Super bowl halftime show and culture

[Guest]

16 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Well, the thing is, Katy Perry's Super Bowl Half Time Show WASN'T similarly sexual.  She had people dancing around in shark costumes.  I seem to recall a robotic tiger?  

She did not do pole dancing.

 

Has Taylor Swift done a SuperBowl Half time show?  I don't think she has, but honestly, I struggle to imagine her having a similarly sexual performance.  Miley Cyrus maybe.  

Well, actually...

In terms of female performers seeming to feel pressure to sell sex in order to preform...................yeah, actually it is a problem.  Why why why is the female on stage most often the one wearing nothing....even when she's a background dancer?  I wish so many female performers just didn't feel like they have to do that.  

 The last paragraph (which I can’t get to highlight; dont know why) is what this whole event and controversy comes down to for me. I *thought* in the wake of #metoo, as a society, we ladies were saying, “We will not sell ourselves out as objects! We will hold a standard that shows all the things we have to offer society besides sex!” But that’s not what happened. IMO, the show just sunk us back to the baser elements. 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

We can’t change the fact that female performers feel they have to be highly sexualized or scantily clad without removing the pressure.  That pressure flows from the exact same culture that uses misogynistic slurs to describe scantily clad women.  

Many women performers don’t feel the need to be bow to this pressure but lots of female performers also live out their careers with limited to no commercial success.  
 

The dangerous part of this whole discussion is the narrative that says it’s empowerment for a woman performer to “freely choose” to display herself in *exactly* the manner the porn and trafficking industries desire. That’s nothing but a Tom Sawyer strategy: I get you to do what I want you to do by convincing you it’s what you want to do. 

What would happen if zero female performers would agree to include those elements in the show? What would happen if they said, “Look, if you’re gonna insist I wear a little ribbon of cloth on my center console and then pop that directly into the camera, then find another performer. And good luck finding one, because we ladies are hanging in solidarity not to be used as a sex toy anymore.”? I sure would like to see that possibility. 

ETA: it posted accidentally before I finished. 

Edited February 9, 2020 by Quill

[ktgrok]

6 hours ago, SKL said:

I haven't watched a lot of recent super bowl shows, but was there any other one that had a thong butt shot like the one in this one?  Because for me, that was the moment the show went way over the line, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whose butt it was.

But yeah, make everything about race and sex.  Believe that I'd have been applauding the butt shot if I thought it was a white person's or man's butt.  That is ridiculous IMO but whatever.

No, but Miley's halftime show was also incredibly innapropriate and also sparked days of conversation in the news, etc about it. I want to say she wore a school girl type outfit while being very sexual, which bothered me even more than the bare butt in leather chaps crotch shots - which is saying a lot. And it lacked the athleticism/talent on top of it. 

But Lady Gaga was last year and although I'm not a huge Gaga fan it was fine. 

[KungFuPanda]

This thread is probably fizzling by now, however, if all you saw was too much skin and inappropriate gyrating, I'd encourage you to dig a bit deeper.  The choreography was very intentional.  There were SO MANY different styles represented in that one performance and every style has an interesting story and culture behind it.  Not every culture is going to have a conservative, western version of ladylike femininity that is digestible at first glance.  The line where something is "too sexy" is not remotely universal. 

[ktgrok]

4 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

This thread is probably fizzling by now, however, if all you saw was too much skin and inappropriate gyrating, I'd encourage you to dig a bit deeper.  The choreography was very intentional.  There were SO MANY different styles represented in that one performance and every style has an interesting story and culture behind it.  Not every culture is going to have a conservative, western version of ladylike femininity that is digestible at first glance.  The line where something is "too sexy" is not remotely universal. 

Right. I mean, which culture is represented by being filmed  grabbing your crotch while wearing butt baring leather chaps in front of a stripper pole?

Other parts, I agree. As I said above, I had no real issue with the first part, with Beyonce. 

[LucyStoner]

10 hours ago, Quill said:

The dangerous part of this whole discussion is the narrative that says it’s empowerment for a woman performer to “freely choose” to display herself in *exactly* the manner the porn and trafficking industries desire. That’s nothing but a Tom Sawyer strategy: I get you to do what I want you to do by convincing you it’s what you want to do. 

What would happen if zero female performers would agree to include those elements in the show? What would happen if they said, “Look, if you’re gonna insist I wear a little ribbon of cloth on my center console and then pop that directly into the camera, then find another performer. And good luck finding one, because we ladies are hanging in solidarity not to be used as a sex toy anymore.”? I sure would like to see that possibility. 

ETA: it posted accidentally before I finished. 

I agree that sexual commodification doesn’t become empowerment under the veneer of choice.  A lot of what people ascribe to choice aren’t really choices made freely anyway.   

I just don’t think that people who have been systematically disempowered are those responsible for fixing it, even when some of us do exercise more agency that sex trafficking victims. Why does it always read like “what if female performers...”, instead of “what if male music and sport executives and male audiences...” 

[LucyStoner]

10 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

No, but Miley's halftime show was also incredibly innapropriate and also sparked days of conversation in the news, etc about it. I want to say she wore a school girl type outfit while being very sexual, which bothered me even more than the bare butt in leather chaps crotch shots - which is saying a lot. And it lacked the athleticism/talent on top of it. 

But Lady Gaga was last year and although I'm not a huge Gaga fan it was fine. 

As we have established, I don’t watch the Super Bowl or give a flying fig about football.  I heard ALL about this one.  I didn’t hear about Miley Cyrus’ one.  I recall a slight hoopla 5ish years back over her mashup with Robin Thicke at an awards show but I don’t recall hearing anything about Miley’s half time show.  

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Danae said:

Watch a video of it if you can. It was glorious.

I had an opportunity to see him in concert in LA in the mid-90s. Sadly, no assless chaps that day, lol. Still a highlight of my college years...waiting in line with thousands of random folks for the chance to buy tickets. So.Much.Talent!

