Gender Representation in The Lion King

Also see: Hakuna Matata & Simba's Childhood

In 1994, Disney released the popular movie The Lion King, with its memorable villain Scar and comic sidekicks Timon and Pumbaa. We want to look at how gender and sexuality is constructed in these three characters in non-normative ways. We will be using Judith Butler’s analysis of gender as performative—something that you do rather than something that you are. Scar, Timon and Pubmaa all subvert gender norms, and perform something other than typical masculinity.

Throughout the movie, Scar is marked as different both physically and through his personality. He is the only lion with green eyes, a black mane, and is much thinner than Mufasa. His character is portrayed as a stereotypical gay man—snarky sense of humor, effeminate movements and gestures, theatrical behavior, drawling and feminine voice—it all clearly denotes the trope of the fabulous gay man. In the clip we have posted, you can see how his personality is portrayed as feminine, and at the end of it, Zazu even says to Mufasa: “There’s one in every family.” Furthermore, Scar remains single throughout the film—even when Simba runs away and Scar is king, he never mates with another female or produces an heir, and he is never portrayed as interested in any of the many female lions in the pride; in fact, he barely interacts with the women at all. Clearly, Scar’s difference is something that marks him as evil, however, other non-normative characters are a source for good in the movie.

Timon and Pumbaa are a pair of male friends who live alone in the woods as outcasts from the rest of animal “society.” Although they are very happy and “good” characters, they are different from the other warthogs and meerkats and that sets them apart. When Simba comes along, this male pair raises him like their child. Interestingly, Timon and Pumbaa are never given any credit for raising Simba into an adult. At the end of the movie they are allowed to join the pride but they had to do something really amazing to gain that acceptance (raise a baby lion and help reclaim the pridelands) and they do not receive any special recognition for taking care of Simba all of the time that he was gone. Furthermore, when Timon and Pumbaa interact with other animals, they are often shy or afraid, and often not in control of the situation. However, they are also some of the most beloved characters in the Lion King, and they provide much of the fun and humor throughout the movie. Overall, Timon and Pumbaa are marked as different but they overall are a positive force; their difference constrains them in certain ways but it does not make them “bad.”

Questions:

How do you see the different portrayals of Timon and Pubmaa and Scar?

Would you rate the overall representation of Timon and Pumbaa’s relationship as positive? Why or why not?

Do you think Scar’s portrayal is harmful to the queer community? Why or why not?

What do you think Disney accomplishes or means to accomplish with the inclusion of gender nonconforming characters on both sides of the good/evil divide?

How would you relate Butler’s gender as performance to the other characters of the Lion King, such as Rafiki or Simba? What about other Disney movies?

Don't "Take Me to Church"

On September 25, 2013, Hozier released the music video for his song “Take Me to Church” in order to bring attention to how institutions shun the LGBT community. From smoking weed on camera to obvious displays of homosexual affection, Hozier makes it clear that his intentions behind the video are to break down the demands to conform from the heteronormative institutions. Hozier depicts the institutions as masked men in the video with a rather ominous look to them in order to evoke a sense of fear and a removal from safety from viewers. The violence displayed by these masked men causes those who identify as queer to hide in order to maintain their own safety. By doing this, Hozier wants to shock the audience, develop a more aware community, and break down those institutional norms in order to help create a more inclusive and safe place for those who identify as queer/LGBT.

Creating a safe environment for the LGBT community is an important topic within Hozier’s music video. In Cohen’s “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?”, she discusses that those who are queer need an environment of safety to allow a fluidity of their identities. Without a safe environment, the people who don’t identify in a heteronormative way will be stifled. This idea of a safe place is referenced in Hozier’s lyrics for “Take Me to Church” in the stanza “My Church offers no absolutes. / She tells me, 'Worship in the bedroom.' / The only heaven I'll be sent to / Is when I'm alone with you—”. The lyrics here discuss how even though the couple in the video may be shunned by the church itself (since they aren’t technically holding true to religious texts by sleeping with one another), they feel safe only when they’re together alone where the outside world cannot look in on their non-normative lifestyle.

