It's All in the Context: Erykah Badu and Nudity

Erykah Badu has never been one to suppress her artistic side.  And she is making news for being "artistic" in her new music video for the lead single from her new CD The New Amerykah Pt. 2: Return of the Ankh.  In the video for Window Seat, Badu strips naked while walking through downtown Dallas to the site where JFK was assassinated before herself being assassinated and bleeding the word "group think"  then in a voiceover says:

"They who play it safe, are quick to assassinate what they don't understand.  They move in packs, ingesting more and more fear with every act of hate on one another. They feel more comfortable in groups, less guilt to swallow. They are us. This is what we have become, afraid to respect the individual."

Whose Side Are You On? Celebrity and the Culture of Binaries

We live in a world that is often black and white with no shades of gray. You're either for health care reform or against it. You either support war or you're unpatriotic. We are constantly asked to choose sides in our culture. But never is choosing sides more absurd than when it comes to celebrities. I was reminded of this penchant for the news media to choose sides and then in their reporting make us chose a side as well when I (begrudgingly) watched CNN last week. The "impartial, just delivering the news" anchor Kyra Phillips decided to call Jesse James, Sandra Bullock's husband, a jerk in the course of delivering the news that Sandra Bullock had moved out of the family home in Los Angeles. Kyra Phillips was definitely on Team Sandy.

It's not just limited to coverage of marital/relationship discord (although there are many examples like Team Jen or Team Angie) but also reared its head when we were to chose between Team Coco (Conan O'Brien) or Team Jay (Leno). What's puzzling is that we make these decisions in a knowledge vacuum. As Chris Rojek says in his brilliant book Celebrity "one peculiar tension in celebrity culture is that the arousal of strong emotion [for celebrities] is attained despite the absence of direct personal reciprocity." In other words, we refer to celebrities by first name or by nicknames yet we have so little knowledge about them that would offer us the license to refer to them on friendly terms. For example, Mariah Carey is Mimi, Jennifer Aniston is Jen and Sandra Bullock is Sandy (maybe it's a female thing?). In addition, we have unimonikered people in our culture who go by their first name only: Beyonce, Madonna and for some (or most) gay men when you hear Liza, Bette, Diana, Tina, or Barbara, there can be no doubt about the person being discussed.

There have been some pretty nasty things written about Tiger Woods in light of his extramarital affairs (as well as Jesse James and many other celebrities who have admitted to having sexual relationships with people with whom they are not attached). But the fact remains that we know nothing about them. Perhaps Tiger Woods and his wife had an agreement that sexual monogamy is not an important aspect of their marriage (like Mo'Nique and her husband) and the media's focus on the relationship is really about Elin being embarrassed that the sexual dalliances of her husband have come to light. Maybe Sandra Bullock isn't really America's Sweetheart and is a bear to live with who refused to have sex with her husband. I doubt this is the case with either Tiger Woods or Sandra Bullock, but it illuminates that we just don't have enough information to be able to make the call about who wins when Team Sandy is going head to head with Team Jesse, or Team Tiger vs. Team Elin.

This binary also speaks to the way in which our culture has socially constructed marriage and monogamy. Culturally, we give Mo'Nique the collective "side eye" when she says that one of the partner's "infidelity" is not necessarily a reason to dissolve the relationship -- particularly if we believe that about 50 percent of marriages in the US end in divorce. Who said marriage (or serious relationships for that matter) had to be based on monogamy? We have culturally tied something carnal (sex) to something emotional (love) when the two are not really related. Maybe it is for the best that we live in monogamous relationships, but it's our modern creation and it hasn't been around "forever." And even in the Mo'Nique monogamy situation, we're asked to be on Team Monogamy or Team Open Marriage. Stories on the Internet urge us to make a choice with titles like Are Open Relationships Better?, Is Mo'Nique's Open Relationship Sexist? and Do Open Relationships Equal Insecurity? As Matt Bianco asks us, whose side are you on?

Health Care Reform Post Script

My head is still reeling from watching C-SPAN for most of the day yesterday and watching the "debate" unfold about health care reform. What I think became abundantly clear over the weekend (and arguably through the whole debate process) is not just a difference in ideology, largely going along party lines, and not just the suspicion that we have elected a bunch of 3 year olds to represent us (could they have been less mature) or that our political process is really a time drainer (did it really take all day to get to the vote when largely no one was moved to change their vote by debates, but rather by deals).

