Big, black booties “intrigue” Jezebel readership

by Guest Contributor Tami, originally published at What Tami Said

Some folks (including me, sometimes) quibble over whether the blog Jezebel qualifies as “feminist.” Having lurked around the joint for awhile, I would say it definitely has a third-wave feminist ethos. That means the site’s bloggers regularly lay a smack down on media that exploits women. So, I was surprised to find an endorsement for “Straight Stuntin’” magazine among today’s posts. For those who have blessedly not been exposed to the hip hop booty fest that is SS, click over to Jezebel for a gallery of images from the pub. (Probably NSFW–Be prepared for plenty of thonged asses, weaves and bling) Jezebel writer Dodai says of the pin-up rag:

Straight Stuntin is a hip-hop/pin-up magazine I stumbled on, and I probably should be completely offended by it, but I’m absolutely fascinated instead.

Most commenters to the post share the OP’s fascination, marveling at the pneumatic gleuteus maximi rather than railing against exploitation. And that makes me uncomfortable. As I write this, I’m trying to parse exactly why.

Venue

I have to admit that I might not be so bothered by this post if it had, say, been posted by my blogsister Professor Tracey on Aunt Jemima’s Revenge. Why? Because as a blog with a predominantly black readership, AJR feels like a place where “we” can discuss black pop culture without the judgment or generalizations of the mainstream. Something feels icky about a readership of mostly white women evaluating a black magazine that objectifies black women and, for the most part, deeming it acceptable. The amazed ogling of black behinds in a mainstream has shades of Sarah Bartmann:

Some of these women’s asses seem to defy gravity. I am actually dumbstruck by them. I know, I know we aren’t supposed to relegate a woman to her parts, but I just feel kind of humbled by the two asses in the third picture. Kind of like being in ass church. I feel reverence and awe.

Do these women have cellulite that was Photoshopped away? Or do darker skin women just not get cellulite the way my white ass does? Or is that one model onto an anti-cellulite secret with her cupcake diet?

Even among other women–among other so-called feminists–our physicality is deemed freakish, something to be weighed and pondered and questioned. And I do realize that the OP is a biracial/black woman and several black women, including a model who will appear in a future SS issue, participated in the comments thread. The fact remains that for the majority of readers, this post represented a bit of cultural tourism, as evidenced by the comments and questions about black beauty standards and black women’s bodies that the piece elicited.

The Celebration of Exploitation

I mentioned that I might have been less bothered by the SS post if it has appeared on a black feminist blog. But the truth is, I’m fairly certain that Aunt Jemima’s Revenge or Womanist Musings or What About Our Daughters or any of the myriad black women-run blogs would never write a positive post about “Straight Stuntin.’” Black feminists have long spoken out against hip hop’s degradation and objectification of black women, and we have seen first hand the results of this brand of sexism on our communities, on black relationships, on young black girls’ self-esteem, on sexual violence. Of course, the positioning of black women as sexual objects did not start with hip hop. The Sapphire stereotype is at least as old as the slave trade. This is the baggage–baggage that our white sisters don’t share–that we bring to analysis of magazines like “Straight Stuntin.’” This is a know your history moment. How can you analyze “Straight Stuntin’” outside of the aforementioned context?

I should add that I believe in sex positive feminism (though I suspect that the Jezebel writers and I might disagree on what exactly that is) I am not zero-tolerance on pin-ups or porn. (Far from it.) But there is a difference between finding enjoyment in sexuality and the female (or male) form and viewing another human being as an inaminate receptacle–a “trick,” “ho” or a “chickenhead.” The SS view of women is not about celebration, but almost Biblical disdain and distrust of women as anything beyond sexual tools. Consider this advice from a SS article “10 Model Commandments:”

Ladies, one of the worst things in the whole wide world has to be a [sic] unsanitary female. Body odor or not being shaved at the right time in the right places are definitely not a go. Your parents should have taught you about hygiene when you were younger or you should’ve learned it in hygiene class when you were in school.

Ah…yes…I remember well when my mother and I had “the talk” about Brazilian waxing…

“Unsanitary female?” WTF? Other “commandments” caution women not to steal, lie, have “attitudes,” or use “your coochie with everyone who makes you a promise.” How novel an idea–black women as dirty, tricky whores!

The Double Standard

This is what really rankled about the Jezebel post: The crimes against women that I mentioned above are almost always derided on the site, but in this case they are basically ignored. Many commenters praised “Straight Stuntin’” for showcasing thick women with big butts rather than the usual lithe, model types. But is that the point of criticism against the objectification of women–that the objectification isn’t broad enough? One commenter pegged how I am feeling:

so, if it is a black magazine featuring a fetishized body part ( ass..) then …IT IS OK? And the fact that the men are dressed and the woman reduced to their body image..that is ok?

I am speechless…………This magazine is like many others of the same genre,…exploiting and degrading……..regardless if the “ladies” are NOT white and/or size zero.

Indeed.

Why so little criticism of “Straight Stuntin’” on Jezebel? Is it because readers believe the magazine has been endorsed by the black OP? (In a reply to the above commenter’s post, the OP said she does not endorse the magazine, but finds it “intriguing,” which I think is kind of a hedge.) Is it because white feminists don’t “get” objectification of black women? (Like how many black feminists were turned off by Hillary Clinton’s embrace of BET founder and black woman exploiter Bob Johnson, while white feminists overlooked it?) Is my baggage coloring the way I respond to this post?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Thinking About Bootay « Afrodescendiente on 08 Jul 2009 at 6:47 pm

    [...] About Bootay Jump to Comments Interesting post at Jezebel and Racialicious. I have no answers, but I find the discussion [...]

  2. Black Booty Body Politics at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 09 Jul 2009 at 12:01 pm

    [...] when Dodai penned her piece on the women in Straight Stuntin, I could understand, partially, where she was coming from. Just as she admired the bodies of the [...]

Comments

  1. Mahsino wrote:

    I read that post and there did seem to be a fair amount of people who expressed concern about the exploitation.

    The whole thing was handled strangely to begin with. Jezebel usually gets a little iffy when handling racial issues. But yeah, you weren’t the only one who was weirded out by the blatant “othering” of the whole thing. Then again, that may have been because groups of people shouldn’t be classified as “fascinating”

  2. B wrote:

    Is my baggage coloring the way I respond to this post?

    I don’t think so. As a white woman, I don’t carry the racial baggage you do, but the article and comments strike me as all sorts of creepy. It’s pinging my sexism radar like crazy, and your analysis of the racial component seems spot-on. It’s simply all sorts of yuck.

  3. N wrote:

    Interesting. I find it fascinating too because like most Americans I rarely see any other woman’s body and since these women don’t look like what is typically portrayed, it is quite new to me.
    I have a problem with objectification,let me be clear on that. OTOH, I think for black women it seems to be a place where they can feel that their features are apprecited and celebrated and not maligned. And I think white women also find that fascinating- to see black women who have black women’s bodies(whatever that means, since Im sure people will object) and who are PROUD of it and not ashamed or hiding.

    In Puerto Rico, if you pay attention,you will notice something similar. Most of the billboards that would have huge breasted women, if made in the US, have women with their backs to the camera and their asses on display. All of a sudden American women visiting felt “inadequate”, and I recall trying to NOT lose all my post baby weight so I wouldn’t be out there all scrawny in the land where booty reigns.

    I think it is important to try to separate what I believe are 3 issues.
    1. The disgust at women being objectfied
    2. The surprise and/or pleasure at seeing male appreciation of black female bodies.
    3.The surprise at seeing women who are outside the “norm” flaunt, rather than hide their big asses. Most women I know who are neither black, nor Caribbean Latina,hate their asses. Hate having them. Hate any hint of curve. Hate thighs, hate any “thickness” and cannot believe other women LOVE theirs.

  4. Alienati0n wrote:

    Our bodies are viewed as gross, “shocking”, horrifying or worthy of a rough “f*ck” where you can bend us over so you can’t see our faces. You know what they say about us, we’re strong, we don’t feel pain, and we are unrapeable. It’s not PC to stare at women’s body parts if they are respectable human beings, but when it comes to black women, the world declares our body parts “up for grabs”. The average white woman doesn’t have to deal with psychological torture from walking the gauntlet that is MOST black neighborhoods where men shout out sexual comments from the time we’re 8 years old. The average white woman doesn’t have to deal with remnants of slavery that deem our bodies and skin worthy of sexual exploitation and cheap labor. In fact, the average white woman complains about eating to much because she doesn’t want to get a “fat ass”, like us lower class black females who deserve to be dehumanized.

    I’m glad we exist mainly for a source of entertainment for white privileged feminists who are deemed “vulnerable” and therefore more in need of protection from patriarchy. Makes perfect sense. Black female bodies are FOR exploitation, fetishization, and the like. There aren’t actual breathing human women inside of these bodies that feel pain and deserve love.

