UPDATED with a transcript after the jump.
They thought they could use "no homo" without it being anti-gay.
One of my favorite things about hip-hop is our everlasting love of language. One of my least favorite things about hip-hop is our everlasting fear of being gay. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that one of our favorite slang terms combines our tremendous passion for wordplay with our tremendous insecurity about sexuality.
The "no homo" phenomenon is an old thing. A sad, old thing. But it's still a new thing to a lot of people. So as a public service, I will now present a brief history of "no homo."
The phrase "no homo" is a defense mechanism used by young men who are not only afraid of being gay or looking gay, they are actually afraid that the words they speak might sound linguistically gay. "No homo" was first popularized by New York's Dipset crew, led by the rapper Cam'ron, who was known for being clever with words and also for wearing a lot of pink, who wanted to be absolutely certain that nobody inferred anything from that. Since Dipset's fan base is largely made up of hip-hop bloggers like myself, who also tend to love playing with words while feeling insecure about our geekiness, the blog world quickly fell in love with "no homo," and got into a neverending contest to see who could use it the most often and in the most outlandish ways.
At this point a lot of people who didn't intend it to be homophobic were still attracted to the comedic device and the absurdity of it, and they felt like they could use "no homo" without being anti-gay. Some people argue that when they take it to such a silly extreme, they are really critiquing and satirizing homophobia, instead of promoting it.
So the question is how do you decide when, if ever, to play the "no homo" game? Me personally, I've always been in the anti-"no homo" camp. I felt like it was offensive no matter how you said it. But I have to admit that whenever I have a conversation about it, I always get tempted to start playing the game, even when I'm in the middle of rejecting and denouncing it. And I can tell myself that I'm only saying it to make fun of people who really say it, and I'm with my friends, and I know that they know that I don't mean it like that. So it's just harmless fun.
But then once you start it gets really hard to stop. You find yourself saying it every 10 seconds for the rest of the night, and you don't really remember why you started saying it. You tell yourself you can stop any time, but the truth is, you are now a "no homo" addict! Don't let this happen to you.
I'm not gonna say that nobody should ever say it. It's just like every word, you gotta judge on a case by case basis. But as a general rule, if you're not the original target of an insult, you can't be the one to reclaim it. And nine times out of ten, if you're not sure you should use it, you probably shouldn't. Plus, it's like five years old and it's kinda played out.
So if you've never heard of "no homo" before you saw this video, just forget I brought it up. Forget it ever came out of my mouth... I'm not gonna say it.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Jay Smooth on reclaiming terms that aren't directed toward you.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12956
what did he say? If someone can tell me what the video was about, that'd be great (for us Deaf peeps)
I tried googling it, but I don't even know the video title (YouTube blocked at work)--if I have time I'll try my usual transcript-hunting strategies.
It's updated w/ transcript! Sorry about that.
Oops! Should've reloaded before posting my summary :-)
I checked at illdoctrine.com, but there doesn't appear to be a transcript.
Jay is discussing the "no homo phenomenon" — a habit in some parts of the Hip Hop community of saying "no homo" after anything that could be, even remotely, taken as a homoerotic double-entendre — which he sees as having arisen out of the intersection of the Hip Hop community's love of language and extreme insecurity about masculinity and sexuality. He describes the origins of the term, how it's used, gives some examples ("I've got money out the ass, no homo." — Li'l Wayne) and talks about how some Hip Hop fans who don't really intend to be homophobic have taken to using it in more and more absurd ways, and justify it by claiming they're satirizing, rather than participating in, homophobia. He concludes, though, that if you're not the original target of an insulting term, you really can't be the one to "reclaim" it, and that if you're wondering whether you should use it, nine times out of ten you probably shouldn't.
oh okay. WEird, I've never heard anyone saying "NO HOMO."
I LOVE HIM. and this video.
jay smooth...you make this queer girl swoon.
He made this queer boy swoon with that video.
And on a more substantive, non-housekeeping note...
The simple rule Jay spells out -- "if you're not the original target of an insult, you can't be the one to reclaim it" -- is a really valuable one. It also applies to imagery. We get lots of questions about our logo, which I've always seen as reclaiming a sexist icon. (Another good blog-logo example of image-reclaiming is the watermelon graphic at Jack and Jill Politics.) Take the Feministing logo out of context, or simply show the image without noting that it represents a feminist blog, and the connotation is very different. The image isn't "reclamation" if used by just anyone, or if removed from the reclaimers (women, feminists, us!).
While I agree with this sentiment, I do want to point out that Jay Smooth describes this as a general rule, indicating that in his perception there may be exceptions. He doesn't make it out to be quite as absolute as you seem to indicate.
Which isn't to say that I disagree with you at all, Ann - just that this comment may slightly mischaracterize the actual sentiment portrayed in the video.
Oh, agreed he doesn't say "use this rule in all situations." But as a sort of baseline, I think it's valuable.