Edited February 9, 2020 by Sneezyone

[LMD]

10 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I had an opportunity to see him in concert in LA in the mid-90s. Sadly, no assless chaps that day, lol. Still a highlight of my college years...waiting in line with thousands of random folks for the chance to buy tickets. So.Much.Talent!

 

Something we can agree on! 😄 *is jealous*

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

I agree that sexual commodification doesn’t become empowerment under the veneer of choice.  A lot of what people ascribe to choice aren’t really choices made freely anyway.   

I just don’t think that people who have been systematically disempowered are those responsible for fixing it, even when some of us do exercise more agency that sex trafficking victims. Why does it always read like “what if female performers...”, instead of “what if male music and sport executives and male audiences...” 

Because that would be true power for women. I mean, I grant you I have no idea how it works when a performer of either gender is offered the Super-Bowl spot, but I am making an assumption that a celebrity has enough discretion over the performance to choose to or decline to have a certain element or decide how revealing the costuming will be. (Probably doesn’t have much say in camera angles, but if one doesn’t agree to wear a tiny strip of cloth for a bottom in the first place, the camera angles would be less consequential.) 

So, celebrities like J-Lo have I-don’t-know-how-much power, but they clearly have more than the women who were used for sex during the Super Bowl. I see that as J-Lo & company having considerable power to set the tone for how women will be seen. That’s a big part of why it bothered me because it felt like the message was, “Nevermind; we want to be viewed as sex playthings after all.” 

If, say, the male sports executives who design the half-time show tried to dictate more conservative clothing, dancing and props, *that* would go over like a hair in the macaroni salad. Then we’re back to men ordering women to be chaste! So it has to come from the women themselves, and that’s literally the definition of empowerment.   It’s literally a powerful woman who says, “No, I will not do that/wear that/display myself in that manner because I want to display talent, not how good my body still looks at 50.” But I think it definitely has to come directly from us, the women. 

[ktgrok]

57 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

As we have established, I don’t watch the Super Bowl or give a flying fig about football.  I heard ALL about this one.  I didn’t hear about Miley Cyrus’ one.  I recall a slight hoopla 5ish years back over her mashup with Robin Thicke at an awards show but I don’t recall hearing anything about Miley’s half time show.  

Oops!that's what I meant. Super Bowl on the brain!

50 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

That's because according to Wikipedia, Miley Cyrus hasn't done one.  I suspect that Katie was referring to the twerking with Robin Thicke at the the awards show.

 

I was, thank you. 

27 minutes ago, Danae said:

By “the first part” do you mean 2013? Or by “Beyonce” do you mean Shakira?

Wow. Ok, I have no brain today. I my defense, as I was discussing this with DH and reading the thread earlier DH brought up something about Beyonce, and I guess I switched them in my head. Wow. (aside from the oven breaking, our washing machine sprung a leak today, and two kids are sick. My brain is obviously not functioning at all!)

[Scarlett]

10 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Oops!that's what I meant. Super Bowl on the brain!

I was, thank you. 

Wow. Ok, I have no brain today. I my defense, as I was discussing this with DH and reading the thread earlier DH brought up something about Beyonce, and I guess I switched them in my head. Wow. (aside from the oven breaking, our washing machine sprung a leak today, and two kids are sick. My brain is obviously not functioning at all!)

If it makes you feel any better I was reading your mind and knew you meant Shakira. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, Scarlett said:

If it makes you feel any better I was reading your mind and knew you meant Shakira. 

Good, lol. I much prefer her anyway!

[maize]

36 minutes ago, Quill said:

Because that would be true power for women. I mean, I grant you I have no idea how it works when a performer of either gender is offered the Super-Bowl spot, but I am making an assumption that a celebrity has enough discretion over the performance to choose to or decline to have a certain element or decide how revealing the costuming will be. (Probably doesn’t have much say in camera angles, but if one doesn’t agree to wear a tiny strip of cloth for a bottom in the first place, the camera angles would be less consequential.) 

So, celebrities like J-Lo have I-don’t-know-how-much power, but they clearly have more than the women who were used for sex during the Super Bowl. I see that as J-Lo & company having considerable power to set the tone for how women will be seen. That’s a big part of why it bothered me because it felt like the message was, “Nevermind; we want to be viewed as sex playthings after all.” 

If, say, the male sports executives who design the half-time show tried to dictate more conservative clothing, dancing and props, *that* would go over like a hair in the macaroni salad. Then we’re back to men ordering women to be chaste! So it has to come from the women themselves, and that’s literally the definition of empowerment.   It’s literally a powerful woman who says, “No, I will not do that/wear that/display myself in that manner because I want to display talent, not how good my body still looks at 50.” But I think it definitely has to come directly from us, the women. 

I'm inclined to agree with this.

I don't think, for example, that it would have made sense to tell the women fighting for suffrage 100 years ago that it was up to the men who were denying them equal rights and power to drive the necessary changes.

Women themselves had to be the driving force.

[LucyStoner]

6 hours ago, Quill said:

Because that would be true power for women. I mean, I grant you I have no idea how it works when a performer of either gender is offered the Super-Bowl spot, but I am making an assumption that a celebrity has enough discretion over the performance to choose to or decline to have a certain element or decide how revealing the costuming will be. (Probably doesn’t have much say in camera angles, but if one doesn’t agree to wear a tiny strip of cloth for a bottom in the first place, the camera angles would be less consequential.) 

So, celebrities like J-Lo have I-don’t-know-how-much power, but they clearly have more than the women who were used for sex during the Super Bowl. I see that as J-Lo & company having considerable power to set the tone for how women will be seen. That’s a big part of why it bothered me because it felt like the message was, “Nevermind; we want to be viewed as sex playthings after all.” 

