Guardian Linked To Racist Journalism

The phrase “linked to” is a favourite among the architects of moral panics. Marijuana was linked (back in the day) to black men raping white women. In more recent times, Ecstasy and various other safe drugs have been linked to (mostly invented) deaths. It is a favourite tool of tabloid journalism – claim ice cream is linked to gang violence and – Lo And Behold – it is! Because you just linked it.

In its endless descent into the journalistic gutter, the Guardian has adopted such tools too, such as its recent article Online trolling of women is linked to domestic violence, say campaigners. The Graun is, at least, smart enough to add “say campaigners” to the headline, so that when one points out that the claim is utterly baseless, the editor can respond: “we were just reporting what they said”.

This isn’t just sloppy journalism. The Guardian has long been militating for increased censorship of the Internet, and since it still maintains the pretence of supporting free speech, it must find online harm at every turn.

The Guardian itself appears to be becoming increasingly censored, especially on anything related to sex. What had originally seemed like the work of a few puritan journalists now seems to be official editorial policy. A series of good journalists have published ludicrously flimsy anti-sex articles. Not being privy to the internal workings of the organisation, I wonder what has been going on at Graun HQ. Does Julie Bindel stand over every journalist’s desk with a gun until she or he has produced yet another denunciation of “sexualisation” or “pornification”?

This feeling of a pro-censorship conspiracy is not just speculation: in her book The Sex Myth the sex worker/blogger/author/researcher Brooke Magnanti reveals that, after she won the Guardian’s 2003 blogger of the year award, a group of female Guardian journalists jointly threatened to resign if she was offered a column in the newspaper. Her crime was to present her sex work as a choice, and to refuse to label herself a victim, in strict contravention of Guardian editorial policy on sex work.

The Guardian’s hatred of any sexual expression is becoming so strong that the normally-PC paper is prepared to stray into the realm of racism where necessary. I’ve blogged previously about the jaw-dropping 2009 “white man’s porn is making black men into rapists” article by Tim Samuels.

Not to be outdone, Hadley Freeman (another once-sane journo who appears to have succumbed to the Curse of Guardian Towers) was enraged by Miley Cyrus’s recent twerking episode at the MTV Video Music Awards.

Her rage (of course) is primarily about open displays of sexuality: “she copied the dance moves of strippers” (but I know strippers who dance very well – what’s the problem?) and “female celebrities will one day feel that they don’t need to imitate porn actors” (all sexual expression is porn, and porn is bad, m’kay?)

Freeman tries to dress up her anti-sex rage as concern about racism, and digs herself a deep hole in the process. She casually drops in the fact that she has lived in the Notting Hill Carnival area for 12 years, which is kind-of like saying “I have black friends, you know”. I grew up a couple of miles north of Notting Hill, and while it was once a heavily Caribbean area, it had gentrified long before Freeman moved in.

She appears to be outraged that Cyrus had black backing singers: “a young wealthy woman from the south doing a garish imitation of black music and reducing black dancers to background fodder”. They are “fodder” in Freeman’s eyes anyway: to me, they are dancing beautifully, as only women of African origin can, and helping distract from the fact that Cyrus can’t dance. She refers to the event as a “minstrel show”. Other than banning black backing dancers from shows with white lead performers, it’s unclear what remedy Freeman would like to see.

She has fallen into the trap awaiting “progressive” middle-class puritans: dance and music originating in sub-Saharan Africa have always been far more overtly sexual than those originating in Europe. The overtness of African sexual expression offends the sensibility of European prudes, just as it offended (and titillated) European colonialists in Africa, who insisted that shameful African nudity was covered up.

Black music now dominates Western popular music forms. Not because (as Freeman suggests) whites are guilty of “cultural appropriation”, but simply because it is better, and it has come to dominate the meme-pool. It is hard to imagine what Western music and dance would be like today without African influences.

Freeman, of middle-class Jewish-American roots, educated in English boarding school and then Oxford, did not grow up around black culture. Like many privileged whites who grew up surrounded by privileged whites, she is discomfited by it, and all the Oxford education in the world cannot help her formulate linguistic tricks that adequately hide that fact.

The icing on the cake is that Freeman wraps up her bizarre articulation of dislike for black sexual expression in Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. King dreamed of a racially mixed world, but Freeman dreams of a world without strippers, porn and black backing dancers. What a sad, decaf, Euro-centric, Guardian-approved world that would be.

