Arts, and of course literature or music, are a good sign of social shifting, and this song is a particularly telling one. Most people know the song Respect from Aretha Franklin in 1967, but the original was by Otis Redding in 1965.

The Aretha's version is hailed as a female empowerment song, and it is interesting to see how such a text has been skewed from the original Otis Redding's version, which is also a very interesting sign of the change taking places at that time.

Basically, Redding's version is of a man who is still at the plantation and the only thing he is asking is a little bit of respect from his woman, because that's the last thing he has got. He is a provider (What you want, You've got it), he gives her his money (And I am about to give you all of my money), he even is simping by turning a blind eye on her indiscretions as long it is just not in his face (Do me wrong, Honey if you wanna, You can do me wrong, Honey while I am gone). He is only asking for one thing (But all I'm asking for, Is for a little respect when I come home)

Basically, what this song is announcing is the desertion of the black man from the black family structure. By then, the only thing they had left is being respected in their own home and they were losing that already.

Let's see how the Aretha Franklin's version tweaked the lyrics to make it a female empowerment anthem. She is not a provider, she already has everything that the man supposedly wants (What you want, Baby, I got it). Unlike in Redding's version, she is not giving anything there, she just claims she is what her man wants. HE wants but SHE has, while in Redding's version SHE wants and SHE has (because he gives). As usual, feminists, always the first ones to say that men have no claim to say anything on female's nature or needs (think about "you have no right to comment on abortion"), claim at the same time that they do know the true nature of men ("evil, predator, etc."). The usual female double standard applies. Stalin also said that: what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable. When from coming from a man, it's recognized as authoritarian, but from a woman, hey, she's empowered.

She claims she won't wrong her man while he's gone but only because she doesn't want to, probably because she will do it while he's there (I ain't gonna do you wrong while you're gone, Ain't gonna do you wrong 'cause I don't wanna ). Notice where Redding's version is an acknowledgement of female agency (in the end, she does what she wants so it's not like he can force her to do anything when he is not around) while the female version is basically a claim for female abuse (I don't abuse my man just because I don't want, but if I want, you know what's coming). Any reaction to that would be construed as domestic violence (see bill Burr's skit about how no one talks about the build up to an ass whooping).

In Redding's version, he is only asking for respect while in Franklin's version she demands praises (And all I'm askin' in return, honey, Is to give me my propers, When you get home). Notice that the man is still going out to work while she's at home, enjoying his resources.

The funniest part is that both the male and female version say they give the other their money, but in Redding's version, it is consistent with the earlier claim he provides for her needs. In the female version, it's just out of the blue, and just to remind the man that his presence is actually on par with money (Ooo, your kisses, Sweeter than honey, And guess what?, So is my money). That last bit "So is my money" is not in the original. It actually shows the female sole interest in resources while the male version was actually showing how he was willing to dispense resources for just a modicum of decency in exchange. And I bet her money is not at the level of her man since he comes home after her (but you know "wage gap")

These social changes affected the US first since after WW2 it was by far the most advanced society in the World. What's even more interesting is how these changes affected the US blacks first. Although I have lived there shortly, I am not American, so I don't have a beef in this matter, but to me I have always seen the treatment of blacks in the US as a way to keep the poor whites (which are far more numerous) under control by making them think "At least I am not a negro" while they basically endure the same shit. Identity division is there to prevent class struggle (there is such thing as Warren Buffet aptly said so by saying his class won it).

Did Otis ever get his respect? Of course not, so he checked himself out and now basically fucks bitches around when he's not put in jail to make white trash think they're not at the bottom of the barrel. Did Aretha get her respect? Of course not because as she mentioned, she valued the sweet kisses of her man as much as her money, which the government happily provided her, and she traded ones for the other, which of course makes her not respectful at all because that's just whoring. And the vicious circle started.

That's just 50 years ago. In many countries, societies are not as in the advanced state of decay that we can see the US society is. In many places, the laws are not as stacked against men (ie alimony, jailing for unpaid child support, etc.) but we all know the general direction. If you are interested in history, you know that the Western Roman empire did not fall overnight, but slowly crumbled due to the lack of care by the men there who didn't care because they just did not have any incentive to do so.