Rather, a real socio-economic ideological rift was exposed. I believe health care reform isn't really about access to health care as much it's about the classic American battle between the haves and the have nots. Those who have, want to keep things they way they are because "they work hard for their money and don't want to give it away to those lazy ne'er do wells who only want government handouts." Those who have not, just want access to healthcare for themselves and their family members.

This was crystallized this morning when I went on Facebook and a "friend" invoke the old Reagan line about "the welfare queen" and how she lives on the southside of Chicago (which implies that she's black) and gets $150,000 per year from the government through handouts and use of her four assumed names. Sure, there may be "welfare queens" who do abuse the system and I in no way condone their behavior, but there are also hardworking people who simply cannot afford health care coverage. There are also hardworking people with life threatening diseases who are either uninsurable or are forced to keep jobs for fear of not being able to get coverage from a new employer.

For those who opposed (and still oppose) healthcare reform, I'd be interested to see how they feel about "socialized" medicine and government handouts if they lose their jobs. Or when (and if) they reach age 65 and want to take advantage of "socialized" medicine in the form of Medicare and/or Medicaid.

Perhaps I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but I don't mind paying a little more in taxes to ensure that all American citizens have access to adequate health care. The racial and sexuality-based epithets that were thrown around over the weekend illuminated how important and necessary this reform really is. If it wasn't people would not have been so passionate about it. It wouldn't have been so divisive. This legislation has a 50/50 chance of failing. But if it fails, at least we know that we tried to fix a broken system.

American Caterwauling

"This... is American Caterwauling" should be the way Ryan Seacrest introduces American Idol.

What's become clear to me is that I watch American Idol for vastly different reasons than the producers of the show intend (in a nod to Stuart Hall's encoding/decoding). I like the show and watch, but it's not because I am looking for the next great artist, but because it is so ingrained in our pop culture sensibility that to not watch is to cut yourself off from the "water cooler sessions" the following morning. With the exception of Kelly Clarkson, Fantasia Barrino (which I bought and promptly sold at a used music store), Jennifer Hudson and Allison Iraheta, I've not purchased music from any other American Idol winner/finalist. The singers I like (and whose CDs I have purchased) all have one thing in common: they are belters.

I'll tackle the last point first. I like a good belter as much as the next gay, but American Idol has suffered from the desire to applaud singers who employ what I call vocal pyrotechnics. (I know, the argument could be made that Jennifer Hudson was given the boot relatively early, but Fantasia, another belter, went on to win the competition in one of the most mismatched American Idol finals in history). When a singer can hit a "glory note" that is reason for us to applaud him or her -- foregoing any sense of nuance related to singing. When someone sits and sings a slow song, it's deemed "sleepy" by the judges. But when someone like Season 9 contestant Siobhan Magnus hits notes, we stand up, cheer and take notice.

siobhan 12 @ Yahoo! Video

I admit, Siobhan delivered a WTF moment for me last night and we collectively forgot about most of the contestants who came before (or after) her because we have been trained to focus on things like, "wow, did you hear that note?" "he has a great falsetto," etc. rather than that was a really solid vocal. It seems that we want/expect "good singing" to be loud and long. In other words, can you hit a note and then make it last until we think you are within seconds of passing out from air deprivation? The thing most of us remember from Mariah Carey's early career is her ability to hit the "dog whistle" note, not that she is really a great singer and interpreter of music.

Healthcare in America

If there is any doubt that we need to seriously consider health care reform in America, here it is. This is truly sickening!

http://tinyurl.com/yj5gkom

Whose Fat is it Anyway?

I've listened to the debate over childhood obesity with interest. I've been interested because I am conflicted about how I really feel about the solutions that have been posited about "curing" childhood obesity.

