Thoughs About Scandal Season 2 Finale

Some of my thoughts about that EPIC season finale of Scandal includes:

I love that “Fitz” was a part of their secret meetings. It was like a reclamation of power for him, versus being powerful yet a puppet of the group.

I cracked up laughing when “Cyrus” made the comparison of mentioning murder in front of the President to mentioning sex in front of the Pope. This is ironic since Presidents engage in “on the books” and “off the books” murder as a matter of imperialist and xenophobic practice in the name of “democracy.” Further, “Fitz” killed “Velma” with his own hands, so when “Cyrus” gets formal and almost annoyingly patriotic, it reeks of humor.

Apparently “Fitz’s” super power is cunnilingus. I ain’t mad. *whistles* *files nails*

I love the confidence “Fitz” has in “Olivia’s” career specifically, and how he distinguished her “fixing” him (what he doesn’t want since he wants to maintain his personal agency) versus being a good fixer in general (what he enjoys seeing her do). This is in STARK contrast to the way “Cyrus” utterly obliterated “James’” confidence regarding his career, in the previous episode.

“Cyrus” is a damn mess in a humorous and tragic way. The phone calls in the ambulance reveal the type of worker and patriot that he is that I cannot relate to and never will. It felt like a defining moment for who his character truly is.

“Olivia’s” plan for “Fitz” and herself that “Fitz” told “Mellie” in a disgustingly harsh way was an incredibly brilliant plan. It’s what viewers could expect of the most brilliant critical thinker on the show; “Olivia.” However, from the moment he said it to “Mellie,” I knew it would never come to pass. Life doesn’t work out that way, so perfectly and logically, especially when it comes to love.

“Cyrus” truly is an awful husband. I want to love him and “James” together but after that emotionally abusive scene last week, where he shattered “James” over his career, I can’t as much anymore. Once someone you love spits on your very vision for your life and your life’s passion? I’m done. (Personally, once a man shitted on my education, career, interests or vision, we never lasted days after that, let alone “forever.”) Their relationship in many ways is heteronormative in its abusiveness where “Cyrus” is the patriarchal and verbally abusive overly dominant partner. I still love “Cyrus” as a character, however. He’s more real than the heart attack he had. I was still glad when “James” came to comfort him in the hospital.

“Jake” ended up being a tricky figure. I felt equal anger and empathy for him as he originally exploited “Olivia” under job orders yet risked his life saving her in a way she could have never imagined for a fate that is unthinkable.

I love how deliciously cruelly “Sally” keeps on getting screwed over. The idea of her character is fascinating; provides the rubric of “right” that there is in the Republican Party. However, her ever getting power from “Fitz’s” hands cuts too close to reality and gives me the creeps.

I started to like “Quinn” more as “Huck’s” apprentice but her jumping in to torture “Billy” just irritated me. To be clear, there’s no reactive sexist reasoning for this; if “Abby” would have done it, I would have dealt better. “Huck” has years of killing experience in the Army and then the CIA; for “Quinn” to catch on so quickly with the annoying rambling thing she does? I was just irritated. And, “Huck” seems to be walking a fine line in his own life, especially after the 752 incident, so his reaction after “Billy” gave up the Cytron card information was sad.

I knew that ultimately it would be “Cyrus” to break up “Fitz” and “Olivia’s” reunion, and by showing the tape of “Olivia” and “Jake” to “Fitz” he again invaded “Olivia’s” sexual privacy. It fascinates that he continually referred to “Fitz” as a child in this episode and their love as a “romance novel.” People do associate passion (in general, for a person, a goal etc.) with youth or even naivety. I’ve always found their love a lot of things, always nuanced and not completely bad or completely good, but naive was not among them. Their level of passion is actually quite adult and brave, considering all that is up against them. But as to be expected, I knew the episode wouldn’t close with them together.

I am happy for “David” restoring his career. He outsmarted and tricked so many people and he didn’t murder or break heavy laws to do so. He did twist arms. But of all the characters, like “Olivia” said, he wears the proverbial white hat. Thus, her physically putting on the White hat that “David” left her was brilliant.

