Has anyone encountered this new book, "Female Chauvinist Pigs: The Rise of Raunch Culture" by Ariel Levy?
{Much more below!!!vvvvv}
[I've been having trouble with long posts; that's why I'm splitting it up...]
Printable View
Has anyone encountered this new book, "Female Chauvinist Pigs: The Rise of Raunch Culture" by Ariel Levy?
{Much more below!!!vvvvv}
[I've been having trouble with long posts; that's why I'm splitting it up...]
Has anyone encountered this new book, "Female Chauvinist Pigs: The Rise of Raunch Culture" by Ariel Levy?
I skimmed it in the bookstore last night. It seems that Levy's thesis is that stripper chic, and women and girls who try to emulate not only strippers and porn stars but also the male reaction to them, all represent a huge setback for feminism and the struggle for women's equality.
She seems to think that the sexual revolution has not expanded our sexual freedom but merely sparked an increase in loveless, unsatisfying sex for women and dangerous, damaging "hookups" for young girls. She believes that the current trend that has 'civilian women' hanging out with the guys at stripclubs, regarding sexual encounters primarily as 'conquests', and just generally joining in the frat party represents an 'if-you-can't-beat-em-join-em' mentality that is harmful to women as a whole.
Our mothers, she argues, didn't march on Washington and burn their bras so that preteen girls could wear teeny-tiny 'Porn Star' T-shirts and female lawyers could relax after work with a few lapdances from a girl clad only in 7" platform pumps.
Okay. When I remove myself from the defensiveness that I automatically feel as a major provider of said "raunch culture," I can kind of see her point.
However. I was disturbed by the book because, despite the fact that it was about our culture's current relationship to the sex industry, the voices of sex workers were largely absent. Sure, she read and cited the porn star memoirs of Traci Lords and Jenna Jameson (and emphasized the sordid and pathetic aspects of their stories). She interviewed Candida Royalle. But in a book that mentions strippers and lapdances at least a dozen times, I don't think she included a single quote from Lily Burana--certainly one of the smartest and sanest among the stripperati.
Levy was, however, sure to cite evidence for the high rate of childhood sexual abuse among sex workers. She cited studies that found that sex workers suffered PTSD at a higher rate than did veterans of war. She claims (without references) that "most" of the women who work in the sex industry do so because they are "poor" and they have "few other options". (I don't know about you guys, but in my experience, when it comes to strippers, this really isn't the case.) She frequently alluded to the fact that even as civilian women were enjoying the performances of strippers and other sex workers, the performers themselves were 'bored' or 'faking it' or just generally feeling used, abused and degraded. ::) Yawn. Haven't we heard all this before? Isn't there so much more to the story?
Other people she interviewed for the book included the producers and crew of Girls Gone Wild, the highly successful female producer of HBO's 'G-string Divas' (cool lady), random teenage girls at the mall, 'civilian' women who consume porn or patronize stripclubs....There were more, I'm sure. As I said, I didn't read the whole thing.
Toward the end of the book, she said that the problem with women embracing raunch culture is this:
"The women who are really being emulated and obsessed over in our culture right now--strippers, porn stars, pinups--aren't even people. They are merely sexual personae, erotic dollies from the land of make-believe. In their performances, which is the only capacity in which we see these women we so fetishize, they don't even speak. As far as we know, they have no ideas, no feelings, no political beliefs, no relationships, no past, no future, no humanity."
Okay. The defensive part of me says, "Excuse me? See how human I am when I'm shoving this book right up your ass, Bitch!" :P Kidding. I'm not a violent person. Really.
The rational part of me tries to ignore my emotional response and really listen to what she's saying. I understand that she's talking only about the product that is produced by sex workers and not the sex workers themselves. Still, it's difficult to really get it, because during my own performances, I was certainly experiencing myself as a full human being (and I wasn't feeling degraded or humiliated or bored. In fact, I was usually having a pretty good time. Otherwise, I would have been doing a different job.)
Also, because I worked in the industry, I saw other sex workers as people and not just performances. In one sense, it's true that I projected a "sexual persona" at work, but I simultaneously presented my "real self"--and I have a sneaking suspicion that a great many of the male customers I met in stripclubs were in fact more interested in the "real self" than in the persona.
Specifically, they were fascinated by the phenomenon of a “real girl” who was also willing/able/happy to project such a potent sexual persona. I think, in some way, that the interaction between dancer and customer goes a long way toward refuting the notion of the good girl/bad girl, madonna-whore dichotomy that has been so harmful to women in our society.
