On Radio 4 this morning - on Andy Marr's 'Start The Week' - someone talking about Aristotle - a non-didactic philosopher whose philosophy was based on seeking truth through asking questions.
So in the spirit of Aristotle, let's consider another item on this morning's Radio 4 - modern burlesque.
Is it just posh girls stripping?
Ought they to know better?
Why has it become so popular as a hobby or an artform?
Is it meant to evoke naughty thoughts?
Is it ultimately simply about nudity and titillation?
Or about glamour, sisterhood and solidarity?
Is strip-tease at the heart of it?
Why is it from the Italian for 'a joke'?
Is it just a tired and outdated form of performance?
Is it exploitation based on a subject-object relationship?
Is it harmful to women's equality?
Are women emboldened by burlesque performance?
Is it 'empowering'?
Is it based on the objectivication of women?
Why are the majority of its audiences women?
Why do women want to watch other women undressing?
Thousands of women are learning the traditional art forms of this vintage form of performance and entertainment, according to the studio guest, Ophelia Bitz.
http://www.volupte-lounge.com/performers/miss-ophelia-bitz/1
http://www.opheliabitz.com/bio.html
Oxzen has no philosophical standpoint on this subject. Only questions.
...................................................................
Strippers Fight To Save Clubs
Strippers fighting, eh? Fundraising? This is from the local newspaper:
http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/home
http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?referral=other&refresh=P1q42F0c13sG&PBID=049af911-0410-4706-8e42-1be27a7bddc4&skip=
Strippers and erotic dancers are preparing for a bust up [geddit?] this week over town hall proposals threatening the future of Hackney's sex entertainment establishments.
Staff from the borough's four strip joints in Shoreditch are taking a stand against plans for a "nil" policy on adult clubs and shops . . .
Ah - the complexity of running a borough that traditionally values diversity, different cultures and cutting-edge artistic endeavour, whilst also being committed to anti-sexism and non-exploitation.
Thierry Shaffauser, president of the GMB branch [that's the General, Municipal and Boilermakers] of the International Union of Sex Workers, [shouldn't that be the IUSW branch of the GMB? Or was there a takeover?] said, "Our jobs are at risk. Working conditions in Shoreditch are among the best in London. If the clubs closed the dancers would have to work in places where there is more exploitation." [So they're currently not too badly exploited?]
Cllr Chris Kennedy believes "sex establishments do not fit with the character of our town centres and neighbourhoods." Really Cllr Chris? How about with the character of funky, libertarian, fun-loving Shoreditch?
Pole dancer Jennifer Richardson, 28, who has worked at Brown's for 10 years, said, "I have a degree from Oxford University and I choose to work in these clubs. I am a performer and an artist, which I'm proud to [be]. The council is sullying it. This isn't just about strip clubs; this is about people's basic rights to work in the industry they choose to."
Industry? Business? Branch of showbiz?
Two specialist academics (!!!) will be attending (??) Wednesday's Hackney TUC meeting, which is being held at 7.00pm at Cafe Mostra in Stoke Newington High Street.
That'll be a mass meeting, then.
Union members will vote on a motion in favour of the licensing of sex entertainment establishments and a 'model of rules'.
So here we have a bunch of women comrades and their trade union trying to stand up for their rights against the local council - i.e. the Labour Party. Well, it is New Labour, after all.
What to make of this? Someone's got to stand up and fight for liberty, equality and fraternity. Who's more likely to be correct on this issue? The women who perform, and apparently enjoy performing? Their union? Local councillors? New Labour? Specialist academics? Boilermakers?
......................................................
I think I'm going to start buying the Hackney Gazette. It's full of gems. I recall Russell Brand reading aloud a couple of articles from it, chosen at random, during his Hackney Empire performance which was recorded for DVD. One of the articles was about a banned local cleric. Truly hilarious.
............................................................
A good response to Charlie Brooker's latest column on CiF:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/06/charlie-brooker-phones-embarrassing-info
Voltaire21
Well done Charlie, great piece. We have finally achieved total information overload. The speed of modern communications is not helping but killing the world. All these millions of trade being carried out by banks in nanoseconds with information fed into supercomputers every halfminute is unstoppable. Fast changing communications builds a completely volatile world which exposes the good people of the earth to untold harm from all directions. The problem with technological progress is that it eats the good with the bad without answering some of the biggest problems with society. It has not helped solve the most distasteful traits in mankind: greed, selfcentredness and ignorance.
.........................................................
More delightful cricket:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/dec/05/the-ashes-2010-kevin-pietersen-australia
..................................
A Pair of Stupid Hunts
I'm expecting this youtube clip to be all over the Internet, so it might as be on my bit of it too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1G6osCnsbA&feature=youtu.be
Thank you, James N - for a really good chuckle. Over 17,000 views already.
Even funnier is Andrew Marr, committing an even bigger hock-up, on his Radio 4 programme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0t56gLnkLU
Poor, innocent Jeremy Hunt. He'll never get over this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/06/james-naughtie-today-jeremy-hunt.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment