blaming women?

[Guest guest]

> nonetheless what I see expressed is a blaming of the women for the

>alleged affects of the wardrobe.

 

My own view of this is very different. It is the effect of

fetishistic dress/undress on _women_ that is my concern.

 

Unlike those who see Madonna as doing her own daring, very

individualistic thing, I see her fitting rather tightly into cultural

norms which could be summed up as "Barbie doll." Bullet breasts,

cinched waist, and compulsory blondeness. If you have been watching

in the last 10 years, about every dark-haired woman in the (U.S.)

public eye has been forced into the blonde mold. In M's case, she

even adopted the white-blond ponytail of the original Barbie. A very

retrograde racialist subtext is going on here, which bell hooks and

many others have written about, in a similar vein to the writer that

DB quoted recently. Most black folks I know react very negatively to

M's careless play with some very volatile racial symbolism, one

freighted with centuries of violence and threat for them, in her

videos. I find it embarrassingly narcissistic and thoughtless.

 

I do agree with you, prainbow, that hijab is very much about sex,

specifically making women responsible for men's sexual responses.

This is unjust.

 

I don't hate Madonna. She has come a way since Boy Toy and Material

Girlism, but it always amazes me that people think of her as a role

model for girls. That's a very narrow model. May she find what she is

looking for with the Kabbalah. Many have criticized her for her

embrace of Jewish mysticism, and in a way she is being hoist on the

petard of fame that she created. But there's a lot of value in those

teachings. I had to laugh, though, at Jon Stewart's comment, re

criticism of her for taking the name Esther: What else was she to do,

given her possession of "the least Jewish name of all time"?

 

Thank you Devi Bhakta for making this point:

>Part of the reason Madonna and Britney earn

>more than the Gross National Product of many small nations is that

>they are willing to turn themselves into symbols for the privilege.

>Neither of them are victimized women, mere toys in the hands of

>corporate masterminds -- that is naive. They are both extremely

>savvy manipulators of their own images

 

I think you hit the nail on the head in saying that they must bear

the responsibility along with the rewards. In time maybe they will

use some of that wealth to benefit humanity instead of for personal

gratification. Bill Gates had a change of heart. And Kabbalah teaches

us tikkun olam, to repair the injustices in the world.

 

Max

 

p.s. Haven't forgotten about Maatangi, but this week it's been

Bhairavi who is having her way with me...

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

Global Women's History

http://www.suppressedhistories.net