Sometimes you’ve got to wonder what people are thinking when they decide to “help” someone else out. Elsewhere in the feminist blogsophere this week and last a conversation of sorts has been going on that centers around what a “feminist blogging community” can and should look like. (Literally hundreds of blog posts are kicking around on the subject, I’d recommend starting here.) That particular conversation is not something we are planning to weigh in on, FYI, because we are new and also because we doubt anyone is breathlessly awaiting our views on the matter.
But it’s gotten me thinking about why and when any of us are good allies to each other, across race/class or even across feminisms.
To take this into another context: Over in Ireland, a controversy has recently erupted over the use of burlesque dancers at a rape crisis center fundraiser. Specifically, a lot of people are asking whether it sends the right message to sell women as sex objects in service of an organization sorely needed because too much of society already thinks of women as sex objects. As sarah.of.a.lesser.god often says, Oy.
Now, whenever I talk about burlesque I tend to get into trouble with women who fear that I’m looking to steal their pasties and lipstick and force them to live a life of unshaved drudgery cranking out feminist pamphlets by mimeograph and distributing them on the quad. Which, well, that would be nice, if they were willing to consider for one second that in this current state of affairs, feminism might not be so concerned about the Right to Wear Fishnets, but I digress. My concern is more that this sort of defense, from the director of the rape crisis center, is gaining increasing currency:
We don’t exist to promote prudishness, I believe women are entitled to be sexual beings and feel comfortable in their sexuality.
Our femininity is not something we should be ashamed of.
Such a great choice I’ve got in this post-feminist age, readers. Either I swing my sadly inadequate tits onstage and cheer others who do so, or I’m a prude. And also ashamed of my femininity, whateverthefuck that is. Excellent.
I know that I’m supposed to be happy, as a feminist, every time a rape crisis center like this gets an infusion of cash, because such boons are not easily granted in a world where men are beginning to feel “discriminated against” because women tend to be very hard-line about rape being a shitty, shitty thing. (We’re such hypocrites, you see, because we don’t get up in arms about murder, according to these (male) critics.) I know that I’m supposed to rah rah for the sisterhood, and I know I’m supposed to say something like, “Well, at least men’s money is being put to good use by helping women.” I know that I am not supposed to criticize publicly, that I am supposed to consider all help to be good help, and that I should know that the revolution will be incremental.
But how can I cheer for my fake-eyelashed allies when they say I’m a prude because I don’t join them onstage? How can I feel they’ve liberated women by reifying the same old things we’re supposed to do to attract sexual attention? Are these people interested in women, per se, or are they interested in lucrative entertainment careers and exciting fun sex lives? I suspect it’s the latter, but the more I say, the less anyone is listening, it seems to me lately.
And thus, recently, I’ve just been keeping my mouth shut because I am going through a period of boring myself with my own pedantry. Furthermore, I should know by now what I’m getting into when I suggest these women are less than 2000% in line with my own view of how we will get to the revolution. I know with absolute certainty that every time I try to suggest to these women that their self-empowerment is, after all, just self-empowerment, these women will come back at me and bitch that all I’m doing is bringing them down, refusing to “support” them, whatever that means, making them choose their way out of feminism because we harpies are so fucking vicious, and that I sound like the religious right.
Of course, my silence makes me an ally to no one except myself. It is a self-preservation measure. It keeps me from having to engage with people and come to terms with them in a way that we all feel might further feminism. It is a lazy impulse I need to get out of.
But I am tired of having collaboration mean capitulation to these people, particularly where and when I suspect their object is not at all ending the patriarchy, but simply rearranging its terms so that (some) women can (sometimes) benefit from it. I know it’s judgment, but I guess if I insist that some things (like the exploitation of women) are indeed, wrong, I cannot vault myself out of judgment just because it is a dirty word these days.
And that means, I guess, that someday, somewhere, we are going to have to admit that certain kinds of alliances, with certain kinds of people, may just be impossible. I am fully ready to be humble, to admit when I am wrong, to accept that some things I write and say and do may make me into an asshole, that my good intentions cannot always govern the way people are allowed to interpret me. But are they? And if they aren’t, how is it in any way productive to engage them?
