Why is it that feminism is always blamed for tacky sexist trends?
College fraternities, long known as bastions of grace and decorum, are these days featuring yet one more accoutrement of scholastic refinement - the stripper pole.The most important campus development since the keg, the stripper pole shines like a luminous totem festooning the halls of the American academy. It's erected for a single, glorious purpose:
To get drunken chicks to do slutty stuff.
And where does feminism come in?
Post-feminists argue that the pole is empowering. If a young woman chooses to use it, they say, she is telling the world that she is in charge of her sexuality.
Apparently these pole-loving feminists and post-feminists only exist in reporter Alfred Lubrano's imagination--because he fails to quote one woman outside of the publicist for the company that creates the poles. I mean really, who are "they?" Who are the "some" who are arguing that stripper poles "flaunt liberation?" Great reporting, dude.
It's fairly clear that the Philadelphia Inquirer reporter had little interest in researching his piece, but a lot of interest in making snarky sexist comments:
There was a time when feminism was about women being smart and assertive, and building inner strength.Somewhere along the line, though, it morphed into slut culture. Girls tell themselves they're in charge. But they're still just strutting it for the boys.
Welcome to Skank 101, freshmen. Open your books to Chapter One, "Pole Vixen." Note how the women in the diagram are dangling, half-dressed and off-balance.
Charming. It's nice to know that some reporters can use their position to call women whores.
Seriously, why the fuck is the PI running this tripe? Contact the paper and ask them why they're running biased, un-researched stories.
Or, if you're feeling feisty, contact the reporter himself. (If you're more of a phone person, his number is 215-854-4969.)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Feminism responsible for frat-house stripper poles.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5952
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Okay, that's it, now people are literally making this "feminism=stripper"crap up out of thin air.
If he had actually talked to a woman who participates in this supposed pole-dancing fad, and she had explicitly used words traditionally associated with feminism, such as "empowerment" or "liberation," it probably would have been an interesting jumping off point for pointing out that perhaps these terms have lost their true meaning in the mainstream. I think that's definitely an area worth talking about...
Instead, he somehow jumps from a few anecdotal cases of young women dancing on poles to "it's those damn feminists!"
College fraternities, long known as bastions of grace and decorum, are these days featuring yet one more accoutrement of scholastic refinement - the stripper pole.
That just makes me think it's an Onion piece in disguise.
No, not the Onion. Just excessive sarcasm in the hands of those not qualified to use it.
I WROTE TO HIM
and here's the bullshit he wrote back (this is the whole email):
"I said it was post-feminism. Post. Meaning AFTER the feminists, who emphasized what was inside a woman. I wasn’t blaming feminism at all; I was decrying the modern perversion of it."
Is there a way to make it clear to the general public that 'post-feminist' means 'not feminist at all'? Can someone issue a memo? Would anyone pay attention?
Either that or mainstream periodicals need to just give up and just call sections of their papers or magazines 'Sluts!' All of these stories can go there and we can stop pretending that the media is liberal once and for all.
Well. I've never been happier to say that I've never set foot in a frat house.
For some reason, even when I was at university, I found fratboys disgusting. I don't mean that I was offended by their behaviour; I mean that they were physically unattractive. My friends and I used to joke that initiation must include being beaten by an ugly stick and issued a standard preppy wardrobe. Shallow, I know but girls will be girls...
I hate this kind of garbage. All it serves to do is further divide our already at-odds group.
Stripping for money is not the same thing as flaunting it for free in front of a group of rowdy frat boys. Some may feel that putting a dollar value on sexual behavior cheapens it, but I disagree. I think it lets men know that if they aren't willing to invest their emotions and time in a serious relationship, then they have to pay for it and pay well. Encouraging women to entertain groups of men who feel nothing for them, without anything in it for them does just the opposite.
But I do think that telling them that they can't do it would been even more un-feminist. It makes more sense to take on the underlying causes behind this behavior- the need to feel validated as being sexually attractive. Not that it means anything since many men of that age will stick their dick in just about anything that doesn't have a penis of its own.
The article was a load of crap, though. I doubt many fraternaties have invested in $600 stripper poles when they are totally unneccesary for getting women to party naked and easily substituted. And I agree that it is crap journalism when the reporter is too lazy to do even a modicum of fact checking when his source is a marketing agent pushing her product.
Shame on PI. They should perhaps change their name to the Philly Enquirer.
By the way, here's my letter:
To The Editor:
I am at a loss to understand why a fraternity's purchase of a stripper pole is news worthy of space in your paper. (Stripper Poles: New Feminism, September 1, http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/20070901_Stripper_poles__New_feminism_.html) In addition to being poorly sourced (no woman who claims that pole dancing in front of drunk frat boys is empowering is quoted in the piece) the article merely rehashes the author's own sexism and misogyny. Indeed, I would have thought you were reprinting articles from the Onion given the introductory sentence calling fraternities "bastions of grace and decorum" and the conclusion talking about "skanks" and "pole vixens".
