I find it ironic that as I read your article on Our Abusive Balladeers, I was listing to "A Man of Constant Sorrow" by the "Soggy Bottom Boys" aka the blue grass band put together for the "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?" by the Cohen Brother. I was trained as a classical musician, organ and voice were my majors, and I still play piano and organ from time to time.
However, I never thought I'd live in a world so music-less than the one we have now. For that I blame the recording industry, long a source of decadence in our culture for the simple reason that the purpose of the music industry is to make money-not music. However, I hope and pray that the music world will have room for people like my son, a bluegrass musician, to make music.

I try to think like an "artist" when it comes to these matters and therefore come to a different conclusion about this song and Eminem and Rihanna in general. I don't see this song as glamourizing domestic abuse. I see the song as portraying the trap and the danger and reality of these abusive relationships. Especially for Rihanna.

Rihanna herself is making a statement about how she got caught up in the fantasy and false reconciliation of domestic abuse to the point where she was misleading herself about what was truly happening. It's the same gross perception that pain heals pain that drives suicide and other self-abusive acts (like cutting).

Finally, I recently read an article about Leonardo Dicaprio in Rolling Stone magazine. Dicaprio is much like Johnny Depp, John Maher, and even Lady Gaga. These artists are deep, self reflectors who tend to speak out against things with raw emotion and put raw emotion out there for display and conversation, and maybe even present the moral issue for debate in a very indirect way.

If the artcile is trying to discuss the manner in which Eminem and Rihanna chose to present the moral dilemna, then, that is a different topic. If it is not, then the rush to judgement is my objection.

Dan, Dan, Dan, I am an artist and let me tell you something, you do not think like an artist... at least one that isn't shoveling out malarkey.

The real question is what are the millions and millions of young people who consume this music thinking? How are they perceiving it? It's one thing for artists, critics and intellectuals to discuss these matters and dwell on symbology, subtext, context, and bring all manner of erudition to the discussion. But I doubt seriously that the typical teen or young adult brings any of that to his or her experience of the music or the artist.

Well I'd rather see you dead, little girl
Than to be with another man
You better keep your head, little girl
Or I won't know where I am

You better run for your life if you can, little girl
Hide your head in the sand little girl
Catch you with another man
That's the end'a little girl

Well you know that I'm a wicked guy
And I was born with a jealous mind
And I can't spend my whole life
Trying just to make you toe the line

You better run for your life if you can, little girl
Hide your head in the sand little girl
Catch you with another man
That's the end'a little girl

Let this be a sermon
I mean everything I've said
Baby, I'm determined
And I'd rather see you dead

You better run for your life if you can, little girl
Hide your head in the sand little girl
Catch you with another man
That's the end'a little girl

I'd rather see you dead, little girl
Than to be with another man
You better keep your head, little girl
Or you won't know where I am

You better run for your life if you can, little girl
Hide your head in the sand little girl
Catch you with another man
That's the end'a little girl
Na, na, na
Na, na, na
Na, na, na
Na, na, na

Re: Run for Your Life

John Lennon designated that song as his "least favourite Beatles song" in a 1973 interview, and later said it was the song he most regretted writing.

He's right. It stinks.

Far be it from me to come to Eminem’s defense, but this article is rife with factual errors:

-- Marshall Mather’s does not have a sister. Nor is there a song or lyric in which Eminem ever talks about raping a sister. Give proof if you are going to make such a vitriolic claim. (He does dream about killing and raping his mother and his ex-wife. Have you heard or read the apologies Eminem made after realizing he had no right to say what he did? There is actually a track on Recovery that discusses the issues he had with his wife; on it, Eminem apologizes to his ex-wife for the things, things he says he now regrets terribly.

-- The author claims that absolutely no one can read an anti-domestic violence in the poem. That’s odd since Eminem claimed from the release of the song that he wanted to bring attention to the issue of domestic violence. Even Rihanna disagrees with you:

" It's something that, you know, we've both experienced...on different sides, different ends of the table.” And, “[Eminem] pretty much broke down the cycle of domestic violence and it's something that people don't have a lot of insight on....The lyrics were so deep, so beautiful and intense. It's something that I understood, something I connected with”

Moreover, the title of the song proves the song is obviously being ironic. Why not quote Eminem in his own words? At least then you look like you are handling the issue you responsibly.

-- I wonder how many times Carter listened to the song. He says the song is an unapologetic glamorization of domestic violence. There is no room for discussion here: Carter is wrong. The lyrics for the track demonstrate an desire by its author to explore the many ways people fall into domestic violence and, due to psychological and moral weakness, perpetuate the acts the themselves obviously condemn. Carter quotes one stanza and the chorus to the song. Sorry, but that isn’t fair representation – at all. That’s just plain bad reporting.
There errors abound. I can't deal with them all here because that would require research. I don't want to commit the same error as Carter; I don't want to willingly misrepresent a person or idea (or in this case, a song). Perhaps Carter ought to get off his soap box and listen to the song a few more times. As it is, he appears to be frothing at the mouth without reason.
Then again, I think Carter and his article are a perfect microcosm of the problem with First Things nowadays: there is a lot of ranting and almost no research: see Hart's article on Dostoevsky and Tolstoy (an article that is nothing short of blatant academic and factual dishonesty), Bottum's article on Anne Rice (an article that slaps Rice in the face but does not deal with the issues at all), and now this. Since when did First Things become and anti-factual rant trap? Sorry, but I am on the cusp of cancelling my subscription. They really ought to be ashamed of the lack of factual integrity. It's pathetic.

Then there's "Hey, Joe" and scores of blues songs that threaten and chronicle all manner of domestic abuse. I love Jimi Hendrix and I love the blues, but all the songs of misogyny and violence against women that permeate American popular music you can sink to the bottom of the deep blue sea as far as I'm concerned.

Joe is just like those people who wanted to burn Elvis records.

Every new generation seeks to shock the older generation. This is nothing new. It's just like Frank Sinatra and the Bobby Soxers.

All true art is shocking at first.

We have to understand what they are trying to communicate deep down about their pain and social alienation.

I'm trying to think of the other cliched responses one always hears. The thing about these cliches is that the little bit of truth they might have once held was used up long ago. For decades now, they have been used in a false way to silence justified concerns--and to lubricate our culture's downward slide.

We surely have the worst music culture ever created by an advanced people. Have any other people in history fed their young children such a diet of pornography and antisocial nastiness--with such a blithe lack of concern?

Polite opinion helped get us here by forbidding criticism. Polite opinion does not even really allow us to look at these things. What is this polite opinion that so binds us and blinds us? Is it simply a fear of being uncool? What is it?

For more contrast, even in the hip-hop style, make sure to read this today,

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2010/08/10/this-gives-me-hope/

and watch all the videos.

Mike Bradski Marshall Mather’s does not have a sister.

Mather’s had a foster sister, Kim (who he later married), and a half sister on his father’s side, Sarah.

Nor is there a song or lyric in which Eminem ever talks about raping a sister.

The song is “Amityville” from The Marshall Mathers LP.

Eminem apologizes to his ex-wife for the things, things he says he now regrets terribly.

His apology doesn’t change the fact that he helped created a culture of misogyny. Also, has he ever apologized for bragging about being a rapist?

The author claims that absolutely no one can read an anti-domestic violence in the poem. That’s odd since Eminem claimed from the release of the song that he wanted to bring attention to the issue of domestic violence.

So he brought attention to the issue of domestic violence by glorify domestic violence? I guess that is one way to bring attention to it.

Show me in the lyrics anything that implies it’s an anti-domestic violence song. You can’t because its not there. Eminem’s handlers probably told him to spin it in a positive way because if he had yet another song where he bragged about beating/raping/murdering women it would hurt his sales.

Moreover, the title of the song proves the song is obviously being ironic.

No it doesn’t. And if you listen to Rhianna sing or watch the video you’ll notice there isn’t a hint of irony in the delivery.

Why not quote Eminem in his own words?

The issue isn’t what kind of spin Eminem and his handlers will put on the lyrics. The issue is what the lyrics and video actually portray.

I wonder how many times Carter listened to the song. . . .Sorry, but that isn’t fair representation – at all. That’s just plain bad reporting.

The song is out there for everyone to hear. In fact, I encourage people to listen to the song—numerous times even—and watch the video. They can clearly see for themselves that this is one more misogynistic product from an artist who hates women.

Deplorable as Mathers' lyrics are, it's OK for an abused woman to shotgun her husband when he comes home from jail?

"Polite opinion helped get us here by forbidding criticism. Polite opinion does not even really allow us to look at these things. What is this polite opinion that so binds us and blinds us? Is it simply a fear of being uncool? What is it? "

What is the virtue of the "here" to which we have supposedly "gotten", if it involves making rape and abuse look cool? Maybe Polite Opinion(which hardly exists anymore anyway) does not allow us to look at these things because Polite Opinion knows that "these things" should be unthinkable.

