Gawd, remember that hipster burlesque crap from the 90’s? I thought it was over, but no, it lives on. An article in today’s Kansas City Star about a “neo-burlesque” show in town is headlined thusly: “Burlesque’s practitioners find humor, art and feminism in their risqué shows”.
Fun feminism, that is.”Neo” burlesque is funny and ironic, see. So it’s rebellious and iconoclastic and artsy. The Star runs a photo to illustrate the pertinent bits of the story. The photo is of neo-burlesque practitioner Honey Valentine’s headless, enbustiered torso.
Burlesque practitioner and funfeminist Lola Van Ella says “[What’s happening now is a feminist movement in burlesque] because it’s women saying, ‘I can be ultra feminine and I can shave and wear makeup and red lipstick and G-strings and pasties. Men may or may not enjoy it, but I’m doing it for myself.’”
How is fun-feminism different from regular feminism? Not at all, except that it’s antifeminist. It’s when you capitulate to, participate in, embrace, and openly promote rape culture in exchange for approval, claiming that it empowerfulizes you.
Van Ella said that contemporary burlesque appeals to both genders and that she has as many female fans as guys. And there’s a reason: Modern burlesque performers are clearly in charge of their own destiny.
“I have nothing against commercial stripping as a business, but it is that,” she said. “It’s a sales job. But burlesque is a tease, and that is the big difference. The woman doing it is completely in control of her own sexuality. She decides. And she says, ‘I’m gonna give you this much but not any more and if you want more you’ll have to beg.’”
Are you fucking kidding me?
It sorely chaps the Twisty hide when women get all cutesy with pornulation, misconstruing irony for agency.
The idea that women’s public sexuality can so precisely mirror traditional male fantasy while simultaneously existing in a kind of pro-woman, I-do-it-for-myself alternate universe is the cornerstone of funfeminist “thought.” The flaw in this reasoning is that all women must participate in patriarchy regardless of what they say motivates their participation; patriarchy is the dominant culture, and there is no opting out. Which means there is no opting in, either. Do it for me, do it for you, whatever; the primary beneficiaries of women’s participation — willing or unwilling, ironic or sincere — in patriarchy, are men.
Oh, for fuck’s sake, already. Yeah, yeah, I know, blame the patriarchy and not the woman, but I get sick of this crap, especially after dealing with the damned sex poz brigade.
We all are stuck under the patriarchy, but some people actively collude with it.
Funfeminism is basically saying, “Here! Don’t bother to oppress me, I’ll step right up and do it for you!” If it just hurt the woman doing it, well—but, damn, then it hurts other women. We all have to resist.
yeah, the biggest problem that I see, having TONS of friends who do these shows in NYC, is that these women are blind to the patriarchy completely. They don’t see how they are sucking in the ideals of men. They are insecure about their bodies and crave the sexual approval, which is the only approval a woman recieves in today’s society. They want to put it in art and feminism contexts so they don’t have to feel bad about themselves needing men to tell them they are pretty.
I don’t know how to fight it. I do keep telling them all the stuff I know but they simply won’t hear it and I just hope that at least the women I like best will grow out of it.
It garners a great deal of attention and approval and that is a hard thing to see as wrong.
Is it too much to expect youngsters to actually fucking do some research these days? They seem to think that women have had these rights all along. It’s not coincidence that the most radical feminists are older women. Once you reach a certain age, you stop getting that attention no matter how fun a feminist you are. These fun feminists are really setting themselves up for a bad fall.
I wonder what they’re hiding from themselves, too. One of these fun feminists in the blogosphere who absolutely despises radfems keeps it quiet that she’s had her nose broken four times. Hey, it’s empowering!
Urrgghhhh. I see variations of this over the place
How is fun-feminism different from regular feminism? Not at all, except that it’s antifeminist. It’s when you capitulate to, participate in, embrace, and openly promote rape culture in exchange for approval, claiming that it empowerfulizes you.
But don’t you see the difference? We new-school strippers have TATTOOS. Our hair is BLUE! That means we’re resisting the status quo and shit.
Totally! New! Even though they’re just as surgically assisted as those non-tattooed strippers.
God, this is the wave Diablo Cody is riding. She’s offered to sign admirers’ scrotums, because that’s so fun and transgressive and all.
You know, I’m actually more pissed that they call it feminism than that they’re porning it up for dude approval. The latter, although disappointing, is an unfortunate par for the course, but the former actively dilutes/confuses a message that I strongly believe in.
IBTP
Fun feminism for me has always been infuriating. I’m 24, I graduated from university a year ago… I was surrounded by it. It’s hard on women my age who don’t buy into that stuff because it makes us feel completely alone in the world. You’re ostracized, a feminist in college nowadays feels much like being in one of those “invasion of the pod people” type movies. You think someone you met is pretty cool until you go for some drinks and “Oh no! They’ve got you too?!?!”
To make matters worse, my field of work has led me to live in Mexico. I live in a town about 45 minutes outside of Cancun, so you can imagine what 100% of the men who live here think I’m like. Letsee… she’s young, she’s American = fun feminist (or in their words “easy prey”). Because of countless fun feminists coming down here to “liberate” themselves every year all men here automatically think my body is public property and treat me accordingly on a daily basis.
So yes, I think fun feminism not only leads to more abuse of its participants, but to the rest of us as well.
This is a nice follow-up to the “baby wears heels in bed” post. After an early youth of being groomed to be feminized sexual objects, girls get to enjoy a moment of “power” — which is to say, men looking at them — before being expected to decline into an adulthood of invisible powerlessness. They mistake their moment at the apogee of this process for something real, et voila: funfeminism.
I hear you Lar. How sick am I of women my age (early twenties) telling me that subsuming myself within the infantile wank-fantasies of men my age would be somehow empowering? Very fucking sick.
My best mate from forever came and visited the other day with her boyfriend. Spent 45 minutes explaining to me all about how powerful you are when you’re trussed up in porn drag and they’re telling you you’re a goddess.
All hail the wank goddess.
IBTP.
Seems obvious that these women have been disconcerted by the porn world we have found ourselves in, but their response is to simply add punk rock style to the conventional dude-pleasing porn purview, and then they think they have somehow sanitized it.
This rejection of eastern european slave trade porn styles, which are identical to the Paris Hilton model-skinny styles of dude-pleasing, makes them believe themselves feminists. Add this to the common idea that if women are sexually aroused by it, then it must be feminist, and you have the entire picture of what they think feminism is.
Personally, I don’t think any of these women will be able to avoid becoming more enlightened as to what feminism really stands for - the elimination of male supremacy - because many of them feel oppressed by male supremacy but haven’t figured it out yet. Yeah, they need to do the basic research. But we all know how simple and easy it is to pick up a feminist book. It’s not. The pickings are ridiculously slim in any library or book store.
It’s not that these women are wrong - it’s that they live in a world so wrong that the tiny, marginalized voices of reason are drowned out by the twin roars of male privilege and their own hormonal storms.
These are the things that bring home just how deep and wide the conditioning is. It is a bitter brew of contempt and self deception that they are calling feminism these days.
the defining characteristic of feminism is that it’s not fun and it costs dearly in social acceptance.
when guys approve, it’s a great guage of whether or not something is feminist at all.
who doesn’t like to dance around naked? we should all be able to do it without any rules or judgment or without having invited physical assault on ourselves.