Although the church is supposed to be viewed as a safe place, it is only accepting of those who are considered normal. As McRuer discussed "normalcy", he refers to the idea that living a normal life is a choice. Since the church only accepts normal people, it is assuming that normalcy is a choice and that queers are intentionally choosing this lifestyle -- creating the illusion that it is the queer persons fault for not fitting in and therefore not  being able to reside in the church as their "safe place."

Furthermore, we chose to utilize Doty's third and fifth definitions of queer to describe this work:

3. To describe the non straight work, positions, pleasures, and readings of people who don’t share the same “sexual orientation” as the text they are producing or responding to (Doty 6-7).
5. To describe non straight things that are not clearly marked as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual or transgendered, but that seem to suggest or allude to one or omore of these categories,often in a vague confusing, or incoherent manner (Doty 7).

These definitions of queer describe figures that are going against heteronorms and also address non straight works either produced or read by folks who are not queer identified. We feel that Hozier's song was targeted towards straight people, mainly those who are members of the church. It was targeted to show how even when queers try to "fit in" with society, they are often banished. Hozier, not identifying as gay himself, describes how even when queers try to fit into the "normal" lifestyle created by society they are always pushed away. For example, when he says "I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife" shows how even when queers try to conform to the ways of the church and the ways of "normal" society they are continually left out.

After viewing the interview with Hozier about the music video, he claims the video was in response to the anti-gay Russian laws that forbid homosexual relationships within Russia. Taking the video into context with this new knowledge, it’s apparent that even though the song is centered around a church, he is invested in opening up a discussion about establishments that reinforce the ideals of heteronormativity. The depiction of the men, who are clearly representative of the homophobic populace, imagines them as masked men. These masks are used to hide behind the institutions that push these ideals, a mask that allows the attackers to disconnect their own consciousness from the acts they are performing against the gay community and projecting it on the institution they are representing instead. It removes a lot of human interaction from the act of violence.

Discussion Questions:

• Why is there an apparent disconnect between video and lyrics (video references two men while lyrics reference a woman)?
• What would be a safe place for gays since many heterosexuals find comfort and safety in the church, but queers are rejected from the church therefore rejected from their "safe place"?
• What is the significance of the chained box in the video? Why was it buried? Why was it attempted to be opened and then thrown in the fire?

The Eroticism and Feminism of The Pussycat Dolls

In their 2006 music video for the single “I Don’t Need A Man”, The Pussycat Dolls present their feelings toward having men in their lives, specifically their ability to enjoy life without them. While The Pussycat Dolls may perform in the video wearing suggestive and revealing clothing in a way to entice their male audience, lyrics such as “I see you looking at me / like I got something that’s for you” gives the understanding that although they are dressed this way, no man is entitled to them. While this may not necessarily be a progressive way of thinking for the time, it still is an example of women being empowered and in control not only of their own bodies, but in their standards of relationships, They won’t be subtle about it because they “don’t ever want to leave you confused”. In the video, there are few scenes of all the girls together and even in those scenes, they aren’t interacting with each other much. Although the video alludes to ideas of heterosexuality and heteronormativity, most the lyrics themselves point to queer as Doty had described as well as Lorde’s depiction of the Erotic.

        The erotic in itself stems from the power of deep, unrecognized or unexpressed feelings (Lorde 53). The Pussycat Dolls, in their song “I Don’t Need A Man”, explicitly state their opinions on the assumed necessity of having a man in their lives, taking care of them and providing pleasure. As Lorde described it, the erotic thrives from the oppression of the power of feeling that would allow the oppressed to thrive and bring about change. We see in the instance of the song that men are the source of oppression of their previously unexpressed feelings. In the lyrics of the chorus, they say they “don’t need a man to make it happen.”  What “it” actually refers to is kept vague. The following line refers to how they “get off being free.” This may suggest some level of sexual satisfaction, but it can also be seen in a broader spectrum as their ability to do all the things that men are typically ‘supposed to do.’  This is part of the embodiment of the erotic as we have discussed in class in that it deals with passion and the ability to be content by oneself. They continue by saying that they “don’t need a man to make [them] feel good” which is again paired with getting off from doing their own thing. Pleasure here seems to strongly suggest some form of sexual or sensual satisfaction, which they are in complete control over. This self-control of pleasure also satisfies our discussion in class, allowing the erotic to further be put into the context of this song.

