Why is it that feminism is always blamed for tacky sexist trends?
College fraternities, long known as bastions of grace and decorum, are these days featuring yet one more accoutrement of scholastic refinement - the stripper pole.The most important campus development since the keg, the stripper pole shines like a luminous totem festooning the halls of the American academy. It's erected for a single, glorious purpose:
To get drunken chicks to do slutty stuff.
And where does feminism come in?
Post-feminists argue that the pole is empowering. If a young woman chooses to use it, they say, she is telling the world that she is in charge of her sexuality.
Apparently these pole-loving feminists and post-feminists only exist in reporter Alfred Lubrano's imagination--because he fails to quote one woman outside of the publicist for the company that creates the poles. I mean really, who are "they?" Who are the "some" who are arguing that stripper poles "flaunt liberation?" Great reporting, dude.
It's fairly clear that the Philadelphia Inquirer reporter had little interest in researching his piece, but a lot of interest in making snarky sexist comments:
There was a time when feminism was about women being smart and assertive, and building inner strength.Somewhere along the line, though, it morphed into slut culture. Girls tell themselves they're in charge. But they're still just strutting it for the boys.
Welcome to Skank 101, freshmen. Open your books to Chapter One, "Pole Vixen." Note how the women in the diagram are dangling, half-dressed and off-balance.
Charming. It's nice to know that some reporters can use their position to call women whores.
Seriously, why the fuck is the PI running this tripe? Contact the paper and ask them why they're running biased, un-researched stories.
Or, if you're feeling feisty, contact the reporter himself. (If you're more of a phone person, his number is 215-854-4969.)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Feminism responsible for frat-house stripper poles.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5952
Okay, that's it, now people are literally making this "feminism=stripper"crap up out of thin air.
If he had actually talked to a woman who participates in this supposed pole-dancing fad, and she had explicitly used words traditionally associated with feminism, such as "empowerment" or "liberation," it probably would have been an interesting jumping off point for pointing out that perhaps these terms have lost their true meaning in the mainstream. I think that's definitely an area worth talking about...
Instead, he somehow jumps from a few anecdotal cases of young women dancing on poles to "it's those damn feminists!"
College fraternities, long known as bastions of grace and decorum, are these days featuring yet one more accoutrement of scholastic refinement - the stripper pole.
That just makes me think it's an Onion piece in disguise.
No, not the Onion. Just excessive sarcasm in the hands of those not qualified to use it.
I WROTE TO HIM
and here's the bullshit he wrote back (this is the whole email):
"I said it was post-feminism. Post. Meaning AFTER the feminists, who emphasized what was inside a woman. I wasn’t blaming feminism at all; I was decrying the modern perversion of it."
Is there a way to make it clear to the general public that 'post-feminist' means 'not feminist at all'? Can someone issue a memo? Would anyone pay attention?
Either that or mainstream periodicals need to just give up and just call sections of their papers or magazines 'Sluts!' All of these stories can go there and we can stop pretending that the media is liberal once and for all.
Well. I've never been happier to say that I've never set foot in a frat house.
For some reason, even when I was at university, I found fratboys disgusting. I don't mean that I was offended by their behaviour; I mean that they were physically unattractive. My friends and I used to joke that initiation must include being beaten by an ugly stick and issued a standard preppy wardrobe. Shallow, I know but girls will be girls...
I hate this kind of garbage. All it serves to do is further divide our already at-odds group.
Stripping for money is not the same thing as flaunting it for free in front of a group of rowdy frat boys. Some may feel that putting a dollar value on sexual behavior cheapens it, but I disagree. I think it lets men know that if they aren't willing to invest their emotions and time in a serious relationship, then they have to pay for it and pay well. Encouraging women to entertain groups of men who feel nothing for them, without anything in it for them does just the opposite.
But I do think that telling them that they can't do it would been even more un-feminist. It makes more sense to take on the underlying causes behind this behavior- the need to feel validated as being sexually attractive. Not that it means anything since many men of that age will stick their dick in just about anything that doesn't have a penis of its own.
The article was a load of crap, though. I doubt many fraternaties have invested in $600 stripper poles when they are totally unneccesary for getting women to party naked and easily substituted. And I agree that it is crap journalism when the reporter is too lazy to do even a modicum of fact checking when his source is a marketing agent pushing her product.
