VIDEO: Beyoncé not a feminist?

[craig 680]

Feminism concept its so simple, yet Wendy gets confused.

 

It includes many schools of thought.

Some so simply as to include 80-90% of modern Westerners, other which would repel most women from identifying with the term.

[craig 680]

Notice that girls are always screaming regardless of how much males are wearing, but in order for a woman to get cheers, she has to be dressed skimpily.

 

Doesn't that mean that for equality women have to be allowed to dress skimpily without being shamed by feminists?

Otherwise a female pop singer can't even stand out compared to what girls wear on the street or at the beach.

 

Even when males use s-x appeal to sell, it is restrained, understated s-x appeal whereas women go for overt s-xuality.

 

 

Each does what appeals to the opposite gender. If woman wanted boy bands to show more skin to make them scream, they gladly would. Also if woman were wired the same as gay men, you'd find male performers showing off their bodies the way females do.

[StrawberryBlond 13,285]

Usher dancing without shirt to fans on stage. Yeah right.

 

You clearly haven't read the rest of my post correctly. Shirtless men are not on par with women in their underwear. Being in your underwear means, if you're a woman, wearing a bra and knickers. For a man to be in his underwear means some form of briefs and no shirt. Only his genitals are covered, basically. A man with no shirt but his lower half completely covered is merely half-dressed. Same goes for a woman in a bra with her lower half covered or in knickers with her top half covered. Hence the term "half-dressed." Men are, at the most, only ever half dressed on stage, and there's only a select few who do this. Women are in their underwear on stage, and there are a lot of them who do this. That is a problem and displays a clear difference on gender hierarchy and how men and women are percieved s-xually. I've already said that a man's naked chest is s-xualised in a different way to a naked woman's chest. A man's naked chest isn't censored, a woman's naked chest is. It's not illegal for men to be shirtless in public, but in most societies, it's illegal for a woman to be topless. Therefore, how we s-xualise both genders chests are different. And a woman's naked chest is clearly more s-xually charged than a man's. If you don't realise this, you are very deluded. This shouldn't be something that needs to be explained.

 

Doesn't that mean that for equality women have to be allowed to dress skimpily without being shamed by feminists?

Otherwise a female pop singer can't even stand out compared to what girls wear on the street or at the beach.

 

 

Each does what appeals to the opposite gender. If woman wanted boy bands to show more skin to make them scream, they gladly would. Also if woman were wired the same as gay men, you'd find male performers showing off their bodies the way females do.

 

No, it means that women shouldn't feel the need to strip off to sell their music, as men clearly don't have to either. I think a massive element of feminism is: "if a man doesn't need to do it, a woman shouldn't either." Sexualisation is de-humanising because it forces us to judge people on the sole basis of their hotness, dimishing them to just a thing, not a person with thoughts and feelings. And note I said "s-xualisation," not "s-xual expression." Sexual expression is fine, as long as it's within the realms of decency and is completely the idea of the person doing it. But s-xualisation is a form of s-xuality that is dehumanising and forced upon a person. And I ultimately feel that for the majority of popstars, this is what they're going through from their record labels. And if male artists don't feel this pressure, women shouldn't either. The idea of being s-xual to guarantee a career is repellant only when it's not applied to the music industry and the s-x industry, it seems.

 

And the second part about appealing to either gender: male artists know women want these things, but they hold back, because they feel that, as men, they ultimately don't need to. Boybands know that they'd be even better off if they were just topless 24/7, but they don't. They only limit this dis-robing for very select occasions. They don't rely on it to sell because they don't need to. But there are plenty of female artists who know this concept doesn't work both ways and realise that when they go demure, the sales drop, but when they go raunchy, sales soar. With very few exceptions, when a female popstar sings a serious ballad, it doesn't chart well, because the public only want raunch from them whereas male popstars can make affecting/serious/romantic singles that do very well. While women may not be "wired like gay men" as you put it, they're not all shrinking violets. Studies show that women are just as visually orientated as men are. There wouldn't a culture of girlish screams whenever a hunk takes his shirt off if this wasn't the case. Men know their bodies could sell but they don't because most of them reckon it's shameless pandering to their female fans while alienating their male fans and because they deem it to be undigified. The fact that more women don't follow this concept in reverse is proof that s-xualisation of women is a real problem.

[Rat Boy 36,832]

You clearly haven't read the rest of my post correctly. Shirtless men are not on par with women in their underwear. Being in your underwear means, if you're a woman, wearing a bra and knickers. For a man to be in his underwear means some form of briefs and no shirt. Only his genitals are covered, basically. A man with no shirt but his lower half completely covered is merely half-dressed. Same goes for a woman in a bra with her lower half covered or in knickers with her top half covered. Hence the term "half-dressed." Men are, at the most, only ever half dressed on stage, and there's only a select few who do this. Women are in their underwear on stage, and there are a lot of them who do this. That is a problem and displays a clear difference on gender hierarchy and how men and women are percieved s-xually. I've already said that a man's naked chest is s-xualised in a different way to a naked woman's chest. A man's naked chest isn't censored, a woman's naked chest is. It's not illegal for men to be shirtless in public, but in most societies, it's illegal for a woman to be topless. Therefore, how we s-xualise both genders chests are different. And a woman's naked chest is clearly more s-xually charged than a man's. If you don't realise this, you are very deluded. This shouldn't be something that needs to be explained.

