Florence And The Machine – 'Kiss With A Fist' – Is this the new feminism?

May 11, 2008

2–3 minutes

About a year ago a police officer came along to speak to the residents’ association meeting on my estate and remarked that according to their figures we had the highest number of callouts for domestic violence incidents in their patch. The following month we organised another meeting to which we invited a police officer to speak on the subject to let women know what they could do should they be attacked at home and what support the authorities could provide. Now before anyone gets all sanctimonious about collaborating with the state’s repressive apparatus let them make a sensible suggestion about what to do when some drunken arsehole starts smacking a woman around. I’ve had no hesitation calling the cops in the past.

When it comes to music a good tune can sometimes make the listener set aside reservations about political correctness. Other times the song is just so offensive that it’s genuinely appalling. Normally the radio in this house is set to local pirate deep grime stations of course. This morning on 6 Music Natasha Desborough played a new single by Florence And The Machine – ‘Kiss With A Fist’. It’s a pretty good song until you pay attention to the words.

You smashed a plate over my head

then I set fire to our bed

My black eye casts no shadow

A kick in the teeth is good for some

A kiss with a fist is better than none

There is a vague hope that she will do something subversive with this hymn to domestic violence but she does not. It’s a straightforward account of a mutually abusive relationship set to a poppy melody. That’s it. Like most of you I’m completely unfamiliar with Florence Welch’s oeuvre and background. It may be that this one song is part of a three part concept album exploring the meaning of love or something. To hear it cold on a Sunday morning and presented as just another pop song is just about the most shocking thing I’ve ever heard on the radio. Now it is foolish to read too much into one song but this indicates more than just one singer’s witless detachment from what domestic violence really looks like. There is no awareness on her part nor that of the BBC staff that this is a horrific little vignette asserting that getting a black eye is as normal as arguing over dirty dishes.

Sound ideology only rarely makes great music but this song plumbs a new depth. It feels no social constraint to add a lyrical twist or point out that no one should put up with violence in the home. It celebrates it. This is music in an intellectual vacuum.

35 responses to “Florence And The Machine – 'Kiss With A Fist' – Is this the new feminism?”

twp77

May 11, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Interesting post Liam. I remember when Chrissie Hynde of The Pretenders wrote “977” in 1994 a number of people commented on the lyrics and were surprised, particularly for a seemingly strong female figure like Hynde.

“When I saw my baby cry,
Knew that he loved me.
That was some great victory,
He cried because of me.
He hit me with his belt,
But his fears were all I felt.
When I saw my baby cry,
I knew he loved me.”

More than being a type of new feminism I think the issue of domestic violence is so shocking when it is brought up in popular songs precisely because it is still seen as a taboo. What is more taboo however is the notion that women feel they deserve the violence being meted out to them and say so openly. It is because of the pervasive inequality within patriarchical capitalism as it relates to men and women that for many women, this is still seen as an acceptable response for wrongs that they may commit and, in some cases, a loving act by their nearest and dearest. In my view it shows how far we still have to go.

LikeLike

Reply
twp77

May 11, 2008 at 8:06 pm

The song lyric quoted should be:

“He hit me with his belt,
But his tears were all I felt.”

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

May 11, 2008 at 8:45 pm

II’d not heard the song but TWP’s interesting response makes me think that perhaps it is good to raise this subject precisely as a way of breaking through the taboos?

Still not going to rush out and see the band but may be it’s a good way to raise this sort of issue?

I don’t know may beenocurage someone to write a more political song in response and put it up?

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

May 11, 2008 at 10:06 pm

No Jason. Chrissy Hynde’s lyric suggests why someone might stay in an abusive relationship. This one makes it sound like it’s normal to get thumped.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

May 12, 2008 at 1:21 am

I’ve not heard the song so can’t comment but this issue relates to how the exploitation of women has become much more normalised that some women themselves identify it as empowerment. For example the sexual exploitation of women is now considered a career and called “sex work”. The fact that the overwhelming majority of “sex workers” are doing it to pay the bills or feed a drug habit is carefully swept under the carpet by a new breed of so-called “feminists” and the male dominated sex industry that exploits women.

Of course, socialists don’t support the criminalisation of prostitution but at the same time we don’t advocate it as a path to liberation.

The progressive changes brought about by feminism and the left during the 60’s and 70’s have been adapted by some feminists to fit in with the Thatcherite principles of neo-liberalism. This is ironic when the gap between rich and poor is greater than ever and the UK has the highest level of child poverty in Europe. This burden falls disproportionately on women.

I think the left needs to be challenging the concept that women are no longer oppressed and have equal control in relationships – especially abusive ones. There are many feminists who are highly critical of neo-liberalism and the effect it’s had on sexual and gender equality.

The key to this issue is class because the majority of women have actually lost out due to Thatcherite and Blairite ideology. We see this in the attacks on benefits, childcare facilities and abortion rights and the ongoing sexual exploitation of women. Not only are women expected to care for the family, they are expected to work and to embody the incessant capitalist propaganda about beauty. Working class men don’t benefit from cuts in benefits, reduction of childcare provision, anti-abortion laws or capitalist exploitation of women. It’s through the unity of all workers that we can fight back against these attacks.

LikeLike

Reply
twp77

May 12, 2008 at 9:02 am

Ray – it is interesting that you see “sex workers” who are identifying themselves as such as perpetuating exploitation of women. The notion that sex work in and of itself is a bad thing leads to the support of criminalisation in society, whatever you may think personally on the issue. This notion comes directly from the radical feminist not socialist feminist tradition and is laden with the weight of moral judgement about sex itself – not an analysis of sex as a commodity nor a view of capitalism being the direct cause of patriarchy and inequality of women.

Socialist feminists argue strenuously and support efforts by women to organise sex workers unions and try and ensure better condition for themselves and fellow sex workers. It is in fact a “job” for many women, not all of whom are victims, drug addicts or sex trafficked teens. I agree that it is not a form of “liberation” anymore than working in a fast food joint is, but it is important to stick firmly to supporting the organisation of this largely female workforce under the existing system of capitalism. That organisation into unions and the fight for better conditions is something that all socialists must support.

LikeLike

Reply
Louise

May 12, 2008 at 9:32 am

Liam: fair enough that you invited the cops to discuss DV and what a woman can do, but what about inviting a speaker from Women’s Aid or an org similar?

Talking of song re DV, what about Jamelia’s Thank-You which is about overcoming the fear of leaving and believing the violence is her own fault. And so many women believe that. I thought it was powerful.

I don’t think it is specifically that DV is a taboo as such. The private/public sphere, some crimes still seen are more serious while violence against women is minimised, true figure of DV is still high, patchy media attention, misogyny in the CJS, the cops don’t have consistent policies (depends on area).

Crimes within the home and family are still hidden (child abuse as well). And for me that exposes the role of the family and how it functions in patriarchal capitalism and intertwined with this is the power relationships between men and women.

There are so many contradictory messages that women are given and also in some ways it is stacked against women (esp. with kids) to leave and when they do they are faced with stark choices of being homeless. And now with the changes in legal aid getting support, for example, and a legal injunction against a violent male partner will be difficult.

And because feminism and feminism ideas have fallen off the political spectrum (very fragmented) to a certain extent (low level class struggle and a small Left) campaigning around DV hasn’t got the same gravitus it had in the 70s and 80s.

Btw: Ray, feminists are not sweeping the issues of sex work under the carpet. One way of fighting the exploitation is through unionisation rather than being paternalistic.

