Super bowl halftime show and culture

[SKL]

I am uncomfortable with the idea that "successful woman" means someone who makes a shitload of money for doing what most women would never consider doing in public.  Yes I think it sends an unhealthy message to young people.

I feel the same about "successful man" of course.

That would go for the big sports people as well as famous entertainers etc etc.

I think we have a lot of successful women right here, who are completely comfortable with their sexuality, who don't need to show our butts or generate a bunch of internet hits to matter in the world.

If a woman can make something big out of the talent God gave her, more power to her; I might even buy an album or a ticket if I like her talent enough.  But please don't tell me that getting up there mostly naked (or dressed in raw meat or whatever) "because you can" is the way to empower the next generation of women.  I fully expect my girls to be strong, successful women regardless of their clothing preferences.

[Sneezyone]

11 minutes ago, SKL said:

I am uncomfortable with the idea that "successful woman" means someone who makes a shitload of money for doing what most women would never consider doing in public.  Yes I think it sends an unhealthy message to young people.

I feel the same about "successful man" of course.

That would go for the big sports people as well as famous entertainers etc etc.

I think we have a lot of successful women right here, who are completely comfortable with their sexuality, who don't need to show our butts or generate a bunch of internet hits to matter in the world.

If a woman can make something big out of the talent God gave her, more power to her; I might even buy an album or a ticket if I like her talent enough.  But please don't tell me that getting up there mostly naked (or dressed in raw meat or whatever) "because you can" is the way to empower the next generation of women.  I fully expect my girls to be strong, successful women regardless of their clothing preferences.

 

There are a LOT of successful women in business who receive equal amounts of derision because they *gasp* have money. They're too feminine and slept their way to the top. They're too masculine and are bitchy ballbusters. Some people choose to make their money by generating outrage, some choose to do it by bending ethical norms, some choose to do it in what many would consider "the right way". I think we all hope our kids can be strong, successful, celebrated and unmolested regardless of their clothing choices. If we consistently beat women up over their choices, that will never be the case.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Guest]

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

On a slight tangent: I hear what you are saying, but I would like to look at this from a slightly different perspective (and would like to divorce this comment from the specifics of the half-time show).

Seeing middle-aged or old women fit and active can also go a long way towards changing the perception that only young people can be physically fit and than anything after 40 is downhill. Seeing that one can take care of one's body and be an athlete as a peri- or menopausal woman is, IMO, important. It counteracts the feeling of "oh well, I'm over the hill, so why bother". Seeing 50 y/o dancers, 60 y/o marathoners, 80 y/o gymnasts reminds us that there are still decades of life to live and that it is possibly to be fit and active. Those celebrities aren't the best role models, because we all know they have resources at their disposal we regular women don't - but seeing strong, athletic "normal" older women is definitely inspiring in a positive way. Because that is what 50, 60, or 80 can look like.

I am totally on board with athletic fitness at any age and do find that inspiring. It’s something I embrace in my own life and I even just recently put up a post about how fit is it reasonable to expect to be past middle age. Part of my question is because I don’t know what is really possible without surgeries or procedures. It’s really difficult to tell by observing celebrities and I mostly can only go on those odd articles you see every now and then featuring weight-lifting 80-year-olds or whatever. 

However, the majority of the commentary about Shakira and JLo is not emphasizing their physical fitness (though some does). It’s emphasizing their sexiness. (Guess that’s to be expected when the show displayed sex throughout. Heh.) It’s about their looks because they “still look good” past 40 and onto 50. 

Not that that rhetoric is anything new...

[regentrude]

2 minutes ago, Quill said:

I am totally on board with athletic fitness at any age and do find that inspiring. It’s something I embrace in my own life and I even just recently put up a post about how fit is it reasonable to expect to be past middle age. Part of my question is because I don’t know what is really possible without surgeries or procedures. It’s really difficult to tell by observing celebrities and I mostly can only go on those odd articles you see every now and then featuring weight-lifting 80-year-olds or whatever. 

However, the majority of the commentary about Shakira and JLo is not emphasizing their physical fitness (though some does). It’s emphasizing their sexiness. (Guess that’s to be expected when the show displayed sex throughout. Heh.) It’s about their looks because they “still look good” past 40 and onto 50. 

Agree on the focus on the sexiness. But that's the entertainment industry... nothing new.

About what's possible: do you have older women role models in your circle of acquaintances? I do. I have for example a colleague who started bike racing when she was over 50, lost over 100 lbs, rides 50 and 100 mile races. No celeb, just a college prof. I see fitness as a means to an end. I want to be fit so I can DO things like climb mountains and  go on backpacking hikes in the wilderness - like she wants to ride bikes, or somebody else wants to paddle a boat or dance. I don't care about the cosmetic effect and wouldn't lift weights just to "tone" - I want to actually do something with those arms. I think there is a lot more possible than we are conditioned to think. I recently repeated one of the hardest day hikes I have ever done, after 25 years, and felt just fine about it. The one difference I notice is that I do not recover as quickly as I used to; I don't bounce back to full form after several days of strenuous exercise. I believe that may be to a certain degree inevitable, since regeneration slows down with age.