Shame on PI. They should perhaps change their name to the Philly Enquirer.
By the way, here's my letter:
To The Editor:
I am at a loss to understand why a fraternity's purchase of a stripper pole is news worthy of space in your paper. (Stripper Poles: New Feminism, September 1, http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/20070901_Stripper_poles__New_feminism_.html) In addition to being poorly sourced (no woman who claims that pole dancing in front of drunk frat boys is empowering is quoted in the piece) the article merely rehashes the author's own sexism and misogyny. Indeed, I would have thought you were reprinting articles from the Onion given the introductory sentence calling fraternities "bastions of grace and decorum" and the conclusion talking about "skanks" and "pole vixens".
Feminist literature is awash in criticism of raunch culture and its discontents. Surely, genuine commentary on the subject (as opposed to lustily envisioned college students partaking in "slut culture") would not have been hard to come by.
I'm not sure I understand the rage. When I first started reading this piece, I had already understood it as a piece of satire. I didn't really think that it could be anything but satire.
ARGH. *headdesk*
i don't find it to be satire at all. if it were satire, perhaps his response to my politely dissenting email would have been "relax, it's satire!" and not "i said _post_ feminism--i was decrying the current state of feminism!"
"I hate this kind of garbage. All it serves to do is further divide our already at-odds group."
What group is that? Feminists? I don't think the feminists on this board have been at odds on this issue at all.
The article is a fabrication (as you pointed out). It makes a flimsy excuse to do some slut-shaming over a faked up phenomenon and then it attributes the fake trend to 'post-feminism' without bothering to define the term. This failure to define terms creates a false connection between feminism, stripper poles, fraternities, and comes to the standard issue 'Young Women Today Are Sluts!' conclusion.
The feminists all say 'bullshit.' No controversy. The fake feminists, who I think came over via Salon the other day and are sticking around to hurl some poo, start an argument. But that's not 'our group.' Believe me, it's not.
This bothers me on so many levels. I've actually met women (albeit online) who said they were no where near feminist and they enjoyed stripping and dressing like sluts and that they thought feminists could go to hell. Maybe they were men in disguise?
Personally, I don't know where I stand. I guess I think if a woman really wants to strip--for money or for free--I don't think it's my place to stop her or publicly shame her. But on the other hand, I do think it drags women down to a low place. I grew up very conservative Christian, and while I am an atheist now, I still hold a lot of the same values about the specialness of sex and sexuality. I dress in a stylish but modest way. I freak out if my nipples are showing or you can see my underwear through my clothes. I'm 23, and I'm a virgin, although more by accident than by choice. So maybe this is my inexperience talking, but I just feel that dressing and parading yourself about for men as though you were nothing more than your vagina is kind of sad. I can't think that women who behave that way feel much self-worth. And I don't mean that from a prude's standpoint or as a value judgment. But I think that if you love yourself you want people to respect you .
Why is it in articles that feminism or post-feminism is equated with acting slutty? I still can't figure out how we got to post-feminism. As far as I can tell, not everything that the feminists strived for has actually happened.
What a piece of shit article. I hope everyone writes to him. What a tool.
Dear Mr. Lubrano,
As a feminist, I am quite insulted by your uniformed article, stating that Stripper poles are the "New Feminism." Next time you call something the "New Feminism," I would suggest that you educate yourself on what feminism really is. It is repugnant that you suggest that the new feminism is at fault for fraternity boys taking advantage of girls by getting them drunk and then encouraging them to dance on a stripper pole. What is even more repugnant is your liberal use of the terms "slut" and "skank." I am disappointed that Philly news would allow such rampant misogyny in their articles. As a resident of a suburb of Philadelphia, I will no longer visit Philly.com and will encourage my friends not to as well.
Sincerely,
Nicole Brice
"I said it was post-feminism. Post. Meaning AFTER the feminists, who emphasized what was inside a woman. I wasn’t blaming feminism at all; I was decrying the modern perversion of it."
No, dumbshit, actually, this is what you wrote:
There was a time when feminism was about women being smart and assertive, and building inner strength.