Should I shut up now? Yes I should.
Any thoughts? Jenny? Susan W? Nina D? Kat? Ev? CO? TOO? All the other smartypants chicks and guys who hang out here?
Hmm, all i have to say is i think the author says alot of SHIT. PTSD? maybe i went to war in my dreams!!!
Seriously, i meet alot of these guys with my current job and they are NOT like us.
Ya know, what is wrong with being who you are? People are leaders, and people are followers.
So no matter what a women does it's "slutty." Utter BULLSHIT imo. "Omg button you're blouse higher (crap talk) men will think you are a slut!"
Pamela
I just heard about this book recently, but I haven't read it.
A couple of points:
1) We wouldn't be in this profession if we didn't live in a culture that was sexually repressed, materialistic, and sexist. All of these combine to make stripping a viable career choice since for many of us it provides a better income than we could get otherwise.
2) Teenage girls are not emulating strippers. They are emulating the depiction of strippers they see projected by mass culture much like white boys in the suburbs emulate black kids in the city. Neither of these projections are "people."
I do not see how the projection of a stripper/pornstar/Pam Anderson persona is any more or less one-dimensional than the public persona of any other figure kids might choose to emulate. Kids are simple and they pick the coolest or most shocking image to copy. They are not going to start acting like Susan Sontag or Tom Frank.
Now, I am going to go buy this and I will report back with a book report once I know what I am actually talking about. It's really hard to call yourself a feminist and work in the sex industry as I'm sure many of us know; you have to deal with attacks and misconceptions from all directions. But I refuse to defend the plurality of fucked-up stereotype-confirming workers in the biz, so I will just say these stereotypes exist for a reason.
While I concede I haven't read Ms. Levy's book (and is it PC to call her Ms.?), I gotta rant on this.
What anti-sex feminists like Levy don't seem to understand is that women who work in the sex industry (or women in general outside elitist academic circles for that matter) are far more concerned with paying their rent, feeding their children, and making next semester's tuition than they are about what their chosen profession is apparently doing to the status of the female race.
Another thing that these feminists don't get is that the rise of the sex industry and its adoption by mainstream culture is a product of their own doing. When you give women the ability to have a choice between career and family, it means that for every woman who chooses "career", it means there's going to be one more lonely, anxious man out there without a significant other who is going to have to turn to sex workers to fulfill his needs. This means an increased demand for the services that sex workers provide. Its also a reason that the bulk of the money dancers make in strip clubs today is made by being a "hostess" to individual customers, and not by strutting around on stage being a "performer" to a group. Nic's comment about men being interested in her "real self" is right on the mark.
:thumbsup:
Of course the party line answer to this by people like Ms. Levy is never that men are creatures who have sexual needs that need to be fulfilled, and that women who choose to be sex workers are only taking advantage of an opportunity presented to them by circumstances that modern day feminism helped bring about. It's always that men are horny pigs and women only resort to doing this kind of work because our "patriarchal" society is holding women down from making money in mainstream jobs.
Again, I'll concede that I haven't read the book, but much like a lot of the blather that has preceded it, there seems to be a tint of misandry in Ms. Levy's "research", not to mention a lot of ignorance. The fact that she apparently only cited the commentary of sex workers when it was condusive to her agenda speaks volumes.
Thanks for the reply, Susan. :)
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Susan Wayward
I see your point. So in that sense, you agree with her?Quote:
2) Teenage girls are not emulating strippers. They are emulating the depiction of strippers they see projected by mass culture much like white boys in the suburbs emulate black kids in the city. Neither of these projections are "people."
lol. Wouldn't that be great though?Quote:
I do not see how the projection of a stripper/pornstar/Pam Anderson persona is any more or less one-dimensional than the public persona of any other figure kids might choose to emulate. Kids are simple and they pick the coolest or most shocking image to copy. They are not going to start acting like Susan Sontag or Tom Frank.
Part of my problem with the book is that she used all these anecdotes gathered from talking to teens at the mall. Perhaps if she'd gone to talk to kids who were hanging out in the library or the debate club, she'd have gotten a totally different perspective on teen's response to pop culture. (And honestly, reading these boards you're inclined to believe that it's the geeks in the library who are more likely to end up as strippers! ;))
My point is that you can gather anecdotal evidence to support anything. Hell, you can find statistics to support practically any argument. The book was in the "Social Science" section at Borders....but where the hell is the science in chatting with a few chicks at the mall?
Good. I'm very curious to hear your response.Quote:
Now, I am going to go buy this and I will report back with a book report once I know what I am actually talking about.