I KNEW that B613 leader “Rowan” was going to be “Olivia’s” father. Knew it. The way he felt he had a right to puppet, interfere or control her life in ways reminiscent of all the men in her life, despite her having enormous power and personal agency, felt like a parent and disturbingly so. He seemed on par with the way “Cyrus” behaves. If he gave “Jake” orders to sleep with “Olivia” then my previous posit regarding her sexual politics and privacy is affirmed yet again.

The way “Olivia” and “Fitz” parted ways and “Fitz” went back to “Mellie” and pathetically placed his head in her lap was truly pathetic. I died laughing at him and felt bad for “Mellie.” I did feel sympathy for him though when at first, she was hesitant to touch his head. All I could think was “if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.” But that’s a part of the pull of the show—the fact that he is literally trapped and powerless despite being theoretically the most powerful person on Earth.

The press greeting “Olivia” at the door was priceless. Who spilled the beans on the affair after the fact? “Cyrus” never would. He already helped destroy their reunion. Her father plays games but this game seems less about “Olivia” and more about getting “Fitz” out of office, if he did it. But why? I am sure that “Cyrus” would have informed “Rowan” that he already separated “Olivia” and “Fitz.” (I also like that she was about to go jogging when this occurred; it reminded me of episodes where she swims, which is visual resistance to the idea that Black women refuse to swim or exercise solely because of hair.)

This season has been great. This show has been EPIC. I literally cannot wait until Season 3 in the fall!

Below are my essays on Scandal from the show’s inception, with the most recent first and not including episode-specific notes that I shared after certain episodes. To see everything tagged Scandal, click here.

Season 2

• Shonda Rhimes and Scandal Remain On Top
• “Mellie” Can Be What “Olivia” Cannot; “Fitz” Can Be What “Mellie” Cannot
• On Scandal: “Olivia Pope,” Sexual Politics and Privacy
• When Scandal Haters and Fans Take It Too Damn Far
• Mamsaphjez? (Scandal and Deception; Mammy, Sapphire, Jezebel?)
• If “Olivia Pope” Of Scandal Were White
• If “President Fitzgerald Grant” Of Scandal Were Black
• Scandal: Exploring The Criticism Of “Olivia” and “Fitz”
• Why The Characters On Scandal Work
• Regarding Criticism On Scandal
• “Sally Langston”
• “Sally/Thomas” and Other Thoughts About Scandal, Season 2, Episode 8
• My Thoughts About Scandal’s 2nd Season (Thus Far…)

Season 1

• Scandal Worries
• Questions For Season 2 of Scandal
• The Great Music From Scandal on ABC
• Why Shonda Rhimes’ New Baby, Scandal, Is Awesome

Shonda Rhimes and Scandal Remain On Top

I just read a GREAT piece in The New York Times called Network TV Is Broken. So How Does Shonda Rhimes Keep Making Hits? by Willa Paskin. She reports that Scandal now gets 8 million viewers per week. It is the number one drama at the 10pm slot on any night, on any network and with the coveted 18-49 year old demographic. It hangs with the network television big dogs like CSI, and gets more viewers than beloved cable shows like Game of Thrones and Mad Men. It’s also the number one show on network TV among Black people.

The piece also contains an interesting test for people to really examine if racism and sexism are shaping their responses to Scandal and to Shonda Rhimes herself:

Try this blind test: A politician and a workaholic have a passionate extramarital affair that endangers their careers and national security. A scheming Washington insider murders an innocent and makes it look like a suicide to further his own career. A person assumes a false identity after a gruesome incident and uses that identity to build a new life. To protect his legacy, a man preemptively murders a former ally once essential to his success.

These are all descriptions of plot points on “Scandal” — but also on “Homeland,” “House of Cards,” “Mad Men” and “Breaking Bad,” respectively. “Scandal” may not look or feel like TV’s other prestige dramas, in which (usually male) antiheroes mix it up under the oversight of an (almost always male) auteur who has complex feelings about entertaining his audience. Rhimes feels no such ambivalence.

Mmm hmm.

