This is a photo of Sara Baartman, also colloquially known as the Hottentot Venus. In 19th Century Europe, she was exhibited as a "freak show" where white Europeans marveled at the (alleged) size and shape of her buttocks. So what does the Hottentot Venus have to do with Nicki Minaj? The commonality is that Minaj embodied the past stereotype of the Hottenton Venus of the 21st Century on last week's Saturday Night Live.
In the interest of full disclosure, I work in marketing and public relations and fully understand niche marketing. That, however, in no way means that I like the concept or that I think it's valuable from a consumer/user perspective.
The consumer me sees niche marketing as a ploy by companies to get me to spend my money and most of the time I tend to reject that sort of marketing/outright ploy. The primary reason I do so, is that it rarely means that the company supports your "community" but rather that there is market research that shows you and your "community" are an "untapped market" or is a growing consumer segment.
A conversation I saw on Facebook caused me to think: what are the rules for celebrity transgression (and subsequent forgiveness)? Last night's BET Awards featured performances by both Kanye West and Chris Brown. For those who have been living under a pop culture rock, Kanye West famously interrupted Taylor Swift's acceptance speech at the MTV Music Awards and ended up looking like an asshole to just about everyone.
So, Elena Kagan is not gay according to her friends. While this may, or may not be true, it brings up an important question: "Why does it matter one way or the other as it relates to her ability to be an effective Supreme Court Justice?"
I will tell anyone who listens that I detest CNN (and all the other 24 hour news networks including CNBC, MSNBC and FOX News) because I believe they do a disservice to Americans seeking unbiased news coverage. But my recent giant glass of ice cold Haterade is lifted to CNN not necessarily for being biased, but for simply being dumb. Now, I am never one to deny someone a check, so hats off to Soledad O'Brien for getting hers, but really CNN? You have the nerve to call a series Gay in America and then treat us (and I use the word VERY loosely) to a documentary on one gay couple's (anticlimactic) journey to having a baby.
Before I even start this post, I have to go on record saying that I am not a fan of Lady Gaga (or Lady Caca as many in the media call her). I don't find her music particularly interesting or innovative. What is innovative and interesting in many ways is the way in which she has creating the Gaga brand. Let's not forget that before she created Lady Gaga, she was just a singer/songwriter toiling away trying to make it big (like thousands of people before and since her rise to fame).
On one hand, one could argue that Lady Gaga is in some ways eschewing the idea of a culture industry, developed by Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer which says that pop culture is an industry that produces standardized good for mass consumption, but that would only be true if she really pushed music forward and I don't believe she does that. Perhaps she is pushing boundaries with her elaborate costumes, but one could argue that Sarah Jessica Parker's Carrie Bradshaw from Sex in the City accomplishes that as well with her often ridiculous outfits. What I think is really at work is that, to borrow her own words and use them against her, she's become a fame monster.
It seems that she just can't stay out of the spotlight. It seems the antics she tries to pull off as "just being Gaga" feel calculated for maximum publicity value. What makes it grating for her and somewhat endearing for someone like Kathy Griffin is that at least Griffin will admit what she's doing. Certainly, we (collectively speaking) are not without fault. If we cease to buy magazines that print stories about Lady Gaga (and other celebrities) or watch the endless parade of newsertainment programs that report every detail of a celebrity's life, maybe it'd all just go away.
This is a great article from The New Yorker about the increasing number of gay (or at least gay-ish) young men in media and an attempt to figure out what it means culturally. I think it just means that tween girls tend to like fey-ish young men rather than that there is necessarily a greater acceptance of gay folk on television. But what is still troubling is that the identification of gay and gay-ish young men (or the "mark of gayness") still traffics heavily in stereotypes of what it means (or doesn't mean) to be gay. Gay young men on television are still overwhelmingly showtune-loving, high-kicking and twirling representations (full disclosure: I was one of these young men) but isn't it time for a broader range of representations? Certainly shows like Greek and Will & Grace (as problematic as the show is) have broadened the range of gay men seen on television, but these are adult men.
I am a believer that television is a socialization tool and while we're televisually celebrating letting our freak flags fly, we're also limiting the construct of what young male gayness is and can be.
Why can't "successful" black women find a "good" man? It seems to be a controversial and thought-provoking question on the surface. But when examined more closely, it's a question that is bound up in heteronormative, reproductionist and sanguinuptial notions about men and women and family. First, it is heteronormative in that it assumes that the role of women (and men) is to couple through the bonds of the socially constructed institution of marriage. It also presupposes that women want or need to be married. As if there is something wrong with women who either chose not or are not "honored" with having a man ask them to be married. The whole premise assumes that for these black women, there is a problem because they can not find suitable mates. And while it may be true that some women bemoan the unavailability of "good" men (often anecdotally blaming gay men and incarcerated black men), there are other women who are financially secure, have fantastic friends and as such, don't worry about finding a "good" man.
"Oh, the gays are getting miffed! Don't tell us we're too gay or not or whatever. Oh lord, what is gay, anyway? Find me the line -- find me the defining line between gay and straight. Find me the defining line between male and female. There is no line. You cannot draw this line in the sand. Yes, there are plenty of people way over there who will never partake in anything straight and there are people way over there who will never partake in anything gay, but there's a whole lot of gray in the middle. Where's the line? Behind all of it is sexual insecurity. It's sexphobia."
-- Melissa Etheridge on the Newsweek "controversy" over Sean Hayes being "too gay" to play straight.
