The Times noticed recently that pole dancing has made its way to suburban living rooms.
“Their entire world is reduced to caretaking, and this is sort of the opposite of that,” [said pole dancing instructor Johnna Cottam]. “It taps into this kind of exhibitionism, or show-womanship, among younger women who did not grow up with the gender politics of the sexual revolution.”
Okay. But why does sexual empowerment – or even just a general feeling of sexiness - have to come via pole dancing? It’s just unimaginative. The bigger problem is that people have come to associate sex work (and all its accessories) with the ultimate in sexiness. But sex workers are people for whom sex is a job. That’s not to say that sex work, or sex workers, aren’t or can’t be sexy, or that they don’t have sex lives outside what they do professionally (the key word there being “outside”). Let’s just remember why that pole is there: sex work is a performance. That look of ecstasy these women in New Jersey are straining to imitate, in their new lucite n’ marabou stilettos? It’s not real.
It’s not “exploitative,” per se, for women to get their heart rate up by doing a strip tease. But it does carry nasty echoes of the advice given by women’s magazines - not so long ago - about how you can get exercise by cleaning your house. Do you see men consciously trying to combine sex with working out?
Not so much. Apparently though, Frank Bruni likes to eat steak at the Penthouse Executive Club. But seriously, he came for the meat. The steak, that is. That’s why the article is illustrated by a photo of a woman onstage and on her knees. A slideshow entitled “Two Kinds of Flesh” is captioned with some frat boy gems. In the main article Bruni writes,
On this visit to Robert’s and on subsequent ones, I was derelict in my duty, failing to sample much of what the restaurant had to offer.
But the beef, I devoured — breathlessly, ecstatically....Its atmosphere, granted, isn’t for everyone, and it has other shortcomings as well. The men who actually wait on the tables are less attentive and personable than the women who hover around them (and, it should be noted, vanish quickly if shooed away). The prices of some dishes, pumped up to reflect the entertainment on hand, might also be called topless.
But no matter what your appetite for the saucy spectacle accessorizing these steaks, you’ll be turned on by the quality of the plated meat.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
racing the romance
Psst…have you heard? Nascar hearts Harlequin. Pass it on.
Nascar drivers — heroic, adventurous but, to judge from the books anyway, in need of a down-to-earth woman they can count on — are more in the traditional mold, so for booksellers much of the appeal of the new Harlequin series stems less from its novelty than from the power of the Nascar brand, which commands tremendous loyalty among racing fans.
…In these books there is also a good deal more engine-revving, so to speak, than actual clutch-popping or rubber-burning. “Nascar is a family sport,” said Ms. Warren, the author of “Speed Dating,” and so the writers have to abide by certain rules: no crashes, no drugs or alcohol, no sex.
Well, thank goodness.
Speaking of great works of literature... On a recent trip to her local Borders, accompanied by pal Leon Wieseltier (the literary editor of The New Republic), Maureen Dowd was shocked and dismayed by the avalanche of chick lit. She writes:
In the 19th century in America, people often linked the reading of novels with women. Women were creatures of sensibility, and men were creatures of action. But now, Leon suggested, American fiction seems to be undergoing a certain re-feminization.
''These books do not seem particularly demanding in the manner of real novels,'' Leon said. ''And when we're at war and the country is under threat, they seem a little insular. America's reading women could do a lot worse than to put down 'Will Francine Get Her Guy?' and pick up 'The Red Badge of Courage.' ''
Thanks, Maureen, for performing such a valuable service in using your column to give voice to this new problem! I sure had never heard about it anywhere before. And Leon…you are so right. All the men I know are reading Stephen Crane’s classic book (or something equally substantive and pre-approved) in their spare time. That at least some women are not doing the same must be the reason we are all so stupid. And can't locate Iraq on a map.
Also of note and via the NYT:
-- Not only can women now get vaccinated against HPV (and by extension, cervical cancer), but the TV ads promoting it are really pretty great.