My First Strip

silhouette-of-stripper-on-a-pole_17-1120222452Once again, we are delighted to welcome our striptease correspondent Edie Lamort. You can follow her on Twitter here: @EdieLamort

Something occurred to me last summer after phoning up a radio talk show and commenting. It was in the wake of a Cornish policeman accusing lap-dancing clubs of increasing rape and the controversy it had caused. There were the usual prohibitionists on the line so I called to put the other side of the argument. I was trying to make the point that this way of thinking gave excuses for criminals and rapists. It allowed them accuse society and sexy women as the cause of their crime rather than to take personal responsibility. It also ran the old-fashioned narrative that the victim of rape is somehow to blame. Just a bit of good old-fashioned slut-shaming.

During the conversation, I had to keep asking the radio presenter to get back on to the subject at hand, because he was interested and wanted to know a lot more about the job. He asked about the money, the customers and how I felt doing my first strip. I gave some vague answers but was a bit puzzled as to why he was so intrigued about my first strip. It did make me wonder as it’s not the first time interviewers have strayed from the subject matter and quizzed me like this. They all ask about your first strip and to be honest I don’t really think about mine.

Why do they ask? I think it’s because there is a general perception that this job is not something you would choose to do and therefore you must have fallen into it or happened upon it. Do they think that one thing led to another, and before you know it, you’re on the slippery slope towards stripping? That it was forced on you and suddenly, before you could stop it, you were naked on stage? That it was not a personal decision? That you somehow took the wrong turn and did something you never expected to do? Or is it because we are all voyeurs? Even those who clutch their pearls and gasp, yet still want all the details?

I began stripping in San Francisco and it was a personal decision that I pondered for a while. I’m sorry to be boring but I am quite a pragmatic and analytical character. I ruminate on a decision for a while and I am not very impulsive. I am methodical about things and it takes me a while to settle on a decision. This is because once I do it is firm and I stick to it.

I decided to dance for a number of reasons, money obviously being one, but freedom and creativity being others. So I went to talk to a dancer that worked around the corner from the restaurant I was working in. I asked her many annoying questions and got lots of information about different types venues and where they were. Then I began a tour of the venues. Going into them one by one and telling them I was looking for work. They were all very nice and polite and showed me around. I spoke to the girls, watched stage shows and checked out the dance booths. They told me all about the fees and security protocols and how the shifts worked.

After this tour I decided on the venue I wanted to work at. I called them up and booked an interview with the house mom. She gave me a lot of advice during the interview and booked me in for an audition. She also gave me a few addresses of shops where I could buy my new work uniform; a long gown as it was an upmarket club, some T-bar panties (not G-strings – too crude apparently) and a couple of bikini sets. She then gave me dancing advice and we watched a few shows together. She explained floor work was important and to move slowly as it was more seductive. The whole interview process took a long time and I found myself getting a little impatient with it. I wanted to start work.

I returned the next week with my recommended outfits and settled into the changing room. I made up my face and put on the long red velvet gown over my underwear set and pasties. It was California over a decade ago and we had to follow strict protocol as you do in any licensed venue. We had to wear pasties over our nipples, along with the t-bar panties, and could only remove them in the last 30 seconds of the strip. Everything was quite controlled and tame really.

When I did my audition I was concentrating on the things she had told me to do, hoping I got the job. I chose middle of the road music and kept it fairly straight. The quirky, creative, more rock n roll part could come later. You don’t go to an interview in your wildest outfit after all. It was all over very quickly despite being about five minutes and my main focus was on perfecting my new craft. Moving slowly, feeling the beat, moving my hips and remembering all that poise I’d learnt in dance classes as a teen.

I got the job and was given a month of lunch shifts so I could get used to the stage, the dance and how it all worked. This next month too consisted of me learning the ropes, and that really was my focus, to learn my new craft and make it my job. Towards the end of the month the house mom came on to the floor during one of my lunch shifts and watched a few dances. She smiled and told me I’d improved a lot and seemed so much more natural on stage. This meant I could be moved on to a full rota, which would include evening shifts, and that I had passed my probation. This was great news because I had plans and savings goals that could now be achieved.

No one forced me to do this; it was purely a personal decision. I didn’t tell any of my friends, or colleagues from the restaurant, that I was doing it either. This was because I wanted it to be my decision and was worried that they would worry and panic, clouding my view and effecting my decision. Also it is not information that you can give to freely due to the social stigma so you have to be careful who you entrust with it. Even after I’d left my former job and started stripping, I gave some friends vague answers about ‘working in a bar’. I needed to make sure they would be ok and I wouldn’t get strange reactions. People will either think it’s disgusting, try to save you or ask a hundred bizarre questions. I was comfortable with the job but cautious in regards to the reaction of others.

