Inside Amy Schumer

http://www.cc.com/full-episodes/kv1kvn/inside-amy-schumer-last-f--kable-day-season-3-ep-301#time=1m36s&index=2

View from 16:00 to 20:00

Comedy Central’s hit sketch series Inside Amy Schumer, features sarcastic social commentaries that often revolve around sexuality and gender roles. In this particular clip from the premier of season 3, Schumer (mock) interviews Bailey Jay, a trans porn actress. Through the piece, Schumer draws attention to all the ways in which trans people are subjected to both rude and invasive questions that often objectify or dehumanize their status as actual people.  In turn, Jay answers every question as though they are completely acceptable, laughing with Schumer about the bluntness of the questions, rather than correcting them.

Almost immediately, Schumer exclaims “You have a cock!” which sets the tone for the piece. As many trans people can confirm, the general (cisgender) society has an obsession with trans genitals. Further, Schumer brings up how it must have been difficult for Jay’s husband, a straight man, to have a relationship with a trans woman: “What was it like for you to sort of watch your husband enter this situation . . . I’m assuming he was just straight before.” This question reflects on the straight male fear of trans women, that trans women are trying to “trick” them, and the belief that a trans status conflicts with heterosexuality. However, something the piece does not address is Jay’s career as a porn star. Contrasting many segments where an interviewer will introduce their subject to the audience, Schumer very selectively omits Jay’s profession, her awards, etc. This omission further refines the aforementioned statement of fact, driving it away from any even remotely possible scenario in which talking about genitals is close to polite.

Schumer continues the interview with almost sarcastically asking Jay to answer every question that she hates answering. Jay responds with a lack of emotion, “I pee sitting down. I don’t use the men’s room.” Continuing with her purposefully ignorant interview, Schumer remarks on how gorgeous Jay is, giving nod to her ‘overcoming her trans status.’ But at the climax of the piece, we’re given the most awfully blunt question that could be asked: “Did you ever think about… snipping… off… your… [Jay laughs] penis?” Before she is given time to respond though, Schumer interrupts her and draws attention to herself, demonstrating how trans genitals exist as part of a public discourse rather than as a private matter.

This piece is complicated. On the one hand, it could be seen as a satire to the way that trans people, especially trans women, are usually addressed in interviews. It can be argued that the piece is satire because Jay was obviously prepared for all these questions and willing to bluntly answer them. In other interviews with trans women, such as Laverne Cox, Janet Mock, and Carmen Carrera, the interviewer has asked direct questions about genitalia but the women refused to answer and explained why such questions were problematic and offensive. In this way, the piece could also be considered somewhat educational as cis people can finally hear what they obviously want to hear. Additionally, Jay says that her life is not the sad trans life that often depicted in films, thus promoting a much needed positive trans experience.

On the other hand, the fact that the interview are very intrusive could be seen as an extension of the status quo. In some ways it supports the belief that the personal lives of transgender people should be open to the public. Talk of genitals and attractiveness furthers the sensationalization of trans women’s lives in ways that may not be productive.

According to Alexander Doty, queer is “a militant sense of difference that views the erotically ‘marginal’ as both . . . a consciously chosen ‘site of resistance’ and a ‘location of radical openness and possibility’” (There’s Something Queer Here, 430). He also describes a queer gender as “not fully subscribing to the straight ideological imperatives that define gender” (432). With this definition the interview can be read as queer in three different ways. First, to interview someone about being trans is to openly resist heteronormative narratives. To be trans is to break the prescribed path of sex = gender. Further, to be a trans porn star is to publicly embrace one’s erotic marginalization.  In another sense, it is even queering the trans interview style, which usually is done in a very serious manner that depicts the hardships of being trans. However, it could also be argued that the piece is not queer at all in that it continues to publicize and sensationalize trans lives.

Questions:

1. Is the interview queer or is it promoting the status quo? What aspect of the interview contributes to its queerness or lack thereof? Whose definition of queer would you draw on?

2. Is the interview satirical, educational, offensive, or some combination? How do the lack of questions about Bailey Jay's porn career but rather questions about her lifestyle contribute to your opinion? How might the audience's opinion on the interview differ upon a queer or non-queer viewing?

3. Do you think cis society would benefit from more interviews done in this style or is a more serious style better?

What differences are possibly present between various interviewers' styles that limit what an audience can learn about a trans* individual?   Can you think of any related interviews with a separate interview style?  