-- On the flip side, there’s also a new way of getting cancer, designed specifically for the ladies.
-- You may have heard about the wee controversy over Susan Patron's The Higher Power of Lucky (the children’s book that won this year’s Newbery Medal), but the Times story about it includes a truly fantastic quote. Says teacher and librarian Dana Nilsson of Sunnyside Elementary School in Durango, Colorado: “I don’t want to start an issue about censorship…But you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature.”
Nascar drivers — heroic, adventurous but, to judge from the books anyway, in need of a down-to-earth woman they can count on — are more in the traditional mold, so for booksellers much of the appeal of the new Harlequin series stems less from its novelty than from the power of the Nascar brand, which commands tremendous loyalty among racing fans.
…In these books there is also a good deal more engine-revving, so to speak, than actual clutch-popping or rubber-burning. “Nascar is a family sport,” said Ms. Warren, the author of “Speed Dating,” and so the writers have to abide by certain rules: no crashes, no drugs or alcohol, no sex.
Well, thank goodness.
Speaking of great works of literature... On a recent trip to her local Borders, accompanied by pal Leon Wieseltier (the literary editor of The New Republic), Maureen Dowd was shocked and dismayed by the avalanche of chick lit. She writes:
In the 19th century in America, people often linked the reading of novels with women. Women were creatures of sensibility, and men were creatures of action. But now, Leon suggested, American fiction seems to be undergoing a certain re-feminization.
''These books do not seem particularly demanding in the manner of real novels,'' Leon said. ''And when we're at war and the country is under threat, they seem a little insular. America's reading women could do a lot worse than to put down 'Will Francine Get Her Guy?' and pick up 'The Red Badge of Courage.' ''
Thanks, Maureen, for performing such a valuable service in using your column to give voice to this new problem! I sure had never heard about it anywhere before. And Leon…you are so right. All the men I know are reading Stephen Crane’s classic book (or something equally substantive and pre-approved) in their spare time. That at least some women are not doing the same must be the reason we are all so stupid. And can't locate Iraq on a map.
Also of note and via the NYT:
-- Not only can women now get vaccinated against HPV (and by extension, cervical cancer), but the TV ads promoting it are really pretty great.
-- On the flip side, there’s also a new way of getting cancer, designed specifically for the ladies.
-- You may have heard about the wee controversy over Susan Patron's The Higher Power of Lucky (the children’s book that won this year’s Newbery Medal), but the Times story about it includes a truly fantastic quote. Says teacher and librarian Dana Nilsson of Sunnyside Elementary School in Durango, Colorado: “I don’t want to start an issue about censorship…But you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature.”
trip gabriel speaks!
As part of the NY Times’ sweet and sometimes informative series of “Talk to the Newsroom” Q&A’s, last week Styles editor Trip Gabriel answered readers’ loaded queries about wedding announcements, miniskirts and the permissiveness of pleated trousers for men (Gabriel sheepishly passed these last two onto fashion writer Eric Wilson). He also allowed a rare glimpse into the thought process behind this section of the newspaper of record.
Re: “Thurs-gay Styles”…
Sunday Styles has no overarching thesis or agenda about gayness or straightness, but it’s clear the issues around sexual orientation in our society are evolving very rapidly, and often play out in the worlds of style. So we cover them.
Re: drooling over ludicrously expensive products…
…give us a break. It’s a bum rap that we fawn over the rich or equate being “stylish” with the consumption of luxury goods that are out of reach of most people. If anything, the tone of these sections is irreverent when looking at the lifestyles of the wealthy -- just as it is when looking at bohemians, artists, celebrities and others whose tastes often filter down, or up, to shape mass taste in America.
