I need to voice some pent-up frustrations about Cuba, Cubans, Cuban-Americans, Castro, and injustice.
I can't believe that in America, a country so focused on justice, the concept of justice itself vanishes from discourses about Cuba. Within a system of justice, justice is ignored in order to perpetuate the status quo, in order to mystify the public of the atrocities that occur 90 miles from Key West, and in order to vanquish the voices of those who dare to notice and speak out.
I thought that the next best thing to getting an aneurism because of people's idiocy on this subject is to write about my feelings. So, I'll post articles, blogs, videos, things my friends write, and things that I have written over the years. At the very least, I hope that one or two people will stumble across my blog and be educated, and have the opportunity to voice their opinions about the subject.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Monday, November 06, 2006
Dirty, Dark, and Sticky: A Representation of Women's Bodies
The FX Networks’ new show “Dirt” will premier sometime in January 2007 and is about a female editor of two tabloid magazines. The network advertises this new show with a series of flashy commercials and a catchy song. Obviously, the title of the show “Dirt” correlates to the dirt these magazines compile about the lives of celebrities. However, the advertisements lend themselves to feminist interpretation because this “dirt” occurs only in conjunction with the female body. Any feminist interpretation can easily supplant the notion that the representation of women and dirt in these commercials exist only to illustrate the connection between the female editor and the dirt she dispenses to the masses. Coincidentally the metaphor women are dirt is a very old idea and one embedded in the discourse of popular culture and evident in these commercials.
Eleven different commercials for “Dirt” currently air on the FX channel and all, except one, are available on the FX Networks website.
This clip, which is untitled by the FX Networks, does not appear on the FX website. Why they would not mind airing this clip, but seem to overlook its absence on their website is interesting. Perhaps simulating drug use on TV is better than simulating drug use on the internet. Here a woman’s manicured hands with nails painted bright red rolls up a tabloid and uses it to inhale dirt like cocaine. What is important to note, and what is a recurring theme in all of the other clips, is that women, often associated with the color red, are always associated with dirt, reinforcing the old notion that women are dirt and their bodies are something dirty.
The clip above, entitled ‘Camera’ depicts a female carrying a camera with a zoom lens dangling in front of her vagina like a penis. As she walks towards the viewer, she grabs the camera essentially erecting her pseudo-penis, and snaps a shot collecting dirt. [i] The phallus nature of the camera emphasizes the active characteristics of the penis: it becomes erect, flashes, and captures a photograph/dirt. Conversely, this phallus obscures the vagina, which is active only in its ability to recognize and select the dirt that the camera/pseudo-penis will capture. While the phallic camera only has dirt passing through it, not becoming a part of it, this commercial as well as the others in this series suggest that the female body is inherently dirty, dirt-filled.
This phallic camera also represents technology, advancement, and science. The female body can only achieve such advancements by toting this phallic camera in her groin, taking a shot with her vagina, not her head or eyes. In fact, the omission of the woman’s face contributes to female objectification because she is a torso, a body, an object; she has no head, no mind. [ii] In Gossips, Gorgons & Crones Jane Caputi writes that these images “suggest that women have no minds” (82).[iii]
In ‘Suit’ the male face and eyes appear while only the woman’s back and arm are visible. She remains faceless. The male wears an immaculately white starched shirt, which the woman’s touch stains. These commercials continue to suggest that filth is inherent in the seductively red-clad woman. Her touch and kiss stain him. Of course, this dirt is superficial for the male. He can wash his shirt, the camera/phallus can be opened and the dirt removed, but the female in these commercials seems to need this dirt, it is like a drug, it is a part of her, inherently connected to her.
The origins of the idea that women posses an inherent stain repeats throughout history in many forms. Gerda Lerner’s The Creation of Patriarchy identifies how monotheism endows “God’s blessing of man’s seed [....while] in the story of the Fall, women and, more specifically, female sexuality became the symbol of human weakness and the source of evil” (201). [iv] It is interesting to note that man’s seed, whitish in color, stands in metaphorically for the man’s shirt in the previous clip, while female sexuality, literally her menstruation is red like her dress. Caputi notes that “[m]any anthropologists have reported that, almost universally, menstrual blood and menstruating women are considered dangerous and/or offensive” (164).
Returning to the creation myth, women are seen as the originators of our sin. Eve ate of the apple of knowledge first (smart girl). Therefore, in their book The Great Cosmic Mother [v] Monica Sjöö and Barbara Mor remind us that “the entire priesthood exists to ‘redeem’ us from the ‘sin’ of being born from the Mother” (231) and these priests in almost all patriarchal religion are men. Inherently, men believe that the Bible story justifies their moral superiority, it is their job to save everyone especially woman from wickedness. This reinforces the idea that men are more pure, closer to god than women, who are associated with the earth, and in these commercials, with dirt.