  5. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:

    I stopped reading Jezebel when I realized what an ignorant, privileged, wishy-washy blog it was, written and run by (mostly) white privileged women, with many commentators who are mostly white and privileged. I lost respect for Jezebel after one of their crappiest writers, Moe, wrote a really offensive blog against Islam, who started the article with this exact statement, “fuck you, Allah.” If that was supposed to be a joke, I didn’t see anything funny about it. No, FUCK YOU, Jezebel.

    Besides, some silly cow at Jezebel banned me when I tried to express my opinion on a feminist issue, so again, fuck Jezebel. I prefer Gawker, Racialicious, and Muslimah Media Watch,

  6. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:

    also, regarding their creepy fascination for black/women of color’s bodies, I want to mention something: I’ve always been annoyed with (white) commentators’ comments about Indian/South Asian and East Asian women. It seems that you CANNOT have a serious article on Jezebel about either said group (whether you’re discussing a female Indian politician or a female Chinese author), without coming across patronizing, insulting comments about how “gorgeous” we are and that they wish they could look like us. It should be a compliment, but it is NOT.

    Why can’t they shut up about our looks and take us seriously?

  7. N wrote:

    How do we,as in my case, separate fascinated admiration from the whole sideshow spectacle of it?

    I mean, I’ve said sometimes that certain women have amazing bosoms. I’ve looked at magazines or books and admired the beauty of the models and was fascinated, I send photos to friends of people I find beautiful, and I gawk sometimes. When does it cross the line?

  8. Ziggy wrote:

    N: I think that you can be fascinated by / admire something without necessarily “otherizing” it, and I think that is the problem with the Jezebel coverage. I get this feelings from comments like: “Or do darker skin women just not get cellulite the way my white ass does?”

    I stopped reading Jezebel sometime ago for much the same reasons as Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist.

  9. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:

    ooohhhhh, now that I think about this issue even more closely, it reminds me of Suzan-Lori Parks’ 1996 stage play, VENUS, about white people’s racist, fetishist obsession for a black woman’s body, where she was then put on display to be gawked at (yes really, like a “circus sideshow freak”)

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2838/is_n4_v31/ai_20425715/

  10. NinaG wrote:

    I don’t read Jezebel but I’m thoroughly disgusted by what you have described. For me, it doesn’t matter who’s discussing black female bodies in this way – I’m going to be disgusted. In fact I was arguing with a black male who was definding an article in Clutch Magazine about black men’s ‘obsession’ with big butts. I actually referenced Saartjie Baartman’s story as well in my argument but that had no effect on his defense. The problem with both of these articles (the one in Clutch and the one in Jezebel) is the issue of privilege – commenters and authors not acknowledging their privilege.

  11. Jen wrote:

    N, you said

    I have a problem with objectification,let me be clear on that. OTOH, I think for black women it seems to be a place where they can feel that their features are apprecited and celebrated and not maligned. And I think white women also find that fascinating- to see black women who have black women’s bodies(whatever that means, since Im sure people will object) and who are PROUD of it and not ashamed or hiding.

    But it isn’t about white women. It’s not their place to decide that objectification of black womens bodies is okay, whatever the reason. Fascination or some idea that it might help our self esteem?

    Not good enough.

    I don’t mean to seem like I’m attacking you because I see where you’re coming from, but this kind of attitude is what sent me away from mainstream feminism.

    I think it is important to try to separate what I believe are 3 issues.
    1. The disgust at women being objectfied
    2. The surprise and/or pleasure at seeing male appreciation of black female bodies.
    3.The surprise at seeing women who are outside the “norm” flaunt, rather than hide their big asses. Most women I know who are neither black, nor Caribbean Latina,hate their asses. Hate having them. Hate any hint of curve. Hate thighs, hate any “thickness” and cannot believe other women LOVE theirs.

    Making these three issues on the same level suggests that inspiring white women to learn to love their asses, and educate them about ours being attractive to some is as important as avoiding objectification. That’s fucked up.

    It isn’t always about you. You being white women, not you personally.

  12. Marcy Webb wrote:

    The fact that the readership @ Jezebel is mostly White, that explains a lot of things re: the reactions and responses on that particular website. That’s not to say that every White person who is a regular reader and commenter @ Jezebel lacks anti-racist understanding, but, given the comments, one can say that most there do.

  13. kamala wrote:

    but wait: even *before* the jezzies got ahold of this, weren’t the photographers operating under lamentable racial and sexist stereotypes? i look at these images and am depressed by the emphasis on ass–which of course totally recalls Saartje Bartmann. But if these images are made by black photographers and the (alleged) agency of the black models, then shouldn’t they also be held accountable for the way these images present black bodies? To me this looks like extreme male objectification of women (business as usual, I’m afraid), awash with racist self-stereotyping, and yet I don’t hear critique of the representational practices that are apparent even before it reached the privileged white blogosphere.

  14. Wendi Muse wrote:

    i remember when this was posted at jezebel and i commented (in response to another commenter) who pondered on the black female idea of what is beautiful…

    in her comments, she praised the magazine for featuring women who were off the grid in terms of what most magazines feature and expect of their female models.

    however, black girls and women definitely feel the pressure to look a certain way (myself included) based on the standards set within our own community. just because we don’t conform to dominant culture standards of beauty (though in many ways we do…long, straight hair, light skin anyone?), doesn’t negate the fact that we have them.

  15. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @kamala –

    I have a post in the works that’s the long answer to your query.

    The short answer is yes, this is deplorable. But this is also a skin mag – their whole operation trades on images of ass the same way their white lad mag cousins trade on tits. It’s not a porn rag, per se…it occupies the same space as Maxim and FHM (though I think both of those have folded).

  16. emfole wrote:

    Thank you for this post. The way that King, Feds, Smooth and other black magazines portray womyn and exploit the models who are in their magazines is horrifying. In Smooth, they ask the models the most insulting, invasive questions. These questions include the model’s body dimensions, her sexual preferences etc. I have NEVER seen the equivalent exploitation of white womyn and I do not think it would ever be tolerated. Black womyn and their bodies are considered to be SOLEY for sex and this attitude can be seen in any black neighborhood where the womyn are constantly sexually harrassed. I would encourage anyone who has not visited any of the amazing black feminist blogs to do so including whataboutourdaughters, blackwomenblowthetrumpet and muslimbushido.

  17. [dave] wrote:

    If you go through the slideshow, Dodai makes a lot of the same points that are being brought up in here in the comments and in Tami’s post. It seems to me that the author is showcasing the conflict that people feel when they can consider themselves anti-oppression minded but then still be distracted by “ooh shiny” pop ephemera/excreta:

    Although: To be clear: This is a magazine featuring women with big butts. That is why it exists. It’s not high-brow, it’s not intended to be social commentary. It’s what you call spank bank material. It reduces women to parts. Still: It’s fascinating to see these women posing with confidence, since most of the world tells them that they are not the right height, size or shape to model.

    And I think it IS intriguing when a “spank bank” mag has articles about gay hip hop … another one of Dodai’s captions says:

    “My Girlfriend Got A Girlfriend.” While crudely illustrated with one woman holding a fork while between the other woman’s legs, this interview deals with lesbian misconceptions and stereotypes. In addition, this magazine also has a story called “Why Gay Hip-Hop/Rap?” which argues that rappers have stolen style cues from Liberace and Elton John and a gay rapper would be “hip-hop’s chance to live out its true meaning — that is; a voice to the voiceless, an all-inclusive genre which transcends…”

    It doesn’t get a pass, it still needs to get parsed into the ground, and yeah ultimately I think Dodai could have been more critical of SS while still expressing her “fascination”.

    And I think that authors anywhere will make cultural mis-steps, so if you feel like one was made that you can’t forgive I totally get that. But in the past three years or so that I’ve been keep an eye on Jezebel it seems like they’ve come a long way…

    …that said, I try not to read the comments.

    Ugh, I feel like an apologist. I really like a lot of Dodai’s posts, so I think I’m inclined to equivocate here.

  18. [dave] wrote:

    Sorry my italics got away from me there … the little bit between the two quotes is from my head not the original post.

  19. Marcy Webb wrote:

    @Wendy An excellent point. The standards to which people of color are not always those set by the dominant culture. Excellent!

  20. Marcy Webb wrote:

    I meant, “The standards to which people of color are held…”

  21. emfole wrote:

    And to answer some of the weird questions above. I am attracted to womyn and enjoy looking at photos of them but that doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize exploitation when I see it. Sex and sexualized images of womyn could and do exist outside of the patriarchal norm!! Check out some queer and feminist porn and pinups!

  22. Leezel wrote:

    @ Wendi Muse

    THANK YOU

    Not all black women have big ol butts (not that there is anything wrong with a big butt) & it certainly can be a lot of exhausting work trying to live up to that false stereotype of big bootyful black woman.

    I would add that the physical pressures weigh extra heavy on our darker skinned sisters. I can’t tell you the amount of times I have heard black MEN (adults) of many hues say that they will only date a dark skin woman if she has XY&Z physical characteristics while lighter skinned women get “passes.”

