Annie Lennox: Bumping and Grinding in Skimpy Underwear for the Sexual Delight of Men Isn't "Feminism"

Hm!

Annie Lennox, former member of the Eurythmics...

FYI, Annie Lennox hasn't been a "member of the Eurythmics" for like thirty years. The band -- really just her and Dave Stewart -- broke up after a couple of years. They were done by 1984. (Correction: Wikipedia says they stayed together, as group, until 1990, though I think they broke up as a romantic couple before then.)

She's been solo for 24 years. (Corrected) I get what this article is saying, but seriously. If you don't know who Annie Lennox is, telling you that she was once a member of a 24-years-defunct pop duo (which had like three hits) isn't going to help jog your memory.

Anyway...

Lately, those conversations have often turned to a different topic: Beyonce. Lennox labeled Bey "feminist lite" in an interview at the end of September. Talking with NPR in a recent interview, Lennox attempted to clarify her stance.

NPR's Steve Inskeep asked the singer, "What has made you comment on a lot of modern music today that is being put out by women as being over-sexualized?" "Well you've said it in the question," Lennox replied. "The reason why I've commented is because I think that this overt sexuality thrust -- literally -- at particular audiences, when very often performers have a very, very young audience, like 7 years older, I find it disturbing and I think its exploitative. It's troubling. I'm coming from a perspective of a woman that's had children."

...

Inskeep pressed further: "It sounds like you feel that there was a phrase taken and that became the headline, but you were actually trying to deliver a more involved thought?"

"Listen," said Lennox, "Twerking is not feminism. That's what I'm referring to. It's not -- it's not liberating, it's not empowering. It's a sexual thing that you're doing on a stage; it doesn't empower you. That's my feeling about it." Before returning to Nostalgia, Lennox suggested, "Maybe this is a good thing because it creates debate."

One major point of cleavage between progressives and conservatives is this:

When you see a young girl acting in a sexually provocative manner, do you identify that girl with yourself, or do you identify her with your daughter?

Most progressives -- either younger themselves, or "forever young" in their thinking -- always look at teenage sexuality and think about themselves. They wouldn't want any moral trips laid on them concerning their own sexual choices, so they decided they don't want any moral trips laid on the teenaged girl.

On the other hand, most conservatives -- sometimes older, sometimes pretty young, but having had children -- look at a teenage girl shaking her ass and think, "I don't really want my daughter doing that."

I'm guessing that Annie Lennox has been a fierce socialist or anarchist all her life. Everything from her look to her occupation to her nationality (British) skews left.

And yet, she's had children. So when she sees Miley Cyrus twerking, or Beyonce selling the bump-and-grind as a "feminist" statement, what she's thinking about is not she herself receiving these messages about sexuality, but her daughters.

And she's thinking of other young girls. Young girls at that age when they're determined to prove they're not little girls anymore, and go looking for possible role models.

And what do those girls see?

Any sort of judgment about sexualization of young girls is claimed to be a #WarOnWomen. Well, it's not -- what it is is a suitable level of concern for a #WarOnLittleGirls.

And where you stand on this is largely determined by whether you've had a daughter (or son) at that delicate, highly impressionable age yourself.

Thanks to @rdbrewer4.

More: And speaking of things that seem like they should be more important to self-claimed "feminists" than whether Beyonce shakes her ass well: What IS is doing to women is hellish.

posted by Ace at 06:37 PM

| Access Comments