Black women on a leash -- satire or racist misogyny?
by Kim Pearson

Feministing wants your opinion about the controversy MTV has stirred up with its cartoon -- aired on a Saturday afternoon -- depicting a character based on rapper Snoop Doogg leading leashed, bikini-clad women on all fours. At one point, one of the women defecates on the floor, and the "Snoop" character picks up the excrement with a plastic baggie. MTV's black female president is defending the episode as satire. The post's writer asks, "Could anyone who has seen this show shed a little light on how exactly this could be seen as social satire?"

The cartoon at the center of the controversy actually aired July 1, but a column by critic Stanley Crouch brought it to public notice, drawing condemnations from civil rights and feminist leaders, as well as hordes of viewers, journalists and bloggers.

Photographer, media scholar and writer Carla Williams reminds us that Snoop did come to an award show a while back with two women chained and tethered to him -- the incident the MTV claims to be satirizing. The fact that black women participated in or defended these portrayals raises all sorts of questions -- some of which Williams has explored in her book, The Black Female Body: A Photographic History co-authored with fellow photographer and scholar Debra Willis. She's also raised the issues in some of the essays on her vast website, including this one from 1998 that traces the history of the black female image as Naked, Neutered or Noble.

Here's a snippet from the conclusion of that essay that's worth considering in light of this latest incident:

"Given the legacy of images created of black women, it is an especially complex task for contemporary black women to define their own image, one that necessarily both incorporates and subverts the stereotypes, myths, facts, and fantasies that have preceded them."

So this raises a question about the women who originally allowed Snoop to parade them around. Were they perpetuating oppressive stereotypes, or having fun? Are they at fault for helping to create the image on which the cartoon was based. What about Snoop Dogg's responsibility as a black man? And as a black woman, should the president of MTV's stance have been different?

It may be, indeed, what Williams argued about Janet Jackson in a provocative 2004 essay after her breast-baring brouhaha can be applied to black women more broadly:

Despite the proliferation of images in music videos and magazines, black women still do not really have control over their own bodies. The black community vilifies them for embodying sexualized stereotypes (think of the outcry surrounding Toni Braxton's 1997 VIBE magazine cover, nonetheless one of the magazine's best-selling issues), while the dominant culture remains all too happy to let them to reify old notions of their supposed salacious natures. With all the cultural baggage they carry, Jackson's body-and her breast-are ultimately not her own. And thus she has very little "control" after all.

One thing is for shizzle - Snoop's lyrics make it clear that he couldn't care less what any of the rest of us think.
To paraphrase Positive K in a different context -- it's all money in his pocket/and his wallet's getting fatter.

Submitted by Kim Pearson (view blog) on Thu, 08/10/2006 - 11:09am

Comments

 

Bodies, Choices & Agency...

You know, this always gets me going. Who's in control of who's body?

Among the first things this brings to mind is a comment from the recent LA Times article about the producer of Girls Gone Wild - an expert is consulted as to why young women participate in this kind of exhibitionism, and the sociologist explains that it's not just an issue of young women being manipulated, but also an issue of them exercising their own agency to receive attention, etc. (and this brings us to a very interesting and important issue - attention as currency. This currency has gone up in value as media have expanded, and fame has become more mass-produced, disposable and easy to acheive).

I get tired of the argument that women who do these things are automatically victims, exploited and taken advantage of. Perhaps they are being exploited, perhaps they're being taken advantage of, but in so many cases, they have chosen to do so. For better or worse. The problem is less that some sleazy jerk is chaining women up and parading them around, and more that so many women make these decisions without all the information. So often women are coersed, or drunk (or whatever), or misled. My point is, if you want to get dressed up and be Snoop Dogg's boytoy out on the town, that's your decision. Especially if you're being well paid. My problem is if you don't go into that agreement with your eyes open, then you can't be in control of what happens to you, how your image is used, and how you are portrayed. If a woman is going to maintain her agency and independence, she has to take a wider view of these things.

Mother/Fucker/Lover

Double Agents: Blogging Mamalife, Creativy & the Human Experience

Submitted by Atena on Thu, 08/10/2006 - 12:51
 

Which of my 17 personalities to put on
here...