Somewhere along the line, though, it ("it" being feminism, remember!) morphed into slut culture. Girls tell themselves they're in charge. But they're still just strutting it for the boys.
To be fair, he does say "post-feminist" at least once, but coupled with the above passage and the headline specifically blaming feminism (which he didn't write, I realize) it just comes off as a really confused, historically ignorant article that really only succeeds in calling young women stupid and slutty.
And is it just me, or is it really fucking obnoxious to see shit like this in the mainstream media, depicting young women as shallow and stupid, when in media outlets run by women and people of color there are tons of stories of young women and girls who are working tirelessly on changing the world for the better? (And generally cleaning up the messes that men and white people have created....) No wonder the world thinks women are silly and shallow, because the mainstream media is only interested in writing about us when we do things that look silly and shallow.
hey!
thanks for posting this. i sent an email and posted it on our blog, Quench (http://quenchzine.blogspot.com).
Here is the letter I just emailed to Mr. Lubrano:
Dear Mr. Lubrano,
In your September 1, 2007 article "Stripper poles: New feminism" you state that:
"Post-feminists argue that the pole is empowering. If a young woman chooses to use it, they say, she is telling the world that she is in charge of her sexuality."
Who are your sources? Which "post-feminists" are you talking about? Who are "they?" Since you don't take the time to speak with anyone who identifies herself as either a feminist or a post-feminist, I would like to know why you think feminism has "morphed into slut culture." The feminists I know--a group which, by the way, includes a number of men as well--are not interested in "strutting it for the boys."
And what about the young men that you reference in your article. Why no interrogation of their blatant sexism, or their desire to get young women drunk for their own sexual edification? Trust me, I understand your disgust at the fraternity system and their immature, mean-spirited, sexist antics. However, I expect a much higher level of journalism from both yourself and The Philadelphia Inquirer. No sources, no logical arguments . . . this is not even close to journalism.
Sincerely,
I've now exchanged several e-mails with him.
His old work is illuminating, to be sure.
I read that article, it's an excuse to denigrate the modern woman, this ass wipe is as conservative as they come. This type of sexist tripe can be found all over the media from entertainment of the major news papers to fascist fashion chic magazines like Seventeen, Teen Cosmopolitan, ect.
"So maybe this is my inexperience talking, but I just feel that dressing and parading yourself about for men as though you were nothing more than your vagina is kind of sad. I can't think that women who behave that way feel much self-worth. And I don't mean that from a prude's standpoint or as a value judgment. But I think that if you love yourself you want people to respect you."
Remember, the only way to have respect is to dress in a way suggested by a sexist 2000 year old religion! Can't a woman just enjoy wearing what she wants to wear? I am not even talking about stripping, I am talking about women being denied flights because the man letting her aboard thought she was dressed too slutty. I love myself, and I hate wearing more clothing than necessary. I would join a nudiest camp if I could afford to be away all summer. I don't see how what I wear at any given point has anything to do with self-respect or love. Shouldn't we be happy for women wearing whatever makes them feel best? If I wear a bikini or a long skirt, it has nothing to do with my vagina and nothing to do with nearby men, it has only to do with what I damn well feel like wearing.
LivingtheLiminal - excellent letter.
The guy said POST FEMINISTS approved of stripper poles, and think it's "empowering" for drunk undergrads to bump and grind for their sleazy, horny male classmates.
"POST" feminists, of course, are women who DO NOT BELIEVE IN FEMINISM.
And he's right, there are "post feminists" who do indeed claim that stripping is "empowering".
They're wrong, of course.
I actually have a friend who's a stripper. She makes good money for now (about a $ 1,000 a week after expenses), but she'll have to leave the field in a few years when she's "too old" (she's currently 25).
Also, as a Black woman, the only reason she gets work in the high class strip clubs is because she's lightskinned enough to pass for Asian or Latina.
The rich White bankers and stockbrokers don't want to get a lap dance from an African American woman, you see.
Darker skinned Black strippers can only work in the lower end clubs that serve working class men (where, of course, the tips are much lower).
Very "empowering".
JenLovesPonies, I totally don't understand women like you.
You want to dress in a sexualized way (and, for some sad reason, you draw self worth from exposing your legs and breasts to random passersby), but I'd bet you'd be the first woman to fly into a rage if a man said something, or even stared at your body.
