for the SSB being cancelled but more commercially viable videos with content of a higher definition and clarity are put up on our TV screens for all to enjoy?”
Photo Credit: Miley Cyrus via OnSecretHunt

In an interview with the BBC, Thicke explained the origins of his song, saying, “For me it was about blurring the lines between two things: Number one, men and women and how much we’re the same. My wife is as smart as I am, as strong if not stronger but she’s an animal too and she doesn’t need a man to define her or define her existence so the song was really about women [being] everything that a man is and [that they] can do anything a man can do. The other side of this is there are blurred lines between a good girl and a bad girl; even a good girl has a little bad side, you just need to know how to pull it out of them.”

Maybe the idea that it is a man’s responsibility to”pull out” the bad girl from within a good girl goes against what he’s saying, but should his speech not go at least some way towards discouraging the idea that the song has anything to do with rape or misogyny? Isn’t it all about interpretation? Sometimes, do people just want to be offended no matter how much evidence is provided to the contrary?

Really, it might be that the only winner out of this whole process is Robin Thicke himself. His song is now being discussed by people who, prior to the past few weeks, could quite happily have gone their whole lives without knowing who he is or what his mediocre pop-song sounded like in full. Before finding out that there was going to be a Blurred Lines referendum, neither of us had ever heard it in its entirety or shown any interest in doing so. Regrettably, due to its infectious rhythm and our constant exposure to the tune, the pair of us have been incessantly humming, singing and whistling the song since the start of the year. Quite frankly we’ll be glad when it’s all over, but no doubt there’ll be a new motion to polarise the Exeter student population soon enough.

Dave Reynolds and James Bennett

Do you buy Robin Thicke’s tale of the origin of his song and video?  Has the University made too much of a big deal out of what is really a harmless pop tune? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

The Thicke of It: Do We Want It?

Writing in his own capacity, secretary of the Gender Equality Society Carlus Hudson discusses the underlying themes and motivations behind the forthcoming student vote on Blurred Lines.

Students may be aware of a proposed ‘ban’ on the playing of Robin Thicke’s Blurred Lines on ‘Students’ Guild premises and in student media that will in the near future be voted on in a straight yes/no referendum. Rather than get into the full argument here, I’d like to focus specifically on the question of freedom of expression which has been brought out in probably every single student referendum with ‘ban’ in the title.

“If the motion is to ban Blurred Lines from campus, what this will ultimately mean is one song being struck off the Lemon Grove’s playlist or someone not being able to play Blurred Lines on their Xpression radio show.”
Image credits: avhell

Certainly, the referendum on banning The Sun from Guild outlets seemed to strike me as blown out of proportion, considering that The Sun isn’t sold in Guild outlets to begin with and the minor scope of the proposed ‘ban’. Similarly, I think it is important to look very closely at what the exact wording of the motion is in this instance. If the motion is to ban Blurred Lines from campus, what this will ultimately mean is one song being struck off the Lemon Grove’s playlist or someone not being able to play Blurred Lines on their Xpression radio show.

With the former there is nothing even close to a monopoly held by the Guild on Exeter’s nightlife, so if any student was utterly determined to hear the song on a night out, they would easily be able to by visiting another club elsewhere in Exeter. Honestly, I’d be surprised if anyone’s decision over whether or not to go to the Lemmy on a particular evening was influenced by a ‘ban’ on Blurred Lines. It could only happen if, all of a sudden, there was a significant section of the student population who, before going out, looked up exactly which songs were being played at which clubs and – in the full glory of rational choice theory – made their decision accordingly. In those circumstances, a freedom of choice or expression argument becomes moot.

As for the shows on Xpression or any other student media, I’d be extremely surprised if there weren’t already rules and guidelines over what you can and can’t say, meaning that if there is a problem with freedom of expression, the focus ought to be on campaigning on the current state of copyright, libel and slander rules and not on something which one would struggle to convincingly describe as a ‘ban’ at all.