Deplorable as Mathers' lyrics are, it's OK for an abused woman to shotgun her husband when he comes home from jail?

No, I don't think it is. (Which is why I said such songs were not worthy of praise.)

I am of the same generation as Mr. Carter. I remember distinctly listening to all sorts of music that drove my elders crazy, and not just the church elders. I also remember hearing paranoid, nervous, ungracious and uninspiring adults fret and gnash their teeth over the effect that this music must be having on me and my generation. And I remember chanting the teenage mantra, "They just don't understand!"

The truth is that my obstinacy was stoked by their condemnations and my rebellion grew in proportion to their judgment. Fortunately, there were other adults who engaged me positively about my music, asked me about what I thought it meant, suggested other things that I might like (sneaking in a positive message here and there), and generally allowed me to explore ideas for myself as long as my _behavior_ remained within acceptable boundaries.

I do not believe that the battle of ideas can be won with condemnation. It may rally the troops (i.e., the nervous, uninspiring adults), but it will never convert the children.

With regard to this particular song, I watched the video after reading the article and I immediately grasped that it was against domestic violence. I have a son and I would not object to him watching this video (granted, he's only 17 months old - but I'm imagining him as a teenager). I wouldn't suggest it, promote it, buy him the album, or otherwise encourage it. But I wouldn't fall down in lamentation about the state of our society if he came across it.

There are many, many music videos out there that really do degrade women and promote violence. Mr. Carter's choice of this particular video, which is at least an attempt at an artistic portrayal of the insanity that goes on inside the head of a perpetrator of domestic violence, is unexplainable. Don't get me wrong - I don't particularly like the song and the video clearly includes a lot of sexual imagery that muddies the message, but I think that Eminem and Rihanna were at least trying to send a positive message. Moreover, I think that is the way that the media is portraying the video to the kids today - as an anti-domestic violence statement. In fact, I took it as a bit of atonement on Eminem's part for some of the glorification of violence that he has purveyed in the past.

In sum, I am not overly concerned about how my child or society's children in general will perceive this video. I suppose that Mr. Carter has some right to be concerned about his own children - they may have inherited his inability to discern the message behind the music.

"And these children that you spit on,
As they try to change their world -
They're immune to your consultations.
They're quite aware of what they're going through."
-David Bowie

"All true art is shocking at first."

T.B. that is a false, albeit common, universalization of a particular historical/cultural quirk. It is not true outside of Western and Westernized cultures, and it wasn't even true of Western cultures until about 200 years ago. Homer's purpose was not to shock the Greeks of his day but to immortalize, by singing their exploits, the heroes of Troy. The Aeneid was outright propoganda for Augustus. Medieval artists considered themselves craftsmen using their craft to glorify God. In the Rennaissance, artists were essentially servants of a nobility that would not have taken well to being shocked. Even the 18th century satirists were trying to "correct" manners and morals, not shock. Only with the Romantics in the late 18th and early 19th century did art come to be seen as oppositional to its culture. Only then did shocking an audience become a measure of art.

***Mr. Carter's choice of this particular video, which is at least an attempt at an artistic portrayal of the insanity that goes on inside the head of a perpetrator of domestic violence, is unexplainable. ***

Well, let me try to explain: I first heard the song while riding in the car with my 17-year-old daughter. I had heard about "Rhianna's anti-domestic violence" song and so decided to listen to the lyrics. After it was over I asked my daughter what the song was about. Her answer: "A couple that is into beating each other." (She didn't change her opinion when I asked her view of the video.)

Now maybe she is an outlier. Maybe the kids really do get the message that this is a song against domestic violence despite the fact that it is by an artist who brags about raping and killing women. And its possible that a girl who stayed in an abusive relationship and is now cooing how she likes "the way it hurts" is sending young women the message that it is not alright to put up with violence.

But I doubt it. If you watched the video and were told that there was a 50% chance that it was pro-violence and 50% chance that it was anti-violence are you sure that you would feel the same way? The only reason that anyone thinks it is anti-domestic violence is because that is the way the publicists are spinning it. There is nothing in the song or the video that gives that impression.

Also, the fact that is was viewed 25 million times makes the video worthy of notice. What if even a fraction of the people take away the same message that I did from it, that violence is sexy?

Thank you, Aaron Rasmussen. I had forgot the Generation Gap cliche: Everyone over 30 should shut up except to praise us.

@Joe Carter: I owe you an apology. My reference to your children in my post was inappropriate and glib.

I also have to acknowledge that it was silly for me to say that your choice of this song was "unexplainable". For me to assume that you had no explanation for choosing the song was unreasonable - in fact, I guess I knew that there was probably an explanation, but that I didn't understand it. Poor choice of words on my part, which suggested that I wasn't taking your argument seriously.

What I meant is that this song is not the best vehicle for your argument which I don't entirely disagree with - there is a lot of music out there that glorifies violence and degrades women. But when you pick a song that is at least trying to make a positive point about the subject - whether it does a good job is perhaps up for debate - you hurt your own cause. It is kind of like trying to make a statement about how movies glorify the violence of war and then using an anti-war movie like "Platoon" as your example. Yes, it is a movie about war and it contains lots of violence, but it is ultimately an anti-war movie. I suppose my own choice of examples is bad, since Platoon is a far better movie than "Love the Way You Lie" is a song. But I think that the analogy is consistent, even if I could have perhaps come up with a better example given more time.

"If you watched the video and were told that there was a 50% chance that it was pro-violence and 50% chance that it was anti-violence are you sure that you would feel the same way?"

Actually, before I watched the video I was told (by you) that there was a 100% chance that the video was pro-violence ("The song is an unapologetic glamorization of lethal violence against women.") That was the first thing that I had ever heard about the video. I immediately perceived it as being a statement against domestic violence.

I haven't heard the song, but I just read the lyrics and it's obvious the song is about a sadomasochistic addiction, two persons living a lie inside that addiction, and what truth there is to any remnant of love is just not powerful enough to overcome the addiction.

Anyone interested in exploring the dynamics of this I would recommend Chapter 8 in Rene Girard's book "Deceit, Desire and the Novel".

In art can one portray a destructive dynamic without offering a way out? Yes, but the problem is that young people can through an immaturity of mind end up idolizing the violence, not grasping the tragic irony expressed by the artist.

When Tupac did time in an upstate New York prison, the only place in the prison he could escape the incessant noise was in a Catholic chapel (by himself, not during mass). During those reflective times he was inspired to write a song titled "Hail Mary". Many have experienced the song as blasphemous, and others, like myself, as an honest exploration of a budding spirituality (one has to recognize that Tupac was brought up in a violent and drug addicted environment with no spiritual guidance).

When Roosevelt created the welfare state it was to save the American family, but when that welfare state was applied to African Americans as a mission from the white professional class, it was designed to exclude the man from the family: no assistance to families with men. And this created a complex environment where African American women began to envision the only way to independence and survival of the family was to exclude the man. And this would generate hostility in many men towards women. The system itself was racist, but the violence associated with that racism got played out between African American men and women. We still have not worked through all this as a culture.

Marshall Mathers III is a strange case. He is a white man that grew up in an impoverished African American culture, and through fusion took on many of the characteristics of that culture.

What's good about all this is that Joe Carter, Mike Bradski and many others can have a heated discussion (and heated it must be) about the nature of what is actually going on in a violent sub-culture at its historical depths and how it is expressed in music because that discussion hasn’t taken place yet in mainstream culture. This is how we will begin to understand what is actually going on. There are plenty of truths, half-truths and falsehoods on all sides simply because as a culture we remain ignorant about so many of the dynamics at play.

Mr. Carter, I appreciate the irony in the title. Balladeers indeed. Responding to some of the comments: rap or hip-hop is not a form of art, and it's not a "culture." I wouldn't even qualify it as music; rather some type of grunting to simplistic electronic beats. It is a reality which should not be elevated, nor frankly attempted to be understood. And we should especially steer away from any comparison (whether cultural or historical or philosophical): doing this, we will inevitably raise its "trashiness" to a standard that it does not possess. The whole thing isn't shocking but banal. Its disorder should be dismissed.

@T.B. Root:
"Thank you, Aaron Rasmussen."
Well, I suppose that's more sarcasm. But you're welcome, anyway.

It is not a question of the generation gap - many adults (including me) viewed the video under discussion and came to the conclusion that it was anti-domestic violence. Some of them posted comments on this blog. I do think that there is an obligation on the part of adults to try to understand the material that they are criticizing.

