After seeing Elona's post, I was forced to comment. There is just something about this topic that brings about a lot of opinions in me. Here is what I had to say:
People in class, myself included, dismissed the notion of violent television being linked to violence in society because these studies often confuse correlation with causation. No one can definitively state one way or another if watching violent programs makes one violent. If it were as simple as that, everyone would be violent. We are all exposed to violence during our lifetimes – be it fictionalized or real – starting at a young age, and as was pointed out in class, violent crime rates are down. I think, like most people who believe in these studies, you are looking for an easy answer to a difficult question.
As far as the content of the programs you watched being "evil," I also disagree. Heroes fighting bad guys is nothing new. Children's tales such as Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast, Red Riding Hood and Hansel and Gretel – and I could go on – depict good triumphing over evil often through violent means. Many of these have been made into movies by Disney; should Disney films not be watched by children?
Also, I have watched a lot of superhero cartoons, and I have never seen the hero kill the villain. When it comes to heroes like Batman and Superman, they never kill the bad guy because that would, well, kill off the bad guy, thus ending any chance of a return. Writers do not like killing off villains in serialized shows because that would lead to less rogues to draw from.
As far as Looney Tunes goes, I'll worry about them when drive-by anvilings become a societal problem.
As for your opinion on Eminem, I also disagree. You think he needs to "stop playing stupid, because he knows he is looked upto [sic] by younger kids." Eminem's music SHOULD NOT be listened to by children. If it is, that falls on the parents, not the artist. Eminem does not make music for seven year olds. Eminem has never tried to market his music to seven year olds. He should not have to censor his art simply because a child might happen upon it or want to listen to it. Parents instill values, not hip hop artists. Should painters who paint explicit portraits stop doing so because a child might see it? Of course not. The same holds true for recording artists.
I also think you are way off base in saying that Eminem needs to "be a man and own up to his mistakes." What mistakes? Corrupting the youth? You know who else was charged with corrupting the youth? Socrates. Why is Eminem to be held accountable for the actions of others?
Eminem is hardly the only recording artist who has touched on violent subject matter. Do you remember The Dickie Chicks' murder-filled revenge-story song, "Goodbye Earl"? Should The Dickie Chicks be reprimanded for creating such a song? What about Phil Collins? Ever heard "In the Air Tonight"? Should Phil Collins be censored?
More than just recording artists have delved into violence. What about Truman Capote? He made his name by exploiting a real-life violent crime. Should people not be allowed to read In Cold Blood? How about William Shakespeare? How many of his plays dealt with violence? Should people not be exposed to Shakespeare?
If you think that young people should not be watching violent programs like Looney Tunes or listening to Eminem, that's fine, but there is a simple solution: turn them off. Simply say, "No, you can't watch/listen to that. You're too young." Eminem makes music for older listeners. It is him having a one-way conversation with adults. Why is that not OK? Why can he not speak to a more mature listener? Do adults not have different conversations when children are not around than they do when they are? Eminem's songs are no different.
At the end of the day, the responsibility for instilling proper morals and values falls on parents, not Eminem or Looney Tunes.
Monday, March 21, 2011
In Defense of Eminem
And last week, I seen a Schwarzaneggar movieThose are lyrics to the Eminem song "Who Knew" from his 2000 album The Marshall Mathers LP.
Where he's shootin all sorts of these motherfuckers with a Uzi.
I sees three little kids, up in the front row
Screamin "Go," with their 17-year-old Uncle.
I'm like, "Guidance - ain't they got the same moms and dads
Who got mad when I asked if they liked violence?"
For years Eminem has been a lightning rod for controversy with his violent lyrics being one aspect of said controversy.
The very first words on his major-label debut, The Slim Shady LP were "Hi, kids, do you like violence?" on the opening track, which also happened to be his first single, "My Name Is." That is what the above quote from "Who Knew" is referencing.
Eminem has violent lyrics; there is no debating that point. Songs like "Stan" and "Kim" from The Marshall Mathers LP as well as "'97 Bonnie & Clyde" and "Guilty Conscience" from The Slim Shady LP contain tremendously violent lyrics.
Does that mean that Eminem should shoulder any of the blame for violence in our society?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
If you look at a lot of his lyrics following the "My Name Is" controversy you will see what his stance is.