If, say, the male sports executives who design the half-time show tried to dictate more conservative clothing, dancing and props, *that* would go over like a hair in the macaroni salad. Then we’re back to men ordering women to be chaste! So it has to come from the women themselves, and that’s literally the definition of empowerment.   It’s literally a powerful woman who says, “No, I will not do that/wear that/display myself in that manner because I want to display talent, not how good my body still looks at 50.” But I think it definitely has to come directly from us, the women. 

I’m thinking about it more radically than either of those options.  

What if we valued women and didn’t commodify women’s bodies?  What if women’s bodies weren’t commodified and as such no one was scandalized by our bare skin or felt they needed to ask women to dress differently  (neither more modestly or more provocatively) to appease the people looking at them?

I’m not saying that it’s up to men to liberate women (oppressors never do liberate their targets), I’m saying that we have to stop blaming women for problems *very much caused by men*.  
 

Edited February 10, 2020 by LucyStoner

[Guest]

12 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

I’m thinking about it more radically than either of those options.  

What if we valued women and didn’t commodify women’s bodies?  What if women’s bodies weren’t commodified and as such no one was scandalized by our bare skin or felt they needed to ask women to dress differently  (neither more modestly or more provocatively) to appease the people looking at them?

I’m not saying that it’s up to men to liberate women (oppressors never do liberate their targets), I’m saying that we have to stop blaming women for problems *very much caused by men*.  
 

 

12 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

I’m thinking about it more radically than either of those options.  What if we valued women and didn’t commodify women’s bodies?  What if women’s bodies weren’t commodified and as such no one was scandalized by our bare skin or felt they needed to ask women to dress differently  (neither more modestly or more provocatively) to appease the people looking at themI’m not saying that it’s up to men to liberate women (oppressors never do liberate their targets), I’m saying that we have to stop blaming women for problems *very much caused by men*.  
 

But isn’t it up to those women (we women) who do have a modicum of power to refuse to participate in the sale of our bodies for visual jollies? Isn’t it up to us - those of us with some power to choose what we will or will not participate in - to refuse? Because the trafficked women and the porn-industry victims have little to no power to refuse. 

I would say we are many decades, in the very best-case scenario, if it is even a possible future, from a point where women’s bodies are not commodified. But the day to decide not to participate in that commodification, for those of us with the power to decline, is now! 

If we think about other ways women have overturned male domination for our benefit, it took first the stronger women, those with more power, to refuse to go along with what the guys wanted. When the suffragists were trying to get the right to vote, I’m sure there were many women who were told something like, “Look, honey. You don’t want the responsibility of voting. You would be distracted from the family life you love by trying to stay informed on politics. Leave the messy political world to us men.” Same with earning and controlling our own wealth or getting college degrees or entering demanding and difficult fields. There have always been people ready to tell us we don’t want to have the stress and difficulty of those things. My own parents did not feel girls had any reason to go to college, except maybe the rare female who was never going to marry or have kids. 

In the end, I ask myself this question: what benefit is it to (whomever - J-Lo, Fox News female anchors, Miley Cyrus - whomever) to dress in particular revealing clothes or perform in a particular way or wear shoes that torture their feet? If they are doing/wearing those things because that’s what our culture deems sexy then how can it be said they are “choosing” it and how could anyone expect or hope that the message has nothing to do with objectification? Because it’s not as though it’s comfortable to wear a sliver of sparkly material on your private parts. It might look sexy to many people when a woman crams her feet into a triangular toe box and pushes her heels up on a skinny spike, but what benefit is it to the wearer of those shoes? 

I think it would be awesome to get to a point in our society where woman can wear whatever without anyone batting an eye, but  IMO, we have to get beyond the current view of what makes a woman attractive = whatever makes her look most f**kable. We’re a long way from that, I think, and my view is performances like this one set us backwards rather than move us forward. 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Quill
Double quoted

[SKL]

Yesterday my kids brought up the super bowl halftime show.  Obviously it was discussed quite a bit at school.  Their good male friend (age 14) mentioned that he felt very uncomfortable sitting next to his mom and watching that.  He wanted to know if my kids felt the same and whether I had said anything about it.

Just thought I'd put that out there for those who assume young people aren't even noticing or having feelings about these things unless misogynistic / racist adults tell them they should.

[Sneezyone]

15 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yesterday my kids brought up the super bowl halftime show.  Obviously it was discussed quite a bit at school.  Their good male friend (age 14) mentioned that he felt very uncomfortable sitting next to his mom and watching that.  He wanted to know if my kids felt the same and whether I had said anything about it.

Just thought I'd put that out there for those who assume young people aren't even noticing or having feelings about these things unless misogynistic / racist adults tell them they should.

Don’t your kids attend a private, religious school? Nothing wrong with that but the perspectives certainly wouldn’t reflect the general population.

[Sneezyone]

4 hours ago, Quill said:

In the end, I ask myself this question: what benefit is it to (whomever - J-Lo, Fox News female anchors, Miley Cyrus - whomever) to dress in particular revealing clothes...

Making money can be very rewarding. Showing off the physique you worked hard for can be very gratifying. It wasn’t a thong for Pete’s sake it was a body suit so there was no crack encroachment or discomfort for the wearer. Personally, I enjoy looking at eye candy (I look, don’t touch) and don’t mind being eye candy for someone else. I’m never gonna be cool with looking like a ragamuffin in an effort to help some other woman feel secure or empowered. DH seeks to please me and I him, visually and in every other way.

Edited February 10, 2020 by Sneezyone

[KungFuPanda]

5 hours ago, Quill said:

 

But isn’t it up to those women (we women) who do have a modicum of power to refuse to participate in the sale of our bodies for visual jollies? Isn’t it up to us - those of us with some power to choose what we will or will not participate in - to refuse? Because the trafficked women and the porn-industry victims have little to no power to refuse. 

I would say we are many decades, in the very best-case scenario, if it is even a possible future, from a point where women’s bodies are not commodified. But the day to decide not to participate in that commodification, for those of us with the power to decline, is now! 