 

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, Quill said:

I am totally on board with athletic fitness at any age and do find that inspiring. It’s something I embrace in my own life and I even just recently put up a post about how fit is it reasonable to expect to be past middle age. Part of my question is because I don’t know what is really possible without surgeries or procedures. It’s really difficult to tell by observing celebrities and I mostly can only go on those odd articles you see every now and then featuring weight-lifting 80-year-olds or whatever. 

However, the majority of the commentary about Shakira and JLo is not emphasizing their physical fitness (though some does). It’s emphasizing their sexiness. (Guess that’s to be expected when the show displayed sex throughout. Heh.) It’s about their looks because they “still look good” past 40 and onto 50. 

Not that that rhetoric is anything new...

But why is that offensive? Can’t we acknowledge that none of us really want to look old? Humans are born imperfect which means they grow old and die.  No one wants to do that....we just don’t have any way of preventing it.  So it is not surprising that when some people manage to delay the aging process either by having good genes or other means...well, it is impressive. But it even more begs the question why all the vulgarity when you are beautiful and can sing like an angel.  

[Sneezyone]

56 minutes ago, OKBud said:

Separately, it's patently absurd to mention Alica Keys as an example lol she's *literally* fighting against this nonsense and using her voice and visage to chip away at existing power structures. 

 

Also separately, Alicia Keyes cheated with a married man, got pregnant, married him, and managed to make lemonade out of the lemons she helped grow. That notwithstanding, her image is all good with empowerment types because she doesn't shake her butt in public? There's image/perception and there's the reality of the lives people actually live. The two don't always match.

[Scarlett]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Also separately, Alicia Keyes cheated with a married man, got pregnant, married him, and managed to make lemonade out of the lemons she helped grow. That notwithstanding, her image is all good with empowerment types because she doesn't shake her butt in public? There's image/perception and there's the reality of the lives people actually live. The two don't always match.

So true, but just because we don’t always know everything an entertainer is up to doesn’t make the public over the  top vulgar sexualized acts any more acceptable. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

But why is that offensive? Can’t we acknowledge that none of us really want to look old? Humans are born imperfect which means they grow old and die.  No one wants to do that....we just don’t have any way of preventing it.  So it is not surprising that when some people manage to delay the aging process either by having good genes or other means...well, it is impressive. But it even more begs the question why all the vulgarity when you are beautiful and can sing like an angel.  

I don’t know if “offensive” is the word, but it harkens to our society’s general worship of youth, especially for women. 

I know a woman who is 50, who is a beautiful woman, but she’s very much caught up in the celebrity culture mindset of holding youthful looks in high esteem. When she turned 30, she needed mental health assistance because she was so heartsick about “the death of [my] youth.” She also has mentioned to me repeatedly these tiny issues with her face or body she would like to “fix” - “Oh, look at how this sags!” And so on. She is a beautiful woman, she is just not a beautiful woman who looks half her age; she’s a beautiful woman who looks about her age. And it distresses her. 

I hope to see our culture get away from this, and there are some celebrities (and regular women) who reject it. (Jamie Lee Curtis springs to mind.) But there is still a lot of evaluation of women based solely on whether or not they look their age. 

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, OKBud said:

The point, oh Sneezy One. The point!

 

Indeed...adherence to public sexuality/viewing norms is sooooo much more important than adherence to legal (marital) obligations.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Agree on the focus on the sexiness. But that's the entertainment industry... nothing new.

About what's possible: do you have older women role models in your circle of acquaintances? I do. I have for example a colleague who started bike racing when she was over 50, lost over 100 lbs, rides 50 and 100 mile races. No celeb, just a college prof. I see fitness as a means to an end. I want to be fit so I can DO things like climb mountains and  go on backpacking hikes in the wilderness - like she wants to ride bikes, or somebody else wants to paddle a boat or dance. I don't care about the cosmetic effect and wouldn't lift weights just to "tone" - I want to actually do something with those arms. I think there is a lot more possible than we are conditioned to think. I recently repeated one of the hardest day hikes I have ever done, after 25 years, and felt just fine about it. The one difference I notice is that I do not recover as quickly as I used to; I don't bounce back to full form after several days of strenuous exercise. I believe that may be to a certain degree inevitable, since regeneration slows down with age.

 

A few. I could stand to have more than I do. The few I have are not substantially older than I am. 

I agree completely on wanting functional fitness and not just bodies that look pretty. 

[Sneezyone]

11 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

So true, but just because we don’t always know everything an entertainer is up to doesn’t make the public over the  top vulgar sexualized acts any more acceptable. 

 

No, it doesn't. One doesn't cancel out the other. People are multifaceted. You can be overtly sexual in public and puritanical in private and vice versa. It's not either/or. One shouldn't be revered and the other demonized. I don't think the worth of either woman or the spectacle they create(d) should be assessed based on the norms of any particular group, but especially not men. IJS--Most viewers simply didn't find the performance over the top vulgar either. So there's that. 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Sneezyone

[regentrude]

22 minutes ago, Quill said:

I hope to see our culture get away from this, and there are some celebrities (and regular women) who reject it.  But there is still a lot of evaluation of women based solely on whether or not they look their age. 

It will happen when enough women start rejecting gendered beauty norms and refuse to adhere to the artificial standards that a beauty industry that makes 93 billion dollars a year is drumming into our brains. The industry profits from women questioning their value based on their looks. They don't want us to be self-confident and happy without makeup, anti wrinkle cream, razors, waxing, hair colors, and botox. heaven forbid if we got by with toothpaste, shampoo, and soap - they'd be bankrupt, so of course they have to suggest to us that being clean and fit isn't enough. We must paint, and color, and tweak and tighten and shave and pluck - and it's NOT for the men, who are oblivious to most of our efforts. We could simply quit playing the game, and could quit indoctrinating our daughters into following along. We could start by quitting TV; that would go a loooong way. We'd never have to see a single commercial for beauty products 🙂

Edited February 5, 2020 by regentrude

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

So, female empowerment is about leading our lives concerned about what men think? And, yeah, I think porn addicts are freaks. 

I think it might have more to do with recognizing when one is being used for gratification and being sold a bill of goods about how it's empowering.

I don't have expectations about the superbowl half time show being high culture. I don't have any problem turning it off or fast forwarding or whatever. It really impacts my small individual family very little. I think it's silly how these women are being called fierce or empowered or inspirational. I think young girls and women are being groomed by an industry that cares nothing about them and actually is known for exploiting them in more ways than one. I don't know how to express any of this without being accused of having my proverbial panties in a twist over nothing.

[RootAnn]

11 minutes ago, regentrude said:

. They don't want us to be self-confident and happy without makeup, anti wrinkle cream, razors, waxing, hair colors, and botox. heaven forbid if we got by with toothpaste, shampoo, and soap - they'd be bankrupt, so of course they have to suggest to us that being clean and fit isn't enough. We must paint, and color, and tweak and tighten and shave and pluck - and it's NOT for the men, who are oblivious to most of our efforts. We could simply quit playing the game, and could quit indoctrinating our daughters into following along. We could start by quitting TV; that would go a loooong way. We'd never have to see a single commercial for beauty products 🙂

I don't watch TV. We watch movies sometimes borrowed from the library, occasional shows on Amazon Prime, and some YouTube. I am one of the only women I know that doesn't color my hair or wear make-up. I'm very low maintenance, but I do try to keep myself presentable.

I do think men notice certain things - not so much makeup, but hair on our legs or faces or how our hair color makes us "look old" -- they do notice.

Women are much more catty about looks, and they notice more details.

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I think it might have more to do with recognizing when one is being used for gratification and being sold a bill of goods about how it's empowering.

I don't have expectations about the superbowl half time show being high culture. I don't have any problem turning it off or fast forwarding or whatever. It really impacts my small individual family very little. I think it's silly how these women are being called fierce or empowered or inspirational. I think young girls and women are being groomed by an industry that cares nothing about them and actually is known for exploiting them in more ways than one. I don't know how to express any of this without being accused of having my proverbial panties in a twist over nothing.

 

I just don't think I get to tell another woman what SHE finds empowering and that is what many seem to want to do. Heaven forbid someone might actually WANT to gratify another? I mean, what decent woman would want to do that? For me, if these women revel in their beauty and sexuality, so be it. If they find it healthy and normal, OK. I don't think I get to tell them that they don't know their own minds. People might find them deluded and that's OK too but I've worn mine on my sleeve and found it incredibly empowering *for me*. The suggestion that someone doesn't know their own mind about that is insulting.

[Meriwether]

2 hours ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

It seems like those who had their kids on the couch next to them were both upset and surprised.

I wasn't particularly surprised. I wasn't even upset, even though I  sent my son out of the room before it was over. I mean, I have lots of experience being at odds with popular culture. I only got upset when my SIL posted an opinion piece calling everyone who had a problem with it racist. What a lazy perspective. We avoid a lot of things in popular culture because they are counter to our family culture.

[ktgrok]

8 hours ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

Videos? Doesn’t YouTube have videos of their performances anymore?

Did you honest to God think their dance routines would be non-fantastical, G rated, like maybe they’d stand still and croon? Are we all truly this clueless? You truly have never seen ANY of their dancing? Have you never watched any non-PBS TV recently?  I’m sorry, this is your fault. You are the parent. Parents choose, as cruddy as it may appear,and  you have the choice and responsibility to guide what they see. And yes, you do ‘have to’, because viewing this crap is not mandatory, you were not hogtied to your couch, you did not buy a ticket. People that had the $ to buy a ticket to bring their kids know exactly what the deal is. 

Look, you can complain all you want about women strutting their stuff. But to complain about seeing it on the Super Bowl in front of your kids is laughable. Yes, you have no excuse to be upset. Any adult who is a football fan or SB watcher knows the story. 

You are being sold a product. They want your money, they want your ‘debates’. Why on earth do they spend millions for a 30 second ad? Why do they get big name, known for their sexy body and voice performers? Why not pay Yo Yo Ma or Raffi to perform half time?

I’ve never watched a football game on tv, never listen to popular music so I couldn’t tell you her songs. But I’ve read enough articles and tweets about the two ladies in the past to know they would put on such a display. To say that this was unexpected is just plain silly. 

Heads up, guys! They’ll do it again next year! Plan ahead now for a safe zone for your children.

Did you miss the part where I said I didn't have a problem with Shakira's act? That was more what I expected, not butt less leather chaps and crotch shots. That was step step farther, and was beyond what I anticipated. 