My immediate "go to" is that parents need to take responsibility for what their children are putting into their mouths (and bodies) most of the time. Sure, kids are going to eat junk at school (and trade away or throw away the healthy options packed in their lunches), but parents can control what their children eat for breakfast and dinner. Parents also have the ability to limit what food they bring into the home because they buy it. I know that the counter argument here is that parents are busy and more homes than ever are run either by a single parent or two working parents. I grew up with two working parents as well. And you know what they did? On Sunday, they cooked for the whole week. That's what refrigerators and freezers are for. That's not to say that we didn't have junk food and fast food, but it was eaten in moderation. But we also were forced to go outside and play, which got us doing some kind of physical activity rather than sitting in front of a computer or game console for hours on end.

In other words, the media (and the Obama administration) are making the food manufacturers the evil bandit in this scenario. Which is not to say that the food manufacturers don't have some culpability but the last time I checked we were free to make choices about the foods that we eat. That was one of the thrusts behind giving more information on food labels (including fast food), so that we had the information about what we were putting into our bodies and could make decisions based on those labels. But the bottom line is that Coke, Frito Lay, McDonald's and all the other businesses that make junk food are publicly traded companies. If we stop buying, they stop making because they're all about making money and making their shareholders happy.

Taxing us into allegedly not wanting to purchase fattier foods is a lame idea as well. While it may have an impact, my hypothesis is that it'll largely affect lower income people who perhaps won't be able to afford to buy these fattier foods. So, we'll have a slew of higher income level obese people? What does that really help? But as we have seen with cigarettes, higher prices/taxes haven't really stopped people from smoking. In Chicago, when the tax on cigarettes was raised, many smokers drove to Indiana to "stock up" where the tax on cigarettes was not as high.

I think the real solution is to make healthier eating more affordable and accessible. I am grateful that I can afford to make healthier eating decisions, but I pay for the decision I make. Whenever I go to a healthier grocery store like Trader Joe's, Sprouts, or Central Market, I pay more. A bag of fruit is oftentimes more expensive than a bag of chips. A gallon of water is often the same price as a 2-liter of soda. The price of ground turkey escalates as the amount of fat decreases, which is more expensive than buying ground chuck or ground beef. A bag of almonds (with their anticarcinogen properties) is more expensive than a bag of candy. Trader Joe's, Sprouts, Central Market and other health food stores are often located in the tonier neighborhoods and communities -- and for good reason. The residents of those tonier parts of town can afford to shop there while if a person with less economic resources wants to shop there, there are the added costs of travel as well as the physical expense of buying the food. So, for many, it's cost prohibitive. That is not to say that the Dominick's, Randall's, Jewel's and Kroger's of the world don't offer healthier eating choices. But the fact is, it'll cost more. So, let's focus on that disparity and perhaps when healthier eating choices are more affordable, then people will chose that as an option more frequently than they do now.

What TV Teaches Us About Higher Education

I had a conversation with a friend yesterday about the notion of undergraduate education is a bit of a racket. The reason I believe this to be so is largely because we award degrees to students for completing a degree but we rarely have any deep understanding of the subject matter of our major. Most people don't necessarily use their degree to work in the field in which they are allegedly supposed to be "masters." Rather, I believe undergraduate education is designed to essentially reward those who can afford (or are willing to take on the debt) to attend college to get a degree in something. For instance, my second career was in public relations and those working in the field had degrees in English, Journalism, Business and other degrees that did not necessarily prepare them for a career in PR.

That haven't been said, undergraduate education is still important. And that was underscored in an episode of the new NBC show Parenthood in its second episode. In it, Sarah, played by Lauren Graham, is out of work and looking for a job. Through nepotism, she gets an interview with a company who ultimately chooses not to hire her because she doesn't have a college degree. (Skip ahead to 21:45 for the interview and 28:40 for the post-interview/decision call).

.

So it begs the question, what's so special about a college degree? My opinion is that it is a way to weed out less desireables. In every way, Sarah on Parenthood seemed to be qualified -- except that she doesn't have a college degree. That college degree kept her out of the club, even though she had the experience doing what she was being hired to do. The deficiency? She didn't have the stamp of approval from an institution of higher learning to show that she had paid a lot of money (or gone into a lot of debt) and "paid her dues" in order to gain admittance into "the club."

I believe that the educational system is rife with classism. But what TV shows like Parenthood teach us is that if we want to get ahead, we have to play the game. Afterall, the income disparity between American workers and CEOs, while down, was still 317 to 1 in 2009. And there are few CEOs that don't have college degrees.