Over time I learnt whom I could trust and began to be more open. The standard social narrative swings between ‘poor victim’ to ‘evil slut’ so it’s hard to have a normal and open conversation about this. That it is just people making a living. It is also people doing a lot of other thing besides dancing. You never know, you may work next to someone who dances at the weekend. Or one of those mums you chat to at the school gate so politely with, well she might have a pair of stripper heels in a bag ready to work. Or the friend of a friend that you think is really sweet may be checking in for her shift tomorrow night…

 

Why I object to Object (and all the other prohibitionist groups)

Our striptease correspondent Edie Lamort takes on the anti-sex “feminists” who attack and want to censor what she does. Edie is now on Twitter and welcomes discussion and feedback.

We live in an increasingly puritanical age. The party of the Noughties is definitely over and times are tough. Words such as ‘objectification’, ‘hypersexualisation’ and ‘pornification’ are thrown around in an accusatory manner. Like a baying mob in a medieval court crying ‘Whore’ or ‘Witch’ creating an atmosphere of fear and guilt. This lexicon of fear is now frequently drawn upon by our media in a childish effort to explain all our social ills but it doesn’t quite work. There is something amiss, something that doesn’t quite fit.

I am a stripper and I am told that my work ‘objectifies’ me and, as a consequence, all other women, but I’m always puzzled by this denunciation. It seems to be an immature and one-dimensional way of describing human interaction. When I’m at work I interact with all kinds of people as a human being. Of course some groups of guys are drunk and immature but most aren’t, that is more to do with group mentality than what they really feel about us. In my job I meet many people from all ends of the social spectrum and people react in different ways. How you view something is based on your personality and your life experiences. On the whole the audiences in strip clubs are fun and as a performer I enjoy playing up to that. If I am viewed solely as an object then why do the customers want to talk to me? This does not indicate ‘objectification’. Yes they are visually stimulated but we all are and I regard it as one facet of communication and understanding. We’ve all heard the statistic that over 90% of communication is non verbal. Human interaction and discovery happen on many levels so that of course includes the visual level. In a split second we make a multitude of judgments and opinions.

A key word here is performer and one reason why it is so important to stand up to anti-sex ‘feminism’. I strip but I also do other things. I have always been in bands; playing guitar and singing. I have performed Burlesque and been a session singer. I have been on tours of the country and performed at festivals, been on TV and radio and I am once again viewed on many levels. I am hated by some and liked by some, depending on their personal triggers. Some like the music, some are just checking out my cleavage. Some of the girls tell me I’m inspiring, others hate me and won’t talk to me. It’s more about them than me. I find it strange to say one form of performance is so very different from the other.

Censorship is dangerous and it has gotten to the point where my job now feels like a feminist statement. Something necessary and important to maintain. Stripping and all the Erotic Industries are like the canary down the mine in terms of freedom. If we go, you’re next. We are like the first line of defence and it worries me where it will lead. These ‘feminists’ are winding back the decades and need to ask themselves ‘where does this end?’ It seems very strange that they want to encourage slut-shaming. If stripping is banned and even made illegal then what will be the next target in their sights? Burlesque and Pole dancing are the obvious next steps along with Page 3 and music videos. Then what will be attacked after that? Edgy theatrical performance such as many Matthew Bourne productions? After all, they are sexual. Then will we regress back to the days were a woman couldn’t walk down a street with a short skirt because she’d be called a ‘tart’? If we go, you’re next; the walls will close in around you too, to the point where the prohibitionists will eventually find themselves in the cross hairs. Censorship is a dangerous road.

I find these anti-sex ‘feminists’ quite fearful and paranoid, in stark contrast to my stripper friends who are bold, witty and strong. If you can strut your stuff on stage and captivate an audience you most definitely have an ego! I know I certainly do. We are told we must have low self-esteem but in fact I hold myself in quite high regard. I’m not fashion-model-perfect, I’m getting a bit of cellulite and I have a varicose vein developing on my lower left leg but I don’t care. I still think I’m sexy and I know how to work an audience. I spend time practicing on the pole and making costumes; I want to be looked at and for my efforts to be appreciated. New art forms begin in the ‘deviant’ subcultures and it is where boundaries will be tested and new ideas will develop. It worries me deeply that these groups feel it’s OK to attack a female art form. Pole and neo-Burlesque have evolved from the creativity of strippers.

They attack those who are unrepresented as they are fearful of taking on real institutions of inequality. For example they tiptoe around tackling religion. Campaigning against a strip club is easy for a number of reasons. You have a lot of social prejudice on your side and many dancers also have other jobs, are studying or have family commitments. The stigma prevents them from speaking out, as they must maintain their cover. I know part-time strippers who are also doing office jobs, who are training as paramedics, who are working as nurses and in various other jobs. They are unable to ‘come out’ for fear of losing said other job. For this reason too there is a lot of ignorance about the dancers and the job, and it is easy for prohibitionists to prey on established fears and prejudices.