The notion of women as sinful and evil are not restricted to theological concepts, even Freud perpetuates this notion as Mary Daly notes in her book Gyn/Ecology. [vi] She observes that Freud expanded “the list of maternally caused symptoms.” For example, Freud believed that the “mothers of hair-plucking children [....] induced such disturbed behavior” (266). But Daly’s observations do not stop there as she discusses and examines the “mother-hating myths,” the fairy tales which “teach that the only good mother is a dead mother” (266).
It is interesting to examine how the idea of women as dirty originated in order to elucidate the suggestiveness of these commercials and their impact on societal thought, which works on a subliminal level to solidify these stereotypical notions of women. For example, in the fourteenth century Giovanni Boccaccio writes about women’s uncleanness saying that “[n]o other creature is less clean than woman: the pig, even when he is most wallowed in mud, is not as foul as they” (qtd. in Blamires 167).[vii] Statements like these abound and create the basis for current societal thought of women.
The implications of these advertisements are obvious. Women are still objects, associated with sex, blood, and filth. These arguments are not new. The medium through which they travel has transformed, but the metaphors are still the same.
For the full lyrics to the song "Digging in the Dirt" click here.
[i] In the ‘Lightbox’ clip a camera opens and rather than film falling out, a pile of dirt falls upon the table. For this particular clip, when the female snaps a photograph we can infer that she is collecting dirt, not images.
[ii] Courteney Cox’s face does appear in some of the commercials, but the actor whose hands inhale the dirt, whose feet leave behind dirt footprints, and whose torso appears in many of the commercials, never shows her face. In fact, it is interesting to note that in the ‘Tabloid Dog’ clip Cox’s face is superimposed with what looks to be a Rottweiler with it’s teeth showing, perhaps an allusion to the vagina dentata. In another clip, ‘Shovel’ Cox’s face glistens on the surface of a shovel, the metaphorical phallus about to penetrate the earth/woman. In either case, the commercials depict woman as fragmented, in pieces, without a head and when a head appears is associated with violence, carnage, animalistic characteristics, and woman turned into weapons against women (I discuss this further in the Starship Troopers blog entry below).
Shovel Clip
[iii] Caputi, Jane. Gossips, Gorgons & Crones: The Fates of the Earth.
[iv] Lerner, Gerda. The Creation of Patriarchy.
[v] Sjöö, Monica and Barbara Mor. The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth.
[vi] Daly, Mary. Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism.
[vii] Blamires, Alcuin. Ed. Woman Defamed and Woman Defended: An Anthology of Medieval Texts.
Feminism Defined
Jane Caputi discusses the ritual sacrifice of women and uses the example of Marc Lépine who on December 6, 1989, “entered the college of engineering at the
In this clip from a man’s vlog (video blog), which I found browsing YouTube.com, he discusses feminism and why he believes that feminists are children of the devil. To make his point he uses biblical rhetoric, which does absolutely nothing to support his claim. However, this kind of doubletalk is exactly what has clouded the pages of history. Only now, because of technology more and more people have the opportunity to voice their opinions about varying issues. This is wonderful, however, just as Daly and Gloria Anzaldúa suggest, women must empower themselves and their voices in order to be heard and begin to be taken seriously.
He says at the beginning of his vlog: “feminism is sin.” He explains that many of his viewers were shocked at that statement and that he would “like to correct that.” However, he never “corrects” this statement. He continues to perpetuate it. Obviously, his use of the word “correct” implies that what he had said originally, “feminism is sin,” is a false statement. Perhaps unconsciously he knows that what he is saying is baseless.
In this speaker’s clear logic, he proceeds to discuss religious issues mainly claiming that the “children of God” are few and the “children of the Devil” are the majority, what God calls the whole “world.” He emphasizes that the two are “entirely separate entities.” So far, so good, however what this has to do with feminism is not clear. He never makes a clear connection between all of the animalistic and degrading labels that God supposedly uses to describe “the wicked,” or how feminism fits into this discussion. His connection, a very flimsy one, appears later.
In order to illustrate the complete lack of objectivity and common sense this speaker posses, two statements he says are analyzed.
The first is his commentary and definition of feminists. He says they are “right to shave, concrete prune-hearted women who have sought after a man’s role, position, and function in society and have paid for it with their femininity. They are co-blokes.”
