Conor Byrne introduces us to this shocking, moving and powerful masterpiece…
Khaled Hosseini is best known as the author of the internationally bestselling The Kite Runner (2003). His second novel A Thousand Splendid Suns (2007), however, has been equally successful, becoming a number one New York Times bestseller for 15 weeks following its publication. Hosseini, as an Afghan-American, is well positioned to relate a harrowing story of betrayal, violence and love set in his native country, Afghanistan.
The novel spans a period of over fifty years, from the 1960s to 2003. It essentially tells the story of two Afghan women, Mariam and Laila, who are brought together in devastating circumstances. Mariam is a harami, an illegitimate child born to a poor villager and an extremely rich businessman who, living in the patriarchal society of Kabul, has three wives and numerous children. She eventually leaves her mother to find her father, who she believes loves her and wants to care for her, only to discover that she is, in fact, nothing to him. Tragically, her mother commits suicide as a result of Mariam’s loss, the first of several deaths which plague the events of the novel. At fifteen, the stricken Mariam is married to Rasheed, a man over thirty years older than her, bitter, troubled and cruel. Mariam’s failure to bear him a son earns her his hatred and contempt, and she is confined to her household, forbidden to leave without him, dressed in burqa; which further conveys her oppression and lack of freedom.
Laila, on the other hand, is the affluent daughter of a teacher and his fairly liberal wife, and excels academically. Her closest friend is Tariq, whom she spends most days playing with during her childhood, a friendship which eventually blossoms into love. But with the onset of political conflict in Afghanistan, violence and death engulfs Laila’s family. Her two brothers are killed, and Tariq and his family leave Kabul. Out of desperation, Laila and Tariq make love, and Laila falls pregnant. Ironically, given the scandalous nature of that act, both Laila’s parents are killed by a rocket before either of them discovers their daughter’s secret. Laila is subsequently taken in by Rasheed and Mariam, and upon learning of her pregnancy, agrees to marry Rasheed. When she gives birth to a daughter, who doesn’t resemble him in appearance, Rasheed becomes suspicious. An abusive man, who regularly beats Mariam and at one point forces her to eat pebbles, he begins physically harming Laila.
In a context of abuse and mistrust, hatred and death, Mariam and Laila become friends and confidants. The rise of the Taliban further oppresses the two women, and when Laila’s daughter is sent to an orphanage because of the family’s poverty, Laila is beaten by the Taliban on trying to reach her. The high point of the story, however, comes with Tariq’s reappearance – Rasheed had informed Laila that he was dead. In a bloody scene, Rasheed attempts to kill Laila, but Mariam rescues her and murders Rasheed instead. For her actions, Mariam is executed. Laila and Tariq leave for Pakistan with their daughter and Laila’s infant son.
The book is a moving tale, set in the harshness and cruelty of modern-day Afghanistan. It is a story of love and friendship, the story of the brutality inflicted on women in a patriarchal society. It fully deserves five stars.
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.
UPDATE: Tim Westwood responds exclusively to Exeposé regarding sexist slur allegations
A spokesperson for Tim Westwood told Exeposé: “Tim was DJ-ing from midnight to 4 a.m. for a university crowd aged over 18. The music he plays is hip-hop and reggae which includes, at times, explicit lyrics and Tim introduces some tracks by quoting their lyrics to the crowd. Tim apologises for any offence that may have been caused.”
A source close to Tim Westwood said: “Westwood has been gigging for years playing hip-hop and reggae so people going to his gigs know what music to expect and quoting lyrics is all part of the show. He is mortified that people would think he was being offensive as it is all part of the late night act.”[divider]
Exeposé has learnt that the Exeter Respect Concert has been postponed indefinitely, following accusations that planned headliner Tim Westwood made sexist comments whilst performing at a student union.
The concert was originally due to take place on 25 October, but will not have a new date scheduled until the promoter has investigated the accusations and given Mr Westwood the chance to clarify his position on equality.
Mr Westwood left BBC Radio 1 earlier this year after a 20 year career at the station, during which time he has also hosted the UK version of cult-show Pimp My Ride and won three MOBO awards for Best UK Radio DJ.