A burlesque show to benefit a rape crisis center is the most ‘unclear on the concept’ thing I have ever heard. Men (and non-feminists) already berate rape victims for dressing suggestively, wearing too much makeup, imbibing alcohol or otherwise ‘asking for it.’
I fail to see how it could possibly be empowering for rape victims to know that their means of financial benefit was a lusty, bawdy display of female sexuality. It’s one thing to appreciate burlesque for its own sake; it’s a whole other realm to use it to ameliorate the effects of a brutal sexual crime.
“Such a great choice I’ve got in this post-feminist age, readers. Either I swing my sadly inadequate tits onstage and cheer others who do so, or I’m a prude. And also ashamed of my femininity, whateverthefuck that is. Excellent.”
THIS
I will try to put together a more coherent comment in a minute.
“We don’t exist to promote prudishness, I believe women are entitled to be sexual beings and feel comfortable in their sexuality.
Our femininity is not something we should be ashamed of.”
>>>>PROLONGED INARTICULATE SCREAMING<<<<
@bluebears: Ha. Mind-meld, we haz it.
@sarah, if this shit is now coming out of the mouth of a director of a rape crisis center…its just, I feel so much hopelessness.
I truly believe that the bottom line is that using certain conventionally feminine methods to attract men is not empowering feminism. It may be believed to empower individual women (something that I feel is debatable) but I don’t see how it serves the movement overall. Is it just to disprove the myth of the conventional view of hairy-legged sagging-breasts feminists? And why is that myth, while a myth, what makes feminism so distasteful to other people? Because focusing on gender parity is too broad a subject to tackle for anti-feminists? I don’t have that answer, but a rape crisis center that thinks it can combat objectification and violence by having women present themselves in a manner that leads to objectification (perhaps self-objectification, but I fail to see how it stops at just one person viewing you in that light) feels squeamish to me.
Oy!
If those are the terms, I guess I choose my choice to be a big ol’ prudey mcprudesalot. Also, I don’t get burlesque.
Just a thought, methinks they should have had a drag show. The best burlesque I’ve ever seen was done by a queen. Having lovely men dance around with feather boas and nipple tassels might cause a little less anguish while still generating buzz and much needed cash.
I can definitely see why some people, many of whom may be survivors, wouldn’t want a burlesque show at a rape crisis center fundraiser, and at the first hint of anyone being uncomfortable with it (survivors, clients of center, etc) they should have pulled it. But I also think that it’s a little bit more complex than a burlesque show representing the objectification of women, which some argue is part of rape culture. But those participants in the burlesque show, many of whom may also be rape survivors, might say that performing in burlesque is the polar opposite of rape. It’s easy to mock the “choose my choice” school of feminism (and I on occasion do mock it), but there’s something to the idea that for consent to have any meaning, women’s sexual choices must be ratified and supported. We have to know what we are consenting TO, and that’s something that’s going to be different for every woman and may include activities that fall under “traditional feminine wiles.” I can well imagine someone arguing that contemporary burlesque represents a subversive reimagining of stereotypes of women as sexual objects (many employ irony and break many conventions of classical burlesque) and that this form of performance is a mode of therapeutic resistance, a reclaiming of ones sexuality, and not at all the same thing as being objectified. I totally understand if someone’s own sexuality doesn’t include those things and that there are not enough spaces and conversations and respect for the view that (for example, I realize this is just an example, burlesque is not empowering for rape survivors), but I don’t think it is 100% clear that burlesque sets the cause of a rape free world backwards. I’d like to hear from those of you who express frustration at there being nothing between “supporting” the objectification of women and prudishness, what a healthy sexual culture would look like, for women? Would it not include any sexy dancing?
I wonder if any of the essays in Yes Means Yes might have addressed this point with more clarity than me.