I totally can't understand that mentality!!!
Reality check - if you dress in a sexualized way, you will be treated in a sexualized way. And most of the time, the men viewing you as a sex object will NOT be the kind of guys you'd find attractive!!!
"So maybe this is my inexperience talking, but I just feel that dressing and parading yourself about for men as though you were nothing more than your vagina is kind of sad. I can't think that women who behave that way feel much self-worth. And I don't mean that from a prude's standpoint or as a value judgment. But I think that if you love yourself you want people to respect you . "
twacorbies, you're not "inexperienced" - you've just got some common sense!!
You're right - women who parade around in excessively short skirts, or in tops that barely cover their breasts, really do NOT have a lot of self worth - if they did, they'd conceal their private parts from public view!!!
Think about it - do GUYS walk around half naked?
No.
And why?
Because we don't base our self worth on weather women find us sexually attractive.
Yeah, ok, Gregory, that is exactly what I said. You clearly understand exactly how I dress when I go out. It is all about how others percieve me, and not about my comfort or what makes me happy.
If I want to wear something revealing, or something that completely covers me up, it is my choice, and I am making it because that is what works for me at the moment I dress. I am worth more than my vagina no matter what I am wearing. I enjoy the sun on my body, and I like to wear tank tops with built in bras because I find them more comfortable than bras and tshirts. I also sometimes like to wear clothing that covers me completely, depending on the weather and my mood.
But you, troll Gregory, know nothing about me or about women in general, it appears, so go away.
Gregory, if a woman enjoys dressing in a certain way, why does it have to be about anyone but her? Why do you assume she does it for the passersby? Why do you think they have anything to do with her self worth? Because you automatically assume that women can't have and do these things entirely within themselves, it has to be about other people (specifically men, you know that's what you meant).
And why would any woman, no matter how she's dressed, not have the right to object to how she's addressed by other people? Why would she not have the right to object to being treated in a way she doesn't like? Her manner of dress in no way revokes her status as an equal human being, worthy of dignity and respect as such.
I'm afraid you've finally gone too far, Gregory, m'man. By holding women responsible for the actions and reactions of those around them (rather than holding people each responsible for their own actions and reactions), you've exposed yourself as definitely not a feminist, nor even terribly sympathetic to feminism (or women) in generally.
Thanks for coming clean!
People like that report is exactly why I'm a sex-positive feminist, meaning I support porn as long as women consent to performing in that industry. If she is forced into the porn industry, then that is where I draw the line and call a foul. These poles are NOT offensive. I'm gonna write to Gregory via e-mail using the previous sentences and more.
Gregory: Regarding your use of the term "parade around" as in "women parade around" rather than "wear" clothing. Do you see that your phrase reframes the act? Suddenly clothing oneself is changed from a personal choice to a choice that is subject to public view/approval/disapproval/comment. And this is false. Women are not parading around any more or less than any other person, regardless of how much clothing they do or do not have on. Clothing choice is a personal issue. It is not about you.
Oops, I should say the reporter. Sorry.
sgzax, you're wrong.
Choice of attire, like any other public act, IS indeed "... a choice that is subject to public view/approval/disapproval/comment."
If you are wearing a low cut top, anybody standing in front, above or to the side of you can see your breasts.
If you are wearing a short skirt, anybody in front, to the side, behind or below you can see your legs (and, from the right angle, can see your butt and pelvic area as well).
Exposing yourself IS a public act, and it has public consequences, like any other public act.
I wonder why it is that men wear clothing and women parade around in them, then? Are some people more public than others? Hmmmm.
I've been wondering today why non or anti-feminists bother posting here. I don't go to men's rights pages and pick fights. It would be obnoxious.
Reality check - if you dress in a sexualized way, you will be treated in a sexualized way. And most of the time, the men viewing you as a sex object will NOT be the kind of guys you'd find attractive!!!
Who determines whether or not my attire is sexual? You? My husband? My neighbor? Is there some magical way to know? (If you've read any threads on street harrassment, Gregory, you'd know that attire has nothing to do with getting treated like a sex object)
Think about it - do GUYS walk around half naked?
No.
And why?
Because we don't base our self worth on weather women find us sexually attractive.
