Saving Breasts -- Hating Women

Friday, February 09, 2007

Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
-- Proverbs 31:10


Lilith




As I said here:

A sexual woman is just too threatening to be allowed any kind of autonomy. She must be labeled, defined, constrained, diminished, and, even, owned.

Apparently even an organization dedicated to breast health, finds the exhibition of said breasts too damaging to its image.

The Breast Cancer Society of Canada has rejected the offer of thousands of dollars from a fundraising group of exotic dancers in Vancouver.

Exotic Dancers for Cancer holds an annual charity event in memory of a former dancer who lost her life to the disease.

Last year, the event raised $6,000.

However, former dancer Trina Ricketts said the society sent her an e-mail declining the money this year, because its major donors did not support a connection to exotic dancers.


Now, in all honesty, I'm no fan of the exotic dance industry. I think it's exploitive and degrading. But that has more to do with the misogynistic cultural climate in which it was spawned, than with the female form it displays. To treat the women in it as lesser beings, disregarding their money, compassion, and sisterhood, is more degrading still.

"I really feel that it's a strong indication of the degree of the stigma that exotic dancers experience when an organization doesn't even want to be associated with them for fear of experiencing the same stigma."

A virtuous woman is worth rubies. A sexual woman trades at the market rate. But a woman's body is everywhere a commodity.

4 comments:

DavidByron said...

Oh. The MLW article links to an older article here. Ok then.

Don't you think your negative attitude towards the industry, ("I think it's exploitive and degrading") is exactly why the other donors to the cancer society put pressure on them to reject the strippers' donation? You're part of the problem here.

Curmudgette said...

Oh God. David Byron, right here on my own little site. What awful thing did I do to deserve this.

In answer to your question:

No. An industry that refers to adult women as girls, sluts, etc., is part of the problem. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for you to grasp, but my dis is of the industry and the sexism within it, not it's employees -- kind of the way I feel about Wal-Mart. I've known strippers. I know how they're treated by employers and patrons. They're objects. It doesn't have to be that way. We could have an erotic industry that calls women women and doesn't treat them like pieces of meat, and I would have no trouble with that. But that ain't the way it is.

DavidByron said...

Huh. No wonder I had deju vu. Forgot about this.

The comparison with Wal-Mart is silly. In Canada prostitution is legal in some provinces. The industry you call 'exploitive and degrading' is largely run by the women themselves. Wal-Mart it ain't.

I can imagine the people who leaned on the Cancer society saying the same thing you did as their excuse, "Oh we've got nothing against the women but we find the industry is exploitive and degrading".

And your view on this stuff is more conservative than many feminists. I know a Canadian ho (her term) who used to head up a feminist group over there. For a while she was the "madam". Not all feminists are puritans.
----------------------------

Btw if you don't want me stinking up the place with my rugged maleness just say the word. I'd like to read more of your stuff though and I usually can't help throwing my 2 cents in.

Seriously - I know you are a strong free speech type so I wouldn't want to put you in awkward position. OTOH it doesn't look there are many regulars for me to scare away....

Are you ok with me being here?

Curmudgette said...

Well Mr. Byron. I'm not Canadian. I'll have to take your word for it. The only frame of reference I have is an American one. So if Canada is more advanced, good on Canada.

As I said before, you are obtuse. No one who has read my work could fairly call me a Puritan.

As for your "rugged maleness," I've seen no evidence of it. To me you come across as a simpering omega-dog, attacking women to prove that you're a man. I'm married to a U.S. Marine, so I do know a little bit about "rugged maleness" and I like it fine.