Monday, 18 November 2013

Sexualization, Exploitation, And Black Female Celebrities: On The Subtle Womanism of Rihanna and Nicki Minaj


I've been thinking about writing this post for a while. It was originally conceived as an examination of the "Stripper Anthem" as presented by Nicki Minaj and Rihanna in Beez In The Trap and Pour It Up, as it related to the sexuality and sexualization of black women, but after last week's post on Lily Allen, and some of the... ill-informed responses it received, I realized that there is a different conversation that needs to be had first.

That conversation is about the distinction between the exploitation of black women's sexuality for the (white) male consumerist gaze, and a black female celebrity's reclamation of her own sexuality on her own terms. For whatever reason, there seems to some difficulty in grasping the concept that the most significant difference between these two scenarios is agency, and the way in which the presence or lack of agency determines how a display of sexuality is to be perceived and received.

To that end, I want to examine the images presented in the aforementioned videos, deconstruct them, and demonstrate why despite popular belief, their respective "stripper anthems" are anything but demeaning.



Let's start with Rihanna's Pour It Up video:


In this video, Rihanna sits on a throne, minimally clothed and singing about her wealth, while shots of dancing strippers are interspersed throughout. The most significant thing about the positioning of this video to me, is that the dancers are never fetishized. There is no slapping of asses or pandering to the male gaze. Instead, the strippers are given their own scenes, and allowed to show their skills, independent of a specific sexual context.

Additionally, there is a concentrated effort to equalize Rihanna with her dancers. Rihanna is in a similar state of undress to the other women, (removing the dynamic of power that would exist by virtue of being more clothed) and she also participates in the twerking. At no point in the video are the other women used as dancing decoration to her person.

Noticeably, large sections of the video are shot in a way as to obscure the identity of the woman onscreen, almost literally morphing Rihanna into one of the strippers, and removing the dividing line between them. The viewer is tasked with determining where the blurring of the lines begins and ends, as Rihanna places herself on identical footing with her dancers. She acknowledges here that they are all black women, and that they exist in the same racialiazed social space. Here, the sexualization of black women is participatory, not derogatory.

For much of the video, Rihanna is also seated on a gold-plated throne. She also "makes it rain" with dollar bills printed with her face on it. To me, this, coupled with the rest of the video indicate that Rihanna acknowledges her power, independence and wealth, but uses that wealth and power not to exploit other women, but to participate in their activities. Rather than have other women dance for her, she dances with other women.

Lastly, notice that isn't a single man in the entire video. In Pour It Up, Rihanna deprioritizes the male gaze not by replacing it, but by disregarding it entirely. This video is a celebration of black female sexuality in and of itself; its relationship to other contexts is completely ignored. Here, Rihanna explores the way in which black female sexuality exists independently of outside pressures, expectations and codifiers. The women in this video are being sexual for themselves and are not performing for the gratification of men.

*****
And now, Nicki Minaj's Beez In The Trap:


In Beez In The Trap,  Nicki Minaj is presumably at a strip club endorsing the strippers. Like Rihanna, Nicki Minaj is also in a similar state of undress as the other women (in the scenes where they are together), which goes a long way in equalizing them.

Additionally, while there are men in this video, you will notice that they are rarely in scenes that Nicki is not also in. Nicki is shown not only as equal to the strippers, but also as sexy and sexualized, and yet still equal to her male peers. (While said peers remain mostly removed from the circumstances of sexualizing the women.)

I also think it significant that even though Nicki is scantily clad for most of the video, her agency is never in question. Even in scenes where she is in a bikini while the men are fully clothed, she is still very obviously dominating the "conversation". She is still in charge. She stands ahead of the men in turn, and there is no question that she is the one with the overt power in the equation.

In this video, there are also many many shots of women simply enjoying themselves in the club. Not necessarily being sexy or sexualized, but simply dancing and having fun without men by their sides. In addition, while there are several close-ups of women's body parts, I think that contrary to my first reading, that these shots are not for male titillation, but for female titillation. The men are so sparse in the video and the women so plentiful that I think those shots were a specific nod to the sexual context of women with other women.