And in response to a reader who wrote in asking for a justification of why a story about the straight “re-education” of a gay teenager ran in the Styles section instead of somewhere more “serious”…
“Styles’’ is not just lip gloss and dress shops; it is how we live our lives today, including new perspectives on dating and mating (see the “Modern Love’’ column), workplace trends, the culture of online behavior, parenting, socializing (and social climbing!), changing attitudes about the roles of men and women and, yes, changing attitudes about sexual orientation. Because our country's accommodation of its gay minority is unfolding so quickly, in ways that are as much social as political, we look at the subject regularly. The July 2005 story you referred to seemed right for Styles in part because the teenager sent to a "re-education" camp posted a diary of his ordeal on a new social networking site few had heard of, called MySpace.
A stack of every Styles section since September 2005 takes up precious space in my apartment. I keep them around from week to week because the section is fascinating…it offers both the most frustrating, distorted (and sometimes contradictory) coverage of sex and gender issues of any part of the paper, and also the most earnest and in-depth examinations of those same things.
The Styles section can be sly. It contains some expected things, like the wedding announcements (a certain kind of porn, some have observed), but it is also the home for stories that may not fit or belong anywhere else in the paper. So although this section is where you’re likely to find irritating content about women and gender (say, a piece about Roberto Cavalli’s redesign of the Playboy bunny outfit) it may also be the section where you’re especially likely to find feminism.
Not that it’s off the hook. Gabriel mentions that “a piece last year asking if America is ready to elect a woman president got a lot of angry mail, not because of the story but because it ran in Sunday Styles -- and because it was illustrated with a pink handbag with a presidential seal.” He doesn’t mention (or isn’t asked about) a piece that ran around the same time that looked at the experiences of black nannies, which was interesting and important, but also in no way Style-ish.
Re: “Thurs-gay Styles”…
Sunday Styles has no overarching thesis or agenda about gayness or straightness, but it’s clear the issues around sexual orientation in our society are evolving very rapidly, and often play out in the worlds of style. So we cover them.
Re: drooling over ludicrously expensive products…
…give us a break. It’s a bum rap that we fawn over the rich or equate being “stylish” with the consumption of luxury goods that are out of reach of most people. If anything, the tone of these sections is irreverent when looking at the lifestyles of the wealthy -- just as it is when looking at bohemians, artists, celebrities and others whose tastes often filter down, or up, to shape mass taste in America.
And in response to a reader who wrote in asking for a justification of why a story about the straight “re-education” of a gay teenager ran in the Styles section instead of somewhere more “serious”…
“Styles’’ is not just lip gloss and dress shops; it is how we live our lives today, including new perspectives on dating and mating (see the “Modern Love’’ column), workplace trends, the culture of online behavior, parenting, socializing (and social climbing!), changing attitudes about the roles of men and women and, yes, changing attitudes about sexual orientation. Because our country's accommodation of its gay minority is unfolding so quickly, in ways that are as much social as political, we look at the subject regularly. The July 2005 story you referred to seemed right for Styles in part because the teenager sent to a "re-education" camp posted a diary of his ordeal on a new social networking site few had heard of, called MySpace.
A stack of every Styles section since September 2005 takes up precious space in my apartment. I keep them around from week to week because the section is fascinating…it offers both the most frustrating, distorted (and sometimes contradictory) coverage of sex and gender issues of any part of the paper, and also the most earnest and in-depth examinations of those same things.
The Styles section can be sly. It contains some expected things, like the wedding announcements (a certain kind of porn, some have observed), but it is also the home for stories that may not fit or belong anywhere else in the paper. So although this section is where you’re likely to find irritating content about women and gender (say, a piece about Roberto Cavalli’s redesign of the Playboy bunny outfit) it may also be the section where you’re especially likely to find feminism.
Not that it’s off the hook. Gabriel mentions that “a piece last year asking if America is ready to elect a woman president got a lot of angry mail, not because of the story but because it ran in Sunday Styles -- and because it was illustrated with a pink handbag with a presidential seal.” He doesn’t mention (or isn’t asked about) a piece that ran around the same time that looked at the experiences of black nannies, which was interesting and important, but also in no way Style-ish.
Monday, February 19, 2007
anthology controversy?