First we have this from "If I Get Locked Up Tonight" which is not from one of his albums, but from the Funkmaster Flex-Big Kap compilation album The Tunnel (Side note: Every hip-hop fan should do themselves a favour and grab this underrated album if they haven't already. It's great!). In the song, Eminem says:
Psych I'm just joking, for Christ's sakeThis was the first instance I could find where Eminem admits that people should not take his words so seriously.
Don't get so bent out of shape
'Cause I went out and raped six girlfriends
Some people just don't get it, but I won't let it upset me
Cause they don't know better
His sophomore album, The Marshall Mathers LP, is littered with tracks that have him telling people to calm down and stop taking what he says so literally. But one line from one song best exemplifies his feelings on the matter:
From "Criminal":
Shit, half the shit I say, I just make it upThis is about as blunt as Eminem can be when trying to defend himself. But while many dismissed, or simply did not hear this explanation, Eminem went one step further on 2002's The Eminem Show
To make you mad so kiss my white naked ass
From "Sing for the Moment":
It's all political, if my music is literal, and I'm a criminalDoes he need to spell it out any more plainly than that? His point is if he was the violent sociopath that he portrays in some of his songs, he would clearly be unfit to raise his child.
how the fuck can I raise a little girl?
I couldn't, I wouldn't be fit to
Many have tried to come up with a reason that Eminem is attacked more than most for his violent content. Two songs, "The Way I Am" from The Marshall Mathers LP and "White America" from The Eminem Show, display lyrics that give Eminem's opinion on why he is so frequently the target.
From "The Way I Am":
Sometimes I just feel like my father, I hate to be botheredFrom "White America":
With all of this nonsense it's constant
And "Oh, it's just lyrical content!"
The song "Guilty Conscience" has gotten such rotten responses
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a fuck
When you won't just put up with the bullshit they pull
Cause they full of shit too
When a dude's gettin' bullied and shoots up your school
And they blame it on Marilyn - and the heroin
Where were the parents at?
And look at where it's at
Middle America
Now it's a tragedy
Now it's so sad to see
An upper class city having this happening
Then attack Eminem cause I rap this way
But I'm glad cause they feed me the fuel
That I need for the fire to burn and it's burnin' and I have returned
See the problem is, I speak to suburban kidsThe entire second verse from "The Way I Am" is a scathing retort to people taking him too seriously, and the reason for it is because his music hits the ears of white teens in middle-class homes. What he is clearly saying is that if he was one of any number of black hip-hop artists who talk about the same subject matter and reached a predominantly black audience, no one would care.
who otherwise woulda never knew these words exist
Whose moms probably woulda never gave two squirts of piss
'til I created so much motherfuckin' turbulence!
Straight out the tube, right into your living rooms I came
And kids flipped, when they knew I was produced by Dre
That's all it took, and they were instantly hooked right in
And they connected with me too because I looked like them
That's why they put my lyrics up under this microscope
Searchin' with a fine tooth comb, it's like this rope
waitin' to choke; tightenin' around my throat
Watchin' me while I write this, like I don't like this (Nope!)
All I hear is: lyrics, lyrics, constant controversy, sponsors working
round the clock to try to stop my concerts early, surely
Hip-Hop was never a problem in Harlem only in Boston
After it bothered the fathers of daughters startin' to blossom
So now I'm catchin' the flack from these activists when they raggin'
Actin' like I'm the first rapper to smack a bitch or say faggot, shit!
Just look at me like I'm your closest pal
The poster child, the motherfuckin' spokesman now
The entire third verse from "White America" tackles the same subject matter as "The Way I Am" did. It seems like Eminem is forced to tread the same waters because no one listens the first time around.
It is interesting to note that following The Eminem Show and his smash-hit movie 8 Mile the controversy around his lyrics seemed to die down. The semi-autobiographical tale of 8 Mile seem to give Eminem a little sympathy, especially among older people. I can't count how many times I caught people who ridiculed me for listening to Eminem suddenly bopping along as "Lose Yourself" (the lead single from the soundtrack to 8 Mile) was played on the radio. Eminem has became acceptable. He was no longer the Boogeyman that needed to be feared.
In 2009, Eminem made a comeback, and it is funny to note that no controversy arose upon his return. Yet, in 2009, he released probably his most violent record to date in Relapse.
Songs like "3 AM," "Same Song and Dance," and "Stay Wide Awake" are littered with violent lyrics much more explicit than anything from The Slim Shady LP or The Marshall Mathers LP. As a fan, I am glad the same inane arguments did not arise again in 2009 like they did in 1999 and 2000, but it does make me wonder why it didn't happen considering the lyrical content of Relapse.
Back when Eminem came on the scene, he was an easy scapegoat for all those people who hold media effects studies to be unimpeachable. He was the Marilyn Manson of rap.
But Eminem is no more to blame for causing violence as the writers of horror movies are. Musicians, like any other entertainer, peddle in make believe. While Eminem may have used his real life as a basis for his songs, he is no more at fault for causing people to act violently than those who make movies or TV shows that are "based on a true story" are.
If we are truly worried about violence in our society, we need to get over blaming musicians like Eminem. What someone like Eminem makes music about does not cause people to be violent. Eminem is simply an artist making art.
P.S. I know this is an extremely long post, but my I am very passionate about this subject – both Eminem and studies linking violent entertainment to violent behaviour. So I apologize for going way over the allotted word limit. Sometimes you have to bend a few rules for the greater good.
Friday, March 18, 2011
My Response to "Can we REALLY say sports are religious?"
Marcia decided to tackle the subject of the religious nature of sports. Being as she came to the conclusion that one cannot call sports religious, I decided to respond to some of Marcia's points against the religious nature of sports. Here is that response:
I think you have made some interesting points, but I would like to provide a few counterpoints to your argument.
For one, I don't think God is necessarily needed for something to qualify as religious. Buddhists do not have a "Higher Being," and I don't think that makes them any less religious than any religion with a God.
I cannot refute the fact that there is no life after death for fans. However, there is very much a life after death for the athletes involved. Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Johnny Unitas, Walter Payton, Wilt Chamberlain and Maurice Richard, to name a few, have taken on a mythical status among fans, with their performances having achieved a transcendence that lasts long after their playing days, and lives, are over. This is not afforded every deceased athlete, but it is possible if one puts in enough hard work.
I also disagree in that there are no morals or values present in sports. I learned plenty of values from sports, such as the rewards for hard work and the need to sacrifice in order to achieve greatness. I learned that sometimes winning requires putting the needs of others above your own. I also learned the very important value of teamwork. Values can very much be instilled by sports.
Sports also brings people together. It is rare for a Sunday in the fall to go by without the men in my family – father, brother and myself – gathering around the television to watch football. With the recent birth of my brother's son, I look forward to the day that he will join us in our Sunday ritual. Sports has a way of bringing people together.
Does any of this prove one way or another that sports are religious? I guess I can't really say. I don't think it makes sports not religious. For me, sports is religious. But like any religious experience, I think it is all about what the individual believes.
I think you have made some interesting points, but I would like to provide a few counterpoints to your argument.
For one, I don't think God is necessarily needed for something to qualify as religious. Buddhists do not have a "Higher Being," and I don't think that makes them any less religious than any religion with a God.
I cannot refute the fact that there is no life after death for fans. However, there is very much a life after death for the athletes involved. Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Johnny Unitas, Walter Payton, Wilt Chamberlain and Maurice Richard, to name a few, have taken on a mythical status among fans, with their performances having achieved a transcendence that lasts long after their playing days, and lives, are over. This is not afforded every deceased athlete, but it is possible if one puts in enough hard work.
I also disagree in that there are no morals or values present in sports. I learned plenty of values from sports, such as the rewards for hard work and the need to sacrifice in order to achieve greatness. I learned that sometimes winning requires putting the needs of others above your own. I also learned the very important value of teamwork. Values can very much be instilled by sports.
Sports also brings people together. It is rare for a Sunday in the fall to go by without the men in my family – father, brother and myself – gathering around the television to watch football. With the recent birth of my brother's son, I look forward to the day that he will join us in our Sunday ritual. Sports has a way of bringing people together.
Does any of this prove one way or another that sports are religious? I guess I can't really say. I don't think it makes sports not religious. For me, sports is religious. But like any religious experience, I think it is all about what the individual believes.
Monday, March 14, 2011
If Sports is Religion, Then I Must Be Job
Let me start by saying that sports is my religion. I can recite stats as easily as one can recite scripture; I can quote from athlete autobiographies as easily as one can quote from the Bible. I spend my Sundays in front of the television watching some game, any game, for longer than one spends in church. We can argue about the merits of sports as religion, but it is not always about scholarly approaches. Sometimes it is just about feeling, and I feel like my religion is sports.
