Guest post: Channel 4's 'Strippers' - the questions we should be asking

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

If Episode 1 of Channel 4’s Strippers is to be believed, lap dancing is a fun, sociable and empowering way to make some cash. But is it really as simple as that? The series has so far failed to challenge the facile assertions of those defending the industry, so I thought I’d have a go.

First off, what about the broader contexts in which women are entering lap dancing? Austerity policies have hit women the hardest, with unemployment rates for women rising in the past three years, but falling for men. Gender disparities in pay and existing caring responsibilities mean that many women face stark economic prospects – and this undoubtedly affects the employment decisions they make.

The series thus far has also ignored why the lap dancing industry is so gendered - women perform for men in the vast majority of clubs – and has completely failed to ask whether it has an impact upon male attitudes to women, or women’s status in society. In these dingily-lit booths - as in so many other aspects of our culture - women are valued only for their bodies, and judged on their sexual attractiveness to men. Male gratification is the sole aim: this must surely undermine efforts to achieve genuine equality between women and men.

Pretty much everyone interviewed on the show claims that it is women who hold power over the men they are dancing for. But what meaning can the ‘power’ of convincing a man to pay you to dance for him really have? The research we've done among women who have worked in the lap dancing industry consistently undermines the narrative of ‘empowerment’. Joanne, for example, told us: “I don’t think that topless dancing is empowering for women – it is empowering for men. And it’s not just sexual – these men like being in an environment where women give them lavish attention, laugh at their jokes, flirt with them and ultimately get their tits out for them. Women in the ‘normal’ world are not usually so biddable. The difficulty is that it feels empowering, because you feel that you have something the man wants.”

Another former dancer, Lucy, said: “The reality is that in the clubs, as in so much of life, the real power lies where the money is. The men have the money, and therefore the men have the power.”

Strippers gives a great deal of oxygen to the idea that the act of taking money from men is in and of itself empowering – that lap dancing is ‘easy money’, and these men are fools for parting with their cash. At the same time, there are clear indications that the industry is not as lucrative for dancers as its proponents would have us believe, something which OBJECT’s research backs up: lap dancers’ earnings normally come exclusively from private dances, in conditions where clubs deliberately book a high ratio of dancers to customers to fulfil a fantasy of women competing for their attention.

The dancers are self-employed, paying an up-front house fee to work, and mandatory costumes can be docked from their earnings. During their shift they may be subjected to fines for being late for their (unpaid) stints on the pole, and for other arbitrary transgressions. With these conditions, on some nights, dancers only break even – and can sometimes even find themselves at a loss. It’s unsurprising that there can, in some cases, be a pressure to provide sexual services. Perhaps the show should explore ‘who earns what’ within the industry: a comparison of the strippers’ earnings with those of club managers and owners would have undoubtedly been revealing.

Strippers implied that the occasions in which dancers are treated disrespectfully by punters (trying to touch the girls during dances, say, or asking, ‘Do strippers have feelings?’) are pretty rare. In fact, our research found that derogatory, dehumanising and abusive treatment towards performers by both punters and managers is horribly common; many women report frequent verbal or physical attacks during dances, and some use alcohol or drugs to cope.

Ultimately, Channel 4 talked to no-one without an interest in defending the lap dancing industry; in fact, it gave a level of publicity to the club featured which can’t be bought. During the first episode, young women were tweeting that it made them want to strip. The club’s response was "We are recruiting!! get in touch no experience required full training given".

Job done. Whatever its aspirations, ‘Strippers’ has failed to expose the reality of the industry. Worse, it’s fuelled the fantasy so essential to its ongoing exploitation of women.

[emcwill74]

I just skim-read that paper by Jay Levy, and maybe I missed it, but didn't see any figures showing that Sweden had seen an increase in VAW since criminalising the buying of sex.

[emcwill74]

I'm not sure whether you didn't feel my post was worthy of a response, but here are some facts for you sausage:

• Young men are not funding their higher education through stripping, I am not aware of anyone complaining that this is problematic for them;
  

• If a woman were to lose her stripping income and find it hard to meet the costs of being a student, she is eligible for student loans (which do not need to be repaid until a certain income threshold), in the same way the male students who are not stripping are;
  

• No woman is 'forced' [to quote you] to dance naked for the sexual gratification of clothed men. Full stop. Unless she is being trafficked/pimped and is frightened for her life.
  

Once again I will quote Moran, simply because it summarises everything I am trying to say and which you have ignored:

'If women are having to strip to get an education - in a way that male teenage students are really notably not - then that's a gigantic political issue, not a reason to keep strip clubs going...'

