Feminism is NOT hyper-sexualization

At the most recent MTV Video Music Awards (VMA), Beyonce performed a 16-minute medley of her songs. At the 10th minute, the entire stage was dimmed, and these words

"We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings in the way that boys are. We teach girls to shrink themselves, make themselves smaller. We say to girls, you can have ambition, but not too much. You should aim to be successful, but not too successful, otherwise you will threaten the man. Feminist (the person who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes)."

flashed across the screen.

Feminists in America rejoiced, because as an article in Time magazine wrote, "Beyonce's brand of empowerment isn't perfect, but her VMA performace on Sunday accomplished what activists could not: She took feminism to the masses."

Beyonce did bring feminism to the masses, but in reality, I'm really really really confused by her performance. I like the words that flashed across the screen, but like Mollie Hemmingway who wrote THIS POST for The Federalist, and THIS ARTICLE from the UK Independent, the rest of the performance left me wondering how it contributed to feminism. Her music was filled with lyrics about sex and b**ches and getting drunk and more sex; her dance moves included spreading her legs, grinding her booty (and she has a really awesome booty if I may say- is this objectifying her? If yes, then wasn't that the point of her costume and performance for us to admire her body?), and dancing alongside a team of scantily-clad backup dancers.

And while Beyonce was participating in this hyper-sexualized performance, her young daughter was sitting in the audience, watching her mom's not-child-appropriate performance.

Is this feminism?

Feminists want to stop the objectification of people. But how do you do that when Beyonce, a supposed feminist role model, talks about feminism but encourages the opposite of it with her performance? I'm sorry, but standing in silhouette against the huge flashed word "feminist" does not a feminist make. I get the message that we need to teach our daughters/ girls that they can be sexual beings like the men. I get that loud and clear. However, I don't picture this as the way I want to teach my daughters/ nieces/ girls as the appropriate way to express their sexuality.

I'm not so much as angry at Beyonce as more disappointed. I remember my friend introducing me to another song of Beyonce's, "If I Were a Boy," a song (along with the music video) that critiqued the double standards society has for men and women. I LOVE THAT SONG. In fact, here is the video:

 I went, "You go Beyonce!" Then the whole Drunk-in-Love/ Anna-Mae reference scandal happened, but I was willing to give her and Jay-Z the benefit of the doubt. After all, this was also around the time that she had come into her "feminist-consciousness."

Then the VMA awards happened. It's really disappointing.

Let's stop going to the extremes, where we either under-sexualize women (e.g. "Women don't have sex drives"- FALSE!) or we hyper/over-sexualize them to the point where everyone feels that it's alright to be this coarse/ crude. Just because  our society today takes swearing, and sowing sexual wild oats as marks of male masculinity and virility doesn't mean that we as women need to do these things as well just to prove that we are equal. No one should be hyper-sexualized, male or female, but taught to respect themselves and their bodies. This is what feminists should be fighting for.

Althea Gibson

My Google webpage doodle today was a cartoon of a black woman playing tennis, in honor of Althea Gibson.

Who is Althea Gibson? I am ashamed to say I've never heard of her, and wish I had known about her earlier.

According to an article on ESPN.com and her Wikipedia entry, Gibson was the first black player to cross the racial line in international tennis. She became the first African-American to win the singles Grand Slam title (from the French Open) in 1956. Did I mention she also partnered with Angela Buxton to win the doubles title of the same French Open too?

Then in 1957, she became the first black person to win the Wimbledon and the U.S. Nationals Tennis players, two of the most prestigious world titles in tennis! Then, she repeated her victories at the same two tournaments in 1958 as well! As a result, she was voted by the Associate Press as its "Female Athlete of the Year" in 1957 and '58, and became the top seeded player in the world for those.

But her accomplishments doesn't stop there. Not only did she break racial barriers in the sports arena, she was also the first African-American woman to grace the covers of Sports Illustrated and Time magazine.

WHAM! You go girl!

Sadly, racial barriers continued to be erected against her and other players of color. It would be another 15 years before another woman of color won the Wimbledon and French Open titles again (Evonne Goolagon, an Australian Aboriginal). Gibson also revealed that though she was ranked the top tennis player, there was (at that time) little money to be made from playing professional tennis. Hence, she retired from the tennis circuit after her victories, and went on to try her hand in various other ventures.

Gibson didn't let racial and gender barriers stand in her way in pursuit of her dreams- truly a woman to be highlighted for her accomplishments. Thank you Google making us more aware of this inspiring woman.

Beneath the Surface

For those of you who keep up with my other blog, you would have read that I was in the Philippines a few weeks ago. While there, we were sitting in a taxi on the way to the Philippines Manila LDS temple when we saw a group of girls clinging to a jeepney and traveling on a busy road. Totally legal!

It was quite a sight, and I hurriedly took a picture. In my mind, I thought the jeepney was just too crowded, and so they simply "hopped on" to the jeepney via this ingenious method. 

Until the taxi driver informed us that these girls were probably part of a larger criminal syndicate to exploit young children from poorer rural villages elsewhere in the Philippines. Syndicate members would go to these villages and "buy" these children, both boys and girls. Many of their parents think that they are giving their children a better life by agreeing to do so. These children would then be transported to larger cities, such as Manila, where they will be exploited as "cheap laborers" for the syndicates. 

The taxi driver then casually mentioned that when the girls were older, they would be sold into prostitution. 

It broke my heart. 

As we passed by the jeepney, one of them saw that I was taking their picture. Using one hand to cling to the jeepney and keep her balance, she used her other hand to make a "peace" sign as she smiled and posed for my camera. I have a picture that captures her innocence, but I can't bear to put it up. 

It just blows my mind that everything looked so casual and carefree, but underneath lies a story of exploitation and corruption. It is such a complex situation that goes back all the way to the rural villages and criminal syndicates, and the reality is that there is nothing I can do about it, except raise awareness about this situation. I really wish I could do something.