Are White Dolls Worth More than Black Ones?

For our allegedly being in "post-racial" times (if we're supposed to believe the line the media feeds us), I am routinely astounded by some of the things I see/hear. We've seen/heard about studies that demonstrate that when presented with a black doll and a white doll, black girls most frequently chose the white doll. But these studies can often be dismissed because they happened "back in the day." Which is why I was so shocked to hear that Good Morning America replicated the study in 2009 and found that some, not all, of the devaluing of black dolls by black girls still existed in "modern times."



It's quite easy to shake our collective heads and discuss how fashion and fashion magazines often advance a Eurocentric image of beauty which can perhaps lead to lowered self esteem -- a nod to Charles Cooley's looking glass self concept which asserts that a person's sense of self is derived from the perceptions of others. Just like the reflections in a mirror, the self depends on the perceived responses of others. It was just a few months ago that many were outraged that Vanity Fair featured all white actresses on its "The New Hollywood" cover.

But then comes this story, also from ABC that showed that a Walmart, presumably in Louisiana, set the price of a Black doll at 50% of the cost of the White doll. The spokesperson quoted in the story asserts that the Black doll was on clearance while the White doll was not citing anecdotal sales lower sales figures for Black doll. In addition, the spokesperson cited a desire to clear out the inventory of the Black doll to make way for new spring inventory.

I tend to believe everything Walmart does is evil, but in this case their stated reasons may be true and their intentions may have been innocent, but it's important to realize the message delivered -- The Black doll is worth less than White doll. It's important to know that the message sent is not always the message received (remember the game of telephone from childhood?).

The One Where Meredith Vieira Does Not Like Man-on-Man Hugging

The places that one sees, if not homophobia, at least someone questioning male-to-male affection, is astounding. This from the Today Show wherein Meredith Vieira implies that two men hugging is cause for concern and essentially not normal. Her coded language is really saying, "That hug was really 'gay'. Are you gay?"

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I do like how Anthony Mackie shuts her down and essentially, to borrow a phrase from South Park, calls shenanigans on her ludicrous line of questioning. And kudos to Al Roker (words I never thought I'd type) for incredulously asking, "Why would you ask that?!?!?!?"



Why does our society still support such antiquated notions of masculinity? Why does this (or Adam Lambert's AMA performance) raise eyebrows in a way that two women hugging/celebrating doesn't?

Fiscal Responsibility vs The Poor

Today, the Senate voted not to pass a bill that would have provided 500,000 temporary jobs to youth in America as well as a $1.3 billion extension of enhanced subsidies for poor families with children. Essentially citing the need for more fiscal responsibility/deficit reduction, the John Kerry/Patty Murray amendment failed to pass with the needed 60 votes. There are many problems that I have with the failure to pass this bill, but what I think is most important to note is my belief that this is classism disguised as principle.

My belief is that the modern Republican party (and quite honestly the modern Democratic party) doesn't care about the underclass in America. Certainly a lot of their opposition also has to do with a general disdain for the Obama administration but I think it's easier for politicians to find a fake, yet logical-sounding reason (i.e. fiscal responsibility) to mask what they are really feeling (i.e. a disdain for all things poor).

This bill , if passed, would have impacted politicians or their families and friends in no way, shape or form. Their well-heeled friends and family have the connections to ensure that their children have summer jobs (ones that pay more than minimum wage).

The bill would have also provided subsidies for vulnerable families with children via the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Again, not a constituent who truly matters to politicians. These families are not going to financially contribute to their next campaign and conventional wisdom says that poor people don't vote anyway or vote against their best interest.

I don't know the solution to our broken American political system. I do know that even as a middle class person, I don't feel like my interests are always reflected by the people I have voted for who are supposed to represent them. Part of the problem is that the people who run for public office are already wealthy enough such that they can afford to take time off from their jobs without pay (assuming they are not already politicians) to campaign and they are connected enough with well-heeled folk to gather donations. These people are theoretically wealthy enough already that they can't possibly really understand what it is like for Americans to live day-to-day. Maybe when we have a political system where money doesn't rule the day (which will likely never happen) we'll start to get people in office who represent the real Joe and Jane Q. Public.