Hi Prof Kim, Atena,

I swear I can come at this thing from 17 angles. Here are a couple that occur to me - tell me what I'm missing:

  • Agreed - I have no right to tell another woman not to put on a dog collar or to go to an awards ceremony dressed like these women with Snoop Dogg or this woman with Marilyn Manson for that matter. Don't want other women telling me what to do either.
  • I was *so* glad last year when Christina Norman got the job of running the network and am eager to give her the benefit of the doubt. She says its satire and CBS News' piece indicates that there may be some editorialization against the way Snoop-the-cartoon handles the dog-women. According to their story, "MTV2 said the episode was a satire of an actual Snoop appearance where women were in collars and chains" and (a point made by a detractor) "one of the dogs, a main character on the show, states, `I find that degrading and I am a dog.'"

    I need to see the piece, no question, to make a call. I can't judge the cartoon segment unless I have seen the damn thing and obviously my eyes are tired because I cannot find it.

  • Atena you nail the risk to the women in the situation:

    My problem is if you don't go into that agreement with your eyes open, then you can't be in control of what happens to you, how your image is used, and how you are portrayed. If a woman is going to maintain her agency and independence, she has to take a wider view of these things.

    Amen. This is why actresses put gaffer tape on their nipples in nude scenes even if the director has promised to crop the shot. Because it's too easy for producers to beg forgiveness later, once the film is wrapped and distributed. So: Pretend I'm one of the actresses here. If I have my spidey-sense on, it's easy for me to see how a scene where I'm asked to put on a collar and defecate on a rug could be used in a way with which I'm not comfortable.

  • I just didn't expect this vivid scene to be on the list of unaceeptable ways to treat women that I'm keeping for my ten-year-old son...

    • Lisa Stone
    BlogHer Co-founder
    Surfette

    Submitted by Lisa Stone on Thu, 08/10/2006 - 17:24
     

    Tell me about it

    Lisa said,
    "I just didn't expect this vivid scene to be on the list of unaceeptable ways to treat women that I'm keeping for my ten-year-old son..."

    I'm with you on that one. And the fact that this was on at 12:30 on a Saturday afternoon means that a lot of kids probably got exposed to this without their parents' knowledge, and certainly without their parents having the opportunity to reinforce their own values. Many other programs that have aired objectionable content (South Park, BET Uncut, the Man Show) weren't scheduled during kids' prime tv-watching hours.

    Professor Kim
    BlogHer Contributing Editor, Law and Journalism/Media

    Submitted by Kim Pearson on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 05:01
     

    You're right - midday Saturday is prime-time

    As is anytime on the computer. Came home last night and (because the computer's in the kitchen) got the shock of seeing the ten-year-old on YouTube, watching anime videos on YouTube. Turns out a friend had introduced him to the site on a playdate. Glad my computer's in the kitchen...but I need to go spend some more time on http://commonsense.com...

    Lisa Stone
    BlogHer Co-founder
    Surfette

    Submitted by Lisa Stone on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 06:06
     

    Beg to Differ

    I have no right to tell another woman not to put on a dog collar or to go to an awards ceremony dressed like these women with Snoop Dogg or this woman with Marilyn Manson for that matter. Don't want other women telling me what to do either.

    And that, dear friends, is why the degradation of women continues to worsen in this country. We are unwilling to sacrifice our perceived individual rights in order to create a society that is better for our daughters and sons.

    Do you honestly think the Montgomery Bus Boycott would have been effective if people felt like they didn't have "the right" to ask other blacks not to use public transportation? There were old women who WALKED MILES rather than aid a system that was demeaning to them.

    American misogyny is an issue for ALL women. If we are too busy being offended and are unable to see past our own interests when someone would ask (or tell) us not to do something that would affect other women/children negatively, then we don't care as much as we say we do.

    It's not just our right to tell them--if we care as much as we say we do--it's our duty. We can't have it both ways.

    Submitted by t-hype on Wed, 08/16/2006 - 11:50
     

    Please. I wonder if you'd be

    Please. I wonder if you'd be questioning whether or not it was satire if the women were white and the president of mtv was white. Incidentally she isn't paid to be a black female president, she is paid to be The President of MTV. Period.

    I prefer to credit that the women in the video clip (and I haven't seen it) are quite capable of making a decision to do what they did, and did so with their eyes wide open (and probably on a bigger part in future) and knowing very well what they were doing. If not, I'm sure they have legal redress.

    Submitted by BritGirl on Wed, 08/16/2006 - 16:22