With that out of the way, if sports is religion, I guess that would make me Job.
We all know the story of Job, right? Pious man tested by God to see if he will still worship him despite God allowing Satan to inflict tremendous punishment on Job.
Why am I the sporting equivalent of Job? Here is a look at the team I cheer for (and the last time they won their league's championship):
CFL: Hamilton Tiger-Cats (Last Grey Cup: 1999)
NFL: San Francisco 49ers (Last Super Bowl: 1994)
NCAA-F: Notre Dame Fighting Irish (Last National Championship: 1988)
NBA: New York Knicks (Last NBA Championship: 1973)
NHL: Toronto Maple Leafs (Last Stanley Cup: 1967)
MLB: Chicago Cubs (Last World Series: 1908)
So it has been over ten years since one of my teams has won a championship, and in three cases I was not even alive (and in the case of the Cubs, no living member of my family was alive) the last time they were crowned champions.
But it has not been all bad. Prior to this drought, I had it great. During the 1980s and 1990s, the Ti-Cats and 49ers were playing for and winning championships frequently. The Leafs in the early 1990s and late 1990s were playing some of their best hockey, reaching four conference finals (1993, 1994, 1999, 2002). The Irish were a perennial top-10 team. The Knicks reached two NBA Finals (1994, 1999) and were always in the mix, only to be thwarted by the Michael Jordan-led Chicago Bulls. Even the Cubbies had Sammy Sosa. I had it pretty good when I was younger... just like Job.
Then the sporting Gods decided to test my faith. All of a sudden, a playoff appearance became a rare sight. The 49ers have not been to the playoffs since 2002; the Leafs since 2004; the Knicks since 2004. The Cats just ended a half-decade-long drought in 2009. The Irish have not been legitimate contenders since the mid-1990s. The fact that the most success one of my teams have had is the Cubs winning back-to-back National League Central division titles (2007, 2008) should speak volumes.
My faith in my teams was tested, but like Job I refused to lose my faith. I know (hope?) that one day my ship will come in and I will be basking in the glory of a championship season.
I mean, I'm due, right?
This year is the year.
The Cats are going to win the Grey Cup. The Knicks are going to upset everyone and take home the NBA title. The Cubs are going to break the curse. It's going to happen!
See what I mean? Forever the optimist. Never one to lose faith.
But if 2011 closes without a championship season by one of my teams, I will shrug my shoulders and say what all sports fans say, "There's always next year."
With that out of the way, if sports is religion, I guess that would make me Job.
We all know the story of Job, right? Pious man tested by God to see if he will still worship him despite God allowing Satan to inflict tremendous punishment on Job.
Why am I the sporting equivalent of Job? Here is a look at the team I cheer for (and the last time they won their league's championship):
CFL: Hamilton Tiger-Cats (Last Grey Cup: 1999)
NFL: San Francisco 49ers (Last Super Bowl: 1994)
NCAA-F: Notre Dame Fighting Irish (Last National Championship: 1988)
NBA: New York Knicks (Last NBA Championship: 1973)
NHL: Toronto Maple Leafs (Last Stanley Cup: 1967)
MLB: Chicago Cubs (Last World Series: 1908)
So it has been over ten years since one of my teams has won a championship, and in three cases I was not even alive (and in the case of the Cubs, no living member of my family was alive) the last time they were crowned champions.
But it has not been all bad. Prior to this drought, I had it great. During the 1980s and 1990s, the Ti-Cats and 49ers were playing for and winning championships frequently. The Leafs in the early 1990s and late 1990s were playing some of their best hockey, reaching four conference finals (1993, 1994, 1999, 2002). The Irish were a perennial top-10 team. The Knicks reached two NBA Finals (1994, 1999) and were always in the mix, only to be thwarted by the Michael Jordan-led Chicago Bulls. Even the Cubbies had Sammy Sosa. I had it pretty good when I was younger... just like Job.