Hey JD: I knew you’d turn up. I’m not sure I understand the whole Yes Means Yes thing about a rape-free world, but I haven’t read the book, so I’m going to just say what I always say, which is that, in a patriarchy, women’s sexual “choices” are not wholly their own, and as long as they are not wholly their own, pretending they are only hurts women. I mean, I’m not arguing that the true guerilla feminist runs onstage and covers these ladies up. I am wondering if they are really allies, though, mostly because they seem to deny, almost wholly, that they are following established patterns of behaviour.
As for “not at all the same thing as being objectified,” last time I checked, the object had very little say over whether or not s/he was being objectified, no? It’s not something we can choose our way out of.
A healthy sexual culture, to me, would be one that does not ape prior male-centric definitions of sexuality and say that capitulation = choice. A healthy sexual culture would probably not involve lipstick and high heels. A healthy sexual culture would not involve people who, when they deny that high heels are necessarily sexy, are told they are “prudes.”
Beautifully said. Thank you.
And as for not being allies, I have to say I hope that’s not the case!
It seems like you are saying something like, sexuality that apes the sexuality of times yore (“established patterns of behavior”). But it’s not clear what kind of sexual expression would be acceptable from a feminist standpoint. A new kind of sex? Sexual techniques developed in the last 15 years? And doesn’t context matter? Doesn’t it matter that the burlesque dancers are probably lesbians, dancing for a lesbian audience, to tunes and in ways they never would have been permitted to in times past, in order to raise money for a rape crisis center? Doesn’t that sexy dance mean something different than that of an exotic dancer who is trafficked from Europe to the US in the forties to dance, against her will, and to no one’s benefit but the man’s? Don’t those dances have different meanings, even if the form bears something in common?
I know that as a feminist you don’t want sexuality to be repressed or suppressed or shamed. Is there a kind of female sexuality that is defacto feminist, if “traditional” forms of female sexuality are defacto suspect? If patriarchy is everywhere, how do we know that burlesque dancing is worse for the state of women than whatever kind of sex another feminist is having at home?
obviously only like two of those sentences would be recognized as sentences in a grammar class, you’ll just have to muddle through.
j.d.regent, thank you! I agree that having a burlesque dancer headline a rape event is setting up an extremely volatile situation. Look how much discussion it’s sparked! However -
I am both a feminist and a burlesque dancer, and though the author of this post may disagree, I would like to expound on the incredibly empowering movement that is modern burlesque. I’d also like to first differentiate between mainstream burlesque, such as that stuff being performed in, say, Vegas, versus the more underground kind that exists in most major cities. The burlesque I am talking about is local and relatively underground.
As a woman who has suffered abuse at the hands of men and a lifetime of eating disorders, burlesque has been the single most therapeutic thing for me. I know I sound like a broken record when I stress that burlesque is about harnessing and reclaiming your own sexuality, but that is truly at the heart of this type of performing. Burlesque, while it can include taking off clothes, is NOT stripping. It’s not even in the same realm as stripping. The women I dance with, women of all races and backgrounds, have ranged in age from 18 to 72. They have ranged in height from 4 feet tall to well over 6. They have ranged in weight from under 100 pounds to over 300. Putting such a diverse group of women on stage together and allowing them to own their bodies in such a public forum is an incredible opportunity that simply does not exist outside of burlesque. Never have I heard the sentiment from my fellow dancing sisters that women who do not want to partake in burlesque are “prude” and to suggest that that sentiment is a part of our movement is simply untrue.
You say it’s not about women’s empowerment, but self-empowerment. I just disagree. When I think back to the first time I saw a burlesque troupe onstage, I can remember how taken I was with the concept that any woman who wanted to could get on stage and own herself, as a whole person. The fact that a woman could get onstage and express to the world that she – as a whole person, strengths, vulnerabilities and all – is valuable, despite stereotypes and despite rules given by men and by the media, is revolutionary.
In the article on Ireland, the burlesque performer notes that 60% of her audience is female. At the shows I’ve been to and performed, that number has been more like 70, sometimes 80 percent. I would never say that women who don’t attend these shows, women who don’t want to dance burlesque are prude or don’t own their sexuality. But be open minded enough to see that burlesque can be, and in my experience often is, feminist. It’s not just about exciting sex lives. The women I dance with do not get paid. And we are breaking the norms of what we’ve been told is sexy.