LikeLike

Reply
martin ohr

May 12, 2008 at 11:13 am

Louise is spot on, I’d like to draw comrades attention to the excellent work that feminist fightback http://www.feministfightback.org.uk/ are doing to put feminism back on the agenda. The website is a little bit out of date but they organise regular meetings and events as well as a socialist feminist reading group in London with plans -I think- to start them in sheffield, leeds, edinburgh.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

May 12, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Liam, though, I was saying it could be used to raise such issues e.g. in schools, youth clubs whatever including challenging the perception (I must admit I found the song so crap I couldn’t quite bring myself to listen to it through to the end)

Actually Louise you’re right Jamelia’s song would be good for that.

Anyway may be write some better songs!

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

May 12, 2008 at 6:00 pm

On the subject of music and politics whilst I agree with Liam that “When it comes to music a good tune can sometimes make the listener set aside reservations about political correctness” I’m not sure I entirely agree with
“Sound ideology only rarely makes great music”

When I was 8 or 9 I remember we, students at school in a suburb of Southampton, all started listening to punk- Sex Pistols, Clash and other stuff. We didn’t know too much what it all meant but we got it into our heads that we should jump up on the tables and tell all the teachers we owned the school- a simplistic notion but a good impulse I feel-

(makes mental note to self- perhaps I never grew up properly! In which case good- perhaps I never learnt the lesson ‘ people go to school where they teach you how to be thick’ from a catchy tune of the time.

Over the next couple of years we graduated to The Jam, The Specials, Marley and other no doubt very mainstream taste but so what nevertheless a few of my friends used to learn the lyrics of the songs as if they were anthems and we certainly had the idea- naive though it may be was- that thois was our music and smash the system and all that –

I remember reading Shelley excerpted on the back of The Jam’s 1982 Sound Affects album and then getting Paul Foot’s Red Shelley out of the libray along with Lenin’s Selected Works and also Hitler’s mein kampf (the librarian gave me a strange look)

Of course I am now probably just in sad old git syndrome and I’m certainly open to lots of new musical influences

I am however hoping that in the new era of open class struggle that may be opening up (well I said I was hopeful) that we’ll also get some cracking good bands with a political message and movement

you never know eh

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

May 12, 2008 at 7:43 pm

“Socialist feminists argue strenuously and support efforts by women to organise sex workers unions and try and ensure better condition for themselves and fellow sex workers. It is in fact a “job” for many women, not all of whom are victims, drug addicts or sex trafficked teens. I agree that it is not a form of “liberation” anymore than working in a fast food joint is, but it is important to stick firmly to supporting the organisation of this largely female workforce under the existing system of capitalism. That organisation into unions and the fight for better conditions is something that all socialists must support.”

I totally support this and having worked extensively to support the health and saftey of sex workers of both the male and female variety I hold no judgemental views about the lifestyle.

What I do criticise are those feminists and male theorists who claim that selling sex is no different to working in Safeways. The exploitation of women for sex is not a liberating career for anyone. As a socialist I believe that our sexual relationships are the one area that capitalism hasn’t completely commodified or controlled. Sex is an intrinsic expression of love, affection and sensual enjoyment with other people. As workers we are alienated from the means of production. Once we commodify and sell our bodies we are alienating ourselves from our own bodies and the unfettered sexual and emotional connection with others. This is not liberation it’s further exploitation.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

May 12, 2008 at 8:15 pm

On the issue of domestic violence the NHS takes this much more seriously than in the past. In the service where I worked we would risk assess for DV among other things. The biggest fear that women have of disclosing DV is having their kids taken off them. There is also the fear of being left alone or facing retribution from a partner should they prosecute.

A few strategies for working with people experiencing DV. Provide women/men with information about emergency contact numbers and shelters. If necessary advocate on their behalf to arrange support. Police and social services involvement may be necessary especially if there is a risk to children. Social services are much less likely to remove children from the home than in the past and will try to resolve the issue by keeping the family together.