His second statement provides his listeners with an example of these feminists in action. “Some famous woman violinist speaking contemptuously (he repeatedly emphasizes this word) of the term mannered-wife on the radio and contemptuously of what they call the patriarchal society.”
First, he himself “contemptuously” describes feminists. How can he be offended that a woman questions the term, which could eventually be applied to her? The term will never be applied to him because he is a man. I have never heard of the term mannered-husband. Nor does it exist in the dictionary. However, mannered-wife does. She has the right to question this term, to speak out against it if she so wishes. However, her speaking out is a contemptuous attack against god. His speaking, his words, are truth because they are in essence the words of god. So he has the power to call women devils, or anyone else who speaks out against the system that gives men power.
After these two statements he begins to make connections between feminists and “devils.” He explains that feminists speak out against patriarchy because the “pseudo-matriarchal model of feminism you see in society today is satanic and of course they hate god’s way. God’s way is the patriarchal model that they contemptuously speak of.” If are against patriarchy, you are against god. He never tries to define “what they call the patriarchal society” or why anyone would want to speak out against it, or even what that speaking out consists of. The example he provides above is unfair and baseless.
When he says that feminists are “prune-hearted women,” he is suggesting that women make themselves sexually unavailable to men and this is not a good thing. I am concluding that based on his use of the term “mannered-wife” he considers a woman’s place to be in the home, as an object for men to fuck. Really, what else is left for us to do if we stop trying to seek out “a man’s role, position, and function in society?” Housewife...
Therefore, taking his argument one more step, any woman who is not a housewife (because being anything else would mean encroaching on men’s place in society) is a follower of the devil, dare I say: witch. Watching these videos of which there exist many, from him as well as others on the internet, makes me feel that we live in a society about to embark on a modern-day witch-hunt. Or have we already begun to do so?
Here are two more examples and I am sure there are many more.
Here is the second clip. This just aired on Comedy Central last month.
Starship Troopers vs. The Brain Sucking Vagina
Starship Troopers[i] a film by Paul Verhoeven was released in 1997 and was loosely based on Robert A. Heinlein’s science fiction novel of the same title. There are many similarities and dissimilarities between the film and novel, and while many people criticize the modern film adaptation,[ii] the subject of this blog lies in an examination of the film, not the novel.
[i] Starship Troopers. Dir. Paul Verhoeven. Perf.Casper
[ii] I make these generalizations based on my visits to numerous sites where people are posting comments about this film. The links and forums at the following sites will provide further information on this film.
“Starship Troopers.” Wikipedia. 11 Nov. 2006 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_troopers>.
“Starship Troopers.” Internet Movie Database. 11 Nov. 2006 <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/>.
It is interesting to note a few things about this clip. To begin, the main characters discover that an alien meteor destroyed their home city of
Patriarchal history/science/theology/philosophy has worked in much the same way. Each field tells whatever is necessary in order to perpetuate the common held belief that man is superior to all other races: women, blacks, and other ‘primitive’ societies. Gerda Lerner observes, “[u]ntil the recent past, [...] historians have been men, and what they have recorded is what men have done and experienced and found significant” (4).[iii] In Nancy Tuana’s The Less Noble Sex[iv] she explains various ‘scientific’ studies which sought to associate the size and weight of a brain to the amount of intelligence possessed by the specific individual. Craniology’s popularity was due to the fact that its results could “be easily manipulated [.... Thus, craniology] was a popular method of justifying slavery. It was also used to combat the growing women’s rights movement” (68) of the nineteenth century. Tuana provides numerous examples that show how because these male scientists had preconceived notions about the results they ‘should’ obtain from these experiments, they were not at all hesitant to alter the facts or their explanations of the results in order to mold them to fit their ideas. While craniology is one example that shows how science is not always as objective as it is supposed to be, many feminist writers have begun to uncover much of the ‘history’ that has been altered or erased.
The second important quality of this clip lies after a propagandistic spread of the destruction in
The situation with women throughout history is similar. Women often are seen as ‘different’ from men biologically and mentally mainly because of their ability to give birth and to menstruate. Before patriarchy women were associated with everything earthly, with Nature, and later patriarchy vilified women because of fear, as suggested by Nancy Tuana who examines the writings of Otto Weininger. She writes that “Weininger is [...] able to account for what he believed to be the deepest fear of man—the fear of women, who represents ‘unconsciousness, the alluring abyss of annihilation’” (65-6). This fear lies in women’s power to create life. Similarly, in the film the arachnid alien race represent a powerful force which if left unchecked seemingly has the power to annihilate the human race if they so chose. However, the film never establishes that these arachnids ever consciously try to harm humans; however, humans do consciously enter the arachnid environment and seek out the destruction of this alien race.
