"It's building up her strength after she got ill and it doesn't put too much pressure on her muscles. She's much stronger, healthier and more confident."

Yeah, I was going to say she could probably get that from doing, I don't know, gymnastics. Or dancing. Or softball. Or running. Or jump roping. I could go on for days. I want to throw the fuck up.

I think it's weird for a kid to pole dance, but just to play devil's advocate: The circ du soleil performers come to mind. They perform on a pole and it isn't considered sexual in nature. So a pole doesn't have to equal sexy.

Of course, if that's the case it should probably be called something other than "pole dancing".

Well at least they're not dancing round the maypole...

I had some dance equipment when I was young too... It was a ballet Barre... y'know the ones turned the other way. Why not teach kids an art form? Instead of how to sell their bodies?

(Not that I think Ballet is a GREAT influence considering the high rates of anorexia.)

Olivia-
yeah, it would be called acrobatics.

Allow me, too, to play devil's advocate here.

While I don't believe we should ever sexualize a child like that, what if we were to look at it the other way? What if we looked at this as an art form, rather than sexualized dances? Just like feminists have reclaimed certain words ("cunt" and "bitch"), I think it's important, as third-wavers, for us to reclaim daily things that have been sexualized as a means to objectify women as well.

We are advocates of women (and men) being fit, wearing nice clothing, putting on making and looking beautiful if they're doing it for themselves and not patriarchy. So, why should "pole dancing" be any different? We take the sexual aspect out of it, and it starts being something else. Isn't that our ultimate goal?

Also, to make this into something "evil" can bring about the good girls vs. slut syndrome again. By associating pole dancing with something that's "bad," we're merely villifying sex workers. I am not comfortable with that.

I am just throwing thoughts out there ...

ProFeministMale, sure I see what you're saying. But I wouldn't want an eleven year-old to use the word cunt either.

As far as the good girls v. sluts stuff, I don't think that noting that pole dancing isn't appropriate for children is vilifying the practice itself. I also don't think purity balls are appropriate for children--or anything, for that matter, that sexualizes young girls.

There's a difference, I hope, between an educated, liberated person doing/wearing/being something/one sexual and a child doing/wearing/being something/one sexual. If you know and understand what it means for you to choose to pole dance, then you can make that choice. But there is NO way a child can make that choice. And if she can, then there is something wrong with her homelife.

And by the way, why is everyone trying to turn kids into little adults? What's wrong with soccer and baseball all of the sudden? What's wrong with shorts that don't have "juicy" written on the ass? What's wrong with girls with short hair and boys with long hair? Does EVERYBODY have to look like Ken and Barbie? I thought wearing orange shoes with purple shorts while running through the woods with marshmellow all over your face was part of a healthy childhood...guess not.

Jessica -

I totally understand your position and agree with you. However, I've noticed that a lot of times, we seem to, as members of the feminist movement, be reactionary than we are in creating our own definitions for things.

By reacting to this situation and opposing it, we're still playing into the patriarchy's hand, defining our position by the patriarchy's definiton of what is sexual and what's not.

Rather, I think we ought to define our own world and definitions for things. If we, see a child dancing as an art, and not something sexual, then we've made our own definition of how the world works. What the patriarchy sees (a child gyrating, being sexual) is immaterial. Perhaps that should be our own way of telling the patriarchy we're taking over and they can go fuck themselves.

Then again, this is just theory. In practice, it's much harder and I have a hard time selling it to myself.

Marc

The picture in the article aside, it sounds like this "pole dancing" isn't sexualized, and they are calling it "pole fitness" and not "pole dancing." Poles being associated with strippers would make one a little wary, but I don't think the classes are teaching sexualized movement.
"Ms Perry said PFS did not teach dance routines and instead moves derived from martial arts, gymnastics and the circus."
Like someone was saying about Cirqu du Soleil, if they are learning gymnastics and such, maybe they should call it something along those lines to remove it from the negative stigma of being associated with sexualized "pole dancing."

I think Olivia and ProFeministMale have good points, but I see where Jessica and the others are coming from too. While we as feminists have a dream of a society without sexism, we can't pretend that we have come close to achieving this. Any woman dancing on a pole could be toning her muscles and increasing her self-esteem and body image. But do you think the men who want to watch her think that way? It doesn't really matter why this 11-year-old girl is pole dancing. Even if this form of exercise was the most beneficial for her, she would still be sexualized. We don't yet live in a society where a girl can pole dance and it mean nothing.