Quite often DV is linked to alcohol so trying to get the person perpetuating the violence into treatment is helpful. It’s a common misapprehension that DV requires the victim to leave the relationship. Working with both the victim and perpetuator may resolve the problem so that the relationship can continue. There is also the problem of a victim being unaware that they are experiencing DV. Fortunately there is an awareness campaign that is meant to help health workers identify and support those experiencing DV. I believe the government has provided training for the police and other workers who come into contact with people experiencing DV.

While I advocate self-supporting groups for women/men experiencing DV there are many women/men who do not have the confidence to become involved or are isolated from other people in the community (by perpetuator of DV or own fear.) Often there is little choice but to involve the police expecially if there is concern about the ongoing safety of the victim and children (who may also be victims of DV.)

Most DV is not usually systematic and occurs opportunistically due to high levels of alcohol intake by the perpetuator. In the UK, DV increases significantly during sporting events like the European and World football championships.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

May 12, 2008 at 8:40 pm

“As a socialist I believe that our sexual relationships are the one area that capitalism hasn’t completely commodified or controlled.”

Yeah right- everyday people are bombarded with images of ideal bodies and made to feel inadequate.

That’s not to say all our consciousness and practices are always totally commodified- making love or even wild sex without commitment may be a popular image of abandonment and fulfilment but there are plenty of other examples I’d argue.

The problem with your argument overall Ray as far as I can see is that class society tries to control our sexuality in various ways- through cultural institutions, media, school, church, through the family judging anyone who for example has sex for pleasure without say love or commitment as immoral. Part of this controlling morality is to label anyone but particularly women as sluts, prostitutes, and low-down degraded people.

In this hypocritical bourgeois morality sex workers are particularly vilified and to say that sex work is intrinsically different from working in Safeway’s I think is to make a value judgment.

Of course some people are forced or coerced into sex work and that is something qualitatively different in a similar way to being forced into working in any conditions- though of course it will probably be experienced as more invasive and no doubt degrading by people so forced.

However, I see no reason to condemn women who engage in sex work. The only progressive solution I can see is for the workers themselves to organise and the rest of the labour movement to support and aid this with workers’ control over health and safety-

The right to insist on a condom
Against all illegality and prosecution
The right to say no etc.
Against all deportations and discriminatory treatment of migrant workers by the racist immigration laws of the capitalist state

Another part of class society is capitalism selling us images of ourselves as inadequate and needing all sorts of extra things for thrills including sex and using sexualised images of people- again disproportionately women- to sell things.

Against this I think we should reclaim our bodies and our minds reject the images foisted upon us, demand a right to reply to sexist imagery (as defined by the respondent), fight for workplaces free of sexist imagery by labour movement campaigns, as defined by the women organised in the workplace democratically.

Who knows what a free sexuality will be like? Will it be monogamous and loving all the time? Or will sex sometimes be just for fun? I don’t think we should necessarily reject the latter possibility- if you do fine that’s your personal choice. That’s OK. And lots of other choices are OK.

But it should be all about choices and women having the power to make them. Under the conditions of illegality and semi-legality forced onto prostitutes oppression is common with many women treated brutally, assaulted, abused and in the worst cases raped and murdered. Other forms of sex work are probably less abusive but still far from ideal because of the nature of work under capitalism and sexism under class society.

We should be for decriminalisation, unionisation and the challenging of sexism, homophobia and all other forms of oppression by a working class women’s movement as part of a wider working class movement.

Part of our liberation as human beings is the ability to make choices over all aspects of our lives- how we look, dress, work, anything- including of course our sex lives. Do we have to conform to traditional morality? Is sex for fun wrong? We should make no prescriptions I think nor be precious about particular choices we have made.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

May 13, 2008 at 12:50 am

Of course we shouldn’t condemn men and women for selling sex but I don’t believe that it is liberating as is suggested by those who want to make money out of this industry.

“…everyday people are bombarded with images of ideal bodies and made to feel inadequate.”

This is commodification of an ideal of beauty which is different from taking an intimate act between people and making money out of it. As socialist do we advocate workers selling their bodies as well as their labour? Of course we don’t!