Following that, there is a lot of overt woman on woman sexualization. Nicki is seen engaging sexually with the other women in the video in a way that the men are not. Again, the expressions of sexuality are participatory. Here, the video subverts the male gaze, not by having Nicki take the place of men, but by having her and the women engaging in and enjoying their own and each other's sexuality. It is an acknowledgement of the fluidity of sexuality and the sexual attraction that can exist between women. Once again, black female sexuality exists outside the context of third party sexualization, and is presented as something desirable in and of itself.

*****

There is very important difference between having your sexuality exploited for the appeasement of a third party (who is profiting off that exploitation), and engaging with your sexuality on your own terms. For black women, (whose bodies have historically been the scene of violent sexual abuse in the face of a denial of their very humanity) to reclaim their sexuality on their own terms is a revolutionary act.

Because of the lingering stereotypes that exist about black womanhood and the way in which it supposedly goes hand in hand with "crass" and "demeaning" sexuality, black women are often left fighting for the right to not be seen as sexual beings. The expectation that our bodies are inherently available for sexual consumption means that we are denied the individuality to disengage from the sexual conversation should we choose to do so. It means that our bodies are expected to always be accessible to whomever feels entitled to them. It means that we are presumed to be promiscuous sluts and whores, regardless of our actual level of sexual activity.

This expectation is so ingrained, that many black women are left to self police their actions or deny themselves access to their own sexuality as a means to be seen as human first, and have their sexuality be seen as a function of that humanity. For a black women, reclaiming her sexuality is often a luxury she cannot afford; there will always be consequences, both personal and professional.

For Rihanna and Nicki Minaj to essentially say in turn with these videos, "Fuck you. I'm black AND I am a sexual being who enjoys her body and her sex, and I don't give a shit what you think about it." is a big fucking deal. And even in their celebrity they are not immune to the slut-shaming that the average black woman who did the same would face. Rihanna was famously the subject of a Daily Mail article that accused her of being a bad role model to young girls because of her frequent public displays of her sexuality. The caveat of course is that both women have the class privilege to remain fairly insulated from the criticism, and are able to incorporate this perception into their respective popular images. That is a luxury that the average black woman likely doesn't have.

When it comes to Lily Allen and Miley Cyrus, and their exploitation of black female bodies comes down to the power dynamic that is borne out of their whiteness in relation to their dancers' blackness. In both cases, Lily and Miley tried to make a point about their own sexual agency by creating a dichotomy between their "good"sex and black women's "bad" sex, and playing into existing racist tropes about black sexuality for their own benefit. The issue isn't that either woman tried to lay claim to female sexuality; it's that by consciously distinguishing themselves from black womanhood and sexuality, they purposefully excluded black woman from that same claim to agency. It is not okay for white women to relegate black bodies to the background and reduce them to props as a ploy to elevate their own sexuality.

And no, it's not as simple as saying "black women should just stop taking those jobs". It is unfair to try to make a victim complicit in their own oppression, when in reality they are simply navigating a system that disadvantages them in the best way they know how. For an aspiring WoC in the entertainment industry there are a severely limited number of jobs available. On top of that, they are held to an unfair higher standard in order to be considered qualified. On top of that, often the only roles that they are even considered for are the ones that require them to portray stereotypically negative caricatures of black women. It's no wonder that recent study found that there are more negative depictions of black women in popular media than positive ones.

Due to the myth of scarcity, competition for opportunities is fierce, which means that even if one woman takes a stand, there is always someone who is willing to do the same job, for less, just to be able to get their foot in the door. In the meantime, WoC #1 is now blackballed from the industry for being a "troublemaker." There's no way to win. Either you take less than savory positions now, with the possibility of a payoff later, or you take no jobs, and shut yourself out of industry opportunities altogether.

