Sydney Life

I read an editorial on this subject the week after it happened (I'm pretty sure it was written by Mike Carlton, but as I am also in Honours-hibernation, I can't think of anything but thesis, thesis, thesis). The general consensus of this writer was that the disapproval of the 'burlesque performer' was evidence of the disappearance of Australia's 'larrikin humour.' If this is 'larrikin humour,' I'm glad it's 'disappearing.'

As you said, Ghassan, it's all a matter of context. If I was one of the members of that audience (who were there for a national science convention) I would have walked out, too. Burlesque performances belong in burlesque localities.

... Here I was thinking this was a blog dealing with students' experiences of university life, and lo, I get a bit of Miranda bashing too!

As a more serious aside, Gas, it's an interesting question that you pose about Brokeback. Cleary fifty years ago there wouldn't have been such a kiss, but I wonder:

(a) if a film with such a kiss had been made, would the reaction to it would have differed in any substantial measure to the reaction we saw over Brokeback? (Remember, the 1950s were not all white picket fences, fibro houses and church on Sundays and today's community is not necessarily as accepting and tolerant on matters of sexuality as we might like to think.); And

(b) did the aversion to the depiction of sexuality in film in the 1950s, if such an aversion existed (about which, incidentally, I have my doubts), not establish a more spiritual, emotional and romantic sensibility about love as an ideal, an ideal that, in today's world of soft-core porn masquerading as blockbuster entertainment, is sorely missed?

Ah, give me Die Blaue Engle and Breakfast at Tiffany’s any day! Marlene du bist meine schöne Liebling!

Couldn't have said it better myself Lauren!

The women who walked out of the forum were participating in a work-related event in a highly competitive field in which they would have had to work hard to establish themselves. I would also like to hope that their male colleagues would have been similarly offended by the inappropriate nature of this "entertainment", given that it took place in a professional space. I cannot think of anything more offensive to these women and their male colleagues than to have had a "burlesque dancer" parading around in a "balloon costume" (a pathetic attempt by organisers to make a stripper relevant to climate change???). One has to wonder what sort of person organised this "entertainment".

Gas, the fact that the performance was, as you point out, by a woman makes it all the more offensive to the women in the room as it is incredibly degrading to have a member of your sex objectified in a professional situation in which you have worked hard to be taken seriously. The women in the room who left were most likely in turn feeling objectified. It would be nice to imagine that there would have been no sexism in the eyes of the people watching, but I seriously doubt it. I believe that it is a degrading act for a balloon-clad woman to parade around in front of a room filled with scientists. Do you really think that the people who remained in the forum would have been actually “appreciating sex-based performance” in a non-sexist manner?

I am certainly not arguing for a move towards censorship. I just find it disappointing in this day and age that the whole room didn’t get up and walk out of the forum when the balloon lady appeared.

With respect Lauren and Angie, your comments merely emphasise my point, which was about our society's ideas of where sex is appropriate and where it is not.

Lauren says things like: "Burlesque performances belong in burlesque localities". Angie says things like: "[it's] degrading to have a member of your sex objectified in a professional situation in which you have worked hard to be taken seriously."

But that was my point! The problem is a society which considers some spheres as too "professional" to appreciate sex-based art and pits certain forums as more superior than "burlesque localities". Your statements put some women above others, by saying that those women who choose to perform sex-based art are less "serious" than those that choose to become (sexless) scientists.

Since when did feminism mean women were supposed to be sexless? I say, bring back the balloon lady and add a balloon man!

For me, this is a debate about the democratisation of sex and the body. Science takes our bodies, gives them hoity-toity names, medicalises them, categories them into disorders and scales of normality and then claims expertise on them. If the scientists in that room are too "professional" to appreciate a fully choreographed sex-based performance, then what are they doing telling us about the facts of nature?

Hehe now I'm just playing devil's advocate...

I bet you that when the conference organisers decided that they would get a stripper with balloons to perform at the conference, challenging "society's ideas of where sex is appropriate and where it is not." was not at the forefront of their minds.

With respect Ghassan, I think you may have missed the most important point that Angie and Lauren were making.

As a fan of burlesque and what you refer to as ‘sex-based art’, it is very rare for me to have any sort of issue with such performances. However, in this instance, the issue of context is vital.

