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.
- 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
- 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?
- 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?
The Pussycat Dolls are iconic in pop culture. To begin to analyze them as a group I think first we must look at their group name. What can we take away from the stigma associated with these words, "the Pussycat Dolls"? If you look at the group from a feminist view it could be seen as a challenge to societal norms just because of their "title". It is not every day that you hear of an all female group named "pussycat dolls". This could be seen as provocative on many levels. As a female it is uncomfortable to even say them name aloud. When you hear the world "pussy" it is normally associated with the vagina as a more "derogatory" slang term; so we must ask ourselves why a female group would chooses this name? The group is composed of very attractive ladies that would fit all the stereotypical definition of "American beauty". They are perfectly sculpted, in shape, perfect skin tones, perfect clothes and of course perfect voices. This may be where the second part of their group name comes from, they resemble dolls. I do believe that their music challenges heteronormativity. This is a great marketing strategy for the all female group because though they fit within the barriers of acceptable pop culture they also challenge it through somewhat discrete ways. As I listened and watched the music video of, "Wait A Minute" I noticed that their lyrics were saying one thing but the image they were portraying were saying another. The male in the video repeated the word "pimp" while the girls flung themselves around poles on a subway in a trench coats with skimpy clothes. This could be read in different ways, depending ones own views.
ReplyDeleteI think this video is more comparable to the Blurred Lines parody than the Heartbreaker video. My reason is that in the Heartbreaker video, there is still an essence of the man giving the girl pleasure where as in this video and the Blurred Lines parody, the women receive pleasure from having power over men rather than the men themselves. A noticeable difference in the parody version is that the females are disinterested in the men where as these women want the attention of men and act seductive to get that attention.
ReplyDeleteI find it really interesting that all these videos present things in very different ways, however, all three songs do preach the same message: women aren’t just objects for men and they can have control over their sexuality. I think the video that does this the best is the parody because the females don’t need to act seductively to get the attention of men and don’t really get any true pleasure from their attention. Yet, the parody girls (and all the other music video females) are able to do all of this because they are already attractive to men which raises the question of how do women portray these ideas without having physically “attractive” features?
This example is a great representation of Lorde's explanation of the erotic. I think it is important to note how empowering this song can be for women. Lyrics that imply self satisfaction are important in today's society because women need to learn that they don't need a man. In this case, the Pussycat Dolls clearly states this and do not hold anything back. The lyrics take a true feminist stance and the video even more enforces it. It is interesting how these women are beautiful and talented but yet choose to push societies limits on heteronormativity. From the additional videos, I think it can be concluded that the Pussycat dolls are a feminist group. However, I do not really see the connection of them also being considered a "queer" group. In the one video with the man referring to himself as their "pimp", I think it is important to note that by dressing in skimpy outfits and dancing on poles they were not trying to degrade women. I took it as them showing that women have some control over men and their actions.I would not connect this as a "queer" reading however because the women are focusing more on their own empowerment and self satisfaction than relying on others of any sex. I can see though how the connection between their lyrics and music video can be confusing.
ReplyDeleteThis video is much different from Marina and the Diamonds video for, "How to be a heartbreaker" in many ways. First, the women in this video are sexualized for themselves, the lyrics and the acting shows this. They are dressed in a way that some would call provocative but they are singing about their own bodies and how they are not there for a man. In HTBAH Marina is provocative for the men in the video. She sings about how to protect your heart, when you are interacting with me. In the Pussycat Dolls Video they are singing about the opposite, how to feel good about yourself with no respect to men. How to be yourself and how you do not need a man to feel sexy or secure. Both videos are singing about how not to get hurt, or to be mistreated by the men, but Marina uses her power as a woman to protect herself when being with them, how to leave before being left; where the Pussycat Dolls are singing about how to be yourself with no man. Both have the same message of female empowerment but the Pussycat Dolls take a much more feminist approach to the topic.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not see The Pussycat Dolls as a feminist group, nor do I see them as not a feminist group mainly because I haven’t seen enough of their work to make any real informed judgement. However, based on the three videos from this post, I have observed that they seem to take the same sense of empowerment that some exotic dancers take from their work, owning their sexuality and using it to make a living and captivate the audience.
ReplyDeleteDoty explicitly states that “queer” has six definitions. So yes, some of them are applicable to describe other sexualities, genders and gender expressions. Specifically, the use of “queer” as a synonym for gay and lesbian, as an umbrella term for non-straight identities, and as a term to describe non-normative gender performance.
