Why Burlesque isn't Feminist

[Invincible Summer]

+ YouTube Video

Thoughts?

[cska]

Isn't it obvious burlesque isn't feminist? Is it really considered feminist?

[Foldered]

You can easily argue that neo-Burlesque (because it has gained a popular resurgence, there's no arguing that) is a reclaiming of Burlesque in the name of women; that it isn't a patriarchal institution anymore. But to say "Burlesque isn't feminist" is like saying "Glenn Beck isn't a douchebag," really.
But she's right about female=/=feminism and that's really the most important portion of her video.

[counterblast]

i didnt watch the video yet because im using a really old computer, but i did want to contest the premise of this post.

im not sure it can be argued ANYTHING isnt feminist. feminism is contextual, not absolute.

also someone can be objectified or reinforce gender roles and still be liberating themselves from the confines of gender. to suggest otherwise, as ive argued before, simply shifts us between binares rather than eliminating such binaries completely.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I wasn't surprised when she was against pornography at the end. Burlesque isn't hurting anyone, and some people enjoy it. There are a lot more men telling women not to do burlesque then there are men telling them to do it.

And men are always telling women to do mutually-exclusive things like be a "good girl" and a "bad girl." Feminism is about letting women define themselves according to their own interests. Just because patriarchy has encouraged certain behaviors doesn't mean those behaviors are necessarily bad, in general, or necessarily bad for "all" women.

When I find out a women is extremely sexual and participates in things like burlesque, I am impressed. I know they aren't doing it for my approval (or maybe they are, which is their right). The point is that society is full of judgmental people and it takes a lot of courage to be open about one's nature as a sexual being.

And even if someone does burlesque, porn, and sleeps with every other person they meet, they shouldn't be judged or defined outside their own desires and how they impact society. Some people try new things and get branded something for life.

I'm tired of feminists arguing over stupid things, quite frankly. I'm tired of feminists ignoring scientific data. Feminism is one of the most criticized movement because it has so many people saying crazy things. And those are the people who get attention - as it aids in securing the established order.

If a women wants to stay at home, have sex all the time, and live in a cage and be dragged around on a leash by her husband, I could care less. As long as she is making an informed decision based on her own interests, not interests instilled in her, then it's fine. I don't think there are many women like that, mind you.

I like feminism, but it gets too many values associated with it. It's about promoting the interests of women, basically. Unfortunately, people think it entails a list of 1000 ridiculous things.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I kind of understand on that but why should everything be about politics and liberation in life. Don't take life so seriously, you'll never get out alive...

[Hiratsuka]

She made some very good points throughout the video about misapplying (overusing?) the word feminism to mean any choice a woman makes to the point it becomes absurd, but I don't see how a heterosexual woman dressing "sexy" to attract men is an example of patriarchy...

[¿Que?]

She made some very good points throughout the video about misapplying (overusing?) the word feminism to mean any choice a woman makes to the point it becomes absurd, but I don't see how a heterosexual woman dressing "sexy" to attract men is an example of patriarchy...

Because "sexy" is defined by men or more broadly by the patriarchal system. She mentions that in the video. Perhaps you should watch it again.

[Adi Shankara]

Because "sexy" is defined by men or more broadly by the patriarchal system. She mentions that in the video. Perhaps you should watch it again.

from a biological standpoint though, isn't it normal for "sexy" to be defined by men, just like women define who's a "sexy" guy? homosexuals at any given point I think are only 11% of the world's population, so that means men by default define what's sexy, since it's men they're (mostly) trying to attract; imagine if someone really ugly decided to say "I'm sexy and you better accept it"; people would have a good laugh, but it shows one thing; you can't define yourself as sexy (like, yeah, you can, but whether or not you have any success is based on the person you're trying to attract's reaction), and expect others to agree with you; thus the sexiness of women will always be defined by men, and vice versa, until 1.) the majority of the population becomes homosexual 2.) people stop caring about looks completely, which is almost impossible, seeing how deeply ingrained it's in our biology.

tl;dr: if we could control how sexy we are to others, then there would be no such thing as a basement dwelling virgin.

[¿Que?]

from a biological standpoint though, isn't it normal for "sexy" to be defined by men, just like women define who's a "sexy" guy? homosexuals at any given point I think are only 11% of the world's population, so that means men by default define what's sexy, since it's men they're (mostly) trying to attract; imagine if someone really ugly decided to say "I'm sexy and you better accept it"; people would have a good laugh, but it shows one thing; you can't define yourself as sexy (like, yeah, you can, but whether or not you have any success is based on the person you're trying to attract's reaction), and expect others to agree with you; thus the sexiness of women will always be defined by men, and vice versa, until 1.) the majority of the population becomes homosexual 2.) people stop caring about looks completely, which is almost impossible, seeing how deeply ingrained it's in our biology.

tl;dr: if we could control how sexy we are to others, then there would be no such thing as a basement dwelling virgin.

