I was inspired by an article I read tonight.
Inspired is probably the wrong word. Disgusted is more accurate.
A lot is being said these days about women and their rights. I'm sure I will have many more blog posts related to this topic since it is a broad one with many angles - but tonight I am focused on an article written about Beyoncé and her halftime performance at the Super Bowl.
To begin with, the author claims that "If what you saw on stage last night was a singer wearing too little clothes let me suggest it says more about the eye of the beholder". Let me suggest you stop writing articles, because you are a fool. If what you saw on stage was Beyoncé in an outfit that should probably be bigger, then you saw what was put right in front of you. The author goes on to make points throughout the article that Beyoncé was "owning herself" and showing how powerful she is. Why does she have to do that half-naked? I think it says more about her selfish desire to be successful and gain publicity (anything to get past the lip-syncing attention, right?). Why is it selfish? It is selfish because the Super Bowl is not adults only. Little eyes are watching, Beyoncé. What you told them last night was that if they want to be successful they should get half-naked and dance on stage. If they want to show the world they are powerful,wear clothing that leaves nothing to the imagination. Not really a message I want my daughter to hear (or son to see)...and I doubt it is a message she would want her daughter to hear, either. Why does a "proclamation of power" need to be made while scantily dressed?
I'm irritated that the author states, "That a Black woman claimed and owned her power during the misogynist, consumerist celebration known as the Super Bowl only highlights Beyoncé’s brilliance and boldness". Her race should be irrelevant. Claiming that the Super Bowl is misogynist is ridiculous. Misogynist: Of or characterized by the hatred of women. The Super Bowl is a lot of things, but misogynistic certainly isn't one of them. I know just as many women who enjoy watching the game as men - AND, just because it is something men do together does not mean its foundation is based on the hatred of women. I'm no football history expert, but I'm guessing it didn't start as the He-man women haters club.
Further, the author claims, "Beyoncé declared ownership of that stage — that stadium — and, more importantly, claimed ownership of her own body in the most misogynist and objectifying four hours of mass culture...it takes a warrior to do that". First, she didn't claim ownership of her body. She shared it with millions of viewers. To me that isn't owning - it is giving it away. Secondly, it takes no warrior to do what she did. Beyoncé is not a warrior. According to Webster, a warrior is one who is experienced in warfare. Beyoncé is an entertainer.
Was she entertaining? Yes. Is she talented? Yes. Beautiful? Yes. Don't get me wrong - I like Beyoncé (aside from her poor wardrobe choices). But she is no Susan B. Anthony.
The author closes, saying that last night women were "owned by no one". A bold statement, or at least it would be if women were owned by anyone on any other night. Please don't get me wrong - I know that some women are in bad situations, but I submit that as the exception rather then the rule. As a women I can do whatever I please. I can become anything I'd like (at least I can in America, thanks to the people who are actually warriors...) Does sexism still exist? Of course it does. But not at a level that threatens my daily life. I can go to school where I please, I can get any job I'd like. Are their drawbacks to being a woman? Yes. But there are drawbacks to being anything...including a man.
I found this article more polarizing than anything, the underlying message being that if your review of the halftime show was that Beyoncé should wear more clothes then you, somehow, are against women having power or being in charge of their bodies.
I don't doubt Beyoncé is in charge of her body. I'm in charge of my body too, but you don't see me walking around dressed like that. I could. And I'd look good doing it, obviously. :) But just because you are in charge of something doesn't mean you have to flaunt it.
At the end of the day, Beyoncé sent the message that power and ownership is linked to physical attributes. Things like power, success, and ownership being related to physical attributes is exactly what we should be trying to get away from.
For the complete article, follow this link:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidhenson/2013/02/a-prophetic-dance-of-power-not-sex-beyonce-the-super-bowl-and-durga/
Thank you for your refreshing post about Beyonce's Superbowl performance. I'm glad to hear someone of your generation with a similar opinion. As a student of the 70's, I was told that women do not need to dress provocatively to gain power and attention; such actions contribute to the objectification of women. The women's movement of that day (supposedly) burned bras symbolically to protest the superficial culture that valued women according to external attributes primarily. For the author to suggest that Beyonce's performance was an act of empowerment is absurd from every perspective. Her performance was intended to draw national attention by flaunting her physical attributes (she has many as viewed by all). As an entertainer, she knows that attention equals endorsements which equals more money, fame and opportunities. Nothing more, nothing less. Why the author felt he needed to elevate her performance to a demonstration of women's empowerment speaks more about him rationalizing the enjoyment of her performance than anything else. I wonder if the author would feel the same way if he had a daughter who wanted to grow up to be just like Beyonce.
ReplyDeleteMeghan, this is well written! I agree about Beyonce completely. Power shouldn't be syonymous with looks. She's a role model for millions and she should have an even firmer grasp of her influence having a daughter of her own.
ReplyDelete