Burlesque
The wife and I saw the film Burlesque, in which someone exactly like Christina Aguilera, played by Christina Aguilera, defies the odds to become – yep – a burlesque dancer and nightclub singer, under the tutelage of someone exactly like Cher. It sounds like the worst premise for a film in history, and we sort of went in a spirit of comically-low-expectations, and sure enough it was pretty stupid in places, but also quite loveable in other places, thanks to a couple of comic cameos and some good-natured nonsense. Also, of course, Christina and a lot of other girls shake what is generally called ‘their stuff’ an awful lot. In the cinema were a number of shady-looking, older men on their own.
I ended up thinking about burlesque as a phenomenon. There’s no denying burlesque can be quite empowering to the women who do it. It’s basically women teasing men with unattainable promises of sex. Because of the skill involved and the different power structure, it’s far less demeaning than dancing in a strip club or being a Playboy girl or any of the similarly dubious things that are done supposedly in the spirit of ‘female empowerment’. Aguilera’s character basically ends up (this doesn’t spoil any great plot twists) being able to twist any man around her finger and yet finding her one true love and being artistically fulfilled AND still getting to wear very short dresses. So she’s won.
All the same, though, there is this thing of the seedy men watching. Is it really a success for women’s lib if women are shaking their booty, or ‘they booty’ as it is sometimes phrased, for a load of frustrated men? Might it not actually just be another version of the process by which the world assumes that women are essentially there to please men? Won’t it only be actually be ‘empowering’ when there are clubs where men do stuff to turn women on? I mean, obviously there ARE clubs like that, but, hmm.
Burlesque is an artform of sorts, it’s different from porn, it’s different from women being exploited, but it’s still women performing for men. And the idea that the women are ‘liberated’ by it could be true, but on the other hand, that argument is used to justify some pretty unpleasant things…
I haven’t quite thought this through yet, but I’m interested basically in whether advances in the quality and fairness of places-where-women-do-sexy-stuff are really advances for feminism, or just reinforcements of the same old gender inequalities.
Anyone fancy working it out? I know it’s a weekend and all.
Chicks, I’m especially interested to hear what you think. I WAS JOKING CALLING YOU CHICKS.
Posted by Weaselspoon on January 21, 2011
I’d just noticed that none of these posts have been popping up on my RSS reader. Has there been some change under the blog’s bonnet?
I go to a fair few burlesque events, and cabaret events, and all the terms and borders are pretty mixed up. It seems a burlesque event generally tends to be a string of high class, low quality strippers reworking the same set of moves they have learned and showing off some fabulous costumes, which they then remove. This I find boring. Interspersed with this are comedic and occasionally political routines where mostly women, sometimes men, take their clothes off. This is much better. Sometimes it’s a refreshing change when you realise that the act is not going to get naked.
My general feeling is that if the sole purpose of the dancer is to titilate the men in the audience and this is achieved through the removal of clothes, then they’re a stripper. The ones who do it because they want to make people laugh or think or just because they want to dance, they’re an act, be it cabaret or burlesque or performance art, and probably an act I want to see.
Posted by Laura on January 20, 2011
Thats weird..you seem to have posted this a while ago but I’ve only been able to see any new posts since today. Ahh well, nice to have you back Mark
Posted by Lydia on January 10, 2011
I find it kind of difficult to see something that involves taking your clothes off for the benefit of someone else as affirmation. Surely it’s just another manifestation of insecurity.
I think that having the choice to do it is probably liberating but the act of doing it, and the effect doing it has on the lonely guys in the audience…. not so much. But then again there aren’t many circumstances in which people of either sex aren’t judged on how they look.
Posted by MusicalLottie on January 10, 2011
Hoorah! Finally something where I have an opinion and know what it is! Though I shall try to express it tactfully; I don’t wish to offend anybody in the slightest …
I think that exposing oneself / being suggestive for/towards anybody who isn’t their spouse is immodest and wrong – whether it’s women for men or vice versa. HOWEVER I’m not saying that anyone who does this is a bad person; we all have free will and it’s up to us to use that free will. (I’d also like to clarify that I would never presume to judge anybody as a person for what they do; that would be equally wrong of me, if not more so.)
As for empowerment … I really have no idea. Personally I’m much happier to find modest clothing and be secure in the knowledge that nobody can see any part(s) of my body that I don’t want them to!
Posted by Hannah Mae on January 10, 2011
Hmm, interesting topic and so difficult to argue! After countless lost hours drunkenly debating this in student kitchens, I still don’t really know what I think.
My friend had a party on a boat in the summer, at which one of the guests was a burlesque dancer and performed a routine. All the guests, male and female, seemed to enjoy it, and obviously not because they were all turned on. Rather, I think, because it was funny and entertaining – and consequently a far cry from stripping or lapdancing or whatever, which would’ve made everyone feel uncomfortable. I agree with the distinctions that everyone else has made; burlesque has much more in common with performance art and, while sexy, seems suggestive in a tongue in cheek way, rather than screaming ‘you’re in charge, come and get me!’ in the submissive way stripping or hip hop video dancing appear to.