Marsha,
Sometimes it’s not so much a question of lacking the knowledge or insight, but one of not having the strength to say no to the patriarchy on every count every single day. Of calling this failure “picking our battles.”
Yes ashley, and even with other women. The other night we were out and Colin Farell came up and I said I hated him b/c of the whole comparing prostitutes to pizza thing and one of the women at the table was like “Is this a Sarah Lawrence thing?” When I said no she kept asking me where I went to school. SInce it was none of the Seven Sisters and only art schools and the big state uni I’m in now she was mystified. Because, y’know, a woman can’t hate the patriarchy without being “brainwashed” by some crazy feminists or anything.
I hate how the patriarchy is constantly trying to prevent me from shaving my legs and wearing make up and being “ultra feminine.” I’m totally going to go and paint my nails pink and get me some stilettos and bleach my hair and wax my crotch so I can stick it to the man. Maybe I’ll go do a striptease for some guy so that I can show him how much I’m in control while I jiggle my boobies at him.
“the defining characteristic of feminism is that it’s not fun and it costs dearly in social acceptance.
when guys approve, it’s a great guage of whether or not something is feminist at all.”
Exactly, Ashley! I am always suspicious of something that’s been acknowleged in an uncritical or positive way as “feminist” by any mainstream venue at all. It signals to me that whatever this “feminist” thing is is capitlulating to patriarchy and male approval.
Let’s break this down shall we?:
“Van Ella said that contemporary burlesque appeals to both genders and that she has as many female fans as guys. And there’s a reason: Modern burlesque performers are clearly in charge of their own destiny.
“I have nothing against commercial stripping as a business, but it is that,” she said. “It’s a sales job. But burlesque is a tease, and that is the big difference. The woman doing it is completely in control of her own sexuality. She decides. And she says, ‘I’m gonna give you this much but not any more and if you want more you’ll have to beg.’””
So the only or main reason that women would be attracted to something is because it’s inherently feminist? Really? Because last time I checked the World Wide Wrestling Entertainment shows have almost as many female fans as male fans. So does that make the wrestling shows feminist?…
Also, why the differentiation between stripping for money and stripping for abstract male approval? It’s all the same shit in the end. How is a burlesque performer “in control of her sexuality”? Why does she have to perform in front of an audience, let alone undress, to be in touch with her sexuality? And why is “sexuality” something that has to be exhibited for other people’s approval? What is “sexuality” anyway? Only the way your body looks and moves? I don’t think so.
How does making a man or woman “beg” for you to perform in a certain way mean you have control over yourself? If anything, you are just manipulating the ways your audience reacts to you, but you are not completely in control of yourself. You are not outside of the patriarchy’s influence. And no matter what you say, burlesque always has and always will be a male construction of “femininity.” Burlesque is not “by women, for women” it is made completely by men for men.
So, you blame women for the bad behaviour of men?
I’d take a burlesque dancer over that crap any day.
Why do some people wear saran wrap to be in touch with their sexuality? I don’t know.
Not to mention, why do you have to care what she does to be in touch with her sexuality?
“The woman doing it is completely in control of her own sexuality.”
That’s the saddest statement of all. Why is stripping even considered a part of any woman’s sexuality?
Because we’re told it is, that’s why.
Feminism has never been fun. It wasn’t the popular choice for women in 1973 or 1975 or 1984 or 1997. Feminism and the liberation of women is scary for both women and men.
Most women to me who plaster their faces with make-up and fall prey to fashion mania, breast implants, plastic surgery etc. are these same women 25-35 years later.
What we have to ask ourselves is why do women feel so attention deprived in the first place? I don’t know why heterosexual women participate in that crazy culture known as glamour heteronormativity, nor do I know why women waste so much money on this type of life.
I do know that it is hard for women to lose their addiction to male attention in the first place, and it is threatening to be an intellectual woman in the world.
Feminism has and always will be a minority position. The very best life awaits those women who put 20-40 years of work into building a feminist life, and cultivating a feminist analysis. This pays off huge women if you’re willing to do the work, and lose the social addiction women have to “approval” of any kind.
Once you are willing to stand completely alone in your convictions as a liberated woman — in the true sense of liberty, this power is so great, that you end up being 10 times more successful at everything you do.
Feminism is about leadership and courage. Radical feminism is about understanding that there is a war on women called patriarchy. There is a war on women called male gaze and female objectification.
You can be frivolous and fritter this away on cheap “show-biz’ stuff like fun feminism in burlesque or whatever stupid thing women choose to do, or you can see that perhaps a significant part of the female population really does seem like an air head or a blond idiot. It’s how straight women often appear to me as a radical lesbian feminist — this play acting, man pleasing, simpering public persona that I’ve always found profoundly distasteful.
But if we are talking about freedom and transformation, and women being their highest selves, then we have to conquer the hidden worlds where little girls are raped, sexually molested or undermined by “appearance obsessed” fathers and mothers.
When was the last time you ever overheard two heterosexual women look at a little girl and say, “My you have the look of brilliance on your face? Who’s your favorite author?”
You can’t get women away from the make-up mirrors and make-up counters of the world, but you can unite with the women who want a world where women’s faces are real, and true and powerful.
It’s the world we are creating here! Don’t bother to try to change “fun feminists” they are not very well informed to begin with. It would be like me trying to explain a financial plan to a drug addict or a street person. No matter how good the information, the person is not ready to hear about or capable of understanding the message in the first place.
Be true to you, live out your feminism with power and by example, women will see this. Human beings are very drawn to authenticity. I don’t deal with the glamour pusses, or strip players or femmy sexy women to begin with. They’re dumb and bore me to tears, so don’t worry. Look for the really good women out there, and don’t throw feminist pearls before swine!
Pardon me, Natalia.
The menz have been thinking that women’s bodies are public property for thousands of years.
That’s why they called prostitutes streetwalkers. That’s why the law, at one time, said that any woman in public unsupervised was a prostitute.
I am sad for the pain that the fun feminists will know, because they will not understand how it could happen to them.
Nope, Natalia, I don’t blame the women for the bad behaviour of men. I see it quite the opposite - I blame the men’s behaviour for the rise of fun feminism. I do see “fun feminism” as irresponsible and detrimental to the true feminist movement, and it does frustrate me to see countless women my age submit to the abuse, or even believe they’re empowered or liberated by it. Clearly any person’s behaviour - man or woman - is their own responsibility. In the end, I blame the patriarchy.
Sarah J: “Not to mention, why do you have to care what she does to be in touch with her sexuality?”
I think the radical feminist cares when the expression of the sexuality in question is indistinguishable from traditional male porn fantasy. That’s because traditional male porn fantasy is the fetishization of misogyny. Radical feminists are generally against the fetishization of misogyny.
Because she belongs to an oppressed class, any woman who leaves the house is making a political statement. Burlesque dancers are no exception. The critique of an antifeminist political statement is not out of place here.
RebelRebel:
“You know, I’m actually more pissed that they call it feminism than that they’re porning it up for dude approval.”
Annoying, ain’t it? Lately everything from the blatantly anti-feminist to the just plain feminist-neutral is tied up in a big pink bow and tagged “feminist.” And if you dare say something is not “feminist,” especially if that something has anything to do with sex– stand back, sister! The choice feminists will jump all over you. “Who are YOU to say what’s feminist or not feminist?”
