to think that burlesque is not 'empowering'

[bauhausfan]

...but just women having been brainwashed into thinking that being sexy (ie fitting into that male stereotype of frilly undies, sexual availability, coyness etc) is their choice when actually it is just brain washing by the patriarchy. Just like breast implants -'I'm doing it for myself' - well, no, you're not. You're doing it so you can feel happier because you now fit society's pre-conceived idea of sexy/attractive.

I feel really depressed by the number of intelligent women I know who are buying into this bullshit. If I'm going to celebrate feminine power, I'd rather it was through women who have worked their way into the top echelons of society - not someone called Kitty or Dita waving their baps around. I feel despair - what happened to the 70s feminist dream?

A few years ago my sister and I went to a 'pole fit' class at my gym - I did it because I wanted to see if I was any good (I wasn't) and thought that, being in a gym and all, the focus would be on fitness rather than sexiness.

We were told to wear shorts and a tight t-shirt (apparently bare skin is better for gripping the pole, fair enough) and high heels (because it gives better posture, oookkkkkaaaaay, if you say so).

At the end of the class (which to be fair was fun and a good workout) we were told we were going to 'a fun little activity which will make you feel sexy and give you some ideas to do with your other half'.

The next 15 minutes were spent pretending to take our clothes off to 'Lady Marmalade' complete with sexy poses including simulating running our fingers around our arseholes and then licking it.

Isen't Feminism giving women the choice to live the life the way they choose! No you might not like it, but its a choice they have made.

Whhhaaattt?! Never, that is terrible!
Pole is soooo hard and you need so much stamina and strength and skill.
Why besmirch that with a bum-finger-mime?!

No idea. No-one I know poles in heels, they need bare feet for grip.
Sounds like a bit of a mockery to me.

It seems to me a lot of this thread is about using feminism as a stick to beat some women just because some don't like their choices and conveniently blaming the patriarchy as an excuse to do it.

It's been said burlesque performers are nothing but brain washed automatons and fat goths, they've been compared to strippers and prostitutes.

If performers feel empowered then it's empowering and what's wrong with that? As has been pointed out not everything you do (like worming your cat) has to benefit all women.

By the way when I said 'licking it' I meant licking our finger not our arsehole! That would be in a 'Sexy Yoga' class (oooh, gap in the market - learn to become so flexible that you can lick your own genitals and wield power over your man with a sexy show for his eyes only).

YADNBU

[Still waiting for skol to explain her assertion that women cannot/should not hold power, because power is intrinsically male....]

As I see it: power in a patriarchal society is intrinsically male. We live in a patriarchal society. If women want power in a patriarchal society, at some level they must learn to think and act like a man. It comes to be about condoning, not challenging, the male power structure.

I agree somewhat luker

a lot of those in society are idiots who should be mostly ignored.
I don't read newspapers much anymore but for years worked in newspaper/magazine distribution and there are many, many more photos of women than men. It's odd really because womens mags are full of women and mens mags are full of women.
Maybe that says something about something? I'm not sure.

As for images of women specifically, the most popular one is the queens face and I'm certain that image isn't linked to sexuality.

When it comes down to it, the human race is driven by sex, literally the entire point of being is to have offspring. It's not really surprising that women are sexualised as ultimately thats what both men and women are here to do.
Is it 'right' in a more enlightened society that sex still sells? I'm not sure we're really that enlightened yet.

"If performers feel empowered then it's empowering"

That's not quite right is it.

To be empowered, means to gain actual power.

Dancing, no matter what style it is, doesn't gain you actual power unless you are good enough that you get lots of fame and money and stuff. And then it's the fame and the money that confer the actual power, not the dancing itself.

I think words are being misused aren't they?

If all the women in the world tomorrow downed tools and did some burlesque, they would not immediately gain large amounts of genuine power in the societies in which they live.

I find it interesting that most dancing is just dancing but dancing in a way associated primarily with being sexually appealing is described as "empowering".

dictionary:

"To give power or authority to; authorize, especially by legal or official means:
I empowered my agent to make the deal for me. The local ordinance empowers the board of health to close unsanitary restaurants.
2.
to enable or permit:
Wealth empowered him to live a comfortable life."

I would say that things which empower women and girls include things like reproductive control and health, equal access to the police/judicial etc processes, education, that sort of thing. Dancing, whether with clothes on or not, not so much. Although it might well be fun, of course, and make people feel happy and fit and confident.

Omni, no it isn't about gaining real power, have a look in a dictionary.

I am an Equal Opportunity Offended Person who hates strip shows whether they're:

(a) 'ironic' burlesque women for 'discerning and retro' women and men;
(b) traditional bump'n'grind girlies for men sucking up lager in depressing pubs;
(c) empowered lap dancers who complete a PhD while grinding their growlers in men's faces;
(c) cock-lick-opter men for screaming women;
(d) men for men,
(e) male-to-female performers for whatever the fuck audience wants to pay to see them.

But each to their own, as MN says. I wouldn't ban anything. It's a free world.

Oh, sometimes it's not, actually...

Dictionary - make (someone) stronger, more confident

"It's not really surprising that women are sexualised as ultimately thats what both men and women are here to do. "

Erm no, the sexualisation of the female form throughout the aeons has been for the benefit of heterosexual men.

Gay men and straight women also have preferences but those are not catered to in the mainstream media.

The idea that it is an inevitable consequence of attraction that the female form be sexualised and objectified all over the place (while the male form is not) is bafflingly illogical.

Someone on a thread recently about topless something or other said, well everyone likes looking at breasts! And, um, well no they don't. Lots and lots of people find male bodies sexually appealing, not female ones.

Good lord.

Of course "empower" means "to confer power" - that is what the word means!

I think there is a lot of fucking about with language going on with this.

lurker if that;s the same link, the definition covers conferring power and goes on to :

"[WITH OBJECT] Make (someone) stronger and more confident, especially in controlling their life and claiming their rights: movements to empower the poor"