FULL DISCLOSURE: I am the stage manager for TUSH! Burlesque. So I’ve got some personal investment in this issue. But I can absolutely guarantee that even if I wasn’t so lucky, I would be equally as upset.
Upset about what? you ask because you are perceptive and intelligent. Well, I respond because I am feeling balanced and reasonable (except for the part where my hands are shaking with furious anger), I’m upset about dudes.
There was a piece written about the TUSH! Burlesque show that happened earlier this month. It was published in a quasi-local newspaper. It was written by someone who has generally published straight reviews, so the (natural) expectation was that it would be a straight review. Instead, turns out it was a “fluff” piece (not my word) about burlesque in general, and in the words of the reviewer, “This article was not, nor was it intended to be, a review of this particular performance of TUSH! Burlesque, which closed before the article could possibly run. It was only meant to help publicize the group and its art form.”
Which is the polite way of saying it was done to give these little ladies a boost. Because, as a commenter asserted, “It was a bit of a fluff piece to keep TUSH! in good publicity. I recommend being grateful for that and understand that you are still not having “real” fans come to your performances. They are all friends and relatives for the most part. This is a piece that can help widen your appeal.”
Don’t whine, girls, we’re doing you a favor!
Also, it strikes me as highly unlikely that 8 women would have 300 friends and family between them coming to every show, but hey, that would require some logic and math, and as a lady I am not good at that.
The real root of my anger, aside from the specific slights, is the sexism oozing from every pore of both the reviewer and commenter. The (actually quite clearly stated) overtones of patronizing male privilege are inescapable and overpowering. Like this:
“Indeed, only a true cad would write negative criticism of ladies sufficiently brave and generous enough to doff their duds for art’s sake, and I am not that cad.”
Thing is, burlesque is about ladies taking their clothes off. I mean, there’s a lot more to it, which you know I’ll get into in a minute, but when you go to a burlesque show, you are going to see ladies take their clothes off. The performers spend hours and hours and hours practicing taking their clothes off. To totally disregard that, to announce that you aren’t going to criticize the performances because of what they are, is to completely disrespect the performers. I fear that the reviewer assumed in order to criticize a performance he would be criticizing a performer’s body, since the ostensible goal of a burlesque number is to exit the stage in next to nothing. However.
One criticizes a performance. Not a performer’s body. It is never, ever okay to criticize someone’s body. Especially women who are, as the reviewer rightly pointed out, brave and generous. But to deny any sort of critical examination of the performance because of this is in direct opposition to a) what being a critic is about and b) the idea of what burlesque as an art form is.
Burlesque, at least in its present revival (and yes, there is a huge burlesque revival, and no, a short article in a small alternative paper is not going to convert legions, contrary to apparent expectation), is based around the idea of female empowerment. Women supporting women. Women participating in an activity centered around their bodies, and the ways they can use their bodies and personalities to reclaim their sexual power. Not to get all Laura Mulvey on your ass, but the male gaze is totally a real thing. It’s a gross thing. When everything a woman does is interpreted through the lens of a man’s experience of it, the woman’s contribution is inherently devalued. Burlesque is a way of owning sexuality. Owning one’s body. Controlling exactly how that body is revealed. Beyond that, it’s about helping women develop confidence by doing something incredibly difficult and incredibly vulnerable in a place that is totally safe and supportive.
Basically, the TUSH ladies don’t need your permission to be strong, sexy, creative, self-directed women. The organization is run entirely by the women in the troupe. Every single thing that happens in a show happens because they make it happen. Finding out that they should be satisfied with what they get because at least some dude is willing to allow them precious column inches is disgustingly misogynistic. Saying that if it wasn’t for articles like this nobody would come is simply the most stunning display of self-indulgent ego that I have encountered in a long time.
Some of the women of TUSH are incredibly upset by this. Some of them commented. Most of the comments were met with “quit whining, at least you got an article.” Question is, if this article had been about men, would anyone have said that? If a reviewer had written very little about the content of a performance (even taking into account the later avowal that it wasn’t really a review, but a pat on the rump to help the performers up the ladder of public acceptance)(ESPECIALLY taking that into account, actually) but instead had gone out of their way to be so self-righteously magnanimous, would anyone have said “quit whining” if someone complained? Probably not. Sure, people would’ve been on both sides of the debate, but wouldn’t have been a question of hurt feelings.
