Hey folks, I just wrote a post examining the "Janet Jackson Wardrobe Malfunction" incident

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

It was a reply to an EXCELLENT essay by McCamy Taylor--
Driving While Black in Small Southern Towns

In it, he mentioned the Janet Jackson issue as a racial controversy.
Obviously, I needed to clarify the overarching gender corollaries.

I hope you will like it.

I'll search for your post.

thanks for the FYI

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5033379

scroll down till you find me

:hi:

...it's always awesome to see someone defend Janet Jackson, because she was thoroughly trashed from that incident.

I had a discussion of this incident w/a friend of mine (who grew up during and after southern segregation). She's older than I am so I always listen and even if I don't agree in the moment we have the conversation, I make the effort to consider it, file it away for future use.

She believed that it had EVERYTHING to do with Jackson's being a woman of color. She said if it had been a young, caucasian, blonde pop-star the dudes in power wouldn't have had an issue w/it. "The Menz Folk" preferring to choose the object of their pornification fantasies and all. Of course, we would have had the "tv family values" people up in arms over 'SEXAY at the Superbowl' but not quite as bad.

The more I've learned about feminism, particularly in regard to women of color--I think there is something to her theory.

Oh, and I'm so sorry to not support your comments on the open forum. I'm a bit bruised (and tired) from the dogpile I just crawled out from in GD. As such, I'm making an effort to not make statements there for the moment. I don't want any of the flamers I angered to follow me to such a fine thread, and derail the discussion.

Nice work, and thank you for sharing!

:applause:

I thought it was pretty good too...enjoyed writing it :)

I haven't had the opportunity to chat with anyone and get thoughts on the subject of how that kind of sexist punishment would differ according to race. I'd like to because I'm not seeing your friend's point of veiw; I need more perspectives.

:hi:

I agree with you that the "wardrobe malfunction" incident was found outrageous primarily because of Jackson's gender status, and only secondarily because of her race.

What I found interesting though, after we strip away the public outrage, was the intent of the piece. It has been a long time since I saw it, but it seems to me that the song they were singing was about taking clothes off - something about being naked by the end of the song. (Please forgive me my bad memory...it's been awhile, neither is an artist I listen to, and I don't watch the superbowl so I only saw the aftermath, not the live performance.) I never for a second believed that there was a true "wardrobe malfunction" - that costume was intended to come apart the way it did, in my opinion (and echoed by the seamstresses I know). If you look at the performance that way, it changes what the intent of the act was. I haven't thought about it recently, but at the time I remember wondering if it was supposed to be viewed as "art" - as a statement on sex and gender relations, was it supposed to be simply scandalous (which, in that case, it worked well for Timberlake but not for Jackson), or (mostly likely) some combination of the two. If it was supposed to be seen as an art performance, what was the statement, was it supposed to be a romantic seduction or a rape (or rape fantasy)? Was it trying to say something about how women and men interact?

Just my thoughts.


:hi:

So what do we do with a beautiful, talented, successful black women at the super bowl? What to do? Can't give the slightest illusion of power in the midst of all that testosterone can we?

This is awesome:

"I feel it is very important to add some examination of the gender implications of that
event which so captured the media and therefore, the public. All the "outrage", conjoined with salacious fascination, was focused on an imposed notion of Jackson's slutty behavior, and the punishment she richly deserved for that. The repeated examination we, the public, were subjected to was our entitlement proceeding from her licentiousness.

The elephant in the room that evades attention is Justin Timberlake's role in the duet as the molester. He acted out the part of a sexual attacker, forcing her shirt down."

Just Wow.

I missed that thread, and I hadn't opened this one yet, I was saving it kind of. I'm sorry, as always, about both the racial and gender apologists in that thread. The original post was incredibly powerful, as was your response.

and have occasionally said at DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=210x23688

The Janet Jackson incident was offensive not for the fact that her breast was exposed -- although that in itself was undeniably completely inappropriate in its context. It was offensive because it involved a man ripping off a woman's clothing and exposing a part of her body that we do consider private to public view, to her (at least apparent) discomfort. The incident was enormously offensive for that reason.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1197356

iverglas

Fri Mar-05-04 11:47 AM

11. bare breast ... or violence against women?

I can't get over how so many people seem to think that the Janet Jackson incident was just a bit of innocent tit-baring that nobody should get all worked up about.

I saw it. My immediate, gut response was that I had just witnessed an appalling act of degrading sexual violence against a woman played out in front of millions of people ... consisting rather largely of men and male children in a particularly male-centric context, pro sports ... as an okay thing to do. Not an appropriate time and place for such a bit of artistic expression, if there were one anyway.

A man ripping a woman's clothing off and exposing her breast to an audience? Sorry, that's not entertainment, folks.

It matters not whether Jackson was a collaborator; the image and message conveyed was the same, whether she was a party to it or not. And it matters little whether Timberlake expected her to have underwear on; the act and the message were still the same.

And DU was one of the places where I'd thought I might see some acknowledgement of the nature of that act and message, and some recognition of the fuss about a bare boob being a bit of a smokescreen over the real problem. I didn't see a whole lot.

It is not prudery to object to a woman's clothing being ripped off and her breast exposed to an audience of football fans. Really.