There is definitely a psychological impact due to sex work (not to mention the physical risk from disease and attack) and this is not exclusively down to the hypocritical morals of capitalist society. Many sex workers I have worked with report that they experience difficulty in separating their clients from their relationships. This has significant consequences where building trust in relationships is concerned. As workers, sex is the one act that is shared in private and its commodification is turning human beings into body parts. No where is this more evident than on the gay scene. Sexual liberation has been a very important progression but its commodification under capitalism feeds the alienation we experience as workers.

The majority of sex workers aren’t glamourous Richard Gere (American Gigalo) or Julia Roberts (Pretty Woman.) They are poor working class women who are forced to sell their bodies to pay the bills. We defend the rights of these women to do this safely without being criminalised but we don’t make a virtue out of it. I’m sure that most of these women would prefer not to have to risk their lives (in some cases) in this way to put food on the table. We defend the right of women to have a better life than prositution, to receive equal pay and better jobs so that they don’t have to go on the game. This is what socialists should be argueing for.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

May 13, 2008 at 12:59 am

“Against this I think we should reclaim our bodies and our minds reject the images foisted upon us, demand a right to reply to sexist imagery (as defined by the respondent), fight for workplaces free of sexist imagery by labour movement campaigns, as defined by the women organised in the workplace democratically.”

I totally agree with you. Selling our bodies for money takes away our ability to reclaim our bodies and minds. It also reinforces sexist imagery and sexist behaviour. Sex workers are the victims of this industry not the cause of it.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

May 13, 2008 at 2:12 am

We fought for womens liberation in order for women to have equality with men. Emancipation for women means that they should no longer be treated as sex objects or baby incubators. Prostitution is a result of the objectification of women and is not liberating. After the revolution will we encourage women to sell their bodies to men or will we build a society where womens emancipation does not mean commodifying and objectifying women’s bodies? I think we need to argue for this now and not wait until after a revolution.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

May 13, 2008 at 6:29 am

Women should of course be equal to men and we should argue for this now in every concrete way taking action to promote it.

Do we encourage women or men to sell sexual services? Or maintain that it is intrinsically liberating? Of course not. Anymore than we should encourage people to work in anyother occupation or work. People should have an absolute free choice.

Much sex work is very dangerous and oppressive- because it is illegal or semi-legal or socially disapproved of.

But should we encourage the idea that this is somehow uniquely degrading and that this is totally, intrinsically, fundamentally different work from other working. I don’t think so.

Does this aid or hinder practical solidarity with prostitutes and other sex workers? I think it tends to hinder it if we maintain that it somehow “takes away our ability to reclaim our bodies and minds”.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

May 13, 2008 at 9:45 am

“People should have an absolute free choice.”

This isn’t the case for the vast amjority of women who are forced to sell sex because they are the main breadwinner for the family. These women are compelled to sell their bodies because of benefits cuts, there is no other work available or they are unable to take on a full-time work due to childcare and family commitmentsly.

“But should we encourage the idea that this is somehow uniquely degrading and that this is totally, intrinsically, fundamentally different work from other working. I don’t think so.”

No one is claiming that selling sex is uniquely degrading. What I am pointing out is that prostitution is different from other work because it is objectifying women and is a product of the sexist society that we are fighting to change.

“Much sex work is very dangerous and oppressive- because it is illegal or semi-legal or socially disapproved of. ”

It’s not simply dangerous because it is semi-legal or socially disapproved of. It is a dangerous occupation because it is a product of the oppression of women and reinforces the idea that women are objects to be used and abused. The best way to chgange that is to ensure that women don’t have to put their bodies on the market by fighting for equal pay, more and better jobs, extending childcare provision, increase benefits etc.

“Does this aid or hinder practical solidarity with prostitutes and other sex workers? I think it tends to hinder it if we maintain that it somehow “takes away our ability to reclaim our bodies and minds”.”