But hey, basically you are saying I'm lying because I didn't expect that, despite being a football fan and watcher of previous super bowls. 

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

Do you really not know anything about class analysis, or are you putting me on? Edit: or feminist theory?

Does it ring any bells? 

I feel like this is the twilight zone.

Sorry, no. I did not spend my formative years reading Betty Friedan. I don’t feel any particular affinity with white feminist theory. My life hasn’t been defined by class.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

But why is that offensive? Can’t we acknowledge that none of us really want to look old? Humans are born imperfect which means they grow old and die.  No one wants to do that....we just don’t have any way of preventing it.  So it is not surprising that when some people manage to delay the aging process either by having good genes or other means...well, it is impressive. But it even more begs the question why all the vulgarity when you are beautiful and can sing like an angel.  

I am happy looking my age.  I am sure I'm not the only one here who is.  Maybe that's why I'm not a fan of unnatural body preservation (not saying that is a factor here - I wouldn't know).

I don't foresee fighting against dying once the time comes either.  I do hope I have some time since my kids are young.  But no, I have no desire to live forever.  😛

I do hope to keep my body in good enough shape to do things without pain and fatigue, if I can, while I have things to do.  But if I look like a senior citizen while doing them, I truly don't care.  I would probably get a kick out of people saying, "you go granny!"

[EmseB]

54 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I just don't think I get to tell another woman what SHE finds empowering and that is what many seem to want to do. Heaven forbid someone might actually WANT to gratify another? I mean, what decent woman would want to do that? For me, if these women revel in their beauty and sexuality, so be it. If they find it healthy and normal, OK. I don't think I get to tell them that they don't know their own minds. People might find them deluded and that's OK too but I've worn mine on my sleeve and found it incredibly empowering *for me*. The suggestion that someone doesn't know their own mind about that is insulting.

This is pure relativism, though. And it assumes that the person who says X is not empowering for women is automatically wrong while the woman who wants to display pole dancing or crotch flashing or bondage themes to preteen girls in the name of empowerment is always right because to say otherwise is insulting her intellect.

Also, we have to grant your premise that what happened at the super bowl was just women reveling in their beauty and sexuality. I think women *can* do those things, and it looks nothing like what was happening on that stage. That's the false premise that I'm being told (not by you, but generally) I'm puritanical for rejecting. I actually think it's damaging to say that what JLo was doing is how women should be perceived as being beautiful or sexual or reveling or whatever, because what I saw was a watered down version of what passes for sexy in very specific kinds of films.

Edited February 6, 2020 by EmseB

[Sneezyone]

13 minutes ago, EmseB said:

This is pure relativism, though. And it assumes that the person who says X is not empowering for women is automatically wrong while the woman who wants to display pole dancing or crotch flashing or bondage themes to preteen girls in the name of empowerment is always right because to say otherwise is insulting her intellect.

Also, we have to grant your premise that what happened at the super bowl was just women reveling in their beauty and sexuality. I think women *can* do those things, and it looks nothing like what was happening on that stage. That's the false premise that I'm being told (not by you, but generally) I'm puritanical for rejecting. I actually think it's damaging to say that what JLo was doing is how women should be perceived as being beautiful or sexual or reveling or whatever, because what I saw was a watered down version of what passes for sexy in very specific kinds of films.

There are a lot of assumptions there to unpack. I didn’t say it was automatically wrong OR right. Quite the opposite. I don’t think it’s my place to say how people define empowerment for themselves. Second, the presumed INTENDED audience was preteen girls? That’s just silly. It may be that body hugging outfits and sensual dances aren’t empowering to you. So be it. That’s what it looked like to me. Ain’t I a woman too? It is ONE way to feel powerful and in command of yourself and your audience. It isn’t the only way. I provided several examples of commercially successful artists who’ve approached it in different ways.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

It will happen when enough women start rejecting gendered beauty norms and refuse to adhere to the artificial standards that a beauty industry that makes 93 billion dollars a year is drumming into our brains. The industry profits from women questioning their value based on their looks. They don't want us to be self-confident and happy without makeup, anti wrinkle cream, razors, waxing, hair colors, and botox. heaven forbid if we got by with toothpaste, shampoo, and soap - they'd be bankrupt, so of course they have to suggest to us that being clean and fit isn't enough. We must paint, and color, and tweak and tighten and shave and pluck - and it's NOT for the men, who are oblivious to most of our efforts. We could simply quit playing the game, and could quit indoctrinating our daughters into following along. We could start by quitting TV; that would go a loooong way. We'd never have to see a single commercial for beauty products 🙂

Lol I always said I would quit wearing make up if the rest of the women in the world would.  

[Sneezyone]

11 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

I think you don't know what I am talking about. What I have been talking about all along in this thread. Also where Friedan fits into the ( varied, robust-- but SHORT, because, yanno, misogyny) history and study of feminism, but I reckon that's neither here nor there.  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feminism

 

 

Pretty sure I just said I have no idea what you or most white feminists are talking about most of the time. I can’t relate.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Scarlett]

8 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

No reason to worry about the rest of the women in the world.  If you don't want to wear make up, then don't.  I don't.  Join me 🙂

I wear very little.  But Dh does notice when I wear none. 

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

There are a lot of assumptions there to unpack. I didn’t say it was automatically wrong OR right. Quite the opposite. I don’t think it’s my place to say how people define empowerment for themselves. Second, the presumed INTENDED audience was preteen girls? That’s just silly. It may be that body hugging outfits and sensual dances aren’t empowering to you. So be it. That’s what it looked like to me. Ain’t I a woman too? It is ONE way to feel powerful and in command of yourself and your audience. It isn’t the only way. I provided several examples of commercially successful artists who’ve approached it in different ways.

What you're saying is right/correct is women being able to define empowerment for themselves. By default that makes anyone who doesn't agree with them wrong. Because we all decide for ourselves. There can be nothing objectively wrong in that scenario.

To repeat myself from earlier in the thread, I say the audience was preteen girls because there were actual preteen girls up on that stage. If you think that's not a deliberate choice of message targeting, I don't know what would convince you.

[Sneezyone]

25 minutes ago, EmseB said:

What you're saying is right/correct is women being able to define empowerment for themselves. By default that makes anyone who doesn't agree with them wrong. Because we all decide for ourselves. There can be nothing objectively wrong in that scenario.

To repeat myself from earlier in the thread, I say the audience was preteen girls because there were actual preteen girls up on that stage. If you think that's not a deliberate choice of message targeting, I don't know what would convince you.

No, IMO, anyone who doesn’t agree with their version of personal expression is entitled to their opinion. There are lots of objectively wrong things in this world...premeditated murder, for ex. This isn’t that tho. It’s opinion not objective fact that determines the outrage. It is subjective.

There were multiple scenes and song changes and the young people were not there for the whole thing let alone as an audience. They were part of the cast, performing, working, doing a job, minding their own steps. They were not the audience.

[EmseB]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

No, IMO, anyone who doesn’t agree with their version of personal expression is entitled to their opinion. There are lots of objectively wrong things in this world...premeditated murder, for ex. This isn’t that tho. It’s opinion not objective fact that determines the outrage. It is subjective.

There were multiple scenes and song changes and the young people were not there for the whole thing let alone as an audience. They were part of the cast, performing, working, doing a job, minding their own steps. They were not the audience.

They (the younger girls) were in the show to appeal to a certain demographic. They didn't appear in a vacuum of time and space, lol. I get that I'm not convincing you but just kind of surprised that you don't believe that preteen girls would be a target of this kind of show when some of them were actually in the show.

If I were really entitled to my opinion (whatever that means...opinions mean really nothing in and of themselves) then no one would be saying only puritanical Becky's and such were disturbed by the display. Or that criticisms = horror, surprise, hysterics, outrage, pearl clutching, etc. 

[ktgrok]

Something doesn't have to be objectively wrong to be inappropriate for the particular venue or audience. 

I enjoy reading suspense books that I would not find appropriate for say, a young elementary student. That doesn't mean they are trash, or that I think there are bad. Just not appropriate for that audience. 

It's not slut shaming or whatever else to think the show wasn't appropriate for an all ages audience. 

[EmseB]

6 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Something doesn't have to be objectively wrong to be inappropriate for the particular venue or audience. 

I enjoy reading suspense books that I would not find appropriate for say, a young elementary student. That doesn't mean they are trash, or that I think there are bad. Just not appropriate for that audience. 

It's not slut shaming or whatever else to think the show wasn't appropriate for an all ages audience. 

Well true, but you have to make some objective judgment to say that X is inappropriate for that venue or that audience. There has to be a standard as to why something would be wrong for a particular venue and audience. The people disagreeing with me in this thread see nothing wrong with this show for this audience or think it's a net positive for female empowerment. No one here, AFAIK, is saying whatever JLo did is inappropriate in private or in a club or wherever.

[KungFuPanda]

10 hours ago, umsami said:

 She sings in Arabic on some of her songs.  She speaks in Arabic at her concerts in the ME, and was one of the Pepsi spokespeople along with Amr Diab in the Middle East a few years ago.  No idea if she still is. She speaks Arabic, Spanish, English, Portuguese, etc. 

 

Did you happen to buy the latest Amr Diab album?  It was one where you buy the album and get the songs as they are released.  I got a few songs, and now the whole thing has seemed to disappear from itunes!  I don't know WHAT is up with that.  

11 hours ago, Plum said:

It probably didn't help that from the pictures I've seen, at one point she was wearing leather chaps and her dancers were all wearing leather gear and caps. BDSM images came to mind. Mixed messages to say the least. 

https://www.etonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/970xh/public/images/2020-02/gettyimages-1198186241_1.jpg?itok=dXyq2u6x

WHY do we have to jump to BDSM?  Why isn't it just a Versace motorcycle outfit?  It's a bit over the top for the grocery store, but I certainly didn't read all that you did into it. Is that ALL black leather can mean?  

9 hours ago, Quill said:

Because, as I said, there are venues for being sexy and overtly sexual and IMO, that isn’t one of them. So, to me, the message is: when it’s really important to excel as a female entertainer, we have to fall to the most basic. Dress very sexy. Wear chaps with your butt exposed. Spread your legs into a camera. Have other choreography, costuming and props that hints at “edgy” sex practices: bondage, orgies, pole dancing. 