Mr Westwood, 56, was performing at Leicester University on Saturday 5 October for 2,000 students, as the headliner of the University’s ‘We ❤ R&B’ event – part of their Freshers’ Week programme.
According to a number of students at the event, Mr Westwood made a number of offensive comments to the crowd over his microphone, including: “Girl in the front row in the black dress, I’ll be f***ing you tonight”, and “Girls, keep your p***ies tight and clean”.
Mr Westwood also allegedly said to a member of the crowd, “Security have told me you need to wear a sports bra”, and dedicated a song to “All the girls with clean wet p***ies”.
The Tab Leicester, who initially reported the comments, have been threatened with legal action from Mr Westwood’s representatives, for misappropriating lyrics from reggae songs as sexist comments. This is despite numerous testimonies from students attending the event saying that they felt his comments were offensive to the crowd.
Dr Suaad Genem-George, on behalf of the Exeter Respect Chair, said: “Exeter Respect have a zero tolerance policy on all forms of prejudice – both implicit and explicit – and we explicitly condemn any form of sexism.
“If the comments that have allegedly been made are true, then we condemn them clearly and firmly as inappropriate.
“We fully support all students as they are the new generation to promote Equality, Diversity and Human Rights”.
The concert has been organised by Urban Treats Entertainment as a celebration of diversity during Black History Month. Exeter Respect have leant their name to the event in order to promote their values of diversity and equality.
Chris Rootkin, VP Welfare and Community, said: “I am pleased to see that the allegations of inappropriate behaviour and remarks made by Tim Westwood are being investigated by the promoter of the Exeter Respect Concert. I and the Students’ Guild take matters of respect, diversity and dignity very seriously and I fully support any action that seeks to promote these.
Ricky Freelove, a second year History student, said: “For what the Exeter Respect concert is supposed to represent – equality and diversity across all sectors – Tim Westwood is the complete opposite of what I would expect to see at the concert after hearing about his alleged recent comments at the Leicester University gig. The comments are vile, and would be a true embarrassment to him. The vulgar, misogynistic language supposedly used at Leicester is just appalling, and I expect to see a full apology from him. I should hope that he is not playing any other student events.”
Blurred Lines has caused a great deal of controversy in the months since its release, and a ban has been proposed on University premises. Misogyny in media is not a new invention, and Fran Lowe takes us through the ins and outs…
The Students’ Guild has announced that in response to a student request, it plans to hold a student vote on the potential banning of Robin Thicke’s song “Blurred Lines” from all Guild premises and events. That includes the Lemmy, the Ram, and things like the Freshers’ Ball.
According to those who support the ban, the song is openly misogynistic and encourages rape culture. The opposition argue that we should be allowed to decide what we listen to for ourselves rather than be bound by a vote based on the request of one student, on how our social lives should be run.
The whole topic opens up a huge debating can of worms: feminism, sexism, censorship, democracy, to name just a few; speaking as someone who usually has a ready-made opinion on just about everything, it’s difficult to know where to begin when trying to decide what to think about this one.
Therefore it is perhaps easiest to begin with the bare facts of the matter, and look at Thicke’s song itself. Surely we all remember the scandal when the music video was removed from YouTube: the original featured a lot of topless models and not a lot else, and had to be heavily and carefully edited before it was deemed suitable. That kicked off enough feminist outrage at the time, with huge numbers of people complaining that it objectified women, considering them to be nothing more than sexual objects used for decoration, rather than talented individuals in their own right.
At the time, the banning of “Blurred Lines” from YouTube was juxtaposed with the removal and later reinstating of Justin Timberlake’s video for “Tunnel Vision”, which similarly is rather heavy on the topless women, but was considered to be “art”, and therefore permissible. Thicke’s video, however, was not deemed arty enough, and instead ticked more of the boxes to have it described as soft porn. It is perfectly understandable where the feminists are coming from here, as it is hard to justify a video with mostly naked women dancing around fully-clothed men as anything other than viewing males as the dominant sex. It seems inappropriate, and even unfair, that this should be allowed on a website that has a strict no-nudity policy.