 

 

No, it means that women shouldn't feel the need to strip off to sell their music, as men clearly don't have to either. I think a massive element of feminism is: "if a man doesn't need to do it, a woman shouldn't either." Sexualisation is de-humanising because it forces us to judge people on the sole basis of their hotness, dimishing them to just a thing, not a person with thoughts and feelings. And note I said "s-xualisation," not "s-xual expression." Sexual expression is fine, as long as it's within the realms of decency and is completely the idea of the person doing it. But s-xualisation is a form of s-xuality that is dehumanising and forced upon a person. And I ultimately feel that for the majority of popstars, this is what they're going through from their record labels. And if male artists don't feel this pressure, women shouldn't either. The idea of being s-xual to guarantee a career is repellant only when it's not applied to the music industry and the s-x industry, it seems.

 

And the second part about appealing to either gender: male artists know women want these things, but they hold back, because they feel that, as men, they ultimately don't need to. Boybands know that they'd be even better off if they were just topless 24/7, but they don't. They only limit this dis-robing for very select occasions. They don't rely on it to sell because they don't need to. But there are plenty of female artists who know this concept doesn't work both ways and realise that when they go demure, the sales drop, but when they go raunchy, sales soar. With very few exceptions, when a female popstar sings a serious ballad, it doesn't chart well, because the public only want raunch from them whereas male popstars can make affecting/serious/romantic singles that do very well. While women may not be "wired like gay men" as you put it, they're not all shrinking violets. Studies show that women are just as visually orientated as men are. There wouldn't a culture of girlish screams whenever a hunk takes his shirt off if this wasn't the case. Men know their bodies could sell but they don't because most of them reckon it's shameless pandering to their female fans while alienating their male fans and because they deem it to be undigified. The fact that more women don't follow this concept in reverse is proof that s-xualisation of women is a real problem.

 

I'm kind of confused about this and think you can help me out. What if a woman wants to be s-xual for what ever reason. For example what if a pop star wants to dress in more revealing clothes just because she likes to embrace that side of her  and doesn't just do it to get attention? Is that bad?? I'm not challenging you or anything I'm just confused

[StrawberryBlond 13,285]

I'm kind of confused about this and think you can help me out. What if a woman wants to be s-xual for what ever reason. For example what if a pop star wants to dress in more revealing clothes just because she likes to embrace that side of her  and doesn't just do it to get attention? Is that bad?? I'm not challenging you or anything I'm just confused

 

I don't have a problem with s-xual expression in general. I am a Gaga fan, after all. I can welcome her way of doing things because she owns and controls her s-xuality and doesn't always prescribe to society's views of s-xiness. She chooses when she wants to be s-xy and when she doesn't. Above all, her s-xiness comes across naturally, not like a performance. This is why I think she's the s-xiest popstar - a confident woman who knows what she wants s-xually and won't be dictated to is s-xy in and of itself. She also doesn't rely on her s-xuality to sell and has proved she can sell even when she's "ugly."

 

So yeah, being in complete control of your s-xuality is key. And as long as you're basically not naked in public, some risque clothing is fine too. But her s-xual expression should not be her one and only defining factor. Artists should be valued for their talent and personality, anything else is optional, not crucial. But too many female artists are choosing to let their s-xuality represent them completely and have nothing else of interest to say. And once they're no longer considered s-xy, they'll be done. So, there's nothing empowering about basing your career on a personal trait that can expire. Being s-xual can be fun, but it should only be one part of you. It should be no one's job to be s-xy. After all, if you're not in the mood that day, you'll have to pretend you are. And faked s-xuality is completely un-s-xy.

[Rat Boy 36,832]

I don't have a problem with s-xual expression in general. I am a Gaga fan, after all. I can welcome her way of doing things because she owns and controls her s-xuality and doesn't always prescribe to society's views of s-xiness. She chooses when she wants to be s-xy and when she doesn't. Above all, her s-xiness comes across naturally, not like a performance. This is why I think she's the s-xiest popstar - a confident woman who knows what she wants s-xually and won't be dictated to is s-xy in and of itself. She also doesn't rely on her s-xuality to sell and has proved she can sell even when she's "ugly."

 

So yeah, being in complete control of your s-xuality is key. And as long as you're basically not naked in public, some risque clothing is fine too. But her s-xual expression should not be her one and only defining factor. Artists should be valued for their talent and personality, anything else is optional, not crucial. But too many female artists are choosing to let their s-xuality represent them completely and have nothing else of interest to say. And once they're no longer considered s-xy, they'll be done. So, there's nothing empowering about basing your career on a personal trait that can expire. Being s-xual can be fun, but it should only be one part of you. It should be no one's job to be s-xy. After all, if you're not in the mood that day, you'll have to pretend you are. And faked s-xuality is completely un-s-xy.

Okay thanks!

[craig 680]

With very few exceptions, when a female popstar sings a serious ballad, it doesn't chart well, because the public only want raunch from them whereas male popstars can make affecting/serious/romantic singles that do very well.

 

 

Boy bands - do sappy lovey-dovey ballads that appeal to their female fans.

Pop girls - their female audience would rather dance or have fun to their songs.

 

Sexualisation is de-humanising because it forces us to judge people on the sole basis of their hotness, dimishing them to just a thing, not a person with thoughts and feelings. And note I said "s-xualisation," not "s-xual expression." Sexual expression is fine, as long as it's within the realms of decency and is completely the idea of the person doing it. But s-xualisation is a form of s-xuality that is dehumanising and forced upon a person. And I ultimately feel that for the majority of popstars, this is what they're going through from their record labels.