Furthermore, because the scope of the ‘ban’ seems to be on Guild premises alone, there’s nothing in the motion to stop anyone turning up with a sound system, finding out where the Guild and University define where Devonshire House stops and the Forum begins, and playing Blurred Lines from the Forum-side of that line. More seriously, a student listening to the song on their phone privately might technically be in breach of the ‘ban’ if taken to its extreme conclusions, but the idea that this would be enforceable or even attempted to be enforced is absurd.

Quite simply, the use of the term ‘censoring’ used by Guild campaigns officer James Roberts (quoted from the Exeposé article linked) is pure hyperbole. I highly doubt that several security firms are watching this referendum keenly, anticipating the chance to get the contract to enforce the ban by confiscating phones, destroying sound systems, and summary executions of those caught listening to it.

If the quotation marks around ‘ban’ every time I write it hasn’t given it away already, I’d urge the Guild to reconsider using the term at all in the motion. If a debate around a ‘ban’ is to take place and not be excruciating for everyone involved, it needs to be focused on the genuine issues of whether we are ok with the song being played on premises which belong to us as members of the Students’ Guild and what is so objectionable about the song in the first place, which will no doubt be emphasised by the ‘yes’ campaign in the coming weeks.

To the ‘no’ campaign, if you want to keep it focused on the real issue, and even to take the sex-positive feminist position as a recent article in the Tab did, then great! We can have a serious discussion! But I beg you, please don’t make this into a barely-applicable issue of freedom of expression and assume that your opponents are any less committed to such values. I’m not sure I can take another ‘debate’ along the lines of the Sun referendum.

Carlus Hudson

Should Blurred Lines be banned from campus? How should the motion be worded? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Warning: Below is the video causing all of the fuss. Some viewers may find it disturbing so don’t click play.

Students vote against banning The Sun

Image credit: Niklas Rahmel

62% of Exeter students have voted against banning sales of The Sun newspaper on University campus, in a record-breaking referendum.

This week’s motion to boycott the newspaper as part of a “No More Page 3” campaign saw thousands of students vote in what was the biggest student turnout in a referendum in recent years. 1504 voted against banning the paper, with 2441 students voting in total.

The campaign, which began in Summer 2012, argued that The Sun should be banned from all University outlets until the bare breasts that feature on Page 3 are removed. Originally a petition, “No More Page 3” now has over 10,000 likes on Facebook and has attracted attention from a number of universities.

The issue has sparked controversy across campus, with both yes and no campaigns being vocal in their support and condemnation. An Xpression FM debate yesterday evening provoked strong emotions and saw a large majority vote against banning The Sun.

Debate Show: The Sun/Page 3 Debate by Xpressionfm on Mixcloud

Virginia Walsh, a second year History student, raised the original complaint with the Students’ Guild. Walsh told Exeposé: “In my opinion this campaign is really important, because Page 3 perpetuates dangerous ideas about  women’s worth. It creates unattainable and unnatural images of women, which can have really negative effects on girls’ body image.”

Critics of the campaign raised concerns over the University’s necessity to protect students’ freedom of speech, arguing that banning a newspaper could be considered as censorship.

George Causer, a second year Politics student, said: “It’s not the job of the University to decide what is an approved publication. The University is meant to promote free speech, not repress it.”

The result goes against some student opinion around the country, with both the University of Cambridge and Durham University recently banning the publication alongside the likes of the LSE and Edinburgh University.

Extended coverage will follow in next week’s paper.

Tom Elliott and Harrison Jones, Online News Editors

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

Banning The Sun: Comment on the Referendum

With The Sun’s availability on campus being threatened by the imminent Guild referendum, Exeposé Comment looks at the arguments made for and against removing The Sun from Guild outlets and leaning on other campus stockists until the pictures of topless women are removed from page 3.