Meanwhile, some of the most genuinely feminist women I know refuse to call themselves feminists. Lately I’ve been thinking dropping the word entirely might not be such a bad idea.
…and I blame cultural stereotypes. (i.e. “If one American tourist behaves this way, all American’s must behave this way” - not an excuse for the behaviour, just an explanation). Forgot to add that one.
I gave up on the fun feminists five years ago when I lived in Portland Oregon. Portland is supposed to be this ultra progressive cool town. Yeah, well not so much. When I lived there every feminist event was held at a frickin’ strip club and if a person complained that maybe that was not the most appropriate place a firm shut the fuck up was issued. The thing about Portland is there is zoning there that says you can have a porn shop or strip place every so many blocks, and so they did. Almost every pub had a little stage in the corner with a naked lady. I couldn’t believe it when I first moved there. Go to the corner local for a beer and a game of pool and there would be a stripper. They normalized it in such a way that no one seemed to question it at all. It made me sick; I moved after a year.
Lara:
I’ve found out that a large part of my sexuality is being downright silly. And, as the name suggests, I have spent many years traveling and performing as a clown so in a way I am performing my sexuality. the difference is my sexuality is not in line with the patriarchal prescription of sexuality.
While in the circus I was disheartened by the other women trying to “outsexy” each other. I, of course, never felt the need to participate and tried to talk to my friends about the destructive nature of the “competition.” To me nothing was or is more sexy then putting on my so ugly they’re cute dresses (you have to see them to believe them) or other assorted clown gear and face paint and being wild and crazy and funny. And contrary to popular belief people find me sexy. I was always covered, I never stripped, I never felt the need to pornographize myself yet somehow I have had amazing feminist partners who find my silliness and independence sexy. Go figure.
SarahJ:
“Not to mention, why do you have to care what she does to be in touch with her sexuality?”
Eh? Someone wanna translate that for me?…
God, burlesque is still around? I thought the roller-derby thing had kind of overtaken my ire. Guess not.
Wow, Lost Clown, I never would have thought of an unsexy-sexy-clown scenario. Interesting.
While I am most certainly still getting through LOTS of brainwashing in regards to my sexuality, I find that being my plain old unporntastic self (no makeup, saggery boobs and all) with a snappy sense of humor makes me the most intriguing and alluring. Hehe. I don’t know if I could ever be a stand-up comedian, but I would love to gain up the courage and more creativity to be one.
*Sigh*
It’s so saddening, enraging, etc. to see the myriad ways in which women’s desire for agency is recuperated into the dominant paradigm. Committing truly transgressive acts is very scary, and potentially lethal, so ladies, step away from the edge and back into this week’s flavour of faux-radicalism (and show us some breasts while you are at it).
In Australia, there’s a lesbian web site called the Pink Sofa. Someone started a thread asking: Would you go to a sex club?
Although the responses were mixed, most women thought it was OK (even if they would not pay, they thought that it was a valid choice [the other “C” word] for other women to make), while a few of us tried to give deeper meaning to the commoditization of sex.
One (seemingly young) FunFeminist asked: What’s oppressive about a woman consensually stripping for another woman?
It’s oppressive to make the stripper and the audience feels guilty for enjoying such things. The patriarchy have been censoring our sexuality for far too long - by claiming lesbian strip clubs are oppressive and thus censoring female sexuality, you’re continuing the work of the patriarchy.
I replied with the following:
Well you certainly got all the words right, even if it is clear you did not understand a one of them.
Oppression (which you used incorrectly 3 times) is by definition hierarchical, i.e. someone has to be in a position of power or authority over someone else in order to oppress them. As lesbians who are mostly peers to the women in question, we are institutionally unable to oppress the stripper or her audience. Despite what many women here seem to think, challenging the activities or beliefs of other women is not in and of itself oppression. If however, one woman approaches another from a position of unequal monetary power, such as in offering to exchange money for sexual services, then the peer relationship no longer exists. Relationships based on inequality are by definition oppressive. In fact, I’d argue that inequality provides much of the attraction for purchasing sexual services. The buying and the POWER OVER another it represents, is the real “thrill” of the experience. Which is why a person who pays a “dominatrix” is the one with the real power – since everything and everyone else involved is subordinate to the power of his/her money and how s/he chooses to spend it. Just look at how spending money on luxuries and fripperies has become an end unto itself (“let’s go shopping”). What money buys is less important than the power, and the pleasure of feeling powerful, it represents.
Censor(ship) (which you used incorrectly twice) requires that one be in a position of power or authority in order to suppress or delete ideas or information BEFORE they can be made public. See above for the dynamics of power over, and how they do not apply to criticism among peers.
Patriarchy (which you used incorrectly twice) is the rule of the Fathers. Not, mind you, the rule-of-men, as large numbers of men are needed as cannon fodder, toy boys, etc. for the Fathers’ profit and pleasure. Again, in order to understand patriarchy one has to look at hierarchy — who profits and who pays. In the case of women’s sexuality, the profit flows equally to both the puritans and the purveyors. The former get something “evil” to rail against (and thus keep women “in line” and under their control), and the latter get the added value of selling an “illicit” product. Patriarchy only seems to “censor” female sexuality – mostly so that it can profit from female sexuality. Which is why the main concern of those you would brand “moralizers” is with the “profit” aspect of sex clubs – not the sex part.
The following terms you only managed to squeeze in once. I guess you didn’t feel they were inflammatory enough to warrant using them as the blunt instrument you tried to make of the above words.
Consent, at least in the context that most of us are using it, implies that no pressure is brought to bear on the ones who give it. Money is pressure.
Guilt is the both a moralistic and a legalistic term. I’m not aware that anyone on this thread has labeled participation in sexual consumerism immoral or illegal. Rather the arguments against such activities have focused on the global ramification of comodifying women’s bodies and sexuality — none of them good. Besides guilt is a useless emotion, both to feel or to attempt to instill in another. Guilt is almost always a substitute for concrete actions and largely functions by assuaging the conscience of the “giver” (the feeling of guilt “cancels out” the pleasure of illicit thoughts and acts). This “equalizing” process nicely undermines any incentive to change behavior and keeps the status quo status. I’d liken it to giving someone the wrapping paper without the gift.
As for your understanding of “female sexuality” (brutalized twice), you seem to be implying that female sexuality cannot be fully expressed without money changing hands. Or that money is a legitimate (innate?) part of sexual expression. Not that you ever used the words “money” or “pay,” “buy,” “hire,” etc., which are conspicuous by their absence in a discussion of sex work. Or perhaps you’re merely prejudiced against such tawdry words relating to filthy lucre – by which women of refinement such as yourself who can afford to go patronize exclusive sex clubs need not be sullied.
Critiques of money driven sexualized activities are NOT synonymous with critiques of female sexuality.
And feminist rhetoric is not feminism.
well, oh wise ones, tell me what clothing I am allowed to wear when I leave the house so as not to make an ‘unfeminist’ political statement? I wouldn’t want to offend or anything.
Gee, Sarah, why don’t you try to miss the point by a wider margin? I’m voting that your next attempt will be, “You feminists are just hairy-legged, unfuckable, crazy ladies with cats who can’t get laid so you’re jus jellus of pretty ladies.”