I’ve just reiterated what you’ve said, though, and I suppose arguments about it being fun and less degrading than porn are missing the point a bit. Part of me still finds it iffy when women claim anything that involves flaunting their bodies is scoring points for feminism. I always hear people say Katie Price is a good role model because she’s a shrewd businesswoman, reckoning she’s far more ‘empowered’ than regular page 3 girls because she’s created a brand for herself and controls the work she does, but I just find myself wanting to shout back ‘YES BUT HER WHOLE CAREER IS BUILT AROUND EXPOSING HER FAKE BREASTS!’ I know we’ve established that burlesque is more tasteful than that, but ultimately, I do wonder whether anything based on male desire can really be said to show the progress it claims to. I still think society is massively sexist. Better than it has been, for sure, but it depresses me no end when women think Jordan earning a fortune from horny men is tantamount to sexual equality. I know we’ve already separated these – my point here is that Price is supposedly unexploited, in control and takes her clothes off because it earns her money. But while this has certainly made her rich, does it make her empowered?
So yeah, burlesque is potentially not the feminist dream. But as I said, it’s often artful and skilled with a sense of humour, and there are far more misogynistic practices out there. This has been a very longwinded way of saying I’m on the fence.
Posted by Clembear on January 9, 2011
Hmmm – its a complicated one. I’m loath to claim that anything women do is a form of female empowerment, but I’m think the lens of “women performing for the enjoyment of men” can be a tricky one. Because as you saw, it wasn’t just men, it was a camera, couples, herself. I think there is a risk here of privileging the lone male view here – because men can find it arousing that’s what its there for. Not everything revolves around its ability for men to get turned on by it. Defining things by this can potentially be a way of re-enforcing this idea, by limiting other interpretations. It narrows the discourse.
Posted by Aislinn on January 9, 2011
I really like what Kate has to say about this. Not only is what she says perfect sense, in my opinion, but it’s beautifully argued.
It’s a bit of a lazy viewpoint for me to have, but as long as it’s only a choice thing, I’m not too fussed. I’d be horrified if I had to do something like that for many reasons, but as long as I’m allowed to carry on having boy hair and wearing bow ties then I shouldn’t like to kick up a fuss about women’s rights.
If I ever start to feel undermined as a woman, I shall come back to this blog and write all about it.
Posted by amycool on January 9, 2011
I don’t really link burlesque with empowerment, it’s just a hobby really. I know it boosts some women’s confidence in their bodies but when I think of empowerment I think of gaining confidence in your abilities and skills. And as my careers teacher said every lesson, knowledge is power. Of course he also told us all that we’d be bricklayers and typists because his course materials were at least 10 years out of date. (I was going to work in a funeral parlour according to his special computerised database).
Posted by Rachael on January 9, 2011
I suppose as long as it is their choice then it kind of is empowering but they are still relying on men to pay them to do it so it isn’t really. It’s faux-empowerment.
Posted by Joelle on January 9, 2011
I’ve not got much to say one the topic other than women can do what they like because it’s their body.
Also, is the term ‘chick’ offensive to people? I’m female and I don’t find it offensive and use it in general conversation. I’m bisexual though and tend to use it more discussing that sort of stuff with people. Maybe I should stop if people could find it offensive.
I do hope you’re having a lovely break x
Posted by Tracey on January 9, 2011
Hi Mark. I love being referred to as a chick – especially at my age! Er.. it’s a difficult one. Dita Von Teese is excellent at this art form and always looks immaculate. I don’t see anything wrong with it at all. It’s like porn in that there’s always going to be a market for it. I think that if you’re doing any of these things because you want to and are not being forced, then ok. However, I was watching the BBC series Five Daughters – about the murdered Ipswich prostitutes a while ago which totally showed the other end of the scale. I read a book about it too and both made me cry.Hope you’re having a lovely weekend. Tracey x
Posted by Sue (DiB) on January 9, 2011
I’ve took belly dance classes last year with my daughter, it was a hoot, the exercise was good for me and I’m really happy with how my confidence has improved. But as with burlesque, when I mention this to people, they sometimes make a connection with ‘stripping’ where there is none. Or they say that my husband must be a very lucky man… ? Hmmm.
My daughter and I also took a workshop for belly burlesque with a belly dance teacher’s burlesque alter-ego Kitty L’Amour last year too. It was so much fun! We were told to think of chocolate not sex, it was cheeky not sleazy and there were no clothes removed at all. It was all suggestion.
I don’t think that really answered the question did it…
Posted by Kate W on January 8, 2011
(And on a completely unrelated note… I’m watching one of Derren Brown’s theatre shows on TV and, because of you, thinking “parabola”.)
Posted by Kate W on January 8, 2011
As Alice has said much more eloquently, I think burlesque covers a wide range of acts, from basically vintage stripping to very intelligent cabaret. Partly because of the musical/variety/cabaret company burlesque tends to travel in, it seems to attract a much broader audience – I’ve seen a fair amount of burlesque, I know other women who have and also couples who’ve been to burlesque shows. I’d agree with Alex that’s not something you’d get in a strip club. (Having said that, I have a male friend who was quite freaked out by the idea that he was supposed to spend an evening sitting next to his girlfriend watching scantily-clad women dance. She enjoyed it, he was incredibly uncomfortable.)