Black Women and Hair

My mother is currently undergoing treatment for breast cancer. While undergoing chemotherapy, like most people, she lost her hair. As a man, it wasn't really a big deal to me, (I thought she had a great bald head and could, as Tyra Banks would say, "rock it!" but to her, it was a big deal.

Hair is so important to women (and to culture). As I mentioned in a previous post, hair, particularly among some black women, is of the utmost importance. I really started to notice how much hair meant to some women when I got stuck in an America's Next Top Model Cycle 6 hole a few weekends ago. Jade, a self proclaimed "biracial butterfly" kept belaboring the point that she didn't have long hair (skip to 1:11 and 1:30 in the video below for evidence).



Then I saw this photo from Huffington Post that showed a bald woman starting a fashion show in India.


The accompanying headline was "Bald Model Kicks Off Lakme Fashion Show." And it literally stopped me in my tracks. Without the qualifier "bald" the headline is unremarkable. We are to believe that something about baldness is remarkable. In this case we're supposed to say, "A bald model? It can't be done!" And ooh and ahh over the novelty of it all. Certainly, this could have been a PR stunt meant to drum up publicity, but the fact is that it worked. Why does hair equal femininity/femaleness in our culture? Why is hair, particularly long hair so rooted in ideas about attractiveness? When asked why she shaved her head, the model said she just felt like it. Maybe all women should just do what feels right to them when it comes to their hair rather than worrying about what others (particularly suitors) think.

And while it's often assumed (or at least theorized) that black women straighten their hair to submit to European ideas about beauty, it's interesting that in the film, Something New, that it is a white man who asks his black girlfriend why she wears a weave:

Brian: Can I ask you one more question?
Kenya: Hmm?
Brian: [grabs a piece of her hair] Can you take this off?
Kenya: [opens eyes] What do you mean?
Brian: I mean, its not a wig, right? But its not your real hair either, is it?
Kenya: [stares at him for a moment, then sits up] I can't believe you just asked me that.
Brian: I'm sorry, I'm just curious.
Kenya: Its a weave, if you must know. I thought you dated black girls.
Brian: They had real hair.
Kenya: I have real hair too.
Brian: Underneath?
Kenya: Yes, underneath!
Brian: So what, they just... they sew it in?
Kenya: Something like that.

The White Savior in Hollywood

Last night I got into a discussion about Sandra Bullock winning an Oscar(R) for her role in The Blind Side. The person with whom I had this argument railed against Sandra Bullock's win because she felt that it reinforced the idea of the "helpless black" waiting for a good white person to come and make their lives better.



Before I dive into any argument, I like Sandra Bullock and most of her work. I also liked her work in The Blind Side. That having been said, the movie, while based on a true story, does work to continue the stereotype that white people, and white people alone hold the power. The Touhy family, as depicted in the film, introduced Michael Oher to football (also perpetuating the myth that black people -- especially black men -- excel at sport, not academics) and gave him the tools to be able to succeed. In the film, he also came from a broken home where the father was not present and the mother was a drug addict. In fact, no black person was shown as being "upstanding" setting up what Herman Gray calls black exceptionalism as difference in his book Watching Race. "blackness is figured as cultural and personal qualities that transcend and, from the position of dominant spectatorship established... reinscribe whiteness as the normative site of everyday life... this exceptional blackness has to be harnessed and ultimately placed in the service of good (Gray, 168). In other words, in the cinematic adaptation of the story Michael Oher is made "good" by "white saviors" rather than by other blacks within the community from which he comes. And we must assume that the film largely gets it right as Michael Oher hasn't publicly said otherwise (at least not to my knowledge).

In movies like The Blind Side, blacks continue to be portrayed in ways that became ingrained in our cultural fabric during the Reagan era: uneducated, violent, and "welfare queens." That is certainly not to say that this is the only representation of black people in film, but with two of the most high profile movies of the year featuring black actors (Precious and The Blind Side) featuring the Reagan-ist depictions of blacks, it is worth paying attention to the images we are being shown and the ideology that is being reinforced by the film industry.

Movies and Financial Education

Here's a story for bankrate.com for which I was interviewed to discuss what movies teach us about money.