Additionally, it also bothers me as a middle-aged woman to hear this: “OMG, she looks amazing! Her body is incredible for 50! She looks better than most women half her age! And Shakira! She’s 43! You could bounce a dime off her core!” It annoys me that we’re still judging over-40 women’s beauty on how far they distance themselves from looking their age. This is why some women in this age category feel they simply must have cosmetic surgery or do a bunch of procedures to their appearance so they won’t look their ages.

 

I know a lot of women who look good at those ages without cosmetic surgery.  I think the whole point is that ages don't really look like anything.  You wear what you want at 50 because you're fully grown and nobody can tell you what to do.  One of my regular dance teachers is pushing 60 and nobody would be able to guess her age.  She just looks like herself and she's in great shape.  Her little sister just turned 50 and looks fabulous. It's genetic.  Her mother is nearly 80 and only recently retired from regular performances.  She's just one of those ageless force of nature people and her daughters take after her.  It's not some exclusive Hollywood, plastic surgery, wealthy person magic that makes people look good in middle age.  There are regular people all over the place that pulling this off.  They're just not on TV.  When Shakira and JLo take off their make-up at night they look a little more like the rest of us anyway.   

8 hours ago, Plum said:

She’s also been invited to perform the half time show at the super bowl and passed, saying people who do it get persecuted.  She’s got some wisdom and restraint to boot.  

 It's not really the same thing though.  If J-lo and Shakira took a pass they'd miss out on a chance to represent Latinas and get people talking about important issues.  Yeah, people are complaining about how they dressed, but it has also led to lots of discussions about kids in cages and Puerto Rico's continued struggle.  

7 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

Many performers passed on the opportunity this year and last year, some citing Colin Kaepernick and Black Lives Matter and others for less political reasons.  I mean, if people weren’t passing on it, how would *Maroon Five* get such a gig?  Adam Levine is not a talent on par with Prince or Justin Timberlake or Shakira.   I think JLo and Shakira said yes in part because it was in Miami.  

 

7 hours ago, regentrude said:

On a slight tangent: I hear what you are saying, but I would like to look at this from a slightly different perspective (and would like to divorce this comment from the specifics of the half-time show).

Seeing middle-aged or old women fit and active can also go a long way towards changing the perception that only young people can be physically fit and than anything after 40 is downhill. Seeing that one can take care of one's body and be an athlete as a peri- or menopausal woman is, IMO, important. It counteracts the feeling of "oh well, I'm over the hill, so why bother". Seeing 50 y/o dancers, 60 y/o marathoners, 80 y/o gymnasts reminds us that there are still decades of life to live and that it is possibly to be fit and active. Those celebrities aren't the best role models, because we all know they have resources at their disposal we regular women don't - but seeing strong, athletic "normal" older women is definitely inspiring in a positive way. Because that is what 50, 60, or 80 can look like.

 

Tonight I personally benefited from this show.  I thought it might happen and it did.  I got a few new students in my bellydance class because they saw the halftime performance and were inspired to seek out a class.  They were happy and moving and learning and smiling and meeting a whole new group of women from all walks of life.  It is wonderful and empowering to do new, hard things for yourself because you decided to give it a try.  Even though a lot of people on here don't like the 'message' the act sent, in my world a couple of middle aged women liked what they saw, rallied their friends, left the house on a Wednesday night and got to sweat, dance, and play zils all at the same time for the first time in their lives.   They did if for themselves AND I have new students and more money in my pocket. Not one man was in the studio. One of them even mentioned that she's got two years until she's 50 so she's going to start moving now so she can look great at 50.  She looked great TODAY.  She'll just be more fit and know more when she's 50 if she sticks with it.  

I actually thought of making tonight's class about the 5 moves that Shakira does on stage, but I stuck with my original lesson plan.  Maybe next week. 🤣 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by KungFuPanda

[Frances]

6 hours ago, Scarlett said:

But why is that offensive? Can’t we acknowledge that none of us really want to look old? Humans are born imperfect which means they grow old and die.  No one wants to do that....we just don’t have any way of preventing it.  So it is not surprising that when some people manage to delay the aging process either by having good genes or other means...well, it is impressive. But it even more begs the question why all the vulgarity when you are beautiful and can sing like an angel.  

No one wants to grow old and die? I must have missed that fact somewhere along the way.

[Scarlett]

26 minutes ago, Frances said:

No one wants to grow old and die? I must have missed that fact somewhere along the way.

You want to grow old and die?

[Frances]

Just now, Scarlett said:

You want to grow old and die?

I’m not wishing for it, but I’m fine with it. It’s part of the natural life cycle.

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, Frances said:

I’m not wishing for it, but I’m fine with it. It’s part of the natural life cycle.

Being fine with it is not the same as wanting it. 

[Frances]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

Being fine with it is not the same as wanting it. 

Well I do hope to die someday. I certainly don’t want to live forever.

[Scarlett]

Just now, Frances said:

Well I do hope to die someday. I certainly don’t want to live forever.

Why?

[Frances]

18 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Why?