Feminist literature is awash in criticism of raunch culture and its discontents. Surely, genuine commentary on the subject (as opposed to lustily envisioned college students partaking in "slut culture") would not have been hard to come by.
I'm not sure I understand the rage. When I first started reading this piece, I had already understood it as a piece of satire. I didn't really think that it could be anything but satire.
ARGH. *headdesk*
i don't find it to be satire at all. if it were satire, perhaps his response to my politely dissenting email would have been "relax, it's satire!" and not "i said _post_ feminism--i was decrying the current state of feminism!"
"I hate this kind of garbage. All it serves to do is further divide our already at-odds group."
What group is that? Feminists? I don't think the feminists on this board have been at odds on this issue at all.
The article is a fabrication (as you pointed out). It makes a flimsy excuse to do some slut-shaming over a faked up phenomenon and then it attributes the fake trend to 'post-feminism' without bothering to define the term. This failure to define terms creates a false connection between feminism, stripper poles, fraternities, and comes to the standard issue 'Young Women Today Are Sluts!' conclusion.
The feminists all say 'bullshit.' No controversy. The fake feminists, who I think came over via Salon the other day and are sticking around to hurl some poo, start an argument. But that's not 'our group.' Believe me, it's not.
This bothers me on so many levels. I've actually met women (albeit online) who said they were no where near feminist and they enjoyed stripping and dressing like sluts and that they thought feminists could go to hell. Maybe they were men in disguise?
Personally, I don't know where I stand. I guess I think if a woman really wants to strip--for money or for free--I don't think it's my place to stop her or publicly shame her. But on the other hand, I do think it drags women down to a low place. I grew up very conservative Christian, and while I am an atheist now, I still hold a lot of the same values about the specialness of sex and sexuality. I dress in a stylish but modest way. I freak out if my nipples are showing or you can see my underwear through my clothes. I'm 23, and I'm a virgin, although more by accident than by choice. So maybe this is my inexperience talking, but I just feel that dressing and parading yourself about for men as though you were nothing more than your vagina is kind of sad. I can't think that women who behave that way feel much self-worth. And I don't mean that from a prude's standpoint or as a value judgment. But I think that if you love yourself you want people to respect you .
Why is it in articles that feminism or post-feminism is equated with acting slutty? I still can't figure out how we got to post-feminism. As far as I can tell, not everything that the feminists strived for has actually happened.
What a piece of shit article. I hope everyone writes to him. What a tool.
Dear Mr. Lubrano,
As a feminist, I am quite insulted by your uniformed article, stating that Stripper poles are the "New Feminism." Next time you call something the "New Feminism," I would suggest that you educate yourself on what feminism really is. It is repugnant that you suggest that the new feminism is at fault for fraternity boys taking advantage of girls by getting them drunk and then encouraging them to dance on a stripper pole. What is even more repugnant is your liberal use of the terms "slut" and "skank." I am disappointed that Philly news would allow such rampant misogyny in their articles. As a resident of a suburb of Philadelphia, I will no longer visit Philly.com and will encourage my friends not to as well.
Sincerely,
Nicole Brice
"I said it was post-feminism. Post. Meaning AFTER the feminists, who emphasized what was inside a woman. I wasn’t blaming feminism at all; I was decrying the modern perversion of it."
No, dumbshit, actually, this is what you wrote:
There was a time when feminism was about women being smart and assertive, and building inner strength.
Somewhere along the line, though, it ("it" being feminism, remember!) morphed into slut culture. Girls tell themselves they're in charge. But they're still just strutting it for the boys.
To be fair, he does say "post-feminist" at least once, but coupled with the above passage and the headline specifically blaming feminism (which he didn't write, I realize) it just comes off as a really confused, historically ignorant article that really only succeeds in calling young women stupid and slutty.
And is it just me, or is it really fucking obnoxious to see shit like this in the mainstream media, depicting young women as shallow and stupid, when in media outlets run by women and people of color there are tons of stories of young women and girls who are working tirelessly on changing the world for the better? (And generally cleaning up the messes that men and white people have created....) No wonder the world thinks women are silly and shallow, because the mainstream media is only interested in writing about us when we do things that look silly and shallow.
hey!
thanks for posting this. i sent an email and posted it on our blog, Quench (http://quenchzine.blogspot.com).
Here is the letter I just emailed to Mr. Lubrano:
Dear Mr. Lubrano,
In your September 1, 2007 article "Stripper poles: New feminism" you state that:
"Post-feminists argue that the pole is empowering. If a young woman chooses to use it, they say, she is telling the world that she is in charge of her sexuality."
Who are your sources? Which "post-feminists" are you talking about? Who are "they?" Since you don't take the time to speak with anyone who identifies herself as either a feminist or a post-feminist, I would like to know why you think feminism has "morphed into slut culture." The feminists I know--a group which, by the way, includes a number of men as well--are not interested in "strutting it for the boys."