Gee, Sarah, why don’t you try to miss the point by a wider margin? I’m voting that your next attempt will be, “You feminists are just hairy-legged, unfuckable, crazy ladies with cats who can’t get laid so you’re jus jellus of pretty ladies.”
But…if they say they are doing it “for themselves” or to make themselves happy, how is that “antifeminist”.
Is it antifeminist to wear heels because you like them? It is antifeminist to put on a burlseque show because you want to, not becaue men tell you to?
It may not be a feminism you agree with, but you hardly speak for all of feminism. Just becasue they are engaging in actions theat you tag as “antifeminist” or, more accuratly, pro-patriarcy (i.e. they wear heels so they are feeding into the pariarchal veiw of female sexuality and desierability) doesn’t mean that the action is antifeminist. People can do things that are steryotypically “male-pleasing” without attemtpting to please males. Instead, they are doing them because it pleases them.
I don’t know about you Sarah J, but while I sometimes wear things like makeup and heels and even sometimes show some skin, I don’t take it personally when I read a feminist critique of such things.
Barf.
I’m a former art student, and the male gaze/female objectification is nothing new for me. So when I see nekkid wimminz (or nearly), I just sigh, “Oh God, not AGAIN.”
That’s the thing–burlesque doesn’t bring anything new to feminism, (’fun’ or otherwise).
I’ve never seen the ability to turn men down as a ‘power’. That’s my RIGHT. As a HUMAN BEING. Which is why I get peeved beyond all reason when someone tells me I’m lucky to be a woman because I have sexual power over men. This usually gets a big “HA!” as a response.
Also, Twisty, I love the word ‘empowerfulize’. XD
Anyone else think that it is ironic that a woman who is wrapped up in restrictive clothing, catering to rich elites, teetering on high heels, slathered in makeup, and vulnerably (almost) naked thinks of themselves as “powerful”?
That’s the patriarchy talking. Every day is opposite day for women: power is submission.
This smacks of my hypersexual days when I slept with anything that walked just to be the perpetrator and not the victim for once. It also felt very liberating and empowerful. For a little bit.
Sarah J, I don’t claim to speak for all “wise ones”, but whatever you leave the house wearing or not wearing, it’s not me who will “take offense” (or more to the point, it’s not you that I will find offensive, because IBTP).
This blog isn’t a circular firing squad where women come to tear each other down for participating in a patriarchal culture that is ubiquitous in its scope and reach. But not blaming women doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t critique our behavior.
Unfortunately, since we are constantly under-fire from men and their enablers, it’s hard to see the difference between critical attacks and critical discussion. And not surprisingly, this lack of distinction is encouraged, because if we are constantly on our guard - it hard to really hear other women.
My advice, try finding the greater implications of what is being said. Or put, another way, PATRIARCHY is an institution, you are Sarah, and most, if not all, feminist haven’t got the time or the inclination to critique/deconstruct/blame you. There’s bigger fish to fry and not enough hours in the day to fry them. So relax.
Satsuma said: “It’s the world we are creating here! Don’t bother to try to change “fun feminists” they are not very well informed to begin with. It would be like me trying to explain a financial plan to a drug addict or a street person.”
Why would a drug addict or a “street person” be incapable of understanding a financial plan?
Anyway, about the post, I found the comment about being in control of one’s sexuality very interesting. If a woman is on a stage in a costume using the sight of her body to titillate others, what does this have to do with her own sexuality? She actually has control over the stage performance. She decides what the show will be. Her sexuality is not even involved in this. I’m trying to think of what “control over my sexuality” would mean. To me, having control over my sexuality would be having the leisure time and privacy to explore my own desires through masturbation and fantasy, and to decide who my sexual partners will be and when I will have sex.
For some, being on stage could be something she enjoys, but it would only be a segment of the pie of her sexuality. Being onstage is not the way to gain control, it’s something a woman could choose if she wanted once she actually had control.
If any commenters wish, I’d love to read a discussion on what “gaining control of my own sexuality” means to each of you, and what it would look like if it actually happened.
I am in total agreement that the ‘fun-feminist’ view is a load of crap. But at the same moment I roll my eyes at the burlesque, I have this horrible pang of empathy. They are so close, it seems, to seeing the thing– and yet so far. Would that we could all attain the age of conscious and have scales fall from our eyes. It took me decades to see the patriarchy. Even then, my fear of daily persecution keeps me clothed in a skirt, makeup, and heels.
One day, I’ll throw out the last tube of lipstick, shred the last pair of pantyhose, donate those lovely shoes to the Goodwill. But that day is not today or tomorrow. Until then it will be enough that I don’t ascribe my ridiculous and pathetic acquiescence to feminism. I would prefer the fun-feminists understand this, too.
I think the major point of contention here is the claim that burlesque is either a feminist or antifeminist statement. I see it as neither.
I don’t think it’s a feminist statement. To do that, it would have to state conclusively that women are equal. Which is a higher bar than can be met by most performance activities unless they are clearly satirizing or critiquing male-female roles or making a direct statement about women’s equality, neither of which I think this does.
But I don’t think it’s an antifeminist statement either. I agree that this would be well-defined as, per above, “when you capitulate to, participate in, embrace, and openly promote rape culture in exchange for approval.” But we cannot read the performers’ minds. We cannot know if they are having fun with performing as they are, and dressing up, even femme dressing up, cannot be extended to rape without indulging in heavy dramatic license. “In exchange for [male/patriarchal] approval” is a reach. Why not: in exchange for money? We all need that to exercise our basic needs.
So, to me, this discussion launches from a misplaced claim of active feminism –which the post is entirely justified to call out — to a denunciation of burlesque as actively antifeminist. As Chai Latte says, burlesque doesn’t make any kind of new feminist contribution. But it’s not actively setting women back either. In a male-run world, a show organized and acted by women whose revenue goes to women is way, way far down the line of structures which harm women. It’s tempting to take the post’s discussion of a misplaced word to the nth power, but a waste of energies much better spent elsewhere.
Jen
Jul 20th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
“Anyone else think that it is ironic that a woman who is wrapped up in restrictive clothing, catering to rich elites, teetering on high heels, slathered in makeup, and vulnerably (almost) naked thinks of themselves as “powerful”?
That’s the patriarchy talking. Every day is opposite day for women: power is submission.”
I’m hearing the book/film “Female Perversions” by Louise Kaplan ringing in my ears.
To some degree, I would say this is another way in which patriarchal discourse perverts the message of feminism(s) to suit the hierarchical order. Women pick up on this perverted message that is aligned with the perversion of femininity and the trappings of emporfulizement–it is the distorted version tossed out into the everyday through capitalist and communication systems (advertising, television, newspapers, magazines)–it keeps the order of the patriarchy going.
In the end, this is not feminism(s) nor is our current enlightenment around female sexualities that “choose to” pretend on some level that they are subverting the perversion of the patriarchy.
I have never understood and will never understand how some people can think that the person dancing before another person for that person’s entertainment is the one with the power. Bzuh?
I had toddled myself over to Sarah J’s blog (since she put it in her sig) and had a moment of enlightenment.
I don’t expect to take her seriously from here on. I have no clue, since she thinks radfems are the “Mean Girls” who are jealous of “Pretty Girls” why she even bothers to read this blog.
Her and her “Hustler Clad Ass.”
I don’t usually click on the links in people’s sig lines because I find most bloggers to be boring, pedantic, ignorant and clueless.