 

I think nowadays most s-xy female popstars choose "s-xual expression" but there are always feminists putting them down about about, imagining it was forced or it's harming to women.

 

I also think most (non-misogynist) guys can see a woman as s-xy and many other things including powerful and smart. Why reinforce the idea that women must be one or the other?

[craig 680]

And once they're no longer considered s-xy, they'll be done. So, there's nothing empowering about basing your career on a personal trait that can expire.

 

Ironically, many of the s-x sirens have the longest careers of female singers.

Looks like Kylie and Jlo's s-xiness will outlast Mariah's voice.

Madonna and Cher had hits at a latter age than most male classic rockers.

 

Artists should be valued for their talent and personality, anything else is optional, not crucial. But too many female artists are choosing to let their s-xuality represent them completely and have nothing else of interest to say.

 

Nobody will any degree of success relies entirely on looks. That might go for the lessor member of the ***cat Dolls, but not Beyonce, Shakira, or Kylie.

[uo111 5,201]

No I'm not. I don't recall men singing in their underwear in music videos and on stage or posting raunchy selfies. Nowadays, a lot of them are posing half naked/naked in gay magazines, but that's just the thing - gay magazines, for a niche market, that isn't widely produced and marketed because it's "adult" themed. Women are parading around in next to nothing to sell their music whereas men manage to sell while remaining fully-clothed. If you're talking about certain male artists using any opportunity to remove their shirt, that isn't on par with a woman removing her top. Men's naked chests are not s-xual in the way that women's are. I've never understood that comparison when people claim that both genders are s-xualised the same way. When a man removes his shirt, he's still in control, but when a woman removes her top, she's vulnerable. Notice that girls are always screaming regardless of how much males are wearing, but in order for a woman to get cheers, she has to be dressed skimpily. Even when males use s-x appeal to sell, it is restrained, understated s-x appeal whereas women go for overt s-xuality. The day that male pop artists perform in nothing but their boxers as a matter of course, that's the day I'll say that men and women use the same tactics to sell their music.

 

You clearly haven't read the rest of my post correctly. Shirtless men are not on par with women in their underwear. Being in your underwear means, if you're a woman, wearing a bra and knickers. For a man to be in his underwear means some form of briefs and no shirt. Only his genitals are covered, basically. A man with no shirt but his lower half completely covered is merely half-dressed. Same goes for a woman in a bra with her lower half covered or in knickers with her top half covered. Hence the term "half-dressed." Men are, at the most, only ever half dressed on stage, and there's only a select few who do this. Women are in their underwear on stage, and there are a lot of them who do this. That is a problem and displays a clear difference on gender hierarchy and how men and women are percieved s-xually. I've already said that a man's naked chest is s-xualised in a different way to a naked woman's chest. A man's naked chest isn't censored, a woman's naked chest is. It's not illegal for men to be shirtless in public, but in most societies, it's illegal for a woman to be topless. Therefore, how we s-xualise both genders chests are different. And a woman's naked chest is clearly more s-xually charged than a man's. If you don't realise this, you are very deluded. This shouldn't be something that needs to be explained.

 

 

No, it means that women shouldn't feel the need to strip off to sell their music, as men clearly don't have to either. I think a massive element of feminism is: "if a man doesn't need to do it, a woman shouldn't either." Sexualisation is de-humanising because it forces us to judge people on the sole basis of their hotness, dimishing them to just a thing, not a person with thoughts and feelings. And note I said "s-xualisation," not "s-xual expression." Sexual expression is fine, as long as it's within the realms of decency and is completely the idea of the person doing it. But s-xualisation is a form of s-xuality that is dehumanising and forced upon a person. And I ultimately feel that for the majority of popstars, this is what they're going through from their record labels. And if male artists don't feel this pressure, women shouldn't either. The idea of being s-xual to guarantee a career is repellant only when it's not applied to the music industry and the s-x industry, it seems.

 

And the second part about appealing to either gender: male artists know women want these things, but they hold back, because they feel that, as men, they ultimately don't need to. Boybands know that they'd be even better off if they were just topless 24/7, but they don't. They only limit this dis-robing for very select occasions. They don't rely on it to sell because they don't need to. But there are plenty of female artists who know this concept doesn't work both ways and realise that when they go demure, the sales drop, but when they go raunchy, sales soar. With very few exceptions, when a female popstar sings a serious ballad, it doesn't chart well, because the public only want raunch from them whereas male popstars can make affecting/serious/romantic singles that do very well. While women may not be "wired like gay men" as you put it, they're not all shrinking violets. Studies show that women are just as visually orientated as men are. There wouldn't a culture of girlish screams whenever a hunk takes his shirt off if this wasn't the case. Men know their bodies could sell but they don't because most of them reckon it's shameless pandering to their female fans while alienating their male fans and because they deem it to be undigified. The fact that more women don't follow this concept in reverse is proof that s-xualisation of women is a real problem.

 

You have covered a lot in your post but I think that because you are taking purely a females point of view you are missing a lot of issues involved with male s-xuality, and the differences between men and women, that helps to explain a lot of this.

 

Male s-xuality is inherently above the waist. It's true, men rarely show their legs. This isn't because it's not necessary to sell albums, but quite literally it's because it's inappropriate in western society. Womens legs are a thing of beauty, men's legs are not viewed in the same way. Mens legs are viewed much more negatively and so men have to cover them up. Any time a male celebrity shows his legs more than just a little above the knee, whether posing half naked or what not, it's deemed overtly s-xual or just plain weird. To say men don't show their legs because they just don't want too isn't true. The simple fact of the matter is, society has decided it doesn't want to see men's legs for whatever reason. In this regard, you aren't being fair to men.