I’m really glad that Lydia mentioned them calling themselves “The Pussycat Dolls” because it has always gotten my attention and it’s good to know that I’m not the only one that finds it a little uncomfortable to say aloud.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this video could be considered feminist, I don’t really think that as a group they are feminist. The background throughout most of the video is pink which they could be using a way to reinforce their femininity and exclusion of men. They are also shown doing their hair and make-up, and bathing, which seems to be something that they are doing for themselves, not to attract men. And overall they seem to be having a good time and enjoying life (without men). I think this video is a great depiction of the Erotic as described by Lorde.
The biggest difference that I noticed between this video and the video for How To Be a Heartbreaker is that this video does not have any men in it. I think the lack of men really reinforces the point that they are trying to make about not needing a man, on the other hand Marina and the Diamonds’ video features a plethora of men, and she is not singing about not needing a man, but rather having fun and making him “fall for a stranger/player.”
As far as considering The Pussycat Dolls to be a feminist group as a whole I'm not sure that I agree, however this song definitely connotes a lot of feminist ideals. Throughout the whole song, they are singing about how they don't need men to be happy or to get off and feel good. This seems to be a shot at the common thought that men are sexual beings and that's all they think about, so these women are individualizing themselves by saying that they don't need sex from men in order to feel good. Furthermore, the way in which they dress in the video is definitely provocative. Through this, I feel they are making the statement that even though they are dressed in a provocative manner that they still aren't conveying to men that they want sexual interaction. We must also look at the name of the group for sure. "Pussycat Dolls" is definitely an odd name to roll off the tongue and I am interested as to what their reasoning behind the name truly is. Are they trying to combat the social construction of the term "pussy" being uncomfortable or were they just aiming for a name to catch peoples eyes? As for them being a queer group, I would say that they are queer in terms of being deviant from the norm, but definitely queer in terms of sexuality. Many of their other songs from the past have heteronormative elements throughout.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe there is anything queer about this video and I do not find much of the Pussycat Dolls and this video to be feminist. This video is could be considered feminist in the sense that this group uses their sex appeal to attract men, but that is a stretch. The lyrics and the way that they present themselves as sexual beings contradict the way they are trying to portray themselves. They are trying to portray themselves as independent women that do not accept objectification and are okay with being single, and that men should have to work to be with them, but then sing about how it is important that the men are able to provide material items and that the relationships are based of sex rather than an emotional connection. There is nothing queer about this video because there is not hint that the women are attracted to each other at all. This song is exclusively about heteronormative relationships. I do not believe that the Pussycat Dolls are feminists. Body confidence is important, and great, but I do not believe they are using it in a feminist way, but rather a sexual way to attract men.
ReplyDeleteI love the Pussycat Dolls’ music but they are a bit of a confusing group in the message they are trying to convey. I agree with Lydia that they combat the idea of feminism by using a negative, derogatory word that women don’t tend to like. I personally am uncomfortable by the word myself. The video itself may be queer because they are using their bodies in such an empowering way only for their pleasure, like their illusion to masturbation… but the video is meant kind of for the eyes of men… that’s their job; burlesque dancers after all. So they really confuse me, especially with their songs “Wait a minute” and “Beep.” Maybe their angle is that women enjoy the lyrics but the men enjoy the visual? In the video they never touch one another or allude to being attracted to one another/ even looking at each other so I do not think this satisfies a homosexual context of the word queer. I do agree with the definition of queer in which Doty uses, in the third paragraph, because they seem to juxtapose a lot of their actions, such as when they wear white (purity?) as they touch their bodies sexually. Oh Pussycat Dolls where are you all now? ☺
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that the video shows a lot of feminist-type independence from men, I don't see a lot of sexual interaction between the girls, therefore it doesn't scream "queer" to me. It does though, show how they are more about exposing themselves as more of a tease to men like in Marina's video. I see it kind of ironic in the way that they are saying "we don't need you" but showing themselves in a way that is attractive to the male viewers. I like what Mimi says about how their lyrics appeal to women and the visual aspects to men. I see the feminist viewpoint, but vaguely. It seems to me as a combination of female to female support and sexually teasing men. They talk about being independent and "getting off" on their own while being overly sexual to the eye. I don't see this through a lesbian lens or even through an erotic one.