Like regent says above, what’s a feminist world look like? Is it full of women who are afraid to show off their bodies because someone’s told them they aren’t good enough? Is it full of women who will never shake their asses because traditionally men have found that to be sexy? For me, my feminist life includes ass shaking for ass shaking’s sake, and doing it with all kinds of women who like to shake theirs, too.
@JD: I’m not sure I’m saying what you’re hearing, so let me try to clarify: I am not saying there is some obvious form of sexual expression that is without patriarchy-reifying implications. I am saying that I’d like to hear less blank assertions that there are not any patriarchy-reifying consequences to this behaviour. I am saying that I think the feminist act is to always be alive to patriarchal consequences. Does that mean we will have to outlaw burlesque, or “fun” itself? Not particularly.
Moreover, I’m not saying burlesque is “worse” than some other form of sexual expression, because as you point out that would not mean much. It tends to be a site that is easy to talk about though, precisely because it seems to carry as a badge of honour a rejection of any critique of the patriarchal implications of the work.
@laverge: When I say that the act is only self-empowering, I mean as distinguished from something that will help all women, regardless of their particular interest in this particular manifestation of this culture of sexuality. I could be wrong, I guess, but I’m not aware of burlesque acts asking their audience to check the patriarchy at the door.
And as for breaking the norms of what is sexy, I am genuinely curious: how is this true? if you mean that the women are not universally skinny, well, sure, but the way they gain the sexual admiration of others is still through the usual tropes: fishnets, etc. It’s not, to my mind, particularly mold-breaking.
And the fact that you ask me to be “open-minded” is exactly the problem I’m talking about. I am open-minded, but because I disagree with you about the effect of burlesque culture, you think it’s okay to tell me it’s closed-minded. That’s a silencing technique that I see burlesque dancers using all the time.
Yeah I suppose I was responding to the underlying critique of a burlesque show at a rape crisis center fundraiser (typical burlesque defender!) instead of your actual point that other feminists give you shit for disagreeing with them. Sorry for piling on.
“But I am tired of having collaboration mean capitulation to these people, particularly where and when I suspect their object is not at all ending the patriarchy, but simply rearranging its terms so that (some) women can (sometimes) benefit from it. I know it’s judgment, but I guess if I insist that some things (like the exploitation of women) are indeed, wrong, I cannot vault myself out of judgment just because it is a dirty word these days.”
THIS. Now if you could explain why I’ve come to hate the word choice so much in the last 6 months, I’d be greatly obliged.
I can’t believe I missed this…anyway, I’m always troubled by discussions of burlesque because today, “burlesque” = “ladies in their scanties,” which takes into account only about a quarter of what was actually going on, historically speaking. I think a very small percentage of the neo-burlesque stuff I’ve seen (and I’m talking downtown/basement venues, though I’m not really a fan) is trying to deal overtly with gender roles and social criticism, but most of it–what I think of as the Dita von Teese variety–is simply wishful thinking about the power of nipple tassles.
The goal “to be sexy” is, to my mind, decidedly not a feminist one, and just because those “being sexy” are of different body types, ages, races, abilities, etc., doesn’t make it any more so. Huzzah, now we can all be ogled equally!
I should add that “to be sexy” and “to be a sexual or sensual person” are not the same.
I see the points that are being made here, and I understand the reaction to my “be open-minded” remark. It was not my intent to silence your critique. Given my background and my experience with dancing and how it has moved me forward (as a feminist), it is easy for me to jump to the conclusion that many people in critique of the activity simply don’t have much or the same kind of exposure. PhDork, you comment briefly on the underground Burlesque which overtly deals with gender roles, etc – this is the kind of dancing that I am dealing with.
I tried to make clear previously that being sexy, for me, is not what (this kind of) burlesque dancing is about. Do I feel sexy when I do it? Yes. But they sexiness I feel is rooted in the confidence I am able to conjure up in spite of everything I’ve been socialized to believe about the value of a woman. Burlesque dancing – again, for me – is about being valuable and worthy, the sexiness being a part of that.