 

Men respond much more physically to stimulating images than women do, and women respond much more emotionally than men do. I'm not saying men can't be emotional and women can't be physical, but the general trend holds true. That trend is basically the reason why men will pose naked for gay fans, because gay men are men, and respond greatly to physical s-xuality. Men are also much more defensive about their s-xuality than women are, in large part because it's acceptable for a woman to be close to other women, but it's not acceptable for men to be close to other men. So yes, a naked man would alienate many male fans and pretty much not have them. A naked woman on the other hand won't alienate anyone, but she will appeal to a male market. Justin Bieber uses his s-xuality because from the very beginning he never aimed at the male market. Rihanna uses her s-xuality because otherwise, she wouldn't have a male market. In addition to this fact, a man like John Legend can also use emotional songs to connect to a female fan base, something which a women can't do because quite frankly, men wouldn't respond to it. This strategy will also alienate male fans too, which can be a problem for a male artist. This makes using s-xuality a very narrow marketing strategy for men. A woman on the other hand can use s-xuality more freely as a marketing tool because any fans she may lose will be easily offset by males who are captivated by her s-xually.

 

There are also many females who don't use s-xuality to sell or market themselves. Adele, Florence and the Machine, Taylor Swift, Kesha (you are probably giving me a look right now, but honestly she is very clothed and during Warrior made some weird ass music videos), P!nk, Ellie Goulding, Lana, a lot of country gals. My point is that women aren't forced to use s-xuality to sell music or whatever they are selling. It's just an option to them. Celebrities use all sorts of things to sell their products, and s-xuality is a effective one for women to use, which happens to be much less effective for men.

 

What I would consider a much bigger problem than women choosing to s-xualize themselves to sell music, is men choosing to s-xualize women to sell their music. That happens way too often and it's just gross and disgustingly effective to the point of being a little bit repulsive. It happens a lot from rappers.

[craig 680]

There are also many females who don't use s-xuality to sell or market themselves. Adele, Florence and the Machine, Taylor Swift, Kesha (you are probably giving me a look right now, but honestly she is very clothed and during Warrior made some weird ass music videos), P!nk, Ellie Goulding, Lana, a lot of country gals.

 

 

Ellie and Lana do. Both are more s-xy to guys than Miley.

So did Dolly Parton, Shania Twain, and Faith Hill.

It just some do it less often or more subtly. Different guys find different things s-xy too.

This it becomes very arbitrary to decide who are the "bad girls" who cross the line and are "too s-xual."

[No Angel 128]

In the video, the woman brings up the fact that Sandra Bullock making more money than George Clooney is some type of thing feminists should be praising, yet Beyoncé has actually made more money than many of her male counterparts, including her husband at one point, but...? Where's the praise? My biggest issue with this whole "Is Beyoncé a Feminist?" discussion that has been going on for ages, is that the discussion is always, if not usually, a discussion brought up by white women. Now I know before anyone even asks "Why does race even matter in Feminism?," it does. Racism, Classism, transphobia, etc. runs rapid in Feminism, yet several mainstream feminists choose to ignore it as if it isn't important.

 

The biggest issue I have with some white women discussing feminism, is many of them are so fixated on topics like the pay-gap, cat-calling, rape, etc. Which in my opinion are extremely important, but a lot of them feel as if those issues are the only things women are going through and that EVERY SINGLE FEMINIST OF ALL COLORS are fighting that same battle, but they aren't. There are women fighting violence, getting killed, etc. There are trans women who aren't even being represented like they should be, but they go undocumented. Let's not even get into how white women actually get paid more than women of color and men of color, but that seems to be the #1 topic in feminism. There have been so many speeches from WoC that go unnoticed, that actually bring up great ideas, valid concerns, and alarm statistics, but no one listens until a Lena Dunham type or Emma Watson wants to discuss it, then they are changing the game and are the face of feminism.

 

Though the man in the video gives a one-sided idea of what Feminism is, he does it well in defense of Bey. There's many things Beyonce has done, including helping homeless women, donating money to groups dedicated to young girls and arts, also being the co-founder for Chime For Change. Another funny thing is, she *intentionally* created a whole band consisting solely of women jamming with her and showcasing their musical talents at her concerts. They've been jamming with Bey for nearly ten years. Those are a few things that go unheard of when these people discuss her role in it all. But that's not the point; just because she's s-xual and is more blatant about her risky situations with Jay Z, doesn't devalue her role at all. I mean, there are people out here acting like her views/actions are so toxic, that it'll undo all the strides Feminists have made in the past and continue to do.

 

Can't we for once ask little black girls how they feel about Beyonce? Young black women? If she's impacted them? If she's helped them understand Feminism? If she's made them feel like they can reach for the stars and higher when others said they couldn't? Seriously, Why are we always having these questions thrown around with 30+ year old White Women who have no grasp on what it's like to be living in a nation where being anything but white (or light-skinned with white features) is seen as unnatural, unattractive, etc.? That's my biggest strife with videos like this, especially having Wendy Williams, a black woman, co-sign the nonsense of the women discrediting Bey. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if those women (or the ones who continue to bash Bey and other women of color) look up to Feminists like Susan B. Anthony, because she was a known racist. It's so funny, because a lot of black people look to Beyonce as a good role model, because she started an empire, she got married, and she had a child (y'know the "traditional" way), and continues to put work in as a successful performer and singer. That's something many people outside of the Black community think doesn't happen for us, but it does. Though, that still doesn't stop ignorant men like Bill O'Reilly and racist twitter trolls from calling them both "thugs." For what reason? No clue. 