Rihanna's Sexuality

Rihanna’s “Te Amo” music video presents the artist’s sexuality in a new way, highlighting the potential for a lesbian relationship and her struggle with that realization. Rihanna typically tackles sexual themes in nearly all of her music videos and stands as a sexual symbol herself. In “Te Amo,” an attractive, feminine woman expresses her love for Rihanna, and Rihanna experiences and considers the pleasures and pains that a queer love can bring, and she struggles to take a stance regarding her own identity.

We defined the video as queer using multiple definitions. According to Warner, queer protests norms and the idea of normal behavior (xxvii). Any homosexual relationship accomplishes this version of queer. According to Doty, individuals who find pleasure in texts that don’t match their own sexual orientation can also mark a work as queer (6). We believe that a straight-identified audience could also take pleasure in the visualization of a sexual relationship between two hyper-feminized women.

Another aspect of the film is the portrayal of BDSM. BDSM seems to be a common theme in Rihanna’s videos, however it remains a practice that goes against commonly accepted sexual norms. Society tends to associate BDSM with nonconsensual sex, but Rihanna shows it as a pleasure in which she and her potential lover can engage. This representation of a typically taboo sexual culture fulfills Warner’s definition of queer yet again.

A final characteristic marking this music video as queer is the relationship shared between two hyper-feminized women. There exists a stereotype in gay culture that when two women pair, one typically has a “butch” presentation and the other a “femme” presentation. This is not the case in “Te Amo.” Both women dress in feminine clothing, wear heavy amounts of makeup, and use very feminine body language. Although Rihanna seems more domineering, she still has a very feminine presentation. This partering between two “femme” women fits Doty’s definition of queer because it falls outside of stereotypical labels for lesbian women (7).

1. For nearly the first 50 seconds of the video, there is no music and also no contact between the two women. How does this strike you, or what do you think the function of this cinematic choice is in a music video that for the most part appears to be overtly about a potential lesbian relationship?

2. In an earlier blog on Hozier's Take Me to Church, you were questioned on why you thought feminine pronouns were used despite the video featuring two men. What does Rihanna's use of feminine pronouns do to our perception of the music video, in contrast to Hozier's?

3. While the two women's presentations as "femme" serve the purpose of breaking the stereotype of the "butch/femme" stereotype in lesbian relationships, in what other ways do you think their appearance is important? 

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a 1975 British-American musical comedy horror film. Though the film was initially a relatively large failure, it has become one of the most financially successful films of all time and longest running movies shown in theaters. It has become iconic for its midnight performance showings, as well as for being atypically sexual while challenging traditional gender roles. Rocky Horror has created a social phenomenon and branches out from the traditional heteronormative matrixes often seen in popular culture. Despite being released forty years ago, the film still provides a rallying point in and outside of the queer community with its concepts of what it means to be a human and correct.

The film contains a number of queer characters. Dr. Frank-N-Furter, the film’s main antagonist, is who the audience immediately focuses in on. He is bi-sexual, trans*, promiscuous, as well as a mad scientist. While holding a convention to showcase his newest experiment, a recently engaged (and virgin) couple by the names of Brad and Janet arrive on the doorstep of his Transylvanian castle. After their unexpected arrival, Dr. Frank-N-Furter continues with his convention and eventually brings his experiment Rocky to life, as a naked Brad and Janet watch in terror. As the movie progresses, Frank-N-Furter has a number of sexual encounters with Rocky, Brad, and Janet. He performs a number of different songs, such as Sweet Transvestite, and even commits heinous and gruesome murders.

Link to the song Sweet Transvestite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc80tFJpTuo

The Rocky Horror Picture Show supports Michael Warner’s definition of queer by protesting norms and the idea of norms and normal behavior (Warner xxvii). No only can this film be considered queer because of the sexuality of its characters, their dress, and their gender performance, but through their murderous and cannibalistic behaviors. The characters in Rocky Horror reinforce Marinucci’s argument that “far more of us are queer than not” (Marinucci 36). Even the respectful, virgin couple exhibit their queerness throughout the film as they explore their sexuality with Dr. Frank-N-Furter and each other. By applying a queer reading to The Rocky Horror Picture Show, we learn how the film offers the audience an opportunity to redefine categories and leaves the film open to interpretation and defining new categories.  