True. I tend to do it anyway, though. Just to be difficult, really.Quote:
It's really hard to call yourself a feminist and work in the sex industry as I'm sure many of us know
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "refusing to defend the plurality..." of those workers. Can you clarify?Quote:
But I refuse to defend the plurality of fucked-up stereotype-confirming workers in the biz, so I will just say these stereotypes exist for a reason.
Of course, I agree that the stereotypes exist for a reason. I think it's true that there is probably a higher incidence of childhood sexual abuse among women who work in the sex industry. But it's pretty outrageously high in the general population as well (I've read estimates around 33%). And it's always difficult to get accurate information about this. Is it possible that women in the sex industry are just more likely to report it?
Of course, we've all known our fair share of fucked up chicks in this biz. Some of us even were the fucked up chicks--at least for a while. (I know I wasn't entirely sane in my early 20s...)
As for PTSD, I believe those studies dealt primarily with street prostitutes, who, in addition to the sex work, had often suffered a lot of physical violence...So it's probably hard to sort out the effects of the violence from the effects of fucking for money. I don't disbelieve this study, because I myself experienced some of the symptoms of PTSD after a few particularly crazy years during which I worked not only as a dancer but also in other aspects of the sex industry. I don't think dancing itself was at all traumatic, though.
Interesting to note that nowhere does she say that prostitutes are considered cool, or that civilian women envy or emulate them. Interesting how that one sector of the sex industry is left out of the equation, when it is arguably the "purest" and certainly the most straightforward form of sexual commerce. Only the public performers in the sex industry are included in her vision of "raunch culture." Which makes sense, I suppose....
"The only thing women hate more than being a sex object is not being a sex object."
I thought I'd quote CO since you listed him first. ;)
For a woman who has not done her research or her homework, she sure has some strong opinions, don't you think? It's painfully obvious that this book wrote itself in the proposal and pitch stage, though. That's why she didn't need to actually talk to any sex industry workers. Who cares what they think? ::)
Books like this are written entirely on the basis of potential sales. I can hear the pitch meeting to the editor in my head. "Middle-aged women, angry and alienated from popular culture and unhappy with their daughters' rejection of their own beliefs will eat this book up. They account for almost all impulse buys in bookstores, and over 60% of the market itself." Sold.
From your description, it sounds like this woman needs to go back and learn something about the women's movement itself. One key cry in The Feminine Mystique was that women had no power over their sexuality -- it was controlled -- and suppressed -- entirely by men. A forceful component of the women's movement was women taking back their own sexual power. Camille Paglia has understood and embraced this perhaps like no other modern commentator. Her view is that hand-wringing books like this are an insult to female sexuality and power. She's right.
I haven't read the book but I read an extended review with commentary (cover story of the latest "Macleans", which is like a Canadian version of Time magazine). I can't say that I found the gist of Levy's thesis particularly compelling. She seems to be complaining of women "fetishizing masculinity in the sense that maleness in this equation means smart, funny, capable, brave, sexually adventurous, all of that." When do women who want to be these things explicitly say "oh, I wish I were a man so I could embody these characteristics"? It's a ridiculous straw-man argument. I'm fairly certain that Western cultural traditions of the last three thousand years may have something to do with her assumed premise 'to be all these successful things is to be male'. Of course she can't come right out and say it like that, but then, what is she saying? Levy seems more determined to outline the scandal of young women trying to look "fuckable, even when they're not legally or inclined to be".
I can't deny she raises some interesting questions, but I can't quite see what big picture she is trying to project that has not be raised over and over by ph.D. educated feminists for the last forty years. In the article she doesn't mention strippers in and of themselves (she mostly points to the contemporary culture that seems to 'glorify' them-- this alone is questionable, I might add).
All she says about stripping directly is that "it is above all a commercial transaction." So? Ok, so I confess I should read the whole thing more indepth instead of the abbreviated version (speaking of straw-man), but for a final comment--
Concerning the passage mentioned above where she claims 'strippers are not people': first off, that's about as much of an argument as being vegetarian because animals are people or not engaging in abortion because fetuses are people. These are not bad arguments, but notice how vague they seem when the terms are undefined? (see Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation" for a full version of how the first example is actually a very sound and compelling argument). Furthermore, when she goes on to say that the silent performances are the only capacity we see these women-- well, ballerinas are silent too...not to mention, I have yet to meet a customer who doesn't appreciate at least a little small talk. And if we were not interested in the 'humanity' of porn stars, why would Jenna Jameson's book become such a bestselling phenom in the first place?
Thanks so much for your comments, my friends. :)
Before I answer specific points, though, let me just clarify:
Levy's beef is not really with sex workers, the sex industry itself or the male consumers thereof. It's with women (outside the industry) who embrace the images presented by sex industry and indulge in traditionally "male" sexual behavior (i.e. engaging in sexual encounters primarily as a "conquest.") These are her "female chauvinist pigs" of the title.
Of course, this does imply that the male behavior the women are supposedly mimicking is pretty reprehensible.
I have to say that I felt sort of left out of her definition of "women" (since she really was exclusively discussing (and berating) women who are not in the industry.) Maybe that was my problem with the book. She missed the opportunity to see me as human. She could have granted me some humanity, but she failed to do so.
She talked about "women" as if this group only included women who do not work in the sex industry. As if I and my colleagues are some separate entity apart from "women." A little disconcerting.
more later....
I think the thing to remember though is that she's not referring at all to what you're experiencing on stage, but rather what people see- the character you're playing, who is not a real person.Quote:
The rational part of me tries to ignore my emotional response and really listen to what she's saying. I understand that she's talking only about the product that is produced by sex workers and not the sex workers themselves. Still, it's difficult to really get it, because during my own performances, I was certainly experiencing myself as a full human being
It's a pretty good point. Certainly, anyone who didn't know me would have a completely different view of what my life must be like when they saw me at work, vs. reality. And they might want ot emulate the conclusions they draw, which would circle back to what it seems the author's point is.
You see it in dancers even (most noticeable in newbies)- they want to live the 'stripper life', whatever that is. ::)
I haven't read the book, but I think I could agree with her. I really dislike the mainstreaming of stripper culture.
so trueQuote:
Originally Posted by Susan Wayward
It's all about IMAGE. This is NO different than society's attitude toward actors and sports stars, objectifying them into non-humans by their products. How many movies have uplifting themes that kids can relate to? Look at who gets interviewed on TVs talk shows at night, actors or performers hawking their wares. They have names that the illiterati instantly recognize, but just how much can they say and captivate the audience? (I'd rather watch someone with an occasional thought that stimulates mine.) Porn actors and erotic dancers may appear less frequently on TV talk shows and news magazines because their trade is below the average level or "morality" perceived by the networks and the FCC, but, besides their overt sexuality, they in essence are no differently treated by society as empty persons who are known only by what they sell.
As for dancers and everything else, the media only shows what sells. Writers of stereotype characters do pretty much the same thing.
As for shallowness of personality, it is only what is sold - just as we want desserts and comic strips. For entertainment. A more useful and satisfying look at society's treatment of young girls and women is found in "Raising Ophelia."
You're right about that, Scarlett. Although, as I said, I never really did feel that I was playing a "character" at work. I was presenting an exaggerated version of my sexuality, but it was still what I perceived to be "my" sexuality.Quote:
Originally Posted by scarlett_vancouver
Also, I think there's something sort of profound about experiencing yourself as a subject while being perceived by others as an object. It teaches you things that other people don't know. This experience and the knowledge it brings (both of which are familiar, I think, to any member of a stigmatized subculture) could have informed Levy's thesis, if she'd been open to hearing about it.
Oh. I must buy. I might even be able to read it, like next summer. (Just a side bar, when I was working an office job I would frequently read 1 non fiction and 2 or 3 fictions books every week. Not having time to read feels like some kind of violation of my human rights)
I really like your approach to the book. I do think (and it's nice to see that maybe I'm not alone in this) that there is an inherent tension between feminism and sex work (as well as other things, like feminism and house wivery). I also think that even within the model of the "empowered sex worker" there is some inherent tension between labelling a woman's right to sell a sex product and the consumer's right to buy. Actually, I thought that recognizing, even implicitly, these tensions was what made Burana's book so compelling.
Not talking to actual strippers does seem like a huge omission. However, I still think it may not be a critical one. If one accepts that a) (as you pointed out) strippers themselves are not primarily what the book is about and b) that, frequently, (and everyone is going to hate me for this one, but...) sometimes subjects are not truly aware of their own oppression (either in the personal or political/social sense). Women in Kenya (and please keep in mind that this analogy is only to clearly illustrate that people can be unaware of their own oppression, and not to analogize the actual oppression) frequently didn't see brutal female genital mutiliation as oppressive. But any reasonable person, with any personal distance can see that it is. That being said, the fact that perhaps the omission isn't critical doesn't mean that it is not kind of a big deal.