ReplyDeleteThis song/video are a really mixed bag. There are certain feminist elements to the lyrics, but the video is extremely objectifying, hypersexualized and heteronormative. The sentiment that the women do not need men for sexual pleasure ("I get off on being free/doing my thing" "I don't need a man to make it happen") are feminist in their assertion that women do not need men to be sexually satisfied and that they can please themselves. They also talk about not needing a man's monetary support or a ring to feel "complete"--both combating the ideal of patriarchal relationships in which the man is the provider and a woman's ultimate goal and fulfillment in life is marriage. So they deserve some credit for those ideas, that is empowering. However, I was pretty disgusted by the video and didn't find anything in it empowering or feminist. The whole video consists of the women in sexual clothing and various suggestive poses and dances, while using personal care products. That is just inherently weird, but also highly problematic because they are prepping themselves to be attractive to the male gaze while they are singing about not needing a man. If they don't need men, why is the whole video predicated on showing how sexually attractive they are to men? This video could have carried an entirely different message had it been of the women just hanging out and doing regular things with each other (or alone--not needing a man doesn't necessarily imply needing a woman or friends or whatever) while dressed in actual clothes. The pussycat dolls' performance of stereotypical heterosexual attractiveness negates any claim that they don't need a man because they are clearly highly invested in sexually appealing to men.
ReplyDeleteThe video is definitely an interesting example of how women aren't the property of men no matter how they look and act, but the video doesn't seem to emphasize the queer aspect too terribly much in respect to Doty's fifth definition, as stated in the blog post. It seems as though the members of the group tend to not touch each other very often or look at each other even. The majority of the video takes place in their own little individual clips that alternate consistently. Even when they're in a group, they are spread out performing choreographic moves that don't seem suggestive in the queer sense at all. However, the feminist ideals presented in the video are very apparent, as the women are dressed in a rather sexual manner, but claim that even if they're dressed this way, they shouldn't be expected they're doing it for a man's attention, but perhaps because dressing that way makes the women feel good themselves.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of attention drawn to the women's bodies which could be seen as the Pussy Cat Dolls proving that what a woman chooses to wear is not an invitation to men. I understand that concept but I can't stop thinking about how hypersexualized this video is. There were many times when the girls were grabbing their breasts and it made me see this video as more of a strategical tease than a feminist message. The song lyrics are great. Very inspiring. But in my personal opinion, the girls in the video could have worn clothes a little more often.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Pussycat Dolls sexualize themselves very much in this video, however I don't think it is in a queer way. They are literally talking about how they do not need men, while flaunting their bodies. I think that Lorde's definition of the erotic is evident through their actions. They are embracing the attractiveness that draws the attention of men, while singing about the power they hold. While they know they are being lusted after, they are embracing the fact that they can empower themselves through their sexualization, and that just because they are hot does not mean they should be termed "slutty" or "trashy." I do not think this makes them a feminist group however. They have other songs like "Buttons" that feminist groups would not think is helping the cause, but I still think that they are empowering themselves in this video.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that individuals or groups should decide which people or performers are considered feminists or not. Deciding who is a feminist and who is not is determined using some sort of specific definition, and we could possibly be forcing or taking away an aspect of someone's identity if we try to label The Pussycat Dolls instead of letting them label themselves. Doty's fifth definition of queer can be seen here, but it isn't quite that strong. There are some alluding where the women can "get off doing my own thing" which could be something with another woman, but it could just mean that they want someone of the opposite gender that doesn't objectify them or lets them be an independent woman.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I agree with labeling The Pussycat Dolls as a feminist or non feminist group. I feel that takes away from the idea that they are allowed variability in expression and personal feelings. For example, in this song they may be trying to present a queer idea of what it means for a woman to need a man. However another one of their hits, "Stickwitchu", focuses on the longing for a heteronormative and monagomous relationship with a man. This reminds me of the debate out there over Beyoncé's new album and whether or not it solidified her standing as a feminist artist. Beyonce is a strong and powerful woman who has publicly declared herself to be a feminist. However some critics assert that some of her songs on her new album like "Jealous" take away from this message. In that particular song she talks about being submissive (specifically cooking for her him naked) to her husband. My thought, is is she not allowed to feel that way and still call herself a feminist? Who decides who gets to be called a feminist artist? In a similar way, The Pussycat Dolls may have been trying to send a feminist message with the song while sending another message in another. In my opinion one song or two cannot be used to put an artist up on some sort of ideal feminist pedestal. The hypersexualization of the video is also not always a direct sign of mysogny or self-disrespect.