And what about the young men that you reference in your article. Why no interrogation of their blatant sexism, or their desire to get young women drunk for their own sexual edification? Trust me, I understand your disgust at the fraternity system and their immature, mean-spirited, sexist antics. However, I expect a much higher level of journalism from both yourself and The Philadelphia Inquirer. No sources, no logical arguments . . . this is not even close to journalism.
Sincerely,
I've now exchanged several e-mails with him.
His old work is illuminating, to be sure.
I read that article, it's an excuse to denigrate the modern woman, this ass wipe is as conservative as they come. This type of sexist tripe can be found all over the media from entertainment of the major news papers to fascist fashion chic magazines like Seventeen, Teen Cosmopolitan, ect.
"So maybe this is my inexperience talking, but I just feel that dressing and parading yourself about for men as though you were nothing more than your vagina is kind of sad. I can't think that women who behave that way feel much self-worth. And I don't mean that from a prude's standpoint or as a value judgment. But I think that if you love yourself you want people to respect you."
Remember, the only way to have respect is to dress in a way suggested by a sexist 2000 year old religion! Can't a woman just enjoy wearing what she wants to wear? I am not even talking about stripping, I am talking about women being denied flights because the man letting her aboard thought she was dressed too slutty. I love myself, and I hate wearing more clothing than necessary. I would join a nudiest camp if I could afford to be away all summer. I don't see how what I wear at any given point has anything to do with self-respect or love. Shouldn't we be happy for women wearing whatever makes them feel best? If I wear a bikini or a long skirt, it has nothing to do with my vagina and nothing to do with nearby men, it has only to do with what I damn well feel like wearing.
LivingtheLiminal - excellent letter.
The guy said POST FEMINISTS approved of stripper poles, and think it's "empowering" for drunk undergrads to bump and grind for their sleazy, horny male classmates.
"POST" feminists, of course, are women who DO NOT BELIEVE IN FEMINISM.
And he's right, there are "post feminists" who do indeed claim that stripping is "empowering".
They're wrong, of course.
I actually have a friend who's a stripper. She makes good money for now (about a $ 1,000 a week after expenses), but she'll have to leave the field in a few years when she's "too old" (she's currently 25).
Also, as a Black woman, the only reason she gets work in the high class strip clubs is because she's lightskinned enough to pass for Asian or Latina.
The rich White bankers and stockbrokers don't want to get a lap dance from an African American woman, you see.
Darker skinned Black strippers can only work in the lower end clubs that serve working class men (where, of course, the tips are much lower).
Very "empowering".
JenLovesPonies, I totally don't understand women like you.
You want to dress in a sexualized way (and, for some sad reason, you draw self worth from exposing your legs and breasts to random passersby), but I'd bet you'd be the first woman to fly into a rage if a man said something, or even stared at your body.
I totally can't understand that mentality!!!
Reality check - if you dress in a sexualized way, you will be treated in a sexualized way. And most of the time, the men viewing you as a sex object will NOT be the kind of guys you'd find attractive!!!
"So maybe this is my inexperience talking, but I just feel that dressing and parading yourself about for men as though you were nothing more than your vagina is kind of sad. I can't think that women who behave that way feel much self-worth. And I don't mean that from a prude's standpoint or as a value judgment. But I think that if you love yourself you want people to respect you . "
twacorbies, you're not "inexperienced" - you've just got some common sense!!
You're right - women who parade around in excessively short skirts, or in tops that barely cover their breasts, really do NOT have a lot of self worth - if they did, they'd conceal their private parts from public view!!!
Think about it - do GUYS walk around half naked?
No.
And why?
Because we don't base our self worth on weather women find us sexually attractive.
Yeah, ok, Gregory, that is exactly what I said. You clearly understand exactly how I dress when I go out. It is all about how others percieve me, and not about my comfort or what makes me happy.
If I want to wear something revealing, or something that completely covers me up, it is my choice, and I am making it because that is what works for me at the moment I dress. I am worth more than my vagina no matter what I am wearing. I enjoy the sun on my body, and I like to wear tank tops with built in bras because I find them more comfortable than bras and tshirts. I also sometimes like to wear clothing that covers me completely, depending on the weather and my mood.
But you, troll Gregory, know nothing about me or about women in general, it appears, so go away.
Gregory, if a woman enjoys dressing in a certain way, why does it have to be about anyone but her? Why do you assume she does it for the passersby? Why do you think they have anything to do with her self worth? Because you automatically assume that women can't have and do these things entirely within themselves, it has to be about other people (specifically men, you know that's what you meant).
And why would any woman, no matter how she's dressed, not have the right to object to how she's addressed by other people? Why would she not have the right to object to being treated in a way she doesn't like? Her manner of dress in no way revokes her status as an equal human being, worthy of dignity and respect as such.
I'm afraid you've finally gone too far, Gregory, m'man. By holding women responsible for the actions and reactions of those around them (rather than holding people each responsible for their own actions and reactions), you've exposed yourself as definitely not a feminist, nor even terribly sympathetic to feminism (or women) in generally.
Thanks for coming clean!
