Just as we thought Robin Thicke and his arguably misogynistic product slipped into the past along with the rest of this summer’s guilty pleasures, the universities of Edinburgh and Leeds, UK, have dragged him back into the spotlight by banning his song “Blurred Lines” in affiliated nightclubs.
No doubt, keyboard feminists are deeming this another chink in his garishly sexist armour, but how wrong they are. Have they not realised that every time Thicke is publicly abused, he is pulled back from the cliff edge of obscurity as a result? Do they not understand that with every strike against him, he probably sees a spike in sales? Whenever I see his name in a slanderous headline I can’t help but crank up that funky groove.
For that, I praise him. As well as producing this summer’s hit, he supported it with a genius marketing campaign, almost to the extent that the two became one.
I think the main reason people took umbrage at the video for “Blurred Lines” is because they wanted to. Thicke’s predatory smirk, his provocative lyrics accompanied by Farrell’s lascivious hair-brushing technique did seem very nasty and sexist. But is it not possible that Thicke knew exactly what he was doing and did it to stir controversy, provoke condemning articles and mass hatred for free, wide-scale promotion?
The video is so blatantly, unapologetically and verging on ironically revolting that, like a child who’s gone nuts with the fake blood on Halloween, it’s a caricature of itself. Unlike the not-so-spooky child, Thicke created that effect on purpose.
As for the personal attacks that brand him a as misogynist, there isn’t actually any real evidence to support them. Has anyone seen him beating up his wife, or spitting on women at female rights movements?
Have any videos of him drunkenly heckling waitresses gone viral? I’d have thought, considering his celebrity status, anything of that nature would have surfaced by now.
The basis of the argument is on his music video, and everyone knows that commissioned art is designed to be sold rather than to express the darkest, inner-most feelings of the creator. In fact, the video wasn’t even directed by Thicke; he simply approved of its use.
The evidence we have suggests quite the opposite. The man has been married for seven years to the girl he’s loved since high school, which, in this day and age, is quite a feat. It also probably wouldn’t be the case if he made chauvinistic slurs every evening when his wife entered the door.
This summer, pseudo-feminists were duped. They rallied up all the feminist slogans they could think of, flung them at Thicke in an exclamatory fashion and lost the battle. He is now an iconic, rich man whilst they continue to post poorly executed, cringe-worthy videos online.
Thicke obviously didn’t care about appearing as politically correct or else he wouldn’t have written the song in the first place. Even then, his lyrics aren’t the most shocking thing I’ve heard on the radio.
All he wanted to do was return from the musical fringes and make some money in the process. He utilised those who were trying to stop him to make his song musically, societally and financially unforgettable.
Online feminists may have been exploited, but it was for their mind rather than their bodies.