Also, it is particularly interesting and almost bizarrely reflexive that she is engaging, by act or omission, in the very behaviour that she is comdemning in others - i.e. the dehumanization of sex workers, specifically by member of the same sex.
Other aspects - saying that the product of the sex trade, which is, in effect the sex trade worker has no humanity is tricky. I mean, obviously she does. Note all the dimensions that the authors casts her with - trauma disorder, poverty, etc. And I don't know if the fact that those aspects (or others) aren't always available or visible, in itself, renders her one-dimensional in essence.
Now to approach it in a more personal, "humanized" way: we have all, at one time or another, indeed, frequently on this board participated in conversation and debate about what men are looking for in strip clubs. The answer, as we've come to it so far, is "a lot of things." But some of them ("fun", "company") seem (to us) more benign than others ("sex", "a momma for my children") and some seem even less benign than these (on the blue side a conversation between Ev and MW revealed, I think what is the most sinister and unpleasant of these). But all of them, when you strip away the pleasantries, and the sort of human to human interaction to normalizes it, seem skewed and potentially unpleasant. Socially, is it "damaging", or is it simply "telling" (and, if so, what does it tell?) when heterosexual women start coming in looking for, obviously, only some of these things? What does it mean when the heterosexual woman who has - let's not say none, but a very different, and... limited sexual response to the dancer is buying dances? To which purpose is she looking? It's unlikely to be the "fun" or the "sex" (which are somewhat intermingled) and I'm pretty sure that even the "company" is entwined in those two somewhere. I would be very interested in your take on that.
Maybe she's only implying that the behavior is male.:-\Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolina
I'm sure you've bumped into reproductive theory a few times in your studies, Nicolina, along with concepts of energy expenditure associated with sperm and egg and the behaviors that develop through the evolutionary process as a result of those expenditures associated with use of each of our respective tickets into the next generation.
Hell, I think the "sperm is cheap, go ahead have some" vs. the "you're not getting your sperm on my egg until you buy me a nice refrigerator" is the primary reason that something such as strip clubs and these other lesser fabrications can exist to begin with.
lol Silverback. As a biologist who is primarily interested in evolutionary and behavioral ecology, I tend to think that all male-female interaction is driven by the simple undeniable fact that sperm is cheap and eggs are expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverback
And now, let me just say: Yay, Jenny! Thank you. I knew you'd have lots of interesting stuff to say about this, and I also knew that you might be a little more inclined to agree with the author's thesis than I am.
I'm going to work on a response to some of your points now. (And then I reallyhave to get some work done!!!!)
Well then, Grasshopper, you've snatched the pebble from my hand. I can teach you nothing more. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolina
Haven't read the book yet. I'm gonna get on that.
But... it seems to me that flaming "civilians" who bring stripper culture to the streets can be nothing but beneficial to actual sex workers. I mean, when it's your job to dress up and pretend to be a one-dimensional female archetype, you usually know where the line is between your walking life and your work persona. Maybe the author is saying that the civilian girls in the mall do not make that same distinction, and that's where the danger lies. The boys will adjust themselves accordingly. And if men stop making the distinction between women on the street and "fantasy women"... well fuck, we're all out of a job.
At the same time, I think civilian women who go into a strip club because they're curious about what goes on there should be applauded. It's a pretty brave step to cross that line between "us" and "them" and try to understand the whole thing. Of course, we all know that's not why every female customer is actually in the strip club. But a lot of them are trying to undo some of that girl's locker room brainwashing that made everyone switch bras under their shirt in junior high. I think that counts for some kind of step in the right direction.
I feel like a dick talking about some book I didn't read though, so I'm going to shut up.
Oh, c'mon. You can at least skim it, as I did, and see what you think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenny
I know it. That's actually one of the things I liked most about dancing--I'd often go on reading benders where all I did with my free time was read and write. Whatever I felt like reading; nobody telling me what to read. That's one of my major complaints about school....Quote:
(Just a side bar, when I was working an office job I would frequently read 1 non fiction and 2 or 3 fictions books every week. Not having time to read feels like some kind of violation of my human rights)
I will tentatively agree with you here....though I might argue that a woman should have "the right" to choose sex work or (especially) housewifery, without being made to feel that her personal decisions have somehow injured 'The Sisterhood.' (Hell, in addition to giving a great tabledance, I cook, bake and even knit :O I'm a lousy housekeeper, but I have great kid mojo--in other words, I'd make a pretty mean housewife, and I don't think I'd find that work boring, demeaning, or degrading, any more than I found stripping to be such.)Quote:
I do think (and it's nice to see that maybe I'm not alone in this) that there is an inherent tension between feminism and sex work (as well as other things, like feminism and house wivery). I also think that even within the model of the "empowered sex worker" there is some inherent tension between labelling a woman's right to sell a sex product and the consumer's right to buy. Actually, I thought that recognizing, even implicitly, these tensions was what made Burana's book so compelling.