Discussion Questions:

1. In what ways other than gender and sexuality could Rocky Horror be read as queer? Could cannibalism and motherless procreation be seen as queer? Could you view this film as queer in multiple ways?
2. The film has gained enormous commercial success and continues to live on in various forms. In what ways does this success alter the definitions of mainstream film? Can the film be read through Marinucci’s lens of redefining categories of success?
3. The film is now 40 years old, and operates in an entirely different context from when it was created. With the evolution of social circumstances and beliefs, how does Rocky Horror fit in to our current society? Does the age and difference in language, dress, and action also make this show queer through Doty’s reading?

Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt: Kimmy goes to School

Episode 6: Kimmy Goes to School (Available on Netflix)

Produced by Tina Fey, The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt follows Kimmy as she tries to rebuild her life in New York City after 15 years trapped in a bunker of a Doomsday cult in Indiana. The show’s concept is ripped straight from the headlines, reflecting in it the headline-worthy concept of outsiders and surviving despite odd circumstances. The characters, despite being “alien” to situations, unite over their “otherness.” Kimmy’s roommate, Titus, is a black, gay, wannabe broadway star who never quite made it. Like Kimmy, he escaped from a place, Missouri, that did not allow him to be himself and/or was traumatic. Both deal with the concept of passing and conforming in ways that work against their identities. New York is meant to be a place where they can be someone and have freedom of mobility without restricting their identity. As a whole, the series focuses on their intersecting adventures, often utilizing passing as means of attaining status, indicating the “Queer” nature of their true identities and the pains associated with them.

In this episode, both Kimmy and Titus make attempts at success in ways that don’t compromise their identities. Two subplots are created: one where Titus produces a music video for his song “Pinot Noir” which marks a hilarious attempt at fame, and Kimmy’s quest to get her GED. Both face several obstacles in their quests.

One such obstacle is Kimmy’s GED teacher, who stands in her way of achieving the education she desires. Her teacher is a white, middle class, able-bodied man with no motivation to teach the supposedly “forgotten” GED students-- in fact, he attempts to do such a poor job teaching so that he can end up in paid limbo for tenured teachers. The class itself is filled with immigrants, ex-cons, and drop-outs that have all been forgotten by society in one way or another because they didn’t fit into society’s normative ideal. Kimmy’s fellow GED classmates can also be considered queer under Cohen’s definition: they represent the outliers of society. In order to get their GED, the students must band together and teach themselves the material they need to know in order to pass the GED, a representation of Cathy Cohen’s idea of the use of coalition work. Cohen writes about how queer politics should be “a politics where the normative and marginal positions of punks, bulldaggers, and welfare queens, for example, is the basis for progressive transformative coalition work” (438). These students are of different races, nationalities, and ages, and yet they come together in order to succeed when the normative authority figure wants them to fail.

It is undoubtedly an odd show, immediately striking the viewer as different, but what about it differentiates it from other currently popular sitcoms? It could certainly be viewed as queer in its representation of characters of many races, socials classes, and marginalized positions in relation to power. However, how does this show portray these characters?

In studying the characters in the show who are racial minorities, we see Dong, an Asian man in Kimmy’s GED class who is good at math and speaks very broken English. Kimmy giggles when Dong first introduces himself and he replies her name means “Penis” in Vietnamese-- which is completely false. There’s Jacqueline, who appears to be a rich and elite white woman. If this is the only episode of the show that you ever view, you might not catch that Jacqueline is a Native American woman who left her reservation due to her desire to be a rich white woman. And of course, there is Titus. Titus is given much more character development than the other characters of color as a main character of the show, and while both Titus and Kimmy can then be considered queer under Cohen’s definition due to their low socioeconomic status, it comes in question whether the theme of the “white savior” can be applied to Titus’s relationship with Kimmy?

We learn in this episode that Titus has given up hope of being on Broadway and encourages Kimmy to go back home before New York City “breaks” her too. But, Kimmy returns to ignite hope in Titus again. Until this point, Titus was a bitter, antisocial, and arguably irresponsible character (in that he manipulates Kimmy into giving him more money since he is behind on rent). However, it seems that the introduction of Kimmy into his life is just what he needed to return meaning and purpose to his life.