Then the sporting Gods decided to test my faith. All of a sudden, a playoff appearance became a rare sight. The 49ers have not been to the playoffs since 2002; the Leafs since 2004; the Knicks since 2004. The Cats just ended a half-decade-long drought in 2009. The Irish have not been legitimate contenders since the mid-1990s. The fact that the most success one of my teams have had is the Cubs winning back-to-back National League Central division titles (2007, 2008) should speak volumes.
My faith in my teams was tested, but like Job I refused to lose my faith. I know (hope?) that one day my ship will come in and I will be basking in the glory of a championship season.
I mean, I'm due, right?
This year is the year.
The Cats are going to win the Grey Cup. The Knicks are going to upset everyone and take home the NBA title. The Cubs are going to break the curse. It's going to happen!
See what I mean? Forever the optimist. Never one to lose faith.
But if 2011 closes without a championship season by one of my teams, I will shrug my shoulders and say what all sports fans say, "There's always next year."
Sunday, March 13, 2011
My Response to "Justin, I love you & I got your back"
It seems like the Justin Bieber posts just keep on coming. I know I already commented on one, but Elisa's post got me a little bit worked up, so I felt the need to comment again on the young man who is becoming the most talked about figure in the class.
Here is what I had to say:
I have to say I was somewhat offended by what you wrote. Here are some excerpts that I took particular offense to:
Your comment also says nothing of adults who dislike Bieber. I am an adult that is not a fan, but it has nothing to do with jealously. I just do not like the kid’s music. I do not think there is anything wrong with not liking an artist just because he happens to be “a good kid.”
You might not feel that people have a reason to dislike Justin Bieber, but I am sure if you were to ask those that do, they would have reasons. You might not agree with their reasons, but they probably do not agree with your reasons for liking him.
In your second paragraph you ask a lot of questions of others, but provide no answers. I am not necessarily criticizing you for that – I would not have the answers either – but I think that if you are going to say that other students may have made erroneous judgments on Bieber’s AMA performance of “Pray” and the accompanying music video, you need to go out of your way to find out what the facts are before criticizing others. You criticized those that made assumptions but then used assumptions to prove your case.
You have made a lot of accusations at people who are not fans of Bieber’s that I think are unfair and unwarranted. As I stated before, I understand the need to defend what you like, I just think, perhaps, you could have gone about it better. But that is just my two cents.
Here is what I had to say:
I have to say I was somewhat offended by what you wrote. Here are some excerpts that I took particular offense to:
“I feel that a lot of people ‘hate’ on Justin Bieber because they are motivated by being a part of minority group that doesn’t like him. Specifically teen-aged boys that use a lot of homophobic rhetoric to make fun of Justin or his music which is not only inappropriate because they are discriminating against the homosexual community but...let’s face it...Justin can pretty much get more girls that any single man in the world at this time!!! My point is that I don’t feel that anyone has any real basis to hate on Justin.”I am going to assume that you are a fan of his. That is fine. I like plenty of things that other people have “hated on,” and I understand the need to defend your likes. But to make a statement that male teenagers hate Justin Bieber because he can get more girls than them is specious at best. I am sure there is some jealously there, but at the end of the day, random male teenagers and Justin Bieber are not pulling girls from the same pool.
Your comment also says nothing of adults who dislike Bieber. I am an adult that is not a fan, but it has nothing to do with jealously. I just do not like the kid’s music. I do not think there is anything wrong with not liking an artist just because he happens to be “a good kid.”
You might not feel that people have a reason to dislike Justin Bieber, but I am sure if you were to ask those that do, they would have reasons. You might not agree with their reasons, but they probably do not agree with your reasons for liking him.
“I feel that people are too hard on this seventeen year old kid that has so much talent and is just trying to pursue his dream.”Why does Bieber get a pass because he is talented when we never afford that to any other talented individual? I have seen criticisms of many other supremely talented people – even more talented than Justin Bieber – that have been criticized for much less than Bieber gets criticized for. Talent does not get to be a force field to protect one from criticism.
In your second paragraph you ask a lot of questions of others, but provide no answers. I am not necessarily criticizing you for that – I would not have the answers either – but I think that if you are going to say that other students may have made erroneous judgments on Bieber’s AMA performance of “Pray” and the accompanying music video, you need to go out of your way to find out what the facts are before criticizing others. You criticized those that made assumptions but then used assumptions to prove your case.
