Thanks for your posts. I have read through from the LW blog to this and found most of it really disappointing in terms of the way people are discussing or not discussing whether women showing more flesh more publicly more often is necessarily a sign of empowerment, which I think is a small part of what Jill asked in her original LW post. Though I think Kim has been asking people to get back on track.

I have just finished reading an interesting piece about the obsession with the hijab, both within Muslim and Western discourse, as part of Waleed Aly’s “People Like Us”. I’ve always had an uncomfortable feeling that many commentators obsession with the hijab goes along with a bizarre analysis of womens liberation that equates it with the amount of flesh shown and nothing else. Hence the article in US magazine GQ with a picture of Bin Laden’s cousin naked in a bubblebath on the front cover – apparently the ultimate affront to everything AlQaeda stand for. The public discussion seems now very polarised as a clash of civilisations framed around the burqa vs stilettos.

I haven’t read Levy’s book – my comments and questions are based on reviews that I’ve read in the local press in Melbourne but also on the broader questions raised in these posts. The problem that I see with the discussion is that it seems to be all about the hemline, not the question of control, or agency, and there seems to be a willingness to accept that Dangerfield stocking faux school girl dresses with outlines on the back of a woman on all fours is a reflection that school girls are any more sexually empowered or actually liberated today than they 20 or 30 years ago.

There was one post on LW that I did find useful, that asked questions about rates of STDs, safe sex education, etc. I think the question of women’s empowerment, agency, power would bear some relationship to these, but also statistics on rape and domestic violence – I don’t see these taking a nosedive, and this is why I’m suspicious of the idea that the dress code of younger women is necessarily a reflection of their own choices, as opposed to the social pressures typically felt so deeply by adolescent girls.

There was a comment on the LW list quoting Paris Hilton, something to the effect that “I don’t enjoy actual sex all that much”. To me, that is really the central question. Going back to what I understand as the main thrust of the “raunch culture” thesis: Are these girls/young women engaging in more public and overt displays of sexuality, and having more sex (if indeed they are, but this is what the public discussion asserts) because they are comfortable and confident about their bodies, or for the exact opposite reasons, or a struggle between both? I don’t think girls/young women are hopeless victims on which social norms are inscribed – but I think statistics of increasing anorexia/bulimia amongst the most socially mobile of girls (the richer their families are, the more likely they are to develop these illnesses) suggest that what some are framing as an example of empowerment is really not so enjoyable for many of these women/girls.

Also – an aside on bellydancing: I was kind of annoyed by this bit of Jill’s post. I went to an event at a Victorian Immigrant Women’s gathering (can’t remember the exact name of the organisation) at which a belly dancer performed. She talked about the ancient art of belly dancing as originally a kind of birthing ritual which was female only, and expressed her disappointment that at many gigs that she does, women attack her for belly-dancing near their husbands/boyfriends (she performs in restaurants). She talked about how nervous she was performing at this women’s only gathering because of how she’s been treated by women, but also about how exciting it was for her to finally perform the dance as it was intended. Then the other night I caught a glimpse of a TV show that I think was some kind of “American Idol Erotic Porn Star”. I don’t remember what it was called, but it was apparently teaching a bunch of young women how to be effective porn stars. They were taught pole dancing, but also bellydancing. The woman who taught the belly dancing explained the origins of the dance as did the women at the VIW gathering. But I don’t think that the point of the show was for these women to dance for other women, if you know what I mean. It did seem to be focussed around male desire.

And I suppose for me the question of industrial rights for those in the sex industry comes back to the fore again. I think talking about whether or not going to a strip club is good politics in the absence of a discussion of the working conditions of those in it is skewed in some ways. Sex workers have traditionally not been offered that much solidarity and support from many feminists or unionists or Marxists in their bid to clean up their industry. Regulation often ends up in criminalisation of the workers themselves, and occupational health and safety is a huge problem. The left has traditionally seen this as a marginal debate I think – its really good to see organisations in China and across Asia thinking about the industrial rights of sex workers in interesting ways. For more on this check out http://www.amrc.org.hk.
If you go to the arhives you can scroll down to an edition of Asian Labour Update on this question. So much more interesting than the alliances between women’s organisations and the US state department to enforce border controls through a feigned concern for “trafficked women”.

As for burlesque: for me, its not the band I hate, its their fans. I don’t go to the shows cos of unpleasant experiences and assumptions made by male audience members, not cos there’s anything inherently reactionary about burlesque. I wish the performers a better class of audience!

Sorry this is so long… and that this thread seems to have been over a while ago. Been thinking about this for a while I suppose. Thanks!

In saying this, I’m not suggesting that women aren’t in control of their sexuality now, or that it necessarily follows that women who choose to, say, strip on whim in a bar are acting in response to a patriarchal system rather than their own autonomy. However, I believe Levy highlighted the fact we seem to have come full circle in terms of female sexual exploitation – the difference being that now women themselves are complicit in it rather than simply just subject to it. For example, you have to question why it is that suddenly it’s become okay to, by proxy, validate the act of women, as John Greenfield so despicably puts it, ‘airing their tits and pussies’ for the pleasure of their (mostly male) audience. I think Levy questioned quite succinctly the motivation of women wanting to make a social outing of watching women with vacant expressions dance naked on a stage.

To me, it has an unpleasant trace of the philosophy that there can only be room for one woman at the top – so you damn well better make sure it’s you.

I don’t think that agreeing with Levy’s book makes one puritanical or even strict in their interpretation of sexual morality – I think it highlights a very clear trend in our society and laments the fact that we didn’t see it coming before it became too ingrained to change.

Just sayin…

Strength through joy! Strength through joy! Strength through joy!

Now I need to recline for a few galactic units with a damp towel draped upon my massive throbbing cranium.

I’ll tell all those cowboys and firefighters that they just aren’t dressing sexily enough in the workplace — although I also know a handful of sexy nurses who might disagree. Strangely, most of the women I work with like it a whole lot better to see me in a nice sharp suit and tie; that time I came to the office in my high heels and thong underwear, it was, well, a disaster. And Tom of Finland Day was even worse. Why oh why can’t men and women be more identical, and have identical tastes, and identical ideas about what is sexy? And while I’m at it, why is that *bees* always wind up having to make the honey? Why can’t crocodiles make some for a change?

Come on, men! Let’s inaugurate Come to Work Dressed as the Village People Day! Let’s count how many seconds it takes before the women of the world beg us to stop — feminists included!

“My post closed by suggesting the world was big enough for Marxists and non-Marxists to get along…”

Well, the Marxoids would say that *now*, wouldn’t they. I seem to recall that they sang and danced rather differently only a few short decades ago, back when they had some actual power to speak of…

Do I hold you accountable for Audrey’s suggestion that every Marxist is a terminal bore (I’m really not )?

I didn’t say you all were, I said I had yet to meet one who wasn’t

I will note that it’s a pity that this thread has been characterised by missed encounters. Many of the substantive issues are well worth debating. Perhaps we’ll try again some time without the polemics.