We use a dialectical arguement that means we support the right of women to sell sex safely and without being criminalised while at the same time fighting for better options and true equality for women. It’s the way to fight for womens liberation rather than accomodation to the sexual exploitation of women in capitalism.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

May 13, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Ok well dialectically or otherwise we are in substantive agreement though I think some aspects pof wat you originally wrote need/ needed questioning

But anyway building practical solidairty with sex workers’ unions and other workers in struggle is key as well as challenging sexist ideology and capitlaism itself.

So some cause for common action there.

By the way on another note went ot good rally at Bolton school threatened with academy

report here
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=2099

LikeLike

Reply
Lobby Ludd

May 13, 2008 at 9:53 pm

Ray said:
…..
“We use a dialectical arguement that means we support the right of women to sell sex safely and without being criminalised while at the same time fighting for better options and true equality for women.”…….

I have no real problem with this in terms of the realities of life, but would ask a simple question – if there is a ‘right’ to leave it to the experts to explain how building solidarity with ‘sex worsell sex, is there also a ‘right’ to buy sex?

I think using a term like ‘rights’ is too broad. The ‘right of women to sell sex safely…’ conflates two issues – the ‘right to sell sex’ and the right to safety.

There may well be the necessity to enter into a life of prostitution, in much the same way that there is the necessity for certain workers to mine asbestos.

Mining asbestos is not a ‘right’.

LikeLike

Reply
Lobby Ludd

May 13, 2008 at 9:58 pm

I garbled my post, it should read:

Ray said:
…..
“We use a dialectical arguement that means we support the right of women to sell sex safely and without being criminalised while at the same time fighting for better options and true equality for women.”…….

I have no real problem with this in terms of the realities of life, but would ask a simple question – if there is a ‘right’ to sell sex, is there also a ‘right’ to buy sex?

I think using a term like ‘rights’ is too broad. The ‘right of women to sell sex safely…’ conflates two issues – the ‘right to sell sex’ and the right to safety.

There may well be the necessity to enter into a life of prostitution, in much the same way that there is the necessity for certain workers to mine asbestos.

Mining asbestos is not a ‘right’.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

May 13, 2008 at 11:20 pm

That’s a good point, Lobby Ludd. I believe the difference is that mining asbestos isn’t a criminalised activity. Therefore I think, as socialists, we need to address the issue of prostitution in the two ways I’ve described:
1. Call on the state to decriminalise sex work and to protect women who sell sex.
2. Fight for equality for women so that they aren’t forced to sell their bodies to survive.

The problem with the idea held by some that sex-work will become normalised in society once it’s decriminalised is that this doesn’t counteract the objectification of women that is intrinsic to prostitution. The same is true of pornography. In both cases the use of the female body as an object of gratification obtained through a transaction or through commodification contributes to the continuing inequality of women.

During the revoluton in Portugal in 1974 the growth of pornography escalated in response to years of sexual repression. Where sexuality is repressed an explosion of sexual exploration can be progressive but in Western capitalist society the growth of the sex industry is about making money rather than liberating men and women from sexual repression.

LikeLike

Reply
Eh? Do you understand what you’ve just read? « Mac Uaid

May 22, 2008 at 10:28 pm

[…] A Fist,” a scornful anthem that has attracted the attention of some who are considering it the new wave of feminism. With rackety percussion and filthy blues riffing, the 20-year-old drops a set of […]

LikeLike

Reply
Cath

August 5, 2008 at 5:50 pm

this song isn’t about domestic violence. It just uses intense to represent a relationship full of drama. Florence and the Machine explain it on their myspace blog.

LikeLike

Reply
Cath

August 5, 2008 at 5:51 pm

*intense imagery

LikeLike

Reply
Fiendish

November 20, 2008 at 7:05 pm

About the song…

It never struck me as being about domestic violence when I first heard it, Welch has openly denied it, and I don’t believe that it was ever intended to address the topic.