My point was one of a) strategy (positive engagement often times works better than openly hostile criticism when dealing with the youth); and b) analytic criticism of the argument (a bad example was chosen that undermined the point of the article, validating the teenage mantra: "You just don't understand!").

@Aaron Rasmussen: No need to apologize, I certainly didn't take offense at your comment. It's easy for me to forget sometimes that the readers are responding to *what I actually wrote in the article* rather than what I intended to write but got cut during the editing process.

I admittedly expected a reader of the piece to be in basic agreement with me since it saved me from having to clarify in further detail. But I think it is important to explain what I was thinking so I'll try to offer a more extended version of my argument here.

My main contention is this: I do not think the song was initially intended to be a anti-domestic violence song. In 2008, Mathers said he planned to release back to back albums. The first (Relapse) was released in 2009 and the sales was disappointing. Like every other album he has ever put out, it included songs about murdering and raping women.

Because of the poor sales, Mathers made some change on this latest album (Recovery). I have no doubt that "Love the Way You Lie" was supposed to be just another track about hurting women. But someone got the bright idea to include Rhianna and change the "context." The assumption being that if Rhianna is in it, then it *must* be a song *against* domestic abuse.

I don't believe that for a second. In fact, I think it is even more offensive for his record label to try to spin it in a way that makes it appear that the song is intended to send a positive message.

***I immediately perceived it as being a statement against domestic violence.***

I'd be interested in hearing what gave you that impression. I'll certainly admit that I could be wrong. But if I was a young, influential boy I would get the impression that if you smack a woman around it will lead to a passionate make-out session.

@Gil Costello: ***In art can one portray a destructive dynamic without offering a way out? Yes, but the problem is that young people can through an immaturity of mind end up idolizing the violence, not grasping the tragic irony expressed by the artist.***

That's (almost) exactly right. You said it better—and more succinctly—than I did. The only issue I would take with your point is that I think Mathers is dead serious about the violence and doesn’t view it as tragic. He may put a show on for the cameras but in reality he is a man who is fascinated by rape and murder (he admit that he's fascinated by how serial killers think) and commit such actions himself if he wasn't a coward.

@Emina Melonic: ***Its disorder should be dismissed.***

I wish it could be dismissed. But even if we turn our back on it the problem isn't going away. Our culture is testing to see how far it can go in an extreme direction. The fact that this song and video have become so popular will only encourage other "artists" to push boundaries even more.

I don't listen to this type of music for one simple reason: It's flat-out Ugly. The lyrics are distasteful, and the so-called "music" has no beauty whatsoever.

Mr. Carter,

Again, you are wrong. You really ought to do your research before trying to correct your readers. Eminem never talks about raping a sister on Amityville. The rapper who even mentions a sister on the song is Bizarre, and he doesn’t talk about raping his sister himself – he says other people will. Get your facts right, sir. I cannot believe First Things doesn’t have an editorial board checking facts! This is the sort of spurious casuistry that gives right thinking a bad name.

I watched the video and heard the song several times. It’s still obvious that she is being ironic. The words may very well hint at seriousness – at staying even though she’s been beaten – but the point of her paradoxical paralypsis is that she is telling the listener that she sucked herself into that situation (and Rihanna’s own life makes this clear!). The irony of the situation is obvious. Like you said, she looks serious and abused – and yet she stays. That’s the point of the song; that’s what people do; that’s what they are trying to show. Because Eminem and Rihanna aren’t screaming at the top of their lungs that it is wrong you want to excoriate them. That makes absolutely no sense. It’s not even fair. You want Eminem to be a preacher man – but as soon as he is trying to get a message across, you call him a misogynist.

I don’t like Eminem’s music, but I don’t like it on fair terms. I don’t put words in his mouth (that’s twice now, by the way).

I defy you to prove that Eminem talked about raping his sister. You can’t, because no such lyrics exist.
Please, check your facts.

@Mike Bradski: I have to repost this part of your comment again since it’s the most unintentionally hilarious thing I've read all day:

***You really ought to do your research before trying to correct your readers. Eminem never talks about raping a sister on Amityville. The rapper who even mentions a sister on the song is Bizarre, and he doesn’t talk about raping his sister himself – he says other people will. Get your facts right, sir. I cannot believe First Things doesn’t have an editorial board checking facts! This is the sort of spurious casuistry that gives right thinking a bad name.***

You're are right. Those lyrics are sung by his guest rapper on Eminem's track and were not said by Mather's himself. Since the fact-checker at FT failed, let's show the people the lyric we are talking about:

[My little sisters birthday, she'll remember me
Forgive for havin' tellin' my
For a gift I had ten of my
boy's take her virginity]

I would like to point out to everyone reading this that upon being made aware of this lyric, Mr. Bradski's first impulse was not to question what sort of human being would allow such a thing to be said in their presence, much less be spoken on their song. No, Mr. Bradski was more outraged that I mis-attributed it to Mather's himself. (I confess that I only read the lyrics and did not parse who sang which verse. Mea Culpa.)

***It’s still obvious that she is being ironic.***

What tips the viewer off that she is being ironic? Does she wink at the camera when she says the lyric? Since she delivers the line in exactly the same way that she sings every other line of her own music, are we to conclude that Rhianna is always being ironic?

***It’s not even fair. You want Eminem to be a preacher man – but as soon as he is trying to get a message across, you call him a misogynist.***

No, I don't want Eminem to be a "preacher man." What I want is for our culture to shun him. He is a misogynist. He has bragged repeatedly in his music about raping and murdering woman. He even has a song in which he responds to people who wonder if he means what he raps about:

[A lot of people ask me.. stupid ******* questions
A lot of people think that.. what I say on records
or what I talk about on a record, that I actually do in real life
or that I believe in it
Or if I say that, I wanna kill somebody, that..
I'm actually gonna do it
or that I believe in it
Well, ****.. if you believe that
then I'll kill you
You know why?
Cause I'm a

CRIMINAL
CRIMINAL
You ****** right
I'm a CRIMINAL
Yeah, I'm a CRIMINAL]

And later in the song:

[And if it's not a rapper that I make it as
I'ma be a *********** rapist in a Jason mask]

But I guess it doesn’t matter, right, since he was being "ironic"?

***I don’t like Eminem’s music, but I don’t like it on fair terms. I don’t put words in his mouth (that’s twice now, by the way).***

So let's be clear about where we are now. I said that Eminem rapped about raping his sister. I was mistaken. He included a guest rapper on his track that talked about handing his 10-year-old sister to be gang-raped.

Apparently, what really matter is not that Eminem had such a lyric on his track but that I misquoted him. Right. Glad to see you have your priorities straight, Mr. Bradski.

Forgive me -- I meant to write paradoxical paralipsis.

I did a little researching around, including here:

http://www.slate.com/id/83974

My sense of it, having grown up on the streets and involved in a violent lifestyle, is that Eminem had been enamored with misogyny and violence, what I see all around me riding the buses every day, including teen girls who are wrapped up in relating violently in their relationships. And in this I agree with Joe Carter that Eminem has been responsible for encouraging the violence endemic to many spiritually and socially and impoverished teen lifestyles.

This is a serious problem, and radical interventions are needed to save the many children from living out violent and disrespectful lives. And so I applaud Joe Carter addressing it head on. I just pray that the discussion goes deep into the complex matrix of institutionalized racism, for although Eminem is white, this involves a force directed at the destruction of African American families.

Mr. Carter, to respond to your comment: just to be clear, when I wrote "its disorder should be dismissed," I did not mean that its evil should be ignored. However, I am bothered with why we give these people so much attention. Moving and continuing your comment, perhaps we should really focus on the "happy" and willing recepients of such "culture," rather than Eminem himself. Perhaps, we should study and try to understand why are we attracted in some perverse way to destruction and sadomasochistic behavior as seen in the Eminem video.

Mr. Carter,

[A lot of people ask me.. stupid ******* questions
A lot of people think that.. what I say on records
or what I talk about on a record, that I actually do in real life
or that I believe in it
Or if I say that, I wanna kill somebody, that..
I'm actually gonna do it
or that I believe in it
Well, ****.. if you believe that
then I'll kill you
You know why?
Cause I'm a

CRIMINAL
CRIMINAL
You ****** right
I'm a CRIMINAL
Yeah, I'm a CRIMINAL]

Thanks for putting this up. Read it again and again and again. You just proved his and my point. Eminem is saying he is not being serious in his rhyming. He is clear. He is obvious. Then he says he'll kill you if you think so. He's still joking. That's the point. And yet you take him seriously. You play right into his game. He's giving you exactly what you want: fodder. Nonsense.

