#SoDemeaning

The Hebden Bridge Burlesque Festival gals started up the #sodemeaning campain on Twitter / other social media as a response to the suggestion that Burlesque was demeaning to women, which came in the rejection letter to their request to book the Hebden Bridge Picture House. (which I blogged about last time) Lots of people who are involved in Burlesque, and don’t feel in the least “demeaned” have contributed.  But it got my little etymological brain thinking and wondering about this whole demeaning thing.

What does it mean, to demean? (what is de meaning of demeaning…?)Who demeans? Is an action demeaning? Can it be? Who gets to decide?
And also the term “objectifying” – which is also used, and was repeated several times in the town hall meeting the other night. I know it is a commonly used term and concept – I get entirely what it means in the context – but I hate the word. I find it nonsensical.

The dictionary definitions of to demean are interesting.

To demean: cause a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for (someone or something):
To demean oneself: to do something which is beneath ones dignity.

So lets throw in dignity too:

the state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect:
a composed or serious manner or style:
a sense of pride in oneself; self-respect:

So – people are saying that Burlesque causes a severe loss in the state of being worthy of honour or respect of women.

Or, – Burlesque causes a severe loss in the serious manner or style of women.

Or, – Burlesque causes a severe loss of the sense of pride in themselves and self respect of women.

Or. Burlesque is beneath the dignity of women …

I see an awful lot of subjectivity here.
And a horrible concept that anything a woman does can be used as an excuse to deem her un-“worthy of honour or respect”. Doesn’t matter if a woman wobbles naked on a pole with pencils up her nose and a teacosy on her head, she’s a human being, a living creature and so is worthy of honour and respect.  If other people choose not to treat her (or any woman) without honour or respect, it is not her actions which cause it and are at fault, rather their reactions, attitudes, and subsequent behaviours. Ditto if people think less of women because Burlesque exists, – is that Burlesque’s fault? (or – lets face it, we say burlesque, but people don’t seem that bothered by the singing, comedy, dancing – it’s nakedness, or the removal of clothing they don’t like)

Burlesque causes a severe loss of the sense of pride in themselves and self respect of women.  – This is about how a woman feels about herself, and only she can know. If someone performing Burlesque feels such a loss in pride / self respect, then God yes, stop it immediately, put down the feathers, step away from the sequins, it’s not for you. But most performers I have heard comment say the opposite. It has increased their confidence, their pride, their self respect.  Or let us think about if it is the woman watching who loses her pride, etc. Again, many audience members express the feeling that there is something about Burlesque which they find empowering and confidence building. Granted not every woman might feel that way. People’s attitudes to nakedness and sensuality are widely different. Someone might see  a woman joyously bouncing nearly nude with sparkly tassles on her nipples as fun, funny, celebratory – someone else might find it embarrassing and tasteless. Neither is wrong, both are right – for themselves.

And what then for the “Women” in general – not the performers, or the audience – the general category of women. Does it affect their pride in themselves that other women do this? That this exists? And if it does, is that something that can be helped – a valid reason to stop the continuation of an activity which, as has been noted, other women find empowering. Or is it possible that there is more going on in the mind / life of the women who object – that may not be solved even by the disappearance of the Burly crew?

Leaving us with Burlesque is beneath the dignity of women. It is something unfitting for them to do. Who says? Who gets to say what is fitting for women? Presumably not men – but, did we get together and have a vote, to say, this is what x amount of us want to be included in the list of activities fitting for a woman to do – therefore we will all be held to it? Was this the same vote that meant there is a sneer on the face of some professional women who hear of someone choosing to stay home and look after the household and/or children? Which said we should all pursue “equality” with men by pretending to be them in the business sphere?

Oh – I missed one out.

Burlesque causes a severe loss in the serious manner or style of women.

I should hope so too… Maybe they have a point 😉

Equality of opportunity I take to mean that everyone, regardless of gender, race, sexuality, age, political belief etc. – should have equal access to opportunities for education, employment, healthcare, etc etc. Not that we should have access to things we didn’t have before, but no longer do, or take pleasure in anything which may have once figured in a more restrictive scope of woman’s capability.  No one should be forced into any form of work, or feel they have no option but to do a kind of work they don’t want to do – but that could equally be scrubbing floors as it could stripping. Whatever work someone does by choice, they should not be exploited, they should be given fair reward. But if someone enjoys what they do, is well rewarded and in no way coerced, we should respect that choice.

A brief note on objectification too – which we will take to mean that which makes a woman be viewed as a sexual object. I agree there is too much in society which presents women in this way – and only this way. I object to Page 3 and Lads mags – because they objectify, and dehumanise women not just in the imagery but also in the associated text. I don’t object to pictures of naked people. Is a nude portrait objectifying? If not why not?  And – what about those moments you want to be viewed as a sexual object? Not just a sexual object, but you want someone to notice that aspect of you, while accepting there is more to you than that alone. Might be for personal, intimate reasons, or perhaps public, performing reasons. Are women not allowed to choose to be objectified, even for a little while?

Objections to the above (using the word object too much now) – seem to me to not be about the “object” or “action” – not the performance, the body, the picture – but about the behaviour of certain men in response to those stimuli. And yet we seek to place the blame on Burlesque. Cover up we say. And yet in another voice might condemn a culture which requires women to wear a burqa to protect men from sin.  Men are capable of learning self control, and knowing when something is and isn’t appropriate. That men misbehave, are rude, letcherous, and occasionally abusive and criminal – is never the fault of a woman, but the men themselves.