I actually thought about what I posted afterward, and I have to say I disagree with the video. Men do not decide what sexy is, rather the patriarchal system more or less conditions people to find certain things attractive. That means that men do not decide what sexy is to them any more than women decide what sexy is to them either. Instead, the system of patriarchy/capitalism, which in certain respects can only be differentiated and disentangled from itself as patriarchy and capitalism separately in abstraction only, determines what is and is not attractive.

As for biology and evolution, I've come to the conclusion that anyone who resorts to these theories without using the qualifying word "predisposition" as in, we are predisposed to find certain things attractive, has been completely duped by the fad junk science of our age.

Yes we have biological predispositions, towards a lot of things including violence, selfishness, greed, sexism, hierarchical thinking and others (I realize that some of these 'predispositions' may be nothing more than my own assumptions and imaginations, but bear with me for the sake of argument) but ultimately, these predisposition can only be meaningful when they are reinforced by our social structures. They are, in the final estimaiton of things, not determinant.

[Foldered]

homosexuals at any given point I think are only 11% of the world's population, .

I hate to be "that guy," but any statistic about homosexuality is inaccurate because of how marginalized it is in the majority of places in the world. Even in North America, to give a stat. about homosexuality comes into question because of how many people are unwilling to admit they like their own sex, let alone the amount of people that don't even comprehend the hegemonic defitions of homo- bi- or hetero-sexuality. I mean, how can you have a trustable statistic on a topic that will never be definable?

[Bilan]

If a women wants to stay at home, have sex all the time, and live in a cage and be dragged around on a leash by her husband, I couldn't care less. .

Fixed.

[piet11111]

What exactly is Burlesque ?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Because "sexy" is defined by men or more broadly by the patriarchal system. She mentions that in the video. Perhaps you should watch it again.

I don't really disagree with the video but she does not take into acount each individual's right to self determination. But aparently, some want their revolution without dancing...

... But, no, I don't think burlesque should be called "feminist".

[gorillafuck]

I kind of understand on that but why should everything be about politics and liberation in life. Don't take life so seriously, you'll never get out alive...

Agreed. There's a difference between living in a non-sexist and non-oppressive way, and basing everything you do or don't do on whether it's liberating.

Burlesque is burlesque. It's not inherently feminist or unfeminist.

[Hiratsuka]

Because "sexy" is defined by men or more broadly by the patriarchal system. She mentions that in the video. Perhaps you should watch it again.

It's already been stated, but: of course hetero female sexiness is defined by men. Just as hetero male sexiness is defined by women. Sexiness is connotatively one's sex appeal.

Instead, the system of patriarchy/capitalism, which in certain respects can only be differentiated and disentangled from itself as patriarchy and capitalism separately in abstraction only, determines what is and is not attractive.

I don't see how that's true. The standards for sexiness for both sexes seems to be based on clean skin, a fit body, symmetric figures, revealing or expensive clothing, and.. that's about it. After that individual preferences emerge. Those standards I listed cross all cultural barriers.

[¿Que?]

I don't really disagree with the video but she does not take into acount each individual's right to self determination. But aparently, some want their revolution without dancing...

... But, no, I don't think burlesque should be called "feminist".

I'm not against considerations of the individual as a free agent, to a certain extent. However, I'm not convinced that this type of analysis can lead to anything but lifestylism.

As Marx said (although I don't remember where exactly) we cannot change ourselves without changing our social context. What we need is not individual self determination but collective self determination. And this can only be achieved through revolution.

[¿Que?]

It's already been stated, but: of course hetero female sexiness is defined by men. Just as hetero male sexiness is defined by women. Sexiness is connotatively one's sex appeal.

Actually I don't think so. In post #10 I rejected the assumption that men define what sexy is, and thus it puts me in disagreement with the video.

First of all, I am a man, and I have never made a conscious decision to be attracted to anything. I think the same goes for women.

But I think what the woman in the video meant was that attractiveness is defined by patriarchy and capitalism. This means that what men find attractive in women AND what women find attractive in men both derive from and perpetuate the system of inequality and result in material advantages for men as a class.

Some men may be at a disadvantage with this arrangement, on an individual level there is a lot variety and heterogeneity. Some women may even benefit from patriarchy. But when we look at the whole system, ultimately women as a class are disadvantaged.

This is not unlike Marxist class analysis in some ways. Some proletarians do "make it" so to speak, become rich, own capital etc. But this group is not representative of the whole and does not reflect the material interests of the proletariat as a class.

[mikelepore]

What exactly is Burlesque ?

About a hundred years ago the theaters in U.S. cities began to have live shows that would feature mostly slapstick pie-in-the-face comedy routines, a clown, a juggler, etc., and usually one striptease dancer. In the 1960s, the theaters began to use the same name "burlesque", but only providing strippers, and the comedy program was omitted.

[piet11111]

About a hundred years ago the theaters in U.S. cities began to have live shows that would feature mostly slapstick pie-in-the-face comedy routines, a clown, a juggler, etc., and usually one striptease dancer. In the 1960s, the theaters began to use the same name "burlesque", but only providing strippers, and the comedy program was omitted.

So its just a strip routine ?