And let's not try to pretend that you're being heroic by evading the real issue here: you are the editor -- the web editor -- of First Things. Get your facts straight. You are being paid to do so. I am not. Why am I your fact checker? Why don't you check your facts before trying to deny your error -- twice! It's ridiculous. Practice some credible journalism. I'm honestly ashamed.

You can't get simple lyrical facts right -- and you want me to believe you understand the music? The artist? I don't follow.

I am done arguing with you, though. You are right. I conceded. After all, you are the web editor of First Things; you cant be wrong. Your desire to consistently deny facts proves that facts don't matter -- unless they work in your favor.

@Mike Bradski ***Eminem is saying he is not being serious in his rhyming. He is clear. He is obvious. Then he says he'll kill you if you think so. He's still joking. That's the point. And yet you take him seriously.***

I think you misunderstood the point. Do I think Eminem has actually raped and killed women? No, I don’t. I think he is too cowardly to do act on his fantasies. (Thank the Lord.) But he is also denying that this is really what he wants to do either.

I know that it is slathered in a coat of irony. No one in pop culture can say anything without claiming that it is "ironic." But that doesn't change the fact that the man—and remember we are talking about a 37 year old—is talking about the rape and murder of women.

***And let's not try to pretend that you're being heroic by evading the real issue here:***

I'm not evading anything. I have admitted to making an error. Will you admit that you are more troubled by this misattribution than you are by the Eminem's talk about raping and murdering women?

***Why am I your fact checker? Why don't you check your facts before trying to deny your error -- twice! It's ridiculous. Practice some credible journalism. I'm honestly ashamed.***

You should be ashamed. I don't think you realize how iditoic the claim you are making sounds.

Does the fact that it wasn't Eminem but a another person rapping on the track with him change anything? Is Eminem any less of a misogynist now that the only charges that can be pined on him is that he fantasizes about the rape and murder of women, including his wife and mother?

***You can't get simple lyrical facts right -- and you want me to believe you understand the music? The artist? I don't follow.***

Was is not true that the lyric about the gang-rape of a child was on Eminem's song? Are you claiming that though someone else said the words that he really had nothing to do with it? If not, then how does it affect my understanding of the music and the artist?

Your delving into absurdity to cover for the fact that you are apologizing for a man that condones child-rape. If you had any deceny you'd spend your time worrying about the state of your conscience rather than a minor editorial gaffe on my part.

Every time someone points out the obvious decadence of the "art" being produced by our increasingly degenerate culture, you can count on someone from the "older generation" trying to reassure the kids that things are really not getting worse. "You have your androgynous perverts, blood-thirsty thugs, neo-nazi sadists, primping pimps and shameless whores? That's okay; we had Elvis and our parents had Frank Sinatra." Wow. Thanks for the deep and sobering social analysis.

Like I said -- he's a criminal. He should be thrown in jail. They should break his arms so he can't write. Let's get rid of anyone who says anything that goes against your ideology.

If actually you read my post earlier I said am not apologizing for Eminem. You pretend to be in order to continue your harangue. I said I don't like him; unlike you, though, I am not pretending he said things that he never did, or that he did things he never did, or that he represents things he does not represent.

Catholic poet Sheamus Heaney said that Eminem was the one artist he thought made a good difference in many years:

"He has sent a voltage around a generation." And, "He has done this not just through his subversive attitude but also his verbal energy" (and more).

Following your logic, Heaney must be a wife-beating child-rapist. Since he listened to the music you condemn and liked it, he must be crazy; he must be a complete buffoon. Really, though, he is a Nobel Laureate and faithful Catholic. He also happens to be very intelligent. And in this case, right.

Idiotic? Seriously? I am not that one making unfounded claims -- I am merely correcting them. Remember, you are the one being paid to obfuscate facts and fake stories. Everything in your original article is lies, innuendo, and suggestion, followed by posturing and vituperating. Your point isn't valid, because you know absolutely nothing about the subject. Nothing.

You say that I am trying to evade Eminem's cancerous influence in popular culture; I never claimed that. I am not claiming anything about Eminem except that you don't get him. Everything you wrote -- everything -- is nothing more than an ad-hominem attack. You attack Eminem's credibilty, mine, and anyone else who thinks that you don't understand the topic. Attack Seamus Heaney next! He deserves it! That Eminem lover!

You don't understand the topic. It's not a crime. But you shouldn't pass moral judgment on something you don't understand. Anyone can easily make an argument against any music. Any music. If you read Tolstoy, you can say the Kruetzer Sonata is perverted and leads to murder. Doing so without knowing anything about the subject is bad form.

You have a right to make your point. Ultimately, I think Eminem is a bad artist. I know, however, that your unfounded attack on his character is poorly researched.

Call me what you will. Please just do your job and check your facts next time. That's really all I am trying to get at in my acerbic refutations. Maybe I am vapid -- but at least I base whatever I know on facts.

Mr. Bradski, it's become clear that you don't even know what you are arguing. You contradict yourself in the same comment. For example, you say: " I said am not apologizing for Eminem." Yet a few lines down you claim that Heaney is right when he says that Eminem has "made a good difference in many years."

So which is it?

As for Heaney, I doubt that he is really familiar with the bulk of Eminem's work. But if he has read the lyrics about raping children and murdering woman and still thinks this that Eminem has "made a good difference in many years," then he is clueless.

Following your logic, Heaney must be a wife-beating child-rapist.

You apparantly don't understand logic.

Since he listened to the music you condemn and liked it, he must be crazy; he must be a complete buffoon. Really, though, he is a Nobel Laureate and faithful Catholic.

Again, I can almost gurantee that he has not heard most of the more offensive lyrics. I highly doubt a "faithful Catholic" is bobbing his head and grooving to music about raping children.


I am not that one making unfounded claims -- I am merely correcting them.

You corrected one minor claim. What you have yet to do is show how my error changes anything that I wrote. Will you even bother or are you going to keep frantically trying to draw attention to the fact that you are making an apology for a guy who raps about murdering women?

Everything in your original article is lies, innuendo, and suggestion, followed by posturing and vituperating.

Everything in my original article is a lie? Are you claiming Eminem never rapped about raping his mother or murdering his wife? (My impression is that you really weren't familiar with most of Eminem's work before today but you are too stubborn to admit that you didn’t really know what you were defending.)

Your point isn't valid, because you know absolutely nothing about the subject. Nothing.

Correct me, then. Show me how I misunderstand Eminem. Show how I am wrong to claim that on ever album he has included references to raping and/or murdering women. I'm open to correction.
Everything you wrote -- everything -- is nothing more than an ad-hominem attack.

I suspect you don't really know what an ad hominem attack is.


I know, however, that your unfounded attack on his character is poorly researched.

Again, show me the error of my ways. Show everyone that I am making it all up and that Eminem never said the things I claim he said.

So perhaps the reason it is difficult for the author to understand how a recording that includes violent lyrics can actually be a message against domestic violence is because both the song and the image of the artist are targeted at an audience that the author (and many commenters here) do not belong to.

Mr. Carter is clearly not now and never has been a fan of Mr. Mathers, and I am not suggesting that he should be. All I am saying is that Mr. Mathers probably identifies more with the target audience of Mr. Mathers' music than First Things does.


And I think the commenters to this story in particular should give the target audience for and largest consumers of this type of music a little more credit - those being individuals between 16 and 27 years of age who live in heavily-populated urban and medium- to high-populaton suburban areas and prefer the rap and hip-hop musical genres.

Now when a member of that target and consumer audience listens to the song or watches the video, do you think it is more like that: A) young tween and HS girls will think its fun to get slapped around, show up to school with a black eye or get burned alive, or B) those same girls and young women will recognize that a popular singer who has spoken out countless times against domestic violence following her own very publicized ordeal with that very issue is again speaking out against domestic violence, as well as the dangers and complexities it involves?

Now this is just a guess, but I would wager that the people seeking out and buying the music of Mr. Mathers are probably not going to be subscribers to First Things or any other similarly conservative publications - they most likely do not share the author's musical preferences or political views.

And that is not to say that there is anything wrong with what the author personally believes, or that the author's taste in music is not valid. All I am saying is it is possible that the author does not see the anti-violence message where other listeners might because the song, the image of the artist(s) and the hip-hop genre in general are targeted at a different group of individuals entirely.

I do realize that the author mentioned taking the impression of his daughter into account, and I'm sure her opinion may very well be shared by many others her age. But perhaps she may be a bit biased with her dad, Web Editor for a conservative publication, sitting next to her. And is that her favorite musical genre? Just a thought, no negativity intended.

What I took from the song (haven't watched the video) is that although people can often try to rationalize a bad situation like domestic violence by over-focusing on the more pleasing aspects (the cuddling and make-up sessions and what have you) and overlooking entirely the very serious and dangerous aspects of the relationship, such as the actual violence and threats, risk of safety and life, ect.