Oh, and so-called “Fun feminists” are either clueless or totally colluding with the enemy for personal gain. Seems to be a popular way to get through life. It’s an easier path, that’s for sure. Just ask Nasrin Sotoudeh.
That’s my personal opinion and I’m sticking to it.
No, poor dearie who might be reading this and getting her/his bad self into a huff over my use of the word enemy, I’m not calling all the poor little menz the enemy - I’m calling patriarchy the enemy. Duh.
And if Twisty (and by extension radfems) are so wrong and aren’t speaking to women who know what they face in the world but haven’t been able to articulate it, why’s she so popular when so many of the “Fun Feminists” on the blog roll can’t even get a single comment to most entries. Sounds like a lot of people recognize the truth when they see it and have to keep coming back for more.
Taking your clothes off on stage for the entertainment of a bunch of dudes means submitting to (and reinforcing) the sexual objectification of all women, which is one of the pillars of the patriarchal system.
What’s so hard to get?
Thanks RebelRebel, that’s it in a nutshell.
Octogalore writes: “But it’s not actively setting women back either. In a male-run world, a show organized and acted by women whose revenue goes to women is way, way far down the line of structures which harm women. It’s tempting to take the post’s discussion of a misplaced word to the nth power, but a waste of energies much better spent elsewhere.”
It’s apparently worth enough of your energy that you’ve spent the time writing a long comment about it. Burlesque isn’t top of my list of feminist concerns, but that doesn’t mean any of us can’t show an interest in deconstructing it. As radical feminists, we understand that the patriarchy infects everything. An act such as a burlesque performance does not exist in isolation, and is connected to some feminist issues that are pretty high on my list, such as the existence of rape culture.
I’m aware that burlesque can be quite complicated and, when performed by certain groups, claimed as countercultural (I’m not talking about middle-class women with blue hair and tattoos, à la Nine Deuce’s hilarious comment above). I’m even prepared to consider that there may be grey areas.
But you say burlesque, in general, is not actively setting women back, and that’s where I really can’t agree with you. Because the dominant voice emerging from the burlesque scene, as I hear it, is the voice represented in the article above. It says this:
“[What’s happening now is a feminist movement in burlesque] because it’s women saying, ‘I can be ultra feminine and I can shave and wear makeup and red lipstick and G-strings and pasties. Men may or may not enjoy it, but I’m doing it for myself.’”
And I hear these lines, from George Orwell’s 1984:
“WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”
PORN IS FEMINISM. How do you consider that the surrender to Big Brother - and, crucially, the claim that one is doing Big Brother’s work as a radical act of one’s own free will - is not actively setting women back?
“And I hear these lines, from George Orwell’s 1984:
“WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”
PORN IS FEMINISM.”
Wow. Just wow. Excellent.
One problem is that in a patriarchy, women cannot, by definition, make decisions that are for and about themselves. In the absence of patriarchy, would women have invented bustiers and stilettos and crotchless panties and thongs and all other empowerfulized accoutrements? My guess is no.
It’s also impossible to be fully and freely feminist in a patriarchy. Because of the status of women as second-class citizens/sex class, we can never know the freedom of simply “being.” If I shave my legs, am I doing it because I have been conditioned to hate my hairy legs and I am ashamed of them, or am I doing it because I like the feeling of smooth sheets against smooth legs? If I wear jewelry, is it because I love the beauty of the item, or because I want to draw p-approved attention to myself? If I don’t wear jewelry, is it because I just don’t care for it, or because I am rebelling against the notion that says I have to decorate myself in a p-approved manner?
This is one of the crazy-making aspects of patriarchy. We are simply not free to behave in an absolutely objective manner. Everything we do is tainted in one way or another, and we’re under constant threat of violence. This has been a sobering and very depressing lesson for me, and the more I open my eyes to patriarchy and radical feminism, the more friends I lose. It’s very isolating, because people don’t want to hear it. There’s a huge price to pay for being feminist and challenging patriarchy.
I suppose my questions to burlesque performers who think their activities are empowering would run like this:
Would you still get the same attention if you were overweight?
If you were over forty?
If you were physically unattractive?
If, instead of stripping, you recited Walt Whitman’s ‘Song of Myself’?
If you didn’t wear make-up?
Are people watching and cheering because you’re you or because you’re a female body on display?
Where are all the men in g-strings and sequins?
Do you feel the audience respects you for your activities?
Does your activity have nothing to do with a paradigm of dominance and submission?
Is this the career of your choice, or is there something you’d rather be doing, provided you earned as much as your male coworkers, got treated with respect, and had opportunities for advancement?
And I could probably think of a few more. If all these questions could be answered in the affirmative, then perhaps I would believe that there might be something feminist about burlesque. But I don’t believe an overweight, middle-aged stripper without make-up would receive anything other than scorn. The woman does not have to possess outstanding talents or intellect (before anyone takes offense, I am by no means implying that all burlesque performers are stupid.) All it requires is a slim, reasonably attractive body, unlike other staged performances, like theatre or dance, which require acting skills or athletic abilities.
Why is wearing ’sexy clothes’ empowering? Everywhere I look, I see something of the same thing. Women in push-up bras and make-up adorn half the billboards I pass. I can’t turn on the television without seeing slim, made-up young-looking women, as opposed to the men, who run the gamut from athletic to dumpy. Make-up, heels and sexy clothes are the norm. It’s how the patriarchy wishes us to dress because it shows that we’re going with the flow. So if you’re wearing make-up and heels and doing burlesque, all you’re doing is publicly exhibiting your capitulation to the patriarchy. Of course you’re going to get rewarded for such behavior.
That said, if you want to do it, fine. Obviously, you’re getting something out of it, whether it be a wage, attention, or affirmation of your worth. Just don’t expect everyone to stand up and cheer you for advancing the rights of women. Women have always had the power to dress sexy and be gazed at by men. Yes, they really have. you can trust me on this one; I’m a historian. This power, however, has never won them honest respect, the right to vote, the right to own property, or the right to be considered a person in and of themselves after they were married.
God, I don’t like being right. “Mean girls” versus “Pretty girls”? Really? Fucking really? Boy, am I upset that I don’t judge myself like that. I’m so upset I surround myself with people who love me as I am and respect me for other things than my appearance. Oh, wait, they’re all feminists. Duh.
Oh, christ, she’s got a picture of her ass on her blog? And she’s got Ren Ev commenting? Yeah, that’s empowerfulizing. RE’s had her nose broken four times in this emperfullizing career of hers as a stripper, but it’s the feminazis that are mean and awful to her. Jeezus.
Catherine Martell: I understand your concern, but I disagree.
For one thing, I’m not sure the dominant voice in burlesque is that it’s a feminist act, or that even if this is claimed, it’s going to be taken without a grain of salt.
As you say, it’s complicated, and difficult to isolate how much “surrender to Big Brother” there really is. Silence mentions women who are overweight or over 40 and queries as to how many of them participate in burlesque and are cheered and the answer is — quite a bit. I agree with you that the mechanism for getting cheers — removal of clothes — is echoing the patriarchal expectation for how women get approval. But burlesque twists this, and also includes women whom the patriarchy tells they are not attractive, and makes them feel that way. That’s what, to me, renders it neutral.
Also, the audience for burlesque is a good part women. Men who are interested in paying to direct and control women as they undress, and thereafter, choose other venues.