I had never heard of it before, but it reminds me of "That's what she said!" Stupid, way old and played out, but it's a bit addictive too. I think people must like to find all the sexual double meanings in things and once you put your mind the gutter it takes work to lift it out again. I guess that what happens when the most innocuous verbs can refer to sex.
You know, comparing "no homo" to "that's what she said" is pretty apt. Both are jokes about something the user fears... being seen as gay, or women talking frankly about sex. And while "no homo" is indicative of Hip-Hop's larger problem with homophobia, I do agree with Jay Smooth that it's kinda-sorta okay to use ironically among friends who get the joke, BUT also that you have to be careful about sigh things.
For example, my friends and I often use words like "fag" or "queer" in silly voices, satirizing their over-use by hetero men in our age group (that is college-aged... i.,e. frat boys). But it does take a conscious effort to make sure you don't use such language in places like a work environment! But, I am willing to make that mental effort to keep private, offensive jokes private.
I think the key is what he said about reclaiming certain words/phrases..."if u are not the original target of the insult, you can't be the one to reclaim it." I do agree with what you say, however I think we have to be careful about what is used "satirically"...for example I've heard many people justify the most obviously racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. insults as "satire". Depending on the situation and speaker something can be satirical...however, it really pisses me off when I hear, for example, some straight/white/male justifying his racist/sexist/homophobic rants with a "don't you know how to laugh, it's "satire"." Usually, in this situation, when I hear someone saying something that is obviously offensive and then use the "satire" excuse to justify their bigotry, I'll most definitely come out and say something ("No, you are not being satirical, you are being offensive")...However, I also realize, especially in the LGBTQ community, that phrases like "no homo", "fag", "dyke", etc. are often reclaimed in a more positive light and/or often used satirically.
i love when people talk fast and have something really serious to say. so i really loved this video it made me giggle inside.. and made me want to be friends with this man.
Never heard of it. Sounds pretty dumb.
This guy is AMAZING, I found him recently on youtube here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/illdoc1
Thanks, Miriam, for posting this!
The only time I've heard "no homo" is on the Lollipop song by Lil Wayne. I had no idea that many people used it, I thought only Lil Wayne said it.
Shows how much rap I listen to.
That was awesome! I have always wondered about the reclaiming thing myself and I think he puts it out there really well. If you feel you shouldn't be using it, likely you shouldn't be. I think that's a good rule, and for those that doesn't seem to work on, if you're not part of the group it's directed at don't use it. So simple. So awesome.
Oh and the No Homo thing, I had never heard of it before, but I mean it's really the same as "not that I'm gay or anything" generally followed by (well when it comes to who I talk to) "not that that's a problem or anything"
Any sentiments on the second part of that "not that that's a problem or anything" I always feel that's just a way to make an anti-gay comment okay. Or at least that's how I usually hear it used.
Nice post! that's really awsome. Nice to see/hear a guy putting it like that, not that he couldn't or shouldn't in the first place!
and now that I am looking at his posts, I wonder if he is single!
You and me both!
Jay says:
Of course, in earlier videos, posted at Feministing, Jay states just as smoothly that one does not have to judge potentially offensive statements on a case-by-case basis.
More specifically, he told us earlier that we do not -- that we should not -- judge or attack such statements based on "speculations on motives and intentions." Instead, we can just look at the text -- at the facts of what they said -- and proceed accordingly.
Well, "motives and intentions" and the contexts that affects those states are the very things that change "case by case." (See the current video for an example, paraphrased, of that: "Am I critiquing or promoting an idea when I use statement X in a joking way with friends? Etc.") These case-by-case questions of intention, motive, and meaning (plus effect) are inescapable, for sentiments you like and for sentiments you don't like.
It's nice to see Jay dismantling his whole "what you did/said" vs. "what you are"/"what you meant" argument. It was never that easy.
I'm going to have to disagree with you.
Context is not just motives and intentions. It's also the other words used and the general shared knowledge of the speakers. Jay Smooth is asking us to not use motives and intentions to judge, and also admitting that the other contexts can mean that blanket statements about what one can/should/shouldn't ever do are not very good statements to make at all.
Take "your mom" jokes. If someone makes one, it's a sexist act. I tend to use it in ridiculous ways which I'm not always sure is a good idea or not, so it's a pretty similar phenomenon to what Jay is talking about here.
"Wow, that painting is beautiful!"
"YOUR MOM is beautiful!"
The other words in the sentence make this not exactly the same thing as an offensive your mom statement. It doesn't make it less sexist necessarily -- the more I examine it, the less subversive it really seems -- and you have no way of knowing my intentions, but on a case-by-case basis, that's definitely different than the standard putting you down by insulting your mother version.
So that's not at all contradictory. It's judging a particular case without getting tangled into motives and intentions.
Erk, that was meant as a reply to Peter above.
Hi Icca,
I completely agree. We just diverge on our ability to talk about context and case without talking about intention and motive.