Across UK universities, removing The Sun from sale seems to be becoming a popular method of protesting sexism and misogyny in the media. A ferocious campaign led by No More Page 3 has seen the paper removed in a number of universities including LSE, Edinburgh and Dundee. They have also secured over 100,000 signatures in a petition to Dominic Mohan, the editor of The Sun, to, “drop the bare boobs from the newspaper.” With the referendum by the Guild underway this week led by the Vote Yes to boycotting The Sun on campus! group, some have seen the vote as an inappropriate attempt to limit our freedom of speech, while others still regard the issue as one of the objectification of women as mere voiceless sex objects.

“At its core, the issue concerns the naked breasts present in every issue of The Sun, and the harm that this does to gender equality.”
Photo Credit: Niklas Rahmel

Rachel Brown, former President of Exeter Gender Equality Society argues that, “If you want to buy The Sun, you can go to another newsagents which is no hardship. The Guild ban is about effective campaigning and the referendum makes it a fair process. It sends a clear message that we expect The Sun to ditch their patronising, sexualised representation of women.” Those in favour of banning The Sun are keen to point out that the move is designed to withdraw support for the newspaper from the Guild, and not to dictate people’s reading habits. At its core, the issue concerns the naked breasts present in many issues of The Sun, and the harm that this does to gender equality. No More Page 3’s open letter petition highlights that, “George Alagiah doesn’t say, ‘And now let’s look at Courtney, 21, from Warrington’s bare breasts,’ in the middle of the 6 O’ Clock News, does he, Dominic?… No, they don’t. There would be an outcry.”

It makes sense to say that Page Three Girls are an outdated and misogynistic addition to our printed media, but does that really mean that we should remove the UK’s most widely read publication from campus?

Rob Price, one of those heading the “Vote No to banning The Sun from Guild Shops” group, comments that,” We are not defending Page 3, but rather the spirit of open debate in the student body. The YES campaign can achieve nothing, because The Guild has no jurisdiction over the marketplace, the only stockist of The Sun of campus – but a victory would nonetheless be an attempt to restrict access to material that you disagree with for others, and that is the essence of censorship. So whilst freedom of choice will not actually be infringed, the motion is nonetheless an attempt to do so, and it is on these grounds that we oppose it.”

Freedom of expression is obviously something that should protected, but to what extent and when does protecting one group’s right to  expression results in the persecution of another? For many, it is the case that it is no one’s right to, and the media’s responsibility not to, objectify and over-sexualise a woman in any way. Christopher Fear wrote in the Vote No group, “[The Yes Campaign] is small-minded, parochial, embarrassing, practically ineffective and, as a purely symbolic act, a distraction from the concrete interests of gender equality.”

In Exeposé Comment‘s most responded to Facebook poll to date, 76% voted that The Sun should not be removed from all University campus outlets. Obviously this result comes from a significantly smaller sample size than the referendum being held by the Guild will be subject to, but it does perhaps give a feel for the sentiments of the student population in Exeter.

Of those who responded to the poll, it should come as no surprise that the majority of people who wished to see The Sun banned were women, while the overwhelming majority of those wishing to keep The Sun on our shelves were men. That is not to say that only a woman could have any interest in the promotion of gender equality, however it’s reasonable to suggest that in this situation the female population at the University of Exeter has a more tangible, immediate interest in the issue.

While we believe that The Sun promotes a view of women that is derogatory at best while being neither true or relevant in modern society, there is a fine line to tread between the noble pursuit of equality for all and falling into the trap of enveloping censorship. By no means do we think that this referendum will be the beginning of a slippery slope to overbearing Guild influence, but it does perhaps set a precedent for any and all matters of offence to result in campus-wide reform.

James Bennett and Dave Reynolds, Online Comment Editors

For further argument from both sides read Virginia Walsh’s Banning The Sun: Boobs Aren’t News and Harry Chamberlain’s Banning The Sun: Nothing Short of Censorship.  Do you find The Sun’s depiction of women sexist or misogynistic? Is banning the paper the appropriate way of protesting their content? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.