The beginning of the following clip shows “scientists” studying the bugs, because in order to defeat your enemy you must know them. This clip shows the final moments of the film when the brain bug is captured and later experimented upon. Interestingly, the brain bug looks very similar to a vagina. In addition, while its sides are pierced it is only when the phallic scientific torture device penetrates its mouth/vagina is a large “censored” banner erected before the scene.
Obviously, this scene is significant on many levels. It represents the patriarchal invasion of women’s bodies carried out for centuries by scientists, the government, men under the guise of research/science that is nothing more than torture and a controlling mechanism. In order to understand the mysteries of the female body scientists carried out experiments of torture. For the most part, “the purpose and intent of gynecology was/is not healing in a deep sense but violent enforcement of the sexual caste system” (Daly 227).[vi] “Dr. Charles Meigs [who] was advising his pupils that their study of female organs would enable them to understand and control the very heart, mind, and soul of woman (Daly 227) exemplifies the controlling nature of gynecological studies and a social concept understood since before written history—that the mutilation of female genetalia works as a controlling force. Daly notes that “the recent hysterectomy epidemic in the
Mary Daly quotes Barker-Benfield’s study of nineteenth-century gynecologists’ writing: “There is. . . ample evidence that gynecologists saw their knives cutting into women’s generative tract as a form of sexual intercourse” (246). Similarly, the scene in the preceding clip depicts the Brain Bug mouth/vagina violently penetrated by a scientific instrument, a metaphor for the history of female gynecology.
It is a fact that women’s bodies are othered in order to lessen any guilt felt by the patriarchal society who have raped and tortured them. Similarly, in a scene not depicted in these clips, the moment the Brain Bug is captured and pulled out of her cave/womb[vii] a scientist stands erect before the bug and lays his hands on her. Someone from the crowd asks him what the bug is thinking (he has extrasensory perception[viii]) and he replies, “It’s afraid!” In response, the crowed erupts in an uncontrollable roar. These soldiers are unremorseful that they have invaded, killed, captured, tortured, and experimented on these aliens. Instead, they are proud, triumphant, righteous. Their goal is to instill fear, and in this film, they succeed.
In this clip the Brain Bug sucks the brains out of one of the main characters, Zander Barcalow, who previously sneaked a knife to the female character, Carmen Ibanez. She uses the knife to cut off the sucking appendage that comes out of the mouth/vagina of the Brain Bug.
The significance of this clip illustrates the misogyny and fear towards women and their sexuality that literally renders men brainless and sucked dry. History depicts women as unable to possess a mind of their own, or have a mind as superior to that of men. Therefore, sucking a man’s brains out would be fitting. The sucking action of the Brain Bug is similar to the female stereotype of the vamp, a woman bloodthirsty and willing to suck the life out of any man. In addition, a money hungry woman who eventually leaves men high and dry also depicts another similarity between the Brain Bug and female metaphors, in this case, the gold digger.
Right before the Brain Bug sucks out Zander’s brain he tells the bug, “One day someone like me is going to kill you, and your whole fucking race.” He then spits on the bug. The relationship between this giant vagina sucking out a man’s brains and the man swearing to obliterate the race is very similar to the “misogynistic violence” (12)[ix] identified by Jane Caputi. She writes that all women are at risk “by virtue of our femaleness, [...to be] variously beaten, brainwashed, disrespected, objectified, incested, harassed, mutilated, battered, raped, tongue-tied, defamed, enslaved, or systematically murdered by men” (12).
After Zander is dead Carmen is next to have her brains sucked out, but she has a knife and uses it to slice off the bug’s appendage, debilitating her. It is significant that a female cuts and harms the bug because through the centuries women have often been the perpetuators of female genital mutilation as well as other cultural practices aimed at suppressing women while men have remained in the background, inactive, blameless. Mary Daly writes that “among the Bambaras [...] a man who sleeps with a nonexcised woman risks death from her ‘sting’ (clitoris)” (160). The film suggests that the alien’s appendage which sucks the life out of the soldiers is a clitoris, which when erect/sexually aroused will penetrate/pierce the victim. Similar language can describe the action of the penis, which is one of the reasons why women’s clitorises have been excised throughout history. The clitoris made them more masculine, while males undergo circumcision to remove the foreskin, which resembles the female labia. Only in this case, the clitoris sucks in, rather than comes out. Still, it is a threat and only a female character can mutilate it. Nawal El Saadawi writes of female genital mutilation noting with vivid imagery the role of the daya in circumcising young girls as well as being in charge of the process of defloration where a thick and steady stream of blood was expected to flow on the wedding night. She writes about the “[n]umerous [...] nights which [she] spent by the side of a young girl [...] treating a haemorrhage that had resulted from the long dirty finger nail of a daya cutting through the soft tissues during the process of defloration” (29).[x] She criticizes the role women play in perpetuating this tradition of pain passing it down to their daughters. In a previous clip a female teacher cheers as her young pupils stomp on defenseless bugs, a metaphorical representation of the daya in today’s educational system, perpetuating stereotypes, violence, and militarism.