In addition to Lorde’s erotic, this music video can be seen as queer under Doty’s fifth definition of queer, “To describe non-straight things that are not clearly marked as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transexual, or transgendered, but that seem to suggest or allude to one or more of these categories, often in a vague, confusing, or incoherent manner...”(7) The Pussycat Dolls present as traditionally female from their outfits (skirts, dresses, exposed bras, and feminine shirts) to the props that they use (hair dryer, makeup and mirror, and hair salon drying chairs). And since they conform to gender norms due to compulsory heterosexuality, they are read as heterosexual. Yet even the name of the song “I Don’t Need A Man” opens the question: Are they not in need of a man as a sexual partner, or are they not in need of any partner at all? If they still need someone, as suggested in the line “I want a love that’s for real”, then do they need a woman or someone of another gender? There is a grey area concerning the sexuality of these women, which suggests the possibility of both bisexuality and asexuality. (Though Doty did not include asexuality it naturally fits with the rest of the list and we feel it fits with the definition of queer.)

In conclusion, a queer reading of this text is beneficial in analyzing feminism and queerness in pop music. When viewing a video or other forms of media, we tend to analyze in terms of our personal views, using ourselves as a template for understanding. Looking at this as a queer reading expands one's view to include different perspectives. As mentioned previously, it is a possibility that some lesbians could look to this video as inspiration or support. The video also encourages women to practice self-reliance, made obvious by the title, but also the lyrics- "I don't need a man to make me feel good, I get off doing my thing." It gives women the message that it is possible to be happy without a man, and there is power behind independent women, but also more power in multiple independent women. The women in the video flip their hair in unison as they proudly proclaim their liberation from the patriarchy.

1. While this video may be considered feminist, when it comes to other works by The Pussycat Dolls, can we consider them a feminist group? Does the same apply to considering them a queer group?

Other videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWyvMerss4w&list=UUiA9R5n9sR06RgGGigkY5RA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S97MaG3kOMY&list=UUiA9R5n9sR06RgGGigkY5RA&index=8

2. Is it fair to expand Doty’s definition of Queer to include other sexualities, genders, and gender expression, or are we limited to what Doty explicitly states?
   
   
3. How does this song and video compare to Marina and the Diamonds’ video for How To Be a Heartbreaker in terms of a female’s relationship to men? What about the video for Blurred Lines? How is sexualization used differently in the Pussycat Dolls’ video?

Audre Lorde and Pitch Perfect: Female Eroticism through Mutual Empowerment (Group 3)

            The movie Pitch Perfect was released in 2012. It follows the story of Beca, a freshman at Barden University, who joins the female-only acapella group called The Bellas. During her experience with The Bellas, she finds encouragement in her companionship with another group member named Chloe. The pair frequently share moments of suggestive interaction throughout the movie. Chloe singles Beca out for solicitation in a crowd of students, Chloe excitedly makes time on stage for Beca’s audition, and there are frequent physical demonstrations of affection such and caressing, hugging, and forehead touching. In this post, the focus will be on the arguably most sensually charged scene between the couple. Early in the film, Beca and Chloe interact in the shower. 

            Beca is singing alone and is interrupted by Chloe who praises her voice and seeks to bring out a sense of confidence and joy within Beca over her talents. Chloe ultimately hopes to draw Beca closer to Chloe and, by extension, The Bellas. This scene showcases well Audre Lorde’s concept of erotic in her article “Uses of the Erotic.”

            “When I speak of the erotic, then, I speak of it as an assertion of the lifeforce of women; of that creative energy empowered, the knowledge and use of which we are now reclaiming” (55). Here, Lorde describes the erotic potential within women as an experience of creative energy. It’s a means of presenting oneself as the authority over one’s sensual identity as expressed through “our language, our history, our dancing, our loving, our work, our lives” (55). The shower scene demonstrates a connection between two nude women through a shared creative energy. Beca is able to overcome her vulnerability – as Lorde would say, her fear of the yes within herself – and is able to recognize and act on the desire within herself (58).