Fact is, that is the reality for many women (and men too) in violent and destructive relationships. Just like drug use, DV almost always begins with a small incident, then gradually escalates to more and more dangerous situations. And those relationships are able to escalate to more dangerous levels, in part, because both parties in the relationship accept as fact the idea that violence is just a part of them being together.
Of course nothing could be further from the truth, as no abusive relationship is healthy to either party, particularly the person being abused. But the kind of rationalization that goes into keeping a violent relationship going should not be ignored. To do so would be disingenuous, and not being upfront with young people carries consequences.
A good example is the Partnership for a Drug Free America commercials that suggest anyone who smokes pot will transform immediately into a hopeless junky who is bound, at sometime in the very near future, to run over a little girl on a bicycle. I'll admit I exaggerate here - and I do not support or condone any kind of drug use - but I know from experience working with young people that they can sniff out BS much better than we adults want to admit, and that they don't appreciate it when adults ask for their trust and then are not upfront about serious stuff.
And again, young people are who this music is made for - the kind of people who have likely seen or personally experienced some of the awful stuff that is discussed in rap and hip-hop recordings. No matter how good one's intentions may be, I would argue that a substantial portion of this population much be approached from a certain perspective to really reach them effectively, and I would wager that Mr. Mathers' music is closer to that perspective than the author's editorial opinion.

Again, that's not to say that what the author and First Things publishes is not valid or important, just that different tactics are sometimes required to communicate with someone who has an entirely different perspective.


Just another quick point to an already too long post.



Here are the lyrics to a song titled "Not An Addict" by K's Choice that was fairly popular when it came out.
Breathe it in and breathe it out
And pass it on, it's almost out
We're so creative, so much more
We're high above but on the floor

It's not a habit, it's cool, I feel alive
If you don't have it you're on the other side

The deeper you stick it in your vein
The deeper the thoughts, there's no more pain
I'm in heaven, I'm a god
I'm everywhere, I feel so hot

It's not a habit, it's cool, I feel alive
If you don't have it you're on the other side
I'm not an addict (maybe that's a lie)

It's over now, I'm cold, alone
I'm just a person on my own
Nothing means a thing to me
(Nothing means a thing to me)

It's not a habit, it's cool, I feel alive
If you don't have it you're on the other side
I'm not an addict (maybe that's a lie)

Free me, leave me
Watch me as I'm going down
Free me, see me
Look at me, I'm falling and I'm falling.

It is not a habit, it is cool I feel alive I feel...
It is not a habit, it is cool I feel alive

It's not a habit, it's cool, I feel alive
If you don't have it you're on the other side
I'm not an addict (maybe that's a lie)
I'm not an addict...





One could argue very easily that lyrics are supportive of drug use is acceptable, but in reality the message of the song is the complete opposite. Of course it's not a perfect comparison with the Mathers'Rhiana song, there are certainly lines (maybe that's a lie) that suggest the other parts of the song are ironic, but I think it does go to show that an ironic song can speak out against a particular issue by talking about and even making light of that issue.


As awful as it seems, the truth is Domestic Violence has been wide-spread in this country long before the rap and hip-hop musical genres even existed. Seriously, the idea of women being subservient to the will of a man, the "weaker vessel," goes back to the Bible, right?

Point is, its not difficult to take some lyrics or rap video or even passages from historical and religious works and find fault. But the author said himself that he listened to the song because of publicity about it being against Domestic Violence. Plenty of other people probably did too, and if that is the message they took from it, no matter what one's personal opinion on the artist or past albums may be, that's not an entirely bad thing, right?
I mean, if they are receiving the message, who are we to denounce how the message is delivered just because it may not come in the manner we prefer.

Thank you for your time.

According to an article in The Independent, Heaney said only "He has created a sense of what is possible. He has sent a voltage around a generation. He has done this not just through his subversive attitude, but also his verbal energy." That's not really an endorsement of his work.

Mike Bradski - I am with you on this in terms of what needs to be said must be said, and no one but the persons involved in it are going to say it. I think of Hal Hartley's film, "Henry Fool," and how he puts in the corrupt protagonist's mouth the words, "An Honest man is always in trouble."

We Americans have are so solidified in institutional racism that only artists like Eminem will force us to confront our delusions. The irony in all of this is that the many African American rap artists promoting violence in general and particularly against women have not been alluded to in this discussion. This is part and parcel of institutional racism.

I abide with you on this, that voices must be heard if we are to ever have a legitimate discussion. I see Eminem as a true artist in the Irish sense: how he sings a song has more impact than the words sang, and why the Irish poet relates so strongly to what Eminem is doing. You see, the Irish were so thoroughly suppressed, that finally they had only one recourse: to hide and keep alive their rebellion in melodies.

At the same time, what Eminem and other rap recording artists are doing corrupts youth. What a predicament!

Mr. Mills,

Heaney said that after he responded to the question who was the one artist he liked in recent memory. Eminem was his choice; that's how he explained his answer.

----------

Mr. Carter,

When First Things pays me the same amount to write the truth rather than your trash, I will gladly oblige. You never discuss the issue(s) at hand (at least not with me), and you are clearly obsessed with your crusade. Heaney HAS listened to Eminem. Everything is an excuse with you. You say Heaney never heard the "real" Eminem; if he did, he must not have listened to them. Just more surmising and innuendo. More trash. Do the research yourself and you would know that Eminem was the ONE artist Heaney said he liked of the modern generation. Perhaps he gets Eminem because Heaney's a poet; and you don't, because you're prosaic. I say Heaney is right because Heaney is right -- not because I agree with him. He likes Eminem for what Eminem represents -- not what you claim he does. In that, Heaney is correct. Though I must say it's a seeing you say Heaney must be clueless if he likes Eminem because you don't is a breath of fresh air. That's what you are really saying -- he's for us or against us, right?

Saying I don't know what an ad hominem attack is IS an ad hominem attack -- because you know darn right I know what one is. Read your posts from beginning to end. Period.

And I'm done. I am done arguing with you. Good day to you.

This whole experience reminds me of G.K. Chesterton's defense of G.B. Shaw. Chesterton didn't like the man's views, but he refused to allow people to unfairly slander him.

Gil Costello -- Amen, and amen.

I thought the following was the main point of the blog:

"My hope is that our nation’s youth will be wiser than we were. I hope they’ll follow the lead of country music fans in saying that violence against women won’t be tolerated. Most of all, I hope they will convince society’s vulnerable young woman a truth that what we failed to convey when we tolerated and promoted music like Mather’s: That being beaten and kicked and treated like trash is not the price you must pay to be loved."

Whether or not Seamus Heaney loves Eminem isn't the point, the point is whether you'd like your teenage daughter to listen to his music, given that he, or his compatriots, like to sing about gang rape. Remove the fact that it's his sister. Pretend it's some random woman they snagged off the street. It's still gang rape. Gang rape.

And yes, we should judge music, especially when music has such drastic consequences, such as influencing the sexual activity of teenage girls:

"Dirty song lyrics can prompt early teen sex":
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14227775/

Though we can't outlaw it, this crappy music should be socially marginalized.

I'm praying for our youth. They need help to understand what's going on, though I'm afraid they're just being socialized. On a recent mission trip some teenage gals wanted to put "Baby Got Back", a song I knew from my school days, on the van stereo system. I told them I'd consider it (of course I didn't) if they'd explain all the lyrics to me, word for word.

I hope our youth do get wiser than when I was in school. Otherwise, we're all in trouble.

@M.D. Arthur ***All I am saying is it is possible that the author does not see the anti-violence message where other listeners might because the song, the image of the artist(s) and the hip-hop genre in general are targeted at a different group of individuals entirely.***

Let me say that I am well aware that the publicists are spinning this as an anti-domestic violence song. I think that was why Eminem and his producers enlisted the gullible Rhianna to sing the verse on the track. It provides context that that the song itself does not convey.

You say that I may not be giving the target audience enough credit. And that may be true. But its not clear what I should be giving them credit for. Should I say that they are wise enough to know that when Eminem sings in this particular song about murdering a woman that he means something completely different than whan he means when talks about murdering women in his other songs?

Although my daughter thinks I was born a Grumpy Old Man, I was once young too. I remember that I could rationalize with the best. While music was one of the most important things in my life I would say, with a straight face, that bad music had no effect at all on me (back then I knew more than Plato). Now I know better, which is why I don’t give the target audience more credit. I think they are being as willfully blind to the cultural harms of such music as I was.

It's true that while I admired his talent, Eminem's lyrics always turned me off. But I had friends who did like him and would justify his misogyny by claiming it was "just talk." I see the same thing with younger people today. The problem is that no one can explain why we should accept one message and not the other? Why do we assume the guy is serious when he claims that the song is against domestic violence (assuming that he's even made such a statement) but that he wasn't serious when he talked about hurting women?

