TW: Mentions of online/media harassment, implicit biases, suicide, and mental health. Read at your own risk.
For Jennifer Lopez fans like myself, Halftime commemorates the celebration of a legend. It’s a time of elation, reflection, and pride for someone who connects others through her performances and initiatives. Her documentary shows her recent experiences, from her Hustlers days to Super Bowl rehearsals to Biden’s inauguration. She also references the abuse she’s faced from the media and stated, “I feel like I was in this, like, really abusive, dysfunctional relationship.”
Unfortunately, the backlash she has faced since the release of various clips proves the dynamic to still be very, very real. In particular, she’s faced backlash from Twitter users for a clip where she says that having two headliners is “the worst idea in the world.” Without context, it’s very easy to say that J.Lo dissed Shakira. However, the rest of the documentary shows that J.Lo was very cordial with Shakira and that she did not say that to diss her. In reality, she said that out of frustration with the NFL’s logistics and lack of transparency. Maybe it could’ve been worded better or excluded from the documentary, but it’s normal to say things you don’t mean when frustrated.
There’s another part in Halftime where her manager, Benny Medina, states that Shakira called to discuss halftime show ideas. During the phone call, Shakira stated, “I haven’t had a confirmation about how many minutes I’m gonna have,” and J.Lo tells her that they would have about 12-14 minutes total. She also said that a show with two headliners should’ve been 20 minutes long, not less than 15 minutes long. Both J.Lo and Shakira have hits for days, and both of their performance styles qualify for their own halftime shows. Benny Medina was not wrong about his assessment of forcing two Latinas to headline a show when one artist has historically done so (and invited guests at their own discretion). On top of that, Maroon 5 canceled their Super Bowl conference the previous year, but the Internet pitted J.Lo and Shakira against each other even after their conference was over.
The difference in discourse showcases implicit sexism from Internet users. Due to the prioritization of gossip over ethics, tweets have gone viral where netizens defended Shakira and invalidated J.Lo’s Latinidad. That kind of banter is detrimental to social justice movements. It’s hypocritical to preach about diversity and inclusion in real life and then question someone’s Latinidad due to their lack of Spanish fluency on the Internet. That is an act of internalized oppression that upholds White supremacy and ignores the intersectional identities of people. Not to mention, the debates convey a message that there’s only room for one Latina/BIPOC individual to be successful. That’s not how you achieve diversity and inclusion. Diversity and inclusion is about bringing people with similar identities, yet different experiences to the table. Otherwise, there’s a risk of pushing stereotypes and, as Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie would say, a single story.
There has been more focus on spreading misinformation about J.Lo than spreading the fact that the NFL wanted to nix the cages part, a form of artivism that she carried out with her child Emme. J.Lo used her voice to keep that part in her set, and that’s also what she meant by saying she wanted substance in the halftime show. She knew that she and Shakira were at risk of being mocked if they didn’t acknowledge any social justice issues. On the other hand, acknowledging social justice issues in a performance had been deemed as “too political” and posed a risk for mockery too. In other words, J.Lo knew that there would be criticism no matter how they curated the show.
Inventing feuds against women upholds the patriarchy, and the patriarchy thrives off of dehumanizing women. Assertive women should not be seen as a threat, nor used as a punching bag to uplift other women. Women are allowed to be assertive and have opinions without being subject to slurs and harassment. Various media outlets have played a role in twisting J.Lo’s words for views and strong reactions. Meanwhile, J.Lo’s partnership with former Avon CEO Andrea Jung and Grameen America, which plans to invest $14 billion into Latina entrepreneurs by 2030, has been mostly ignored.
This ties into another quote she says in her documentary: “No matter what I achieved, their appetite to cover my personal life overshadowed everything that was happening in my career.” Both the media and the public influence treatment towards celebrities, positively and negatively. In this instance, the philanthropy J.Lo engages in is being ignored in favor of gossip that portrays her as a spiteful person. Constructive, respectful criticism of celebrities is one thing. Disparaging insults cross the line.
This is far from the first time the Internet has misinterpreted J.Lo’s actions. In fact, there is a regular pattern of online harassment towards her through cyberstalking, dogpiling, and concern trolling (read definition of the terms here). It’s disappointing that folks who claim to despise her constantly hurl hate at her rather than just ignore her. She’s also brought up in situations that have nothing to do with her as means to disparage her. That kind of hate for anyone, even a celebrity, is not healthy. It’s not something to be proud of or inflict on others. People should be allowed to enjoy what they enjoy and not have their enjoyment spoiled by others.
This is not purely about J.Lo’s reputation. It’s also about her humanity. While she has handled fame well, she said on The View this past February, “I don’t let people know that if I see something on TV, it hurts. I’m like, ‘I’m good. I’m okay. I’m gonna go out there, I’m gonna sing this song. I had a bad day, it doesn’t matter. This is my life.’” You don’t have to like or love J.Lo, but that doesn’t mean you have the right to bully her fans or defame her in any capacity. She’s not perfect, but no celebrity is.
To crucify a celebrity’s every move as if they shouldn’t do anything wrong upholds the myth of perfection. If mental health matters, why only grant fair treatment to some people? Why shouldn’t all people have fair treatment? J.Lo has the right to entertain and communicate safely without hatred. Her past missteps do not justify the hatred she faces. She is a human being with feelings and emotions. Abuse from the media nearly drove her to quit, and the amount of abuse she faces is enough to break people.
It has caused celebrities and commoners to die too soon and even leave their families at risk of harassment. Caroline Flack, Cheslie Kryst, and Hana Kimura are just a few celebrities who died by suicide due to online/media harassment. Especially at this point in time, everyone should strive to acknowledge each other’s humanity and imperfections. You’d be hurt if a large group of people bullied you or someone you love, so it shouldn’t be permitted for celebrities either. The best thing is to ignore celebrities you dislike and not write comments on anything about them.
Halftime is about an assertive, thick-skinned, ambitious woman who continues to share her talents despite facing racism, sexism, sizeism, and sexual harassment. It is not, however, about pitting women against each other. To degrade one woman to lift another one up is not progressive, it’s regressive. News outlets and social media sites have a long way to go in combating misinformation and bullying. Users have the responsibility to know the power of their words and foster healthy environments.
With all parties involved, everyone can work together to create healthy, supportive, and ethical online environments. Whether you’re a fan or not, J.Lo’s positivity outlook on life is something we can all take inspiration from. She’s worthy of fair treatment not because she’s a celebrity, but because she’s human. She doesn’t deserve hatred. She deserves love, respect, and happiness in every aspect of her life.