  23. Tami wrote:

    @kamala…This post originally appeared on my blog, where I frequently talk about objectification of black women by men. I also, from time to time, critique the major feminist blogs on their understanding of intersection and the way sexism plays out differently for women of color. I agree with you that the problems re: SS magazine did not begin with Jezebel. But in this post, I wanted to focus on what I saw as the starkly different way that Jezzies were reaction to this exploitation of black women vs. the way they usually react to the exploitation of white women.

    @Dave…I often like Dodai’s work, too. But I think it was a mistake to talk about “fascination” with this magazine without more acknowledgment of the potential negative impact of SS on black women–something many Jezebel readers clearly didn’t understand.

    Frankly, I found the comments from Jezzies more disturbing than Dodai’s post. I’ve found that sometimes critiquing the major feminist blogs is tough. Often editors and writers make good faith efforts at acknowledging intersection only to have their efforts wrecked by a clueless commentariat.

  24. Pickly wrote:

    The description in this post, at least, isn’t all that surprising to me. After reading some places like Feministe or some Salon articles, it seems a lot of feminist types will get upset about more obvious issues or issues that effect them day to day, but still don’t have a problem in general with acceptable social targets, or with social hierarchies involving particular groups.

    (Mostly what I’ve noticed are class type issues, “cultured vs. uncultured”, or dating or social group related issues, but problematic racial viewpoints aren’t all that surprising.)

  25. Irene M. wrote:

    “Why so little criticism of “Straight Stuntin’” on Jezebel? ”

    Here’s one aspect of the situations (it doesn’t entirely excuse it, but it does add to the discussion.) A model for the magazine (who is also a regular commenter) showed up and criticism sharply dropped off after she posted several messages explaining why she models and the enjoyment she get’s from it (I’ll post her name later if I can find it). A lot of the commenters discussing exploitation talked to her and changed their criticism in light of what she was saying. While there was plenty of racism in the comments, I was actually quite relieved that the white saviors didn’t come out of the woodwork in order to tell “the poor brainwashed black woman” how exploited she was. Instead of telling black women how they should feel and act, a lot of the white commenters listened and responded to what Dodai and the model had to say. That’s a lot better than most blogs.

  26. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Irene –

    Her name was Mikela (though I could be spelling that wrong), and her perspective was a welcome addition.

  27. Watchdog wrote:

    I agree with Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist…but Jezebel has improved considerably since the worst representative of us so-called third-wave feminists (former editor Moe, who seems to live solely within her very white, very drunken, I-fuck-therefore-I am bubble of low self-esteem) left for some other snarky blog. Although I honestly believe she is one of the worst human beings of her demographic (young, self-aware, educated), her fans are no better and too numerous to count. As an Asian woman, how can I forget her beyond-offensive instances of race-baiting? For someone like Moe, it wouldn’t be too simplistic to speculate the reasons for her racism, but scary, scary, scary to realize that she’s the kind of person Racialicious readers probably interact with on a daily basis on a professional, social, or even “friendly” level.

  28. Irene M. wrote:

    Latoya, thank you! It’s been awhile since I read the article and I felt so bad for not remembering Mikela’s name.

    For those who are interested in her comments, Mikela posts under the name Imjustnotthatintoyou.

  29. Iggles wrote:

    Jen, I 100% co-sign! Preach it :D

  30. MeeMee wrote:

    I read through all the comments and not many people were really getting the problems magazines like this cause for little black girls.

    As a 28 year old female who still struggles with not being ample in the desired areas, straight stuntin’ is not a positive empowering magazine. what’s the difference between smooth, king or this mess?

    I didn’t fit the beauty ideals when i was a child living in a white neighborhood and I don’t fit into the ideal living in a black neighborhood. I def take the rejection by my black peers personal and seeing this magazine reinforces something that I can never be.

    That being said I love when women of all different sizes and races get apperciated…This isn’t the most empowering/postive way it can be done. It puts us right up there as the super sexual beings we’ve been treated as for years.

    It also makes me go back to a subject I think about all the time – black people as a whole being treated as a monolithic group. We all think the same thoughts…we all believe oj was innocent…we have no range of opinion. When one black man does something somehow we gotta answer for it. We all have big asses and thick thighs. We don’t come in a range of hues.

  31. n wrote:

    If I admire long straight Asian hair and wonder about it because it is so different from my own, can I do that without it being wrong and racist? Is it always a problem to be interested and find beautiful something that IS other than what you are? I dont mean fetishize it, but to see something novel to you and admire it because it IS beautiful, and wonder about it simply because its unfamiliar?

    I mean, I dont know.I dont have the answers. These are honest questions here.

    I deal with that issue because of my hair all of the time, and I am always balancing my desire to understand that people do like it and my desire to not have to answer a question about it or a request to touch it every single time I leave the house.

    At what point should I be angry, when should I accept that it is simply beautiful to some people and let them admire it?

  32. Thom wrote:

    “These questions include the model’s body dimensions, her sexual preferences etc. I have NEVER seen the equivalent exploitation of white womyn and I do not think it would ever be tolerated. ”

    Er, isn’t one of the standards of Playboy to include the model’s dimensions? And one of my many gripes of magazines like Maxim is their heavy focus on the sex lives of their interview subjects… “So, your a golfer, what tricks does that give you for the bedroom??” White womyn are routinely reduced to sex kittens, no matter what talent, skill, intelligence they possess (”you have a Masters Degree? Is it in Bedroom-a-nomics? What’s the wildest thing you have ever done in bed?”)…it is about sex and their appearance. And it’s all tolerated as “just good fun.”

    Back to the original point…no, Tami, I don’t think you are letting your baggage get in the way. The quotes you showed made me uncomfortable, as it was like the posters were poining at people in cages. As if they were not talking about REAL women. I think you were in the right to be disturbed by this.

  33. MeeMee wrote:

    Thom:

    There is a difference between the way a black woman is sexualized and a white woman is. Typically for a black woman it is either all or nothing. White women can be the sex kittens but still be mothers. Sleeping with a white woman is not nearly as fetishized as sleeping with a black woman. Our sexuality is intriguing and a mystery. Women don’t have it easy in general but when you look at the experiences you will see two very different ideals and standards.

    Look at the link that is provided about sara bartmann….when in history has a white woman been put on display in such a manner?

  34. distance88 wrote:

    A lot of really insightful thoughts and comments here (on the Internet! Go figure!). I think MeeMee (and several others) brought up a really important point about how a lot of black females aren’t fitting into the white/dominant standards of beauty OR the black standards of beauty.

    Also, a lot of discussions about race, for whatever reason, seem to focus on inter-racial differences, while overlooking /ignoring intra-racial differences. Maybe it’s just easier or more convenient to describe things this way??

  35. JL wrote:

    Not shaving is unsanitary? What? What is unsanitary about HAIR?

    Sorry, this comment has very little content, but I was flabbergasted enough by that that I felt compelled to comment.

  36. N wrote:

    Its been interesting to me, because I don’t have an ass that most black men care to look at, but I have hair that people refuse to leave alone. I hate it!
    But I can understand people’s admiration of a nice (if unfamiliar) butt. So I can at least try to both have a little more sympathy for those who make a scene about the whole hair thing AND to treat other people’s complains as I would like them to treat mine and not let my appreciation or admiration veer over into uncomfortable territory.

  37. intussusception wrote:

    This post actually made me sign up for commenting on jezebel, after some months of lurking. I felt so offended by the comments that I couldn’t keep quiet. There is a lot of othering and patronising that goes on over there, most noticably in posts about Muslim and African countires.

  38. Alienati0n wrote:

    “White womyn are routinely reduced to sex kittens, no matter what talent, skill, intelligence they possess ”

    This would all be true and dandy, except for the fact that there are PLENTY of contrasting images of white women as the ideal for marriage, value, commitment, and motherhood. Even bleach blond women have contrasting images as being worthy of respect, desire, love and are generally considered worthy of protection. Black women are not.

    This is on the lines of “well, at least black women are allowed to be curvy” without considering that we are appreciated for our voluptuousness for sexual reasons almost exclusively. Not because we are considered better long term relationship and marriage material–like white women. We are also not considered the universal beauty ideal because of global white female supremacy our daughters are not constantly featured on the news when they’re missing, and we generally do not have the luxury of a neighborhood being “safer” because the men in our neighborhoods live there–like white women.

    At least there is some choice in perception with white womyn as well. If a blond wants to marry, she knows that she has to conform to a certain set of behaviors, but for black women there is no choice. Our bodies relay the message loud and clear that our value is not for marriage, but for exploitation and sex. Most black women now, and throughout American history were sexually exploited and therefore not worthy of marriage either.

    White women are also not featured in music videos with their behinds out and men throwing money at them, or referred to as “golddiggers” and “bitches” for not offering up their bodies and money to men in exchange for abuse. As I said, BW are meant to “know our place” as those who should be sexually exploited laborers. In general white women are the love interests ballads are written about.

    I’m aware that white women face oppression, but lets hold some perspective in consideration here.

  39. Joseph wrote:

    @meemee
    White women can be the sex kittens but still be mothers.