Okay, I will somewhat grudgingly give you this. Most people are not terribly self-aware. Still, I think you're treading on somewhat dangerous ground here. It is too easy to enter into territory where you yourself, by questioning the "awareness" of the "oppressed" group, are patronizing, condescending, and dismissing the experiences of the group in question, based only on your own arrogant belief that you know better than the poor slobs you are considering. I saw this in reading Catherine MacKinnon, who argued that women are so profoundly victimized that we are incapable of recognizing our own victimization. I just feel that this so profoundly disempowers women that I cannot get behind it. It's on par with Freud deciding that the women he treated had only imagined the sexual abuse they described to him--How the fuck did he know?!Quote:
frequently, (and everyone is going to hate me for this one, but...) sometimes subjects are not truly aware of their own oppression (either in the personal or political/social sense). Women in Kenya (and please keep in mind that this analogy is only to clearly illustrate that people can be unaware of their own oppression, and not to analogize the actual oppression) frequently didn't see brutal female genital mutiliation as oppressive. But any reasonable person, with any personal distance can see that it is.
I think most feminist thinkers would agree that experience should inform theory. So just be careful when you make judgements regarding the level of self-awareness in an "oppressed" or "victimized" group.
I think Levy actually uses this to her advantage. She often quotes women who appear to be saying one thing, but then reveal that they actually feel differently about the subject they are discussing. For example, she speaks to a trio of female friends in their early twenties. They are "obsessed" with strippers and/or porn stars. One of them says that she had the urge to dance around the subway pole the other day. ::) The author describes her as a hot young chick who dresses fairly provocatively and enjoys the attention it brings. The girl says, "Myself, I could never be a stripper, but [I appreciate the attention I get when I dress up to go out because] maybe you get to feel like a stripper." When the author suggests that maybe there are some reasons why a woman wouldn't want to "feel like a stripper" citing some of the negative aspects of the job (as she perceives them), she says the girl "snaps" at her, saying, "I can't feel sorry for these women. I think they're asking for it."
I'm not exactly sure what the girl meant by that statement, but I'm pretty sure the author highlighted that charged catchphrase "asking for it" to show the level of ambivalence and lack of self-awareness many women reveal when discussing their feelings about the sex industry and sex workers.
THANK YOU!!!! OMG, I could not have said that better myself. That's exactly what I was getting at.Quote:
Also, it is particularly interesting and almost bizarrely reflexive that she is engaging, by act or omission, in the very behaviour that she is comdemning in others - i.e. the dehumanization of sex workers, specifically by member of the same sex.
Right. This all reminds me of the essay, "All the women are white and all the blacks are men, but some of us are brave." Are you familiar with this one? It may be by bell hooks, but I'm not sure. It affected my thinking a lot when I first encountered it. The writer points out that when people talk about oppressed groups, they often mention "blacks" and "women", as if the two categories are mutually exclusive. I just like to keep that in mind when I have these discussions.Quote:
Other aspects - saying that the product of the sex trade, which is, in effect the sex trade worker has no humanity is tricky. I mean, obviously she does. Note all the dimensions that the authors casts her with - trauma disorder, poverty, etc. And I don't know if the fact that those aspects (or others) aren't always available or visible, in itself, renders her one-dimensional in essence.
I'm honestly not sure what the women who come to clubs are looking for. Levy seems to portray them as often feeling an underlying contempt for the women who work in the clubs. Based on my own personal experience, I'm inclined to agree that that is sometimes the case. But not always. A lot of it is curiosity, and a kind of acceptance of a perceived "dare."....Let me think on this one a little, and post more later....Quote:
we have all...participated in conversation and debate about what men are looking for in strip clubs. ....all of them, when you strip away the pleasantries, and the sort of human to human interaction to normalizes it, seem skewed and potentially unpleasant. Socially, is it "damaging", or is it simply "telling" (and, if so, what does it tell?) when heterosexual women start coming in looking for, obviously, only some of these things? What does it mean when the heterosexual woman who has - let's not say none, but a very different, and... limited sexual response to the dancer is buying dances? To which purpose is she looking? It's unlikely to be the "fun" or the "sex" (which are somewhat intermingled) and I'm pretty sure that even the "company" is entwined in those two somewhere. I would be very interested in your take on that.