What is Maleness and Femaleness?

There's no need to rip out the front page when I say that we live in a gendered society. And even though we are more than 100 years past the events most often associated with the start of the Women's Rights Movement and about 50 years from the start of second wave feminism, gendering all things in life is, unfortunately alive and well.

As a male, I sometimes forget just how gendered society is and on the occasion that I do forget, it's usually something like the image for this week's cover of Life & Style magazine that slaps me back into reality. In the interest of framing, Life & Style is not The New Yorker. But with a circulation of nearly 500,000, it is certainly worth taking seriously from a media message dissemination perspective (not to mention the millions of people who at least see the headline as they are checking out at the grocery store).

This article is particularly egregious by implying that there are things that are uniquely male and those that are uniquely female -- namely haircuts. Or more to the point, it seems that the editors of Life & Style are implying that short hair equals masculine. While it extends far beyond the issue of race, the trailer from Chris Rock's film Good Hair, provides a great example of how hair is constructed as feminine.



Certainly, from a Marxist perspective one can look at hair as a capitalist endeavor that lines the pockets of beauticians and manufacturers (bourgeoisie) who specialize in hair extensions and weaves while simultaneously exploiting those (proletariat) women in other countries who sometimes cut their hair for religious reasons only to have it sold/used for capitalist reasons. And let's be clear, women of all races and ethnicities participate in this marketplace.

But beyond that, our society is set us as a host of binaries that always privilege one binary over the other: Men/Women. Heterosexual/Homosexual. White/Black. These binaries help us to frame things where we define things by what they are not. In other words, a woman is not a man or a homosexual is not heterosexual -- effectively setting up those things that are "not" as somehow deviant or less than the thing to which they are being compared.

So, why is Shiloh Jolie-Pitt considered less female because she has shorter hair? Why can't she rock a pair of jeans and a polo without having her "girlness" called into question? And most importantly, why would Life & Style question whether or not her (and her parent's) refusal to wholeheartedly adapt to gender norms might somehow harm her?

Certainly, Life & Style knows that news about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt sells magazines, but they also have to be aware that they are helping to brainwash a nation of people into believing that by wearing certain things, or looking a certain way you are able (and rightly should) perform gender. And as icing on the cake, Life & Style also have a story about how Vienna "tricked" Jake on The Bachelor positioning her as cunning and sneaky -- but that's another conversation altogether.

Tiger Woods: Celebrity Endorsement Counterpoint

According to Chris Rojek, one of the reasons that the concept of celebrity has increased recently is because of the commodification of everyday life. And Tiger Woods, in addition to his status as a world class golfer, has also become a world class commodity -- that is, until it was revealed that he has had a number of extramarital affairs. According to some of his sponsors including Accenture, Gatorade and AT&T, this "lapse of judgment," "violation of his marriage," "battle with sex addiction," or whatever one wants to call it, has tarnished his once pristine, monogamously married image as a marketing gimmick. And as such, they have chosen to sever ties with him as a celebrity endorser.

Maybe I am among the minority of people who don't buy a product simply based on a celebrity endorsement, but marketing expert Robert Grede believes that it is still a great way to attract attention, create excitement for products, and build awareness among prospects and customers. So, perhaps those companies who have dropped Tiger Woods are not necessarily damning him and his actions per se as much as positioning [insert company name here] as a company that stands up for "traditional family values" and "the institution of marriage."

But while some, like Laura Kipnis assert that marriage is an equal-opportunity oppressor, trapping men and women in a life of drudgery, emotional anesthesia, and a tug-of-war struggle to balance vastly different needs, others believe marriage is an institution that needs to be preserved and protected (especially from the gays). These opposing positions largely support a Western ideology. Watch maker, Tag Heuer is continuing its use of Tiger Woods in its advertising, particularly in China, where the number of mistresses one has increases street cred.

But what really should be the test is whether anyone was less likely to drink Gatorade (or prohibit their children from doing so) simply because Tiger Woods, adulterer extraordinaire, endorses the product. Did it really come down to the fact that these companies were not seeing the return on investment from the Tiger Woods endorsement deal and this scandal provided an easy way out? After all, our culture is all about consumption and businesses are all about making money.