The picture in the article aside, it sounds like this "pole dancing" isn't sexualized...

But how can you leave the picture aside? The picture shows what is going on in the class - and it's clearly pretty sexual. Whether or not the kids realize that is another matter. In that sense, I don't know how different this is from a lot of dance classes little girls take though. I remeber 10 years ago watching my (then) 7-year-old cousin perform her dance troup's routine for the family at Thanksgiving, and it was SO overtly sexual that I wanted to puke. No one else seemed to think it was weird, which was the ickiest part.

Harlemjd: You CAN leave the picture aside. The person chose that picture on purpose, hell, maybe they even posed them for it. I am a dancer, and there are plenty of stretches, positions, etc. that if you took them in one frame might look "sexual". It doesn't mean that they are. And not all dance classes for seven year olds have sexualized routines, in fact, I would say that the majority do not, and I've seen a lot of seven year old dance routines over the years.

I'm sorry, but there is no non-sexualized context for pole-dancing. It was invented to be sexual. If we tried to recontextualize it we wouldn't be reclaiming some essential aspect that has been lost, because it was always a purely sexual activity.

And little girls who need to regain their strength after illnesses could get a lot more out of martial arts, or team sports, or swimming (to name a few) than they can out of Stripper 101.

Why should you have to play soccer when what you really want is to learn how to do tricks on the pole?

You shouldn't limit what you're interested in just because other people might interpret your interest in the wrong way. Have you ever been to a strip club? If you take away the slinking around the pole and the actual stripping, what they do is really just impressive gymnastics.

Then why not give the kid gymnastics lessons instead of stripper lessons? Is there any good reason that doesn't involve kids thinking it's cooler to pretend to be sex-ay strippers?

If pole-dancing is so great for strength and flexibility do you think I should consider enrolling my young nephews in a class? Do you think maybe they'd feel out of place? More out of place than they would be in a gymnastics or dance class? And why would that be?

The pole just seems a whole lot safer to me. No jumping off things onto other things or flipping in the air. The worst you can do is get some bruises or if you can't hold on well enough, slide back down the pole to the ground.

Plus, it should be up to the kid. If they want to learn pole tricks, why do you need to find an alternative? That's just imposing your fear on them of what others may wrongly think.

I looked at the picture, and my first instinct was, "Bleargh." And then I thought about it a little more, and I thought, Well, I've seen dozens of gymnasts doing splits on a variety of apparati, I've seen ballerinas lifted overhead by their inner thighs, and none of that provoked the same reaction. Why is this worse?

And then I looked at the picture again, and I went "Bleargh" again.

Because she's doing it on a pole. Vertical poles having the sexualized history that they do, any potentially provocative move done using them is going to automatically lean more to the sexualized side that a potentially provocative move done on, say, a balance beam.

Because there just plain aren't a lot of strip-balance-beam routines around.

I think that we do our children a disservice by trying to pretend that sexualized activities can be easily transferred to a non-sexual context. I remember writing a magazine article about modesty trend in teen apparel, and I interviewed a 13-year-old girl who went out to a teen club in a white spaghetti-strap tank top with a pink Playboy bunny on it and white terrycloth short-shorts. When I asked her why she chose that particular top, she said, "Because I like bunnies."

Discussions like this can easily stray toward victim-blaming territory - "She's going to get herself raped" - and I certainly don't want that to happen, but there's a context to everything that we do, and we can't just ignore that and hope that the rest of the world will as well.

Why not enroll your nephews?

The pole I practice on is used by both girls and guys.

"That's just imposing your fear on them of what others may wrongly think."

No, that's just asserting my certainty that pole-dancing is a sexual activity, and while adults can make up their own minds about participating it is not the best physical activity for children psychologically. It is sexual and performative in nature and the audience is traditionally male while the performers are exclusively female. Everyone acknowledges this context unless they are being disingenuous. Any other reading requires a radical recontextualization, and does nothing to hide the original context and the psychological effect that it will probably have on young participants. Girls don't need to have their physical activity centered around rehearsing their future roles in the patriarchy.

Lazy-fat... you're fooling yourself. You aren't fooling very many other people.

sgzax: "Then why not give the kid gymnastics lessons instead of stripper lessons?"

