Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

rocktivity

(44,573 posts)
35. DING DING DING! WorseBeforeBetter and KittyWampus, you're our grand prize winners!
Wed Jul 23, 2014, 12:36 AM
Jul 2014

Last edited Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:14 AM - Edit history (12)

WorseBeforeBetter:
Madonna opened the floodgates around when, 1984? Since those early MTV years we've been "treated" to Britney, Beyonce, Rihanna, Miley, Katy, Nicki, etc. I don't consider any of them to have truly impressive voices. But for Britney, I'd say all of these women are in control.


KittyWampus:
(Being) depicted in her underwear and other provocative outfits and states of undress over the years...certainly helps her career...

(To) what degree (does) her success exist only because she allows herself to be used in a particular way(?)


To which I'd like to add what I wrote in the DU thread I started about Beyonce's Time cover:

Why SHOULDN'T Beyonce "come half dressed?" Coming half dressed is the way she BECAME "influential!"

...(I)t (made) perfect sense to feature more of Beyonce's body...her "influence" was GENERATED BY her body.


MTV opened the floodgates with Madonna, drenching us in the notion that you don't need impressive vocals OR impressive music if you have impressive bodies, impressive wardrobes, impressive cinematography, and impressive publicists. Madonna started out as a "boy toy," and was last seen putting swastikas in her videos to generate attention.

There are two big disadvantages to being a video pop tart sensation. One is that sensations wear off, forcing you to stay competitive by placing a premium on evolving visually rather than artistically. (Otherwise you end up dead in the water -- and ripe to be traded in for a younger model.) And, of course, you also have to put up with being seen as a blight on women who are striving to be seen as "serious" about their work.

Consequently, I find Hook's talk of terrorism, imperialism, anti-feminism and visual assault to be the equivalent of swatting a fly with a heat-seeking missile. She's right about the capitalist patriarchy of the entertainment business being the root of the problem, but she's wrong to see it as the exclusive burden of black women. Its commandments are "Sex sells" and "Controversy sells" and "Do unto others as others have done unto others," none of which is news to Madonna, Britney, Miley, Katy, et cetera (Did you forget Lady Gaga, WorseBeforeBetter?).

They and Beyonce are just doing what it takes to maintain their fame, fortune and recording contracts. I don't believe they're interested in doing the alternative. And as for "control," I think it's safe to conclude that Miley is more interested in being the next Madonna than the next Adele!


rocktivity
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #1
She sounds hateful of Beyonce LittleBlue May 2014 #2
Sorry, but no, every penny is NOT "deserved". liberalhistorian May 2014 #26
to liberalhistorian NJCher May 2014 #31
...^ that 840high May 2014 #32
bell hooks is African American too BainsBane May 2014 #3
"are you going to imply all black people are bad because you don't like hooks' views on Beyoncé." ProudToBeBlueInRhody May 2014 #4
You could have checked Wikipedia BainsBane May 2014 #6
Well, how dare I.... ProudToBeBlueInRhody May 2014 #7
It's one thing to crique an argument BainsBane May 2014 #9
"a movement you have made clear you find objectionable" ProudToBeBlueInRhody May 2014 #11
Oh, "my cohorts" or me? BainsBane May 2014 #12
Good lord, you're all over the place ProudToBeBlueInRhody May 2014 #18
You posted a piece attacking feminists and comparing hooks to O'Reilly BainsBane May 2014 #22
Moreover, you don't even bother to see what hooks actually said BainsBane May 2014 #23
Wow. Your real liberalhistorian May 2014 #27
She was always a big draw at the bookstore I worked in in Washington, DC. Comrade Grumpy May 2014 #33
Thank you BainsBane May 2014 #34
Famed? Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2014 #5
Here's the whole talk. LeftyMom May 2014 #8
Beyonce had no control as to whether she'd pose in her undies? WorseBeforeBetter May 2014 #10
She may agree to being used and represented in that fashion… but what if she hadn't agreed KittyWampus May 2014 #15
Doesn't it help all their careers, save for a few who don't go that route? WorseBeforeBetter May 2014 #25
O'Reilly isn't fit to exist on the same planet as bell hooks. Thanks for bringing this round table KittyWampus May 2014 #13
He's just mad because no one asked him to pose for Time in his underwear Orrex May 2014 #17
I know you are a master of snark, but you inadvertently pointed to bell hooks argument. KittyWampus May 2014 #20
LOL Orrex May 2014 #21
Thanks Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2014 #28
Let's promote women by attacking a powerful woman JJChambers May 2014 #14
LOL ... This should keep DU busy for a while. 1000words May 2014 #16
the shame is, there are legitimate issues mentioned but people are going to superficially KittyWampus May 2014 #19
Nuance and understanding what is actually being said isn't everyone's strong suit. boston bean May 2014 #24
What?!? chervilant May 2014 #29
Someone needs to alert The Beygency on this heretic pronto! 951-Riverside May 2014 #30
DING DING DING! WorseBeforeBetter and KittyWampus, you're our grand prize winners! rocktivity Jul 2014 #35
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Beyonce labeled partly &q...»Reply #35