What groups such as Object do is polarize the debate and this again is very frustrating. It is thrown to either extreme of ‘ban everything’ or ‘save everything’. These groups have created an atmosphere where no one can raise any problems or ‘out’ any bad management due to the fact that it will be used as ammunition against all of us. This should be an issue of workers rights not a moral panic. If there are any problems, such as stage fees being too high, it should be treated as an employment issue. Fair working practices should be encouraged and enshrined in law, rather than a hysterical moralistic response, where the only solution given is an out right ban. I would encourage strippers to join a union such as Equity or GMB so the debate can be refocused on to workers rights.

Ironically their campaign reinforces an old and outdated view of women and if they succeed it will make things more dangerous. What can be achieved by censorship and winding back the decades? One of the most important social advances of recent decades has been the sexual emancipation of women and as a direct consequence of this; men, gay, lesbian and trans-gender people in our society. This is a very important step and one to be defended strongly against those who would take it away from us. Women’s sexuality and sexual expression is something that has always been feared and suppressed, and a woman challenging this is always derided. Remember Madonna in the 80s? She provoked outrage by being in command of her sexual self and expressing it.

This conservative view of women will drag us all back to a more uptight and dangerous society. One of the most dangerous things about the current crusade against strip clubs is the way that it perpetrates divisive ideology regarding women. Harking back to the days of women falling either into the category of ‘good woman’ or ‘fallen’, the Madonna or the whore, rather than many millions of individuals with a variety of needs and desires. This pseudo-morality makes life difficult and dangerous for those of us who are different and would fall into the ‘bad woman’ category. It also gives misogynists license to abuse and blame the existence of ‘bad’ women for their actions. The control of women’s sexual expression is at the heart of patriarchy and oppression, which is ironically what the prohibitionist ‘feminists’ want to do. If all strip clubs were banned tomorrow would that end rape? Definitely not. In fact it would be counter-productive as it would reinforce negative stereotypes and make sex more hidden and shameful. This is a social purity campaign dressed up as feminism.

In a recent article Kat Banyard of UK Feminista spoke in general about all the numerous things she disapproves of including the Dove commercials. The tone of her argument began more and more to sound like a condemnation of idolatry, the worship of images, with very religious tones. I think most people have more of a sense of balance than she gives them credit for. It ended up sounding like she’d prefer women to be covered or hidden, the thread of this thinking runs all the way back to religious controls, centuries back. This is not progress at all, this is a very old fashioned view.

There is also a very myopic obsession with females in the Erotic Industries and when you ask them about males they avoid the question. Difficult questions are always avoided by these groups. It is a moral panic that focuses only on women being looked at by men. What are their views on gay clubs that feature striptease? I have danced for gay women and there are male strippers. Why is this not attacked with the same vehemence? It seems to be very disproportionately aimed at keeping women ‘pure’ and a poorly concealed hatred towards heterosexual men.

The people who patronize us the most are in fact the ‘feminists’ who wish to outlaw us. If anyone objectifies us it is these people. Our opinions and decisions are not considered to be worth listening to. If any stripper, sex worker or adult film actress tries to explain the reasons they do their job they are told they are institutionalized, have Stockholm Syndrome or are too stupid to understand what they are saying.

When a small group of dancers went to parliament during the consultation of the Policing and Crime Act of 2009, that introduced the nil policy legislation, one of them tried to speak. She tried to explain to the panel that she enjoyed her job and was fine. She was displaying a contrary viewpoint that was incompatible with the ideology of the ‘debate’. This obviously riled the ‘feminists’ on the panel and they dismissed her opinions. Similarly on a radio show debate a dancer was dismissed with the comment, ‘Oh you must have been abused.’ If you do not parrot the correct ideology, you will be persecuted by these groups, and they can be very vicious.

The current left wing ‘feminist’ movement is something that dismays me and my experience of them has been shocking. Instead of being progressive and open-minded they have shown themselves to be infested with busybody, neurotic, hand-ringing, middle-aged, middle-class, academic ‘feminists’ who judge and prohibit. When was it that the left became so Victorian? How did that just creep up and where do you go from here? A few months ago I was speaking to a friend about this. She’s quite an extreme performance artist and she mused that there needs to be something new. ‘I don’t know’ she said, ‘something beyond what is now called feminism. I’m going to call myself a Femfuturist! Like a feminist but with out all the issues around sex.’