I really like that Shonda Rhimes has spoken out (more than once, actually) on her resentment of the show being called a “guilty pleasure.” She called such a label “ridiculous” and “super insulting.” I find that women and men embracing this label for shows of interest to women just reveals sexism in our society. What man has ever called anything he watches a “guilty pleasure?” I know men that watch the most ridiculous reality shows and wrestling—which is a soap opera, and do not label the shows this way. The irony of Scandal is it is not woman-centric; it’s human centric. “Olivia” gets to be human too, not just a series of stereotypes. And, as the ratings reveals, men watch Scandal too.

Only two more episodes this season!

All Scandal posts on Gradient Lair

“Mellie” Can Be What “Olivia” Cannot; “Fitz” Can Be What “Mellie” Cannot

Team “Olivia” or team “Mellie?”

Whenever a Scandal fan on Twitter states that they are team “Mellie” and they aren’t bound to patriarchy, sexism, respectability politics and heteronormative rigidity regarding sexuality such that they have to be against “Olivia,” as “the other woman,” I then probe their tweets further. What I’ve found is that some seem to like that “Mellie” is “brilliant, focused and logical” as even “Fitz” himself described her. I agree. I like “Mellie” as a character and really, I like how just about every character of the show is constructed—their positive attributes and deep flaws (even when I don’t agree with a particular response/action). I’m even starting to like “Quinn” more in the last few episodes.

However, there’s something else that speaks to their liking: her rage. Every moment mentioned as a favorite “Mellie” moment by people I’ve talked to has been a moment of her rage.

Remember when she breathed the fire of a dragon at “Fitz” over his deteriorating role as a father? She read his ass! He deserved it. Her many standoffs with “Cyrus” (especially the one where she said she “made” “Fitz;” damn) seem to reach an intensity that no one else’s does with him, and not just because they have a mutual dislike of each other beyond what they themselves need from each other in relation to “Fitz.”

Her rage has become her defining trait. It’s delicious to watch because Bellamy Young is an incredible actor;  Kerry Washington, who is phenomenal herself, has said so. But there is no way that “Mellie” could be a Black character with this level of consistent rage and interpersonal manipulation, without being labeled as “an angry Black woman.” Further, the way her resume equals “Fitz’s” resume in many ways and how she speaks to him would be a source of severe criticism for “Olivia” (and the actor Kerry, I bet) whether “Fitz” remained White or were Black and that “Olivia” wouldn’t have if she were White.

People have already desperately tried to apply the “Sapphire” stereotype to “Olivia” anytime she even remotely flinches, “Jezebel” anytime she has sex and “mammy” anytime she solves a problem and “helps” a client, which I believe is a reductionist application for this particular character (not that many other Black female characters in the last several decades of television and almost a century of film haven’t been portrayed one of these ways; they have and still are).

Many die hard Scandal fans that I’ve talked to since season 1 love “Olivia’s” moments of vulnerability and “Mellie’s” moments of rage. Does this speak to the “opposite” of how Black womanhood and White womanhood are socially constructed in a White supremacist and patriarchal society? It would seem so. But the opposites aren’t solely knee-jerk constructions that render the characters flat; they still involve nuance since both characters portray a range of emotions and responses and have a level of agency that not every woman, Black or White, has in real life. Even so, White privilege allows “Mellie” to escape characterizations that “Olivia” couldn’t.

Then of course there’s “Fitz.” The epitome of White male privilege. Every attribute that “Mellie” has, he has, but is praised for it by default—within the show and as an external representation of White masculinity. His rage can be nasty but is viewed as strength. His drive can be relentless but is viewed as courage. At the same time, his push and pull ambivalence about being President, the uncertainty he has which is lead by emotion (lust, confusion, longing and love) is something definitely typed as “female” in our society. In other words, “Fitz” be in his feelings…and he’s a male character.

The interesting thing about Scandal is that Shonda Rhimes and her writers have not completely rewritten society into something not currently recognizable (even if publicly desired) and thereby fantastical. The manifestations of race, gender, sexuality and class and how they create oppression and privilege are there. The story isn’t futurist (assuming a “future” involved the eradication of oppression). At the same time, she’s challenging these constructions by making the characters posses nuances that aren’t present in characters in many other dramas and ones that defy role expectations. The show manages to constrain humanity in a way that matches what currently exists in society because of oppression yet reveals humanity as emotional and intellectual nuance for “Olivia” in a way that for a character like “Fitz” and even “Mellie” already exists on screen, because of White privilege. It’s not even so much that the latter has nuanced portraits but that “Olivia” does as well, which is profound.

(I didn’t juxtapose “Fitz” and “Olivia” in terms of White and male privilege because I addressed the power/sexual politics issue in several previous posts [scroll through my Scandal tag to see all essays and posts since the show’s inception], including the most recent post On Scandal: “Olivia Pope,” Sexual Politics and Privacy.)

I love Kerry Washington’s work as “Olivia Pope.” It’s hard to deny her social impact when her alma mater George Washington University used an “Olivia Pope” photo to announce that Kerry is giving the commencement address this spring. That’s not an accident. Further, seeing Shonda Rhimes amidst the Time 100 is exciting.

It’s not even about me being team “Mellie” or team “Olivia.” I’m team Shonda Rhimes.

On Scandal: “Olivia Pope,” Sexual Politics and Privacy

As a fan of Scandal, one thing that I have always loved about Scandal is “Olivia Pope’s” personal, business and political power and the fact that she can make the choices that she wants for her life, no matter how excellent or how flawed the choices may be perceived by the other characters on the show or of course, the viewers, whether stans, fans, non-fans or miserys.

While there were times where I rooted for “Olivia” and “Fitz” as a couple, examining the nuances of their complex relationship and what ultimately pulls them together, and other times when I was not feeling them, last night’s episode (Season 2, Episode 20: A Woman Scorned) brought something else to mind.

A measure of privacy regarding the physical sexual intimacy part of her sexuality is completely non-existent and not by “Olivia’s” own choice. When I speak of privacy, I don’t mean the actual secrecy and deception that is involved in extra-marital affairs, nor am I placing a value judgment on them externally, because other than “Mellie,” “Olivia” and “Fitz” in such a situation, external value judgments get really annoying here. They often involve respectability politics and misogyny. If they didn’t, men would face the same level of social disregard and disrespect for affairs as women do. However, they do not. The “other woman” is always the object of shame, not the man who took wedding vows with someone else and broke them.

The privacy that I am speaking of is how the other characters either invade her space with their knowledge, their surveillance or even their knowing yet uncomfortable silencing or condescension around her affair. For example, “Cyrus” knows about the relationship and has made incredibly misogynist remarks to “Olivia” regarding it. In one episode he condescendingly asked whether or not “Fitz” used a condom with her, in reference to the pregnancy of the intern “Amanda” who also had an affair with “Fitz.” In another episode, he condescendingly asked “is your vagina apolitical?” in response to “Olivia” declaring herself apolitical. Anytime “Olivia” backs him into a corner in one of their political face offs, he tends to retreat to misogyny. However, though he is gay, she never retreats to homophobia. This is interesting to me considering they are supposed to be friends.

And the surveillance? Just…wow. “Billy” recorded “Fitz” with “Olivia” in Season 1. “Cyrus” watched “Olivia” with “Fitz.” “Fitz” watched “Olivia” with “Edison” and even had photographs made of their moments together. “Jake” watches “Olivia” because “Fitz” told him to. “Jake” also slept with “Olivia,” and recorded it, which “Charlie” saw because he broke into “Jake’s” home under “Cyrus’” request. In every situation, “Olivia” is more of a sexual object to watch, mate with, or attempt to control despite her having an incredible amount of power. (To be clear, understandably, some women find sexual empowerment in being watched or filmed and even in voyeurism/exhibitionism. But as clearly seen in episode after episode, ANYTIME “Olivia” realizes that she is being watched, she gets ANGRY or scared. “Huck” regularly sweeps her home for bugs.)