I think we have to keep in mind that anyone reading this article or commenting here is thoroughly civilized enough to know that domestic violence is a grave wrong. Not everyone in America has that understanding. It's easy for us to understand what the "lyrics are really about" because we are accustomed to looking for subtext. What about young impressionable woman that don’t get that the song (supposedly) means the exact opposite of what it is saying?

Also, how many kids are going to take a Straussian reading and think that while Eminem and Rhianna have to say in public that violence is bad, they are veiling the truth by saying what they know from experience: a little violence in your sex in exciting.

Both Eminem and Rhianna have been involved in violent domestic situations and yet that aren't really coming out and making a clear-cut case that violence is wrong. Why is that? Can anyone point to a statement by Eminem where he says the song is anti-domestic violence?

@Mike Bradski ***You never discuss the issue(s) at hand (at least not with me) . . .***

You said the issue at hand was that I was wrong about the fact. I asked you to show me where I have erred. You refuse to do so. If you can't, then why not just admit it?

***Heaney HAS listened to Eminem. Everything is an excuse with you. You say Heaney never heard the "real" Eminem; if he did, he must not have listened to them. Just more surmising and innuendo. More trash. Do the research yourself and you would know that Eminem was the ONE artist Heaney said he liked of the modern generation.****

I was willing to give Heaney the benefit of the doubt because his statement does not make clear how familiar he is with Eminem's broader body of work. Apparently, though, you have some knowledge that none of the rest of us possess and you are certain that Heaney is aware of the lyrics about raping children and murdering women.

If that is the case, then I will be the first to say that Heaney is defending evil and should be chastized for making such a reckless statement and implicitly endorsing violence against women.

***I say Heaney is right because Heaney is right -- not because I agree with him. ****

You're just talking nonsense now. You're now saying that Heaney is right even though you don't agree with him? Do you think he's right or do you think he's wrong? If he is right why would you disagree?

***He likes Eminem for what Eminem represents -- not what you claim he does.***

What does Eminem represent? And please stop avoiding the facts. You're beginning to embarrass yourself. Everyone reading this thread is aware that you are making claims that are not true. I said that Eminem raps about raping children and murdering women. You keep implying that those claims are not true. Please explain where you think I err.


***That's what you are really saying -- he's for us or against us, right?***

Since you seem to keep missing the point let me make it crystal clear: Civilized people do not champion an "artist" who makes a career rapping about raping and murdering women.

I don't think that's hard to understand. What is hard to understand is why you disagree.

***Saying I don't know what an ad hominem attack is IS an ad hominem attack -- because you know darn right I know what one is.***

You, sir, are clueless. And no, that is not an ad hominem. That is an insult. For it to be an ad hominem I would have to be claiming that because you are clueless you're argument is obviously invalid. But you are not making an argument. The best I can tell, you are merely stringing together a bunch of non sequiturs together because you caught me making a minor factual error.


***And I'm done. I am done arguing with you. Good day to you.***

That is to be expected. I figured that when it became clear that you weren't going to actually point out all the factual errors that you were claiming I was making that you'd bow out. That is probably for the best. You've wasted enough of our time for one day.

But you are welcome back at any time. You are welcome to say anything you like about me but I do ask that when you make statements about me being factually wrong you back them up. Until then, good day to you too.

@Joe Carter:

***I immediately perceived it as being a statement against domestic violence.***

***I'd be interested in hearing what gave you that impression.***

I got that impression from the lyrics which convey violence followed by shame:

[Cause when it's going good
It's going great
I'm Superman
With the wind in his bag
She's Lois Lane
But when it's bad
It's awful
I feel so ashamed
I snap
Who's that dude
I don't even know his name
I laid hands on her
I'll never stoop so low again]

I'm not saying it's great poetry, but it does depict with some accuracy the various cycles of the domestic violence relationship, including the shame, the hurt, the dishonesty, the lies, the manipulation.

***What I want is for our culture to shun him.***

Well, good luck with that! First of all, I'm pretty sure that most readers of First Things already shun Eminem. (I know, I know... I'm generalizing based only on a hunch.) So you are basically preaching to the choir. The people who do listen to Eminem have already made a choice not to shun him. They like him. And they are not going to stop liking him just because someone from an online Catholic magazine condemns him. In fact, most of his listeners probably take a kind of perverse pride in being condemned by an online Catholic magazine. You're never going to convince people to shun something they like just by trash-talking it. Especially teenagers. But hey, moral outrage is much easier than engagement. It feels good. And the choir is not likely to revolt.

@Aaron Rasmussen ***got that impression from the lyrics which convey violence followed by shame:***

If it has ended there then might agree. But it from their the violence escalates and there is no condemnation at the end.

***Well, good luck with that! First of all, I'm pretty sure that most readers of First Things already shun Eminem. (I know, I know... I'm generalizing based only on a hunch.)***

You’re absolutely right. If an FT reader is an Eminem fan, then we’re probably doing something wrong. ; )

***And they are not going to stop liking him just because someone from an online Catholic magazine condemns him.***

Not to be nitpicky, but FT is an “inter-religious” magazine. (I’m an evangelical.)

I agree with you. Originally, this article had a different ending. It finished with a call for young Christians who say they are concerned with “social justice” to take us this cause of social justice and do something about it. It was decided to cut that since I didn’t propose any actual recommendations.

But I think that is what is required. If young Christians would (a) refuse to financially support such garbage, and (b) make those that do feel ashamed, then maybe things would change.

***You're never going to convince people to shun something they like just by trash-talking it. Especially teenagers.***

I’m not so sure. Certainly some teenagers don’t care what any adults think. But if more adults—especially young adults in their 20s—would make it clear that listening to Eminem is not only not cool, but something they should be ashamed of, it would make a difference.

***But hey, moral outrage is much easier than engagement. It feels good. And the choir is not likely to revolt.***

I suspect the “choir” is not even aware. Most FT readers probably aren’t that familiar with Eminem much less realize that he has had the #1 album and single for the last six weeks. If they’ve heard anything its probably the nonsense about a “positive” message being sent about domestic violence.

I have to say, if I was less immersed in pop culture (and Lord knows I wish I were) I might have bought into the idea that the purpose of the video was to send a message that violence against women is wrong. But I’m aware not only of Eminem’s misogyny but of the way that S&M culture is being promoted.

The current message is that you shouldn’t hit a woman—unless she is turned on by it. Then its not only fine, it’s *hot*. Of course how do you know if a woman is into it if you don’t smack her around a bit? Look wat happens when you smack around Meghan Fox. She gets aroused and throws you up against the wall for a make-out session. As long as you don’t get too carried away (i.e., don’t set the girl on fire), what’s the harm. *That*, I contend, is the message we are sending our youth.

Am I preaching to the choir? Sure. But I have to start somewhere. And maybe some of the choir will talk to their kids about it and encourage them to do something.

Is institutional racism to blame for violent music? It didn't work that way for generations of black musicians who suffered under worse bigotry. It didn't work that way for John Coltrane and Stevie Wonder. Does institutional racism also make violent music popular with suburban white kids, or get it promoted with million dollar campaigns? Maybe there is a commercial aspect to some of this.

And there is plenty of other violent music that does not claim to reflect the realities of the urban underclass. Marilyn Manson, who took one name from a sex kitten and one from a mass murderer, was a white Episcopalian kid. I first became aware of him when a local teen murderer claimed to be a follower. (This was before Columbine.) I picked up a fanzine at the supermarket and read an interview with this exchange:

Interviewer: "The kids are your concerts are so worked up they don't know whether they want to f*** or to kill. "
Marilyn Manson: "What's the difference? It's all energy."

But I suppose that's ironic and all. (And James Poulos says he's a genius!) And, whatever, it's indecorous to pay too much negative attention to "youth culture" (youth-targeted entertainment product).

The selling and easy acceptance of sick entertainment is what is really sick.

Murder Ballads make up a substantial (not the major) portion of the folk traditions of many nations, particularly England and Scotland. Not all the violent folk are men. In such songs, the evil women usually burn whilst the evil men hang, as was the custom of the times.

Jealous rage is a basic human emotion, so it is unsurprising that it has a long and sometimes distinguished history of musical expression.

The finest modern exponent is probably Nick Cave (try his album "Murder Ballads" for instance), but for one that few think of in the context of Eminem and such is Olivia Newton John's classic "Banks of the Ohio".

I held a knife against his breast
As into my arms he pressed
He cried "my love, don't you murder me
I'm not prepared for eternity"

Very few people think of Olivia Newton John as a bad influence on their kids. Is it the lyrics or the music/attitude that is truly objectionable?

