I would like to commend Lolla Mohammed Nur for MondayâÄôs column on Lady Gaga, as it was a topic which she openly admits she doesnâÄôt understand. Why she chose write on something which âÄúdumbfoundsâÄù her shows that just because you donâÄôt understand something doesnâÄôt mean that you canâÄôt have an opinion on it.
As a Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies major, I feel I have to set the record straight. Gaga does not objectify women, but instead empowers them. Instead of allowing her sex to hold her back, Gaga incorporated it into her stage persona and rose to the top. Gaga has established power and control by shaking the very foundations upon which popular culture views sex.
Does it sound like sheâÄôs being exploited? Objectified? Or does she sound like a ground-breaking artist who is one of the most popular superstars of all time?
Gaga helps millions of teens who consider themselves outsiders and âÄúfreaksâÄù feel comfortable in their own skin by showing her own âÄúweirdness.âÄù People love Gaga because she shows itâÄôs OK to be strange.
First and foremost, Gaga is a symbol of strangeness, not merely sexuality.
If you look at Gaga and all you see when she walks by in a meat dress is sex, then youâÄôre missing the point sheâÄôs trying to make. What Mohammed Nur fails to understand is that one cannot simply look at Gaga as any other pop star, but instead as an artist. Gaga is extremely talented, both musically and artistically, though many refuse to see past her choice in fashion.
There is nothing wrong with a culture that idolizes someone who embraces the inner oddity that we all share. Gaga embodies freedom of expression, something not available to women in other cultures âÄî for example, Saudi Arabia.
The truth is that Gaga helps her fans feel comfortable in their own skin and she does it because she wants to, not because she has to do it. The rest of the world can learn a lot from Gaga, so long as they think critically about what she represents, as opposed to condemning without understanding.