I just belatedly stumbled on some criticisms of my January Bookslut piece about anthologies, and I sure do wish I’d gotten to respond sooner. Brooke Warner, an editor at Seal Press, posted her response at Feministing, writing:
What’s surprising is that Loeb, a self-proclaimed feminist, would even ask the questions she poses: “Are we really still butting heads over abortion? Haven’t we been fighting ‘the mommy wars’ forever? How much longer do we have to deal with this whole wage gap thing?” Loeb might ask herself why she continues to stand behind a movement that’s still committed to fighting for causes that she’s sick of hearing about….If this all feels like rehashing and bemoaning, then I’m concerned that other young feminists who are brave enough to call themselves feminists are at risk of getting so jaded so quickly that they won’t want to hear about, talk about, or read about these pressing issues. Forget reaching new audiences.
First of all, how about not expressing horror that a self-identified feminist might dare to ask certain questions, no matter what they are? A more immediate clarification: I was being sarcastic. Feminist struggles feel repetitive. It’s exhausting to keep fighting for the same things. Being sick and tired of constantly fighting for reproductive rights and equal pay doesn’t mean they’re not important struggles. Can’t we admit to frustration and burnout?
Earlier, Warner writes:
Listen Up was published in 1995, and during my time at Seal Press many women have told me that that book was what turned them onto feminism. We Don’t Need Another Wave does, indeed, cover many of the same topics—twelve years later. There are personal essays and confessionals that range in topic from abortion to abuse to polyamory. Loeb’s critique of “the heavy emphasis on personal experience” dismisses the very thing that brings many young women into the movement in the first place—that someone out there is relating an experience that resonates so deeply that it provokes an awakening, an ah-ha moment: They’re feminists—and that’s a good thing.
Yes, Listen Up was and probably still is an important book. But it’s not like there were no anthologies broadly addressing feminism put out in the 12 years since. And I don’t hate on using personal experience as fuel for writing and politics. It bothers me when it doesn’t lead anywhere, though (and sometimes particularly personal writing lapses into something like parody without being aware of it). Maybe more of a problem than actual anthology content is that there are just so damn many of these compilations, and comparatively few books on feminism by single authors offering a clear argument. This might be indicative of the reality of this moment that we’re living and working in, but it still bothers me. I don’t want feminists to take the easy way out, and it seems like that’s what some of these anthologies do.
Warner is of the opinion that I am “operating under the assumption that the only people reading feminist anthologies are feminists and women’s studies majors.” Nope. I can’t stand it when people act like they are too above Feminism 101 to hang out and offer support while those who weren’t lucky enough to learn this stuff early get a little baseline education (whether in a bar, an anthology, a movie theater or a classroom of any kind). I certainly hope these books are reaching beyond communities that are consciously feminist, though it’s hard to know if they are.
Newer anthologies don’t need to reinvent the format, or even uproot the consciousness raising tradition in which they’re grounded, but they might think a little more carefully about their intended audience. When a book tries to work on all levels for every possible reader, it too often ends up seeming redundant to those already familiar with its subject, and a little mystifying to those who are coming to the material for the first time. In no way did I mean to “[bash] one of the trends that gives young women a sense of voice and agency.” I want these feminist anthologies to do the work they set out to do, and that’s why I care enough to take them to task.
What’s surprising is that Loeb, a self-proclaimed feminist, would even ask the questions she poses: “Are we really still butting heads over abortion? Haven’t we been fighting ‘the mommy wars’ forever? How much longer do we have to deal with this whole wage gap thing?” Loeb might ask herself why she continues to stand behind a movement that’s still committed to fighting for causes that she’s sick of hearing about….If this all feels like rehashing and bemoaning, then I’m concerned that other young feminists who are brave enough to call themselves feminists are at risk of getting so jaded so quickly that they won’t want to hear about, talk about, or read about these pressing issues. Forget reaching new audiences.