I would love to see a burlesque show involving a woman covered in balloons on a night out but if I had sat in that room, I would have quivered with fury. As much as you would like to view sex-based art through the lens of a Utopian society, the reality is, in that context, chances are that performer would have been employed to provide entertainment to a male, heterosexual audience. Rightly or wrongly, I am sure that is the first thought that went through the minds of those people who walked out the door. The implications of that at a national science conference is enormous.

The fight women have been through to demand respect and equality in that discipline has been fierce and long running.

The issue here is about assumptions made about the audience, not the performer.

I do not believe that a woman performing a burlesque show is debasing herself. I do not believe sex-based art necessarily equates to objectification of body or gender. But I do believe, that at this time, great effort should be made to ensure that no traditional assumptions of male dominance should exist at a national science conference. I also strongly believe the acceptance of equal female representation in such fields is a more pressing issue in the context of a national science conference than whether sex art can be viewed from a position of performer power.

In the larger scheme of things, who is to say which issue is of greater importance but in this context, let's wait until there is equal gender presence and power in the profession before we decide whether a good time can be had by all from watching a woman get her kit off.

It is all about context and picking your battles.

I don't disagree with any of the arguments posted here, after all, I said: "But let me qualify: I believe it completely depends on two things: the audience and the context in where it happens."

However, I was disagreeing with the language used to express these sentiments. I don't believe we should be bringing down others in order to win our battles. (i.e. sex-based performers=less superior, therefore women in science are able to find more acceptance.)

This is the point at which I divulge from Joanna:
"I also strongly believe the acceptance of equal female representation in such fields is a more pressing issue in the context of a national science conference than whether sex art can be viewed from a position of performer power."

I think this is an important point made by Joanna, and I appreciate it. It positions the debate in a certain context. And I believe the other commentators on this issue could possibly also be thinking along the same vein. However, I wanted to make a broader point that simply thinking of women as equals when they are scientists, but not when they are burlesque-performers, is an odd position to be in. Which is why I said I err on the side of anti-censorship - not because I support a bunch of scientists also thinking sexist ideas about women as their heterosexual, male right - but because when we censor, we have a risk of silencing voices. From my position, I would rather more voices expressed - and many I disagree with - than having a monopoly on who can express ideas.

Also, I think it's unfair to call someone's vision of a society as "Utopian" - i.e. diminish its realness or possibility - as many a great improvements were based on utopian ideas (think, Martin Luther King Jr, "I have a dream").

I think Adrienne's point is important, as the motivation for hiring the performance is questionable. Which is why I said I believed the sexism existed in people's eyes (i.e. the audience) rather than in particular images/performances. It's also why I suggested a balloon man :-)

Jo made the point that it was about context - and where you pick your battles to fight. From this perspective, I can certainly understand why most people would find the performance out of place. And I wouldn't disagree with you there.

But my point is, why do we find it out of place? Beyond the issue of this science convention, I feel there is a broader structure which belittles the performer, on the basis of our social attitudes to sexuality. And I don't believe we should exploit that unfair position to win respect for women.

Maybe it was a bad idea to come out of hibernation. I should get back to honours and stop rustling feathers with my left-of-centre ideas...

I have one question to pose for this particular blogger: what does this topic have to do with Sydney University? I came to this site to learn more about life at Sydney Uni and all I have read is, unfortunately, a poorly constructed attempt at a non-sensical argument which does NOT enlighten me as to Uni life.

If I am to presume that Sydney Uni life is represented here then I definitely don't want to learn with people who make lame arguments that strippers at a conference can be considered "burlesque art". What next - perhaps we should spray paint the quad and call that art?

I would hope that intelligent debate is part of uni life but this blog posting is certainly not.

Good on all the other bloggers for sticking to the topic and providing quality writing.

Hi Graham. Ghassan has responded to your comment with a new post which is a bit more Sydney Uni related - http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/sydneylife/2006/09/uni_life_is.html. I am glad you have enjoyed other areas of the blog and if there is ever a topic that you particularly wish to read about, feel free to request it via a comment - ed.

Wow! Such dissent - I love it!

And Graham, I see your point, but I honestly think this is what university is all about: learning to engage in intelligent debates, in order to exchange ideas and learn more about the world-at-large. It's not all textbooks and mortarboards!