As far as the main part of the argument – because you and I are fundamentally in disagreement about this matter, would you agree that we are still both feminists? Generally, I wholeheartedly support the content of this blog (as well as feministing, etc.). This seems to be the only issue I’ve really differed on. Does that put me in a “different camp”? A camp with which you are unable to make an “alliance” with? Ah. The complications of social movements..
actually PhD that is the best, simplest and easiest to grasp argument I have heard on this topic generally: your position is that being sexy or trying to be sexy is unfeminist. That is actually much easier to wrap my head around. Thanks. I’ll consider it!
“The goal “to be sexy” is, to my mind, decidedly not a feminist one, and just because those “being sexy” are of different body types, ages, races, abilities, etc., doesn’t make it any more so. Huzzah, now we can all be ogled equally!”
PhD, that completely encapsulated what I am too dense to put into words. Thank you.
P.Soul, I forgot to say that these may be the two best sentences anyone has ever written. “Mimeograph”? I love you.
Hey if you want to watch Burlesque and appreciate the bodies and the dancing and all that, go for it. But I can’t personally accept the assertion by some that it’s “empowering” for all women, it might be a thrill and a personal achievement for that person dancing, and a personal acceptance of a lifelong hatred of that person’s body (brought on by advertising and patriarchal culture throughout history) but don’t lump me into it. As someone said on some blog I was reading, women didn’t get the vote for “being sexy”, girls didn’t benefit from Title IX for “being sexy”, and we won’t move forward in the issues and the struggles that we want in the future by “being sexy”. So hey, “be sexy” all you want. I enjoy it too, but I don’t feel the need to constantly rub it in others faces publicly, I like to save it for my private life, and be taken seriously in public.
I definitely appreciate that sexy isn’t the same as feminist, maybe it’s opposite (still mulling that one over) but I still do have…reactions to the idea that sexuality should be “private” and that to be sexy means not being taken seriously.
I am not sure if you can hear me clearly from your ivory towers – But I am the despicable woman of whom you speak. Today I left Belfast Crown Court A case involving 3 survivors of horrendous sexual abuse. The oldest made her first report to the RUC and Social Services before the youngest was born. Why is this getting to court after all of these years LET ME F*****G TELL YOU WHY Because the REUC and Social Services covered up for a peadophile who was from a republican family and was giving information to the Special Branch. The rights of women and children meant nothing in the dirty war being fought between the British government and the republican movement. The movement who claimed to protect this community (with a few notable and brave exceptions) also tried to silence them. I have worked in this godforsaken country for over twenty years with survivors who have been gang raped at gun-point with both legally and illegally held weapons, our counsellors have put their lives in danger speaking out against the state and the paramilitaries. WE FOUGHT AND WON THE BATTLE TO CLOSE LAP-DANCING CLUBS IN OUR TOWN WHICH WERE SELLING EASTERN EUROPEAN WOMEN How clean is your town? When did you last lie down on the road outside a court to protest? Have you done 3 days in Magaberry prison (Thanks to Ailish Carroll OC of the republican wing for all your support – you were wonderful and supportive and I will forever be frateful to you all)
DON’T talk to me about Burlesque setting the dtruggle back – talk to me about reality – women and children being raped and abused, the lack of justice in our courts, women who work in rape crisis centres putting their work before their partners, their children I have done it for over 20 years. What planet are you on ? Feminism is not some theory it IS HOW YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE! Well for too long we have fallen in with the patriarchal rhetoric giving out stupid “safety” advice – get taxis, watch your drink BLAH BLAH Well ENOUGH Fucking dance naked in the moonlight and snort coke IT IS NOT AN INVITATION TO RAPE Not only should our FREEDOM not be curtailed our PLEASURES should not be curtailed For the record I am a heterosexual mother of seven kids, grandmother of three, white, Irish, Protestant FEMINIST who is not aploogisng any more It was my colleague a GAY, mother of two and Granny of five who convinced ME that our decision to accept Amber’s generous offer was right. (BTW we were offered two thousand pounds today by Escort magazine to sponsor the event and said NO ) Before I go can I just ask your permission to come tonight if I decide to fuck my husband I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE SEEN AS A TRAITOR TO THE CAUSE
I have just realised given the times shown that you are probably an American I REST MY CASE get out and protest about about what your country is doing in IRAQ and trust us thich Paddys to work out ourselves how to fight our own struggle against the evils of Patriarchy HOW DARE YOU Apologies for spelling and grammar mistakes – one broken finger and 3 glasses of wine Slainte and Happy St Patrick’s Day to all you wonderful American Feminists – (I will bet you are white middle class and have a college education)
Our middle-class whiteness negates the critique of the burlesque? Oh why do I even bother.