Because at 11, most local gyms will probably rule her way too old to start gymnastics (or, for that matter ballet). The increasing pressure and specialization in kids' athletics mean that, in a lot of communities, if your kids aren't already in a good program and demonstrating skills by early elementary school, you're not going to be able to sign them up to start later. Some dance and ballet programs even write your kids off if they're not in by 2 or 3.

Are we talking about occupational training now? I hope not. There are entry-level dance and (usually) gym classes available to kids in almost every community, regardless of whether they are going to pursue those fields competitively.

I give up. Go ahead and enroll your 11 year olds in pole-dancing and I'll keep an eye out for them in the Girls Gone Wild commercials in about seven years. Oh, perhaps there were more empowering things they could have been doing, but at least they'll be on TV!

I want to see a video of this class. Until we see what the class is composed of, we can't make the judgments a lot of people in here are making. A lot of people are saying that they are teaching "sexy stripper dance," when the teacher says that that is not involved at all. And gymnastics and ballet offer their own problems (mainly weight concerns) for young girls. Maybe this pole fitness class doesn't emphasize weight as much as ballet or gymnastic classes.

There are almost always entry level classes for kids in karate and other martial arts, which come with no weight or body image issues that I know of, and doesn't turn your 11-year-old into an object of sexual display.

And ballet isn't the only kind of dance out there. Classes are often available in modern dance, flamenco, hip-hop, tap. I note that the suggestions of soccer, softball, etc. have been totally ignored. It's disingenuous to talk as though the choices are ballet, gymnastics, and pole-dancing. There are a ton of physical activity lessons open to kids. Why would you choose one that, as sgzax notes, occupies an almost entirely pornographic context?

The pole class includes elements of gymnastics and martial arts, so people were suggesting they just take gymnastics instead, whereas that might not be the best option. And you know what? Let the kid do what she wants to do. Do you think this girl is trying to be a stripper, or do you think she finds the activity fun? If my little girl wants to play softball, I'll let her. If she wants to do gymnastics or martial arts, it's her decision. When parents force extracurriculars that they think are appropriate, kids can get bored/pissy. I hated being on a soccer team and I liked dancing way better. And maybe the limitations of this girl's sickness would keep her from doing martial arts or some other activities.

Holy crap. I can't believe so many people here think it's fine for little girls to be pole-dancing.

Thankfully, sgzax stepped in as the voice of reason, as did a few others.

It's just silly to try to argue that this is healthy in any way.

You know what, "poles" have been around for a long time. We had one at the playground at my elementary school. It was fun-we could climb up this ladder and slide down the pole, or try to do tricks around it or whatever. That was not sexualized at all, it was just kids playing.

This is a totally different thing.

So many people on this blog are in deep, deep denial. It actually scares me. A lot.

FemiDancer - you're right, the photo could have been staged. my bad.

I realize that there are plenty of kid's dance groups who don't perform sexualized routines. My point was just that the sexualization of children (who don't really understand the sexuality they are acting out) is not brand new.

And you're absolutely right that plenty of dance positions can look sexualized if viewed out of context or if the viewer is hypercritical. (hell, so can showering - it involves being naked) But in the case of pole dancing, the larger context is so strongly connected with sexuality that I do think that it's problematic as an activity for children.

Buggle, sexuality is what we make of it. Quite frankly, we're not denying anything, except the fact that the patriarchy sexualizes otherwise natural things. Why are we giving into the patriarchy by following their definition of what's sexual?

We might as well cease having young girls play soccer, do gymnastics, go swimming or do anything else - because you know, tight little soccer shorts, gym clothes and bathing suits, can all be perceived as "sexy," too.

Hrelmjd: I definitely agree that association with pole-dancing is going to bring in the negative context of sexualizing the activity, or that if this little girl is publicly known as taking "pole dancing" lessons it will have a negative effect. I also like that buggle pointed out that kids play on metal poles on playgrounds, try to climb them, etc.. I think that if this program isn't sexualized movements (which the mom and instructor say it is not), then there isn't a problem with it, provided we can call it something other than a "pole fitness program." If no-one mistakes it for pole-dancing because it is called "structure athletics" or something, than there wouldn't be a problem, it would just be using a prop to help support you/aid in doing different activities that you couldn't accomplish without the prop.
http://acesofacts.com/pictures/Chinees-pole_1.jpg

I would kill to be able to do something like that, and if this girl is learning how to do that, great. Let's find a different name for the program so nobody calls it pole dancing

Ooops ...errr ...I didn't type that right ...we're NOT denying the fact that the patriarchy sexualizes normal things.