The great Hebden Bridge Burlesque Battle

There are few things that get me agitated. I’m a fairly placid soul. But every so often something will get up my nose enough that I will commit that most British act of protest and write a letter. You may recall a short while ago I got my knickers in a twist about Equal Marriage. This time, it’s Burlesque.  You may or may not see the connection. For me, they are quite similar issues. It’s about the decision of some people, who don’t approve of something, seeking to stop other people, who don’t share those opinions or beliefs, from doing that something. The people behind the decision not to allow the Hebden Bridge Burlesque Festival to hold a Gala performance at the Hebden Bridge Picture House – may not feel they have anything in common with the specimens who can be seen speaking against the Equal Marriage legislation currently going through Parliament, be they “family values” Tories or religious traditionalists. But how are they different?  Those who seek to deny gay people the right to marry, do so from a fundamental belief that this is somehow wrong, and sends the wrong message to society.  Those who say they don’t want Hebden Royd Town Council associated with Burlesque, feel that this would insinuate they approve of what they believe to be and activity which is demeaning to women.

Beliefs being what they are – they are not shared by all. And that’s ok. I may disagree with someone else’s beliefs, be appalled by them, whatever. But they can have those beliefs.  Where it bothers me is when someone seeks to force their beliefs on others. Usually by stopping them from doing something.  Denying them the choice to make their own decisions. As the joke goes, if you don’t agree with gay marriage, don’t get gay married.

It’s a fine line. I can see. And there are two sides to this row. One – the “rights and wrongs” of Burlesque as an art form in the wider context of a society which has many negative sexualised images of women, etc. Two – the decision of a small number of people to effectively act as moral arbiters for the town by pre-censoring the event, without adequate local consultation, as the result of some people’s personal beliefs about Burlesque.

I personally love Burlesque.  I have attended several events over the past few years and each time have come away feeling inspired and empowered.  Seeing strong, vibrant, and confident women of all sizes and different ages – helped to heal some of the wounds for me of living in the society we live in.  It may seem odd to say that I love Burlesque, and yet don’t like things like Page 3, Lads Mags, strip clubs. But what I don’t like about those things is not nakedness, or stripping – it’s attitude. It’s power, and the abuse of it. 

Burlesque isn’t just stripping.  There’s comedy, costume, dance, song, and also (s0metimes) the removal of clothes. It’s not just women. I have been fortunate enough to see a male performance and it was hilarious. And yes, he did get down to as little as he was probably legally allowed to wear. I’ve seen some magnificent, excellently choreographed, beautifully costumerd performances – but actually the ones which touch me most are the more amateur ones. Where someone has just finished doing a course, and are braving the stage. They might not get it totally “right”, they might be middle aged, certainly not perfect, but there is something magnificent about someone shucking off all of the things society tells them about getting older, having a few saggy bits, what a woman should or shouldn’t do – and sticking up two fingers and be a magnificent and beautiful, and yes – sexual creature. (Though it’s important to say – it is only our culture which seems to make nakedness always have to be about sexuality.)

When she goes home, she can be mum again. The next day, go back to her job, and excell in all sorts of different ways, at different things. But it acknowledges our inner sexuality.

I’ve always had a problem with the branch of Feminism which I call Baby-with-the-bathwater Feminism.  Women whose response to the negative sexual imagery and aspects of society, is to say – sex has no place in society. It should be behind the bedroom door, and then, only enjoyed in strictly approved ways. Who think women shouldn’t dress in particular ways, act in particular ways, enjoy particular activities.  I had one friend at uni who I thought was a lesbian. This is how she described herself. And yet I found out years later that she also slept with men, but thought it was more important to be “politically lesbian”, as sleeping with men didn’t send the right message. She did it anyway.  Personally – I think there is quite an important political statement to be made in actually being honest about yourself and who you love.

Bit of a tangent – but the point is women are different, and some find things opressive and uncomfortable that others find envigorating and exciting. Some aren’t’ that into sex. Some find it suffuses there life in all sorts of ways.  Some love hearts and flowers, some are into S&M / Submission and Dominance. Yes. Some like to be submissive. To an extent where others might feel they were being mistreated. There’s a million and one reasons why we become the sexual creatures we are. It has to be acknowledged. And to me – part of that, is by presenting positive sexual imagery and role models to counteract the negative.  Not denying that sex is part of life.  Art imitates life. Sex is going to be in there somewhere.

All of the above, is kind of moot in relation to the Hebden Bridge Picture House issue. The committee mention equality issues. The Equality Act protects various characteristics – Gender, Sexual Orientation, Race, Disability, Age, Religion or Belief.  But what does it protect? It is about equal treatment and prevention of discriminatory practice. Making sure that a man is not treated differently from a woman because he is a man, or, perhaps that someone with one philosophical belief, say, that Burlesque demeans women – is not given different treatment from someone who has an opposing belief. So long as neither is illegal.  For me, the only way to give both people the choice to exercise their philosophical discretion is to allow the performance to happen, and give people the choice whether they want to go or not.

People are saying there should be wider consultation before a decision is made. Personally I think it sets a dangerous precedent anyway – why do they need to censor legal activity?  The plebicite is on the door. If people don’t want it, they won’t go. If it’s not successful, it won’t come back. If people want to protest, debate, engage, let them. But in a way which doesn’t deny other people the right to celebrate their bodies they way they want to.