So yeah — I get why you’d be concerned, and I am too, when something that mimics, even with a twist, a patriarchal expectation gets labeled a feminist act. For me, that concern in this case does not extend to labeling it an antifeminist act.
Ginmar-
Let’s not do this again. Yes, my nose has been broken 4 times: Once in a car accident, once in a sports accident, and yep, by an abusive partner, who happened to be female. Never as part of my job, never due to stripping, or anything like that. My ex partner wasn’t a dancer or a patron of strippers, she was just a violent person. Also, once again dragging out my personal life to prove an argument, and distorting the actual facts of what happened, well, yes, I’m sick of it. My broken noses did not occur in the course of my job, and anyone saying so is not only lying, but very, very unethical.
All it requires is a slim, reasonably attractive body
“slim” and “reasonably attractive” going hand-in-hand, of course.
And “reasonably attractive” — as defined by the patriarchy. A fat, squishy, voluptuous, curvy, saggy-breasted body is also attractive. A thin, breastless, surgery-scarred body is also attractive.
We’re just forbidden to believe so.
wait, tinfoil hattie, what’s wrong with crotchless panties?
In a world where women didn’t earn .69 on the dollar, had control over their own bodies, didn’t have to starve and/or mutilate themselves to earn approval, and enjoyed human agency, there wouldn’t be anything anti-feminist about burlesque. But right now, I live in a country that can’t even pass a law making it illegal to discriminate against women. Hell, I live in a country where the prevailing culture makes such a law necessary.
Octogalore: “For one thing, I’m not sure the dominant voice in burlesque is that it’s a feminist act, or that even if this is claimed, it’s going to be taken without a grain of salt.”
The dominant voice I hear from burlesque scenesters on the subject of female participation in burlesque performance (and audiences) is that it’s empowering, liberating, and a choice. I hear the word “feminism” less often, but it can’t escape your notice that these words are specifically connected to feminist discourse and ideas about women’s liberation.
Octogalore again: “I agree with you that the mechanism for getting cheers — removal of clothes — is echoing the patriarchal expectation for how women get approval. But burlesque twists this, and also includes women whom the patriarchy tells they are not attractive, and makes them feel that way. That’s what, to me, renders it neutral.”
There’s nothing neutral about that. What you’re describing is a situation in which women judged unfuckable failures by the patriarchy find solace in feeling temporarily like some small portion of the patriarchy has judged them to be fuckable, and thus slightly less of a failure. Is your argument that a negative act (showing your tits to men for approval) plus a positive feeling (gaining that approval) equals a neutral act? Because if so I would dispute your mathematics, as well as pointing out that there is no such thing as a neutral act performed by women under a patriarchy.
It’s all about the context. Even if you personally get warm fuzzies by performing in burlesque, it’s too simplistic to think about that without acknowledging what you’re doing is part of an entire sociocultural and industrial system that tells men they can and must commodify and use women as sexual objects.
I know that some burlesque performers argue that by demanding approval for their patriarchally nonconforming bodies they are subverting patriarchal notions of attractiveness. Maybe in some minuscule sense they are. I just don’t think that merely subverting those notions is particularly radical, because it leaves them in place and indeed supports the notion that they should be a mechanism of judgement. Radical feminism, for me, is about finding ways to discard patriarchal structures altogether.
Catherine: “There’s nothing neutral about that. What you’re describing is a situation in which women judged unfuckable failures by the patriarchy find solace in feeling temporarily like some small portion of the patriarchy has judged them to be fuckable, and thus slightly less of a failure.”
That would be true if their goal was to convince the patriarchy or, as you put it, “showing your tits to men for approval.” I’m not sure that’s true. It could be they are having fun, it could be they are performing for other women, it could be they are performing for their daily bread.
Similarly, if the “positive feeling” were “gaining [men’s] approval,” I’d agree with you there too, but I’m not sure it is. Burlesque is really not viewed as men’s entertainment. There are plenty of other places where women perform in ways couched to garner male approval (as more the means than the end, though).
So I think the way you set up the math, sure, I’m with you on that, but I think it involves a number of assumptions I’d be wary of making.
Jesus Christ, I you guys know this thread is absolutely disgusting, don’t you? You do know that? Bullshit misogyny in the name of feminism, this is what I’m reading. I’m thinking a lot of you don’t know what sex positive feminism actually is, or else you wouldn’t be calling it ‘fun’ feminism. In fact, scratch that. I think a lot of people here just need a very basic Feminism 101. Like, for example, statements such as “when guys approve, it’s a great guage [sic] of whether or not something is feminist at all.” are an absolute joke. I, the sex pozzer, pay far less attention to the dudes than you. I tend to focus on women, not women-bashing. Being hell-bent on doing the opposite to what you think dudes want isn’t feminism, just so you know.
And Jesus, talk about arrogant. Who the hell do you lot think you are, ‘The Feminist Gatekeeper’?! What makes you think you’re so intelligent and know what’s right for woman kind? Why the hell should you be in charge?? Fucking hell… I’d rather die than live in a world where thought was controlled by people like some of you. I don’t say that lightly.
Anyway, I’m digressing. Ginmar, my little lovely? I need a word.
“Yeah, yeah, I know, blame the patriarchy and not the woman”
- But you’re just going to blame the women anyway, even though you’ve said yourself you’re wrong to do so? And, you know, you having to deal “with the damned sex poz brigade” - I really just wish you fucking wouldn’t. I’m not a sex worker. My academic interest is religion, so I gain nothing personally from supporting sex workers rights and trying to change society’s norms and values that currently put sex workers at such a disadvantage. I do it simply because it’s something I feel VERY strongly in, and half the battle is having to cope with bullshit like this. Because, the fact is, your attitude, and some of the attitudes in this comment thread, ARE the problem. So yeah, I really, REALLY fucking wish you’d just keep schtum. Now, I promise I will go through all of this this evening and even tomorrow if I have to and I’ll write on my own blog exactly why I think this is bullshit. For now though, can we maybe talk about Renegade Evolution? (Renegade Evolution incidentally, fyi, isn’t a burlesque dancer, so she’s not that relevant to this post, but I know she’s a sex worker and she more than likely is the only sex worker you’ve bothered yourself with, so yeah, I can vaguely see why she’s been brought up.)
Firstly - “One of these fun feminists in the blogosphere who absolutely despises radfems keeps it quiet that she’s had her nose broken four times. Hey, it’s empowering!”
- She keeps it quiet? Shall I tell you what I keep quiet? I keep quiet the fact that I broke my ankle when I was 7. Oh, wait, no - I don’t “keep that quiet”, I just don’t blog about it because it’s irrelevant. And so is her broken nose. You do realise that these breakages weren’t done when she was at work, don’t you? I mean, it totally hasn’t got anything to do with her being a sex worker, that was just, well, it’s private life / off-blog stuff that does not impact on your argument either way. And you know Ginmar - it’s bad form to drag people’s private lives into arguments when they have no bearing on the matter in hand - really bad form.
And what’s with the “Hey, it’s empowering!” and “empowerfulizing”? Are we supposed to laugh because stoopid ol’ Ren got her nose broken 4 times whilst turning tricks?! Cos, well, as I say she wasn’t. She wasn’t at work, it wasn’t work related, and even if it WAS work related, is it really something you want to be pulling out of your bag triumphantly like that? Say she had been beaten up? Would you be pleased cos she’d proved your point? Shit - don’t answer that. I don’t want to know.