    Lol. Since when? No, that is very not the case. Still.

  40. Naveen wrote:

    Friends, Jezebel is and always will be pure crap.

  41. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Naveen –

    Hey hey hey. Now, I’m a bit biased because I agreed to write for them and I regularly work with three or four of the eds, but Jez does a lot of things really well. Race is a bit iffy, but it’s a good variety site.

  42. DivergentDana wrote:

    “I read that post and there did seem to be a fair amount of people who expressed concern about the exploitation.”

    Yeah… the very first thread is a mile long chain of people vehemently disagreeing with the “intriguing, empowering, refreshing” perspective that the author of the article — a WOC — has.

    “The whole thing was handled strangely to begin with. Jezebel usually gets a little iffy when handling racial issues.”

    Also true.

  43. MeeMee wrote:

    Joseph:

    Read what alienation wrote.

    Like I said, women in general do not have it easy, but due racial hierarchy one is given the priviledge to be a multifaceted being.

  44. distance88 wrote:

    It’s one thing to be appreciated or admired by others for certain physical aspects.

    It’s quite another to be defined (as a person) by those physical aspects.

  45. Chartown wrote:

    When I first read it, of course I could not help but be disgusted by the complete objectification that these ladies faced in these pictures. However, as a white person, it is sometimes hard to decide what I should harshly criticize when I feel I don’t understand the culture enough. I never want to see women in vulnerable, sexualized positions, but that the market is finally bringing in those that our bullsh*t cultural norm usually omits, I do actually find that the line can be blurred. I still understand what is not right, but I chose not to judge because I didn’t feel it was my place. How can I to judge how these women display their bodies without being oppressive? The state of the matter is detrimental, however I will not condemn those who have had enough condemnation to last another millenia. It was embarassing how horribly the women-observers reamed up the exotification, how disgusting!

    Beating internalized racism is no picnic.

  46. jdlady wrote:

    I was very upset to see this post on Jezebel. I have no idea how this mess could be considered empowering. The subtext I got was that Black women should be happy to get ANY attention, even negative, exploitative attention.
    I agree that there is rarely constructive dialogue surrounding race on Jezebel that gets past the “teaching moment” phase.

  47. SarahNicole wrote:

    @ Tami: Have decided that “commentariat” is my new favorite word. :-D

  48. Msday wrote:

    “but when it comes to black women, the world declares our body parts “up for grabs”

    Thankyou, alienation, I could not have said it any better. I remember telling someone, about a patient of mine who commented as I escorted him into a procedure room, “you are built like Dr. XXX, at Kent hospital. Both of us are slender women of color, who don’t have much of a rump, although shapely. When I shared my story with a white coworker who prided herself on being a feminist, she didn’t get it. I on the other hand, felt as if I had walked off of an auction block. The sad thing about it is that, it is this way all over the world for women of color, everyone feels as if they have a right to assess, scrutinize and add commentary on your body, etc, in front of your face. Then, when you defend yourself, “you have an attitude”
    I really wish the plot, from the movie,The skeleton key was real, because it’s too hard being in this body.

  49. n wrote:

    thanks Msday
    As I came back from work, I was still thinking about this. And remembering a complaint I have had about comments on my lack of a proper rump. WHY, I mean WHY do people think it is appropriate to comment on it? What makes a man think it is acceptable to eyeball me and say, “Damn you have a flat ass”. What makes a man who walks into my job think it is acceptable for him to give me The Look,comment on my hair, tell me about his half-Italian/half-Black mother and then ask me about my ancestry?

    I mentioned this feeling of ownership and privacy in a post I wrote where I said that I do understand why a woman would willingly wear a burqua or other coverings. African American (in the broader sense meaning all of the Americas) women have a history of being paraded around naked,of having been forbidden to wear clothing,of being treated as if their bodies are for public consumption. So I see how the comments are problematic.

    At the same time, I remember an article I recently read where an African American woman said she took back her sexuality. That because of these stereotypes of black women as hypersexual beings, that many black women have gone way way in the other direction and cultivated a sexless appearance and demeanor to avoid being pigeonholed as Jezebels, this woman realized it was hurting her and decided to stop.

    I split the difference, I keep covered up most of the time. Not out of shame, but because its no one’s business what I look like. I’m no more obligated to display myself than I am to invite strangers into my house to admire my paintings. And when I am on my own, during my freetime, I wear clothing and dance in a way that makes me feel attractive and sensual. But the thing is,I choose to whom I show certain aspects of myself and I choose how.
    So I think I can both appreciate a black woman wanting to display her body in a publication that is intended for black males AND object to nonblack women finding her “intriguing” and ‘fascinating”. I think blanket answers and reactions- If its wrong for white men and women to look is it ok for black men to look- may miss the mark. I am really hesitant to say that black men admiring black porn (or erotica or what have you) is equivalent to massa admiring it.

  50. GueraLola wrote:

    I like/hate with Jezebel one Like like there vintage pieces but I feel in when they are being vapid like the snap judgment when they show a picture of a girl in a REFUGE CAMP s.most of the comments was about “how cute!” and “I love here shoes” yet I get worried are the girl and her mother okay or what as the political climate of the country. I’m more worried if the girl is safe, not how cute or I love her dress.
    plus I know stupid this is stupid. Antother example is the commenters were criticizing Audrey Hepburn for not being tough or” cool”(I don’t remember) yet when It come some someone like Kim Kardians most if not all comments say how awesome she is, how they like her, ect. *barf*

  51. Joy wrote:

    I think it’s amazing that anyone would try to justify these images as promoting appreciation for a different body type or showing black women that their “butts” are just as desirable as anyone else’s.

    If someone had this “noble” goal the proper avenue would be something like say, Glamour, which is actually ABOUT women’s beauty and empowerment. (This would automatically equal more tasteful images.) NOT something like SS which is clearly about empowering men and their extracurricular activities.

    That people can’t see that a skinmag like this would NEVER be empowering to a woman is pathetic (or considering the type of site people seem to be making Jezebel out to be, expected).

  52. layla wrote:

    Thank you for this post! I read this article over on Jez, and I was horrified at the way that the commentators seemed to have no issue with how the women in the magazine were being put on display!

    Like many of you, I have had serious complaints about the way that Jezebel treats issues affecting POC, not so much the writers, but the commentators. I always wonder why certain, offensive comments are allowed to stay and are even frequently praised. This is with particular reference to issues affecting the developing world, and Islamic nations. I just don’t understand how any site that purports to have a feminist foundation, can marginalize, and offend so many women of colour. Don’t they realize that they’re alienating a huge percentage of women? Or do we just need to be saved?

  53. ashlynn wrote:

    Sidebar: Commentariat must AT LEAST be in UrbanDictionary by the end of this year. Win.

    Now. I definitely had to get a snack for this post, because I’m gonna be here for a while.

    I distinctly remember the moment in my life when I ceased to be a female and, in the eyes of my neighborhood and beyond, became a sex object:

    It was 10, it was hot as a hair dryer outside(U2 reference!), and I went to visit my grandma rocking my new baby blue pedalpushers and matching top/sunglasses. Nothing sexual, just a cute outfit for a little girl. I was walking across the street-where guys practically LIVE on the freaking corner- and someone shouted at me, “PHATTY GIRL! COME OVER HERE!”

    WHAT? FOOL, I AM 10 YEARS OLD. GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL.

    That moment put a complete damper on my day and set the precedent for my thus far- I cannot go outside without some man telling me how fat my ass is, how much he wants to dig in it, follow me on foot, by car, and have the goddamn NERVE to insinuate that because I don’t respond, it would be perfectly okay to “sexually harass” me.

    I. Don’t. Think. So.

    This is why I take issue with skin mags like SS. There is such a strong misogynistic undercurrent in the black community that I truly do believe that it is one of the sole factors of the lack of progression at large for African Americans. Why treat a woman with respect when you(think you)know that you could jump into their drawers anyway? Because that’s what rap projects, that’s what young men and women absorb, that’s what mostly women have to deal with.

    Don’t get me wrong, there are times when I can appreciate seeing thick curvy women out there, because there’s a lot of men AND women (particularly non-black) who will subtly let you know that your physical sexuality is inferior and rightfully prone to be used and abused by whomever. However, I can count on both hands the number of times where I’ve seen a magazine where a black woman was mostly clothed, back not tuned to the camera, not squatting/coming out of the pool; videos where the wasn’t a need for the obligatory slo-mo closeup of the jiggling video model’s ass. And that is unacceptable, because there will be girls like me who grow up grossly attempting to BE that sexual object, girls like me who will feel ashamed for unvoluntarily being that sexual object, and girls like who will feel ashamed for NOT being that sexual object.

    In regards to the Jezebel OP’s comment of how the mag is at least diverse: Diverse, perhaps, but at what cost? So black girls can run around claiming Heritages X, Y, and Z for the sake of saying that’s where they got their coveted long hair, light skin, blue/green/hazel eyes? Racist Mediatakeout posts like “WHO KNEW INDIAN GIRLS WERE HOLDING LIKE THAT?!?!”, introducing even more of exotic aesthetic to black modeling that will further pressure the darker-skinned among us?