It appears that her entire team knows about the affair now, though how and when each person realized what was going on, I am not fully clear on (perhaps that episode where in “Olivia’s” absence, they decided to tell each other the truth about everything they know). “Harrison” seems to always know everything, but respects their relationship and her authority enough not to judge her or question her. His loyalty is fascinating but sometimes his silencing around “Olivia’s” affair with “Fitz” is awkward and says more than if he actually said something. “Huck” knows, because of the entire team, “Olivia” seems ironically emotionally closest to “Huck.” (The Seven Fifty-Two episode revealed this.) In last night’s episode when “David” asked about who “President Grant” is “banging” and the staff all hurriedly walked away, it felt like everyone was in “Olivia’s” space and it felt like some of her power was drained away by that reaction.

Now, certainly “Olivia’s” career and firm involves invading spaces and boundaries, gathering information, breaking codes, rules and laws, taking, removing, changing, altering and plethora of things that teeter on the seesaw of moral relativism. The show is not about “villains” and “heroes” but humans amidst a gradient of grey. Thus, I am not interested in interpreting this as solely “others” invading “Olivia’s” space and nothing else. However, the invasion that seems to occur specifically around the sexual aspect of her relationship with “Fitz” is bothersome. While the general image of a White man and Black woman conjures up images of sexually oppressive politics in general for some (though I think such an interpretation still needs a nuanced view by those who make it), it’s not their sheer existence as an interracial couple that loves deeply, is incredibly problematic and is intensely aggressive and sexual that I am speaking of here. It’s the nature of the policing and invasion of that intimacy by almost every man in her life.

As Black feminist scholar Patricia Hill Collins writes:

Black women’s sexuality has been constructed by law as public property—Black women have no rights of privacy that Whites must observe.

Black women’s sexuality (whether controlled through rape as slaves, gynecological experimentation for centuries, eugenics, through social welfare legislation or through controlling and stereotypical images) has always been constructed as public and without Black women’s control. “Olivia” herself challenges this construction, but the invasion by the men in her life speaks to this construction.

As Black feminist scholar Barbara Omolade writes:

White men used their power in the public sphere to construct a private sphere that would meet their needs and their desire for Black women, which if publicly admitted would have undermined the false construct of race they needed to maintain public power.

The factor of race cannot be ignored here. “Fitz” would not solely lose his power because he cheated, but because “Olivia” is Black and viewed as an “opposite” to “Mellie,” despite them actually being quite similar. In last night’s episode, “Fitz” described “Mellie” as brilliant, focused and logical. The same could be said of “Olivia” who has a similar pedigree despite not having the long history of family money that “Mellie” has, which “Fitz” mentioned in a past episode.

While it is intellectual lazy to simply write “Olivia” off as a ‘Jezebel’ who doesn’t have sexual agency, as many have tried to do, it is important to note that while the men in her life either proclaim loyalty to her (i.e. “Harrison,” “Huck”), lust for her (i.e. “Jake”), platonic love for her (i.e. “Cyrus”) or romantic love for her (i.e. “Fitz”), at times, they seem to operate in invasive ways that reek of male privilege and complicated racial/sexual politics regarding the sexual aspect of the relationship she has with “Fitz.” Even the spoiler for next week reveals “Cyrus” running into the actual bedroom where “Fitz” and “Olivia” just made love and are still in bed, to tell them to get out. Despite “Fitz” being the President of the United States and his boss and “Olivia” being his friend, he still feels that he has the right to do this?

Last night, I did and also did not want “Olivia” to go back to “Fitz.” I felt the conflict that she must have felt, which the incredible writers have conveyed all season long and even in Season 1. It’s clear that their relationship is not solely about sex but a deep and obviously hard to fully break bond of love, friendship, and admiration of each other. At the same time, it’s incredibly turbulent, possessive, and at times, emotionally abusive in both directions. It’s one of the most complicated portraits of love (and I don’t think love, in general, is only the absence of pain) that I have seen on television, and it is clear that despite the invasion and/or domination that the men in her life (including “Fitz” himself) seem to want to have in regards to her relationship with “Fitz” she ultimately has the space to make the choices. She’s willingly playing tug of war. She’s willingly moving away from or closer to him at any time. And no matter how excited or angry it makes viewers feel, she’s exhibiting choice. It’s empowering to me, even when it excites or angers me.