The relationship in the song is one of extreme emotion, which vacillates between love and hatred. To take it as a literal account of violence is pretty simplistic, but even if you wanted to do that, it’s worth noting that the lovers trade equal blows, and it is in no way suggesting that Florence is the victim of a man’s abuse.

Why do we presume that this is about violence against women, when it is equally about violence against men? And even more so about a heightened quarrel that escalates into fantasy? The feminist response to this song has been very questionable, to be honest.

LikeLike

Reply
Fiendish

November 20, 2008 at 7:09 pm

The quoted section in the article has also been edited in a very suspect way, as if to suggest that the female was the victim. The actual lyrics go:

“You hit me once
I hit you back
You gave a kick
I gave a slap
You smashed a plate over my head
So I set fire to our bed

My black eye casts no shadow
Your red eye sees no pain
Your slaps don’t stick
Your kicks don’t hit
So we remain the same
Blood sticks, sweat drips
Break the lock if it don’t fit
A kick in the teeth is good for some
A kiss with a fist is better than none

Broke your jaw once before
Spilled your blood upon the floor
You broke my leg in return
Sit back and watch the bed burn
Blood sticks, sweat drips
Break the lock if it don’t fit
A kick in the teeth is good for some
A kiss with a fist is better than none”

It is only fair to represent the song accurately in the article if you really want to invite honest debate.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

November 20, 2008 at 8:46 pm

Fiendish – that sort of conceit might have worked in an arty 60s French film. Real life isn’t really so fuzzy. What happens is that the man nearly always batters the women a lot more forcefully than she strikes him. The lyricist might have been trying to get over a subtle message but 3 minute pop songs are not a good medium for nuance.

Here’s my account of an extremely emotional relationship I saw a while ago. It was upsetting and horrible and how this sort of thing usually goes

http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/what-was-that-about-demoralisation-john/

LikeLike

Reply
Lyndsey

November 30, 2008 at 1:17 pm

I’m not sure if anyone has posted this or not, but here’s what Florence says on her MySpace in reponse to such a reaction.

‘Kiss with a fist is NOT a song about domestic violence.

it is about two people pushing each other to phsycological extremes because they love each other.
the song is not about one person being attacked, or any actual physical violence, there are no victims in this song.
sometimes the love two people have for each other is a destructive force. but they cant have it any other way,
because its what holds them together, they enjoy the drama and pushing each others buttons.
the only way to express these extreme emotions is with extreme imagery, all of which is fantasism and nothing in the song is based on reality.

leona lewis’s bleeding love isn’t actually about her bleeding.
this isnt really about punching someone in the face. thank you and goodnight. x’

I don’t think the song was ever intended to be taken literally, but I can see that the concern is coming from a good place.

LikeLike

Reply
Phil

November 30, 2008 at 7:20 pm

the song is not about one person being attacked, or any actual physical violence

Give over. Maybe that’s not what it’s ‘about’ in the sense of ‘that’s not what Florence was thinking of when she wrote it’, but anyone seeing or hearing those lyrics will immediately think of actual physical violence. I think Liam’s initial reaction was correct – this is really, really dangerous imagery to play with.

LikeLike

Reply
easedstarling

May 27, 2009 at 2:29 am

As a sociology grad student specifically interested in the issue of violence, I can tell you that the issue of domestic violence is rarely simple. While Liam is absolutely correct, that females are much more likely to be seriously injured as a result of domestic violence, it is also a fact, that women often resist and fight back inflicting damage of their own. There is in inherent danger (from a feminist perspective) in portraying women strictly as victims, rather than as individuals capable of practising their own social agency in the form of resistance.

Personally I can relate to many of the lyrics provided by Florence. My own sister who spent many years in a violent relationship, was not only victimised, but also resisted, inflicting a concussion and a broken leg on her male partner. She finally left, not so much because she was afraid of what he was capable of doing to her, as much as she was afraid of what she was capable of doing to him.