Conversely, to say that a black woman being sexual or expressing sexuality in public is automatically equal  to "exploiting themselves" is to deny them agency. White women reclaiming their sexuality has always been accepted as revolutionary (see: Madonna, Lady Gaga). People (and white feminists) hail that act as progressive. But for a black woman (and all WoC) to do the same, it is treated as dirty and crass. There is a very distinct racialized reaction to the two scenarios.

Take for example the constant juxtaposition between Lena Dunham and Beyoncé as feminist. White feminists love Lena and continue to support and praise her even in the face of her multiple intersectionality fails. Her decision to be fully naked on her show, in almost every episode, while not being rail thin, is hailed as a step forward for women everywhere. And yet, Beyoncé's tour costumes are deemed to be too skimpy, or too slutty. Beyoncé IN CLOTHING is deemed more provocative and "indecent" than Lena Dunham, fully naked and simulating sex onscreen, by nature of her being in a black body. And for this, Beyoncé's "feminist credentials" are threatened if not revoked. Never mind that Lena Dunham set a show in contemporary New York and failed to include even one regular character of colour. Meanwhile, 90% Beyoncé's tour staff are WoC, (even her concert photographer!) showing that she is committed to using her influence as one of the world's biggest pop stars to open up opportunities in show business to the WoC who come after her. But Lena Dunham is a better feminist.

Women of colour are consistently held to higher standard of respectability when it comes to their public displays of sexuality than white women. Take JLo's costume during her performance on The X-Factor, and the ensuing outrage, and contrast that with Miley's outfit during her performance at that EMA's, and the reaction that followed. Let's not even get into the fact that Lily Allen's reference to women as "bitches" constitutes a "pop feminist anthem you can play at parties" while Beyoncé's Bow Down is "degrading to women."

To wrap things up, I personally consider Rihanna and Nicki Minaj (and Beyoncé!) to be much better at transmitting feminist/womanist values through their music than most white high profile female celebrities who are considered to be feminist. Their music and imagery recognizes, embraces and deconstructs the way in which BW have a different relationship to sexuality than WW because of historical context, while reclaiming that sexuality through a narrative that is both widely empowering and personal. To me, their work does an excellent job of presenting black female sexuality as something that can be enjoyed, experienced and celebrated without denigration.


15 comments:

  1. Hello, I came back to read as promised ;)
    I have a little trouble understanding what you mean, and that's certainly because I'm not american. It's like you're both trying, black and white, to carve your "differences" in marble, and forever. When those differences, especially those concerning your sexualities, are just big fat clichés invented by white people centuries ago. Because frankly, who invented that nonsense that there would be a black sexuality and a white sexuality?
    Using a cliché and turning it into a value isn't empowerment, it's just reinforcing the cliché! It's just like what i told you on the other post, being proud of being a so-called gangsta reinforces the cliché that black people can only succeed if they're gangsters (and for women, strippers. yay).
    When you talk about choice, you can't forget the context! You are in a white dominated culture, and the part you're playing in this society has been decided for you. It's not about calling black sexuality "dirty", it's about cornering you in a definition of your sexuality you've never decided, and then calling it dirty. And if you continue playing by those rules this will never stop.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I definitely loved how you distinguished between being sexual for the attention of the white male gaze and owning your sexuality and being sexual for yourself. Honestly, I feel I can tell when someone is being sexual because they own their sexuality and WANT to be sexual (Rihanna, Nicki, Jessie J) and someone being sexual because of the pressure of pleasing the male gaze (i.e. Britney Spears...I remember she recently had an interview where she stated she felt like she had to be sexual, but she didn't want to be that way in her video). There is nothing wrong with reclaiming your sexuality as your own. However it is a problem when a woman does it out of a conscious or often times subconscious response to the pressure of upholding certain values and stereotypes.