If we think about other ways women have overturned male domination for our benefit, it took first the stronger women, those with more power, to refuse to go along with what the guys wanted. When the suffragists were trying to get the right to vote, I’m sure there were many women who were told something like, “Look, honey. You don’t want the responsibility of voting. You would be distracted from the family life you love by trying to stay informed on politics. Leave the messy political world to us men.” Same with earning and controlling our own wealth or getting college degrees or entering demanding and difficult fields. There have always been people ready to tell us we don’t want to have the stress and difficulty of those things. My own parents did not feel girls had any reason to go to college, except maybe the rare female who was never going to marry or have kids. 

In the end, I ask myself this question: what benefit is it to (whomever - J-Lo, Fox News female anchors, Miley Cyrus - whomever) to dress in particular revealing clothes or perform in a particular way or wear shoes that torture their feet? If they are doing/wearing those things because that’s what our culture deems sexy then how can it be said they are “choosing” it and how could anyone expect or hope that the message has nothing to do with objectification? Because it’s not as though it’s comfortable to wear a sliver of sparkly material on your private parts. It might look sexy to many people when a woman crams her feet into a triangular toe box and pushes her heels up on a skinny spike, but what benefit is it to the wearer of those shoes? 

I think it would be awesome to get to a point in our society where woman can wear whatever without anyone batting an eye, but  IMO, we have to get beyond the current view of what makes a woman attractive = whatever makes her look most f**kable. We’re a long way from that, I think, and my view is performances like this one set us backwards rather than move us forward. 

I think how a woman celebrates her womanhood is entirely up to her. It’s no use pretending that our sexuality isn’t a part of us, and whether you celebrate that public ally, privately, at all, or past the age that Hollywood seems ‘appropriate’ is entirely up to the woman. I don’t believe that the way a woman chooses to express herself or her art form has ANY bearing on how predators act. I don’t think crimes against women are less prevalent in more conservative societies. 

Pole dancing isn’t my thing, and I don’t have to like it, BUT if even a few women were inspired to take a class those women will be healthier for it. We NEED aerobic exercise and weight bearing exercise as we age and if a few soccer moms are encouraged to become a fitter version of themselves because of J-lo’s exhibition, then it’s a positive result. 

Currently I am sewing sequins on a bra that I intend to wear on stage in public for an audience that is 95% women. (Most of the tiny percentage of men who attend/perform are gay.) The sequins, make-up, and exposed midriffs enhance your hip movements and facial expressions so that the audience can get the full effect of the choreography. Nobody wears stage make-up, heels, or costumes during a regular rehearsal and I’m telling you the dressed up final package just enhances the overall performance. This is for a dance form that outsiders THINK is some sexy thing for the benefit of the male gaze, but in reality has always been mainly by and for women to celebrate themselves and what their bodies can do. Dancers love dancing for its own sake and would do it with or without an audience.

As for make-up, some of us would have no face onstage without it. Heck, I have invisible eyelashes and eyebrows so I have no face OFFstage without makeup. Everyone I know who is politically anti-make up has black or brown eyelashes! It’s an easy stance for them to take. 🤣

My point is that there are women who LIKE heels and make-up for themselves. They don’t do it for men. In general, I think men care much less about these things than women do and women, as a group, could do A LOT less in the clothing and make-up department before most men even noticed. There ARE women who don’t define their sexuality within the context of men’s sexuality.  

If we got rid of men entirely, there would still be women who enjoyed make-up, over-the-top clothing, and high heels. I probably dress up more for my girlfriends than I do for my husband! How anyone looks doesn’t matter. It’s how we treat people, especially people who make choices different from ours, that really matters. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, KungFuPanda said:

I think how a woman celebrates her womanhood is entirely up to her. It’s no use pretending that our sexuality isn’t a part of us, and whether you celebrate that public ally, privately, at all, or past the age that Hollywood seems ‘appropriate’ is entirely up to the woman. I don’t believe that the way a woman chooses to express herself or her art form has ANY bearing on how predators act. I don’t think crimes against women are less prevalent in more conservative societies. 

Pole dancing isn’t my thing, and I don’t have to like it, BUT if even a few women were inspired to take a class those women will be healthier for it. We NEED aerobic exercise and weight bearing exercise as we age and if a few soccer moms are encouraged to become a fitter version of themselves because of J-lo’s exhibition, then it’s a positive result. 

Currently I am sewing sequins on a bra that I intend to wear on stage in public for an audience that is 95% women. (Most of the tiny percentage of men who attend/perform are gay.) The sequins, make-up, and exposed midriffs enhance your hip movements and facial expressions so that the audience can get the full effect of the choreography. Nobody wears stage make-up, heels, or costumes during a regular rehearsal and I’m telling you the dressed up final package just enhances the overall performance. This is for a dance form that outsiders THINK is some sexy thing for the benefit of the male gaze, but in reality has always been mainly by and for women to celebrate themselves and what their bodies can do. Dancers love dancing for its own sake and would do it with or without an audience.

As for make-up, some of us would have no face onstage without it. Heck, I have invisible eyelashes and eyebrows so I have no face OFFstage without makeup. Everyone I know who is politically anti-make up has black or brown eyelashes! It’s an easy stance for them to take. 🤣

My point is that there are women who LIKE heels and make-up for themselves. They don’t do it for men. In general, I think men care much less about these things than women do and women, as a group, could do A LOT less in the clothing and make-up department before most men even noticed. There ARE women who don’t define their sexuality within the context of men’s sexuality.  

If we got rid of men entirely, there would still be women who enjoyed make-up, over-the-top clothing, and high heels. I probably dress up more for my girlfriends than I do for my husband! How anyone looks doesn’t matter. It’s how we treat people, especially people who make choices different from ours, that really matters. 

