Is this really what feminism is now?

[ChangeAndChance]

With the uncomfortably high amount of songs about the female posterior floating around at the top of the Billboard Hot 100 right now, I have been noticing a number of feminist "critiques" popping up supporting songs like Nicki Minaj's Anaconda, saying that they are actually very feminist despite giving an initial impression of the ultra objectification of women. They claim this is the case because the song's lyrics are based around Minaj being empowered by using her sexuality to control her man. So my question to you guys is this: is there any substance to this argument or is it just patriarchal apologetics? Since when did Emma Goldman and Nicki Minaj have anything ideologically in common? Will the ass shaking ever end?

[trickster]

I think sexuality in some way or another should be a part of the feminist movement, as it is important to empower women so that they feel safe and comfortable setting boundaries and expressing their sexuality as something more than 'I'm just here to please a man'. It is important for women to own their sexuality, and it is important that that ownership, and our right to express it, be respected.

But the problem is, when women are portrayed in media and especially music videos, it's all about the sex. There's no depth to them, not really. Society is encouraged to look at us as sex objects because that's all they see. We're portrayed as being there strictly for the pleasure of men, our lives are shown to revolve around men, we're shown to be dependent on men.

Because of that context, I don't think songs like Anaconda empower women at all, because they just continue to play into the patriarchal idea that women are worth nothing more than the value of our bodies. It continues the objectification of women. Minaj really isn't empowered, she's still fulfilling the patriarch's fantasy. She only has the ability to 'control the guy' because she fits what the guy wants her to be and she's available to him, if that makes sense. She's not really in control, she's still an object.

I don't think Anaconda and similar songs are the worst stuff out there, but I don't feel comfortable with the lyrics either, personally.

[Illegalitarian]

Minaj is no feminist crusader, but she's also not "setting women back a thousand years" or being "a determent to women everywhere" or whatever the junior temperance movement is claiming these days.

She herself is finding empowerment in what she does. This however does not make the act inherently empowering and doesn't take away from the fact that she is perpetuating a part of our culture that is, indeed, sexist.

[Rosa Partizan]

you can't put the finger on single persons and events, cause this is taking away from the bigger picture which is patriarchy. In this system, women like Minaj, Cyrus etc are just replaceable pawns. If they don't get objectified, other women from other record companies will. Of course, if you want to explain the system and its mechanisms, you can take these as examples of how women would be buying into patriarchie's fairy tale of being empowered by being sexually objectified and commodified by men. As long as women grow up with the belief that the best they can achieve is being desired by plenty of men, there will always be women in the spotlight exposing a patriarchal version of "their" sexuality to the male gaze.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Will the ass shaking ever end?

Asses will continue to be shook into the indefinite future.


Minaj is no feminist crusader, but she's also not "setting women back a thousand years" or being "a determent to women everywhere" or whatever the junior temperance movement is claiming these days.

Hahahaha, the "junior temperance movement". I like that.

I don't think what she's doing is anything particularly special in any regard, either in the + or the - column. Entertainers who attempt to use sexuality to "push the envelope" in this society are mostly uninteresting, though, because no one in today's world is shocked by any of that, except the most sanctimonious of talking heads.

But basically the logic of having to "control" someone in order to feel empowered or have meaning in life, that to me is the opposite of empowerment. Because ultimately that's still based on your status in another person's eyes.

[Illegalitarian]

But basically the logic of having to "control" someone in order to feel empowered or have meaning in life, that to me is the opposite of empowerment. Because ultimately that's still based on your status in another person's eyes.

I agree. I think that the empowerment of women in this regard isn't "empowerment" in the sense that they're actually rising above patriarchy, but rather, they're standing up to ideas of how a woman is supposed to act, patriarchal notions of what is "lady like" and what have you.

I think the idea of empowerment here coming through dominating someone just comes from misogynistic notions of "making someone your *****" or "owning them". I get that BDSM is a legitimate kink, I'm not kinkshaming, it's just that the notion of sexuality being about dominance is pretty fucked up.

So in that regard I think that through their own sexuality women can find empowerment on that level, but if dialectics don't break bricks, ass shaking doesn't fight patriarchy. I think that's the issue the second wave fems have, seeing sexuality as being dominated by patriarchal notions and thus only something to be shunned, rather than seeing it as the only venue some women have to explore their own sexuality with, even if it is all taking place within a very misogynist and sexist context.

The same way I won't bemoan someone rising up somehow and becoming financially successful in life. Capitalism, patriarchy, we're all being forced to play the game, so why not try and exploit it?

[Rosa Partizan]

I agree. I think that the empowerment of women in this regard isn't "empowerment" in the sense that they're actually rising above patriarchy, but rather, they're standing up to ideas of how a woman is supposed to act, patriarchal notions of what is "lady like" and what have you.

I think the idea of empowerment here coming through dominating someone just comes from misogynistic notions of "making someone your *****" or "owning them". I get that BDSM is a legitimate kink, I'm not kinkshaming, it's just that the notion of sexuality being about dominance is pretty fucked up.

So in that regard I think that through their own sexuality women can find empowerment on that level, but if dialectics don't break bricks, ass shaking doesn't fight patriarchy. I think that's the issue the second wave fems have, seeing sexuality as being dominated by patriarchal notions and thus only something to be shunned, rather than seeing it as the only venue some women have to explore their own sexuality with, even if it is all taking place within a very misogynist and sexist context.