 

There is also this idea that WoC (specifically Black women) are inherently s-xual, and that Black men are borderline predators, and them even being remotely "s-xually risky" can cause a lot of drama. Say, a Nicki Minaj wearing a bathing suit showing off her curves, or a Rihanna wearing a see-through grown revealing her breasts, and even a Beyonce dancing to her music while performing... that prompts many non-WoC to talk negatively. Having said that, whenever Lena Dunham gets nude on screen for Girls or when Scout Willis wants to free the nipple, it's praised by their fellow feminists. That's the problem. We're stuck in this idiotic idea, that if a woman (especially a WoC) wants respect, they must be clothed, and they must adhere to what men say, or what the leading white feminists say. No, **** respectability politics. Not to say it's useless, but some of these women who refuse to even listen to WoC are the ones fighting for trivial things like showing breasts on Instagram, when there are actual women out here fighting for decent human respect from both Men and and their so-called feminist sisters.

 

Read tweets from many Women of Color... Black, Asian, Muslim. They are all insightful. They are angry and funny and so much more interesting than the people being put in the forefront like Emma Watson, who got so much praise for her UN speech, which by the way was pretty good, but in my opinion, not the game-changing thing people are making it out to be. Regardless, it's gotten mundane watching them pull out any type of thing they can to refute that. We're always discussing Beyonce as if she's doing nothing good for girls, when there's people like Lana Del Rey and Katy Perry who have constantly ruled off the title; nobody wants to jump down their throats. (Nothing wrong with them not wanting to be labeled one, but their reasoning for not wanting to be called one is pretty interesting)

 

I feel like being a fan of Bey may cloud my judgement, but I feel the same happens for many woman of color who I'm not necessary fond of, who get slack for no reason. At this point, I truly only enjoy WoC's critiques of Beyoncé (there are a lot, who are very neutral; and then there's Bell Hooks, hehe) more than non-women of color, because their reasoning would seem more relatable and honest, rather than coming off as blatantly rude and just not even trying to understand a WoC's role in feminism. In no way is Beyonce's feminism perfect, but the women going around spewing nothing but negativity about her lifestyle need a good reality check.

 

I can't help but to be any more blunt: a White woman's womanhood is EXTREMELY different from a Black woman's (and any WoC's) womanhood. So, please, before you even fix yourself to judge a black girl for being open about her s-xuality or the way she dresses/acts, understand, you are not her and you will never know what another girl goes through. We don't all share the same morals, so keep your ideas to yourself, close your lips, open up your damn ears, and listen for once, then share your thoughts.

 

I apologize if this whole post comes off as rude or even race-baiting, but it's the truth. This is something many "feminists" who judge before they listen up need to learn. Sometimes I like to think that they are voicing genuine concerns, but majority of it just comes off as blatant jealousy. Another reason why I take up for her so much is because she's one of the few black women in this industry who gets actual respect, and she constantly proves herself time and time that she is at the top of her game and has real talent and fights for other black girls, and girls in general. It's so funny watching people scramble with why she isn't this or that. 

 

If anyone is interested, this video by the amaaaaaazing Dr. Joy Degruy perfectly explains the history of Black America. She gets very into detail about how Black women were viewed as "un-rapable" because they had larger backsides. That basically means, because Black women were shapely, that meant they could be raped at any given time and it wouldn't be considered a crime... because they were seen as "primitive." This is why those ideas (i.e Annie Lennox) are toxic.

 

*post-script: It makes me so happy seeing a fellow black man standing up for another black woman, because if he wouldn't do, no one would have. There's this recurring idea many black men believe about feminism, that it's something to attack them personally, but it isn't, and I love seeing men of color passionately defend other women of color like he's doing right now.

[StrawberryBlond 13,285]

I think nowadays most s-xy female popstars choose "s-xual expression" but there are always feminists putting them down about about, imagining it was forced or it's harming to women.

 

I also think most (non-misogynist) guys can see a woman as s-xy and many other things including powerful and smart. Why reinforce the idea that women must be one or the other?

 

We do it because it is genuine concern. It's well-known that s-xuality is forced or at least, heavily encouraged on a lot of female artists. And I didn't say that a woman can't be s-xy as well as many other things. In fact, I actually encouraged women to do just that - being s-xy as well as an all-round amazing person will win you many fans. There's a reason why a lot of men sleep around with "bad girls" when they're young, but then they get a bit older, more mature, and realise that there's more to a woman than just s-x and that they'd actually prefer a woman with a great personality rather than a s-x object. So, I think women would be better off if they aimed to be s-xy with great personalities. It can't be a nice feeling to know that you always get dumped because the man has had his fun with you and now is looking for a "good girl" to start a future with.

 

Ironically, many of the s-x sirens have the longest careers of female singers.

Looks like Kylie and Jlo's s-xiness will outlast Mariah's voice.

Madonna and Cher had hits at a latter age than most male classic rockers.

