That was exactly my problem with the "outrage" over her performance! I watched and said "Fuck yeah, Bey!" And wasn't talking a bit about what she wore. I was really surprised by Facebook friends who were tut-tutting about it.

I think there is way more to it than that. BEYONCE has been BEYONCE since 2000!?right? ? Every dance move she just about did is the same dance and the same kind of reveling outfit she always wears. CONSERVATIVES haven't said anything about her before now? People have only had a problem with her since it became public she and her husband campaigned for the President. Give me a break. The 1st chance they get after she comes back from maternity they pounce. Sometimes 'certain people' can't get too big. Michael Jackson for example. There always seems to be a way to tear you back down.

Hmm.. we are talking about someone who has made her sex appeal the center of her music career, right? 

So they looked at what was essentially a Beyonce-fest, celebrating Beyonce as a symbol (sex symbol, yes, but so much more than that; whether anyone likes it or not, Beyonce has kind of been defining our pop culture since the 1990s, and she's not going anywhere for a couple more decades at the very least), and also celebrating female musicians in a way that female musicians usually aren't celebrated or even depicted (as long as they only get a few seconds screen time though!) and all they saw was a woman- and a black married mother at that, which I think is relevant- wearing skimpy clothes and moving her hips.  She never "flashed her lady parts" (and the backlash when Janet Jackson did some years ago was just the cutest exercise in racism and sexism  I'd ever seen), and she's been shaking her ass and wearing skimpy clothes since she was a teenager.  But anyone who listens to Beyonce's songs can tell this is a woman who is unconcerned with what others think of her, is extremely confident in her body, owns her sex appeal for herself, is independent both financially and in her behavior, and isn't terribly interested in chasing men for the sake of chasing men.

So what changed since Destiny's Child sang Bootylicious, and our parents and teachers didn't even question us listening to/singing a song with such sexual overtones?  Or when Beyonce wore a glorified necklace as a shirt on the cover of her first solo album and no one cared?  Beyonce's music hasn't changed much; the typical love ballads, songs about dancing, and anthems about independence and how if your man sucks, you should kick him to the curb.  Beyonce's dancing hasn't changed, at least since the later years of Destiny's Child and her solo career began.  Beyonce's clothing hasn't changed; the outfit she wore at the Superbowl isn't significantly different than what she wore in the videos for "Single Ladies" or "Telephone" (and again, I should bring up the glorified necklace worn as a shirt).  The only things that seemed to have changed are her personal life and her level of fame.  She is an American icon now, compared to back when she was just a run-of-the-mill pop diva 5-10 years ago.  And she's married a rapper (SCANDAL, rap is the antithesis of conservative values!  Ignore the fact that he's changed his lyrics for Beyonce and their daughter), she's had a kid (she needs to wear mumus and ugly jeans that make her look like she has a gut!), she's in her 30s (stop acting like a sexy woman in your 20s!), and of course, she's one half of a happily married, very wealthy black couple that influences the music industry (and to a lesser extent, the youth population) that has openly supported Obama.  So many things to criticize that just didn't exist when she was 20 and singing the same songs, doing the same dance moves, and wearing the same skimpy clothes.

I've got to say I disagree.  As a full-fledged feminist and sociologist, I disagree. As a culture, we have been trained to sexually objectify women, so you can't say that meaning isn't out there.  It simply means something different for a woman to do that than a man.  In fact, men don't do that.  Rarely.  And if they do, it's one choice they have of many in how to present themselves for public consumption.  They have multiple ways in which they can express their talent that is divorced from their sexulized bodies.  Women have much narrower parameters. 

Now what is Beyonce supposed to do with that?  How can she assert her power within a sexist culture?  One way--indeed the predominant way--is to wear 4-inch heels and a black teddy.  So I get that--she has limited options (all female performers do), so this is one way she can reclaim some power from the patriarchy.  But I don't think classifying everyone who wishes she would've not shown so much skin or shaken quite so many body parts as an uptight, conservative, misogynist.  Can't I wish that women had the same opportunities as men in performing and showcasing their talents?  Can't I lament the culture that objectifies women, and the male-dominated, heterosexist institutions (such as the superbowl, mainstream media, and politics, for example) that prevent women from expressing themselves outside of a tiny, narrow, sexualized box?

I think we get a lot farther in critically discussing the freedoms and constraints that women have in different industries, and viewing them in context, rather than blindly taking a sex-radical feminist stance that calls into question someone's feminists beliefs if they don't agree.  I think that feministing article could benefit from a much more nuanced and complex approach, rather than relying purely on strident ideology. 

There is another feminist argument to be had here, and that's what the article missed.

Well, there is no denying that there is some sexualization going on in that show. Is she more than an object? Yes. Is the show any worse than that f any female artist out there? No. Is it an awesome pack of awesomeness with an awesome artist using her body to make awesome art and isn't it just so empowering? No! 