Given how difficult a lot of people find it to get up on stage, I’m not how much of that “empowerment” is coming from the nature of the performance or whether they’d get the same buzz from karaoke. I also think there’s a difference between empowerment and affirmation. There’s no doubt it feels good to be on stage with people applauding you, but if that’s all based on how you look and what (or how little) you’re wearing, I’m not sure that’s the same as being empowered.
I’d say “advances in the quality and fairness of places-where-women-do-sexy-stuff” are still advances and therefore a good thing, but we do live in a world where the average man has higher status than the average woman. Virgin Atlantic ads are still full of “sexy air stewardesses”, magicians still have (female) glamorous assistants and women overall get paid less than men. Grazia were doing a poll last week on whether it’s better to have a rich husband than a career; bunch of numpties though I think that makes them, the fact anyone could still ask that question says something.
While we have gender inequality, it’s not surprising we have art that reflects that. As long as that’s the case, better burlesque which at least has the potential for humour, intelligence and artistic expression than just women taking their clothes off.
Posted by JontyLarr on January 8, 2011
Interesting thoughts on a subject which divides opinion as to whether it should be allowed or not.
If we’re sticking with tradition, that means that Christina should be along in 7 months time to miss the point.
Posted by Ingrid on January 8, 2011
Thats a hard one really. I think its obviously better than strip clubs, but how much better im not quite sure. As you so rightly say, it is still esentually women dancing for men. I guess it probably varies from place to place quite how much the burlesque have to do, but i think it is still not exactly femenism to the full. Um… so im not really decided, but its very interesting to see what everyone else thinks! x
Posted by Alice on January 8, 2011
I think you’d have a job on your hands finding a burlesque artist who in any way identified with the Christina Aguilera movie, or who saw any of their beloved artform in all that Fosse dancing. You might as well watch Chicago. Now to burlesque’s defense:
Okay, I won’t try to back every act or artist. I’m not going to say there is an ever bountiful stream of talent or intelligence, but I have seen both applied to burlesque acts and been astonished and delighted. I have taken classes with two particular artists, Betty Bruiser and Poppy Von Tarte, clever, funny women who would not be out of place in performance art, such is their work. It so happens they chose their bodies as their medium, which in the art world has used to inspiring effect for decades. I am happy to admit there are acts out there purely out to titillate and there are pretenders to the burlesque title (you know who you are, Pussycat Dolls) and I struggle to find anything empowering about such one-dimensional performances. But the burlesque scene has re-opened a world of musical variety, alternative comedy, drama and cabaret that I personally find exciting and refreshing in our occasionally rather straight-jacketed high art scene.
This isn’t a challenge, I don’t have a flag, and if you don’t like it that’s fine with me. I can’t bear the sight of drunk girls squeezed into tiny dresses and high heels gyrating on nightclub dancefloors. It bothers my sense of aesthetics. But that’s my view and I find I’m less likely to judge if I stick to my poncy, arty bars.
Hope you’re having a nice weekend away, I’m conversely having a weekend at home before another tour. It’s bliss.
Posted by Alex on January 8, 2011
You do get groups of straight women going to burlesque shows too, when I don’t think you’d get too many at strip clubs. I don’t really know what this means but I just thought I’d add to the debate.
Posted by Laura-B on January 8, 2011
There’s a lot of burlesque in the vintage scene, so I end up watching quite a lot. Misha mentioned the seedy blokes: I find the acts are most amused by them. There’s nothing funnier than watching a seedy guy get all leery and ramped up, only to discover he’s mostly watching dancing and it all stops at ‘the good point’. The crushing disappointment on his face could certainly seem to be empowering.
In my experience, it’s the girls watching who are more interested in the burlesque… I know more men than women who are offended by it.
Posted by Misha on January 8, 2011
I’m glad that was a joke, although actually chick doesn’t make e feel too punchy. Babe on the other hand. I genuinely kicked a bloke in the shins for calling me baby…
It’s a difficult question really, in choosing to “give” themselves it’s arguably empowering for the female, but then as you observe the seedy bloke couldn’t care less. It’s like people doing things ironically, not everyone knows it’s ironic.
I’d say, (without writing a whole essay) that burlesque is still perhaps more empowering than your average strip club, but it’s still not really advancing femminism, because it’s still women taking their clothes off for men/money etc.
Hmmm.
Posted by Phill on January 8, 2011
It seems that there is a trend for ‘anti-feminism’ at the moment, which is basically “now that women are equal, women can do whatever they like”.
I wrote a blog post about it a while back which referenced this article. It’s really worth reading on this kind of subject.
Here’s a quote:
Posted by lisan66 on January 8, 2011
I would work it out, but I have six exams in the next two weeks that I should study for. Although if I need to procrastinate at any stage (which is what I’m doing now) I will take this topic and try and figure it out.
In short, I didn’t see the film, but there are loads of films like it (Make It Happen etc). I do agree that burlesque isn’t as demeaning as working as someone in a stip club (not that there’s anything wrong with it, but there’s a certain stigma attatched to it)