    Trust me, I am a huge fan of ass. I personally don’t think it makes sense when a girl has 34F boobs and a backside flatter than Stanley. It doesn’t have to be Buffie Big. But it at leasts has to be there. Now, is all of this worth having it there? Not in the slightest.

  54. ashlynn wrote:

    Also, I seriously feel the need to ask why that for some reason, in the literary Black world, NO ONE FEELS THE NEED TO PROOFREAD ANYTHING?!?! It seems like every small scale startup mag or publishing house feel the need to completely do away with grammatical correctness. It just adds on to that perception of ignorance in and out of the Black community.

  55. alienati0n wrote:

    “I really wish the plot, from the movie,The skeleton key was real, because it’s too hard being in this body.”

    I agree Msday :-( . I have been embarassed by a group of thugs who followed me into my building saying “COME Heya B*tch you got a fat a**” in front of my coworkers in addition to being threatened to “get my face cut up” by a thug because I didn’t respond to his sexual advances. This is in addition to the 5 or 6 grotesque comments I get a day from men on the corner. I always say that white women in general have rationalized to themselves that black women have signed a contract that “allows” black men to humiliate us and/or treat us like street trash.

    I’ve always found it interesting that the same white women who complain about not being “safe” would do anything short of sell a lung to stay around white men and white neighborhoods. They realize that we are much less safe, but they either justify it by saying black women aren’t people, but strong mules that can “handle” rape and aggression, or that we’re somehow more deserving.

    Maybe your coworker didn’t “get it” because even though she’s a feminist– she’s so used to being much more protected, admired, and valued because she’s white?

  56. Josie wrote:

    I think it has to be said though, that there seems to be a culture of ‘jumping on the bandwagon’ over at the Jezebel comment section (and I say this as a regular reader). I really believe that if Dodai had come at it from a completely different angle (i.e. ‘this is disgusting, and see Black women are objectified in a completely unacceptable way too!’) the comments would have followed along this line of thought too. It really seems like the POV of the person writing the post is grabbed and the commenters just run with it. I really don’t think many of the commenters put much thought into the actual issue before posting a comment.

  57. cocolamala wrote:

    i think it would be useful to have a womanist perspective represented on feministe. although they have women of color editing, adding a womanist analysis would enrich these conversations and educate readers.

    ideas —

    a retrospective on sartje baartman and subsequent representations of black women through their sexuality

    –a look at the discussion page of the saarteje bartman page on wikipedia.

    for serious people, people cannot stop ogling this woman, not even the editors on the discussion page. the second heading is titled “More detail please,” and the comment ends with”–fascinating story.”

    there is another heading called “Use of Term Freak Show.” the editor is calling to reinsert the phrase into the article. another editor calls them out for this.

    the actual article is alright. they list a poet addressing this exact issue:

    Poet M.K. Asante, Jr. wrote “Ghetto Booty: The Hottentot Remix” for Saartjie Baartman in his 2005 book Beautiful. And Ugly Too. The poem tells Baartman’s story and warns the hip hop generation not to repeat racist cycles of black female exploitation.

  58. cocolamala wrote:

    *not feministe — i meant jezebel.

  59. Sapna wrote:

    Apologies to Latoya, but I’ve never seen Jezebel as more than a gossip site with a bit of ‘feminism’ slapped on the top. It reminds me of Sex and the City (which is not a compliment imho).

  60. ishtar79 wrote:

    FAIL, Jezebel.

    Crap like this is why I almost never visit it anymore. There’s a difference between genuine admiration for other women’s bodies and gross fetischizing/becoming complicit in the the sexual objectification. Quite a few of the white demographic spank mags feature ladies that are considerably curvier than the average runway model, but I don’t see a post praising them in Jezebel’s future.

    And I don’t get the fascination in the first place. I’m white but have actually turned on MTV a couple of times, so this visual reducing of black women to their asses is not new to me. And any requirement of women to look a certain way is going to be hurtful, because some women will inevitably not conform to it. It’s like an article I read a few years back in British Cosmo, were they were talking about how Brasil had a high demand for breast reduction/butt enhancement surgeries, and how “odd” and “marvelous” it was. Nothing odd about it, different body ideals, but the end result is still making women feel like crap about their bodies.

  61. Wendi Muse wrote:

    lol joseph:
    please see: Angelina Jolie

  62. Thom wrote:

    “This would all be true and dandy, except for the fact that there are PLENTY of contrasting images of white women as the ideal for marriage, value, commitment, and motherhood. Even bleach blond women have contrasting images as being worthy of respect, desire, love and are generally considered worthy of protection. Black women are not.”

    Too be honest, I was looking strictly through the scope of so-called “mens magazines” where women in general are nothing more than product to be aquired, not fellow human beings. But I see your point that in a larger media context, that offers white women to see themselves portrayed in ways that black women (and other WOC) do not.

  63. Rebecca wrote:

    I guess here’s my thought:

    I saw that Jezebel article (clicked on it at work, actually, much to my dismay as Jezebel had promised there was no nudity) and I agree with much of what Tami is saying. I think Jezebel is sort of fuzzy when it comes to issues of race and that Straight Stuntin is just another magazine where women are objectified, albeit differently than in the mainstream (white) media.

    However, I think it’s important to note that Dodai DID point out some of the less feminist aspects of the magazine (the quote on dirty coochies, for example) while choosing to focus her interest on the idea that women who don’t adhere to current mainstream ideologies of beauty still have a place within society. That was her point. Even though it probably isn’t the main point when talking about a magazine like this (I agree that racial/exploitive issues should have received more coverage), it was her point. I liked her point. I have never, ever seen a model in ANY magazine with a visible cesarean scar. I wish it happened more often. Props (however minor in the light of other oppression) to people who are willing to put that out there in the context of sexy and alluring.

    Additionally, Tami, you mention that this sort of topic is more easily digested in a safer, less white space. I agree with you. It probably is. But putting it on Jezebel, acknowledging that there are going to be some asshole commentators, allows critiques and exposure in a way that I don’t think is entirely awful. Jezebel has feminist leanings. They have feminist readers. They have a wide variety of people who visit their site and take interest in their topics. Of all the public spaces to level criticisms at, I think Jezebel and their readership are some of the most receptive and probably would be interested in reading your response. And THAT conversation, I think, would be worthwhile.

  64. Joseph wrote:

    @Wendi Muse
    Not trying to derail here but, Angie hasn’t been a sex kitten in many years now. See: Megan Fox.

  65. Joseph wrote:

    @Mee Mee
    I read it. But if you think white women get to be “multi-faceted” human beings and therefore escape ye olde Madonna/Whore binary then you are not correct. It’s actually weird to me, given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that you’d think they do.

  66. MeeMee wrote:

    Joseph:

    Never once said they escape it. It’s actually weird to me how you cannot see the difference between how black women and white women are protrayed in the media.

    What I said is they GET THAT OPTION. Black women don’t. I’m sorry you can see the difference between the two.

    I’m assuming you’re not a black woman.

  67. Nadra wrote:

    I found it really interesting that one commenter was curious to know if black women get cellulite. That really sounds like she was questioning their humanity. That’s akin to asking if black women get strech marks, menstrual cramps or anything else we’d expect a human female to have. Quite strange.

  68. Shelby wrote:

    @Joseph
    I think that’s what Mee Mee and a lot of others are trying to say: White women have a Madonna/Whore binary… but for women of color, black women especially, it’s just “Whore.” We are NEVER the virginal Madonna. Ever. That’s not how our bodies function(ed) for colonizers. We had to be stereotyped as sex-crazed animals to justify raping us to produce more slaves. Or raping us to take control of our land. Motherhood is glorified for white women while it is violently HATED in women of color (think “Welfare Queen” and panic over migrant women “coming here to have babies.”) White women, of course, are oppressed by their gender but women of color face VERY different typed of gendered oppression.

  69. Joseph wrote:

    @Shelby
    “I think that’s what Mee Mee and a lot of others are trying to say: White women have a Madonna/Whore binary… but for women of color, black women especially, it’s just “Whore.” We are NEVER the virginal Madonna. Ever.”

    I’m sorry, but I think you are oversimplifying here, and in the process obscuring important history. The Mammy stereotype was–and is–imagined to be an utterly sexless nurturer. This is the–yes–uniquely black–version of the madonna in the binary. (Often literally, as black women were made to “mother” white children) And these black “madonnas” were and are represented within the larger culture in an enormous way. I do not disagree with you (or anyone else) about the ways that black female bodies have been sexually coded in the West. I’m just saying, there is more to it than only that. And that these Madonna/whore representations are mutually exclusive… just like for white women. Yes, they are uniquely racialized for black women, but the underlying dynamic is identical.