I'm oing to guess that there's been some infected debate here that causes this polarization, because I can't really see either side as completely honest. Beyonce is as empowered, professional, comfortable and artistic as is possible in the conditioned role she plays, no more no less. 

I was more bothered (and, to be clear, I was not really "bothered" by anything regarding her performance) by how she looked really angry in a few close-up shots. 

Her clothing and dance moves didn't even phase me!  Absolutely nothing shocking about her performance, except the level of talent coursing through her veins.

I also disagree. The Media's portrail of women has further purposes. Beyonce is highly sexualized *role model* not a pure and comfortable with her own skin. We need to be very very careful - being open minded is good, just not to a stage where your brains could fall off.

I just have a bone to pick about the part where it says "the ability to tell a story with your body."  This is more dance critique than sociology, but "telling a story with your body" is an effusive compliment that should be reserved for those who actually deserve it.  Beyonce is a beautiful woman with a beautiful voice, songwriting talent, an incredibly charismatic stage presence, and her strut is on par with any supermodel's, but she is not expressive as a dancer or somatic performer by any measure.  In this case, it's like saying Robert Pattinson should win an Oscar for
Twilight, because one is dazzled by his sparkly vampiric hotness.  
And especially for an accomplished musician, Beyonce doesn't apply that musicality to her dancing very well. 

She probably works with some of the best choreographers in her industy, who know how to tailor their work to highlight her abilities, but the choreography wasn't that amazing.  It was just okay.  This is understandable to some extent because it's incredibly difficult for a choreographer to create something that works for both television and a humongous live audience, with a broad enough appeal for people of all age groups and walks of life.  Still, it can be done, and it wasn't the case here, which is really a testament to Beyonce's talent that she still managed to dazzle everyone.

This debate prompted me to write a blog of my own. Like Portia, I'm a feminist and a sociologist, and I am intentionally avoiding taking a stance because of the myriad of perspectives involved.

You can find my response here: http://silkeschulz.blogspot.com/

Beyoncé’s half-time show performance during Superbowl XLVII has been both praised and denounced recently. There are those who claim that Beyoncé’s performance was an embodiment of strength and confidence (Lisa Wade, http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/), while others argue that her performance was form of “cultural surrender” (Kathryn Jean Lopez,http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/339675/put-dress-kathryn-jean-lopez) and an act of self-objectification. There is a point on which they all agree: both her outfit and dance routine were sexually provocative. I suggest there is an interesting tension between these perspectives worth exploring.

First, I’m going to drop the conservative and the feminist labels from this discussion because they only muddy the waters. From the articles I’ve read, it appears that the feminists are those who are arguing in favor of the personal empowerment stance allegedly implied by Beyoncé’s performance, while the conservatives are the ones denouncing it as sexual objectification. Where it gets confusing is that many feminists are likely to object to the use of a provocatively clad woman as a form of sexism in a Super Bowl commercial, and those very same “conservatives” are out buying magazines with scantily clad females on the cover. There is, however, agreement on all sides that sexual objectification is a bad thing. As Maya Dusenbery at Feministing.com (http://feministing.com/2013/02/06/the-conservative-backlash-to-beyonces-super-bowl-show-objectification-and-slut-shaming-go-hand-in-hand/0) explains, the distinction is this: “For conservatives, it’s generally because of the sex. For feminists, it’s generally because of the objectification.” That, in my opinion, may be an oversimplified take on it.

Objectification is about power, control and institutional patriarchy. “The intense focus on and scrutiny of women’s bodies is not simply an outgrowth of women’s pettiness or individual concerns about their bodies; rather, it has everything to do with heterosexual men’s power and institutional pressures put upon women to conform to heterosexual men’s interests” (Thompson 2012). We haven't yet eradicated gender socialization. We still use gendered language, attribute personality traits to male and female, and we still have “action figures” packaged in “masculine” blues, reds and blacks for boys and “dolls” packaged in “feminine” pink and peach for girls. We still have occupations filled by mostly males or mostly females. In The Gender Knot, Allan Johnson (2005) points out that “it is easier to allow women to assimilate into patriarchal society than to question society itself.” In fact, Beyoncé herself was quoted in GQ, where her photos are even more revealing than in her Super Bowl show, (http://www.gq.com/women/photos/201301/beyonce-cover-story-interview-gq-february-2013?currentPage=2) as saying, "and let's face it, money gives men the power to run the show. It gives men the power to define value. They define what's sexy. And men define what's feminine." 

So from this perspective, the assertion that Beyoncé is committing “cultural surrender” is accurate. Women have been socialized to be sexually appealing, not just with respect to their physical appearance, but also in regard to the way they move their bodies. By gyrating her hips in a sexually suggestive manner, wearing thigh-high boots and a black teddy, she is indulging the male sexual fantasy – but does it simultaneously “undermine [her] talent and credibility” (Maya Dusenbery)? That depends on whether one holds the view that her talent encompasses both singing and dancing, or just singing, or whether she’s truly talented or simply has an outstanding producer and great public relations engine selling us on the idea of her talent. Like beauty and talent, objectification is in the eye of the beholder, not the sender.