In Eminem's early music violence was celebrated and introduced for shock purposes. This is extremely harmful for us culturally and for the kids who listen to it, and it should be condemned.

In fairness though, I think something new is going on in Eminem's latest album. He has been through a serious battle with drug addiction and seems (at least from the first two singles off the album) to be doing some serious introspection. A lot of what he's finding on the inside is not pretty. And while he is rapping about it, he is not celebrating it. There is a clear self-critique going on in the lyrics. Compare for instance Eminem's early song "Drug Ballad" to his new single "Not Afraid". Both songs are about his problems with drugs, but the perspective is quite different.

I think the same thing is going on in "Love the Way You Lie". Unlike some of his earlier songs that celebrated violence against women (e.g. "Cleaning out My Closet"), this song is a warning to those in abusive relationships. It shows the seductiveness of the abuser and the danger of letting yourself be fooled by it. It shows the internal battle inside the abuser who convinces himself (and his lover) that he won't abuse again, but who inevitably does. I think Rihanna's willingness to do the song (given her personal history of being abused) should be an indication of the intent of the song. I think this is an disarmingly honest song about some of the demons with which Eminem wrestles.

I whole heartedly agree that violence should never be celebrated, but I think something different is going on in this song.

Seriously here? It's his music. Let him sing what he wants to sing, and if you don't like it, I have a solution for you. Don't listen to it. It's nobodys business but his what he does and if you don't agree with it too bad. Everyones entitled to their own opinion.

I can't believe this thread has become a discussion of Eminem. How utterly pathetic. The post is about attitudes to violence against women. It does amaze me that there are still progressives who argue that culture has 'progressed' since the 1960's, when transgressive behaviour moved from the avant garde to the masses. I don't recall any songs from the 40's and 50's glorifying beating up your wife or girlfriend. If this is what progress looks like, I'm definitely for no progress.

Sigh.

If you don't like it (I don't care for Mr. Mathers, personally), don't listen.

There have been lyrics and stories about abuse, abusers, and all the toxic characters that make up the dark side of humanity for many, many years; and, should anyone attempt to justify their ill-behavior by pointing out their cultural ethos-remember, we punish people for their behavior, not their thoughts.

Lots of fools out there; some write reprehensible lyrics....some write reprehensible criticism of those lyrics.

Finally, one quote-Frank Zappa, who had much to say about the censorship of foolish lyrics:

"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."

Wanna dance?

A point that seems not to have been made yet is how the music itself changes the way we receive the words of the songs.

Songs about killing and violence are not scarce in country music -- the murder ballad has a long and illustrious history -- but, even leaving aside Joe's point (which I think is broadly true) that country music tends to have a moral compass even when it portrays the dark side, the musical qualities of country music also tend to blunt the force of the violence: those sweet, sad harmonies and plucked strings moderate the anger and violence that the song is about. This is part of the native genius of country music. With rock and hip-hop it is quite the opposite: the music itself is frequently violent in nature, and when wedded to violent words the two augment one another.

A good case study is the folk standard "Stagger Lee". The traditional version can be heard on any number of recordings (Bob Dylan included it on World Gone Wrong), and a modern, much expanded, rock version can be heard on Nick Cave's Murder Ballads. The latter is intensely disturbing, and a great deal of the difference is due to the changed ethos of the music.

For those of you who extoll the virtue of Mather's "art" and who, like their hippy grandparents get off on "sticking it to the man", let me remind you what will happen when you finally get your favorite musical theme installed universally in this nation.

In the Soviet Union, there was no crime. It was not possible, under the theory that underpinned the USSR apparatus. So, rapists, and artists who shocked Soviet sensibilities were taken in custody, placed in gaol ir mental institution and either murdered by the state (the favorite method being a bullet in the back of the head by a guard through the slit in the cell door) or having any economic value wrung out of them before death in a Siberian gulag.

Shock us, kiddies. And then don't be surprised to find just how conforming you can be when the system and culture that gave you your false understanding of liberty also delivers you into the proletarian tyranny you crave.

As many commenters here point out, songs that romanticize violence are nothing new. What's new perhaps is a whole genre that is devoted almost entirely to misogyny. And I find it ironic that this genre has been made so profitable by the same culture that glorifies feminism to the point where man-hating becomes mainstream. So the question is: are high-brow feminism and hip-hop misogyny just two sides of the same coin? What goes up must come down. Our chatting classes spend their careers dividing our society, pitting women against men, poor against rich, black against white. This is what they get.

"Country music shows that not all musicians find violence against women to be acceptable."
and "when our sisters and daughters are battered."

Of course you dont hear about that violence in country music, since the sisters, daughters, and lovers are all one and the same for those inbred trailer trash

Is Mr. Carter talking about the same song I heard? I'm a conservative Christian who can't stand hip-hop, yet I found the song tragically moving. It's obviously intended to depict the thoughts of two people who've trapped themselves in a twisted, brutalized relationship. The lyrics, to my mind, illustrate the rationalizations and self-deceptions that gives one of them permission to go on abusing and the other permission to be abused. It never occurred to me that this song celebrates violence against women. It merely depicts it, in a way that seemed clearly intended to make the listener's skin crawl. It had that effect on me. I think it's quite a good song, and that Mr. Carter didn't get it.

Hear, Hear to jesme--This song is so obviously part of the larger theme of an album entitled "Recovery" where he is attempting to come clean from his past. This article gives no relevant context, such as the theme to the first single off this album or even the simple title to the album from which it comes. Eminem has reportedly kicked a drug habit and is trying to make some sort of amends for his past. I think it is a bit much to get so exercised over a song, simply because he doesn't explicitly tell the listener that "hitting someone is bad". I understand that maybe your twelve-year old didn't get the (relevant) context and neither did her dad, but that doesn't deserve a call to shun that person or his art--It calls for the adult to fairly look at the facts and, well, be a parent and teach your child.

All-in-all, I kind of get your point, but I think you chose a really bad example. I have not listened to the entire album, but I get the feeling it is Eminem trying to come to terms with his past and addiction (this even seems to come through on songs he has recently collaborated on). What I did find truly offensive was how you make a huge leap and assume bad faith with respect to this song (and how the meaning was changed in order to increase sales) with no evidence whatsoever. Maybe we can take the album at face value (like all the others he has released) and respect the fact that he is, in his way, asking for some sort of forgiveness.

flyoverguy and jesme -- from what I gather from the posts, Mr. Carter didn't do very much work in writing this article. Mike Bradski did an excellent job pointing out Mr. Carter's obvious bias and inaccuracy. The assumptions Mr. Carter makes with little to no proof is astounding.

Eminem probably meant to use this track for Relapse 2?

Eminem is really trying to celebrate spousal abuse, on the same cd where he apologizes to his wife for years of verbal, emotional, and physical abuse?

(Bradski points out factual errors, too, but those aren't as important: they have less to do with the issue and more to do with sloppy journalism.)

What I find most ironic is Mr. Carter's send off to Mr. Bradski (as if he sent him off with his tail between his legs). Frankly, I think he and Mr. Bradski did nothing more than hurl barbs at each other. And the editor of First Things looks the worse for it.

What happened to being handling issues charitably, and with respect?

PS -- what gives either of them the right to speak for Seamus Heaney?

Bad writing all around!

*** Mike Bradski did an excellent job pointing out Mr. Carter's obvious bias and inaccuracy.***

He did? Well, that comes as a surprise to me. I repeatedly asked him to point out where I was inaccurate and he failed to do so. In fact, I had saved up a bunch of material to use as a rebuttal but since he never came back, I’ll share it with you.

***Eminem is really trying to celebrate spousal abuse, on the same cd where he apologizes to his wife for years of verbal, emotional, and physical abuse?***

What track does Eminem apologize to his wife on? I wasn’t able to find it. You certainly sound like you are familiar with the CD so please point that out for us.

Perhaps you are referring to “25 to Life”? No, it couldn’t be that one since it’s an entire song devoted to trashing his wife

[I don't think she understands
The sacrifices that I've made
Maybe if this **** had acted right,
I would have stayed]

And is it really so hard to imagine that he’d celebrate domestic abuse when on “Space Bound” he says:

[Drop to my knees and I'm pleading
I'm trying to stop you from leaving
You won't even listen, so **** it
I'm trying to stop you from breathing
I put both hands on your throat
I sit on top of you, squeezing
Til I snap ya neck like a Popsicle stick
Ain't no possible reason, I could think of
To let you walk up out this house, and let you live]

Or on “Cold Wind Blows”:

[I’ll kick a b**** in the c***. . .

oh b****** don’t like that,
Homie I’ll be nicer to women
when aquaman drowns.]