This final clip is one of the featurettes included in the special edition of the DVD. Those involved behind the scenes provide commentary about the Brain Bug and the reasoning for its resemblance to female genetalia.
When these male producers discuss the Brain Bug they refer to it as a “he.” One calls the alien, “The evil emperor of the bug world” while another refers to it as the “king.” The fact that this male alien has female genetalia for a mouth is interesting and explained at the beginning of this clip by Phil Tippett who says that the director was “insistent that it be offensive to everybody. Its mouth, or whatever it was, was supposed to look like something... Paul would say, ‘Perhaps it should look like a vagina; perhaps it should look like an anus, but I don’t know.’” The director wanted to make the alien look disgusting and offensive, and what came to mind was a vagina or an anus. These are interesting binaries, especially when the vagina is chosen over the anus. Therefore, while the anus excretes shit from the body, the vagina is where life begins, and the most disgusting and offensive of the two is the vagina! The implications of this are extremely interesting, but they are not new. Current society sees female bodies, vaginas, menstruation as dirty and unclean phenomena. Gone is the time when women and their bodies were sacred.
The crew working on this film also immediately associates the Brain Bug as a male because it can think and it is the ruler of the aliens. However, the need to make the bug more disgusting called for the use of a vagina. It is virtually impossible for me to imagine the Brain Bug being considered disgusting if a giant, leaking penis had been used instead. On the contrary, throughout the film the soldiers stand at attention (giant penises) and use their huge guns (giant penises) to kill, and their medical instruments (giant penises) to poke, prod, and rape the Brain Bug in one of the final scenes. At the end of the film it is suggested that the troopers will defeat the alien race, because they are recruiting more soldiers (more potential giant penises).
Part of feminism’s goal is to reinstate the importance of nature and all things organic, which in this film is another disgusting aspect of the Brain Bug. The designers thought that making the Brain Bug seem organic, by adding a rippling movement to its soft body in order to simulate the thought process, would create a more disgusting creature. Why exactly this would be disgusting is not immediately clear to me. Yet, women’s bodies are often discussed in terms of softness while men’s bodies optimally should be hard and muscular. However, the turn away from organic life towards a more mechanized one is clear in the film, but it is also clearly present in the philosophy of those working on the film. This film is supposed to be parodying today’s society, but it seems that those involved are not aware of the many levels of societal thought that have found its way into the film and buried itself there.
These filmmakers are portraying deeply embedded societal concepts about women and their bodies. Towards the end of this clip, the actor playing Zander remarks, “In a word—disgusting” and then the camera shifts to the Brain Bug’s mouth/vagina oozing with slime. Will such an image ever be beautiful/powerful/sacred/mysterious ever again?
[i] Starship Troopers. Dir. Paul Verhoeven. Perf.
[ii] I make these generalizations based on my visits to numerous sites where people are posting comments about this film. The links and forums at the following sites will provide further information on this film.
“Starship Troopers.” Wikipedia. 11 Nov. 2006 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_troopers>.
“Starship Troopers.” Internet Movie Database. 11 Nov. 2006 <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/>.
[iii] Lerner, Gerda. The Creation of Patriarchy.
[iv] Tuana, Nancy. The Less Noble Sex: Scientific, Religious, and Philosophical Conceptions of Woman’s Nature.
[v] The characters learn that the alien bugs have a super bug, a Brain Bug that thinks. The ability to think is often what marks us as humans. It is also a linear marker used by society to place humans high up on the hierarchy of living beings, the Great Chain of Being. As mentioned previously, craniology tried to affirm the notion that white men’s brains are the largest, therefore securing the top place in the hierarchy, justifying their control and exploitation of all other living things that do not think. The Brain Bug thinks just like a human does, and one character exclaims, “Frankly, I find the idea of a bug that thinks offensive!” Indeed, a thinking bug, a ‘primitive’ human, or a woman could never have the same mental capacities as a man. History reveals numerous attempts to perpetuate that myth/stereotype.