ReplyDeleteI do tend to agree with this group's argument about seeing queerness and the erotic in this video, though I think both are so very surface level and watered down that if we weren't in a class discussing these topics, we'd never see them in the video. Yes, the song does have a great message about women being happy and fulfilled without the presence of men in their lives, but still they're dancing suggestively in revealing clothing in a way that seems purely meant for the male gaze, especially considering the Pussycat Dolls started out as a burlesque troupe. Because of this I have a difficult time deciding just how I feel on whether they should be considered a feminist group. part of me says no, because based purely on their other songs like "Dontcha" which is all about trying to make a man jealous and places women at odds against each other. Part of me says yes because while they do sing about wanting men and pleasing men, and while they do perform in a profession that has always been seen as exploitative to women, they own what they do and really seem to enjoy it, and they are allowed to do what they want. Still part of me says its not my right or job to decide if their feminists or not, since only they can decided that, and since they do have so much variability in their songs and performances
ReplyDeleteI would agree that this video comes off as very feminist, as you don't see any men in this video; while they may be scantily clad, you get the impression that they are doing it for themselves. They are dressing like that because they want to, not because someone forced them to do so. However the choice of labeling them as a feminist group or not I feel belongs to themselves, especially because there are so many definitions of what that word truly means out there in this time and age. When it comes to Doty's definition of queer though, I'm not sure how I feel about it being an all-encompassing term for queer, as it seems to work on making many assumptions on hoe people behave, dress, etc. However in this way it's also rather inclusive. When this video is compared to How to Be a Heartbreaker, I see one major difference: In How to Be a Heartbreaker, it's made clear the the singer seems to be attracted to men. However in I don't need a man it's left to interpretation why they don't need a man, and it's heteronormativity that makes one assume they don't need a man and are straight. They could easily not need a man because they identify as lesbian. There seems to be more sexualization in the How to Be a Heartbreaker, because the men are not dressed so they may attract women, while The Pussycat Dolls seemed to be dressed in a way that simply pleases them.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that the very name "The Pussycat Dolls" is quite a provocative name and draws one's attentions. I am reminded of the cartoon Josie and the Pussycats from the 70's, which was based on a female band. The word "pussy" as stated by a few of us, is very much a derogatory term. The flipside of that is that it is another term used to refer to cats, and cats have been synonymous with women. In this way, I think their name is very much a very bold, provocative way to reclaim a term that is seen as derogatory. As for them being feminists, its kind of hard to categorize as the definition in this modern day is being reimagined as indicated by the inclusion of other entertainer's body of work such as Beyonce and the the critiques surrounding her latest release. With that being said, there are very much instances in this video in particular in which I would argue that they could be feminists in the sense that they are interested in empowerment and self definition while controlling how they are viewed as sexual objects for their own enjoyment and not for the men that they slyly performing for. I wouldn't necessarily regard this video as queer due to their own lack of interaction with each other, or performing for other women that could be visually read as queer or lesbian.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this song seems like a feminist view about relationships, I would not classify the Pussycat Dolls as a feminist group. I think most of their previous songs and videos are trying to be sexually pleasing to men. I think they are a group that seems to try to be very sexy, but not for themselves in a powering way. I think as a group their songs are pretty similar to those of so many other groups where they are fine with being objects for men. Even though they do portray themselves as strong women I still would not consider their work as a whole being a feminists.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the pussycat dolls are a feminist group. They play into the fourteen year old boys wet dream with their pop culture. If you play into the system to gain power and popularity and then try to rail against it, it defeats your purpose. Also, one seemingly feminist video amid a slew of provocative, demeaning videos is definitely not enough to consider them a feminist band.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think the Pussycat Dolls take an interesting and different approach, I would consider them a feminist group. Their name in it of itself can be interpreted in a derogatory way, like Gary and others mentioned above, but it seems almost like it was a play on words. They created this image and name for the group to attract a larger group of people. And many would fight back and say that it's not truly feminist if they are conforming to society to get attention--but on the other hand, it's smart and resourceful. By creating an image that is "inviting" and "normal" in pop culture, there will get more views and there will be more publicity. So even though their image may seem like it doesn't fit in the normal description of a feminist group, by taking advantage of the system to attract more views, their songs became more wide spread so the feminist messages that are underlined in the songs are also more wide spread and heard by more people. They learned how to play the system--some may say it's "cheating" true feminism but I say it's just smart.
ReplyDeleteI honestly see nothing in this video that suggest Doty's fifth definition of queer could be used here. While the Pussycat Dolls may be singing about not needing a man, it seems pretty clear to me that their performance in the video is meant for a male audience, and nothing seems to suggest it could also be meant for a female audience as well. Mainstream media almost never takes queer audiences into account when appealing to viewers, so I think it's safe to say that if no such intention was implied, then the intention was never there.The video does speak to one side of feminism by allowing the women to sing about their own pleasure independent of men's, and I do enjoy the messages of women dressing up and doing their hair only for themselves, but I would hesitate to call the video queer. There may be no explicit performance of heterosexuality due to the lack of men in the video, but it was still designed with a heterosexual audience in mind.
ReplyDelete