            Another major aspect of Lorde’s “Uses of the Erotic” is her understanding of joy as it connects with the erotic. “The sharing of joy, whether physical, emotional, psychic, or intellectual, forms a bridge between the sharers which can be the basis for understanding” (56). When Chloe shares her musical joy with Beca, she “lessens the threat of their difference” by creating that bridge of understanding between them. Their shared experience of the song Titanium by David Guetta and Sia – a song which  Chloe describes as her “lady jam,” a euphemism for masturbation, which brings overt sexuality into the interaction – is a way to solidify similarities in a sensual and intimate way.

            In addition to the shared experience of joy being grounds for an erotic relationship, Lorde stresses the importance of a capacity for joy. Calling it “open and fearless,” she believes the potential for experiencing joy within oneself is “another important way in which the erotic connection functions” (56). Chloe exudes an understanding of her own capacity for joy. She is bubbly and friendly and reaches out to others to unlock that potential for deep happiness. Because Chloes finds strength in her own capacity for joy and finds strength and confidence in that knowledge, she desires to awaken that in those around her. Her pursuit of Beca in this context suggests that Chloe seeks to arouse the same confidence in Beca.

            The nudity in this scene is not presented as pornographic. It is a definite expression of intimacy and vulnerability and, as the scene progresses, both characters accept the other’s level of exposure. The trust achieved in that shared safe space isn’t breached by either women but instead by the male presence at the end of the scene. Even with Beca’s final non-verbal reminder to Chloe that she is nude and Chloe’s response of “I’m pretty confident of all this” and motions to her body followed by Beca’s statement of “You should be,” neither women is made to feel like a sexual object within each other’s gaze. Lorde calls pornography “a direct denial of the power of the erotic, for it represents the suppression of true feeling. Pornography emphasizes sensation without feeling” (54). Pornography is a tool utilized by men to actively deny the erotic lifeforce of women. “It has been made into the confused, the trivial, the psychotic, the plasticized sensation” (54). When the two women in the scene are interrupted by the man, they become hyper aware of their nudity through his gaze. Chloe’s capacity and desire to share joy fluctuates as she becomes anxious and flighty. Beca raises her voice in obvious discomfort and irritation. This return of a male presence in their immediate proximity returns the women to “the fear that we cannot grow beyond whatever distortions we may find within ourselves [that] keeps us docile and loyal and obedient, externally defined, and leads us to accept many facets of our oppression as women” (58). By reevaluating their nudity after being viewed by a male gaze, the women resign themselves reluctantly to being defined by this external source as desirable for their nakedness and not for their talents.

                        Study Questions

1. We mentioned that other scenes in this film could arguably exemplify their intimacy and relationship. Using this video (hyperlink this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6e7ekhjJzE ), expand on their dynamic. Is the shower scene a one-off expression of queerness, or can the entire film be read with a queer relationship between these two characters in mind?

2. Adrienne Rich's concept of a lesbian continuum, a broad range in which female experiences and interactions can be experienced, could also be used to identify the sense of queerness shared between Chloe and Beca. What other definitions of 'queer' could be applied to this scene and relationship?

3. Could this scene be read as empowering? Does female nudity without shame or objectification inherently convey a sense of empowerment? What about power? Is there a sense of one of these women holding power in this scene?

4. In what ways does the entrance of a male character at the end of the scene adjust the meaning of their interaction? If it is a contrast to the dynamic Chloe and Beca and created, why?

                        Other Links

Brittany Snow comments on queerness in Pitch Perfect in this interview.

Rebel Wilson comments on queerness in Pitch Perfect in this interview.

How To Be a Heartbreaker. Group Two 

Marina and the Diamonds: How To Be a Heartbreaker - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKNcuTWzTVw

Marina Diamandis creates a music video that emcompasses two of Doty’s definitions of queer: figures going against hetero-normativity, and also non-normative gender performance. Marina portrays men the way women would typically be portrayed in American society - as playful, carefree sex objects. She also portrays herself in a way that would usually be regarded positively for men, but in her case because of double standards, people view her as promiscuous (a “slut”). The video received a lot of backlash, typically for the way she portrays herself and objectifies men, yet she sings about not giving away sex to these men. However, there are hundreds of music videos that portray women as objects and glorify men for having their way with them sexually, yet they receive very little attention or scrutiny.

