Because I still have Facebook friends who post dumb things, I find myself accidentally reading dumb things, like this post by Rakhi Kumar, “An Open Letter to Michelle Obama: BTW Beyonce No Longer A ‘Role Model.’” Why was I not instantly stopped by the use of “BTW” (or the words “open letter”) in the title?
The basic premise of the article is:
Variations of Beyonce’s body suit can be found in brothels, strip clubs and red light districts across the world – where sex is for sale and it happens to be dispensed through a woman’s body. That she is a human being with feelings and dreams, perhaps a sister, a mother, a leader, a teacher, a student – ALWAYS – a daughter – all of this can be forgotten. In those surroundings a suit like Beyonce’s would look far from glamorous. Maybe just downright heartbreaking as a woman somewhere becomes an object, available for the gratification of a desire – at a price dictated by her ‘managers’.
Now, if you’re like me, at least four bells go off right now.
1) When Mrs. Obama called Beyonce a role model, she was referring to her dedication, business savy and general fierceness. Mrs. Kumar, like many retrograde pseudo-pundits, immediately jumps to Beyonce’s sexuality – something they would never do with a man. Women, we are reminded are always “daughters” to be controlled. Mrs. Kumar goes on to argue how awful it is that Beyonce has sold herself (comparing it, rather distastefully to child slavery, but that comes later) without recognizing the double standard. So, in classic style, I’ll take one of her dumb, sexist, patriarchal sentences, and see how it sounds when I insert a male superstar who, well, didn’t often wear too much on-stage:
Freddie Mercury is a singer and a songwriter. He doesn’t need to wear see through [sic] clothes or body suits to sing. We know that because we’ve seen him singing accapella [sic] in a hospital in a pair of jeans and a T-shirt and – and he sounded like a celestial being from a different dimension.
He doesn’t have to do this. He’s choosing to. And he’s not the first or only one man to do it. And like the many men who have played this game the way they have, his reasons may be economic, artistic, personal or even misunderstood.
But whatever his reasons, his influence cannot be underestimated or misunderstood.
And it’s time that young men were [sic] sent a different message. A more refined intelligent message. A message that engaged them at the level of their intellect and potential because implicit in our message to them should be the acknowledgement that they are naturally brilliant and that we believe that they are capable of everything -without ever having to undress to achieve their success.
Sounds pretty dumb, doesn’t it? We’ve at least gone from “Beyonce is forced to wear these suits,” to the more realistic, more accurate, “Beyonce chooses to.” Which she does, and she puts a hell of a lot of thought into it. Music is sexual, for both men and women. But sex isn’t bad. And equating Beyonce or Freddie Mercury choosing to wear flamboyant outfits with sex trafficking is both idiotic and insensitive.
2) Beyonce is her own boss. I really can’t stress this enough. Throughout the disjointed rant there is this theme that all female entertainers are manipulated by men. That may be true, but it’s not in the case of Beyonce; she isn’t pimped out by any manager. And quotes like this one:
Unless the contours of their body, under the management of their daddy and/or their husband you think it would be really cool for Sasha or Malia to follow her example and sing songs for people on a stage whilst wearing sheer gold glitter bodysuits detailing).
Quotes like that are really ugly and awful. That’s not the relationship that Beyonce has and implying it is silly. I was so astounded that Mrs. made this accusation that I had to check to see if anyone else noticed (like when your chair makes a fart-like sound in a crowded auditorium). As it happens, someone else did:
conflating sex trafficking, voluntary sex work, and sparkly-costumed music concerts is closed-minded, elitist, misleading, and flat-out confusing
3) For some reason, sex trafficking permeate the piece. Like this one, “Remember that in the USA, the average age of a girl when she is trafficked for sex for the first time is 13.” It’s may be an interesting and true fact, I don’t know the article doesn’t cite a source, but I’ve found that a lot of the religious discussion of sex trafficking is really counterproductive. First, they always focus on sex trafficking, whereas most trafficking is for labor, equally terrible, but it doesn’t get much press, because most Americans are totally fine with child labor (although recent events may compel some regulation). Most secular organizations are skeptical of the religiously motivated, because their focus is often narrowly moralistic and focuses on “saving” prostitutes rather than a better legal structure or focusing on the underlying socio-economic conditions.
All in all, I don’t see what sex trafficking has to do with Beyonce, other than prove that the author clearly is just trying to score points.
4) Let’s close off with this quote:
Tell young girls that they are more than that. Engage with artists who sing, dance, write, design, perform – but whose presentation centers on showcasing the brilliance of their brain, not their body.
Again, I could easily replace girl with boy or rail against the weird Cartesian dualism, but I guess the best question is, how the hell do you dance without using showcasing your body? Beyonce is a role model in the conservative sense: she got married and she waited until she was married to have a child. She’s also independent and self-made. So why does what she wear matter? Why do those who always demand that we focus on brains instead of body always spend so much damn time concerned about the latter?