    Titus’s gender/gender expression throughout the show is also interesting. It follows Serano’s idea that “sometimes gender is an act, and other times it isn’t” (87). Throughout both his everyday life and shooting his low budget music video, “Pinot Noir- Ode to the Black Penis”, Titus portrays himself in a feminine manner.  But when he is caught shooting the video in Jacqueline’s (Kimmy’s boss) house, he blurts out he is a handyman and tries to act “manly” in a stereotypical sense of the word. He deepens his voice, and when saying something “queer”, he says he learned it from his “queer cousin.” This supports Serano’s argument because presumably, he’s not actively deciding to act or dress the way he is in his day-to-day life; that’s just how he expresses his gender. When he is trying to act “manly” to convince the teenage girl that he is a handyman, however, he is very clearly making a conscious choice to act and talk a certain way.

From a gay, Black, somewhat genderqueer lead, to the several racial minorities, to the social outcasts, to even Kimmy Schmidt herself, poor and an outsider to mainstream society,  the show traverses a wide swathe of the definition of queer. Through this arguably diverse cast, spanning characters of different socioeconomic, racial backgrounds, gender expressions, and sexualities, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt is seems to be an attempt at queering the sitcom. But the true question is, is it a success?

Discussion Questions:

1. How does the racially charged and stereotypical nature of the characters, in humorous context, relate to Cohen’s non-normative definition of queer or refute it?

2. How does Titus’ behavior and song reflect Doty’s notions of queer? Does it make a point or is it simply using “Black gay male” stereotypes in humorous ways?

3. How does “Peeno Noir” make a positive point about being an outsider?

4. How do Kimmy and Titus use their outsider or “queer” identities to be successful in their quests?

Take Me to Church, More Than Meets the Ear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVjiKRfKpPI

Most of us are probably familiar with the song “Take Me to Church”, or at the very least have heard it on the radio. Rarely are these pop songs analyzed beyond their musical appeal to a wide audience, but once the thought has been put into finding the songs true intention another story comes to light. In the example of Hozier’s “Take Me to Church”, we are greeted with various artistic choices from pronoun use to political statements about the church. Rather echoing than the usual pattern of church songs about happiness, love, or the afterlife, Hozier instead voices his fear and anxiety surrounding the church. Using the definitions from  Cathy Cohen and Michael Warner to analyze the music video and lyrics, we found this music video to be queer.

Using Cathy Cohen’s definition of queer, in which we relate queerness to positions of power (“Punks Bulldaggers and Welfare Queens”, 440), the Hozier music video expresses a number of examples of queerness. Contrary to many popular music videos, the two main characters are men and are in a relationship. The explicit queerness present in a popular media form (music video), which typically reinforces heteronormative understanding of relationships between men and women, shows that the artist can influence a change in the way we choose to represent gendered relationships. Delving beneath the surface, Cohen’s understanding of queer is present in relation to the continued friction between the gay couple and the angry mob. If the mob of men represents the heteronormative, hegemonic understanding of sexuality, their interaction with the couple being attacked shows that they lack true power. The couple is easily overtaken by the mob and their home is invaded, leaving them helpless.

    In this example, the couple is queer, not only because of their sexual orientation, but also because they lack the ability to defend themselves and their choices against rigid institutional understandings of sexuality, rendering them powerless. Reading this text through Cohen’s understanding of queer broadens the understanding of the disadvantages queer-identified individuals face; these are people discriminated against and shunned (per the Church) and through institutional means that impact their innate humanness. Seeing the video in this way enhances the music video’s overall message on society’s view of sexuality that counters social norms.

Aside from Cohen’s definition of queer,  a tie can also be made with Warner’s definition: that queerness protests norms  (“Fear of a Queer Planet”, xxvii). This music video itself is protesting norms because, as previously stated, the vast majority of music videos play upon heteronormative narratives that leave little room for a queer reading. Although there are plenty of music videos that do break out of this stereotype, they rarely ever make it to mainstream media like this one did. The relationship between the two men is protesting social norms and therefore fits under Warner’s definition. Both of the men appear as masculine in a conventional sense goes against norms because usually a feminine and masculine dichotomy is “supposed” to exist, even within same-sex couples. Doing a queer reading of this music video strengthens the message that Hozier is trying to get across about society and particularly, powerful institutions like The Church, and their widespread disapproval of any sexuality outside of what is considered to be the norm.