People like that report is exactly why I'm a sex-positive feminist, meaning I support porn as long as women consent to performing in that industry. If she is forced into the porn industry, then that is where I draw the line and call a foul. These poles are NOT offensive. I'm gonna write to Gregory via e-mail using the previous sentences and more.
Gregory: Regarding your use of the term "parade around" as in "women parade around" rather than "wear" clothing. Do you see that your phrase reframes the act? Suddenly clothing oneself is changed from a personal choice to a choice that is subject to public view/approval/disapproval/comment. And this is false. Women are not parading around any more or less than any other person, regardless of how much clothing they do or do not have on. Clothing choice is a personal issue. It is not about you.
Oops, I should say the reporter. Sorry.
sgzax, you're wrong.
Choice of attire, like any other public act, IS indeed "... a choice that is subject to public view/approval/disapproval/comment."
If you are wearing a low cut top, anybody standing in front, above or to the side of you can see your breasts.
If you are wearing a short skirt, anybody in front, to the side, behind or below you can see your legs (and, from the right angle, can see your butt and pelvic area as well).
Exposing yourself IS a public act, and it has public consequences, like any other public act.
I wonder why it is that men wear clothing and women parade around in them, then? Are some people more public than others? Hmmmm.
I've been wondering today why non or anti-feminists bother posting here. I don't go to men's rights pages and pick fights. It would be obnoxious.
Reality check - if you dress in a sexualized way, you will be treated in a sexualized way. And most of the time, the men viewing you as a sex object will NOT be the kind of guys you'd find attractive!!!
Who determines whether or not my attire is sexual? You? My husband? My neighbor? Is there some magical way to know? (If you've read any threads on street harrassment, Gregory, you'd know that attire has nothing to do with getting treated like a sex object)
Think about it - do GUYS walk around half naked?
No.
And why?
Because we don't base our self worth on weather women find us sexually attractive.
I don't know where you live, but here in the heartland...men most certainly do go around half-naked, esp during the summer.
Also, that last sentence I quoted...wow. I fight very hard not to base my self worth on my sexuality, but that is difficult considering the society I live in CONSTANTLY tells me otherwise (ie *you* get to decide when my clothing is too sexual to "parade around" in public, *you* getting to treat me in a sexualized manner because of *your* perception of said attire)
I'm noticing that too, sgzax. Weird, isn't it? GREGORY's comment would be right at home on the other thread about SWA throwing the woman off the plane. Apparently public dress codes for women are all the rage today, so as not to offend our male posters' delicate sensibilities.
Actually, GREGORY's post is more RELEVANT on the SWA thread. I thought the topic here was stripper poles, not fashion choices? Why is GREGORY ranting about low-cut tops and short skirts here?
I'm with sgzax.
Gregory: So, by your logic, a woman is responsible for being raped if she was wearing something deamed culturally attractive or shows any kind of skin?
Sheesh. I second, again, sgzax.
Gregory, WTF?!? What the fuck times 100?!?! That was some offensive-ass shit, you know that? You might be interested to know that yesterday I took a walk and came across one of my guy friends who was out for a jog. You know what he was wearing? A PAIR OF SHORTS AND RUNNING SHOES. Nothing else. No shirt, no nothing. Every day, all over the place, I see guys walking around like this, and nobody gives them shit or slut-shames them for wearing what they wear. I happen to have a tiny bit of Native American blood, which I've been told may be why I have an "abnormally" high body temperature -- around 100 degrees Fahrenheit. This means that in summer, I'm MISERABLE if I can't wear skirts or shorts and tank tops, preferably without a bra. One of my parents' friends has a disorder where her body doesn't produce sweat, so you can imagine that her dressing attire in summer is about the same as mine -- if she can even muster up the courage to go outside dressed in a way that's comfortable for her. And you know, since when should WE be responsible for the actions of other people? Isn't it about time that men take some responsibility for not acting like perverted jackasses in public? (Which most men don't do, BTW.) Should black people be treated badly for dressing in ways that highlight their race or the tone of their skin? No, of course not, because that's the problem of the ignorant white people doing the mistreating.
Your comments are also particularly offensive and, well, stupid because you seem to assume that breasts are sexual organs. Well, guess the fuck what. THEY ARE MEANT FOR FEEDING BABIES. And the size of a woman's breasts has no bearing on her ability to produce milk, so don't even come at me with any bullshit about how "Uh, duh, breasts COULD be sexual because it could tell a potential mate whether a woman has enough milk to feed a baby." BREASTS ARE ONLY THOUGHT TO BE SEXUAL BY IGNORAMUSES LIKE YOU BECAUSE MEN HAVE DECIDED THEY ARE.