    @MeeMee
    One of the key arguments of the original post is NOT that white women have more options when it comes to the tyranny of the beauty standard–as you have been saying over and over–but that Black women do, by virtue of living under a parallel beauty standard. Tami and others have written eloquently here about the tyranny of that parallel standard and its effect on young black women. I cosign these sentiments and have been moved by this discussion

    But.

    If Straight Stuntin is created by black men, for black men, and features images of beautiful black women… why are you fixated on white women? It’s bizarre.

    Trust me when I say, porn that features white women is NOT somehow more respectful of the basic humanity of the women pictured… the very idea is hilarious. Honoring the complex reality of female humans is not a big selling point in porn, no matter who is pictured.

  70. MeeMee wrote:

    Joseph:

    If you have to ask how I got on the subject, you were not paying attention closely enough. My response was to Thom and you picked something I said in there and so it goes…so don’t act like you cannot figure out why I was on that subject. Why are you fixated on what I said? Are you offended that I suggest that white women get a special pass because they’re white? I’m sorry I cannot get my points across to you as eloquently as you’d like, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

    FYI…My original post regarding the topic was made before I replied to Thom. I din’t just come out and start screaming “WHITE WOMEN”…so you can stop this insane talk of a fixation

  71. MeeMee wrote:

    …And i’ve seen porn, dear. Don’t talk to me like I have no understanding on a womans standing in this world.

  72. Shelby wrote:

    @Joseph
    To me, the “mammy” is asexual because her body is constructed as ugly, dirty, and distinctly un-feminine. Which, in my mind, translates into her body being almost the exact opposite of a Madonna.
    And also, I feel as though the conversation is leaning a little too far into a “but white women are oppressed too!” situation. White women face sexism, but they have racial privilege. Specifically, the type of privilege that lets them use our bodies as a means to increase their own self-esteem. Completely ignoring the harm they heap on us in the process.

  73. Joseph wrote:

    @MeeMee
    Okay. Sure.

    @Tami
    Sorry. I admire this post and I didn’t mean to enable such an odd derail. I think you have done such a great job of pulling at the sex/race/gender threads here… I have been thinking about it all day. Especially about how your reception of these images is shaped as much by the context as by the content of the pictures themselves.

    Men end up seeing a lot of these kinds of pictures without even trying very hard. So I suppose in a way they end up holding much less power for us than they seem to for some women. I realize how terrible it sounds… but in a way, images like these just form a kind of background for men a lot times. So it’s very surprising and touching to read the impact they have on some women.

  74. cocolamala wrote:

    Madonna is also the mother of god
    mammy is the mother to unseen brown children

    if Madonna is black,where is black jesus?
    if Mammy is Mother, why is she always with somebody else’s children?

  75. Joseph wrote:

    @Shelby
    Yeah, that wasn’t my intention re: white women. I feel like I made my point though, and I don’t want to reiterate it again. But I think you are right about asexual ugliness–we are saying the same thing, although perhaps with different words. Ugly/asexual/maternal and beautiful/hypersexual/available = madonna/whore.

    I guess the important thing they have in common is that both stereotypes exist in relationship to servicing white men. The part I am not clear about–that Tami and others have raised–is how does that dynamic change if it is black men doing the looking? Does it change?

  76. Westerly wrote:

    Nadra wrote:
    “I found it really interesting that one commenter was curious to know if black women get cellulite. That really sounds like she was questioning their humanity. That’s akin to asking if black women get strech marks, menstrual cramps or anything else we’d expect a human female to have. Quite strange.”

    Isn’t it just? It’s right down there with white people being ‘curious’ about how black hair operates and how often it’s washed and spouting on about the magical, super-power sun-proof properties of black skins. That kind of anthropological gaze creeps the hell out of me, though all the posters who have referred to Baartman.

    Joseph wrote:
    “The Mammy stereotype was–and is–imagined to be an utterly sexless nurturer. This is the–yes–uniquely black–version of the madonna in the binary. (Often literally, as black women were made to “mother” white children) And these black “madonnas” were and are represented within the larger culture in an enormous way.”

    *giant eyeroll*

    Wendi Muse, Shelby and Mee Mee have tried to talk sense to you, because you are
    NOT a black woman who has to live this reality and as a result you cannot speak from actual experience with any authority, however much you may try to. You’re coming from a place where you can afford to draw false parallels and resort to lazy and inaccurate pseudo-intellectualisation that comes straight out of yet another sub-standard women’s studies department – because you can afford to.

    And I’m saying this as someone who is more often than not, a genuine FAN of your posts.

    Bottom line?

    Here, on planet Earth? A ‘Mammy’ is not, and has never been a ‘Madonna’, or a ‘uniquely black’ variation of a madonna. Ever! (For her to be a ‘black version’, black PEOPLE would have had to have conceived of her. But they didn’t – she comes straight out of the white imaginary and has then been forcibly projected on to the bodies of some black women.)

    Just because white women and black women are subject to restrictive binaries, it doesn’t mean that they operate in an identical fashion or that they are ‘fundamentally’ the same.

    Bullshit.

    This is probably ‘duh’ territory for most readers but I’ll say it anyway. Madonnas are ALL. ABOUT. SEXUALITY. They are about pristine sexuality, innocent saved-up/stored-up sexuality, protected sexuality, launch-a-thousand ships sexuality as opposed to a supposedly *non-existent* and thus, unconsidered sexuality.

    ‘Madonna’ does not equal ‘asexual’. Unlike a mammy, people fixate, obsess on, fantasise about and agonise over the sexual status of a Madonna.

    Their virginity is sexualised and is in fact a long-cherished and defended male fetish. (Key word? ‘Cherished’) It’s all about the sex that they haven’t had, but *could* have, and that oh-so-precious chastity that is worth killing ‘other’ men for. Since when has virginity EVER been ’sexless’?

    Why else do you think America went wild about that walking vortex of non-talent – plain-Jane Britney Spears – and her dull declarations about the untouched state of her vagina? In your reckoning did that make Britney Spears somehow the equivalent of a ‘mammy’? *eyeroll*

    By contrast mammy’s are asexual – nobody cares about her sexual status, her purity (or lack thereof) or the state of her sex life, seeing as she is not even supposed to have one in the first place – and even if she did – so what?

    Who *cares* what Mammy (unlike the virginal Madonna) may or may not get up to, or more importantly what she may or may not be subjected to in the bedroom? (Make no mistake – Mammy gets used and raped like the rest, except that no-one can openly admit to having the desire, so it’s a ‘non-issue’.)

    By being defined as “asexual”, she’s neither Madonna OR whore and falls OUTSIDE of the binary that applies to actual human “women” – get it? We’re not talking about valued, or even devalued sexuality, but sexuality that is not even CONSIDERED.

    Madonna’s, like mammy’s, may (at times) be associated with ‘mothering’, and protective qualities but unlike the latter, Madonna’s receive attention, acclaim, and worship for their virginity and conversely their mothering tendencies. They’re propped on a pedestal and if they happen to have children? Why then, they are the bestest. mothers. in. the world. 1111!!!! (Angelina rox!!11!11!)

    But who the hell prays to mammy? Who kills for her and is willing to die for her sexuality, be it ‘intact’ or ‘violated’? Who is praising her for chastity, or marvelling over her mothering skills or protective embrace – as opposed to taking it all completely for granted as if it’s just there, flowing on tap as a god-given right?

    Madonna’s are deities that are petitioned and adored – Mammy’s are less-than-humans who are ordered around and overlooked.

    Mammy doesn’t get the pedestal dear, she stays underfoot, fades into the background or gets the dark corner of the room at best. (At this stage, I’m trying to figure out just *how* you managed to ‘miss’ that one. Mammy’s and Madonnas are not even close to operating in a similar fashion.)

    If Britney Spears is yet another woman who has fluctuated between the Madonna/Whore binary that exists SOLELY for white women, then the modern equivalent of good ole “mammy” in the media are all of those (usually though not always) fat, black, eternally smiling, anonymous women that are shoved into the background, and whose names as actresses you somehow never *do* find out (no matter how well they can actually act); women who solely exist to cheerlead, comfort, advise and aid white women who have to deal with the exhausting struggle of being the eternal love interest, the centre of attention, the contested battlefield, romantic paramour, muse of many a ballad or balcony scene and of course, cherished wife and mother.

    All of which is so very difficult and trying, compared to being written off as a complete sexual nonenity, or having your gravity-defying buttocks curiously pointed at by all and sundry including your white, feminist, ’sisters’.

    Yeah…

    To conclude, I suspect that you already know about the sexual history of black and that you are probably well-versed in the critical difference between mammys and madonnas which is why I find it all the more enraging that you would even try to conflate the two.

    You refer to “black madonnas”? In white-dominated societies there MAY be white mammys, but there are NO black Madonnas. None. (Seriously, name me ONE black woman in white society that have white men screeching on and drooling over about their purity and virginity and willing to take up arms over .)

    I find it rather telling however, that you haven’t engaged with any of the central concerns of the OP, which is about a predominantly white feminist site ogling black female bodies in a way that is disturbingly reminiscent of Saarjtie Baartman in a musuem – but instead, you have the temerity to ask this:

    “If Straight Stuntin is created by black men, for black men, and features images of beautiful black women… why are you fixated on white women? It’s bizarre.”