First of all, how about not expressing horror that a self-identified feminist might dare to ask certain questions, no matter what they are? A more immediate clarification: I was being sarcastic. Feminist struggles feel repetitive. It’s exhausting to keep fighting for the same things. Being sick and tired of constantly fighting for reproductive rights and equal pay doesn’t mean they’re not important struggles. Can’t we admit to frustration and burnout?
Earlier, Warner writes:
Listen Up was published in 1995, and during my time at Seal Press many women have told me that that book was what turned them onto feminism. We Don’t Need Another Wave does, indeed, cover many of the same topics—twelve years later. There are personal essays and confessionals that range in topic from abortion to abuse to polyamory. Loeb’s critique of “the heavy emphasis on personal experience” dismisses the very thing that brings many young women into the movement in the first place—that someone out there is relating an experience that resonates so deeply that it provokes an awakening, an ah-ha moment: They’re feminists—and that’s a good thing.
Yes, Listen Up was and probably still is an important book. But it’s not like there were no anthologies broadly addressing feminism put out in the 12 years since. And I don’t hate on using personal experience as fuel for writing and politics. It bothers me when it doesn’t lead anywhere, though (and sometimes particularly personal writing lapses into something like parody without being aware of it). Maybe more of a problem than actual anthology content is that there are just so damn many of these compilations, and comparatively few books on feminism by single authors offering a clear argument. This might be indicative of the reality of this moment that we’re living and working in, but it still bothers me. I don’t want feminists to take the easy way out, and it seems like that’s what some of these anthologies do.
Warner is of the opinion that I am “operating under the assumption that the only people reading feminist anthologies are feminists and women’s studies majors.” Nope. I can’t stand it when people act like they are too above Feminism 101 to hang out and offer support while those who weren’t lucky enough to learn this stuff early get a little baseline education (whether in a bar, an anthology, a movie theater or a classroom of any kind). I certainly hope these books are reaching beyond communities that are consciously feminist, though it’s hard to know if they are.
Newer anthologies don’t need to reinvent the format, or even uproot the consciousness raising tradition in which they’re grounded, but they might think a little more carefully about their intended audience. When a book tries to work on all levels for every possible reader, it too often ends up seeming redundant to those already familiar with its subject, and a little mystifying to those who are coming to the material for the first time. In no way did I mean to “[bash] one of the trends that gives young women a sense of voice and agency.” I want these feminist anthologies to do the work they set out to do, and that’s why I care enough to take them to task.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
In today's Times, Gloria Steinem writes:
Even before Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton threw their exploratory committees into the ring, every reporter seemed to be asking which candidate are Americans more ready for, a white woman or a black man?
With all due respect to the journalistic dilemma of reporting two “firsts” at the same time — two viable presidential candidates who aren’t the usual white faces over collars and ties — I think this is a dumb and destructive question.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
The Times is warming up for the Sackler Center's March 23rd opening with an article about Judy Chicago:
[Chicago] decided her art would address the scarcity of historical information about women. “Women’s history was neglected or added on, as opposed to integrated into the full history of the human species,” she said. “Both implicitly and explicitly the message that is communicated is that what women did wasn’t important.”
The article also quotes Roberta Smith writing about "The Dinner Party" in 2002, when she said that it was “almost as much a part of American culture as Norman Rockwell, Walt Disney, W.P.A. murals and the AIDS quilt.” Whatever you think about its content, "The Dinner Party" is an impressive piece of work, and I'm interested to see how its themes (and indirectly, Chicago's artistic priorities) will influence the Center. Not to mention how having the iconic feminist artwork as a centerpiece will shape ideas about what constitutes feminist art.It's encouraging to see that the inaugural show "Global Feminisms" will focus on contemporary work from around the world, much of which looks...let's say, "challenging" (in a positive sense). There'll also be an exhibit called "Pharoahs, Queens and Goddesses: Feminism's Impact on Egyptology," which I guess starts to answer the question about "The Dinner Party" influence. I admit to having a knee-jerk reaction whenever feminism is used in connection with goddess-y type stuff, though it's undoubtably a good thing if the existence of the Sackler Center encourages curators at the Brooklyn to look at the museum's permanent collection with fresh eyes, and organize shows that consider classic work a little differently. With these two exhibits starting things off, it seems like the Center will be conscious about balancing its looks forward and back.