But in just a few short months, we have moved from the banning of a raunchy video to the suggestion that the song itself should be removed from university premises. The lyrics themselves do, admittedly, seem to be condoning misogyny and rape culture; arguably there is little more to the song than describing a hunger for sex. Encouraging the male population of the university that “no” doesn’t necessarily mean “no” is the last thing we should be doing, and perhaps banning a song that suggests there are “blurred lines” when it comes to sexual consent is the logical way to demonstrate that. Lyrics in the song such as “I know you want it” and “You’re an animal, it’s in your nature” are difficult to explain in any other context, thereby giving meat to the bones of the argument to remove the song from Guild premises.
What’s more, we are by no means the first university in the country to be considering this ban. A ban has been in place at many universities, such as Edinburgh, for weeks; others are discussing it alongside us. In order for the message that rape is not okay to reach out to wider society as a whole, it might be an idea for universities, as centres of learning within our communities, to show solidarity in the face of such misogyny by banning the song together.
However, it must be remembered that we are a university without a Feminism Society; instead we have Gender Equality Society, a name that takes any hint of positive discrimination out of the equation, suggesting that the university doesn’t want special treatment for women, just equal treatment. Gender Equality applies to both genders, promoting fairness and equal opportunities, instead of being a man-hating tribe of Feminists declaring anything where woman isn’t the powerful Amazon to be sexism.
Moreover, we are a university that not so long ago voted to keep The Sun in our campus shops following a campaign to have it banned until the end of traditional page 3. In the light of this, it is arguable that the referendum about “Blurred Lines” is just a waste of Guild time, effort and money, as the arguments then were similar to those under discussion now: some students making the point that the objectification of women is unacceptable, versus claims that we should be allowed to choose what we read, and are all supposedly intelligent enough to make decisions about the ways in which we lead our lives for ourselves, without the influence of such media.
Obviously, the Guild does need to support students making the point that treating women as sexual objects, who secretly don’t mean it when they say no, is obviously completely unacceptable. It is often difficult enough as it is to convince a drunk man on a night out that this is the case, and there is still a long way to go before the matter is cleared up. But is the banning of one song really the right way to achieve this?
Firstly, “Blurred Lines” is far from being the only song in the English language that could be considered misogynistic. For example, Lemmy favourite “N****s in Paris” includes the lyrics “Bitch behave” and “Come and meet me in the bathroom stall/And show me why you deserve to have it all”. In short, if the Guild were to hold a student vote to ban any song that contained any lyrics vaguely sexual or demeaning to one gender or the other, nights in the Lemmy would mean listening to even more S Club 7 and One Direction. It is a sad but true state of affairs that misogyny in the media is unavoidable. Until the long-distant day that women are treated with respect in the media comes, there will always be music like this; banning one song from a university is never going to change this.
Secondly, it is hugely important to remember that we live in a democracy. One would hope that the democracy of the country as a whole extends to the universities within it. If the Guild were to start deciding what we should and should not be listening to, even on the basis of a democratic vote requested by students, that is nothing short of censorship. Anyone who has ever studied history, or even watches the news, will know that it has long been a favourite ploy of dictators the world over to control what their subjects listen to or watch, for example the Nazi regime burning the books of those it did not want its people to read. Although obviously the Guild banning one song from its premises is by no means on the scale of Nazi censorship, it can plausibly be argued that it is the principle that is at stake here: that of personal choice and freedom.
Robin Thicke Image credits: Kia Clay
As a university, surely it is our role within society to promote democracy and freedom, and educate the world in how best to go about achieving this? Surely, therefore, it would be hugely hypocritical for the Guild itself to start dictating to its students what they should be listening to, and how they should be enjoying their spare time? This enormous contradiction, of a centre of education and supposedly eighth best university in the country, as somewhere that wants to decide the social lives of its own students for them, is a hugely strong argument for the No campaign in the referendum. Choosing our music is part of our personal freedom, and it seems painfully oxymoronic that a university, supposedly giving us freedom through education and knowledge, is in otherareas trying to pin us down and control us.
That said, the Guild is not attempting to stop the rest of our social haunts from playing “Blurred Lines”. No one is forcing our students to stay in the Lemmy and listen to its carefully selected playlist. If they were, that really would be an infringement of our freedom. However, as it is nothing is stopping us from heading down the road into town and going elsewhere. It would be interesting to see what the result of a ban might be, if it goes ahead: might people start boycotting Guild events, as a protest against such censorship? For an answer to this one, we’ve just got to wait and see.