    Have you seriously listened to any of the female posters (black or otherwise) in here?

    Instead, what your argument has essentially amounted to is a cavalier dodge:

    “White women have to put up with binaries *too*! (The old Universal-condition-of- women-argument that sounds compelling on the surface but is completely untrue.)”

    “You can’t claim to have a worse deal than them.”

    “Fundamentally, it’s *just* the same.” (White men look at their women – we’re just looking at ours) etc.

    And it’s not.

    To put it simply:
    Madonna/Whore?
    Cherished/regulated/controlled/protected/publicised/worshipped vs. Demonised/condemned/disrespected disapproved.

    Mammy/Hypersexual?
    Used/undervalued/violated/ignore vs. Used/demonised/condemned/animalised/eternally accessible/freak-show.

    Hmmm. Notice how only ONE of these binaries offers an admittedly problematic haven, but a potential HAVEN nevertheless with room to manouevre and create resistance, while the other binary just leaves non-women raw, pawed completely exposed and victimised on BOTH sides?

    Madonna’s can be raped and disrespected (because they are what everyone wants),
    Whores can’t, because they’re bad and asking for it.

    Mammy’s can’t be raped or disrespected since they don’t have any sexuality to begin with, and no-one has (or is supposed to have) any sexual inclinations towards them whatsoever.

    And well… how can you possibly rape a hyper-sexual, freaky animal who consists of nothing but body parts and who is always up for it?

    To you, that may seem like a minor ‘difference of detail’, but there’s a big difference between being perceived as a lesser, cossetted human being, as opposed to EITHER WAY, not being seen as human at all. A Madonna is not a Mammy anymore than a whore, however despised, is an out an out specimen and animal with parts on display.

    To black women? It makes a world of difference.

    Be honest and address the OP. Do you really think that if they had put up a picture of a playboy bunny that Jezebel’s idiotic readership would have been discussing her ass, or how her boobs defied gravity whether or not she ever got cellulite, and gleefully pointing with open mouths as if they were at the zoo?

    Ask yourself that.

  77. Joseph wrote:

    @Westerly

    Okay, can I say this? STOP FUCKING CALLING ME “DEAR.” It is not okay.

    You aint my Mom and I aint your kid. I am a grown ass man and NOT your “dear.” So it is not your role to “talk sense” into me, Ma. We are fellow adults who disagree. Can you do that respectfully? Be great if you tried.

    I am not black woman. So fucking what? This post is about a men’s magazine and you aren’t a man, and yet, here you are. I am one of the men who finds himself very attracted to the women pictured in this magazine. And yet also ambivalent about the impact such images have on some real-life women–some of whom I care a lot about. Bottom line is that I belong in this conversation as much as any of you. So you can keep your Authentic Black Woman Approved card in the holster Westerly: I do not need or want your permission to participate in this discussion.

    And your anti-intellectual baiting is no good either. Yeah, I am not willing to wallow in sub-undergraduate Women’s Studies maunderings, especially when the original post is so provocative and well-written. There have been some damn silly things said here about representation and that is something I know a little something about. If you disagree, fine. The planet will still spin.

    You are going a VERY long way around to say pretty much the same thing that I am re: Mammies, Westerly. (Although you are wrong that Madonna= deity. It just means “mother” in this term, not a direct ref to the Virgin Mother… who is not a “deity” in any event).

    And, importantly, neither of us agree that black women are “Always (portrayed as) whores” which was the sentiment I was responding to with that example. White women only came into the conversation as (ha ha) contrast when someone wrong-headedly wrote that they have it better… or some nonsense… IN PORN, an idea that is utterly insane. Thom is right, reducing women of all colors to their body parts–measurements etc.–is standard in porn. That is NOT a fallacious flip.

    I will say again, by focusing on distinctions btw black and white women models in this conversation you are obscuring the more important dynamic between black women/models and MEN (of all colors)… which is the purpose of the magazine in question. The only white women around this post for miles are the Jezebel commenters–who are (I presume) not mythical white porn models who have it so great.

    Can we not re-focus this conversation on them?

  78. cocolamala wrote:

    @Westerly

    tell it!!

  79. cocolamala wrote:

    …uh oh westerly, watch your tone!!

  80. cocolamala wrote:

    @ joseph

    the focus of this discussion actually is the way white women commenters responded to the black models in straight stunting. wendi muse wrote this post, because the commentary at jezebel is reproducing the problematic response to black female sexuality that has been going on since “Europe discovered” black women’s bodies. Their response is troubling to these black women because they, as feminists, they are supposed to be our “allies” in the cause. You Joseph are supposedly an ally — you wish to “cosign” — but you too have the same troubling blind spots in this discussion.

    And yes she is correct that your critique of this issue points to a paucity of background in black women’s studies. It is thin, flat. If one even begins to research the scholarship about Mammy/Sapphire you learn about the difference between how black and white women’s sexuality is constructed in the Western world. You will learn that it does form a heirarchy of power that places white women on a Pedestal in the Cult of True Womanhood — but black women are ignored in this model, and expected to collect around the base [with the menz], and maybe clean it.

    What do you think the phrase “Aint I a Woman” refers to? Regardless of whether that statement is a historical fact, it speaks to the experience of the unequal construction of Black/White womanhood. And it is not a new phenomenon.

  81. MeeMee wrote:

    Joseph:

    lmao

    Quit trying to direct the conversation because you feel like it’s not valid or related to the post (which it is). This discussion isn’t on your terms.

    *smdh* You just don’t get it and no one can get it through your thick head otherwise. Girl Bye!

  82. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @MeeMee – No personal insults people, keep it clean. The mods are busy today.

  83. Joseph wrote:

    @Mee Mee
    Sweetheart, I am not your boyfriend/husband/father. Go find him/them and sell this. I am not buying.

  84. Fiqah wrote:

    SIGH.

    Ladies. Joseph’s original point (and Joe, feel free to jump in here if I get it wrong) seems to be that White women don’t necessarily have it easier/harder, but rather that they experience oppression DIFFERENTLY. He also was just asking why the conversation kept coming back to White women (I know, it’s because it’s Jezebel and that’s who the commenters were). There was NOTHING in any of his comments that suggested that he was invalidating the experiences of Black women. Nothing. At all. Attacking someone who is making an honest and intelligent attempt to understand an unfamiliar dynamic as an outsider is not productive. I understand that these issues are painful for a lot of us. I understand COMPLETELY that a lot of us have a LOT of rage about this issue. But lashing out like some of us are doing is just Not Cool. Joseph is not White masculinity’s representative. So don’t address him that way.

  85. Joseph wrote:

    @cocolamala
    So, which is it? “tell it” or “watch your tone”? Right. Classy.

    “the focus of this discussion actually is the way white women commenters responded to the black models in straight stunting. wendi muse wrote this post, because the commentary at jezebel is reproducing the problematic response to black female sexuality that has been going on since “Europe discovered” black women’s bodies. Their response is troubling to these black women because they, as feminists, they are supposed to be our “allies” in the cause. You Joseph are supposedly an ally — you wish to “cosign” — but you too have the same troubling blind spots in this discussion.”

    Actually Coco, Tami wrote this, not Wendi.

    I completely agree that the OP is about ambivalent feelings raised by the reactions to black women’s uncovered bodies by white women at Jezebel… but that is not the direction this discussion has taken. All I did was point that out. Period.

    As far as blind spots are concerned, if you are implying that my reaction to this post mirrors that of the Jezebel commenters you are completely wrong. I share several other posters discomfort with Jezebel, for all of the reasons they’ve said. And if you have followed my posts on Racialicious at all, you must have noted that I am hardly a “white woman” apologist.

    So, why the hate?

    I make photographs as part of my art practice and I think it is interesting to look at all the vectors of force that shape the way images are made and recieved. If you are only interested in one of them, fine, knock yourself out. But I am going to keep asking questions about all of them.

  86. Joseph wrote:

    @Fiqah
    No, you got me right. Thanks. I really appreciate that.

    BTW:
    I have way too many vowels in my last name and too much chest hair to be White Masculinity’s Representative. Yeah, last I heard it was Bruce Willis.

  87. Wendi Muse wrote:

    lol joseph, true re: megan fox…angelina is becoming, dare i say it, a cougar for the general public these days…
    anyway, enough derailing. :-)

  88. cocolamala wrote:

    “The Mammy stereotype was–and is–imagined to be an utterly sexless nurturer. This is the–yes–uniquely black–version of the madonna in the binary.”

    wrong, simplistic explanation, incorrect analogy. Madonna is an aspirational ideal. Mammy is a job.