[vi] Daly, Mary. Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism.
[vii] Right before this scene the main character arrives to save Carmen from the bugs. The soldiers have penetrated the cave and have brought with them a bomb. He threatens the Brain Bug with it who shrinks back in fear. The introduction of the bomb/atomic power into the caves/feminine power is another metaphor for our present society.
[viii] The fact that this dildo-like character could have extrasensory perception, sensitivity to feeling/thought/emotion/other living beings, seems quite comical. Usually, women experience sensitivity to their surrounding and their own bodies during menstruation, something that the ingestion of hormone pills will eventually obliterate.
[ix] Caputi, Jane. Gossips, Gorgons & Crones: The Fates of the Earth.
[x] El Saadawi, Nawal. The Hidden Face of Eve: Women in the Arab World. Trans. Dr. Sherif Hetata.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Kanye West: Digging Himself into a Hole
Kanye West’s hip-hop number one single of 2005 “Gold Digger” features Jamie Foxx singing a cappella, and a sample of Ray Charles singing his original “I Got a Woman.”[i] The opening lyrics sung by Jamie Fox set the tone and subject matter of this song and the accompanying music video. It is about gold diggers, women who are only with a man to take his money. The song’s lyrics and music video perpetuate many long-standing stereotypes of women, especially black women.
The most obvious stereotype is that represented in the song’s title and is the overall theme of the song. The idea that women, and in the context of this song, black women, are interested solely in a man’s wealth is one that is discussed in Patricia Hill Collins’ Black Sexual Politics.[ii] She writes that the “theme of the materialistic, sexualized Black woman has become an icon within hip-hop culture” (126). In the second verse of the song the speaker discovers that after eighteen years the child he supported is not his biological child and while the mother was supposed to buy “ya shorty [his child] TYCO [toys] with [his] ya money,” instead got “lipo” and plastic surgery with his money. Here the father is depicted as a caregiver who provides monetary support while suffering himself because he is “drive[ing] off in a Hyundai” rather than in an expensive luxury vehicle. The image of the mother as concerned only for materialistic wealth is similar to the image of the “female hustler, a materialistic woman who is willing to sell, rent, or use her sexuality to get whatever she wants [and this] constitutes this sexualized variation of the ‘bitch.’” (Hill Collins 128).
West’s lyrics provide a specific characterization of the “bad bitch,” which Hill Collins defines as a bitch who’s “power is her manipulation of her own sexuality for her own gain” (126). West sings about a woman who carries a “Louis Vuitton” purse and who is not “messin wit no broke niggas.” A “bad bitch” will choose a wealthy man before they choose a poor man. Love is not important, but a man’s financial success is. For these women “having a relationship is out” (Hill Collins 126). The only type of relationship possible for these women is a sexual one with rich men, and this is illustrated in West’s lyrics where the woman has a reputation to have “fuck[ed] wit Usher” and “got a baby by Busta.” Hill Collins would suggest that West’s depiction of women here is that they “screw for status” (128). The significance of this is embedded within the notion that Usher, Busta, and now the singer of this song, presumably West himself, are the victims of this woman’s manipulative and conniving nature. The idea of men as not only victim, but also as sympathetic characters are emphasized when the speaker states that he “don’t care what none of y’all say [he] still love her.” He is willing to sacrifice for “love” whereas the woman is incapable of love even towards her own children as depicted in a previous quote. Her vanity, her greed supersedes even the needs of her children.
When West sings “If you fuckin with this girl then you betta be paid” his attempt at a sympathetic male character is undermined. He believes that men should protect themselves from these money hungry women on the prowl for men’s hard-earned income. He believes men should have insurance against these women and protect themselves financially.
Should of got that insured, GEICO for ya moneeey, money, money
If you aint no punk holla, “We Want Prenup.
WE WANT PRENUP!” Yeah
It's something that you need to have
Cause when she leave yo ass she gonna leave with half
Having a prenuptial agreement will prove that men are not punks. They are not “the object[s] of sexual abuse [....] weak, vulnerable, [or] ‘female’” (Human Rights Watch qtd. in Hill Collins 235).[iii] The speaker foreshadows what will happen if men do not attain a prenuptial agreement: “she gonna leave with half” of his money. Many people consider marriage to be an equal union and if there is ever a separation it seems reasonable to split the accumulated wealth; however, West’s lyrics suggest that keeping half is unfair to the man who works while the woman seems to do nothing except have plastic surgery, buy brand name purses, and go to the beauty salon. This reinforces the idea that woman who do not work and stay home are lazy. Just as “[p]oor Black women’s welfare eligibility meant that many chose to stay home and care for their children, thus emulating White middle-class mothers. But because these stay-at-home moms were African American and did not work for pay, they were deemed to be ‘lazy’” (Hill Collins 132). Although the woman in this song is not on welfare, she is living off the man’s money. The stereotype though modified in the context of this song is still essentially the same.