Or on “Space Bound”:
[Gain my trust, don't play games it'll be dangerous
If you **** me over
Cause if I get burnt,
I'ma show you what its like to hurt]


I guess you may have a point, though, since on one track he doesn’t actually hit a girl:

[Relax woman, you know that I'm only kidding witcha
Got a twisted sense of humour, it's warped but I didn't hit ya ]

***Bradski points out factual errors, too, but those aren't as important: they have less to do with the issue and more to do with sloppy journalism.***

Bradski pointed out one factual error, which, to his credit, is more than you have done. And where is the sloppy journalism? Is it so hard to believe that a guy who has two songs about intimate partner violence, kicking and murdering women is a misogynist?

***What happened to being handling issues charitably, and with respect? ***

As you can tell from the thread, I was very charitable with everyone but Bradski, who was being a troll. If he had pointed out the factual errors that he repeatedly claimed I made I would have treated him with the utmost courtesy.

(Mr. Carter)

25 to life is about Eminem's relationship to hip-hop. You just proved Mr. Bradski correct (if only when he said you haven't done appropriate research).

Finish the song my good man:

Go marry someone else and make em famous
And take away their freedom like you did to me
Treat em like you don't need them and they ain't worthy of you
Feed em the same **** you made me eat
I'm moving on forget you oh,
Now I'm special? Oh, I didn't feel special when i was with you
All I ever felt was this
Helplessness
Imprisoned by a selfish *****
Chew me up and spit me out
I fell for this so many times
It's ridiculous
And still I stick with this
I'm sick of this but in my sickness and addiction
You're as addictive as they get
Evil as they come vindictive as they make em
My friends keep asking why I can't just walk away from
I'm addicted
To the pain, the stress, the drama
I'm drown in so I guess imma mess
Cursed and blessed
But this time imma
Ain't changing my mind
I'm climbing out this abyss
You screaming as I walk out that I'll be missed
But when you spoke to people who meant the most to you
You left me off your list

**** you hip-hop
I'm leaving you, my life sentence is served *****
And it's just

The song is about hip-hop, Mr. Carter. He imagines he is "married to the game." You are wrong....sorry.

Mr. Bradski proved your wrong at least twice. First, you said he made that song of ill-repute. That one about raping his sister. He didn't. Then you named a song and said Eminem said it in that song. He didn't. That's at least twice. I guess what I just did makes it at least three. I am not sure what Mr. Bradski said to offend you, but I am sorry. To me, it seems like you just hate being wrong. Mr. Bradski was certainly wrong for not addressing the issues you asked. You are certainly right there.

But again, Mr. Carter, you are being uncharitable. A troll? You handled the situation poorly. I was offended by many of the things you said to him. And I am sure he was, too. And now you are attacking me. Wonderful.

Be like St. Aquinas. Stick to the merits of the argument only. If he doesn't, ignore him.

@Chris ***The song is about hip-hop, Mr. Carter. He imagines he is "married to the game." You are wrong....sorry.***

I did read the lyrics to the end and initially agreed with your interpretation. But then I read them again . . . and again. . . and then read some other interpretations that people had written about the song. My conclusion sit that the song is intended to have a double meaning.

If the lyrics are not meant to refer to his ex-wife then what in the world does “Jealous when I spend time with the girls” mean? Eminem has never flirted with any other genre other than hip-hop.

I’m not going to be dogmatic on this point and I certainly respect if people completely disagree with me. But I think that anyone who has followed Eminem’s career knows that he is more obsessed with his ex-wife than he is with anything else. I think taking on the words “hip-hop” near the end was a clever way to give it a dual meaning. But I have no doubt at all that the main meaning (the one that makes sense) is about his ex.

***First, you said he made that song of ill-repute. That one about raping his sister. He didn't. ***

Yes, he did make that song. It was called “Amityville” and it was on his album “The Marshall Mathers LP.” Where I erred was saying that Eminem spoke the lyric when it was actually said by his co-rapper, Bizarre.

***Then you named a song and said Eminem said it in that song. He didn't. That's at least twice. ***

We’re talking about the same song and the same incident. Besides, Mr. Bradski said that *nothing* in my piece was factually accurate. Yet he never mentioned another fact that I got wrong.

***I guess what I just did makes it at least three.***

Sorry, disagreements about interpretations are not factual errors.

***I am not sure what Mr. Bradski said to offend you, but I am sorry. To me, it seems like you just hate being wrong.***

While I do hate being wrong (who doesn’t?) I don’t mind be called out when I am wrong. At least a couple of times a week people point out something I get wrong. Sometimes they are big and sometimes they are small. The one that Bradski pointed out was minor so I certainly don’t mind admitting to it. It didn’t change anything substantial about my argument.

Indeed, if you read the comments then you should have noticed that I admitted my error after it was pointed out to me. I was happy to do so. I want to be as accurate as possible.

What I do hate, and won’t tolerate, is when people make claims about a writer’s integrity and then, when you ask them to back them up, they hem and haw and obfuscate and then skulk off. It doesn’t really bother me so much that it happened to me (I’ve been writing online for over a decade—I’ve had to develop very thick skin). But I hate that practice *in principle* and will always call people out on it.
Did I go too far? I didn’t think so but if my readers do then I owe them an apology.

***But again, Mr. Carter, you are being uncharitable. A troll?***

In the parlance of the net, a troll is “someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.”

Was Mr. Bradski engaging in trollish behavior? Not initially. He called me on an error (I attributed a lyric in an Eminem song to Mathers rather than to his co-rapper) and took a strong opposition to my piece. However, he later diverted the topic of whether I truly understood Eminem. It was, as other commenters pointed out, irrelevant to the original article. But I foolishly took the bait and followed the discussion.

So yea, I think Mr. Bradski was being a troll. But I spurred him on down that rabbithole so I am also to blame.

Okay, let’s get past all that stuff. I’m interested in what you think of the second song on the album that clearly condones intimate partner violence. Does that song shed light on the claims that the other song is anti-domestic violence?

Oh no, Monsigneur! I agree! Eminem is evil! But Mr. Bradski is right in saying that you don't research. You are wrong. You are definitely wrong about hip-hop and the song. You looked up other people's views....You asked me about leaving the daughters...he's going to the studio, silly! What you are saying is ludicrous. Either you are a bad reader, or a bad researcher. Or both. Eminem is evil! And he is condoning the worst atrocities known to man! I agree with you! But your approach is just terribly, terribly unfair. What I find most interesting is, most people agree with Mr. Bradski, not you. Yet you are unreleting in your pugnacity.

I like your willingness to discuss your topic. I really, really do! :-)

I hope you see the error of your ways. I'll pray for you. You obviously need some love and guidance from our Lord! :-)

PS -- you owe Mr. Bradski an apology.

Cheers,

Chris

Thanks Mr. Carter.

Speaking of country music with a moral edge, Texas Country offers the best of it, and there is none better than Chris Knight. Salvation, damnation, fools and drunks, delinquent dads, beaten wives; revenge for the murder of your brother or the devastation of losing a son, Knight speaks to your soul (in a different, lower dimension than Bach, of course, but effective nonetheless).

For example, "Hell Ain't Half Full" is about a guy making a living manufacturing methamphetamine in his basement:

"They chased God and Jesus / Out of our schools
And everybody's living / By their own set of rules
Yea, they're preaching on the corner / Nothing good to say
Better think of something boy / Come the judgement day

Hey Hell Ain't half full / Got the light on for you son,
Hell ain't half full / Room for everyone."

I'm with you. They can take their rap and stick it where the sun don't shine.

Sincerely,
Frank

OK, I read the lyrics. In no way is this glorifying violence. Eminem makes it very clear that he is not justifying his behavior, but explaining the state of mind that drives him to doing something he regrets. Note the lyrics "as long as the wrong feels right it’s like i’m in flight" and "i laid hands on her, i never stoop so low again". At the very worst you might say he is making excuses for his behavior, comparing it to being high or drunk, explaining that he can't control himself.

Compare it to the old blues song, "Sugar Babe": "All I want my baby to do / is make five dollars and give me two / Sugar Babe it's all over now" and "Went downtown and bought me a line / whipped my baby 'til she changed her mind".

I did read the lyrics to the end and initially agreed with your interpretation. But then I read them again . . . and again. . . and then read some other interpretations that people had written about the song. My conclusion sit that the song is intended to have a double meaning. Every time someone points out the obvious decadence of the "art" being produced by our increasingly degenerate culture, you can count on someone from the "older generation" trying to reassure the kids that things are really not getting worse. "You have your androgynous perverts, blood-thirsty thugs, neo-nazi sadists, primping pimps and shameless whores? That's okay; we had Elvis and our parents had Frank Sinatra." Wow. Thanks for the deep and sobering social analysis.