But context matters. Sexism is imbedded in professional sports culture. Consider the lesbian-baiting of professional female athletes and the aggressiveness and competitiveness inherent to professional sporting events like the Super Bowl. Over the years, the percentage of males and females watching the Super Bowl has nearly equalized and so one does have to wonder what thinking lies beyond that provocative stage production. Was there a specific intent to grow male viewership by producing a halftime show of 100% women in scantily clad outfits? (Madonna wore more and had male dancers in her entourage. Janet Jackson had Justin Timberlake. Brittany Spears had Aerosmith, among others.) If there was, then the objectification seems somewhat purposeful on behalf of the producers, at least. Additionally, Super Bowl ads, in contrast to its nearly 50% female viewership, are also sexist, as noted by Forbes writer, Bryce Covert (http://www.forbes.com/sites/brycecovert/2013/02/04/super-bowl-ads-serve-up-sexism/) and Feministing writer, Chloe (http://feministing.com/2012/02/06/superbowl-commercial-sexism-notbuyingit/). Taken overall, I would suggest that the Super Bowl might not be an atmosphere of female empowerment and equality. Beyoncé may not have been objectifying herself, but was she passively allowing herself to be objectified and thereby assimilating to patriarchal culture? Or was she, as others assert, claiming agency over her sexuality and owning her brand? Could both have been happening at the same time?

So let’s hold this tension for a minute: It’s okay to promote your sexual appeal within a patriarchal institution like the Super Bowl as long as you do it because you have talent and are famous and because you have only women doing it with you (Lisa Wade), but it’s not okay to promote your sexual appeal within a patriarchal environment of a fashionable men’s magazine because you have talent and are famous (Hadley Freeman,http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/15/beyonce-photographed-underwear-feminism)? 

The thing nobody gets about conservatives is that they have a realistic/pessimistic view of human moral capacities, and they have this from a great deal of self-knowledge and personal reflection.

Madison says we wouldn't need our system of checks and ballances if [generic] "men were angels". But Men [the gender] know they are NOT angels in the area of sexuality. 

Talent is something that draws your attention. Men know that you can get their attention VERY EASILY by making loud noises, sex appeal, and flashing lights. 

Or you can get attention by talent. It DOES detract from talent if you have to flash lights to get the attention for your talent. 

In my opinion, the laments about her
provocative show and dress are a passive-aggressive way of policing
female sexuality. This smacks of middle-class morality (but it was
referred in earlier times as “respectability”) camouflaged in
language that I can summarize as follows: Beyonce's performance of
femininity is wrong. I guess the sex wars were brutal and now the
commentary is a lot more subtle. I also wonder if the next conflict will
be along the lines of class and race instead of the quaint topics of
porn and sexuality.
 

You may not be able to watch Beyonce's performance and see merely a sexual object. But I guarantee that is exactly what every male watching that performance saw. They didn't see a strong powerful woman comfortable in her own skin. They saw tits and ass. I think you're being naive if you think the male audience isnt exactly the one she's trying to cultivate.

Would critics of a group of men dressed in sparkly booty shorts, done up hair, and corsets that they stripped off for major family viewing be hatefully called conservatives? No way. Never ever. I love this blog but it's utterly incorrect on occasion.
Absolutely Beyonce's performance was largely sexual nature and if she is so talented, it was unnecessarily hyper sexual too. Sure, it would be great if people reacted purely to ability and substance of others, but don't judge the people who call foul when a performance is clearly utilizing sex appeal aimed towards stereotypical, hetero men as a means to sell. Even if they are hypocrites they aren't wrong there.
As a matter of fact, can't you see your own hypocrisy? If people should be silent about the meaning of appearance then why is appearance obviously so damn important? Why did Beyonce's appearance have so many obvious choices made about it and so much effort put into it?
Never fear taking a side on these issues. I'm sure everyone has solid opinions on far less important issues, yet large groups of commenters here seem to be pushing for people to be silenced and without opinion here.

Women using sex appeal in performances doesn't come from society only excepting women as sex objects, in comes from women lacking the talent to get popularity without sex appeal. Why don't The Rolling Stones or The Who, or other male performers require additional sex appeal? Why are people satisfied with their talent alone? Because they ARE more talented than Beyonce. Women like Beyonce aren't really role models. She's a career woman who isn't afraid to do ads for Pepsi all the time (even though she's got to be a multi millionaire already) and she uses sex appeal to stay popular. If you don't like men sexually objectifying Beyonce, then why does Beyonce make sure that sexual objectification is an option? If she wanted to just be an artist she would have as much sex appeal as Keith Richards. Describing it as "telling a story with her body" is total nonsense.

But they were so 🔥 🥵