Also, and I wrote about this in another comment here today, when I first developed breasts, I wore baggy t-shirts and shorts, and actually got MORE harassment than I do now, when I dress how women are "supposed" to dress, with the low cut tops you so snottily disdain. In fact, the entire reason I dress how I do now is because I get LESS harassment in a low-cut top than I do in big, comfy T-shirts. So really, Gregory, what would you have me do? Because it's really not about what women wear. It's about BEING a woman. It's about us having the gall to BE WOMEN in public, and I'm sorry that people like you want me to hate my body no matter what. I'm sick of being slut-shamed, because I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't. As a man, Gregory, you don't get to tell women how to dress or act, capisce? Because it'll never be good enough for you, and it's not really about what's "best" for women. It's about control and shame. And I'm sick of being ashamed of my body and my entire existence because of ignorant, callous-ass men like you.
Gregory: So, by your logic, a woman is responsible for being raped if she was wearing something deamed culturally attractive or shows any kind of skin?
I know, right? By the logic of guys like Gregory, the less skin you show, the less likely you are to be raped or harassed. Which would mean that Afghanistan would pretty much be the best place in the world for women.
"I know, right? By the logic of guys like Gregory, the less skin you show, the less likely you are to be raped or harassed. Which would mean that Afghanistan would pretty much be the best place in the world for women."
Yeah...and why is it that women in tribal cultures (or nudist colonies for that matter) who don't cover their bodies at all don't get raped or harrassed?
Ummm...
Yeah, Gregory...
Seriously? You think that men don't go out "half-naked"?
Shorts and sandals. No top. Guys can pretty much expose everything but their tackle and get no problems. But a woman showing her legs, too much of her back, her stomach, too much of her chest or too much of her shoulder/neck area would be called slutty.
Believe it or not, women sweat, too. And get uncomfortably hot and itchy.
These OMG!slutty clothes that women get derided for STILL cover more flesh than that worn by many men on a hot summer's day.
Though I do want to point out to Gregory that, indeed, men do walk around half naked, I can imagine that he's sitting at his computer, having a giggling fit at the shit he's stirred here. Everyone take a deep breath and repeat: "If we ignore him, he will go away..." :)
Gregory: I often wear "short" skirts and short and tank tops. Heck, I'll walk outside in my underwear for a few seconds to set my dog in the yard early in the morning.
I am not parading for men, nor am I trying to garner sexual attention. I wear what I wear because I'm comfortable in it. I don't like long skirts or pants, I find thin shirts with thin straps more comfortable because they allow my skin to breath and ventilate my underarms.
Nobody can see my buttocks or vagina under my short skirts. Why? Because I wear underwear. But even if I didn't, they'd not see either of those areas unless they were laying on the ground and I was stepping over them (which I wouldn't do anyway).
If people choose to look at my body in a sexual way or think that my clothing is sexual in nature, they may think those things. They may not, however, make innapropriate comments to me or touch me in any way and expect me to not fight back. I show the same respect to other men and women every day, they need to do the same for me.
I think we're all missing a very obvious point here: the stripper pole was installed in a FRATERNITY, by frat BOYS, and somehow according to the dipshit author, that's all the fault of imaginary slutty females.
So a gang of slutty "post-feminists" held a gun on the frat guys until they were forced to install the pole?
No?
Maybe if the local post-feminist sororitiy had installed a stripper pole in order to perform in a slutty manner for the frat idiots, maybe, then dipwad's argument might make some small sense.
But those non-existent post-feminists neither forced the stripper pole on the frat guys, nor installed it in their own sorority, so it looks as though this whole misogynous moment (including the article) is the nefarious work of, gasp, men!
Nary any actual women to blame anywhere, although the male author has dumped a crapload on 'em.
Who'd a thunk it?
As for women "parading around" in clothing so tempting it forces men to sexually harass: sigh.
I spent my 20s in New York City, where even bundled to the max in a down coat and muk luks in the winter I could count on being sexually harassed on at least on a weekly basis, as could every other woman in that walk city full of strangers.
I'm now 57 years old and living in Los Angeles where everyone is cocooned in their cars, but yup, I can still count on being sexually harassed on the street a couple times of the year, if I happen to have the nerve to walk down a bit of sidewalk where men will also be walking, or driving by in a car.
A doubt a burka or me making it to 88 would stop the assholes who need to harass women in order to feel like men.
Here is what I wrote to Lubrano:
As a man, I find your piece very offensive. People like you are exactly why I'm a sex-positive feminist, meaning I support porn as long as women consent to performing in that industry. If she is forced into the porn industry, then that is where I draw the line and call a foul. These poles are NOT offensive. Women are not trying to strut it for the boys and men are not trying to strut if for the girls. And the other half – women – are not sluts and they have not "morphed into the slut culture".
What media outlet did you get your idea for that piece from? Rush Limbaugh? The National Right to Life Committee? Or some other place that pipes in sexism? Well, whatever the source is, I smell a far-right rat in your piece. Since January 23, 1973; you all in the far-right mainstream media have pitted so-called moralists – Christian zealots – against women. The adolescent males in your piece, what about them? Why no questioning of them and their views on women and issues that matter to women? I understand your disgust at the fraternities and sororities and how sexist each group are towards the opposite gender. But, the fact that you would go so low and call women as sluts, whores, cunts, and skanks say a lot about you and how sexist you are. As a result of your insulting piece, you all at Philly.com will become the third newspaper web page that I will no longer visit, I’ve already decided to no longer visit the Augusta (GA) Chronicle or the New York Post web pages.