I watched a documentary on LOGO called The Butch Factor on logo which purported to examine ideas (and ideals) about masculinity among gay men. What struck me when watching was that the documentary presented a monolithic idea of masculinity, or to speak in the film's terms, butchness. The masculine men played sports, participated in rodeos and were police officers while the less butch (read: feminine) representations were of men who had more artsy professions.
A friend hipped me to this video and it is truly heartbreaking. Apparently the color of beauty is still white (and will always be if we are to believe those people interviewed in the video.
Before I am accused of being too Afrocentric, I am not advocating that the fashion industry is "blackened" just for the same of having black people on the runways and in the pages of mainstream fashion magazines. Rather, I am advocating at least an openness to representing blackness rather than having designers request "no black girls." Particularly when they are willing to allow white models to don blackface or act as props to showcase white beauty. Which recalls one of the quotes in the film that says people in the industry essentially want white girls dipped in chocolate.
This is why what Donna Brazil says about ridding ourselves of pundits rings so true. Sarah Palin is a woman, who I believe, deserves some degree of respect. She has managed to cobble together a very financially lucrative career by stringing together a bunch of buzz words that don't always add up to something intelligible. She has certainly managed to speak to/for a segment of the population to whom her folksy charm and good looks appeal. And while I disagree with about 90% of her political positions, I'm usually willing to hear her out. But I draw the line here. Palin is an advocate of going "back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments."
I am usually not a fan of Donna Brazil, but she has spoken the truth. Brazil says that if she could get rid of one thing in the world, that'd be pundits. Amen! She says:
If a single move could restore civility to politics, that is it. Get rid of the left-vs.-right commentators who are just out scoring points for their team. This sort of opinion-mongering is not only boring and predictable, it is destructive of the truth. If your only credentials are "GOP shill" or "Democratic hack," you've no business cluttering up the airwaves or the op-ed pages. My momma always told me that if you don't know what you're talking about, it's best to keep your mouth shut. That's good advice.
Whom do we put in their place? I say replace the pundits with people who have genuine expertise -- whether from their academic work, professional life or personal experience -- on the key issues of the day. Instead of partisan talking heads or mad hatters from the "tea party" preaching their views on, say, health care and taxes, let's hear from doctors and insurance professionals, or the number-crunchers from the Congressional Budget Office. They're much better equipped to help viewers, listeners and readers wade through the facts, arguments and data.
We'd have a much more informed public if we could just get rid of this one thing. But we won't. And the reason we won't is because many will make the argument that regular folk and those with actual knowledge (not to infer that ALL of the pundits who are "approved" by producers don't have knowledge) don't make for "good TV."
In what can only be described as an abuse of power, a Seattle Police Officer kicked a suspect in the head once he was already on the ground and being compliant. As if that weren't enough, it turns out that the man, who was suspected of committing a robbery by the police, was innocent. Now, of course, the office has gone on his "I'm Sowwy Tour" apologizing for saying he would "kick the Mexican piss" out of the suspect (but not for kicking him in the head). There is a line between doing your job and being an asshole and this office crossed that line. Is it any wonder that many members of minority groups dislike and/or fear the police?
CNN continues to prove just how useless and inane its coverage is/can be with the announcement that they will air a CNN Special Report called Gary and Tony Have a Baby in June. I find it useless because I continually question the wisdom of a very middle class, assimilationist thread that runs through and dominates gay rights in America. The major way that many gay rights organizations attack those who oppose gay rights is by trying to show how much gay couples are "just like the 'rest' of us" (i.e. normal, whatever the hell that is!). Not to mention that a special like this does nothing to unseat the idea that gayness = whiteness. As someone who does research on gay black men on television, I know that the universe of gay men of color on television is small, particularly when you discount unscripted and cable television shows, but white gay men appear on many network shows like Modern Family and Brothers and Sisters.
I mean, really? Did we really need someone to tell us that the "news" we receive isn't neutral? Despite the claims of shows and networks to have "No Bias, No Bull" and be "Fair and Balanced" the opposite is true. This goes for both right and left media. As Pierre Bourdieu tells us in his fantastic book On Television
"It explains why real information, analysis, in-depth interviews, expert discussions, and serious documentaries lose out to pure entertainment and, in particular, mindless talk show chatter between 'approved' and interchangeable speakers."
I saw this video and was torn -- it's actually laugh out loud funny, but also incredibly sad, particularly as I inhabit my black male skin daily. Certainly media, including music, movies, television (both the news and television shows) and even art to a certain degree (and the Reagan administration) has helped to perpetuate the idea of the menacing black man. But at the same time, this manages to skewer the sheer absurdity of a monolithic idea of black male menace (as well as monolithic ideas about any group of people).
We have evolved (or devolved) into a society where rhetoric and soundbites rule the day. And we also largely, get our soundbites from media outlets that support our ideas and ideals and regurgitate those soundbites to people who ideologically share our beliefs. It's a great opportunity for us to feel smart and well-read. But it's when you are challenged by someone who is your ideological opposite that problems tend to arise.
This is another fantastic editorial about the argument that we "haven't got time to cook." When in fact, we do have time to cook, we just chose to use that time doing other things that are "more important" to us. The same can be true for those of us (myself included) who don't work out (or at least don't do so regularly). Certainly part of the problem is that the media helps to validate us by constantly telling us that we don't have time to cook and food companies use a products "convenience" as a way to market products to us that help to make not making time to cook much easier for us.
The comic strip Archie announcing that it would introduce a gay character to Riverdale was met by me with a yawn. But then I saw this video and this video
and then I realized the damage that media can do and that homosexuality is (and will always be) othered in our allegedly unbiased media culture.