I’m trying to think of an interesting outcome for the season and for the show overall, if that outcome is not “Olivia” with “Fitz.” Will she find joy alone or will a new man that is in no way connected to “Fitz” appear? (Notice that ALL of the men in her life are connected to him or fear his power—the luxury of him being President.) Or, like the complexities of real life often play out, will she end up alone or with him, but never completely happy? (Let’s be real, right now the best relationship on the show is “Cyrus’” and “James’;” I applauded that authentic intimate moment in last night’s episode; a milestone for network television.)

As a fan, I am not certain as to what I want right now for “Olivia.” I am certain that I love that Scandal has me thinking about complex issues on a consistent basis in a way that no other drama does.

Self-Care In The Aftermath Of A Trauma/Tragedy

Self-care is attending to your own physical, emotional and mental health needs and making yourself, your wellness and your wholeness a priority in your own life. It is important for everyone, even those who think that care of another person matters more than care of themselves. Anyone who physically/emotionally cares for others must care for themselves in order to be of any real support to another person, no matter how much they love that other person.

Self-care is critical. It doesn’t mean that you ignore the needs of others and refuse to be a source of love, support and kindness to others. It simply means that just as you help and support others, you treat yourself as a person worthy of that same support. Self-care is a critical component in caring and supporting others as families and communities. (Even for us Black women…no more “mules.”)

Self-care is always important, but especially after experiencing a trauma or witnessing a tragedy. Even witnessing a trauma/tragedy through secondary (i.e. a person tells you about a trauma they themselves experienced) or tertiary sources (i.e. learning about a trauma or tragedy through social media/the news) can have adverse affects on a person. Knowing my own responses to both personal traumas that I have experienced and secondary/tertiary experiences with trauma and tragedy (most recently the Boston Marathon bombings), as well as having a background in mental health made me re-realize the importance of self-care.

For example, being on Twitter in the aftermath of a tragedy can be difficult. Why? Incorrect and rapidly shared information creates more chaos and confusion. Jokes and overly graphic images are shared. The tweets themselves can be triggers for people who lived through a similar tragedy. Racism and xenophobia appears whenever there is a mass tragedy, if it is deemed “terrorism” (which is a political label, with an attached racist and nationalist/imperialist undertone).

Below are links with great posts on post-tragedy self-care tips.

• Self-care during tragedy - The Reiki Co.
• Self-care in the wake of a shared tragedy - Joyful Heart Foundation
• Self-Care Tips for Emergency and Disaster Response Workers [PDF] - Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
• Many links and resources on coping with trauma, in general - Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

(I am not endorsing or affiliated with any of the companies/blogs mentioned; I just think their particular posts are helpful).

With the Boston Marathon bombings, there are those right there (victims, survivors, witnesses, emergency personnel, healthcare workers, families, friends) who need help and hopefully are getting the help that they need. I wish Boston families peace, healing, safety, and comfort right now. Giving to others and supporting others matter.

I also want those who may feel “far away” (i.e. in another state or country and are experiencing triggering effects) to take good care of themselves. Self-care matters.

Thoughts From A Justin Timberlake Non-Fan

I understand that Justin Timberlake is the great White hope of R&B music. People are comparing him to Sammy Davis Jr. and calling him Memphis soul and other grandiose and inapplicable labels, in my opinion. I don’t deny that he has talent. I don’t think he is talentless. I do think he siphons off Black music, Black men’s style and mannerisms, and as of recent, Janelle Monae’s wardrobe. However, he isn’t the first nor will be the last to appropriate Black culture and style.

I am not talking about Justin Timberlake’s actual tracks now. I would gladly buy an instrumental album if Timbaland is involved. As one of my mutual follows on Twitter mentioned, When Timbaland is for you, who can be against you? However, in terms of sheer vocals, Justin Timberlake’s voice sounds incredibly weak and barely post-pubescent to me. It does nothing for me. It’s not sexy. It’s not dynamic. It’s not creative. It’s very mundane to me. It’s not terrible, now. It’s fine, I guess, on a radio on a drive. It’s just not in my iPod. It’s just not worth going wild over. I have a few of his old songs, but when I thought about it, I really was into the tracks themselves and not his vocals.

I don’t enjoy his films. I believe that I’ve seen every film he’s starred in at some time or another. He seems like Justin Timberlake in a film, never the actual character. I believe that his off-screen grandiose personality rivals the characters that he portrays.

I don’t like his public personality. He is what I think of as an extreme extrovert and he always seems “on” no matter what. I find watching him with Jimmy Fallon to be extremely exhausting, for example. It causes me physical exhaustion to watch such a personality; it’s not pleasurable to me. 

Unlike the mainstream obscuring Jill Scott while hailing Adele as the greatest, I don’t automatically prefer Justin Timberlake over Black male R&B and soul singers. I know that I am supposed to like Eminem not Jay-Z, Adele not Jill Scott, Amy Winehouse not Erykah Badu, Duffy not Chrisette Michele, Lady Gaga not Beyoncé and follow all of the other comparisons that I have seen. I think it is possible to like both (or neither) in each juxtaposition, but honestly, I prefer the Black artist in each one. They’re…better. No matter what the comparison is, I’ve seen both White and Black people hail whomever is White as the better artist and then avidly proclaim race is not a factor. This is kinda funny to me, actually; not “haha funny” but “you cannot be serious” funny. After I saw people refer to Jazmine Sullivan as “bitter” but Adele as “hurt” last year, I was reminded of how White supremacist thinking impacts everything. (This isn’t to say that I don’t like any White music artists, I do; I mentioned this before. And, I totally stan for Stevie Nicks, Ann and Nancy of Heart, Dolly Parton, Amy Lee of Evanescence, and Bonnie Raitt, for example. Their vocals SLAY.)

One good thing that I can say about Justin Timberlake (which actually isn’t truly controlled by him at all) is that his stans are quite pleasant. Timberstans are usually nice about things. And yes, there ARE some fans of his, especially Black ones, who like whatever they think is “good music” and aren’t about solely applauding anything “Black” in a White package. They aren’t as passionate (like me) or violently irrational (like some I’ve seen on Twitter) as Beyoncé stans or as problematic and irritating as Quentin Tarantino stans and Chris Brown stans. That’s a good thing, right?

Anyway, I saw a post that perfectly sums up what irks me about Timberlake:

buddyx: justin timberlake seems like the type of nigga that’ll chill with black people but when the cops show up, he dont know u

wretchedoftheearth: he already did that to janet

And there you have it. Any chance I would have given him as a star DIED at the Super Bowl. DIED. (And this very dipping in and out of Blackness concept that they allude to was discussed in a great piece on Colorlines.)

See, to many people, Janet Jackson is Michael Jackson’s sister who purposely flashed her breast and did nothing before or since. To me, she is an innovative genius in music, one who Michael Jackson said INSPIRED him frequently, one with vision, style and uniqueness rarely matched. Her influence can be seen in so many artists’ work. Kelly Rowland straight up channels her. As far as I am concerned, she did not have to create another album after Rhythm Nation in order to be iconic. Yet she continued to give us LIFE with album after album after that. That album came out FIFTEEN YEARS before the 2004 Super Bowl incident. The Velvet Rope? Genius. Yet many reduce Janet Jackson to Timberlake’s stunt and subsequent betrayal (Janet said she felt hurt by a friend) while applauding him as a White god here to save R&B from itself.

So no, I am not a fan and definitely not a stan. I am not a misery of Timberlake. I won’t Twitter search his name to find Timberstans to attack. I haven’t tweeted about him except for a handful of times since his recent album release. But sorry, there’s no Timberlake vigil in these parts. I don’t wish the man any harm but I can’t stand in line to blow smoke up his butt. I’ll be too busy listening to other music.

I understand that because of Timberlake’s record sales (and his Whiteness), people are going to say that he is “better” than any Black male R&B and soul singers. Capitalism and White supremacy win again.