Both twacorbies's and GREGORY's attitudes are part of the problem. And those of you that are arguing with him by denying that someone's clothing is non-sexual is really sort of missing the point. It doesn't matter if it's sexual. If women want to go around as naked as we're socially willing to allow (which, in my ideal world, would be allowing nudity for both men and women, if they wished—I'm not a naturist, I just wish that nudity and the body weren't a big deal), then they should. If they want to dress sexually, they should be allowed to do so. Just as men should also be allowed.
But everyone has the right not to be harassed and, obviously, attacked. This isn't rocket science, except to people like GREGORY, who don't seem to understand that finding someone sexually attractive is no excuse for harassment or rape.
Yes, there is the context of our cultural sexism with regard to women as sex objects. But disallowing women to be sexual in public as "non-feminist" is doing more harm than helping. I'm one feminist, not a post-feminist, who does say "let them make their own decisions" with regard to women who want to dance around fraternity stripper poles. I'm ambivalent about it, just as I'm not happy about the "girls gone wild" stuff where young women mistake pandering to young men as self-expression.
But, to some degree, it is self-expression and I think the feminist position should be that women should be allowed to make whatever decisions about their sexuality they wish to make. There's nothing more powerful or central to the issues inherent in sexism and the fears of patriarchy than female sexuality—the patriarchy, above all, wants to control female sexuality. The more that women make their own choices about their sexuality and how to express it—and this will include some questionable decisions to dance around stripper polls in fraternities—the more that women will be emancipated from the control of the patriarchy. Telling young women to conform to some "acceptable" version of female sexuality, even with the best feminist intentions, is too much like the old message of "be a nice, respectable young woman".
Not that anyone here, excepting probably twacorbies, is saying that.
What I'd say to that journalist is that, yeah, maybe those young women that choose to dance around those poles are just reinforcing the sexist idea that they are merely sex objects for the male gaze...but who the hell are you or me to stand in judgment of what these adult women decide to do? By talking about those young women as if they weren't individual people and just some tokens to be used in a culture war by men...well, I know which I think is worse. If some women choose to be sex objects, well, that's a small price to pay for just allowing women in general to do whatever the fuck they want to do and not have men, in general, controlling their sexual lives.
Good piece Jess, I will bug this guy. Cru
I have no problem with strippers or stripper poles. But I think putting one in a place where a lot of drunken girls will be is cheap and deceitful. Especially if there are plenty of drunken guys around to egg them on and watch. If those frat boys wanted a stripper pole for their own personal dancing then that would be fine. The journalist is an idiot. This has nothing to do with postfeminism or feminism. and to even bring those terms into the article is distasteful.
"Why is it in articles that feminism or post-feminism is equated with acting slutty?"
Some of the anti-feminists out there seem to think acting that way merits an "honor killing." Maybe some other people assume that since acting slutty angers these anti-feminists, it must be a feminist thing to do?
"Remember, the only way to have respect is to dress in a way suggested by a sexist 2000 year old religion! Can't a woman just enjoy wearing what she wants to wear?"
Right on!
"You want to dress in a sexualized way (and, for some sad reason, you draw self worth from exposing your legs and breasts to random passersby), but I'd bet you'd be the first woman to fly into a rage if a man said something, or even stared at your body.
"I totally can't understand that mentality!!!"
Do you live in an Arctic climate? There's more to exposing skin than sexuality. In many parts of the world, exposing skin is also about coping with hot weather!
I bet many of the people out there who complain if other people wear skimpy clothes would also complain if other people wear extra fabric and a layer of sweat dripping off them.
The words "feminists" and "empowering" "pole" should never appear in the same sentence. What bigger warning that this is a bastardization of feminism can there be?
I was at a frat party where they had just installed a stripper pole and the drunk frat boys were insanely proud of it. One especially inebriated guy asked me if I would dance and I told him Hell no, but that I would to love to see him perform. He willingly obliged and to both my horror/amusement/satisfaction I watched him grind and twirl and gyrate on the stripper pole. After he was finished he turned to me and asked in what I'm sure he thought was a seductive voice, "So what do I get for my dance?" At which point I said, "Good job," and told my friends it was time to leave.
Perhaps even more disturbing than stripper poles, girls that use them solely to attract male attention, and frat boys dry humping the poles is how this somehow managed to get turned back on women. The article isn't addressing the sleaziness of the frat boys that installed the pole, their intent of persuading drunk girls to give them shows, or the sense of entitlement they feel in asking or demanding that girls dance for them. Instead it is attacking the drunken "sluts" for using what men purchased, installed, and beg to be used. There is absolutely no accountability for the boys in this situation and once again it is up to women to be responsible for male actions. And somehow all this is feminism's fault.
Some argue that most journalists today are too lazy to do research and their papers will just publish whatever shit they pull out of their asses if it furthers the right-wing agenda.