Many people believe that the Guild should stand for democracy: after all, we vote for who runs it, what goes on with it, and it supposedly represents the voices of all students. Therefore, shouldn’t it stand up against dictatorship of what we can and can’t listen to, and instead allow us personal freedom?
Indeed, Guild President Hannah Barton said that the university is very definitely pro-democracy, as is shown by the fact that we are having a referendum on this matter, rather than having the answer dictated to us. She went on to say that, “The Guild exists to represent its members and to allow them to have their say on matters that impact on them. All-student votes are an essential element of being a democratic organisation. Some students will inevitably be dissatisfied with the outcome of each student vote as only one campaign can win, but this is the nature of democracy and, I hope, an acceptable trade-off for having the chance to shape the student experience.”
Clearly for our President, this level of democracy is what the university experience is all about, and we should perhaps be proud to be so open in discussing issues such as these with our students and allowing them to make the adult decisions for themselves.
Doing what we want with our time is certainly part of human freedom. In his seminal essay On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill claims that “liberty of tastes and pursuits” and “doing as we like […] without impediment from our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong” is necessary for a society to be considered truly free, and goes on to explain that such liberties are necessary for our mental wellbeing. Put simply, he believed that as long as what we are doing does not actually hurt other people, we should be free to do as we like; it is a crucial part of our humanity to be so free. Surely this can be applied to the Guild banning “Blurred Lines”? My listening to the song on campus is not actually going to hurt anyone, so therefore why should I not be allowed to do it? Mill’s claims that censorship of any kind is actually damaging to us as people certainly make a lot of sense; it worries me that if we ban one song, it may lead to others, until all we listen to on campus is mind-numbing happy music.
However, while the university may want to be seen to stand on the side of freedom of opinion, against censorship, it is also true that it needs to show that misogyny is just unacceptable, and it seems that the common way to do that at the moment is to ban “Blurred Lines”. Perhaps the Guild fears that we might end up being one of the last universities in the country not to ban the song, which would lead to us being branded sexist, old-fashioned, and patriarchal.
That said, the fact that we are voting at all demonstrates that the Guild cares about the way we treat our women. Hannah Barton believes that “regardless of how our members vote, raising awareness of issues such as sexism and misogyny can only be a good thing in my opinion. Without awareness we are unable to tackle such problems, so this is certainly a positive first step.” Indeed, all that is necessary to help put a stop to the objectification of women could simply be raising awareness of the situation, rather than consistently brushing the problems under the carpet; the vote itself will do that.
Removing the song from Guild events would, however, be a strong, straightforward way of demonstrating to the world that Exeter University will not stand for mistreatment of women, and it’s probably safe to say that there will be plenty of support for this once this comes to the vote: I saw a girl in the Forum today with a T-shirt that said ‘No means no’, so I doubt it’s too hard to imagine which way she will be voting. However, you might expect that people who stand up for equality for the sexes and liberty for women would stand up for liberty for all, and the freedom for all to choose what they listen to.
Keeping the song, on the other hand, would be a way to demonstrate that the Guild stands for liberty and freedom of choice, fundamental human rights and, I imagine, hugely important principles for many of our students.
All told, it seems likely that the vote will come down to a simple question of whether the student body wants the Guild to try and show, through the banning of one, some could say picked-on, song, that we will not condone the objectification of women, or whether it wants to continue to fight for freedoms and democracy, rather than all-encompassing censorship and control. Perhaps the fact that this is going to a referendum, rather than the decision being made for us, is a clue as to what the university finds more important? A referendum itself is a form of democracy: it could be said that this is a referendum about democracy itself.
Fran Lowe
You can find Deputy Editor Emily Tanner’s take on rape culture here.
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.
As the student vote on the use of Blurred Lines throughout the University is announced, Emily Tanner, Deputy Editor, takes a look at the wider issue of rape culture in our society.