-Nic
Well now, those are all very good points, red. Perhaps we should laud Levy rather than villify her. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by red red red
I tend to agree....Quote:
At the same time, I think civilian women who go into a strip club because they're curious about what goes on there should be applauded. It's a pretty brave step to cross that line between "us" and "them" and try to understand the whole thing. Of course, we all know that's not why every female customer is actually in the strip club. But a lot of them are trying to undo some of that girl's locker room brainwashing that made everyone switch bras under their shirt in junior high. I think that counts for some kind of step in the right direction.
Okay, I'll do my best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolina
I certainly think that a woman should have the choice. Hell, I'm still exercising my choice there. And I don't the the absence of that choice is what most people are looking for - I think, however, that you can argue against the construction of the world that each choice creates.Quote:
I will tentatively agree with you here....though I might argue that a woman should have "the right" to choose sex work or (especially) housewifery, without being made to feel that her personal decisions have somehow injured 'The Sisterhood.'
Hee. Me too. My dad thinks me knitting is somehow hilarious. I think I can say that I would find it both boring and demeaning, though - have you heard the quasi-proverb about the the alien who asks the waiter if he would be willing to work at his restaurant in exchange only for food and shelter, and the waiter says "No. Of course not. People must be paid, or they are mere slaves. Nobody would agree to work only for a bed and food." and the alien replies, "Oh, someone would."Quote:
(Hell, in addition to giving a great tabledance, I cook, bake and even knit :O I'm a lousy housekeeper, but I have great kid mojo--in other words, I'd make a pretty mean housewife, and I don't think I'd find that work boring, demeaning, or degrading, any more than I found stripping to be such.)
"Who?" asks the waiter, pitying this poor soul
"Your wife" replies the alien.
"But that's different," argues the waiter, "she has a roof over her head and..."
Absolutely - the is the other side of that argument, and I obviously agree and I can't imagine why I didn't address this side when I did the other. I must have thought it would have made my post too long. :) I think that assuming that in being a stripper you are an expert in stripping is fallacious for the reason mentioned above, and because, after all, being a woman doesn't make you a gynocologist, right? But, I would fully agree that, somewhere, the experience of the group - albeit not uniform or neat or tidy - does have to factor in and has to be legitimately considered. I wrote a sociology critique of two articles in a journal called deviant behaviour, back when I was an undergrad. I should look up references to them - they are about stripping, and I think they are hilarious.Quote:
Still, I think you're treading on somewhat dangerous ground here. It is too easy to enter into territory where you yourself, by questioning the "awareness" of the "oppressed" group, are patronizing, condescending, and dismissing the experiences of the group in question, based only on your own arrogant belief that you know better than the poor slobs you are considering.
This is one side (and I am not de-legitimzing it by pointing out the flip side, which is only equal and opposite) - but, of course, if we stripped it of generalities and latched it onto specific women, there are cases in which you would obviously agree. The abused woman who will tell you that the abuse is her own fault, for example. Except that when it happens on a social level, it is so pervasive that explaining its existence is like explaining water to fish. If you want the perfect example of that, go look (again) at the thread that discussed Andrea Dworkin's death.Quote:
I saw this in reading Catherine MacKinnon, who argued that women are so profoundly victimized that we are incapable of recognizing our own victimization. I just feel that this so profoundly disempowers women that I cannot get behind it. It's on par with Freud deciding that the women he treated had only imagined the sexual abuse they described to him--How the fuck did he know?!
Indeed, most thinkers would share this viewQuote:
I think most feminist thinkers would agree that experience should inform theory. So just be careful when you make judgements regarding the level of self-awareness in an "oppressed" or "victimized" group.
Oh, I have that urge everyday.Quote:
They are "obsessed" with strippers and/or porn stars. One of them says that she had the urge to dance around the subway pole the other day. ::)
Wow, we could start deconstructing that in so many places... seriously, doesn't that aspect stripper-chic just frighten you, though? Like I think we all know what she means by "feeling like a stripper" - but I think it really falls in the category of feelings like "feeling like a woman" - you don't feel like one, you either are, or you aren't. "Feeling like a stripper" obviously isn't "feeling" like anything.Quote:
"Myself, I could never be a stripper, but [I appreciate the attention I get when I dress up to go out because] maybe you get to feel like a stripper." When the author suggests that maybe there are some reasons why a woman wouldn't want to "feel like a stripper" citing some of the negative aspects of the job (as she perceives them), she says the girl "snaps" at her, saying, "I can't feel sorry for these women. I think they're asking for it."