The definition of queer that deals with non-normative gender performance can be seen throughout the video.  The men in the background are playful with Marina, but it is more noticeable when they are playful with one another.  It is not often seen in media where men are playfully hitting each other in a shower.  If the men are playing with one another than they are typically doing things that are perceived as more masculine.  Rubbing up on each others bodies also defies normative gender.  Society does not usually see men rubbing up on each other as what is considered normal.  By filling the role that would be reserved for women, the video is displaying non-normative gender performance.
    

Rather than being praised as a strong, independent woman, she is being viewed as a hypocrite. In the comments of the Youtube video, many people have commented saying that if a man had this video they would be criticized and frowned upon, but when a woman makes a video like this one, instead of being viewed as empowering and enlightening, they are looked at as a fake feminist and are using feminism as a way to receive special treatment and to avoid backlash and criticism.    

Marina’s video may be looked down upon by some feminists, men, and women because of its obvious role-reversal. In our modern society women are meant to be viewed as symbols of purity, selflessness, and an overall embodiment of motherly nature. Marina shows us that women are so much more than just these titles, and their pleasure is their own, not subject only to the desires of men. Marina makes the statement, “Girls, we don’t want our hearts to break in two, so its better to be fake…” She seems to be saying that the only way to get noticed as beyond the titles placed upon women is to be eccentric, to be over the top, and to break the mold: whether they feel comfortable or not. She seems to say that women must ask as “men” in order to not get hurt in the traditional ways that womens’ roles allow them to be.

1. Do you think that Marina is taking a feminist stance by exploiting men, and portraying relationships and breakups this way? Or do you think that Marina is being hypocritical and is using feminism as a way to avoid backlash from the heteronormative standards?
2. Is it right to objectify men, as society objectifies women? Why or why not? What ramifications might this have?
3. In some of the YouTube comments, the commenters say that women in the media and in music videos objectify themselves.  Can it be seen as self objectification? Or could we argue that the way women perform in media as forms of self-empowerment and choosing to express themselves in a different way from what is considered the norm?

Blurred Lines? Group One

Robin Thicke pushed the boundaries of the radio waves in 2013 when he dropped his single “Blurred Lines”. Filled with lyrics about how much he knows women want sex, many people have been viewing this song as a step backwards from the progress that women have been making to keep themselves from being objectified. The song was complemented by a video that, of course, raised even more concerns than the song, especially in feminist circles. As a feminist response to the bigotry of Thicke’s video, a group of women called Auckland Uni created a parody called “Defined Lines” during the same year. We attempt to give a queer reading of these two videos comparing them to one another using Adrienne Rich’s definition of queer which is mainly about stomping out patriarchy once and for all. She says that “Women could be indifferent to [men] altogether; that men could be allowed sexual and emotional access to women only on women’s terms” (643). We will show how the feminist video utilizes Rich’s advice about how women can fight against the normalization of a dominant male culture.

Thicke’s video for “Blurred Lines” is set in what appears to be a strange sort of private party atmosphere that features a variety of scantily clad women. Throughout, these women are portrayed in a way that conveys innocence and vulnerability. They are lead around by Thicke and his other male counterparts like sheep, clothed in various nude and muted colors, and their hair is periodically brushed and petted as if they were dolls. Their childlike appearance contrasts the stance of power and assurance belonging to Thicke and the other men present. This imagery is problematic in that it enforces a gender binary that asserts that men should hold dominance over women, the weaker sex. “Defined Lines” goes as far as to completely juxtapose what Thicke is intending to do in his video and dominate the males in a repressive role. The women covey their dominance by spraying whip cream and putting a vibrator in the men’s mouths; this is in reference to the male organ being used as a powerful mechanism in diminishing them. One of the singers then totes one of the men like a dog across the video frame on a leash like a dog. The intention is obvious in showing that women have just as much control over the opposite sex as men. In society, it wouldn’t be as shocking for women to take on an acting role in a music video as just a prop; such as the three women in “Blurred Lines.” But it seems extraordinarily degrading when one witnesses the man dressed in a leash. Society doesn’t seem as phased by degradation of women, but appalled when it is turned on men, this is precisely the point that the Auckland Uni artists are intending to make.