“RE’s had her nose broken four times in this emperfullizing career of hers as a stripper, but it’s the feminazis that are mean and awful to her. Jeezus.”
- You’re an idiot. You’ve used stories from her private life (when she’s obviously been in physical pain) against her in an irrelevant situation. You know, coping with these absolute lies as Ren has to do quite regularly must be fucking exhausting. I couldn’t do it. I think if she’s upset by this she’s every right to be. I think you’d be upset if I was making shit up about you to use against you. “mean and awful” aren’t my choice of words though. “Slanderous” maybe. “Nasty”, “disgusting”, “lying” and “manipulative” come to mind too. Why on earth do you think what you’ve said belongs in a discussion about sex work.
Oh, wait. This isn’t a discussion about sex work. This is just a great opportunity for you to feel superior to other women. Well, don’t mind me. Back to your party.
“RE’s had her nose broken four times in this emperfullizing career of hers as a stripper, but it’s the feminazis that are mean and awful to her.”
wait, I know this punchline - those that broke her nose* are just a few rotten apples that totally don’t represent the whole bunch, but all radfems are exactly the same - all mean, old, ugly, jealous bitchez. Right?
* - seriously, FOUR times?!?
Originally, I was going to object to the implication that getting injured on the job is indicative of that job’s empowerfulness (as opposed to real empowerment). But, then I remembered that both you (Ginmar) and I have (or had, in my case) jobs in which we were injured and yet somehow, we managed not to be fellating the patriarchy at the same time. So, not the same thing, really.
Personally, I am most aggravated by some burlesque folks’ persistent obsession with differentiating themselves from strippers. The whole “it’s a business,” and sales job references. How is that not a super thinly veiled (maybe not at all veiled?) way of implying stripper = whore vs. burlesque-er = “artist?”
“Women have always had the power to dress sexy and be gazed at by men. Yes, they really have. you can trust me on this one; I’m a historian. This power, however, has never won them honest respect, the right to vote, the right to own property, or the right to be considered a person in and of themselves after they were married.”
hell to the yeah.
one of the things I have been trying to learn as I try to untangle my own actions from the patriarchy, is that picking your battles is important. but I’m trying really hard not to confuse strategic capitulation with feminism.
part of the thing that is so hard is that pleasure is not neutral (or for pete’s sake, in itself radical). It feels good to capitulate (at least sometimes), whether it’s just resting from fighting, or receiving praise and acceptance that we are conditioned to desire, from people we often do care about. but those things are seductive, and transitory, and do not help others who cannot capitulate as easily. And they support the status quo.
IBTP
“It could be they are having fun, it could be they are performing for other women, it could be they are performing for their daily bread.”
To patriarchy, this makes little difference. The end result is the same. They can be doing this for their own reasons, but that doesn’t negate the overall effect.
I LOVE YOU, TWISTY FASTER! I just had to get that out of my system before commencing with the official rant! Your blog has given me the courage to cease obsessing over my appearance, to cease “acting out” for male attention, and the list goes on. I used to call myself a “feminist” in pre-IBTP days, and oh what an ignorant little p-approved tool I really was! I believed myself to be a liberated, empowered woman, and yet I was still continually plagued by vague insecurities I felt should have been transcended long ago. Now I am able to wholly appreciate the full extent of my patriarchal brainwashing. I was blind, now I see, yada, yada. THANK YOU a thousand times over, from the bottom of my heart, for being the wise and wonderful person you are and for using this blog to disseminate authentically empowering wisdom.
I’ve never been a burlesque dancer, but I think I can relate to the overarching principle behind it. There was a time when I displayed myself in all my skintastic glory, in pornified poses, engaging in pornified activities, on the internet, and I called it “embracing my sexuality”. I would go so far as to say I that I felt “empowered” by acting the part of the come-hither sexpot. What I didn’t realize at that time is that I wasn’t “empowering” myself, I was feeding my flagging ego with male sexual attention and approval; it was a poor substitute for authentic self-esteem. The patriarchy says: “The highest level of status you can attain in this society, as a woman, is that of sex object. If you’re a good girl and can turn yourself into a good sex object, we will shower you with the positive reinforcement you crave.” The patriarchy takes advantage of women with poor self-esteem and little to nil self-respect; it rapes their minds before raping their bodies. We’ve been taught that a perfectly viable, acceptable and simple means for gaining self-esteem is to flaunt your body in ways that make the menz drool. Little girls absorb this lesson before little boys cease to be icky and gross. Unless we are taught differently by someone as knowing as Twisty, we’re doomed before adolescence even rears its ugly head. It comes as no great surprise to me that unknowing women frequently confuse objectification with empowerment. I was one of them! And for that, IBTP.
It’s kind of simple. White people don’t dress up in black face. Black people would be horrified if whites resurrected minstrel shows.
Women reinacting the same old male fantasies is very similar. It’s not freedom to pretend to be a slave on the plantation, or to brag about eating watermellon– kind of like having a watermellon eating contest just for black people.
We get the ethnic sterotypes that are hated by the group being made fun of or degraded. But women have a very hard time getting that they are playing right into the same old woman hating shows.
I can’t imagine all this burlesque anyway. Wow, it must be kind of strange out there. I wouldn’t even remain friends with women who did this or went to strip shows. That would be a deal breaker for me.
Guess there’s still this weird thing with women wanting to be porn feminists or whatever, or fun feminists… I personally think it’s just Gen X and Y making fun of a profound social justice movement that they have a hard time learning from or caring about a lot of the time. And it’s self-hatred to a degree that may even be unconscious for most women who are into this.
Thank the goddess I just went to school, made friends who stayed away from that nonsense and kept up the life of the feminist mind. A weird world tattooed world out there; are we still hurd animals or what?
It’s a little irritating that we have to point out that someone’s nose got broken in order to show that a stripper is a victim of a fucked up power structure.
I am going to have to side with Twisty, Silence, Catherine Martell, RebelRebel, and WendyAnn on this one. I also second the “hell to the yeah” on ripley’s response.
One cannot profess to be offering up a “feminist” version of burlesque without knowing or acknowledging that it is so closely related and tied to the perversion of femininity which is a construct of patriarchal discourse—feminism and the construction of feminity do not work well together–it is anti-thetical, and therefore, anti-feminist.
Who makes these fucking products (lipstick, nylons, garters, etc), anyway? Do you, fellow bloggers for the burlesque cause? I mean, seriously, I can’t even find a pair of women’s shoes to fit my feet let alone women’s underwear that do me a service~! Pasties, g-strings…whatever floats your boat, but, if I recall, the feminist movement was not built on these commodified objects to further relegate women into the realm of the objectified.
Was the history of burlesque concerned with active agency for women? No, it was not. It’s main purpose was based on theatrics and entertainment before the rise of Hollywood cinema and strip clubs. Its main message concerned sex and transgression–audiences were mainly men and couples. In the end, who wins out? Is it you? Is it me? Is it the couple down the street who likes the idea of having their cake and eating it, too, so long as it does not upset their family or marriage apple-cart.