To the first bolded, that is incorrect. Seeing pornographic images changes the brain of the person (man) viewing it. Men who change the neural pathways in their brain in such a manner need those elements for arousal; some do not even have functional arousal unless they see *the thing* that does the job. If *the thing* that does the trick is stripper poles or leather chaps or tying up with ropes and they can’t get that at home, they may get it by way of purchase. Cues about sex have a very powerful effect on the brain - anybody’s brain, but healthy males moreso.

If you’re on a diet, it doesn’t make sense to go into Snickerdoodles bakery - I mean, just don’t even go in the door! - and smell the chocolate and see the beautiful cookies and cupcakes. You’re giving your brain’s reward centers all the cues that those delicious cookies are coming. Sure, through an act of personal strength, perhaps you will leave without busting your eating plan, but life would have been easier if you hadn’t given your brain the cues for eating the goodies to begin with. 

Secondly, sequining a bra for an audience of 95% women and 5% gay men is totally different from doing it for an audience of 55% men middle-aged and younger. Anyway, a sequined bra is no issue for me. My issue was with cameras right up JLo’s butt. I have no issue with belly-dancing. I have considered taking a belly-dancing class (though not recently) because it clearly works your core. 

Lastly, I said nothing about make-up. I wear make-up. Sometimes I waver on whether I should continue to wear makeup or not and truly, I wish I could be a woman who just feels perfectly fine without it. But I don’t. I bought the narrative early in life and I believe I am these things when I don’t wear make-up: tired-looking, ill, blotchy-skinned, non-pretty. In one sense, I could say it has nothing to do with what men think, but on the other, it does due to cultural norms. I’m sure all the times I heard my mother say she needed to go “fix [my] face” or “put [my] face on” did influence me to think that without makeup, her face was not fix, wasn’t even in existence. So yeah, in a way, I wear makeup for myself, but really, I wear it because of cultural expectations. 

High heels would be the same but I quit wearing them a few years ago. I no longer care if they look cute or beautiful. If they hurt my feet they’re a hard no. 

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, StellaM said:

In related news, the Oscars refused to run an ad that showed 1. a woman with a post-partum tummy and 2. a maternity pad (no blood). The ad was promoting a brand that apparently produces products 'to make post-partum more comfortable'.

I wonder why JLo and her graphic form of strip-fun-great-branding is acceptable to the broad community, and an ad that (in a non-graphic way) refers to a common reality of female people (including many of the female people at the Oscars, past, present and future!) is deemed 'offensive'.

Fascinating. 

In an ironic twist, the company, Frida, is based in Miami. Ha! Where the Super Bowl was held! 

[LucyStoner]

44 minutes ago, StellaM said:

In related news, the Oscars refused to run an ad that showed 1. a woman with a post-partum tummy and 2. a maternity pad (no blood). The ad was promoting a brand that apparently produces products 'to make post-partum more comfortable'.

I wonder why JLo and her graphic form of strip-fun-great-branding is acceptable to the broad community, and an ad that (in a non-graphic way) refers to a common reality of female people (including many of the female people at the Oscars, past, present and future!) is deemed 'offensive'.

No argument from me on that. Nor do I wonder about why this is, because the reality lies in the same misogyny that commodifies women’s bodies into a product to be sold.  The reality of women’s bodies are offensive in commercial culture because the commodified female form isn’t based in reality but instead in selling women’s bodies for one specific purpose.  We can’t very well show puffy post partum tummies, linea nigra, stretch marks, sitz bottles, phone book sized maternity pads or anything else that makes it seem that women’s bodies have some other function than men getting their rocks off.  

Even with great fitness, a celebrity like JLo relies on extensive cosmetics, costuming, airbrushing (for print ads anyways) and much more to look like that in a body suit at 50.  We see women postpartum who look runway ready.  Doesn’t mean they *are* “runway ready”, we just see them as such in the right light, at the right angle, with the right props and airbrushing.  

The ad you mention that was rejected was fantastic.  I’m guessing they were also counting on publicity from the rejection.  

[LucyStoner]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

An individual's personal gratification and money-making, however, is not the same thing as empowerment of a discrete segment of society.

And people who indulge in glamorisation of stripping and other forms of sex work in order to feel 'empowered' are engaged in active disempowerment of that discrete segment of society, the one that is vastly over-represented as 'workers' in the sex 'industry'. 

Posters on this very thread can see how this works when they apply it to race; but suddenly it's women and girls and no dice, no solidarity, just cheerleading for a brand  ? Weird.

I don’t buy that sex work or stripping is empowering, or that there’s anything empowering to women in general in a commercial performance for the NFL.  I just also fail to buy the idea that it’s surprising when women’s bodies are on display during a halftime show nor do I ever place the most blame for misogyny on women and girls - it belongs to men.   Cheerleaders for the NFL are grossly underpaid (a lawsuit detailed out that it’s less than minimum wage with the promotional appearances and most of the sexual harassment takes place at those promotional parties and appearances) and subject to a high degree of sexual harassment.  They are required to wear practically nothing every time they perform.  If someone *lets their kids watch football and doesn’t offer a critique of these practices* I will admit to snorting if they find the halftime show objectionable to the point that it shouldn’t be on when kids might be watching.  

[LucyStoner]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

It's not remotely surprising - it's par for the course.

I just don't understand it being called empowering. 

I maybe understand a bit better if the people calling it empowering actually mean 'gratifying' or 'individually satisfying' or 'fun' or 'I wanted to do it so I did'. I just don't see it as systemic empowerment.

We both know that some women have bought into this idea that this type of thing is empowering.  Neither you or I regard it as empowering.  At the end of the day, I can critique the idea that it is empowering to women in general but I can’t really say much about what a woman finds to be personally empowering. 

I think the entire concept of empowerment has been twisted to the point of being meaningless.  