@Eileen:
Wow! So to recap: you’re drunk, cussing, flinging class hatred and spewing anti-American vitriol.
Way to represent your organization! You do feminism proud!
Erin go bragh!
For the record I am a bisexual mother of none, half-Jewish, part-Native American FEMINIST without a college degree who is also not apologizing any more.
Eileen: Not sure how or why you managed to find us but to start off, no, I’m not American. I’m Canadian. Trust me, I protested against the Iraq invasion.
Second of all, I get it, you’re fighting the good fight and here we mean old feminists come in and overrule your good gay friend who said that using burlesque to fundraise was totes OK! (I knew I should not have voted for her in the last Appointed Representative of Feminism election, dammit!) And what a powerful medium we chose, too: *gasp* writing something mildly critical on our low-end obscure feminist blog!
But most of all: if you don’t care whether you’re seen as a traitor to the cause, I am utterly baffled as to why you would bother to post here.
Also, laverge, just saw your comment: I think we can be allies, but only if the burlesque movement quits acting like it is the end-all and be-all of female sexual empowerment and stops completely overreacting like our friend Eileen here when I wryly remark that I do not think I am repressed simply because I don’t wish to join them.
You deliberately misrepresented what was said – “We do not exist to promote prudishness” does not translate into “anyone who does not want to watch or dance burlesque is a prude” You did not answer my questions How many lap-dancing clubs exist in the big apple and what have YOU done to close them? When was the last time you protested? What form did that protest take? What have you done for the last 25 years in the war against patriarchy and sexual violence? What have you done to support survivors? How long have you served in prison? How many laws have you managed to change? I am not Anti-American – although I am open-minded to becoming so tonight. I am against American foreign policy. How dare you be patronising about my colleague who has devoted her life to the feminist cause and to survivors in Ireland and beyond. My sister is also dancing in the show Belly-Dancing Do you disapprove of that as well?
Happy International Women’s Day
And by the way – in my country drinking is not a sin – its a national past-time! and one that I choose to indulge in after a day seeing a kid in the witness box torn humiliated, slandered and psychologically abused by a man in a wig, paid over a thousand pounds a day to paint her as a slut because she was raped at 13 by her step-father.
In Sisterhood
Eileen
@ Eileen: I do not need to present some kind of credentials about my feminist activities in order to critique your burlesque fundraiser.
However, I can tell you that as a victim of sexual assault–not unlike the girl you describe in the witness box, actually–that I think it was a really shitty way to raise money for victims.
Shall we get you some wood to help you build that cross, Eileen?
Since you “feminists” are the ones doing the crucifying shouldn’t you be the ones to build it?
I am sorry you don’t feel confident enough to tell me about your credentials – Mine are a matter of public record.
@ Eileen: Like my friend Becky said, I don’t need to show my shiny feminist badge to speak openly about yours or anyone else’s fundraiser. I was sexually abused, have volunteered at domestic violence shelters in New York City, have been harassed by a former partner, and dedicate much of my protest time to marriage equality. And I still stand by my earlier comment.
Nah, you seem to be doing a pretty good job all on your own, Eileen. Have another drink.
(Btw..did you ever wonder if the fact that drinking is–as you put it–your ‘national pasttime’ might have something to do with the high rates of domestic violence and rape committed against your fellow women? Because I have.)