You have made a lot of accusations at people who are not fans of Bieber’s that I think are unfair and unwarranted. As I stated before, I understand the need to defend what you like, I just think, perhaps, you could have gone about it better. But that is just my two cents.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Faith + 1
I do not listen to Christian music. I could not name one Christian band. Creed, maybe, but do they still count? Heck, are they still even together?
Anyway, whenever I think of Christian bands, there is one name that always comes to mind, and did again this past Tuesday:
That is Faith+1, the Christian band consisting of Eric Cartman, Token Black and Leopold "Butters" Stotch.
For those that do not know, they are characters from the show South Park.
In the season 7 episode, "Christian Hard Rock," Cartman forms a Christian rock band in order to win a bet. Realizing that Christian music is a top-seller, Cartman decides to take pop ballads and, by changing the word "baby" to "Jesus," turn them into Christian songs. Here is a sampling of what Cartman comes up with:
This is one of my favourite South Park episodes because of how ridiculous the whole thing is.
But because my knowledge of Christian bands is severely limited, Faith+1 is my go-to reference when it comes to Christian music. I know I mentioned Creed earlier, but I can honestly say that I cannot think of one other Christian band.
This got me thinking, and I asked myself this question: why do I not know any Christian bands?
One reason could be that I am not Christian. But I am not Icelandic either, but I (unfortunately) know who Björk is. (Side note: I hate Björk.)
Another reason could be that I do not listen to Christian music. But I do not listen to country music either, but I still know who Faith Hill is.
In all honesty, I am at a bit of a loss as to why I do not know any Christian bands. When Petra and Switchfoot came up on Tuesday, I was like, "Who?"
If not for Faith+1, I would not know any Christian bands. But they are fictitious, so I guess at the end of the day, I still do not know any.
Does this say something about me? Something about Christian music? I do not know, but what I do know is that I do not know any Christian bands.
I guess it is back to my Faith+1.
Anyway, whenever I think of Christian bands, there is one name that always comes to mind, and did again this past Tuesday:
For those that do not know, they are characters from the show South Park.
In the season 7 episode, "Christian Hard Rock," Cartman forms a Christian rock band in order to win a bet. Realizing that Christian music is a top-seller, Cartman decides to take pop ballads and, by changing the word "baby" to "Jesus," turn them into Christian songs. Here is a sampling of what Cartman comes up with:
This is one of my favourite South Park episodes because of how ridiculous the whole thing is.
But because my knowledge of Christian bands is severely limited, Faith+1 is my go-to reference when it comes to Christian music. I know I mentioned Creed earlier, but I can honestly say that I cannot think of one other Christian band.
This got me thinking, and I asked myself this question: why do I not know any Christian bands?
One reason could be that I am not Christian. But I am not Icelandic either, but I (unfortunately) know who Björk is. (Side note: I hate Björk.)
Another reason could be that I do not listen to Christian music. But I do not listen to country music either, but I still know who Faith Hill is.
In all honesty, I am at a bit of a loss as to why I do not know any Christian bands. When Petra and Switchfoot came up on Tuesday, I was like, "Who?"
If not for Faith+1, I would not know any Christian bands. But they are fictitious, so I guess at the end of the day, I still do not know any.
Does this say something about me? Something about Christian music? I do not know, but what I do know is that I do not know any Christian bands.
I guess it is back to my Faith+1.
My Reponse to "Finding Positive Pop Icon Role Models (Like Finding a Needle in a Haystack)"
A lot of people wrote about Justin Bieber this past week. They were all very good, but something about Kathleen's post sparked something in me. Here is my response to what she wrote:
I must start off by saying… who the heck is K$sha and why is she wearing an American flag as a head towel in that picture?
I completely agree that Justin Bieber is not for us. I am 29, and Justin Beiber is not meant for me, in the same way that Dr. Dre is not meant for my mother and Queen was not meant for her mother.
That said, I think your choice of who to compare Justin Bieber to was a bit erroneous because you compare a 17-year-old to two 24-year-olds and a 28-year-old. The age difference is a big factor that needs to be taken into account.
Also, I do not see Lil Wayne or Lady Gaga as any different than Snoop Dogg or Madonna was for me and my peers in the early 1990s. Nor do I see them as being that much different than Mariah Carey and Eminem in the 2000s. In fact, these artists should not be role models for young people for the simple fact that young people should not be listening to their music. Just because they are in the top-40 does not mean they should be role models for children.