    I also absolutely agree with you when you mentioned how Beyonce (and Rihanna) are vilified for "disgracing" feminism (how, Idk, last time I checked feminism about being who you want to be as a woman, not a set of values, and that goes both ways), but Miley Cyrus is defended against slut shaming while media outlets completely missed the point of her racist minstrel show and ignore others' criticisms of Miley's racist act.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like your analysis for Rihanna's video (and a song I like a lot too). I also don't like the implications of asking adult women to serve as role models to others in every facet of their lives (instead of specific parts, as nobody is perfect). This works harder with minorities (and WOC), putting them at a higher standard (and antiquated views) than they would put men or non minorities.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Claire. Well firstly, thanks for coming back. Appreciate you taking the time to hear me out. That said, I think you've missed the point. I agree that when you talk about choice, you can't forget about context. That's actually part of my point. For these women to make these choices within the context of the expectations they face is to revolutionary. To reclaim a sexual identity that has been denied to you is revolutionary. To inhabit a persona on your own terms matters. It is the difference between doing something because you have no choice and doing it BECAUSE you choose to. These women are doing the latter. That's what you're missing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think you prove that the male gaze isn't present in those videos. The male gaze can be present without a man being present. If you looks like adds like this the male gaze is there but the woman is by herself. You can't argue that just because there isn't a man present, the male gaze isn't present. If you look at both Rhianna's and Nicki Minaj's posture and dress it's definitely meant to be titillating. Also, you can have woman on woman sexualization for the male gaze, girls often kiss other girls for male attention, mainstream lesbian porn has woman on woman sexualization (with no men present) that is completely made for the male gaze (many lesbians don't like mainstream lesbian porn because of this). Saying no men = no male gaze, is a gross misunderstanding of what the term male gaze means. The male gaze simply means that the viewer is put in the perspective of a heterosexual male. You don't prove that they aren't sexualizing themselves because they want to not because they need to, when it could be argued that neither Nicki Minaj or Rhianna would not be as popular as they are without sexualizing themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Lastly, notice that isn't a single man in the entire video. In Pour It Up, Rihanna deprioritizes the male gaze not by replacing it, but by disregarding it entirely."
    I don't get how there being no men, means that there is no male gaze. The male gaze is when the viewer is put in the perspective of a heterosexual male, so there are endless media examples of the male gaze in media where there are no men in the shot (because a heterosexual man is not interested in another man) and the woman or women are the sole actors. This line kind of undermined your whole argument, at least to me.
    I also don't get how you can be certain that this is a true expression of who they really are, when there is still a lot of pressure on women, especially black women to be sexy, so they may not be able to choose to act differently. I kind of have a problem as calling dancing and dressing provocatively sexual, because you can do that and still not be very sexual when it comes to having sex.

    Idk, I kind of feel like you kind of decided these were examples of them owning their sexuality and then contorting the evidence to fit that (I kind of feel like your saying that "they're owning their sexuality because I say so"). But then again, it's much easier to say that an artist like Missy Elliott is owning her sexuality seeing as she talks about sex and what she wants sexually in her music, than it is in these two cases since they aren't actually dealing with sex in these videos.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That isn't what I said. When you say that they are meant to be tittilating, you need to ask yourself, tittilating to whom? I think it is telling that you presume that their engagement in same sex contact must be for the benefit of the male gaze. That assumption is exactly the concept I'm talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You're free to disagree, naturally. But I would ask you why you automatically assume that these woman lack agency. That assumption is precisely what I'm talking about. Neither of us can know for sure, but why don't they get the benefit of the doubt?

