Sparring Over Sparkle vs. Direct Engagement

Octogalore, guest-blogging at Feministe, semi-coins a term and then asks some fairly important compare and contrast questions.

There have been so many posts out there in the past few weeks about sparkle that I don’t know where to start. I’m using “sparkle” as a catch-all for burlesque, sex work, fashion, any kind of sexy display or fashion statement. Here are just a few of them.

As I said in my whack at the subject, the discussions have centered around whether it’s (a) an empowering and feminist choice, (b) harmless fun that’s not meant to be either feminist or antifeminist, or (c) patriarchy-compliant antifeminism.

I came out (b) there, for reasons you can check out if you like.

...

The patriarchy isn’t going to topple based on sparkle. It might be compromised, though, if women had equal economic power. And I don’t mean any one kind of women, but all women having equal economic power compared to men who are similarly situated (Of course, that wouldn’t solve many other problems, like world poverty, racism, ablism, etc., which are worthy of discussion as well but not my focus in this particular post).

So we can stress about leg shaving, but I have a sneaking suspicion it doesn’t matter. If “the patriarchy” were reading many of these posts, they’d be chortling right now. Fiddling while Rome burns! The real battles are too laden with guilt and with women second-guessing each other, they’re going unfought.
This is a pretty sparse excerpt. You'll probably want to read the rest of the post here.

I'm a little less sanguine about certain elements of sparkle (a useful term b the way) than Octagalore. For instance to the extent some elements of sparkle (prostitution, for instance, or stripping) contribute to or play into the dominant "no-sex" class paradigm, and other elements (competing with other women to show up in the most "outrageous" and/or expensive clothes) seem like excursions into the beauty trap. And finally I get a little concerned when people confuse "drag" with gender, feeling for instance that failing to wear a skirt makes one "look like a boy" as a woman I used to work with claimed.

So, three quibbles with Octagalore's choice but mostly only quibbles because, yeah, struggling to wriggle free of patriarchal indoctrination doesn't mean I don't have that indoctrination up to my scuppers. And based on that indoctrination the feminist debate over "Teh Blowjob" isn't just incomprehensible to Patriarchy, and it isn't just irrelevant to Patriarchy, it appears as largely *supportive* of Patriarchy by refining and/or extending the "madonna/whore" dichotomy.

Also, as Octagalore proposes, if Patriarchy really was a directed enterprise instead of a self-perpetuating *result* then yeah, arguments over sparkle would have Patriarchy blowing apple juice out its nostrils compared to it's collective diaper-breaching panic about the increasing convergence of economic, social, and political power between women and men.

Because men have their own equivalents of "sparkle" (I'm not sure what to call it yet but see beer bongs, Lamborghinis, and canned hunting, hair plugs, and so on, that while humiliating or demeaning when viewed externally somehow detract *not at all* from conducting their enterprises. And yes, perhaps we *should* examine and debate "male sparkle," and if we did Dick Cheney's 78-year-old friend might not still be picking shotgun pellets from his face after that canned hunt a few years ago. But it still wouldn't be terribly essential compared to certain other things men could be doing instead. Like, um, not veto the Paycheck Fairness Act (via Feministe.) Just saying.