Well I wrote to the guy and he sent me back a response claiming i had mis-read his precious article and that i should realise "the derogatory terms were ironic"!! Yeah that was his idea of a laugh! Speaking as a stand-up comic (and an English one too, so don't tell me I don't know irony!) I have to say IT'S NOT FUNNY. Also even if it was would he use a racially-insulting term "ironically"? I don't think so. Grrr.
(This is an excerpt from my reply to this article on Alternet)
I hold the personal opinion that the timing of the whole no-holds barred marketing of "slut" culture is very intentional. What is the first, signature image that comes to mind for most Americans when they hear "Middle East?" For many people, it seems to be a woman in a full burka. The symbol of American "freedom" often seems to be the blond Barbie-style neophyte in a teeny weeny bikini sticking out her chest and derrier for male approval. I think the media has used both of these stereotypes as propaganda to keep youthful Western women from rising up en masse against the wars. If you don't want to end up being THAT, Western girlies, you will support the "War on Terror" no matter what LEGAL freedoms and civil liberties it requires you to relinquish. However, if you really want to prove how "free" you are, show your "patriotism" and commitment to Western "values" by bearing some skin for us all! And maybe get a boob job, while yer at it! [In my more conspiracy-minded moments, I also think that there could be a link between marketing "bare all" as cool and getting people to willingly relinquish privacy. It primes a whole generation to readily accept surveillance culture. But that is another rant...]
War is "peace," slavery is "freedom." Turned-inside-out marketing strategies like sexism is "empowerment" fit right into our Orwellian times.
If this sounds crazy, let me rhetorically ask: What would happen if, instead of fearing each other, Western women and Middle Eastern women supported each other in the struggle against ALL forms of patriarchal oppression, most especially phallocentric war-and-dominance culture? Hmmm, if that happened, Bush would not have landed the "soccer mom" vote, that's for sure. That attitude also would not have young American women gyrating on poles and anesthetized from plastic surgery instead of marching in the streets, petitioning Congress, and organizing strikes. It is VITAL for the war machine to keep woman distracted from their REAL power--their voices, their minds, their political rights, their rights to manage their fertility, their inner strength, their power to love and to create change--by brainwashing them into thinking that their "power" to jiggle, and maybe make money to buy buy buy stuff, is all that matters any more.
It surprises me that no one seems to discuss these connections within the context of the past 7 years: Women's bodies as propaganda tools against stereotypes of the Middle Eastern women; women's exploited-more-than-ever, "post-feminist" sexuality as a means to distract would-be rebellious youth from their real potential to change the system. A simplistic answer always seems to be, oh, these "girls" are rebelling against their hippy egalitarian mothers/parents. That explanation doesn't work for me because all the hippies I grew up with, due to their free love and idealism, had kids really young. That puts us in our mid-to-late 30s-- 20+ years too old for Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton. And our free love hippy parents also taught us how mind-blowing, groovy, and liberating authentic, egalitarian, energetic sexuality can be. Why would we give that fluidity up for cartoon sex and the straight jackets of worn-out gender roles? “Post-feminism� is the outgrowth of kids reared on Conservativism. To me it seems they are rebelling against repressed sexuality and the Christian Right, but holding on to the Christian Rights’ idea that women exist to serve and please men. Or they are internalizing unchallenged free-market Capitalism and corporate media inundation that teaches them everything and every-ONE is a product, and needs endless products to be desired. Or they are doing all of it. It’s really sad. When was there last a generation that moved BACKWARD in terms of social progress? After WW2?
(This is an excerpt from my reply to this article on Alternet)
I hold the personal opinion that the timing of the whole no-holds barred marketing of "slut" culture is very intentional. What is the first, signature image that comes to mind for most Americans when they hear "Middle East?" For many people, it seems to be a woman in a full burka. The symbol of American "freedom" often seems to be the blond Barbie-style neophyte in a teeny weeny bikini sticking out her chest and derrier for male approval. I think the media has used both of these stereotypes as propaganda to keep youthful Western women from rising up en masse against the wars. If you don't want to end up being THAT, Western girlies, you will support the "War on Terror" no matter what LEGAL freedoms and civil liberties it requires you to relinquish. However, if you really want to prove how "free" you are, show your "patriotism" and commitment to Western "values" by bearing some skin for us all! And maybe get a boob job, while yer at it! [In my more conspiracy-minded moments, I also think that there could be a link between marketing "bare all" as cool and getting people to willingly relinquish privacy. It primes a whole generation to readily accept surveillance culture. But that is another rant...]
War is "peace," slavery is "freedom." Turned-inside-out marketing strategies like sexism is "empowerment" fit right into our Orwellian times.
If this sounds crazy, let me rhetorically ask: What would happen if, instead of fearing each other, Western women and Middle Eastern women supported each other in the struggle against ALL forms of patriarchal oppression, most especially phallocentric war-and-dominance culture? Hmmm, if that happened, Bush would not have landed the "soccer mom" vote, that's for sure. That attitude also would not have young American women gyrating on poles and anesthetized from plastic surgery instead of marching in the streets, petitioning Congress, and organizing strikes. It is VITAL for the war machine to keep woman distracted from their REAL power--their voices, their minds, their political rights, their rights to manage their fertility, their inner strength, their power to love and to create change--by brainwashing them into thinking that their "power" to jiggle, and maybe make money to buy buy buy stuff, is all that matters any more.
