Comments on: Feminism & Hip-Hop Conference Notes, Part 1

By: Akiba

Akiba — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:52:31 +0000

It’s January 3, 2006 and I just came across this blog and commentary. I thank Julianne (I think that’s her name) for posting the notes from the panel; they’re some of the most accurate I’ve seen.
I’m not a big plugger, but the above exchange between the very, very, very, very academic-sounding sister and Julianne compelled me to share news of an upcoming event:
On March 4 the Hiphop Archive is presenting “Know-The-Ledge:Hiphop Scholars Meets Hiphop Media.” At this one-day event at Stanford University, participants (including myself) will “discuss the relationship and conflicts between academic and journalistic reporting, writing and representation of Hiphop.”
I think this kind of discussion is long overdue. Hope y’all do too.

By: Bemused

Bemused — Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:25:37 +0000

first off – i recorded about 6 hours worth of sessions – from the Q&A at the Morgan/Fischer/Bennett panel through the Mark Anthony Neal panel. i’m like Jalylah – i’m not sure i’ll transcribe, but i will listen to them again.
as far as akiba solomon’s commentary – i thought that the combination of the 3 (solomon/perry/rokafella) was a potent one. Perry’s comment about the poetics of female sexuality was a good point to akiba’s insistence that black women were being commodified.
i agree with you, JShep, that it’s often difficult to not overreact to the overdone portrayals of black female sexuality by proclaiming that a return to purity is the only way to restore the sexual agency of black women.
my view is “moderation in all things”; i’d rather deal with someone who HAS HAD EXPERIENCE with her/his sexuality – instead of a virgin or a hoe. neither extreme is qualified IMHO to discuss the metaphysics of sexual relationships – or even how sexuality configures male/female identity.
so as much as Melyssa Ford played herself, i still respect her as a woman (and an entrepreneur in a limited sense).

By: jalylah

jalylah — Sun, 24 Apr 2005 20:19:48 +0000

I should echo everyone's Thanks for the notes. I was there too and I actually taped the sessions until I ran out of tapes (after the Melyssa Ford, Jessy Terrero, Kim Osorio, Cheryl Keyes panel) and honestly I probably won't ever transcribe them. I think as important as this conference was for the reasons that J pointed out "the very act of pairing the words and ideas "FEMINISM" and "HIP-HOP" in a setting like this is essentially radical" it was sometimes heavy. I cried at during the hubub that ensued at the conclusion of the last session. Anyway I think it was supremely important for all these women and their allies to connect the yahoo group is where its at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hiphopfeminism/ and the open mic performance arm Sat night was "Hot Fire" to borrow from Da Band's Dylan

By: julianne

julianne — Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:32:11 +0000

Yes–I want to make clear these are just my notes; not meant to be a critique at this point, and I am posting them in case people are interested in what went down. Someone else will surely have a different take on the whole thing.
You have to understand that, while there were academics present and the conference was held at the University of Chicago, the defining context was HIP-HOP, not academic. Within that context, the very act of pairing the words and ideas “FEMINISM” and “HIP-HOP” in a setting like this is essentially radical, “radical” as defined by “tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions.” (Merriam-Webster)
The overall purpose of the conference, from my persepective, was partly to discuss what it even means to be a “hip-hop feminist”–’cause some people weren’t trying to self-identify like that–and provide urgent, ground-level, real-world solutions as to how to maneuver as such within hip-hop communities. Ground-level, as in i.e. “How do I explain the meaning of ‘video hos’ to the 12-year-olds in my afterschool program?”
I really wish I had the text and language you are dropping here, but I don’t understand what you mean exactly when you say “associative principles of historical paternalism/patriarchy.” I never went to college, though I am not anti-academic (my therapist would tell you I am PHILO-academic), but quite frankly some of your language is alienating. I would love to have a reading list, please–Engels first. And please specify what you mean by “certain feminist media crit.”

By: blackmail is my life

blackmail is my life — Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:45:02 +0000

although i don’t see what’s exceptionally feminist in this critique, apart from that it deals with the putative commodification of women, there’s no meaningful indictment (o.k. these are just notes) of capitalism itself. there’s an ideological poverty present in critiques of consumer culture – most notably that it presumes persons to be rational actors, which we’re not.
not only does the dichotomy presented here lead to internecine violence in Victorian garb, it does a bad job of illustrating the manner in which the ways black women, or women, or anyone for that matter is exploited by capitalist production both coming and going – and that meanings are attached to them in the form of advertising as a rationale not only for the need of product X, but also its own mythology of usefulness or necessity. combined with the associative principles of historical paternalism/patriarchy, women are a property that come along as a perquisite of material fortune.
this isn’t revelatory – engels was doing this in the 19th Century. if one casts a sober eye at certain feminist media crit, you find folks attaching meaning where there is none – a woman from the waist down isn’t ownership to everyone, not the least of which the woman who was likely paid to be a dancer with the understanding that she would be filmed in ways “sexy” to a broad market group.
it sounded like there might be a cool discussion of agency in this talk, but maybe all will be forthcoming.

By: jshepination

jshepination — Sat, 23 Apr 2005 15:36:35 +0000

Ah–the “hating on women for other shit,” I believe, was an idea that came from the panel–someone, I think Imani Perry, posited that to outright vilify other women for how they are sexual, whether by acting in videos or through promiscuity, is ultimately counterproductive. I am not positive on that, but it wasn’t directed towards anyone–it was more an outgrowth of the conversation.

By: Candicissima

Candicissima — Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:52:24 +0000

I’m glad your posting up your notes about this because this was my senior essay topic in college and I spent a lot of time then (and do still now) trying to unpack many of these issues.
I would disagree with Akiba’s position that black female sexuality is either dangerous or forbidden. If anything, it’s so in your face that the impression is left that it’s highly available if you contribute financially/socially into the presented lifestyle. And your “do not be hating on women for other shit” note: was that to the panelists or women at large?