Sure, we use similar sentences in different contexts to means different things, to produce different effects, and to deliver different messages. But each of those items relies upon intention as well -- specifically, our understanding of how individuals are reacting and relating to others, to their environment, to social and linguistic expectations.
Take your example. The context -- the nature of your friends, their knowledge of you, and the strange out-of-nowhere quality of the joke -- are all singles that you didn't really "mean" what you said. Or rather, that you "meant" it the statement to be ironic, silly, ludicrous. Perhaps even subversive.
(Think of last year's Obama-as-secret-Muslim New Yorker cover as a slightly higher profile example.)
I'm not saying that we can't or shouldn't use context. We use it all the time. That is how language works. (Even sexist language.) I'm just saying that one of the main things we use context for is to determine intention -- and, by intention, to determine meaning.
Of course, maybe I am just joking.
"No Homo" reminds me of Nixon's "I am not a crook". They doth protest too much.
Henry Adams' study at the University of Georgia shows that over 80% of homophobic men sport boners while watching gay porn, while only a much smaller percentage of non-homophobes get erections while doing so. These guys have issues.
I'm surprised he did this on "no homo" and not about "pause" which is the new "no homo".
Pause is actually much older than No Homo :) I talked about "ayo" and "pause" in the original version but Current edited that out..
My bad. I guess I've been out of the loop on homophobic hip-hop lingo which, all things considered, isn't a bad thing.
Wow thanks for the transcription :)
And yes, this video and my "Racist" video go hand-in-hand, and both are about seeking honest case-by-case analysis.
IMO one of the most important variables is the relationship involved.. much more important than motive & intent, which will occasionally be relevant ONLY when that relationship allows for it.
The question is: what's your relationship to those who are hearing your words, what is your and their relationship to those your words describe/define, what's the history and power dynamic there, etc. Sometimes that relationship may allow the audience to rely on a knowledge of your motives & intent when they interpret your words. Often it won't. If it doesn't, but you assumed it did, then you messed up, and your good intentions don't make it okay.
The "No Homo" video is about assessing whether your own words might be offensive, before you say them, and urges you to consider the above.
The "Racist" video is not about making that assessment, it's about making a persuasive argument after you already decided someone else's words are offensive. So it assumes you already considered the above, and decided any good intentions are trumped by other factors. Just like the "No Homo" video, it argues that good intentions don't always make it okay, and urges you, in those cases, to keep your conversation focused on why it wasn't okay regardless of intent.
Far from contradictory, I think both videos are covering the exact same ground from different angles. :)
Good distinction between the videos, Jay.
You insist, accurately, that the "racist" video is focused entirely on rhetorical techniques -- on ways of addressing the dicey subject of racist speech or action without getting lost "Bermuda Triangle" of "what's in the person's soul." So even if you have decided that an action was racist based (in part) on the person's intentions, you should not discuss "motives and intentions" when confronting that person.
I think this advice -- i.e., separating the "what they did" form the "what they are" issues -- is sound.
I just wonder if it actually can be done.
Can you actually convince a person that the racism of "what they said" had no bearing on their intentions -- that their intentions are not relevant to the topic?
Can you bracket a person's intentions -- especially whey you, yourself, took those same intentions into account when deciding whether the utterance was, indeed, racist?
Can you just talk about what you describe as "the facts" of the case, when those facts gain their meaning from intention, motive, and context?
Let me give an example.
Take the Feministing logo, referenced by Ann above. Perhaps I decide that it is a sexist image, taking full account of intention, motive, and context. OK. Now I want to confront Ann about her sexist visual utterance. I want to tell her that what she "said" in the masthead was sexist. What "facts" are now in play? How do I decide which "facts" are relevant? How do I tell her that, "No, your intentions and motives are not relevant to the conversation we are now having? All we are talking about is the 'facts' of the picture."
What rhetorical power or leverage does this provide? Does it even make sense in this context? And, if not, how is it different from any discussion of potentially racist, sexist, or homophobic speech?
My point is this. I appreciate why someone might, rhetorically, want to separate "what you did" from "what you meant" or "what you are" questions.
I just don't think it can be done.
Peter
P.S. Actually there may be one way that this facts/intentions distinction can be maintained in the conversation. You could argue -- as you do in the "racist" video -- that statements are made racist not by their words or meanings, but by their "effects." ("Keeping each person accountable for the effects of their words and actions.")
That is another plausible strategy. But, again, it may be hard to keep up.
First, you'll have to convince the person confronted that effects are the primary -- perhaps the only -- "facts" of the case. This may be hard to do.
Second, you let them off the hook because they can say, "Well, I'm sorry that you took it that way." (Politicians do this all the time: "I apologize if anyone took offense at what I said....")
And lastly, you inevitably get back to intention and motive. It leads back in this direction because one can say that the effects of my words were not what I meant. And one can say that your conclusion about the effects of my words were based on -- here it comes -- your misapprehension of motives, intention, and context. ("If you understand that I am joking, reappropriating, and being subversive, then my words or images have different effects.")
No way out, I fear. The intentional triangle's got you.