Edited February 11, 2020 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

54 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I think you might be overestimating the involvement of NFL cheerleaders.  As someone who does watch usually 1 football game per week between August and January, I think that out of a 4 hour game, cheerleaders appear on tv approximately 5 minutes total.  And most of those shots are filler going into or coming out of a commercial, where they are standing there shaking pompoms and the camera pans across all of them.  There's essentially no opportunity to discuss a "critique" because no one is seeing them.  It generally takes longer to get from the couch to the bathroom than the cheerleaders appear on screen.  For the majority of people watching football on tv, the cheerleaders are irrlevant.

 

 

 

For a very large percentage of the people watching the Super Bowl, the halftime show is a big part of it.   And I think that does make a difference.  

 

So sure, go ahead and get rid of the cheerleaders.   I don't think that would really have the same impact has having a Super Bowl half time show without pole dancing or wardrobe malfunctions.  

 

As established, I don’t watch football.  When I see clips or the game at the bar cuts to commercial, I have noticed that the cheer leaders are seen then.  When I think football, it’s a clear theme to see the girls on the sidelines.  

There are so, so, so many things that are objectionable about the NFL.  If someone chooses to watch, they can’t pretend to be surprised by the sexual objectification of women, something that is *very much* part of the NFL and not just the cheerleaders.  

As a feminist, and not the fun friendly choice explains everything sort of feminist, it’s on me to raise my sons to reject the culture of misogyny or at least for me to try to do so to the full extent possible.  I couldn’t do that if I wasn’t prepared to critique examples of that misogyny.  I would argue that people watching the SuperBowl are in general condoning practices in the NFL that are far more objectionable than any half time show.  Practices that need to be critiqued and rejected,  

You want impact?  

*Don’t adorn the sidelines with underpaid scantily clad women that are underpaid and subject to sexual harassment while at required work events.  
 

*Don’t tolerate ANY athletes and executives with histories of perpetrating DV or rape.  
 

*Don’t give money to people sustaining a system that engenders life long head injuries of people after short careers.  
 

Buying tickets, merch, watching all equals giving this problematic entity a lot of money.  
 

*Call attention to and seek to address the huge amount of sex trafficking around events like this.
 

while people were busy complaining about JLo’s very short pole dance,  there were, dollars to donuts, women and underage girls in Miami working scores of hospitality suites in hotels to “entertain” and sexually gratify the spectators of this event.  Some problems are just more worrisome, more concerning than what is observed on TV during a half time show.  Shows which are DESIGNED to evoke controversy.  We simply can’t hold someone in JLo’s *more responsible* than the scores of men, uh, actually buying sex.  The super bowl is one of the busiest events for that and we certainly know that women and girls were transported to Miami to meet the demand. 
 

And I completely reject the idea that there’s no time for parents who are football fans to critique the misogyny in the NFL.  Assuming the kids have reached the age to ask questions and discuss values and morality, you just talk to them.  During the commercial,  driving to the game, whatever.  If there’s time to be upset about JLo, there’s time to critique this stuff.  “Hey kids, see those signs for strip clubs we walked by on the way to this stadium?  Yeah, the pictures on those signs are pretty intense.  Here’s why it’s not ok to go in there when you are older...”. “Hey kids, see those women on the sidelines?  The NFL makes gobs of money but these women are paid less than minimum wage for their time.  What do you think about that? Why do you think there aren’t males cheerleading?”

ETA:  I love baseball and have had the strip club convo on the way to the stadium.  I’ve also sat with 4-6 kids at roller derby bouts and discussed why I like that more skaters are wearing pants and skating under the own names. I know, I’m not the fun kinda feminist but I promise my family doesn’t find me tiresome. I work in a good joke or three and I listen to their thoughts and ideas. Granted my sons and nieces and nephews are old enough to chat about a lot of topics but I do think it starts young.  And again, limiting the content our younger kids see is the matter of *parental* responsibility.  

Edited February 11, 2020 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2020/02/10/j-los-pole-dancing-during-the-super-bowl-is-not-benign/

I completely agree.  I’m not saying it’s benign.  I’ve read way too much Dworkin for anyone to mistake me for the sort of feminist that espouses that sex work is empowering for women.  I’m saying that if someone is down with the NFL but upset about this half time show, they are basically part of the same problem.  “I’ll watch this event and stuff cotton in my ears about the sex trafficking supported by it but I don’t want my sons to see this!”  That will always ring hollow for me.  

Edited February 11, 2020 by LucyStoner

[SKL]

The comments about the cheerleaders ... most teams' cheerleaders aren't controversial (some may be).  And they are barely seen at all.  I watched football for years and cannot remember one single cheerleader scene that was worthy of a second look, except for the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders who were intentionally in the spotlight.

I watched the super bowl from partway into the halftime show to the end of the game.  I did not notice one single second of cheerleader footage.

I am not a fan of any woman advertising her body, whether on the sidelines or on a stage.  But ...  For someone who doesn't watch football to argue that the cheerleaders are such a big deal that football is basically a sex industry?  That's like saying Panera is basically a community bulletin board.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

I don’t buy that sex work or stripping is empowering, or that there’s anything empowering to women in general in a commercial performance for the NFL.  I just also fail to buy the idea that it’s surprising when women’s bodies are on display during a halftime show nor do I ever place the most blame for misogyny on women and girls - it belongs to men.   Cheerleaders for the NFL are grossly underpaid (a lawsuit detailed out that it’s less than minimum wage with the promotional appearances and most of the sexual harassment takes place at those promotional parties and appearances) and subject to a high degree of sexual harassment.  They are required to wear practically nothing every time they perform.  If someone *lets their kids watch football and doesn’t offer a critique of these practices* I will admit to snorting if they find the halftime show objectionable to the point that it shouldn’t be on when kids might be watching.  

You do make a fair point there. 

I personally don’t like football and practically never watch, no matter the game. Going forward, I don’t expect to watch any part of Super Bowl. 