This rejection of male power and appetite that we see in Defined Lines falls in place directly with Rich's ideas of the lesbian continuum. Specifically, it capitalizes on the power that women hold as gatekeepers to intimacy, and their ability to choose how, when, and why to seek it, “It seems more probable that men fear… women could be indifferent to [men] altogether, that men could be allowed sexual and emotional access to women only on women’s terms”(643).  The entirety of the song, besides acting as a massive "Fuck You" to Robin Thicke, not only flips the gender dynamics we usually see in many music videos, but emphasizes women’s choice and agency in engaging in heterosexual relationships - with one girl going so far as to reject the whole thing entirely (“Your precious dick can’t beat my vibrator”). The videos continued deliberate use of phrases like, “our liberation”, “we don’t want it” also draws attention to the importance of unity and gives the viewer an impression of general female support through shared experience of misogyny and objectification. This idea of women supporting women against the patriarchy is an integral part of Rich’s lesbian continuum, and despite lacking any overt sexual material between women (except for a brief scene where two of the women “share” a man), the video imparts this through empowerment and female connection.

Unfortunately, Robin Thicke’s music video for “Blurred Lines” and the message it’s imagery presents is not uncommon in the music industry, Representations of the dominant male and the subordinate woman are present in music videos and performances cross genre and culture. Auckland Uni’s parody, “Defined Lines,” shows a different potential for the world of music media. It offers the argument that the more common representations we are given may not be the only way sex and gender play out in real life. Although some might deem it too extreme or comical, much like Rich’s idea of the lesbian continuum it shows that perhaps there is a different way to exist. A greater allowance of variability in the music industry could be the key to unlocking a world of possibilities for the representation of women in our society.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. In general, what does the term “Blurred Lines” in the music video “Blurred Lines” by Robin Thicke mean in context of sex, gender roles, and harassment? What are Auckland Uni artists trying to say by naming their parody “Defined Lines?” In what ways to the compare
2. Auckland Uni’s parody of “Blurred Lines” attempts to break down the stereotypical presentation of sex and gender contained in the original music video. In our opinion it serves as a powerful visual tool that fights the way women are portrayed by the media. What are some ways you believe tangible change can be made in our everyday lives? How can we better represent women in the workplace, in classrooms or in our neighborhoods?
3. We classified Auckland Uni’s video as queer because it is fighting against a normalized system of patriarchy. What do we have to do to take Auckland Uni’s ideas about women’s rights out of the “queer” zone? Is this video a good way to change the way that males view women? Is it too radical, making people shy away from feminism?

Anaconda, Nicki Minaj, and Queer Spaces?

Trinidadian rapper Nicki Minaj’s most recent single “Anaconda” (2014) has gathered a lot of attention both for the song and for the accompanying video that focuses prominently on the twerking and undulating rear ends of Minaj and her backup dancers (examples of feminist readings include this from Autostradle and this by Black feminist bell hooks). The video has been viewed over 241 million times on Youtube and helped Minaj earn her highest charting single in the United States. As a fan of Minaj, I wanted to think about the possibility of reading this video through a queer lens, especially the all-female spaces the video uses and the power that Minaj appears to have over the consumption of her own body. In reading “Anaconda” as a queer text, I am employing Cathy Cohen’s definition of queer as that which contests heteronormativity. For Cohen, “heteronormativity works to support and reinforce institutional racism, patriarchy, and class exploitation” (455) and thus even heterosexual or straight-identified individuals can be queered by their resistance to these intersecting systems of oppression. I read “Anaconda” as contesting traditional ideas about the female body and female pleasure that are linked to white supremacy and patriarchal norms.