There is a glaring hypocrisy embedded in this song, and one that also permeates societal thought and affects women to this day. If women should not live off men, then they should work. An independent, working woman would be the solution for many of the stereotypes presented in this song; however, both Kanye West’s song and Ray Charles’s song undermine this possible solution by depicting women as static beings belonging in the home, or as objects for men.
The opening of the chorus features Kanye West singing his lyrics and an interpolation of Ray Charles’ lyrics from “I Got a Woman.” When Jaime Foxx sings his a cappella lines at the beginning of the song he modifies Ray Charles’ lyrics by singing, “She take my money, while I'm in need / Yeah she's a triflin friend indeed / Oh she's a gold digger way over town / That digs on me.” While Ray Charles’ lyrics are not as negative, “She give me money, when I’m in need / Yeah, she's a kind of friend indeed / I got a woman way over town that's good to me. Oh yeah.” At first the juxtaposition of these two lines may suggest that the songs are dissimilar and West’s lyrics are playing off of Charles’, essentially updating them, and using them to make a contemporary comment on women’s nature. However, while the two songs at first seem to be opposite, upon closer analysis some similarities and interesting stereotypes emerge.
Ray Charles’ original song reinforces the idea of static women whose “place is right there now in her home.” While Charles’ song somewhat gives praise to the women who financially support their man and portrays the man who receives this support in a positive light, when West alters the lyrics the man still remains a positive figure, but the woman is further objectified and vilified. When a woman receives the money she is a gold digger, when a man gives it to her he is a punk. A man who receives money from a woman is praised and the woman who supports a man is still subject to him and objectified by society. For example, the women who obey West’s lyrics and “stick by his [their man’s] side” will suffer one final action of the fully mobile man—he will “leave yo [her] ass for a white girl.”
The “Gold Digger” music video reinforces the idea of women as static and immobile in their depiction of women as pin-ups on the covers of imaginary magazines. In one instance, there is a woman pictured on the cover of Dish Washer magazine with a headline entitled “Roll up your” and the rest is cut off the frame. If the subtitle had included “sleeves,” it would be a joke because the woman pictured there is reclining her body and wearing nothing but lingerie. There is nothing she can “roll up.” Her place is in the home, as sung by Ray Charles, but her pseudo-role as “dishwasher” is in reality a position of objectification, an action controlled and allocated to her by men. Forced into the space of the magazine covers and forced into the space allocated to women by the songs leaves women little room for maneuvering. The “dishwasher” scene in the music video appears in conjunction to one of the following lines and correlates to their theme:
You go out to eat and he can’t pay ya’ll can’t leave
There's dishes in the back, he gotta roll up his sleeves
But why y’all washin watch him
He gone [gonna] make it to a Benz out of that Datsun
He got that ambition, baby, look in his eyes
This week he moppin floors, next week it's the fries
So, stick by his side.
Here the speaker asks women to recognize the potential of men, and stick by them because eventually they will become successful. However, while this song line suggests the upward mobility of men, the flashing images of the women in the pin-ups suggest their immobility. Their bodies are in awkward, sometimes unnatural positions. Usually, they lie supine or are upright but with their legs chopped off and left out of the frame. The images of immobile women, whose only movement is in the confines of that imaginary magazine cover space, are for men’s enjoyment. Keep in mind Ray Charles’ song lyrics where the woman who gives money to her man is a good woman—she knows her place. Her place is in the kitchen, as sex object.
A woman’s place within this video and within the context of the song lyrics is a very confined and controlled space where women are subjected to men and are the fulfillment of their sexual fantasies. For instance, the speaker explains that he has just met a girl in a beauty salon who tells him that as “far as girls [...he has] got a flock.” Here, the animal metaphor for women echoes the conception that women are like animals and associated with the earth, in short, women are lesser beings than men. This idea is one that echoes throughout history and exists in the writings of Aristotle. Nancy Tuana examines Aristotle’s “scientific” observations of women’s nature in her book The Less Noble Sex.[iv] He believed that “woman is a misbegotten man” (118) and because her different biology is closer to animals while men are closer to the image of god. West’s repetition of the line “get down girl go [a]head get down” reinforces this notion and proceeds to put women in their place below men, nearer to the ground. The first time West sings that line he points twice downward, supposedly to his crotch area, although this is not immediately apparent, he repeats the action later in the music video when he sings the chorus right after verse two. There is a full body shot of West dancing when he points to his crotch with both of his hands. Adding to the objectification of women in the music video, now she must perform sexual favors that physically and psychologically place her below men.