    “And that these Madonna/whore representations are mutually exclusive… just like for white women. Yes, they are uniquely racialized for black women, but the underlying dynamic is identical.”

    untrue, and he’s not hearing the women explaining differences in the underlying dynamic which elevates white women to Madonna but only elevates black women to Mammy (Madonna’s maid)

    “Ugly/asexual/maternal and beautiful/hypersexual/available = madonna/whore…”

    wrong, again. still not listening. Madonna isn’t ugly and she’s not asexual, we know this because (as someone explained) as a symbol of ideal womanhood her “virginity” is prized and her “honor” fought over.

    = erasure, because plenty of women here explained but he repeatedly ignored that and redirect the convo towards Men’s attitudes and their consumption of WOC sexuality.

    I think the hostility follows from being ignored and being lectured from an ill-informed position at the same time.

  89. cocolamala wrote:

    and Tami’s question was:

    Why so little criticism of “Straight Stuntin’” on Jezebel?… Is it because white feminists don’t “get” objectification of black women?

    No, ppl don’t get “objectification of black women” that’s what we were talking about.

  90. Joseph wrote:

    @cocolamala
    You have completely, utterly (intentionally?) misunderstood what I was trying to say re: the mammy. But that’s okay.

    Peace.

    The OP is really smart and interesting.

  91. cocolamala wrote:

    no, I’m not going for misunderstanding. if that were the case i would not have spent so many words to try to get to understanding.

    –pax.

  92. firefey wrote:

    the way i’ve always understood the mammy thing was as a sham/false mother figure. sure, she mothers and protects the white kids but her own are unwashed, unkempt and undiciplined. she is not some ideal of black motherhood. in fact, she represents all things bad and unwholesome about black motherhood.

    as for the madona, joseph, if you think she is not deified you’re mistaken. the madona has had whole cults surrounding her since the medeival knight became a man of chivalry and not just a hired butcher/rapist. the madona cannot EVER be sexual, though she can be raped. but she is pure vrigin, fetishized (both meanings) and holy and beautiful beyond worth. even the idea of the madona as a mother exists in context with the virgin birth, madona being mary, and not the regular sex=babies way things actually happen.

    there is nothing in the mammy imagry that invokes the madona. she is not fetishized, she is not pure, she is not a good mother to her children. she is never beautiful.

    a white woman can be a lady in public and a whore in private. black women cannot. black women can be a whore all the time, totally asexual all the time or a whore sometimes and a bitter emasculating shrew (who needs to be put in her place, usually violently) the rest of the time.

    and since you want to make this all about the men (or seem to)… men perpetuate these ideas. white men do it by using black women’s bodies for sex and violence but not romance and marriage. and black men do a lot of similar things. additionally, as has been stated by women here who have a few extra years of living in a black woman’s body than you or i, these kinds of skin mags exacerbate this condition.

    now, i am all for women owning and embracing their sexuality and their bodies. and i like porn on some levels. but i think there has to be a stepping away from the more hateful, hurtful images that make grown men think 10 year old GIRLS!!! deserve to be sexualized and cat called in the ways that the women here have reported.

  93. DivergentDana wrote:

    Hey… apparently, Jezebel has changed its commenting system, instituting a YouTube -esque rating system for each comment. Was it something ya’ll said? :)

  94. Wendi Muse wrote:

    divergentdana…i don’t think it has anything to do with that. i read jezebel regularly, and their format usually conforms with that of gawker, as it’s their “parent” company/blog. so i think they were just falling in line there, not necessarily trying to control the comments in a different way.

  95. Isha wrote:

    I’ve been reading through the comments on Jezebel and this may have already been said, but it seems like some of the readers used the magazine as a way to feel better about their own bodies. ‘Oh she’s curvy and not afraid to show it,’ seemed to be the general tone of those comments. To me, this just seems strange and creepy. I can understand finding a relation in body size and saying, ‘Oh, we’re about the same size and she’s beautiful! Maybe I’m not so bad either!’ But to use images like these, which are loaded with misogyny and body fetishes, to base that relation on is just…weird and a little blind sided. If a mainstream lad mag featuring white, yet voluptuous, models had been posted, I’m sure readers would’ve decried it as wrong, objectification, etc.
    The benign reactions of readers does show the lack of discourse there is about race on Jezebel, and I’m skeezed out how some commenters used loaded racial and sexist images to feel better about themselves (unconsciously or consciously).

  96. alienati0n wrote:

    Wow Westerly, that was INCREDIBLE commentary on comment #76 and I’m not easily impressed. You really summed up exactly what I was feeling. Amazing.

    Unfortunately it will be hard for anyone to argue with you on this issue, in fact any argument above against what you wrote is inferior, illogical and petty.

    For example, I like what Joseph said, protecting the honor of white women from any undue persecution while defending the exploitation of black women in these “men’s magazines”. But that’s only because he proved YOUR point. We deserve to be exploited, white women, (whom are of much more value) deserve to be defended by no other merit than being white.

    Thank you for the extraordinary read.

  97. Joseph wrote:

    @cocolamala
    I was surprised to read what you wrote re: getting to understanding. But rather than being cynical about it, I take you at your word. So, in that spirit, I wanted to say: if I argued when I should have been listening, I am sorry.

    The tone of some of these comments–including yours, frankly–were so snide and contemptuous that I responded in kind. No excuses though, I should have worked harder to hear you about these important issues. I especially hate when someone who isn’t in my “group” refuses to listen to me when I am talking about my own experience–and I never intended to reproduce that dynamic here, with you and others. If I made you feel that, then I am genuinely sorry.

    I still have trouble with the direction of this thread. But this comment isn’t the place to talk about why. Like you, I am just trying to get to understanding.

    best.

    Joe

  98. Fiqah wrote:

    Okay. I’m guessing that, like myself, quite a few of the other posters here are women of color (although please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken). A lot of the OP have stated that, though asexual, the Mammy figure cannot be viewed as a uniquely Black female version of the (White) Madonna because she is not similarly revered. Please believe me when I tell you that yes, she is indeed – just not by Black people.

    A little history about the Mammy figure: Mammy was a White, POST-SLAVERY concept. She was never real. She never, ever existed. What Mammy can be viewed as is a direct response to the visible, undeniable reality of the sexual exploitation of enslaved Black women perpetrated by White men. This thing that was never publicly discussed was nonetheless impossible to hide, and what’s delusion without denial? And THAT is what undesirable, asexual, perpetually-available caretaking, love-her-some-white-fokes Mammy (and alternately, the sexually rapacious, amoral, scheming Jezebel) was: White male denial of Black female reality. The Mammy figure was re-posited, in literature and in films like “Birth of a Nation” and “Gone with the Wind” in the antebellum-era South. And as much as most Black people HATE this caricature, we have to remember that White people did and (some) still do absolutely love Mammy. LOVE her. And why wouldn’t they? She’s really just like one of the family. :-/

  99. Fiqah wrote:

    Also, there’s a definite “anthropological observation” overtone going on @Jezebel with this. Like we’re some subspecies of human or something! I’m not reading this as complimentary a-tall. Tim Wise said in a piece I read of his a while back that White feminists have difficulty forging alliances with Black feminists because the notion of a celebrated and equal Black womanhood and the resulting loss of White female privilege scares the hell out of them. I thought he was being harsh when I read it, but then I see shit like this pass without protest, and I wonder.

  100. ll wrote:

    I agree with the above comment about the bandwagon nature of Jezebel comments – if Dodai had come with a different approach, if Mikela hadn’t come into the thread. It’s the reason I don’t read Jezebel comments any more because it’s so pointless most of the time.

    I would also add their treatment of celebrity gossip to things they do badly, starting with that it took them over two years to stop linking to Perez Hilton while frequently (rightly) bashing his misogyny and general horribleness. I don’t think my eyes have stopped rolling from the Angelina Jolie on the Today show post about how perfect she is.

  101. Joyce wrote:

    This is nothing more than the Hottentot Venus in the 21st century.
    “Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.”
    Jezebel, check yourself.

  102. cocolamala wrote:

    mammy is a real job. real women held these jobs during and after slavery, and even today, women of color are still working as domestics and childcare givers.

    back in the day, racial discrimination barred WOC from getting other types of employment.

    thus the irony of the 1960s feminist movement that went to bat for a woman’s right to work — AND overlooked that women of color had already been working for a very long time.

  103. cocolamala wrote:

    not just women of color, but poor, working class women had been working in sweatshops and factories since the dawn of the industrial era.

    this is what ppl mean when they point out that the 1960s “Feminist” movement, had an agenda pulled from a middle/upper class white woman’s perspective.

    The US history of racism and poverty tweak the feminist narrative but feminism may ignore those inflections.

    This racial divergence plays out explicitly in the passage of the Social Security Act, passed in 1935, which specifically excluded income benefits for DOMESTIC and AGRICULTRAL workers, even though (or maybe because) those jobs were most important to minorities who were denied from other types of jobs opportunities due to racial/sexist discrimination.

    Back then, domestic/agricultural workers were predominantly black, hispanic, and asian american. And those were the populations denied the social security benefits of their labor in the early part of the 20th century.

  104. cocolamala wrote:

    sorry, this is meandering from the pedestal of white womanhood, to Mammy, to domestic labor, to the US history of women’s work — but they are all related.