I'll bet you're wondering how a stripper can be a feminist. I get that a lot. I've heard a lot of reasons why I can't.
Here's one: "The sex industry is essentially anti-feminist because it depends on male arousal." Well, congratulations to those ladies for handing power to the penis on a silver platter! As soon as it stands up, they throw in the towel! Think. How feminist is it to think of male arousal as some kind of defining factor? It's not. It's just arousal. Contrary to widely held belief, that's actually healthy in both sexes and a lot more fun without all the politics attached. (Most men can't hold up a wet bath towel with their erect penis, much less all that baggage...) The fact that some feminists still think we lose something when men perceive us a certain way means that they're still willing to allow men to define us. That still says, loud and clear, that men get to claim whatever they see, and whatever women don't want them to vanquish, we must hide and jealously guard. I don't think that's true of most men, and it certainly doesn't need to be encouraged in the ones of which it is. In my perfect world, all people realize that, although we may want something, we don't have the right to take it if the owner doesn't want to give it to us - even if they show it off. Even (damn them) if they give or sell some to others - right in front of us. We're taught that about everything from the time that we're small children in today's society - everything except the sexuality of any woman who doesn't mind openly enjoying or benefitting financially from it. Men are subtly taught by society at large - and it is sometimes, sadly, reinforced by their mothers, of all people: "You must treat all women with respect - except the ones who allow you to see their sexuality outside the constraints dictated by society. Those you may abuse as you wish."
Why do you think that men like Ted Bundy feel the need to punish women? Because society has taught them that there are 'good' girls and there are 'bad' girls, and that the line between the two is often invisible and always defined by men - sometimes against their will, by their penises. The one it points at is the bad one.... The bad ones need to be chastised. Now the woman is bad for arousing the man, and the man is filled with self-loathing for a perfectly natural feeling. How can that not eventually go terribly wrong? It often does. Pornography doesn't cause the victimization of women. The way this society feels about sex does. It's not sex that's the problem - in any form - it's sexism.
I'm reminded of the scene in Aphra Behn's "The Rover" where two men are getting ready to ravish the main female character (it's probably been ten years, and I don't have a copy in the house. Bear with me.), who keeps pleading with them and insisting that she is 'a lady.' Of course, they don't believe her, and it's only at the last minute when they realize that she is actually of the appropriate social station that they decide not to rape her. They apparently weren't appalled in Aphra's century that if she hadn't been 'the right kind of girl,' violating her would have been just peachy. It sounds to me like we're still saying that if you're not 'the right kind of girl,' by whatever standard this generation of 'ladies' (actually the male establishment to which they are unconsciously attempting to conform and therefore gain respect and equality) has set, then hostility and humiliation are your just desserts. Instead of women being appalled by the abuse of other women, we abet and even participate in it ourselves by separating 'good' from 'bad' and casting the 'bad' ones outside the protective circle - out from under the guardianship of the 'warrior women.'
Some anti-porn feminists don't seem to realize that it's THEY who ostracize their sisters from the inner sanctum of feminism for making the 'wrong' decisions. I didn't think feminism was about women thinking alike. I thought it was about women thinking for themselves. The moment you stop fighting for and guarding the right of ALL women to make decisions for themselves without having to answer to others, you forfeit your right to honestly define yourself as a feminist. It seems to me that true feminine empowerment will come to its full fruition when seeing a woman as a sexual, exciting, inviting creature doesn't mean disregarding the rest of her. Women's sexuality is amazingly compelling, and like love, the more you expend, the more you have to give. I don't lose power or dignity because I arouse people. Arousal isn't abuse. It doesn't have to be about power. It can just be about delight.
Yes, sometimes a customer will disregard me as a person while he looks at my body. Here's a clue: Welcome to the service industry. Ever tried waiting tables? You don't get a hell of a lot of personal validation from people you're serving, no matter where you work. People are jerks. Surprise. At my job I don't have to be nice to jerks. I can say whatever I want. Can you do that at your job?
Just because I give - or in my case sell -an aspect of my eroticism doesn't mean that anyone has gotten anything of any value from me, and it doesn't mean that they have the right to take it anytime they want. In fact, it isn't truly mine until I can give it away, sell it, or keep it to myself as I choose. If I invite someone to my home every day for five days and make them welcome to everything in it, it's still a crime if they break in on Saturday. Charging to see my eroticism doesn't degrade it any more than a chef devalues his gift by preparing his food in a restaurant for a living - and it doesn't mean that he prepares his wife's meal with any less love and care at the end of the day. An actor doesn't necessarily exploit something as deeply personal as his emotions when he gets paid (sometimes an absurd amount of money) to weep and rage onscreen. He has a talent which he shares with us, and we think it valuable enough to compensate him for it. We give actors little statues of naked men for baring their souls, and shame strippers for baring their bodies... and we can't take our eyes off of either one. I tend to think that any aspect of human behavior that manifests regardless of the different centuries and cultures it survives and emerges intact is an essential part of the human condition.
You think taking money for some aspect of sex is degrading to women? Hah. Try looking up what marriage was originally for.
©Alysabeth Clements 2000 - 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment