at the same time.

Unfortunately, Hooks made her very legitimate argument a casualty of her rhetorical overkill. Are you really "controlling your sexualization" if you wouldn't have a musical career without it -- that is, if you really DID have to rely on your musical talents for a living?

You see, I had this argument over thirty years ago about Madonna. I distinctly remember hearing Shining Star on the radio and wondering, "How the hell did SHE get a record contract?" My neighborhood wouldn't be wired for cable for a few more years, so the first time I actually laid eyes on her, she was on the cover of Time magazine -- with the headline "Why She's Hot."

She was hot because her male fans wanted her, while her female fans wanted to be her because males wanted her. They all said, "But it's different with her -- sure she has more sex appeal than talent, but it's HER sex appeal! Doesn't that make her a feminist?" I said, "No -- it makes her a pimp. And being your own pimp doesn't make you any less of a whore."

Beyonce isn't doing anything that Madonna through Miley Cyrus haven't -- including trying to pass it off it as feminism. If you sift through the ashes of Hooks's "friendly fire," you'll find that she mentioned "capitalist patriarchy." That's what Beyonce and her video pop tart "ancestors" have enslaved themselves to -- and it is most certainly NOT a "black thing."

More


rocktivity

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



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

is a line from a play by William Congreve (not William Shakespeare). First, Congreve draws a parallel between the inherent righteousness of heaven's outrage and the inherent inappropriateness of hell's. Then he goes a step further by assigning hell's fury exclusively to women!

There are, of course, women who have expressed their being scorned with guns and other forms of violence, but their numbers are dwarfed by the number of men who do the same. That's mainly because such behavior is not seen as "ladylike," as opposed to using poison, throwing acid, or revealing their partner's illegalities to the authorities. However, violence can work when the man's strength advantage is neutralized by his being asleep.

So it all comes down to gender-based stereotyping and social acceptability -- scorned men avenge ("'Vengeance is mine!', sayest the Lord"); scorned women sin. While a man's fury is wrong but "only human," a woman's is just a byproduct of her being a female canine.


rocktivity

It's not just Zach's dumb questions and absence of charisma -- it's his greasy hair, scruffy clothes, flushed complexion, slouching, wrinkled script (from which he has to read the president's name). There's no eye contact with either his guests or his camera angles, and he sulks when checkmated. Add the crap production values that were the hallmark of no-budget, pre-cable public access TV, garnish with the irony that the guests are from the top rather than the bottom of the ladder where public access TV guests traditionally came from, and Between Two Ferns can't help but be a living monument to unprofessional media.




Put another way, my sister once told me that Patrica "Hyacinth Bucket" Routledge of Keeping Up Appearances "really is a very good singer in real life." I said, "You wasted your breath telling me that -- you HAVE TO be a really good singer to sing as BADLY as she does as WELL as she does!"




rocktivity

Vargas starts out the video by describing himself as "the most privileged undocumented in America" because he works as the kind of journalist who can get published in the New York Times:


He certainly wasn't worried about being deported, or he wouldn't have done it -- at least, not without an American "sponor" in his back pocket. As for the political "silence" he speaks of, here's a newsflash (if you'll pardon the expression): the politicians are silent because they're perfectly happy with the status quo. With a vulnerable, expandable, powerless, practically penniless underground workforce, wages can only decrease and organized labor can only get weaker -- good news for the corporatists who finance the politicians. That's why Washington only makes enough noise about "reforming" immigration to get votes, then shuts up about it.

Meanwhile, how dare Obama utilize the illegal immigration laws that are already on the books! As I understand it, he's concentrating on deporting those who have criminal records, so it makes sense that he would do so "silently." And was Vargas happier when Bush II was looking the other way, or would he have preferred President Romney's "self-deportation" policy?

Talk about speaking with a forked tongue! And come to think of it, why would someone as educated and talented and "privileged" as Vargas have a problem a good-paying journalist job in his native Phillipines? Maybe he didn't take such a big gamble after all...


rocktivity

This over-entitled turd is going to get pulverized if he ever gets on the football field.

And quite possibly by his OWN teammates!



Anyone remember Joe Namath? His teammates and front office may not have liked his showboating and partying, but they tolerated it because he didn't start ACTING like Joe Namath until he BECAME Joe Namath, see? Aside from having above average skills, Broadway Joe never forgot that he could only be as successful as his teammates, and to show enough respect to his coaches and team management.

Manziel's problem, as you so beautifully put it, is "over-entitlement." Unlike Tebow, most of his teammates, or Bieber or Mayweather for that matter, Manziel's access to fame, fortune and power ISN'T effectively over if he fails as a pro athlete. He won't end up having to do infomercials or playing overseas to stay afloat financially or socially -- so he DOESN'T waste time kowtowing to team management, showing even the most basic deference to his direct superiors, or caring about his teammates.

Manziel's got bimbos and celebrities climbing over him now because he's a already a wealthy playboy, not because of his potential as a quarterback. But how much winning does Manziel think he can do without winning the respect of his teammates? He doesn't have enough sense to PRETEND that becoming the Cleveland Browns quarterback is his top priority right now?


rocktivity