Marci Blackman:
The Beyonce cover isn't just about denigration; it's also about, black women are supposed to be child-like and children. They need to be taken care of or bossed around...Let's make this powerful woman a little girl.

hooks:
A little girl we can lust after. A little girl we can prey upon. A little girl that can be Woody Allen's daughter taken up into the attic and sexually abused with people witnessing from a distance but taking no action on her behalf. Because I feel we have to draw those connections of our enslaved black female body to the enslaved bodies of all girls, all colors, with that predatory gaze.

Let's take the image of this super rich, very powerful Black female and let's use it in the service of imperialist, white supremacist capitalist patriarchy because she probably had very little control over that cover — that image.

Janet Mock:
I think she had control of what she wore. She hires a stylist, who's been with her for a long time. They've developed probably that look for that specific cover...She has final cut approval, and she chose this image. So I don't want to strip Beyonce of that agency...

hooks:
But then you're saying, then, from my deconstructive point of view that she's colluding in the construction of her self as a slave. Are you still a slave? It's not a liberatory image.

Marci Blackman:
Or she's using the same images that were used against her and us for so many years, and she's taking control over it and saying, "If y'all are gonna make money off of it, so am I." And there's collusion perhaps, but there's also a bit of reclaiming, I think, if she's the one in control.

hooks:
I think that's fantasy. I think it's fantasy that we can recoup the violating image and use it. I used to get so tired of people quoting Audre Lorde, the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house, but that was exactly what she meant, that you are not going to destroy this imperialist, white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy by creating your own version of it. Even if it serves you to make lots and lots of money.

I've really been challenging people to think about, would we be at all interested in talking about Beyonce if she wasn't so rich? Because I don't think you can separate her class power and the wealth from people's fascination with her. Here is a young black woman who is so incredibly wealthy, and wealthy is what so many young people fantasize, dream about, sexualize, eroticize, and one could argue that even more than her body, it's what that body stands for. The body of desire fulfilled, that is, wealth, fame, celebrity, all the things that so many people in our culture are lusting for. If, let's say, Beyonce was a homeless woman who looked the same way, or a poor, down and out woman who looked the same way, would people be enchanted by her? Or is it the combination of all of those things that are at the heart of imperialist, white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy?

And I've saying, people of color, we are so invested in white supremacy, it's tragic. Lorraine Hansberry says that it is the only form of extremism that should discredit us in the eyes of our children, that we remain so invested.

I say to my students: Decolonize. But there's also that price for decolonization. You're not gonna have the wealth. You're not gonna be getting your Genius award funded by the militaristic, imperialist MacArthur people. And I'm not saying anything negative about the people who receive those awards, but there is a price that comes with decentering, decolonizing, and part of what has to happen for us to be free is that we have to create our own standards of how to live.
...

I see a part of Beyoncé that is in fact anti-feminist — that is a terrorist, especially in terms of the impact on young girls.