The same way I won't bemoan someone rising up somehow and becoming financially successful in life. Capitalism, patriarchy, we're all being forced to play the game, so why not try and exploit it?

Are you just trolling or something? I've never encountered anything like that. We can't escape patriarchy by denying to have sex. We can question our own preferences, we can question that whole BDSM trend that it rising up, we can be critical of all of it, but no one ever - apart from maybe some very rare nutjobs - said "avoid sexuality/having sex". I consider myself extremely "sex-positive" (not in that libfem sense) saying "try to find out what YOU personally like, what makes YOU feel good and comfortable and claim it! Go for a person that cares for your sexual fulfillment." This doesn't automatically mean that you can ignore patriarchal notions of satisfying sexuality, which in the end means that also radfems often have sexual preferences that are propagated by patriarchy. They just question it more, which doesn't mean they shun it.

[Illegalitarian]

Are you just trolling or something? I've never encountered anything like that. We can't escape patriarchy by denying to have sex. We can question our own preferences, we can question that whole BDSM trend that it rising up, we can be critical of all of it, but no one ever - apart from maybe some very rare nutjobs - said "avoid sexuality/having sex". I consider myself extremely "sex-positive" (not in that libfem sense) saying "try to find out what YOU personally like, what makes YOU feel good and comfortable and claim it! Go for a person that cares for your sexual fulfillment." This doesn't automatically mean that you can ignore patriarchal notions of satisfying sexuality, which in the end means that also radfems often have sexual preferences that are propagated by patriarchy. They just question it more, which doesn't mean they shun it.

I mean sexuality in the sense of partaking in openly sexually explicit practices, such as what Minaj does, not sex in and of itself.

It seems to be a dominant radfem position, that avoiding "sexy" culture or what have you is important and that nothing good can come from partaking in it, is what I'm specifically criticizing.

[Rosa Partizan]

sexy is a difficult term because the widespread definition of what is perceived as sexy is what patriarchy makes us believe is sexy. "Sexy" is not being fat and hairy as a woman and twerking as a fat and hairy woman won't be called sexy within mainstream. There is no homogenous position on how radfems should be giving in to "being sexy" or not. There are definitely many radfems that don't conform to the "ordinary" sexyness and that are not willing to perform in any way for the male gaze. But at the end of the day, these are individual decisions. I applaud every woman that gives a fuck about mainstream sexyness and sexy performance, I personally like to be "mainstream sexy" (and I know I am, I also know that the confidence I gained from being so is not REALLY empowering in the sense of defying power structures) and just because I realized about patriarchy, male gaze, objectification etc, doesn't mean I stop doing all the stuff I did way before I realized all of it. On the other hand, not performing in all of this doesn't mean you can't be sexy, it's just not fulfilling the patriarchal definition of "sexy". Sorry my language somehow sucks today.

[Illegalitarian]

sexy is a difficult term because the widespread definition of what is perceived as sexy is what patriarchy makes us believe is sexy. "Sexy" is not being fat and hairy as a woman and twerking as a fat and hairy woman won't be called sexy within mainstream. There is no homogenous position on how radfems should be giving in to "being sexy" or not. There are definitely many radfems that don't conform to the "ordinary" sexyness and that are not willing to perform in any way for the male gaze. But at the end of the day, these are individual decisions. I applaud every woman that gives a fuck about mainstream sexyness and sexy performance, I personally like to be "mainstream sexy" (and I know I am, I also know that the confidence I gained from being so is not REALLY empowering in the sense of defying power structures) and just because I realized about patriarchy, male gaze, objectification etc, doesn't mean I stop doing all the stuff I did way before I realized all of it. On the other hand, not performing in all of this doesn't mean you can't be sexy, it's just not fulfilling the patriarchal definition of "sexy". Sorry my language somehow sucks today.

Nah, I understand and agree with pretty much all of what you just said.

I think something was merely lost in translation before:confused:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

An aside - if there's a discussion to have about Anaconda, I think it should acknowledge the specific dynamics of race and patriarchy. The bodies of racialized women are sexualized and appropriated in v. specific ways.

Anyway, if anything - and I think I'm echoing some earlier posters here, if not explicitly - insofar as mass capitalist culture is necessarily patriarchal, there's less to be said about individual women within it than about the necessity of creating anti-capitalist feminist culture from the grassroots.

[The Disillusionist]

Feminism is an ideology, it doesn't change (at least not in the sense we are talking about here). What you are talking about is interpretations of that ideology. This may sound pedantic, but it's important to remember that feminism now has the same framework as it did in the past, and arguing about interpretations doesn't threaten that in any way. I'm not addressing any particular poster here, just trying to preemptively cut off some of the more cliche arguments you see in threads like these.

That being said, using your body with the express purpose of being exploited is not what I would call empowering in the least. Minaj is literally using her body as a marketing object. That kind of behavior, as has been said, only reinforces the patriarchy. Disclaimer: I'm a guy, so consider that perspective as you will.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I will say, though, that there is at least one thing we can all agree on....

"Anaconda" is a terrible song.

[Rosa Partizan]

"Anaconda" is a terrible song.

I would go so far as to side with libfems on this serious issue.