None of this is 'rhetoric'. And FWIW I find your dismissal of Buffy's arguments as 'Ivory Tower beliefs' somewhat insulting.

[Sausageeggbacon]

Just wanted to add two things and that will be me done.

Re religion well if partnering with them gets the results seems to be a real the ends justify the means. Not something I have ever believed in personally but if that floats peoples boats the nice thing about Britain is we are all entitled to our opinions.

And yes it does seem that we should not worry about the 3,000 dancers in higher education or the 10,000 women that lose their income after all the ends justifies the means. The fact it that this will go underground and then if women are forced to dance there is no protection for them because there is no regulations or laws. Doctrine is a wonderful thing if you can ignore all those that lose out because of it.

Out of this thread now unless factual issues occur.

[Sausageeggbacon]

Buffy interesting you bring up Sweden which has seen an increase in VAW due to the criminalisation (research by Jay Levy here) which everyone seems to ignore.

But Buffy you have an opinion which you are entitled to, I don't believe you are right more because the massive amount of women exploited in low paid work. In 2010 over 2m women were in jobs paying less than £7 an hour. I wonder how many worry about Ivory Tower beliefs? They are all seen as Objects, tiny cogs in a machine, coffee pourers, brooms and mops. If you want to talk about change stop worrying about 0.1% of the working population.

I don't want the status quo but I am adult enough to realise an overthrow won't happen it needs to be changed from the inside. And that one woman's opinion is just that. The theory you can deny women to empower women doesn't seem any more right to me than empowerment through independence seems right to some. I said I would only comment on striptease if people were using inaccurate factual claims rather than just rhetoric so at this point I will walk away.

[emcwill74]

I really don't like this argument that stripping has to be a good thing because it enables women to afford the costs of being a student, whereas otherwise they might not be able to afford this (with the subtext, if you don't support that you are holding women back from receiving education). Given there are clearly not as many jobs for men in the stripping industry (certainly not as strippers, and OK so the clubs need barmen and door staff, but those roles are also needed in non-strip clubs), then how about the men who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford to be a student? What are they doing? Why is it different for women?

And it's all very well saying the job gives women financial independence, but wouldn't it be better to campaign for women to get paid more fairly and obtain financial independence in a role where they are not required to be naked trying to obtain money, from clothed men who are the ones choosing if and to whom to part with money? When people say that the female strippers are empowered because they have some sort of sexual control over the silly men who are controlled by their desires, I disagree. How can the naked person competing with other naked people to receive money from the clothed people with the money have more power? It's nonsense. The man deciding which woman dances for him and how often and whether she has done well enough to warrant a tip is the one with all the power as long as she is doing it for the money.

Saying that ending stripping is bad because it makes women men's possessions means there is something very wrong with the world, not that stripping is therefore OK! It's like when people say it's OK to buy products made by exploited workers with no rights and poor working conditions abroad, because at least they have some income, whereas without that bad work, they'd have nothing. I'd argue it's better to buy fairtrade goods to incentivise better working conditions and campaign for improvements.

I'm quite surprised Sausage you should use a quote from Caitlin Moran to defend strippers/pro-strippers as feminists. Whilst I'm not saying Moran has any sort of final say as to what feminism is or isn't, she certainly isn't pro-stripping! In How to be a Woman she says, 'I can't believe that girls saying "Actually, I'm paying my university fees by stripping" is seen as seen as some kind of righteous, empowered, end-of-argument statement on the ultimate morality of these places. If women are having to strip to get an education - in a way that male teenage students are really notably not - then that's a gigantic political issue, not a reason to keep strip clubs going...presumably the fatter, plain ones have to do whatever it is all the male students are also doing to get degrees.'

[Sausageeggbacon]

Strange you use low wages as an argument when strippers make money that allows them to be independent and therefore have the ability to control their own lives a lot better than women working part time and reliant on their partner's money to support the children. The fact that more and more there are young middle class university students dancing so they start their working lives without debt and a financial base.

Anyone who works is seen as an object. Dies you think that McDonald's sees it's employees as people or as cogs in a machine. Throughout life everyone is seen as an object. Lets face it in the real world there are people you see as an object. The postman deliver's things, we don't really see them as a person unless we take time to know them they are just part of a mechanism to deliver things.