Something to think about.

LikeLike

Reply
Jodley

February 28, 2010 at 4:22 pm

“Every time you hurt me
I know that it’s working, making you mine” Little Boots, Earthquake

“Yes, it was childish and you got aggressive,
and I must admit that I was a bit scared,
but it gives me thrills to wind you up.” Kate Nash, Foundations

So, it’s not just Florence Welch who feels motivated to tell her truth about noxious relationships. But there’s more to Kiss with a Fist than Liam’s Pan’s People approach to lyric interpretation allows. Even if we ignore the clues that the physical violence represented should be understood as more metaphorical than actual (“your slaps don’t stick, your kicks don’t hit”), must every representation of abusive relationships come with a health warning? (“point out that no one should put up with violence in the home”). There is good reason why singers frequently want to sing and write about relationships gone sour, fucked up, conflictual, obnoxious, dire…. something to do with what Tolstoy said about unhappy families…..

Looking forward to hearing Radio DJs announcing “If you’ve been affected by any of the issues in this song, call the actionline…..”.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

February 28, 2010 at 11:29 pm

The tune is a fine three minute upbeat pop song. Listening to it casually – the way most people do – it sounds, if not a celebration of violent relationships, at least a normalisation of them. With a different melody the lyrics would be less objectionable.

Metaphor is not what the bulk of radio listeners are on the lookout for and it was this track that was her first calling card. Hearing it for the first time was shocking and she’s had to do a lot of explanation since because most people who listened to it closely used the Pan’s People approach to lyric interpretation.

LikeLike

Reply
Jodley

March 1, 2010 at 7:12 am

Celebration of violent emotion in relationships doesn’t require normalisation (which implies something abherant that is being made more normal) – they already are utterly normative. Pop songs are observational and descriptive more than prescriptive. I don’t think she’s “had to” do a lot of explanation – she’s made one public comment about it, as far as I can tell. And all the songs on the album have liner notes, not just that one. So, that’s two places where she’s felt the need to explain.

You, on the Mutiny on the Bethnal thread: “a primal fear of castration with a blunt instrument is a major inhibitor of polyamorous tendencies.” (subtext: depth of feeling/committment is evidenced by the possibility of physical damage). See? Normal not abherant. Of course, perhaps we shouldn’t take you literally?!

We live in a culture where people have, with no irony, The Police’s “Every step you take” as “our tune” – had you not noticed?

I think the point is the melody/lyrical juxtoposition – she’s playing, it’s art. She’s allowed. You’re allowed to criticise also. But have a think about it in the context of the Nash and Little Boots song (pop songs also). Why are they writing about relationships in which hurting is evidence of care (Little Boots), in which women goad to get a thrill from the reaction (Nash), where total destruction (“let the bed burn”) is better than nothing (F & the M)? Are they mouthpieces of the patriarchy, or are they describing real phenomena without obligation to punctuate with moral statements. Perhaps they are expecting listeners to draw their own conclusions and insert their own morals? Just a thought.

LikeLike

Reply
kimberlyanne

April 13, 2010 at 4:28 pm

I am a fan of Florence (in fact, I saw her in concert just two days ago), and these thoughts have crossed my mind, as well. However, I am nearly a grad in my gender and sexuality studies program and I actively fight for human rights in this area so I have come to several conclusions about these lyrics.

Knowing her style, background and being very familiar with her other music, I have concluded that first of all, she does not mean to make a political stand with this song. You don’t always have to be political when speaking about abuse and violence… there are other ways to get it across, and she has chosen the medium of art through music to make this statement. Also, she absolutely does not mean it literally. In fact, I don’t take much of her music literally due to the mere fact that her artistic goals are just that- artistic (as opposed to political). The message she sends with the song is vaguely ironic and not at all intended to send a message condoning domestic abuse.

LikeLike

Reply