Is this projection? And, how many assumptions can fit into one sentence? (1) why is pole dancing necessarily about “making yourself sexier” instead of having fun with the sexuality you already have? (2) why is it necessarily for someone else? I think the individual woman’s intent should actually be our guide here, no?

“it’s certainly not “empoweringâ€? in the sense of getting you power in the real world”

Well, and why do female bonding activities need to rise to that standard?

“Women’s ‘power’ over people with real power, aka men, is all about sex and claiming to be ‘empowered’ by just being really good at the one power you’re sort of allowed to have (though rest assured, it can all be taken away with a rape or some harassment, and everyone will claim it’s your fault for being a slut) is a teensy bit of puffery.”

ALL about sex? Sip the RadFem Kool Aid much? Sure, there’s certainly some truth in the fact that women are more frequently advantaged by using sexuality as opposed to another kind of acumen. But let’s not ignore the many nuances and exceptions to this.

How do you define the “real power” men have? Money? Status? How would you explain the existence of female former sex workers who have been “allowed to have” far more of these attributes in their post-sex-work careers?

And as to “claiming to be ‘empowered’ by just being really good at the one power you’re sort of allowed to have … is a teensy bit of puffery.” Let’s assume arguendo that pole dancing is about feeling power of sexuality, among many other things. And that’s wrong, why? So, women culturally have more patriarchal pressure to trade on sexuality. Does that mean we need to accept that it’s a bad thing? We need to walk away from something, a la Firestone’s suggestion that women no longer give birth, just because the patriarchal Venn diagram puts more access to this, and less to other powers, in women’s circle?

What about the notion that it’s empowering to play with this a little, to take from it what we can and then use it to gain, as you put it, “real power”? Or, have fun with it and separately work to attain “real power” in other ways. Why the need for mutual exclusivity here, other than a remarkable lack of imagination?

“Men are permitted to have parts of their lives not be about sex, and the power they get from sex isn’t conflated with real power.”

Again with the ones and zeros. It’s not that straightforward. Both women’s and men’s lives overlap with sexuality, and many women who enjoy theirs are perfectly able to derive power from other aspects of their lives, or from a mixture of attributes. As for men not using sex in conjunction with “real power” — how about the statistic that plastic surgery and tanning booth customers are now about 33% male? How about the fact that certain professions, like president; CEO; trial attorney, etc. reward male attributes like height and strong build?

Power is power. There’s no “real” power. There’s only how we achieve it and how we use it. Whether it stems in part from sexuality, and whether this is more frequently the province of women, for a number of reasons, doesn’t put anyone, “good feminist” or “bad feminist,” in charge of deciding what’s legitimate. Saying the power ANYONE, male or female, gets from sex is “not conflated with real power” is simply inaccurate (forgetting about the fact that I’ve always felt “conflated” is a vague bloggy buzzword thrown in when it’s too confusing to find a more precise one).

Try reading Jill Dolan’s THE FEMINIST SPECTATOR.

Yes: some women take *pleasure* in looking at other women’s bodies! Some women (straight or bi or lesbian) still find pole-dancing for other women fun and erotic. It’s not always about pleasing men or rehearsing how to be sexy for men. Dare I say it, it’s about pleasing ourselves. .

And even those who do it professionally, it ain;t often about the men, its about the money.

No one here — not Ren Ev, Amber, or anyone else — is saying that pole dancing is innately feminist; only that some women — even some feminists — might find it fun and empowering, and even a bit sexually arousing.

Does the idea that women deciding to have pole dancing parties for their own pleasure and merely for plain old fun ever enter your brain?? Or is it always about “pleasing men”…even when no men are present to please??

I guess that anything that might cause a man to have an erection is now construed as blocking women’s access to real power, now??

And besides, it’s not as if men can’t do pole dancing, either: Ask Belledame.

Anthony

No, not all things related to sex are empowering, but it does depend on how you look at it. If a woman embraces sexuality as a means to power, it can in fact be such for her. Men also work at this, being appealing and sexual to females. This whol arguement comes down to eye of the beholder…pole dance for fun, exercise, and all woman power & sensuality, or to do it to appeal to men, which in its own right can speak to power….point is, once again, empowerment and feminism can be, in some areas, very personal, and really, who gets to judge that?

in believing that the pole-dancing craze is NEVER, under any circumstances, about the men

And to clarify: I have no doubt that FOR YOU, pole-dancing is NEVER, under any circumstances, about the men. And good on you for that.

Women getting together to practice sexually pleasing men has something to do with men, I’d think. Women getting together to diet or get their hair done to be better sex objects might have fun doing it, but I hardly think they direct absence of men while participating in a behavior that’s all about men somehow makes it feminist.

I do have hesitation, however, in believing that the pole-dancing craze is NEVER, under any circumstances, about the men, and that my points are therefore utterly invalid.