That’s the thing that matters the most, really. There’s been a day for Christina to chill out, but that also means there’s been a day for people to talk about how embarrassing the entire thing has been, and how everyone should just relax and put it behind them.
True. To a point.
Calls for apology by the people who got upset? Possibly justified. However, due to the polarizing nature of this issue—and please do not forget I am talking about the issue of sexism as it pertains to a female-dominated art form not the issue of a poorly-researched and poorly-written article—I cannot simply apologize and move on. Sure it’s important to put up a professional front, and to be gracious. Those are excellent qualities. But what sticks in my craw about the response is that it is undeniably tinged with the whole “quit whining” thing that incenses me so much. In this case, “whining” is code for “having a response to something that the author did not intend,” which in this case is all this sexism I keep harping about (just like a woman). Of course the author would be surprised; how often do people think they have abhorrent opinions or qualities? I’m sure I’ve got some, but I’m sure I’d also be shocked and surprised if called out on them. So, there you are. That’s my disclaimer for that.
Why should anyone have to apologize for their emotions? Sure, we can always work on sounding smarter and more together than the person we are disagreeing with, that’s always beneficial (always). But to get chastised for disagreeing in the first place? That’s where I take issue. Women are under societal pressure—and have been for centuries, millennia, forever—to be meek and apologetic; to have emotions but to turn them on and off whenever they’re told. The indignation felt by some of the group about the piece is totally justified. Sure it wasn’t entirely negative, but it was incorrect. It was un-researched. It was unbelievably condescending.
But I’ll return to my earlier question—had this been about men, would the response have been different? I have a hard time imagining men getting “emotional” (which is not the fucking plague, just so you know, and if you have a penis getting emotional or encountering the emotions of others does not cause it to fall off) over an issue like this, especially in a public forum. Judging from the response of the men who felt like commenting on the article, author included, I’m right. They didn’t get “emotional.” They got exasperated, and confused, and defensive. They got totes patronizing.
PS: If you don’t see how this was patronizing, and are unwilling to try, you are not the person I thought you were.
I’ll say it again (or for the first time? I cannot keep track of my own brilliance sometimes.) I do not mean to attack the writer of the piece for what he said, necessarily. My issue is with how he said it. And how he is one example of the same old tired sexist song-and-dance with a refrain meant to keep women in their place, meaning at the mercy of what men deem permissible.
Doubtless I’ll be accused of feminazism. Doubtless I’ll tell you to stick that idea pretty far up your ass. I’d rather be accused of challenging the status quo, and maybe having an unpopular opinion, but my whole frigging crusade is to help everyone along via vehement opposition and challenging my detractors, to the point at which the opinions and autonomy of women aren’t suspect, or symptomatic of something negative. There’s nothing wrong with being smart. Or totally hot. Or smart, hot, and gracious, like TUSH! and every other burlesque performer I’ve ever met. I will personally apologize for whatever poor phrasing might have been used, but no way am I going to sit by and let this kind of horrible sexism run rampant. Granted, I don’t expect much to change as a result of this—I’ll get called some names, some people will lose respect for me, other people will gain it. It’s all happened before; that’s how it goes when you have Sometimes Unpopular Opinions.
These women (and lots and lots of others, by the way) are sexy, empowered, happy, hardworking, creative, and successful. Don’t worry about doing them any favors. Especially if you’re going to do it by treating them like little girls. Don’t denigrate their anger at being treated that way. Women have been treated that way for thousands of years; hey, maybe we’re tired of it.
In conclusion: sorry dudes, I’m mad at you. I’m not calling you sexist. I’m calling you out on it. I’m happy to talk about it with you—not to argue about it, since I don’t know if I made this clear, but in my opinion there is no argument. If you’re interested in discussion, bring it. I’m always happy to advance my socialist feminist communist man-hating agenda!
Oh, wait; let me translate that back into what I’m actually saying, as opposed to what a lot of people seem to hear:
I’m always happy to share my opinions.
ETA: Do you guys like the ninth-grade five-paragraph persuasive essay closing line? I sure do!
Tags: Ladies!, nonfiction, Politics, semantics, The Theater