Eileen, how on God’s green earth have I “crucified” you? I have suggested that you drew too sharp a dichotomy between approval of burlesque as a means of fundraising and other “prudes” who suggested it might not be the best of ideas. I mean, you clearly have an axe to grind here and have decided to take it out on the far reaches of the internet, but my view of burlesque in no way legislates your ability to do as you like.
The question sparked by your remarks was whether we are allies when I disagree with you, fundamentally, about why one might have issues with your proposed fundraiser. I asked questions; I did not provide answers. However, you seem determined to declare us enemies on the basis of my having asked these questions. I suppose that is my answer.
As for credentials… well, we have chosen that for purposes of this blog and because people are crazy on the internet, we will remain anonymous. But yes, I do do work with marginalized and disenfranchised women. Some of whom would probably like burlesque. I still have no idea what that has to do with anything. The only reason credentials matter is if you assume that ideas should be evaluated by who the speaker is, as opposed to their content. Which, ironically in your case, is a position you might share with the former President Bush, whose repeated “I’m the decider” assertions relied on credentials rather than sense.
Yes Becky that’s right – men rape because they drink too much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What schoolof feminism did you go to! ROFPML
Eileen, I truly appreciate the very real work that you have done on behalf of women who have suffered sexual abuse. I can’t say that I have been an activist like you have.
My critique of using a burlesque act as a fund raiser is not personal, is not about your worth as a person or a feminist. It is about the the problems of living in the patriarchy, where the best way to raise funds to prevent sexual abuse is to present women getting their kit off in a sexually charged performance. It isn’t my ivory-tower education that permits me some cognitive dissonance, it’s my feminism. How sexual abuse and sexual performance co-exist is an issue worth talking about, even if we don’t come to the same conclusions.
We can agree to disagree about where alliances can and should be made, but I wish you didn’t seem so dead-set on destroying an alliance between my admittedly small ways of activism (education, donation, public protest), and yours.
The one where I’ve worked with lots of rape and domestic violence victims, the vast majority of whom were victimized as a result of drug or alcohol abuse in their families.
Of course, being Irish, you wouldn’t know anything about that, would you?
What’s a school of feminism?
Again, Eileen, I think you need to take a deep breath and step away from the computer. There is a discussion to be had here, and I have been having it with others on this thread, but you are clearly more concerned about defending your own decision than anything else.
Agreed. Eileen, time for bed.
You come back and visit us again, now, hear?
They were not abused “as a result” of alcohol or drug misuse, that is the king of comment I would expect from the mad born-agains who are the only people in Ireland who have taken issue with including a burlesque dancer in the show. Anti-Irish racist remarks are uncalled for.
I will have a Bush with water and one ice cube if you are buying! Slainte
Eileen, “anti-Irish racist remarks” were occasioned by your bizarre and repeated insistence that this all had something to do with America. You will find as I have that Americans too get defensive about their country.
But, again, you have declined to respond rationally.
What would I know – Sure I am just an irrational, drunken Irish woman who is a disgrace to feminism. Ordinary people on the streets of Belfast have more sense than some of your women. Rape is about power and control – alcohol and drugs do not cause rape. The fact that not a single one of you had the courage to correct Becky speaks volumes. Goodnight
Eileen: you remain confused. I didn’t call you a disgrace to feminism. You called me a disgrace to feminism, or, alternately, not even a feminist.
We are not a borg-like entity here and have no obligation to “correct” anything. And we do tend to think carefully about things, which none of your comments thus far have suggested you are doing. You have seized on every perceived insult to yourself without much cause while hurling them back at us. This is not feminism either, my friend.
Eileen, you may not be aware of this, but “Irish” is not a race. My remarks were not “racist”, merely anti-Irish just as yours have been anti-American from the start.
Isn’t it fun when we can all learn together?
And now, I’m off to dinner…
Badly done, Becky. Very badly done.
Fire with fire just increases the flames until it gets too hot for everyone, and anti-any ethnicity/demographic is never OK, no matter who hit first, right?
If this thread is going to live on, perhaps we can get back to matter of alliance building amongst people on all sides of the issue, or else move on altogether.