    ReplyDelete
  9. People are loved to throw a wild party now days for celebrating their
    occasions. Looking for best male strippers? IM ENTERTAINED delivers buff
    butlers with affordable rate for effective event. male strip tease swansea

    ReplyDelete
  10. Because you see that type of thing everywhere, so to give them the benefit of the doubt you have to argue that they are different. You can take one music video and argue that it's a choice, but when you look at all music videos, why does pretty much every pop star choose to express herself the exact same way? Also, popstars images are heavily controlled by their managers-what made Madonna so special is that she worked very hard behind the scenes to be able to do what she wants. Also, these could just be business moves, Rihanna got a lot of attention for that video, so as a business move, it's pretty successful.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I directed this video, and just wanted to reach out to let you know I thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated your in depth analysis of my work. It was a pleasure to hear the perspective of a feminist, and I'm glad the video seemed to be enjoyed for the most part. stag night in manchester

    ReplyDelete
  12. The point that I'm trying to make is that people do not give black women the presumption of agency. You're proving it. Explain to me then why Lily Allen who "chose to express herself the exact same way" got the presumption that she was coming from "the right place" but Rihanna and Nicki don't? Because she decided to call it satire? When a white female artist and a black female artist can effectively create the same product but only the black artist's work is considered degrading, we have a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Lily Allen thing is a good point, but it is not really the same thing because what she did was critiqued for it's racism, not pandering to the male gaze so you're drawing a false parallel there but when you're looking at the sexualization of women's bodies you have artists like Britney Spears (who is given no presumption of agency) and Miley, who have also been called out for pretty much the same thing as Rihanna and Nicki Minaj, so I don't think this is a case where white artists and black artists are creating the same work but only the black artist's work is considered degrading. I also never said that Rihanna or Nicki Minaj don't have agency because they are black.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It is exactly the same thing. Lily Allen was "twerking" in her video and we immediately presume that it must be high brow social commentary in service of feminism. Nicki and Rihanna do it and they're degrading themselves and the women in the video.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm Australian and have not seen either video until after I read your analysis. It was like watching soft-porn with an all WoC female cast. Rhiannon's starts with a body pan up her body, and she just so happens to be leaning forward to be seated as the pan reaches her breasts to get the full impact of her cleavage before you even see her face. I didn't see the equalisation of Rhiannon to her dancers and I did not get the morphing effect. I saw Rhiannon and her WoC back-up dancers performing as amazing strippers, and stylised soft-porn stars. Is this really an authentic version of WoC sexuality? I agree, she totally owned it, but I didn't feel as though women were the intended audience for her video. Is this what empowerment for WoC looks like? nipple pasties and g-strings, bouncing up and down, spreading your legs, gyrating and simulating sex in different positions?

    From abroad, the pornification of America's music industry seems complete. So many female artists without clothes, made-up, gyrating away. There is a startling amount of sexism, with a unhealthy dose of racism. I saw Miley's performance at the MTV awards, WTF seriously.

    I do not see how perpetuating stereotypes helps anyone, even if done with agency. You said "The expectation that our bodies are inherently available for sexual consumption means that we are denied the individuality to disengage from the sexual conversation should we choose to do so." Rhiannon's video did nothing to dismiss this notion of WoC's bodies being available for sexual consumption. I spent the entire video looking at near-naked WoC's bodies hyper-sexualised and gyrating for the viewers pleasure, often with their faces obscured. Do you think men watch her video and think, wow they all looks so empowered? Or rather, does it makes them feel powerful. Having women in a constant state of undress being served up as sexually attractive and available to them when ever they feel like tuning in, while their counterparts remain fully clothed with their sexual attractiveness attached to their strength of character.

    I would aim higher up the tree than the artists when looking for exploitation. "There is very important difference between having your sexuality exploited for the appeasement of a third party (who is profiting off that exploitation)" There are people profiting of the artists. Even if Rhiannon's video is her authentic self, she is still being pimped out by her executives, who are profiting from what you could consider exploitation. It seems there are different levels of exploitation happening, across the entire industry from the back-up singers/dancers to the artists, all the way to the top.


    It's a concern that the question seems to be which female artist is the worst feminist rather than why the industry is so sexist? It seems women are being blamed for the structural failures of which they hold very little collective power. While the men at the top of tree are just fine and dandy, thank you for asking. Now, who's next for the high-class stripper troupe?

    ReplyDelete

Add your brilliance!

Disqus for BattyMamzelle