I don't know where you live, but here in the heartland...men most certainly do go around half-naked, esp during the summer.
Also, that last sentence I quoted...wow. I fight very hard not to base my self worth on my sexuality, but that is difficult considering the society I live in CONSTANTLY tells me otherwise (ie *you* get to decide when my clothing is too sexual to "parade around" in public, *you* getting to treat me in a sexualized manner because of *your* perception of said attire)
I'm noticing that too, sgzax. Weird, isn't it? GREGORY's comment would be right at home on the other thread about SWA throwing the woman off the plane. Apparently public dress codes for women are all the rage today, so as not to offend our male posters' delicate sensibilities.
Actually, GREGORY's post is more RELEVANT on the SWA thread. I thought the topic here was stripper poles, not fashion choices? Why is GREGORY ranting about low-cut tops and short skirts here?
I'm with sgzax.
Gregory: So, by your logic, a woman is responsible for being raped if she was wearing something deamed culturally attractive or shows any kind of skin?
Sheesh. I second, again, sgzax.
Gregory, WTF?!? What the fuck times 100?!?! That was some offensive-ass shit, you know that? You might be interested to know that yesterday I took a walk and came across one of my guy friends who was out for a jog. You know what he was wearing? A PAIR OF SHORTS AND RUNNING SHOES. Nothing else. No shirt, no nothing. Every day, all over the place, I see guys walking around like this, and nobody gives them shit or slut-shames them for wearing what they wear. I happen to have a tiny bit of Native American blood, which I've been told may be why I have an "abnormally" high body temperature -- around 100 degrees Fahrenheit. This means that in summer, I'm MISERABLE if I can't wear skirts or shorts and tank tops, preferably without a bra. One of my parents' friends has a disorder where her body doesn't produce sweat, so you can imagine that her dressing attire in summer is about the same as mine -- if she can even muster up the courage to go outside dressed in a way that's comfortable for her. And you know, since when should WE be responsible for the actions of other people? Isn't it about time that men take some responsibility for not acting like perverted jackasses in public? (Which most men don't do, BTW.) Should black people be treated badly for dressing in ways that highlight their race or the tone of their skin? No, of course not, because that's the problem of the ignorant white people doing the mistreating.
Your comments are also particularly offensive and, well, stupid because you seem to assume that breasts are sexual organs. Well, guess the fuck what. THEY ARE MEANT FOR FEEDING BABIES. And the size of a woman's breasts has no bearing on her ability to produce milk, so don't even come at me with any bullshit about how "Uh, duh, breasts COULD be sexual because it could tell a potential mate whether a woman has enough milk to feed a baby." BREASTS ARE ONLY THOUGHT TO BE SEXUAL BY IGNORAMUSES LIKE YOU BECAUSE MEN HAVE DECIDED THEY ARE.
Also, and I wrote about this in another comment here today, when I first developed breasts, I wore baggy t-shirts and shorts, and actually got MORE harassment than I do now, when I dress how women are "supposed" to dress, with the low cut tops you so snottily disdain. In fact, the entire reason I dress how I do now is because I get LESS harassment in a low-cut top than I do in big, comfy T-shirts. So really, Gregory, what would you have me do? Because it's really not about what women wear. It's about BEING a woman. It's about us having the gall to BE WOMEN in public, and I'm sorry that people like you want me to hate my body no matter what. I'm sick of being slut-shamed, because I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't. As a man, Gregory, you don't get to tell women how to dress or act, capisce? Because it'll never be good enough for you, and it's not really about what's "best" for women. It's about control and shame. And I'm sick of being ashamed of my body and my entire existence because of ignorant, callous-ass men like you.
Gregory: So, by your logic, a woman is responsible for being raped if she was wearing something deamed culturally attractive or shows any kind of skin?
I know, right? By the logic of guys like Gregory, the less skin you show, the less likely you are to be raped or harassed. Which would mean that Afghanistan would pretty much be the best place in the world for women.
"I know, right? By the logic of guys like Gregory, the less skin you show, the less likely you are to be raped or harassed. Which would mean that Afghanistan would pretty much be the best place in the world for women."
Yeah...and why is it that women in tribal cultures (or nudist colonies for that matter) who don't cover their bodies at all don't get raped or harrassed?