The music video creates a visual representation of many stereotypes associated with women. The women in the video appear on the cover of magazines simulating pin-ups. They are always in lingerie and often in sexual positions. All the women gaze back at the viewer with seductive looks. Patricia Hill Collins writes about the representation of Black women in popular culture and notes that what began as “the celebration of Black women’s bodies [...] in earlier Black cultural production [...] became increasingly replaced by the objectification of Black women’s bodies as part of a commodified Black culture” (emphasis in original; 128). In this music video the women are not only objects, but they are also on display as a consumer good to be bought and used in whatever way the male consumer wishes.
Hill Collins writes how “[c]ontemporary music videos [depict] Black women who dance, strut, and serve as visually appealing props [....] The women in these videos typically share two attributes—they are rarely acknowledged as individuals and they are scantily clad. One Black female body can easily replace another and all are reduced to their bodies” (128). In the music video “Fresh: a HOT magazine” contains the subtitle “bold beautiful bodies” and the girl in the scene is sitting, with one finger in her mouth with a coy, playful expression on her face. When referencing women here, instead of using “bold beautiful women,” the term bodies in inserted in order to reinforce women as objects. They are not individuals, they do not think, they have no feelings, and most of the women in the video do nothing more than contort their bodies into strange poses in order to appear animalistic, seductive, and attractive to the male eye.
In their book Bitches, Bimbos and Ballbreakers [v] the Guerrilla Girls explain that the term ‘Gold Digger’ was a Flapper-era term first used in the 1920s to describe modern women who pursued a man, known as the Gold Mine, for his money. A guy who did the same with women was a Forty-Niner” (73). The Guerrilla Girls note that somehow the female term stuck while the derogative term for the male seemed to disappear although Forty-Niners most certainly still exist. It is interesting to reflect on Kanye West’s song in this context and to look at the key lines from Ray Charles’ song, which both find a way to put a woman down no matter what the situation. In West’s song women are represented as immobile, they are forced into this subjective by society, the same society that later chastises them for not being mobile, more like men. In Charles’ song women are only good if they give money to men, and “[n]ever grumbles or fusses.” In other words, women should be silent, like the women in West’s video, who never speak. Only in the final scene does a woman appear to speak, but her voice, her words are not important and are never heard. The men who are not willing to protect their assets are, according to West, punks. Why this double standard exists, and why a man’s money and financial well-being are worth more than a woman’s is unclear. What is clear is that woman are damned one way or another while man remains forever a victim of women while enjoying her objectification and subjectivity.
[i] “Gold Digger.” Wikipedia. 4 Nov. 2006 < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Digger>.
[ii] Hill Collins, Patricia. Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism.
[iii] Patricia Hill Collins references a study done by the Human Rights Watch which looks at the rape culture within the prison system where “[r]ape victims become stigmatized as ‘punks’” (235). The term in West’s song is not used in the context of a prison but still represents the fagotization of men who allow women to “rape” them of their manhood and their money.
[iv] Tuana, Nancy. The Less Noble Sex: Scientific, Religious, and Philosophical Conceptions of Woman’s Nature.
[v] The Guerrilla Girls. Bitches, Bimbos and Ballbreakers: The Guerrilla Girls’ Illustrated Guide to Female Stereotypes.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
In the beginning...
This blog is my class project for my women's studies class: Women, Myth, and Reality - Visionary Feminist Thought taught by Jane Caputi at Florida Atlantic University during the Fall 2006 semester.
The project is pretty simple: make a scrapbook using cultural texts which are interpreted using concepts from the class reading list and class discussions.
Based on the increasing number of video clips available on the internet as well as the huge amount of advertising I thought it would be interesting to create my scrapbook online in blog form. In this way not only will it become interactive but it will outlive the duration of this course and be something that I can continue to work on for a long time to come.
The project is pretty simple: make a scrapbook using cultural texts which are interpreted using concepts from the class reading list and class discussions.
Based on the increasing number of video clips available on the internet as well as the huge amount of advertising I thought it would be interesting to create my scrapbook online in blog form. In this way not only will it become interactive but it will outlive the duration of this course and be something that I can continue to work on for a long time to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)