“I know you want it, I know you want it. Because you’re a good girl,” is a refrain you must have undoubtedly heard in the bars and clubs over the summer. Not even disguised in metaphor or wrapped in layers of lyrical flair, Robin Thicke’s ‘Blurred Lines’ explicitly supports rape culture. Even in this modern age where sexism is supposedly dying away and the battles of the feminists and the egalitarians seem to many to have been concluded years ago, a culture in which rape is still accepted by some as funny, light hearted and something to be discussed over a couple of pints in the pub is shockingly evident.
Slogans such as “Nice girlfriend. What breed is she?” from Topman and “I’m feeling rapey,” and “Sometimes no means yes,” from eBay have been covering the chests men across the world this summer. The fact that a popular manufacturer such as Topman or the biggest online sales site eBay feel it is still acceptable to sell t-shirts with such slogans pasted across the front for the world to see, proves that many do not give the matter the respect nor treat it with the severity it deserves. With 85,000 women estimated to be victims of rape in England and Wales each year, 400,000 women sexually assaulted annually and one in five women aged between 16 and 59 suffering some experience of sexual violence in their life from the age of 16, it is clear that rape is still a serious subject in society. Moreover 28 per cent of women who are victims of the most serious offenses never tell anyone – arguably due in part to the trivialisation of the matter in wider society – and only 15 per cent will report the offense to the police.
‘Blurred Lines’ is possibly the smash hit anthem of the summer which maintained its place at number one for a number of weeks and is probably played daily on most national and local radio stations. It would be wrong to say that everyone who listens to the song, everyone who mindlessly waves their arms around to it in a club on a Saturday night, even everyone who likes the song is in support of rape culture. It is a catchy pop record which many, in one way or another, will enjoy, regardless of the lyrics. Yet the issue here is surely this lack of regard for the lyrics, not just on the part of the listeners or the clubbers who scream “I’ll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two,” but the fact that a song with such awful lyrics has been accepted into society and culture with few questions as to why or how. We thankfully exist in a culture which may see problems with songs like this and the T-shirts sold by Topman and eBay and may resent the fact that ‘Blurred Lines’ has become so successful but in which many individuals are willing to either support or turn a blind eye to the trivialisation of rape culture.
Here in Exeter the matter is still as evident as it is in popular culture and the wider society. Were someone to direct you towards Hoopern Lane most students may shrug their shoulders and look baffled at the whereabouts of this location. Were someone to instead direct you towards the colloquially named ‘Rape Alley’ most could tell you exactly where this was. Students barely realise that in naming this lane as they do they are trivialising the matter of rape culture in a way which is admittedly far from the trivialisation of ‘Blurred Lines’ and Topman’s t-shirts, but nonetheless willing to accept matters of rape into an everyday language which decontextualizes the real issues at stake. We are accepting the use of language involved in a culture of rape into our everyday speech without fully understanding the consequences.
Image credits: avhell
Challenges to this blind acceptance of rape culture and the language we use surrounding the matter was, however, taken on at this year’s Edinburgh Fringe Festival by Fosters Comedy Award Winner Adrienne Truscott whose show Asking For It won the Award’s Panel Prize this year. Dressed only from the waist up, Truscott tackled the issues surrounding the acceptance, an acceptance which is now thankfully waning significantly, of rape jokes in modern, popular comedy in a small, insignificant bookshop in Edinburgh and went on to win one of the biggest arts awards of the year. Evidently challenges to rape culture are not going unnoticed – although it should be noted in this instance that these challenges are not going unnoticed at the world’s biggest gathering of liberal, left-wing arts fans – as society begins to accept the prevalent attitude as a serious problem and not a matter to be taken lightly.
‘Blurred Lines’ will never become unpopular, Topman may once again make and sell inappropriate T-Shirts without seeing where the problem is and Exeter students may never learn where Hoopern Lane is, but it seems that battles against an acceptance of the casual, colloquial culture and language surrounding rape are at least surfacing in our society.
Khaled Hosseini is best known as the author of the internationally bestselling The Kite Runner (2003). His second novel A Thousand Splendid Suns (2007), however, has been equally successful, becoming a number one New York Times bestseller for 15 weeks following its publication. Hosseini, as an Afghan-American, is well positioned to relate a harrowing story of betrayal, violence and love set in his native country, Afghanistan.
exeposedev 