That just ain’t right: why I hate John Mayer
It’s irrational, I suppose, but I’m sticking to it. You have to be a much better lyricist and musician than John Mayer to get away with using “mothers,” “daughters,” “fathers,” and “lovers” all in the same song. (Listen to “Daughters” here.) Only a guy without daughters could write and/or sing that hash without feeling the nausea that creeps up on me whenever I hear the song.
Come to think of it, “lovers” can ickify lots of otherwise benign and inoffensive word groups:
grandma, pool guy, LOVERS
Ernie, Burt, Zoe, LOVERS, Jim Henson
spreadsheet, database, quarterly report, LOVERS
Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Sandra Day O’Connor…(I can’t do it!)
See what I mean? The word is like a sharp stick—probably no big deal, but potentially dangerous. Leave the poetry to the grownups, John.
July 24th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
I get your outrage. I think because of the sexualisation of children in our culture, there is danger in this lyric. My take on his meaning was simply that what you sow, you are (or some other poor unsuspected fella is) gonna reap!
But it is kinda “icky” now that you’ve examined it for me.
The other day at our school I stood up at a parent meeting and challenged the principal over something he’d done. He’d walked into my Grade 2 son’s class and asked the children to nod if they thought he’s sexy.
I was outraged. As soon as I asked him about it, there was a more of indignation and outrage from many many parents in the audience. At first he tried to justify it. I responded at one point that the word sex is not an appropriate word to be using with 7 year old children. (MOre loud agreement fromthe audience). Eventually he apologised.
The thing that really blew me away was how another Dad (with daughters) got up later and basically said, “No big deal.” Some people ain’t on the same page as us , brother.
July 24th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
a “more of indignation” should be a “roar of…” - I was just so emotional!
July 24th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Huzzah for you for standing up. I would have just sat there and been silently angry. Absolutely bizarre behavior from the principal.
Re: the sexualization of children. I don’t know how old the phenomena is, but it is older than some might suspect. I lived in Brazil in the late 80s and a TV show called Xuxa (pronounced “shoosha”), named after the 30-something hostess, was very popular. Here’s a Google image search on “Xou da Xuxa” (the Xuxa show) that shows the sexualization of children even then. The country was full of little girls that dressed just like her. And men that watched the show.
July 24th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Well, she raised my blood pressure. I see exactly what you mean. I wouldn’t want my daughter dressed like that. It’s not mini-skirts, but it’s definitely saying “Get a load of me, fellas!”
Dare I say it? Aye carumba!
October 16th, 2007 at 7:56 am
[…] pressed to see a connection between those questions and his relationship with a child. (There is an ick factor if you try to draw too close a […]
October 17th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
This is a late comment, but my husband hates “lover” so much we had it taken out of our wedding vows. He was like, “I am not saying the word lover in front of a wedding officiant, in front of my mother, or anywhere within 50 feet of a church.”
I feel your pain.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Hi Naomi,
In context, “lover” is innocuous, even positive. But yeah, out of context it’s just creepy. In front of Mom definitely qualifies as out of context.