 

Kylie isn't getting success anymore, though, and her touring power has always been very limited. J-Lo has never been an albums artist and she's only had one tour her entire career. She built her empire on other things like her movies, clothing lines and perfumes. They may still "be around" but everyone outwith their fans know that their best days are long gone. Sales-wise, their resume is not impressive compared to the sales of other pop artists, so sticking around doesn't mean much if you're not selling. When I said that once a s-xual artist is done when their s-x appeal is gone, I wasn't referring to people like them. The public still think they're s-xy, even though they're in their 40's (I actually listed both of them in my list of hottest female artists over 30 - Shakira was #1, but Kylie was a very close second). They kept their figures and their overall looks. If the public deemed them to have got fat or ugly, they'd be done. And Madonna and Cher are two in a million. Very few female artists will ever get hits so late in they day like they have ever again. And while Madonna may be s-xual, she was always trying different avenues. She didn't always use s-x to sell, namely her Ray of Light era.

 

You have covered a lot in your post but I think that because you are taking purely a females point of view you are missing a lot of issues involved with male s-xuality, and the differences between men and women, that helps to explain a lot of this.

 

Male s-xuality is inherently above the waist. It's true, men rarely show their legs. This isn't because it's not necessary to sell albums, but quite literally it's because it's inappropriate in western society. Womens legs are a thing of beauty, men's legs are not viewed in the same way. Mens legs are viewed much more negatively and so men have to cover them up. Any time a male celebrity shows his legs more than just a little above the knee, whether posing half naked or what not, it's deemed overtly s-xual or just plain weird. To say men don't show their legs because they just don't want too isn't true. The simple fact of the matter is, society has decided it doesn't want to see men's legs for whatever reason. In this regard, you aren't being fair to men.

 

Men respond much more physically to stimulating images than women do, and women respond much more emotionally than men do. I'm not saying men can't be emotional and women can't be physical, but the general trend holds true. That trend is basically the reason why men will pose naked for gay fans, because gay men are men, and respond greatly to physical s-xuality. Men are also much more defensive about their s-xuality than women are, in large part because it's acceptable for a woman to be close to other women, but it's not acceptable for men to be close to other men. So yes, a naked man would alienate many male fans and pretty much not have them. A naked woman on the other hand won't alienate anyone, but she will appeal to a male market. Justin Bieber uses his s-xuality because from the very beginning he never aimed at the male market. Rihanna uses her s-xuality because otherwise, she wouldn't have a male market. In addition to this fact, a man like John Legend can also use emotional songs to connect to a female fan base, something which a women can't do because quite frankly, men wouldn't respond to it. This strategy will also alienate male fans too, which can be a problem for a male artist. This makes using s-xuality a very narrow marketing strategy for men. A woman on the other hand can use s-xuality more freely as a marketing tool because any fans she may lose will be easily offset by males who are captivated by her s-xually.

 

There are also many females who don't use s-xuality to sell or market themselves. Adele, Florence and the Machine, Taylor Swift, Kesha (you are probably giving me a look right now, but honestly she is very clothed and during Warrior made some weird ass music videos), P!nk, Ellie Goulding, Lana, a lot of country gals. My point is that women aren't forced to use s-xuality to sell music or whatever they are selling. It's just an option to them. Celebrities use all sorts of things to sell their products, and s-xuality is a effective one for women to use, which happens to be much less effective for men.

 

What I would consider a much bigger problem than women choosing to s-xualize themselves to sell music, is men choosing to s-xualize women to sell their music. That happens way too often and it's just gross and disgustingly effective to the point of being a little bit repulsive. It happens a lot from rappers.

 

You make lots of good points and I agree with most of them. But I have to disagree that using s-x to sell is an option for them. It's been confirmed before that some do get it forced upon them. Artists from an older time like Kate Bush and Sinead O'Conner have spoken about their brushes with this before. I believe Pink's spoken out about it too. And one of the best examples is Gabriella Cilmi. I was really surprised that she did an FHM shoot including posing topless with a bit of side boob as that was so not her. When she got dropped and released music independently, she revealed she had been 100% forced by her label to do that shoot and she deeply regrets the whole thing. She sang some songs on her album that was not so subtely aimed at her old label where she accused them of being the devils she sold her soul to and how they tried to mould her to "fit into line with their perfect design." Sexualisation of female artists happens, it's just that no one talks about it. That fact that it's not unusual for a female to go s-xual after a flop album but the same thing NEVER happens to a male proves that s-xualisation of the female artists does exist.

 

I agree that s-xualisation of females by male artists is equally problematic. Equally, not more. I think all s-xualisation, personal or towards someone else, is problematic. In order to understand why s-xualising someone else is wrong, we need to understand why s-xualising ourselves is wrong. And by s-xualising ourselves, I don't mean being a bit naughty, I'm talking about representing ourselves as full-on s-x objects. No one should just be a vehicle for s-x. Anyone who thinks they are needs someone to make them realise that they are better than that and raise their self esteem.

 

I can't help but to be any more blunt: a White woman's womanhood is EXTREMELY different from a Black woman's (and any WoC's) womanhood. So, please, before you even fix yourself to judge a black girl for being open about her s-xuality or the way she dresses/acts, understand, you are not her and you will never know what another girl goes through. We don't all share the same morals, so keep your ideas to yourself, close your lips, open up your damn ears, and listen for once, then share your thoughts.

 

I get where you're coming from and I completely understand your frustration. But rest assured that a lot of white women do support women of other races and their needs and issues are coming more to the forefront of feminism nowadays. There's some things I would like to say about the way the role models that blacks are emulating nowadays but I've been criticised before for thinking I know what's best for someone else's race and I guess that's fair. But I see no need why we can't at least question certain things. I've seen a lot of black female singers that would be far better role models for the black girls of today than Beyonce. Beyonce didn't start from the bottom - she was born into money and her father, who works at a record label, manufactured all her success, as part of a band and as a soloist (I don't really count the short stint with Girls Tyme as starting at the bottom - DC's first album was released when Beyonce was just 16, so if you've made it by that age, you've hardly worked for long), plus she gets a lot of help from Jay now. Beyonce was practically programmed to be a success due to the amazing, driven support network she had. But most black artists do not have those privilages and neither to do the consumers of their music who look up to them. Therefore, I think black artists who did start from the bottom and made their way to the top without familial connections are the ones that should be looked up to for their grit and determination to succeed against the odds. Beyonce may encourage black girls to aim high so they can be just like her, but she was born into privilage that most of them could only dream of, so it feels like false encouragement as she must know chances are low that any of them will ever get to her level. Most of us, of any race, do not have the backing that has helped Beyonce through her entire career. I get that she's a great singer and performer, but there are many parts of her career that she didn't achieve on her own merits, so I don't think she should be held up as a beacon of hope for all black people who have dreams of making it in the world by starting from the bottom.

[uo111 5,201]

You make lots of good points and I agree with most of them. But I have to disagree that using s-x to sell is an option for them. It's been confirmed before that some do get it forced upon them. Artists from an older time like Kate Bush and Sinead O'Conner have spoken about their brushes with this before. I believe Pink's spoken out about it too. And one of the best examples is Gabriella Cilmi. I was really surprised that she did an FHM shoot including posing topless with a bit of side boob as that was so not her. When she got dropped and released music independently, she revealed she had been 100% forced by her label to do that shoot and she deeply regrets the whole thing. She sang some songs on her album that was not so subtely aimed at her old label where she accused them of being the devils she sold her soul to and how they tried to mould her to "fit into line with their perfect design." Sexualisation of female artists happens, it's just that no one talks about it. That fact that it's not unusual for a female to go s-xual after a flop album but the same thing NEVER happens to a male proves that s-xualisation of the female artists does exist.

 

I agree that s-xualisation of females by male artists is equally problematic. Equally, not more. I think all s-xualisation, personal or towards someone else, is problematic. In order to understand why s-xualising someone else is wrong, we need to understand why s-xualising ourselves is wrong. And by s-xualising ourselves, I don't mean being a bit naughty, I'm talking about representing ourselves as full-on s-x objects. No one should just be a vehicle for s-x. Anyone who thinks they are needs someone to make them realise that they are better than that and raise their self esteem.

That's very true, I'm sure a lot of (if not most) female artists have been coerced into doing things of a s-xual nature that they didn't want to do which is awful. Men not being seen as s-xually is definitely an advantage when it comes to situations like this because no one will encourage or try to make them take off their clothes or perform s-xual favors for business favors.

 

It's hard to tell who is using s-x out of their own free will and who is being coerced into it. I really believe it's not a problem if they want to do it, but how can you tell if they don't want to do it unless they say so, which could get them dropped from the label. It's definitely very easy to abuse women, especially in the early stages of their career.

[craig 680]

Kylie isn't getting success anymore, though, and her touring power has always been very limited. J-Lo has never been an albums artist and she's only had one tour her entire career. She built her empire on other things like her movies, clothing lines and perfumes. They may still "be around" but everyone outwith their fans know that their best days are long gone. Sales-wise, their resume is not impressive compared to the sales of other pop artists, so sticking around doesn't mean much if you're not selling.

 

 

But EVERY singer over 40 has their best days behind them. Even your Paul McCartney and Bob Dylan.

 

Kylie's X tour earned 96 million when she was 40, which is amazing without the US market, and Aphrodite tour earned about 60 million, and her and Girls Aloud were the only females artists in UK with 5 straight platinum studio albums 2000-2010.

 

JLo has On the Floor smash when she was over 40, has a tour in 2012 make over #50, and is about to have a lucrative Vegas residency. She was ahead of her time making money outside of albums, now so many others have to follow that route.

[No Angel 128]

 

I get where you're coming from and I completely understand your frustration. But rest assured that a lot of white women do support women of other races and their needs and issues are coming more to the forefront of feminism nowadays. There's some things I would like to say about the way the role models that blacks are emulating nowadays but I've been criticised before for thinking I know what's best for someone else's race and I guess that's fair. But I see no need why we can't at least question certain things. I've seen a lot of black female singers that would be far better role models for the black girls of today than Beyonce. Beyonce didn't start from the bottom - she was born into money and her father, who works at a record label, manufactured all her success, as part of a band and as a soloist (I don't really count the short stint with Girls Tyme as starting at the bottom - DC's first album was released when Beyonce was just 16, so if you've made it by that age, you've hardly worked for long), plus she gets a lot of help from Jay now. Beyonce was practically programmed to be a success due to the amazing, driven support network she had. But most black artists do not have those privilages and neither to do the consumers of their music who look up to them. Therefore, I think black artists who did start from the bottom and made their way to the top without familial connections are the ones that should be looked up to for their grit and determination to succeed against the odds. Beyonce may encourage black girls to aim high so they can be just like her, but she was born into privilage that most of them could only dream of, so it feels like false encouragement as she must know chances are low that any of them will ever get to her level. Most of us, of any race, do not have the backing that has helped Beyonce through her entire career. I get that she's a great singer and performer, but there are many parts of her career that she didn't achieve on her own merits, so I don't think she should be held up as a beacon of hope for all black people who have dreams of making it in the world by starting from the bottom.