Octogalore suggested that we cannot really measure the impact of what performances are transgressive, subversive, and support women’s agency. I beg to differ. As feminists and academics who have studied the performance arts, and have read considerably on Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble and Undoing Gender and the notion of “performativity”, we can and we have. “We” know that history repeats itself and that the on-going commodification and objectification of women can find itself embedded in performances that are less than creating the equality, agency, and recognition in man/woman let alone woman and their expressions of sexuality. But, as Kelly Oliver might argue in the “Colonization of Psychic Space” and “Witnessing: Beyond Recognition” –the struggle for recognition in equality becomes the pathology. Recognition is a man-made product—we see it in citizenship and nation-building and the continuation of (multiculturalism) and identity politics. Recognition and equality are still tied to the dominant discourses of power, but that does not mean we give up or fall into this power embalance for the sake of wanting recognition or equality alone. And if Oliver is right in her theoretical vantage point that recognition is the pathology, then we need to rethink what recognition and equality mean in how we continue to survive and persist as women, queers, etc in the ‘mainstream’.
RE’s had her nose broken four times in this emperfullizing career of hers as a stripper
Oh come on now. This is patently untrue.
As Joe Friday used to say, just the facts, maam.
Octogalore: “That would be true if their goal was to convince the patriarchy or, as you put it, “showing your tits to men for approval.” I’m not sure that’s true. It could be they are having fun, it could be they are performing for other women, it could be they are performing for their daily bread.”
Imagine a company that manufactures landmines. Most people who work there don’t actively want to get up every morning and blow the legs off children. And yet that is the net result.
Some workers enjoy the work itself. This is equivalent to the “fun” crowd. Most of them would prefer not to think about the ultimate consequences of what they do, but this doesn’t make those consequences go away.
Perhaps some of them think they’re working for the benefit of marginalised groups who need to fight for their part of the world. This is equivalent to the “doing it for women” crowd. This group probably doesn’t spend too much time asking itself just how much of the audience for its products really are oppressed peoples, or whether the fact that the customers themselves are oppressed makes the manufacturing of machines to kill and maim human beings any more justifiable.
Some of them just need to do a job, any job, for the money. And, hey, fair enough. I’ve done a few unsavoury jobs just for the money too. But, again, the fact that you’re doing a job for the money doesn’t make the consequences magically disappear. They are still there; you just don’t have the privilege of being able to act to change them. The people in this position - equivalent to the “daily bread” crowd - constitute an oppressed group. Most anti-landmine campaigners would accept that low-status wage slaves are not the Big Bad. At the same time, no one is going to refrain from criticising the landmine industry for fear of offending the many people in it who just have to pay their rent. If we want it to change, we have to speak out against it.
I blame the patriarchy, not its victims. I am not having a go at women who participate in the sex industry because they have to. I am having a go at the repackaging of pornulation as feminism.
Just wanted to say that Ren’s nose was never broken as a result of her career. It’s been broken due to a sports injury, a car accident, and an abusive ex-girlfriend (who had never been into porn or strip clubs).
Catherine — I appreciate the distinction and that you are not blaming women.
And again, I agree with loose rebranding as feminism — I get scolded for most if not all of my posts for criticizing “choice” feminism, in which all women’s choices are automatically feminist choices.
I think the disconnect we have, though, is that I don’t think undressing or sexual/sexy play in public is automatically unfeminist. I do think the imbalance in men vs women doing this is a problem. But I like to look. I like the Abercrombie ads and prominent posters of semi-nude men, I like the increasing amount of men showing off their abs, I notice more women picking up Men’s Fitness (I’m one of them) and not just for the great glute workouts. All in all, I don’t believe a post-patriarchal world would not have men and women having fun with their sexuality for their own and others’ pleasure.
None of this is a feminist act, but I don’t see it as a landmine either. Reasonable minds can disagree on this, but I don’t post-patriarchy will come through any kind of cessation of burlesque or sex work. I think women attaining equal economic and political power will be the necessary catalyst. It will only be then that we will see a dramatic reduction in women needing to flaunt sexuality (although some may still want to do so) and an increase in men choosing to do so.
Sorry, meant to say at beginning of 2nd para: “And again, I agree why loose rebranding as feminism is problematic”
Drakyn, why are you here? I can easily show those here how you treat feminists.
And frankly I wouldn’t trust anything RE said at all. She appears to have a miserable time as a stripper and porn actress, but she gets really infuriated at feminists who point that out. And she just plain makes shit up about radfems.
Now these comments are making a little more sense.
Feminism is being rebranded, so that porn is ok as long as we label it “feminist porn.” Since I rarely hear women talk about feminism or even use this word all that much at all during my soujournes out into the wide world, it’s kind of odd to read it here.
We are getting all kinds of rebranding out there — white fundamentalists are claiming they are great anti-racist activists, for example. Obama claiming he’s a big fan of equal pay for equal work. Fundamentalist christians saying they are pro-woman… Gen X and Y saying they are cool with lesbian porn, or lesbian strippers — this stuff happens all over Los Angeles by the way.
So does feminism have an exact definition, and do people who are undermining it with “porn feminism” really get that they are just trying to get people riled up. Maybe the next generation has little idea of what feminism set out to accomplish in the first place.
Kind of reminds me of a young black man telling his Dad, “But hey, I wouldn’t have sat at the back of that bus, I wouldn’t have put up with that for one minute.” This bravado was born in the present moment, not as a person who had grown up with Jim Crow and the KKK. Different time, different story.
Feminism largely succeeded in creating alternatives for women in America. There are all kinds of things that I am doing and can do that my mother couldn’t do. Get credit in my own name, work in finance at the same pay scale as the men, travel alone around the world, eat by myself in a restaurant or hang out at a local bar and daydream.
There are options. Now not all the women are forced to do the same thing. No one chids me for not being married, no one bugs me about not having children, nobody thinks I’m less then for not doing any of that stuff. The neighborhood is filled with non-married or never married single women, children are as scarce as hen’s teeth, and on life goes.
This sexy crazy nonsense that passes for pop cultural trends, women stripping for “feminist” fun or whatever else they do, it is not feminist at all. It’s just women wanting to do “forbidden things.” Kind of like the aging boomers telling tall tales about the pot they smoked on the sly back in college, or perhaps it was my grandparents swallowing goldfish in college. None of that is feminism, and maybe women are a mixed bag.
Maybe it is the very success of feminism that forces these “hottie feminists” to be defenseive in their choices, or defensive in their use of language. After all, it’s really the same old barbie mentality, but hey a stay at home Mom calls herself a feminist too. So who controls the brand name “FEMINISM?” :-)
All in all, I don’t believe a post-patriarchal world would not have men and women having fun with their sexuality for their own and others’ pleasure.
Yes, but hopefully it would leave off men and women using their sexuality for profit.
You bring up Abercrombie and Fitch. The transformation of that store from waspier than wasp to Kool Kids Inc. is on the surface puzzling, but really makes perfect sense. Yesterday’s stodgy captains of industry are today’s Steve Francis. Real money lies in selling soft-core porn to children of privilege. But what a sad and narrow sexuality they are peddling.
In the words of tinfoil hattie:
“reasonably attractive” — as defined by the patriarchy. A fat, squishy, voluptuous, curvy, saggy-breasted body is also attractive. A thin, breastless, surgery-scarred body is also attractive.
We’re just forbidden to believe so.
I really liked this post.
As Citizen Jane and Drakyn suggested, criticizing individual women doesn’t aid the d