Matrimony itself has only been a concern of Beyoncé’s music in recent years, especially since her marriage to Jay-Z. Prior to this, romantic afflictions still pervaded her music. Her first solo single, ‘Crazy in Love’ details the singer’s obsession with a male lover, leading her to act uncharacteristically. Both “Baby Boy” and ‘Naughty Girl’ contain similar lyrics and messages. In fact, the first solo album is named ‘Dangerously in Love.’
This, however, does not mean that female feminists are not entitled to male romantic entanglements. That they must be, as the stereotype goes be jaded, angry lesbians adhering to a strict anti-men code. Feminism’s primary intention is to gain equality for women. The movement is about equality, not the total rejection and abolition of men.
Intention has become a contentious aspect of feminism. Even if one’s actions do not reflect their beliefs, is ‘feminist’ still an applicable term? Alternatives have been offered, usually placing a certain adjective before the name, such as ‘bad’ or ‘imperfect.’ By considering intention, Beyoncé would more likely be considered a feminist. Her self-definition and regular discussion of personal feminism withstanding, this year, the artist penned a brief article about gender inequality and America.
Surely, this imbues Beyoncé with some feminist credibility. This series of posts however have disregarded fine lyrical examination of Beyoncé’s sound, as well as her physical presentation. Nonetheless, both aspects have been intensely examined by other critics – inclusion could perhaps provide a more definitive answer. The outcome would be irrelevant however: Beyoncé will not disappear from the public consciousness in the near future, she will continue to be “Flawless”, to be Queen B.