Lots of reasons. For one, I’m assuming my body and mind will just continue to age and decline, and at some point, the cons of being alive with that body and mind will outweigh the pros. Second, unless all of my family and friends are also living forever, it would be pretty unbearable to see everyone I love die before me, one after another. On the other hand, if we all lived forever, we’d likely pretty quickly overwhelm the planet and bring an early end to the human race, not to mention most or all other species. And that just seems selfish. Third, because I know my life is limited, it inspires me to make the most of the time I have. Fourth, how could I afford to live forever? I’m certainly fine financially for an average lifespan, but forever? Fifth, life can include lots of pain (both physical and mental) and anguish, and I think at some point, especially with ever declining physical and mental health, that would become overwhelming, even if there were good times too, and death would be a release from that eternal suffering. I’m sure I could come up with many more reasons if I thought about it more, it’s honestly not something I think about too much. As I said upthread, I just see death as a natural and normal part of the cycle of life and don’t wish to be exempt from it.

[LMD]

11 hours ago, Quill said:

I am totally on board with athletic fitness at any age and do find that inspiring. It’s something I embrace in my own life and I even just recently put up a post about how fit is it reasonable to expect to be past middle age. Part of my question is because I don’t know what is really possible without surgeries or procedures. It’s really difficult to tell by observing celebrities and I mostly can only go on those odd articles you see every now and then featuring weight-lifting 80-year-olds or whatever. 

However, the majority of the commentary about Shakira and JLo is not emphasizing their physical fitness (though some does). It’s emphasizing their sexiness. (Guess that’s to be expected when the show displayed sex throughout. Heh.) It’s about their looks because they “still look good” past 40 and onto 50. 

Not that that rhetoric is anything new...

Ding ding ding. Well said. It's not that they still look good for 40/50 - and I agree that they absolutely do! It's that they are judged still 'f**kable.' Still acceptable as pornhub user w*nk fodder, how exactly is that empowering for women individually or as a class?

[LucyStoner]

4 hours ago, Frances said:

No one wants to grow old and die? I must have missed that fact somewhere along the way.

I honestly am excited to not be a young woman anymore.  It's not easy being a girl or young woman.  I positively relish becoming essentially invisible to the type of men that harassed me from the time I hit puberty.  While it's diminished over the years, as recently as this week some dude wouldn't take no easily at the bus stop and as recently as a few years ago, I had a man accost me at a gas station who I very nearly considered digging a bat out of my van to get rid of him.  Fortunately, he went after I basically yelled at him the third time to leave me alone.  This is one of the reasons my 40th birthday this year seems exciting and not depressing to me.  

Edited February 6, 2020 by LucyStoner

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, LucyStoner said:

I honestly am excited to not be a young woman anymore.  It's not easy being a girl or young woman.  I positively relish becoming essentially invisible to the type of men that harassed me from the time I hit puberty.  While it's diminished over the years, as recently as this week some dude wouldn't take no easily at the bus stop and as recently as a few years ago, I had a man accost me at a gas station who I very nearly considered digging a bat out of my van to get rid of him.  Fortunately, he went after I basically yelled at him the third time to leave me alone.  This is one of the reasons my 40th birthday this year seems exciting and not depressing to me.  

Yes I agree!  I much prefer growing older and am even happier being a bit overweight.  

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Yes I agree!  I much prefer growing older and am even happier being a bit overweight.  

Tangent: this reminds me of my car. Years ago, I had a functional but not at all fancy Ford Taurus. It ran great but was not visibly desirable. Then, we “upgraded” and I started driving a Cadillac. That was a beautiful car, for sure, and rode like a dream, but I often missed my inconspicuous bucket of bolts. Especially when I first started driving it, I felt like a target for theft or other undesirable interactions. I thought, “Dude, I’m just here to pick up some groceries.” 

There is a certain pleasure in ordinariness. 

[SKL]

Yes, I agree that if I ever get done with hot flashes, I look forward to menopause and beyond.

As for wanting to die, I do feel there is a time to stop carrying part of the world's burden.  I do believe there is such a thing as my final reward.

[Sneezyone]

12 hours ago, EmseB said:

They (the younger girls) were in the show to appeal to a certain demographic. They didn't appear in a vacuum of time and space, lol. I get that I'm not convincing you but just kind of surprised that you don't believe that preteen girls would be a target of this kind of show when some of them were actually in the show.

If I were really entitled to my opinion (whatever that means...opinions mean really nothing in and of themselves) then no one would be saying only puritanical Becky's and such were disturbed by the display. Or that criticisms = horror, surprise, hysterics, outrage, pearl clutching, etc. 

 

So Les Miserables is intended for kids because it features a child performer? Or, geeze The Blue Lagoon? Children perform in all kinds of performances but that doesn't make them the intended audience or consumer of the content.

[EmseB]

So far we've got:

Is pole dancing really sexual?

Are kids even watching the super bowl?

Are leather outfits made of straps really about BDSM?

Do a bunch of preteen girls performing pop music with JLo really appeal to a preteen girl demographic?

Who was it that mentioned the twilight zone? I mean, I'm obviously not some church lady because I did sit and watch the game and the show, but, c'mon now?

[Sneezyone]

And now for some real numbers...

