But such an interpretation would overlook an obvious difference between the two videos, which is that in her video, Shania is the one who's half naked, with her musicians wearing more than she is. So the effect is clearly not a simple and direct gender switch, but rather a kind of gender takeover, where the females (or female, in this case) usurps the male but does not shed her degrading image nor sacrifice her sexuality.

Now, I provide two possible endings to the last sentence because I'm not sure how to digest the video, and one's choice of the "correct" ending to that sentence obviously turns on one's interpretation of the video. An old school, traditional feminist would probably select ending 1, and view the entire video as more proof of rampant sexual objectification of women, especially in the entertainment industry. Those enrolled in the Madonna school of feminism, however, would doubtlessly select ending 2, and label Shania as a shining example of a woman who can claim a position of power and still express (flaunt?) her sexuality.

I think in this case, I'd have a hard time being convinced by the latter group. I find its logic pretty weak, and the reason is this: I consider both musicians (Shania and Palmer) horrid, yet I always had the urge to pleasure myself while watching their videos -- Palmer's, because it featured hot women, and Shania's because she herself is hot. In each case, the pig in me is responding to the video's exploitative appeals to my base urges.

So, to return to my original comment about Palmer's videos, does the fact that Shania is getting rich because of her videos in any way excuse or mitigate their blatant, shameless sexism?

This seems a pretty fundamental question, and one that has probably been grappled with by many feminist scholars. Is it no longer sexist if the woman is in control? And what does it even mean to be "in control"? Chesty women in music videos are in control -- exercising their free will, getting paid -- but it's still sexist, right? So does being "in control" mean taking home the biggest paycheck?

Put more broadly, is the question of who is profiting from an act really relevant in determining whether it's acceptable? That's a tricky one, but I think the answer is no.

In any case, all it takes is a quick glance at this or any of Shania's other videos to be convinced that there is definitely a seriously horny male involved in their choreography and production (that is to say, a man is still calling the shots, literally.) Lingering shots of cleavage, arched backs, and invitingly opened moist lips all abound, and seem culled from some amateur guide to cliché porn shots.

Whenever I watch one of these videos, I find myself wondering (after I've taken care of business) just how does she feel when the director yells something like, "OK, now tilt your head back and let your tongue stick out a little," or "Why don't you get down on all fours now and stare seductively at the camera?"

Because make no mistake about it, what we're seeing here is not just Shania wanting to look her best, or be really sexy (which is probably how she'd respond if the question were put to her in an interview). No, what we're witnessing is pandering, plain and simple.

99.9%, if you're a horny pig
4%, if you're a self-respecting, enlightened human

Shania Twain
Robert Palmer
sexploitation
feminist scholars
pander
Express Yourself