Noted: Currently on view at the Rhonda Schaller Studio, "Access: A Feminist Perpective" is a show of contemporary feminist art from around the country. It closes on February 10th. The following Saturday (2/17) at the expansive (and generally expensive) College Art Association conference, the Feminist Art Project is presenting a full day of free panels (scroll down to Saturday).
And hey, how about Julie Atlas Muz's "titillation with an edge"?
In one number a fake bloody hand, shackled to her own, has its way with her, to the tune of Screamin’ Jay Hawkins’s “I Put a Spell on You.” In another, she escapes from a truss as Lesley Gore sings “You Don’t Own Me.” In one subterranean bar Ms. Muz was bludgeoned as Italian opera played. She emerged from the piece nude and covered in fake blood. It’s one of her favorites.
Intended as a reflection on suicide, terrorism and fear, [her piece "Exquisite Corpse"] offers a sly meditation on the power of femininity in the face of aging and death. At one moment, Ms. Muz is unhappily examining her few lumpy bits in an enormous mirror; at another, she is shoving a naked baby doll in the freezer, pouring a shot of (real) tequila and handling a (fake) AK-47 with the panache of a sexy villain. It’s not just a tease; it’s a kiss-off.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Last month I wrote for Bookslut about the exhausting spate of anthologies related to feminism. The one that really inspired the piece was called We Don’t Need Another Wave, and while I was no fan of the book’s content, I definitely agreed with the title’s contention.
Pretty early on in college I took a Women’s Studies seminar that was specifically about third wave feminism. It was both great and frustrating, at least partly because at the time – just a few years ago -- invoking a new feminist wave didn’t seem repetitive yet. Third wave seemed to be about a genuine resurgence of feminist culture in new(ish) and contentious forms. It was about real things that were happening more than about validating those things by calling them a movement (though there was some of that, too).
With the opening of the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art on the horizon, this month’s issue of ARTNews focuses on feminist art, and right on the cover they refer to work being made now as “the next wave.” Funny, I hadn’t noticed it ever going away. Apparently it's difficult to understand feminism as a constant.
The successes and failures of political movements are relatively easy to chart. What’s harder is figuring out what to make of the changes and challenges left in their wake (there’s that wave metaphor again…). It seems to me much less important to pinpoint some lofty conception of The State Of Feminism Today than to realize that feminism (and feminists) are all over the place, engaged in projects of all kinds and scales. Culture inspired or influenced by feminism is everywhere, and feminism is too rich and fascinating to be bound by convenient “wave” designations.
Pretty early on in college I took a Women’s Studies seminar that was specifically about third wave feminism. It was both great and frustrating, at least partly because at the time – just a few years ago -- invoking a new feminist wave didn’t seem repetitive yet. Third wave seemed to be about a genuine resurgence of feminist culture in new(ish) and contentious forms. It was about real things that were happening more than about validating those things by calling them a movement (though there was some of that, too).
With the opening of the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art on the horizon, this month’s issue of ARTNews focuses on feminist art, and right on the cover they refer to work being made now as “the next wave.” Funny, I hadn’t noticed it ever going away. Apparently it's difficult to understand feminism as a constant.
The successes and failures of political movements are relatively easy to chart. What’s harder is figuring out what to make of the changes and challenges left in their wake (there’s that wave metaphor again…). It seems to me much less important to pinpoint some lofty conception of The State Of Feminism Today than to realize that feminism (and feminists) are all over the place, engaged in projects of all kinds and scales. Culture inspired or influenced by feminism is everywhere, and feminism is too rich and fascinating to be bound by convenient “wave” designations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