I think you could actually further argue that her own unexamined reaction (which is hugely unlikely to be deliberate) makes her point better than her book itself. But I suppose I should read it before taking on an argument of that magnitude.Quote:
THANK YOU!!!! OMG, I could not have said that better myself. That's exactly what I was getting at.
I'm honestly not sure what the women who come to clubs are looking for. Levy seems to portray them as often feeling an underlying contempt for the women who work in the clubs. Based on my own personal experience, I'm inclined to agree that that is sometimes the case. But not always. A lot of it is curiosity, and a kind of acceptance of a perceived "dare."....Let me think on this one a little, and post more later....[/QUOTE]
By all means.
Really? IMHO, this is an excellent example of someone "not being able to see the forest for the trees," i.e., the whole point was to empower women such that they would have the freedom to make whatever choices they wanted... not to replace the limits imposed by a "male-dominated society" with a new and different set of limits concocted by a certain segment of the female population (in this case, the "panties perpetually in a wad" crew).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolina
Kind of like the bible-thumpers that seem to always be so damned "gung-ho" when it comes time for the U.S. to decide whether to engage in hostile action against one sort of "heathen" or another overseas... carry a Bible with them their whole, entire life, but miss the larger point entirely.
This is, obviously, not an accurate depiction either of the past or of the present. It is, first of all, setting up a dichotomy that doesn't actually exist. Feminism was about the equality of women (I'm not sure how people get the idea that it was in fact all about "choices"). In fact, the biggest feminist criticisms of the liberal feminism of the second wave was the fact that the "equality" that women were seeking was the equality of a certain class of, mainly, white women to a certain class of, mainly, white men and that women of other classes and other races were put by the wayside. For example - the women of Friedan's "Feminine Mystique" (which is in itself property situation and located) plan to go out to work, so who is going to look after the children and cooking now? Of couse - a poor woman, frequently of a different race. Now, seeing as that IS what our mother's and grandmother's marched on Washington for, how does that inform the current question?Quote:
Originally Posted by GnBeret
^Yes. That is, of course, an important point.
Children have been rather a sticking point in this whole issue of "liberation," haven't they? If a woman works outside the home, who does take care of the little ones?
There are four basic choices:
a) Don't have children. A perfectly valid choice, especially given the problem of overpopulation. However, as a biologist I tend to think that it's a tough thing to ask people to do--there's a powerful innate drive to get your genes into the next generation. In a sense, I believe that's the only "purpose" of every living creature on the planet.
b)Have children, go to work, and pay someone else to take care of them. Of course, you've got to be paying that person less than you yourself are making, or else what's the point? Which leads us to option...
c) Stay home and take care of the kids. When I said earlier that I wouldn't find housewifery boring or degrading, I was really referring to being a stay-at-home mom (I would be bored if my sole job were to take care of a house and a husband. Though there are plenty of interests that I'd pursue if I were married and unemployed; it's not like I picture myself watching TV and eating bonbons or something). But really, life with children is not boring. At times maddening, at times tedious, at times wonderful...but not really boring. Staying home and educating my kids would be a full time job that I would actually do in exchange for room and board. (In fact, there are quite a few jobs I can think of that I would love enough to do for room and board only if it were feasible....bird banding in Costa Rica, for instance. And I'm not the only one.) Again, that is taking into account the fact that staying home would allow me to pursue some of my own interests.
Let's face it: most work outside the home is not that fabulous. Yes, women should have equal opportunity to become doctors and lawyers and make a shitload of money and never see their kids if that's what they want to do. But is the "equal opportunity" to have a shit job that numbs your mind and barely covers childcare costs really what our mothers fought for? Frankly, if I were a Mom, I might rather stay home with the kids given that choice.
I don't think I'm really off-topic here, either. As doc alluded to in his post, most of the strippers I know are single moms. The sex industry offers flexible hours and enough money to pay the bills and the babysitter.
Do I think it's great that the sex industry is often the best career option for a single mom? Well, no, not really. But I think we have to accept the reality that it is--for the reasons that Susan mentioned earlier.
Then, of course, there's option (d): Dad stays home and takes care of the kids while Mom works. Also a perfectly good choice, though not a terribly common arrangement. Jenny, would you argue that it would be an equally bad choice for either parent to stay home? I mean, do you think that it is essential to personal fulfillment that a person have a job outside the home?
p.s. I can't believe you knit too!!! :O
(what're the odds--geeky feminist strippers who knit.../:O)