As Adrienne Rich and Audre Lorde both argue, female connection and intimacy is received as threat to patriarchal control in a society where access to the female body is prized as the right of straight men. With the exception of a scene where Minaj performs a lap-dance on the rapper Drake, the “Anaconda” video occurs entirely in spaces with female or feminine bodies. Some of these spaces appear to be outside of mainstream society all together – either fantasy spaces, like the set where Minaj demonstrates an absurd parody of a cooking show, or places outside of our time all together, like the rainforest setting where Minaj freely plays with the buttocks of her dancers. Even the more traditional settings, like the exercise class, are clearly parodying or mocking ideas of a “realistic” setting. This could discredit the entire video as entirely unreal, but it also can suggest that we are seeing a fantasy space where Minaj is playing out her desires. Minaj’s lyrics further reference her own sexual pleasure; she playfully alludes to receiving oral sex and the necessity of large penises to achieve maximum pleasure.

Throughout the video, Minaj controls everything happening around her – including the curvy bodies of her dancers. Her playful jiggling of her dancers’ rear ends suggests both her ability to adopt the traditionally male role of accessing the female body and the potential for same-sex desire. Of course, as Adrienne Rich notes, we might also understand these moments as being like much “so-called lesbian pornography” which is “created for the [straight] male voyeuristic eye.” The video definitely offers plenty for straight male viewers, yet it also opens the possibility that other ways of viewing are encouraged and thus opens some space for other folks to desire the bodies shown in other, potentially more queer ways. We could easily read the entire video as performed for the male gaze, yet the actual male presences suggest a more queer relationship to the male viewer. When Minaj performs a lap dance for Drake, the male rapper is shown as entirely controlled by the female body on his lap and he is powerless to follow her when she chooses to leave him behind. She may approach him on her knees, but she walks away triumphantly and he is left seated and presumably unsatisfied. The absurd spectacle of Minaj’s cooking show culminates in her putting whipping cream on her cleave – either encouraging the viewer or referencing a woman’s physical response to pleasure. In this same segment, Minaj’s use of bananas obviously references the male sexual organ and her violent treatment of the bananas suggests that the penis – as representative of the patriarchy – can easily be cut into small pieces and devoured.

The United States has a long and nasty history of reading the African American female body as hypersexual and less than human. “Anaconda” could be read as participating in this stereotyping of Black women as overly curvy and sexually available, yet Minaj’s celebration of her rear end suggests she may have some measure of control over this image. She is choosing to celebrate her rear end and does not believe her ample curves disqualify her from access to ideas of classiness or success; we see her in designer clothes and we see her in workout clothes, suggesting that skinniness need not be the only goal for exercise or health. Minaj’s tirade against “skinny bitches” and celebration of larger women suggests a queer resistance to ideas of the ideal body that are linked to images of white femininity. Now, that does not mean that I think the video portrays an entirely progressive view of women’s bodies – these bodies are still petite with skinny waists alongside larger rear ends and breasts. Not all body types are celebrated, but this is a distinctly different vision from a more common ideal presented in mainstream popular culture. The song’s use of the sample from “Baby Got Back” by Sir Mix-a-lot similarly seems to mock or queer the idea that men, like the original rapper, should be able to have the last word on women’s bodies.

While I think that I have shown ways in which “Anaconda” queers ideas about race, gender, and sexuality, I am somewhat torn about the ways that the video relates to Cohen’s idea of “class exploitation.” Like many popular music videos, “Anaconda” is full of product placement, especially for Myx Moscato, a brand co-owned and endorsed by Minaj. The video’s visuals more broadly are clearly intended to draw in a large audience – controversy sells! – and thus boost views and sales. At the same time, we could argue that Minaj’s visibility as a woman of color in the music industry and her apparent control over much of her image messes with certain ideas about who belongs in higher-class society. Of course, that doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a lot of privilege, including access to the money that means she has a flawless appearance. Ultimately, the video reminds me that queer texts are complex texts and not necessarily just progressive (if they are at all).

Questions:

1.     How does spectatorship - or who is watching the video - determine whether or not we should read it as queer? Is this still a queer text if consumed by a straight man who simply objectifies Minaj’s body? Does the video resist a straightforward “straight” reading?

2.     Much of the video seems to rely on the female bodies all appear very similar; almost all are similar to Minaj’s body. What does this do the politics of the video? If we read the video as contesting one set of beauty norms, does it just replace them with another one? Is this progressive or just more of the same?

3.     How does the video relate to ideas about sexual desire? Are the “big butts” a stand-in for other parts of the body? Does the butt replace male desire or is it simply presented as being there for male pleasure?