It surprises me that no one seems to discuss these connections within the context of the past 7 years: Women's bodies as propaganda tools against stereotypes of the Middle Eastern women; women's exploited-more-than-ever, "post-feminist" sexuality as a means to distract would-be rebellious youth from their real potential to change the system. A simplistic answer always seems to be, oh, these "girls" are rebelling against their hippy egalitarian mothers/parents. That explanation doesn't work for me because all the hippies I grew up with, due to their free love and idealism, had kids really young. That puts us in our mid-to-late 30s-- 20+ years too old for Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton. And our free love hippy parents also taught us how mind-blowing, groovy, and liberating authentic, egalitarian, energetic sexuality can be. Why would we give that fluidity up for cartoon sex and the straight jackets of worn-out gender roles? “Post-feminism� is the outgrowth of kids reared on Conservativism. To me it seems they are rebelling against repressed sexuality and the Christian Right, but holding on to the Christian Rights’ idea that women exist to serve and please men. Or they are internalizing unchallenged free-market Capitalism and corporate media inundation that teaches them everything and every-ONE is a product, and needs endless products to be desired. Or they are doing all of it. It’s really sad. When was there last a generation that moved BACKWARD in terms of social progress? After WW2?
"What is the first, signature image that comes to mind for most Americans when they hear 'Middle East?' For many people, it seems to be a woman in a full burka. The symbol of American 'freedom' often seems to be the blond Barbie-style neophyte in a teeny weeny bikini sticking out her chest and derrier for male approval. "
Meanwhile, I'm Iranian-American. Western mainstream fashion and Middle Eastern clothing standards sure seem to *agree* that they *don't* want to see my exposed body.
Like many other Middle Eastern women, I have body hair that grows back very fast after shaving. Western fashion has a problem with hairy female legs, and many Middle Eastern cultures have told women to cover up since centuries before Mohammed...
Meanwhile, speaking of exposing one's skin...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/09/calif_carpenter_can_work_in_the_buff/
"OAKLAND, Calif. --A carpenter caught hammering nails and sawing wood in the nude has been found by a judge to be not guilty of indecent exposure..."
Jesus, this is one of those times I hate being both a stripper and a feminist. It makes me feel like I've got a target on my head from both sides.
I strip. It's my only job, and one of the most fun jobs I've had. One of the best6 workouts I've had too. I do not see my job as 'feminist.' It's a job. I use men's wants against them for their cash, I get that cash that can be an insane amount for one night, and go home to my boyfriend and go to bed. I also cook, watch TV, go grocery shopping, and do other things that normal humans do. I pay my taxes from the amount that I earn wiggling around in my birthday suit. I don't understand why both sides of this issue would like to see me, and my coworkers, vanish.
So a stripper pole in a frat house is women's lib?
. . . .
Asked our pal Al about his lack of sources. His thought-out reply?
"Do some original research. Don’t parrot the questions other are asking. Come up with your own criticisms. Be original."
He's one to talk about doing research....
You know, as a burlesque performer and pole acrobat I resent that your response to this reporter is as biased as he is. You are obviously as predisposed to think anyone getting up on a pole is an antifeminist slut as the trogldyte. Yes, my performances are sexy and probably arouse some men. But that doesn't mean I don't own my femininity and celebrate the power of women. I don't find my acts or my hobbies to be demeaning, but instead see them as a liberation. Like the feminists before me I am shouting that I can be more than a wife/mother/teacher. But does that mean that I can't be feminine or glamorous or flaunt what seperates me from man? I think your viewpoint is only slightly less antiquated than the article you sight.
You know, as a burlesque performer and pole acrobat I resent that your response to this reporter is as biased as he is. You are obviously as predisposed to think anyone getting up on a pole is an antifeminist slut as the trogldyte. Yes, my performances are sexy and probably arouse some men. But that doesn't mean I don't own my femininity and celebrate the power of women. I don't find my acts or my hobbies to be demeaning, but instead see them as a liberation. Like the feminists before me I am shouting that I can be more than a wife/mother/teacher. But does that mean that I can't be feminine or glamorous or flaunt what seperates me from man? I think your viewpoint is only slightly less antiquated than the article you sight.
You just made my day, Mina. I am glad that Oakland, California does not have a public nudity ban. We need more places like Oakland. Maybe I will live there.
I have to say that women who look down on other women who enjoy showing off thier bodies and flaunting thier sexuality, are just as bad as men who are quick to call us sluts and whores if we don't live by what thier standards of what women should be.
You asked where are those women who say that dancing on a pole flaunts female liberation, well here's one. I don't see where it's wrong in any way shape or form to flaunt your body and be proud of it.