I don’t like much about the history of cheerleading, but it seems to me they are hardly ever shown on TV for more than a second. I could be happy if they do away with the whole practice, but I don’t see scantily-clad cheerleaders as the same as a featured performer. But yeah, I would be happy to see it go as well. 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, StellaM said:

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2020/02/10/j-los-pole-dancing-during-the-super-bowl-is-not-benign/

This is terrific. It is a perfect summary of my view of this event. 

[ktgrok]

13 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

And people who indulge in glamorisation of stripping and other forms of sex work in order to feel 'empowered' are engaged in active disempowerment of that discrete segment of society, the one that is vastly over-represented as 'workers' in the sex 'industry'. 

 

Totally agree. 

 

13 hours ago, StellaM said:

In related news, the Oscars refused to run an ad that showed 1. a woman with a post-partum tummy and 2. a maternity pad (no blood). The ad was promoting a brand that apparently produces products 'to make post-partum more comfortable'.

I wonder why JLo and her graphic form of strip-fun-great-branding is acceptable to the broad community, and an ad that (in a non-graphic way) refers to a common reality of female people (including many of the female people at the Oscars, past, present and future!) is deemed 'offensive'.

Because women are for use, not human beings, in the eyes of advertising execs. 

9 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

 

while people were busy complaining about JLo’s very short pole dance,  there were, dollars to donuts, women and underage girls in Miami working scores of hospitality suites in hotels to “entertain” and sexually gratify the spectators of this event.  Some problems are just more worrisome, more concerning than what is observed on TV during a half time show.  Shows which are DESIGNED to evoke controversy.  We simply can’t hold someone in JLo’s *more responsible* than the scores of men, uh, actually buying sex.  The super bowl is one of the busiest events for that and we certainly know that women and girls were transported to Miami to meet the demand. 
 

And I completely reject the idea that there’s no time for parents who are football fans to critique the misogyny in the NFL.  Assuming the kids have reached the age to ask questions and discuss values and morality, you just talk to them.  During the commercial,  driving to the game, whatever.  If there’s time to be upset about JLo, there’s time to critique this stuff.  “Hey kids, see those signs for strip clubs we walked by on the way to this stadium?  Yeah, the pictures on those signs are pretty intense.  Here’s why it’s not ok to go in there when you are older...”. “Hey kids, see those women on the sidelines?  The NFL makes gobs of money but these women are paid less than minimum wage for their time.  What do you think about that? Why do you think there aren’t males cheerleading?”

ETA:  I love baseball and have had the strip club convo on the way to the stadium.  I’ve also sat with 4-6 kids at roller derby bouts and discussed why I like that more skaters are wearing pants and skating under the own names. I know, I’m not the fun kinda feminist but I promise my family doesn’t find me tiresome. I work in a good joke or three and I listen to their thoughts and ideas. Granted my sons and nieces and nephews are old enough to chat about a lot of topics but I do think it starts young.  And again, limiting the content our younger kids see is the matter of *parental* responsibility.  

Ok, no, I don't think it is appropriate to discuss strip clubs and sex workers with my 1st grade son. YMMV.

And having the conversation wouldn't make that thing ok. Just like having a conversation about the halftime show and why I feel it isn't appropriate wouldn't mean I was happy to see it. 

I can care about a ton of other things, from climate change to sex trafficking and still feel that parts of the halftime show (not all of it) were more appropriate to a non prime time slot. I'm allowed to feel it was inappropriate and care about other things. 

[Scarlett]

17 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

I think how a woman celebrates her womanhood is entirely up to her. It’s no use pretending that our sexuality isn’t a part of us, and whether you celebrate that public ally, privately, at all, or past the age that Hollywood seems ‘appropriate’ is entirely up to the woman. I don’t believe that the way a woman chooses to express herself or her art form has ANY bearing on how predators act. I don’t think crimes against women are less prevalent in more conservative societies. 

Pole dancing isn’t my thing, and I don’t have to like it, BUT if even a few women were inspired to take a class those women will be healthier for it. We NEED aerobic exercise and weight bearing exercise as we age and if a few soccer moms are encouraged to become a fitter version of themselves because of J-lo’s exhibition, then it’s a positive result. 

Currently I am sewing sequins on a bra that I intend to wear on stage in public for an audience that is 95% women. (Most of the tiny percentage of men who attend/perform are gay.) The sequins, make-up, and exposed midriffs enhance your hip movements and facial expressions so that the audience can get the full effect of the choreography. Nobody wears stage make-up, heels, or costumes during a regular rehearsal and I’m telling you the dressed up final package just enhances the overall performance. This is for a dance form that outsiders THINK is some sexy thing for the benefit of the male gaze, but in reality has always been mainly by and for women to celebrate themselves and what their bodies can do. Dancers love dancing for its own sake and would do it with or without an audience.

As for make-up, some of us would have no face onstage without it. Heck, I have invisible eyelashes and eyebrows so I have no face OFFstage without makeup. Everyone I know who is politically anti-make up has black or brown eyelashes! It’s an easy stance for them to take. 🤣

My point is that there are women who LIKE heels and make-up for themselves. They don’t do it for men. In general, I think men care much less about these things than women do and women, as a group, could do A LOT less in the clothing and make-up department before most men even noticed. There ARE women who don’t define their sexuality within the context of men’s sexuality.  

If we got rid of men entirely, there would still be women who enjoyed make-up, over-the-top clothing, and high heels. I probably dress up more for my girlfriends than I do for my husband! How anyone looks doesn’t matter. It’s how we treat people, especially people who make choices different from ours, that really matters. 

To the bolded....I now have a entire new image of you in my mind. 😉

I think I you should post a  clip of you in this performance. 

[LucyStoner]

3 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Totally agree. 

 

Because women are for use, not human beings, in the eyes of advertising execs. 

Ok, no, I don't think it is appropriate to discuss strip clubs and sex workers with my 1st grade son. YMMV.

And having the conversation wouldn't make that thing ok. Just like having a conversation about the halftime show and why I feel it isn't appropriate wouldn't mean I was happy to see it. 