    After seeing the video and realizing the political message within the song, it completely changed the way we listened to it. This song sounds more like a form of protest against powerful institutions rather than just a catchy pop song. Hopefully this experience will be as eye opening to the class as it was for us, in that knowing there is so much to something than we always care to realize. Now move forward with your lives and consume future media with an open mind while consuming media in the future.

Discussion Questions:

1. For those of you who have heard the song and not seen the video, how has your view of the song changed after viewing? How might this change your consumption of popular media in the future?

2. What do you think of the decision to use she/her pronouns in the song, despite the music video featuring two men? Why do you believe this choice was made?

3. What other music videos depict representations of queerness in relation to power? Is there a restriction on how Cohen’s queer can be understood in popular media?

4. In what ways does Hozier want viewers to see the indictment of establishments that undermine humanity based on his video?

5. In what way does the music video attempt to combat homophobia? Do you think this message is effective? If so, why do you think the message is not/less clear in the song itself?

Princess Princess

           

http://strangelykatie.com/princessprincess/?pid=206

            Princess Princess is a webcomic by Tumblr user strangelykatie that defies constructed gender roles while still playing within traditional fairytale storylines. Sadie is a princess supposedly trapped within a tower and is rescued by Princess Amira, rather than a typical prince. Throughout the story the two characters defy gender roles and traditional expectations placed upon them all while still playing into a typical fairytale storyline. Drawing from Michael Warner’s definition, which protests norms and the ideas of norms/normal behavior (Warner xxvii), we can conclude that this webcomic is queer.

            While Princess Sadie still follows the role of the “damsel-in-distress” trope, she deviates from the role by sabotaging princes’ attempts to save her. Sadie diverges from this trope by showing intelligence (i.e., by asking how Amira is actually going to save her) and also by “defeating” the ogre while the princely Amira and Vladric are arguing. Sadie shows personal growth throughout the narrative as she steps into the Queen’s role thereby a divergence from classical fairytale plots as princesses are almost always stuck within a one-dimensional character slot. Through the comic, Sadie’s sister calls her a “fat silly crybaby” and Sadie responds toward the end with “That may be true, but I’ll never let you make me feel like it’s a bad thing ever again” (36). This demonstrates Sadie’s personal character development as well as a body positive message. Despite this, though, the art doesn’t uphold to this physical trait described in the dialogue.

            The other princess Amira embodies the prince role within the comic’s fairytale narrative. Evidence of this comes from her physical appearance (her clothes, her hair, etc.), her personality, and the way she presents herself. It’s also a representation of a woman being in power rather than as a figurehead. Amira’s character is specifically working against constructed gender roles by being cast within the part of the rescuer, which is typically the role of a man. The clothes she wears are also masculine in nature. Princess Amira’s race and role as the hero also add to the queer narrative of this comic. According to Cathy Cohen’s definition of queer, Princess Amira “stands on the outside of the dominant constructed norm of state-sanctioned white middle- and upper-class heterosexuality” (441). The components of her identity correlate to Cohen’s definition of queer – even though it’s implied Amira falls within an upper-class category – she is still outside the racial norm in fairytales. In contrast to Princess Amira’s role as the hero of the story and a source of strength, Prince Vladric, the only male character in the story, is shown as weak. He also ends up in a subservient position to Princess Sadie as her advisor instead of a ruling position as in most fairytale stories.

            Warner defines queer as being outside and resisting the established norms and normal behavior. Strangelykatie’s webcomic about two princesses embodies Warner’s queer theory through the depiction of a non-traditional fairytale. Both princess’s physical appearances as well as their determined personalities place them outside of what you would call classic princess behavior. Despite having dialogue describing Princess Sadie as “fat and stupid”, the art contradicts the message being conveyed. Princess Amira queers the gender norm that would typically apply to her but still falls within the conventional “prince” trope. Even though we view Princess Princess as queer, there are still aspects contained within the webcomic that are not.

1. Does this story read as both queer in content and queer in form? How does the presentation of a web comic change our view of a fairy tale story? Are there any queer implications about its form through its circulation on Tumblr and other social media sites?

2. As the only male character, how is Prince Vladric’s portrayal in the comic significant? How does his portrayal read as queer? How is the character objectified?

3. How do we read Princess Sadie and Princess Amira’s relationship? What examples lead readers to concluding a queer relationship? How would Adrienne Rich see their relationship?

Anaconda, Nicki Minaj, and Queer Spaces?

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

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

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

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

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

Questions:

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

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

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