Having said that, I am not naïve enough to think that children are not listening to these artists. When I was an 8-year-old boy, I was listening to NWA, Tupac and Run-DMC, so I know that kids are listening to Lady Gaga and Lil Wayne. But that does not mean that they need to be role models for young people. I am sure if you asked the artists themselves, they would say that their music is aimed at older teenagers and 20-somethings, not tweens and under, which is the crowd that Justin Bieber is aimed at.
Justin Bieber projects a very wholesome image that many parents can get behind… but so did Britney Spears. My objection with Justin Bieber is not his message or in his being a role model, it is on the pressure placed on his shoulders. He has to be perfect, and I do not think that that is a fair standard to hold ANY 17-year-old to. The problem I see is not in whom children idolize, but more in the age of the ones being worshipped. Justin Bieber might be able to maintain his clean image, but when Lindsay Lohan made The Parent Trap no one thought she would turn out the way she did when she got older.
Justin Bieber needs to be able to make the same mistakes that every other teenager makes. But with the spotlight shinning so brightly on him, I worry that any tiny misstep will be treated as a major disaster. Just look at the hubbub over Miley Cyrus getting high. She was 18, in the privacy of her own home – or wherever the heck she was – and she did something that a vast majority of 18 year olds do. Yet, because she used to be on a TV show aimed at children, this was treated as a catastrophic event. All of the people who judged her based on this one indiscretion, need to look very hard in the mirror and ask themselves if they would have wanted a camera turned on their 18-year-old selves. I doubt they would. Heck, I know I wouldn’t.
I do not have a problem whatsoever with Justin Bieber as a role model based on his content. Based on his age, however, is another matter. Maybe he will be able to keep it together, but it is possible he could be another Drew Barrymore.
I must start off by saying… who the heck is K$sha and why is she wearing an American flag as a head towel in that picture?
I completely agree that Justin Bieber is not for us. I am 29, and Justin Beiber is not meant for me, in the same way that Dr. Dre is not meant for my mother and Queen was not meant for her mother.
That said, I think your choice of who to compare Justin Bieber to was a bit erroneous because you compare a 17-year-old to two 24-year-olds and a 28-year-old. The age difference is a big factor that needs to be taken into account.
Also, I do not see Lil Wayne or Lady Gaga as any different than Snoop Dogg or Madonna was for me and my peers in the early 1990s. Nor do I see them as being that much different than Mariah Carey and Eminem in the 2000s. In fact, these artists should not be role models for young people for the simple fact that young people should not be listening to their music. Just because they are in the top-40 does not mean they should be role models for children.
Having said that, I am not naïve enough to think that children are not listening to these artists. When I was an 8-year-old boy, I was listening to NWA, Tupac and Run-DMC, so I know that kids are listening to Lady Gaga and Lil Wayne. But that does not mean that they need to be role models for young people. I am sure if you asked the artists themselves, they would say that their music is aimed at older teenagers and 20-somethings, not tweens and under, which is the crowd that Justin Bieber is aimed at.
Justin Bieber projects a very wholesome image that many parents can get behind… but so did Britney Spears. My objection with Justin Bieber is not his message or in his being a role model, it is on the pressure placed on his shoulders. He has to be perfect, and I do not think that that is a fair standard to hold ANY 17-year-old to. The problem I see is not in whom children idolize, but more in the age of the ones being worshipped. Justin Bieber might be able to maintain his clean image, but when Lindsay Lohan made The Parent Trap no one thought she would turn out the way she did when she got older.
Justin Bieber needs to be able to make the same mistakes that every other teenager makes. But with the spotlight shinning so brightly on him, I worry that any tiny misstep will be treated as a major disaster. Just look at the hubbub over Miley Cyrus getting high. She was 18, in the privacy of her own home – or wherever the heck she was – and she did something that a vast majority of 18 year olds do. Yet, because she used to be on a TV show aimed at children, this was treated as a catastrophic event. All of the people who judged her based on this one indiscretion, need to look very hard in the mirror and ask themselves if they would have wanted a camera turned on their 18-year-old selves. I doubt they would. Heck, I know I wouldn’t.
I do not have a problem whatsoever with Justin Bieber as a role model based on his content. Based on his age, however, is another matter. Maybe he will be able to keep it together, but it is possible he could be another Drew Barrymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)