I can care about a ton of other things, from climate change to sex trafficking and still feel that parts of the halftime show (not all of it) were more appropriate to a non prime time slot. I'm allowed to feel it was inappropriate and care about other things. 

Conversations with boys who are being raised in a misogynistic culture must start early or before you know it, you have a son who participates in a misogynistic culture.  You also have a teenage son Katie and if these conversations don’t start, it opens them up for all sorts of nonsense.  Just like anything else, there are different ways to broach the subject when it comes up that are more or less age appropriate.  I’m not going to discuss a strip club with a six year old.  I will let a 6 year old hear me discuss with his older brother why underpaid scantily clad women dancers are not an ok addition to our recreational choices.  These conversations can’t really come out of nowhere. There’s a reason my older son didn’t fall for MRA type logic online as a teenager with a profile otherwise vulnerable to their machinations.  

ETA: Last weekend, over brunch the random topic was why it’s not ok for teen boys to ask for or receive sexually explicit pictures of teen girls. When *Middle school girls* are being harassed by boys at school *for nudes*, it’s incumbent on me to make sure that not only are my sons not only never going to do that, they will be about to be tell other boys to not do that.  If I have had to had these conversations with my nieces when they are 11-14 years old, I sure the heck can’t delude my self into thinking my 11 year old son is too young to learn how we do and do not treat people.  

Edited February 11, 2020 by LucyStoner

[ktgrok]

15 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

Conversations with boys who are being raised in a misogynistic culture must start early or before you know it, you have a son who participates in a misogynistic culture.  You also have a teenage son Katie and if these conversations don’t start, it opens them up for all sorts of nonsense.  Just like anything else, there are different ways to broach the subject when it comes up that are more or less age appropriate.  I’m not going to discuss a strip club with a six year old.  I will let a 6 year old hear me discuss with his older brother why underpaid scantily clad women dancers are not an ok addition to our recreational choices.  These conversations can’t really come out of nowhere. There’s a reason my older son didn’t fall for MRA type logic online as a teenager with a profile otherwise vulnerable to their machinations.  

ETA: Last weekend, over brunch the random topic was why it’s not ok for teen boys to ask for or receive sexually explicit pictures of teen girls. When *Middle school girls* are being harassed by boys at school *for nudes*, it’s incumbent on me to make sure that not only are my sons not only never going to do that, they will be about to be tell other boys to not do that.  If I have had to had these conversations with my nieces when they are 11-14 years old, I sure the heck can’t delude my self into thinking my 11 year old son is too young to learn how we do and do not treat people.  

Oh - sure. And teen boy wasn't in the room, although later I absolutely did discuss it with him. 

and I did have a less specific conversation with the 6 yr old about something similar. And we talk about consent A LOT, and about people having inherent dignity/worth, etc. 

Honestly, I'm not opposed to the hard conversations, but that doens' mean I think it was a good show for prime time. That's all. 

[LucyStoner]

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Oh - sure. And teen boy wasn't in the room, although later I absolutely did discuss it with him. 

and I did have a less specific conversation with the 6 yr old about something similar. And we talk about consent A LOT, and about people having inherent dignity/worth, etc. 

Honestly, I'm not opposed to the hard conversations, but that doens' mean I think it was a good show for prime time. That's all. 

There are all sorts of shows on during prime time that are not 6 year old appropriate.  I actually can’t think of one program that is on during prime time that I would let my 6 year old watch.  Maybe the more family geared sitcoms but it’s my understanding that most prime time TV is more like crime and medical drama.  
 

ETA: here’s the lineup for prime time from the fall.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/fall-tv-primetime-lineup-schedule-dates-1455039%3famp=1
 

I suppose I would let my 6 year old watch the Voice, Shark Tank and maybe Mixed-ish.  Most of those programs are a solid NOPE for me for that age bracket.  Most of these aren’t things I would let my 11 year old watch.  One thing I like about streaming is that I can prescreen the stuff younger kids want to watch.  Also, no commercials which I find often have sexism and other problems.  

Edited February 11, 2020 by LucyStoner

[KungFuPanda]

On 2/11/2020 at 8:54 AM, Scarlett said:

To the bolded....I now have a entire new image of you in my mind. 😉

I think I you should post a  clip of you in this performance. 

Don't be too impressed.  I'm considering adding a body cover to this costume.  I think it's time to "dress my age" and in bellydance that means gradually covering a bit more each year.  I'm gravitating more towards the dresses as I approach 50.  I totally get J-Lo's  Superbowl costumes.  They were revealing while also cleverly concealing those middle-aged spread trouble areas.  Flesh-toned performance fabric is your FRIEND.

[Momto6inIN]

On 2/11/2020 at 7:54 AM, Scarlett said:

To the bolded....I now have a entire new image of you in my mind. 😉

I think I you should post a  clip of you in this performance. 

 

10 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

Don't be too impressed.  I'm considering adding a body cover to this costume.  I think it's time to "dress my age" and in bellydance that means gradually covering a bit more each year.  I'm gravitating more towards the dresses as I approach 50.  I totally get J-Lo's  Superbowl costumes.  They were revealing while also cleverly concealing those middle-aged spread trouble areas.  Flesh-toned performance fabric is your FRIEND.

I keep picturing Po from Kung Fu Panda belly dancing and it's cracking me up 🤣

I'm absolutely positive you look better than that!

[Murphy101]

I do not have much respect for professional sports for many years.  The drugs, the abuse of women by players, and more was a turn off long before the halftime shows became controversial.  I no longer watch the games.

As for the controversy, I tend to think it is all false outrage when people who claim outrage also did not immediately turn off the tv or get up to leave. They can either put their morals where their mouth is or get over it as far as I’m concerned. I guarantee that if everyone who claimed outrage had turned it off or left, that would have been the last half time burlesque show.  But it won’t be.