If we stop stripping we put more women as male possessions as until equal pay at the lower end of the employment structure. Families and relationships will be more what the religious patriarchy want, enemy of my enemy is all well and good but some women have become the enemy of both religion and feminism. To me that just doesn't sound right.

[Sausageeggbacon]

No, low wages are because the patriarchy want to keep us under foot which is why they (especially the religious types) don't like sexual freedom or sexual expression that earns money. Because they are less likely to be able to control us. Think, why is the religious right in America funding Stop Porn Culture? These are the ones who want us back in the kitchen producing kids and not thinking for ourselves which is why I find it strange that rad fems are busy aligning themselves with patriarchal beliefs.

[Sausageeggbacon]

No your right I am not a radical no would I wish to be. Strangely though the radicals seem to be hung up on sex and not worried about much else. I would rather see things around better wages for thousands of women at the bottom end of the scale than one or two at the top. I was hoping that you would see that the common ground areas are the places we should be working. So I will leave alone and basically if I ever comment on a stripping thread it will be because someone got their facts wrong or misrepresented the truth.

[FloraFox]

sausage for someone complaining about how others view your feminism, you've sure got a lot to say about how others should do feminism. First you say feminists should be campaigning against fines on dancers instead of campaigning to close clubs. Then you say Object are liars because of a few broken links on a website. Then you're claiming there are feminists repressing women and trying to get them back to the kitchen. Now you're saying it's my fault some women don't call themselves feminists because I don't agree with them about stripping

Frankly I couldn't care less whether you call yourself a feminist. I'm sure there are some things we would agree on as well as some we clearly don't. You can't call yourself a radical feminist if you support stripping though, it's not consistent with that school of feminism. You can call yourself another type of feminist depending on what school you are aligned with or just call yourself a feminist in general terms but not aligned with any one school of feminist thought.

You think stripping is feminist, I think it is a continuation of patriarchy. If you're telling me that expressing this viewpoint or campaigning against strip bars is alienating women from feminism, what do you think I should do about it? STFU? That's what it sounds like.

[OBJECT]

Thank you for bringing the broken link on our website to our attention. We have now removed it and improved the page.

[Sausageeggbacon]

Actually I really happy that the lie that was Lilith has finally died. In fact heard that the figures that were found over 12 years that rape was reduced in Camden may well be published in a book this year. Even better there are now 6 claims that of research that are not linked which look rather silly on the page but it will take another 7 months for that to sink in to Object.

Would say this thread does make clear that aspects of the feminist community do not accept women as feminists if they view some aspects especially the more sexually charged ones like stripping differently. Guess not matter how involved in FGM campaigns or Fair Trade where there is a need to ensure that women producing goods get the same treatment as men. Because I see the strippers as independent women making personal choices obviously then I am not a radical feminist. And perhaps when you asl why there are so many women who don't identify as feminists you might want to think about the alienation of those because we don't view some things the same as you.

[FloraFox]

Lindsey missing what point? Male gaze / entitlement does not exist because some women put themselves on display however I do realise it is sometimes easier to believe we are all living some free and idealistic life rather than face the reality that our lives are largely shaped by the structure of our society. I would suggest that the free society you believe in is a figment and we live in a society shaped by centuries of patriarchal tradition.

[LindseyLM]

Flora

I think you might be missing the point slightly. Your baseline is always that society views all women as nothing other than sex objects because there are instances where women, for want of a better phrase, put themselves on display.

However, I don't believe society does view women that way because of the choices of a few - in the same way it doesn't view all men as hooligans or all youth as criminals. A free society is more open to difference and consequently does not make the sweeping judgements you would suggest.

The society you are "not interested in" simply doesn't exist

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Amazing how sausage can complain about links being out of date, then complain about layout when the old links are removed! S/he's a funny one.

[FloraFox]

our voices are in conflict with other parts of feminism that seem to want to repress women and drive them back to the Kitchen

I have to assume you are simply being provocative with this because you couldn't be so stupid as to believe there are feminists who want to repress women and drive them back to the kitchen.

[Sausageeggbacon]

Well well well seems object suddenly jumped as now there is no mention of Lilith and 6 pieces that were dead links have the links removed because the article is not on the web. Seems this is the place to ask them rather than tell them direct.

Page looks strange now.

[Sausageeggbacon]

Flora Object have been informed at least 4 times in the last 6 months.... including on their facebook page which they deleted. That to me is pretty close to lying.

Some feminists don't think like you and have been campaigning for better conditions including unionisation. However our voices are in conflict with other parts of feminism that seem to want to repress women and drive them back to the Kitchen.