The average age of an NFL fan/regular viewer is about 45-50 years old.  About 53% are men. 47% are women. Less than a third of fans are 18-35 years old. They overwhelmingly have 75K and up in household income. When you see the average age of viewers number, you know MOST are over 35. These viewers do not want to see a magic show or men playing drums wearing blue paint. They ARE NOT KIDS. The NFL is trying to appeal to their customers. People who tune in merely to watch Super Bowl commercials are not their bread and butter.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-look-inside-the-modern-sports-fan-nfl-vs-ncaa-vs_b_5a3a9ed9e4b0df0de8b061a3

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-nfl-is-losing-its-core-audience-a-wsj-nbc-news-poll-finds-1517569200

Edited February 6, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Plum said:

Does it say what the political leanings are? From this article, it looks like its split down the middle between R and D. So left-leaning acts that try to make political statements are appealing to only half the crowd. That doesn't seem to be in their better interest. 

 

Oddly enough, there are many articles that explain the audience they most want to have (younger viewers 18-35) is perfectly fine with political statements. It's the older viewers who don't like it, kinda like the old owners and certain other loud voices. Specifically from Article #2

• Those younger than age 40 are more likely to watch NFL games because of the protests than their elders are. But just over half of adults in all age groups say the growing protests have no impact on their viewing decisions.

 

https://awfulannouncing.com/cbs/nfls-2017-ratings-slide-mainly-fueled-white-viewers-younger-viewers.html

https://theundefeated.com/features/nfl-viewership-down-and-study-suggests-its-over-protests/

Edited February 6, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Jean in Newcastle]

Making a point that Puerto Rico is part of the US doesn’t seem to be radical left political messaging to me. It’s just a fact.  

[EmseB]

47 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

And now for some real numbers...

The average age of an NFL fan/regular viewer is about 45-50 years old.  About 53% are men. 47% are women. Less than a third of fans are 18-35 years old. They overwhelmingly have 75K and up in household income. When you see the average age of viewers number, you know MOST are over 35. These viewers do not want to see a magic show or men playing drums wearing blue paint. They ARE NOT KIDS. The NFL is trying to appeal to their customers. People who tune in merely to watch Super Bowl commercials are not their bread and butter.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-look-inside-the-modern-sports-fan-nfl-vs-ncaa-vs_b_5a3a9ed9e4b0df0de8b061a3

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-nfl-is-losing-its-core-audience-a-wsj-nbc-news-poll-finds-1517569200

I guess I'm not sure what this means as far as who is tuning in to watch the superbowl or the halftime show? NFL fans != super bowl audience, as you point out. People who tune into the super bowl are not their bread and butter, but they are somebody's bread and butter or else it wouldn't be a multi billion dollar event as far as ad dollars go.

No one in my house watches the NFL regular season at all. We all watched the superbowl (well, dh was working, but he would have). It was very much the same growing up for me. No NFL fans at home, watched the superbowl at a party of some kind most years.

I was thinking about this before getting involved in the thread, but it was interesting to me how much my homeschooled older boys enjoyed being able to watch the superbowl because we aren't really up on most pop culture happenings like most of the kids in the neighborhood. Being able to talk about the game with other kids seemed to make them feel more included or give them some kind of street cred. FWIW.

But, okay, they put JLo's daughter and a bunch of preteen girls on stage with JLo in tassels for an older male demographic only to get more core NFL fans tuning in every week...not sure that's any better, if it's at all plausible, lol.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, EmseB said:

I guess I'm not sure what this means as far as who is tuning in to watch the superbowl or the halftime show? NFL fans != super bowl audience, as you point out. People who tune into the super bowl are not their bread and butter, but they are somebody's bread and butter or else it wouldn't be a multi billion dollar event as far as ad dollars go.

No one in my house watches the NFL regular season at all. We all watched the superbowl (well, dh was working, but he would have). It was very much the same growing up for me. No NFL fans at home, watched the superbowl at a party of some kind most years.

I was thinking about this before getting involved in the thread, but it was interesting to me how much my homeschooled older boys enjoyed being able to watch the superbowl because we aren't really up on most pop culture happenings like most of the kids in the neighborhood. Being able to talk about the game with other kids seemed to make them feel more included or give them some kind of street cred. FWIW.

But, okay, they put JLo's daughter and a bunch of preteen girls on stage with JLo in tassels for an older male demographic only to get more core NFL fans tuning in every week...not sure that's any better, if it's at all plausible, lol.

 

In any sport, the championship is just as much a reward for the regular season fans who pay the bills and attend the games as it is for the big wigs who run/sponsor the teams and athletes. The Super Bowl has become a huge boon for advertisers because they know there will be so many eyeballs on the screens. It's a social event. It's still not marketed toward kids. When I went to look at viewership of the Super Bowl, it's still skewed toward older viewers (male and female) who have money to spend. The companies that advertise are selling beer, cars, trucks, digital service (Go Daddy!, Google), etc. The politicians that advertise are trying to reach voters, obv. over 18. So, make of it what you will. It's just not accurate to say the NFL is targeting kids and families with this event. What they want are young, college age-men/women to start following the game in college and follow the athletes into the pros.

[Kassia]

I really like this 

https://whatsupmoms.com/parenting/super-bowl-halftime-show-teaching-girls/?fbclid=IwAR2ROQvVFg2X1ZzJx4pz8xQEsLmIfC4nuWk4a8wPTz8adcpKnQsqBSIiBMw

Edited February 6, 2020 by Kassia