 

I agree with you in terms of her having gotten a head start in comparison to her peers, but I'm referring to why we constantly have these conversations about her with White women? Why is it that whenever her name is brought up with Feminism, we never ask black girls how they feel about her? Why are white people the face of something that's allegedly representing every skin tone, religion, gender, etc.? It's always people who have no grasp on what it's like to be that chiming in. And I agree, no one is free of criticism, but it seems like only white women have a say in what is right for feminism and what isn't, which is not fair one bit. It's like some of them don't care for the other issues, but once it must come up, they want to talk over them. I'm positive if you asked a group of young black girls how they feel about Beyonce and what their thoughts on feminism is, they will give you varying opinions. 

 

"But rest assured that a lot of white women do support women of other races and their needs and issues are coming more to the forefront of feminism nowadays." I applaud the white inter-sectionalists for having common sense; they're great and they do seem to be genuine. Those women are using their privilege as White people to help unspoken feminists, just like Beyonce is using her wealth privilege to do the same for young girls and to spread the idea of Feminism.

 

Though, I agree, I do think there are plenty of black musicians who started from nothing, who should get a lot of attention, but it may take a while for that to happen. There have actually been plenty of black female musicians who have shown girl power for each other and have used their ideas and thoughts for the cause, but they still go unnoticed... why? Obvious reasons. [See: Mary J Blige, Alicia Keys, Queen Latifah, MC Lyte, Brandy, Chrissette Michelle, and Janet freaking Jackson of ALL PEOPLE, who made several albums dedicated to those issues. Somewhere along the line, all of her hard work and dedication fell on blind eyes because of a wardrobe malfunction at the Superbowl. See? ​Everything she did in her hugely successful career just fell flat because of that event. In return, Janet got reduced to a boob. Those are all black women who have shown love for each other and other girls, but no one talks about it..]

 

So when someone as huge as Beyonce has the opportunity to do something like that, it's great. She's using her huge brand, and music, to further the cause. If someone like Bey (who comes from wealth privilege) makes it and inspires girls, there's no problem with that one bit. That still doesn't stop the Lena Dunhams and Emma Watsons of the world who come from major privilege from being the faces of the movement effortlessly, and no one makes a peep. And even if you haven't started from the bottom, that doesn't mean you can't inspire the younger generation to do good and want more for themselves. Who says you must have a rags to riches story to be noted as an inspiration? Let alone an inspiration for why a young girl possibly became a Feminist? ...

 

"There's some things I would like to say about the way the role models that blacks are emulating nowadays but I've been criticised before for thinking I know what's best for someone else's race and I guess that's fair." While I do think there are some ****ty individuals in the Black community not doing much to help the youth, there have been a plethora of Black men and women who have created organizations to empower the kids. Plenty who go to school daily despite their issues. Many who work hard. Many who are like this young boy. Those are the people who never get noticed or put in the forefront. So don't believe that the only one's in the forefront of the community are rappers glamorizing violence, etc. Check out The Dream Defenders, they hold several meetings a year bringing kids together though schools. It's amazing. Another group are the young protestors out in Ferguson, Missouri standing in the cold fighting an uphill battle. They are the true leaders, but they're being labeled as militant and dangerous. In no way am I saying that Beyonce should be held up as the prime example for hope in the black community, but she does give black children, specifically girls, the idea that they can be what they want. Just because there are people who don't look like them on the television screen or newspapers that are doing great, that doesn't mean they can't do that. In America, we're thrown images of black people (and other minorities) being thrown in jail, on d--gs, or being violent people, so seeing her literally at the top makes us black people happy. Contrary to popular belief, we do care, people just like to believe we don't.

 

But before I derail further: Something that I found was very interesting was when her album dropped. I have several black family members and friends (who are Black women) who listened to the album and liked it. They were arguing over which song was better. They watched the videos together, they dissected the themes, they listened to the lyrics, they danced and laughed while genuinely having a good time; all while remembering her past albums and works with DC. In a sense, she brought them together. They bonded over the album. They rejoiced that a black woman did that, and they felt like it was their own personal manifesto. Though they know they might never have as much as Beyonce has, they still enjoy her for representing them in some sort of way whereas it's in the womanhood aspect, s-xual aspect, or motherhood aspect, etc. There's this ongoing idea that many black people have broken families, and that's not the case when it comes to The Carters, and millions of black families (like my family and their past generations), so I can understand why many black women hold her up to such a high standard. I'm just starting to believe it's hard for non-PoC to understand that we can be "normal" too, whatever that means.

 

It just baffles me that white women like Annie Lennox (and some other feminists) will come down so hard on Rihanna, Nicki Minaj, and Beyoncé for showing skin, but will rarely come for Miley Cyrus for her elaborate schemes, also not even knowing the origins or "Twerking," which loosely comes from African Tribal Dancing. So are all of those women disrespecting themselves, too? Not only did she somewhat get a pass from them, they totally ignored the fact that she's disrespected many cultures in her recent performances. Some of them only see what they want to and it's sickening. They are also ignoring this recent Lena Dunham scandal with her sister. I wonder why.

 

tl;dr: Stop leaving the conversation to one group of women, and open it up to all. Stop ignoring the little girls who you're trying to shape up to be strong. You don't have to be on the same level as someone to be inspired by them. You don't have to have Jay Z money to want the same hustle he has. It's the notion that knowing you *could* aspire to inspire.