How is little girls dancing sexily around a pole a "natural thing?" Answer: it isn't.

And, this isn't just something that is "perceived" as being sexy. The whole thing comes from STRIPPERS in STRIP CLUBS. Then it got sold to non-stripper women, as a form of empowering (ha!!!) exercise. Now it's being marketed towards little girls. The reason it's so bad, is that we are training our little girls to become strippers, so that they can do their jobs right and please men.

How can you compare that to a girl playing soccer, or swimming, or whatever?

I understand the point you are trying to make about not giving in to the patriarchy, but having these classes for little girls is exactly what the P wants! So why should we give in to that? Why aren't we encouraging our girls to take martial arts, so that they can fend off rapists?

I get what you are saying, but I don't think it applies here.

I just emailed this to my boyfriend, and he was horrified. He's not the most feminist person, he's clueless sometimes, but he got it immediately. Not sure why people here are having so much trouble with this one. Seems really quite simple.

Kids want to do a lot of things. Sometimes those things are not a good idea, for a variety of reasons. That's what parents are for.

Profeministmale and Femidancer, it seems like you're arguing that we should extend the benefit of the doubt because maybe, out of the huge range of physical activities offered to kids, this is the only one that's right for this particular kid. I don't buy it. I don't have that much benefit of the doubt to extend. Out of the entire panolpy of sports, exercise, dance, and martial arts in the world, pole-dancing is the only right one?

Further, it's disingenuous (for some reason, that's my favorite word today) to compare the sexualization of pole-dancing with soccer, etc. Pole-dancing exists in order to cater to the sexual demands of straight men. It's not like belly-dancing, which is a traditional art form that can be sexual; pole-dancing exists to objectify the sexualized female body. There's simply no comparison to soccer.

Buggle:

"How is little girls dancing sexily around a pole a "natural thing?"

In the article, the program is not described as little girls dancing sexy around a pole. It is described as incorporating parts of what happens in circus acts, gymnastics, and martial arts, and not dance moves or sexy dancing. If that was what was happening, I would have the same knee-jerk reaction or "oh noes, little kids on stripper poles," which is what the article is going for. I posted a pic from Cirque du soleil that involves athletic looking dudes on a pole, does it look sexualized? Maybe we are all assuming that because it is a girl and it involves a pole, it is pole dancing and sexual. If it was an 11 year old boy taking the same fitness class in the story, would we have the same assumptions?

Here's their website.

FWIW, the moves on display are a lot more Cirque du Soleil than strip club.

Thanks Auguste! Those pics look really cool!

ProFeministMale, I understand what you're saying, but what the patriarch sees is not immaterial. It's part of the whole male gaze thing. Until you can convince the system that women do not exist for others' sexual pleasure, you can't flip the meaning of sexual performance on its head. Even burlesque is still at its core sexual performance, even if much of it is subversive. I'm more concerned about this young girl's mother, since she knows what pole dancing means in our world, than about the girl, for whom, this is probably equivalent to playing on a jungle gym.

EG - I am not arguing that we should give this little girl the benefit of the doubt, I am arguing that she should be doing whatever the fuck she wants, without having to think about the patriarchy nad what it thinks.

The fact of the matter is that girls around that age are going to start seeming like sexual objects to some men, whether they engage in "pole dancing," go for a swim, play soccer or just stroll around the mall. By rejecting pole dancing, we give up on an agency that we can use for our own power. I personally don't think anyone should tell a girl she couldn't do a certain thing because the patriarchy owns it. That just doesn't seem too feministic ...

By rejecting the idea of this dance class and closing ourselves to the patriarchy's definition of what is erotic, we're simply accepting the patriarchy's definitions of things. You don't take on the patriarchy by withdrawing from it. You take it head-on.

Marc

From the article: "It's building up her strength after she got ill and it doesn't put too much pressure on her muscles."

Umm, if this were my kid (son or daughter), my first thought would be swimming exercises, for less pressure on the muscles and joints. And why, if it's not a sexualized routine, are they calling the class "pole-dancing lessons" rather than something more innocuous, like, say, "stationary support exercise class"?