I'm seeing a pattern

As I was going through this week’s reading, I was struck by the similarities between dime novels and our study of burlesque and black minstrelsy. Both burlesque and dime novels were/are considered lower forms of entertainment. Despite being enormously popular and prevalent, the texts were not saved and analyzed to the same degree as other forms of art. The mass production of these texts undermined their importance.

Another similarity was how all of these texts showed the differences in class and the class divides that solidifying during this time. While burlesque, black minstrelsy, and dime novels were widely popular and consumed by a diverse group of people, they definitely had a target audience. Burlesque was a very working class, bottom of the middle class form of entertainment. One group black minstrelsy appealed to was working class people that were uncertain of their position in the social rankings. The dime novels had enough subject matter that they appealed to men, women, and children but one group in particular was factory workers, mostly immigrants.

I was struck when Michael Denning wrote, “To view these books that collectors prize through the culture of craftworkers, factory operatives, and laborers rescues them from a kind of patronizing and patriotic nostalgia, and situates them not in a pastoral golden age but in the class conflicts of the gilded age” (p.88). These texts help us define the class conflicts that were happening during this time. By looking at who is watching and what they are watching, we are able to learn a lot about the conflict. I think what all of these texts demonstrate is that we as consumers are at once profoundly influenced by what is found in popular culture and greatly shape popular culture. It is this strange symbiotic relationship that is found throughout all popular culture.

Blackface

Every time that we discuss the blackface minstrelsy of the 1800's, my mind wanders to this recent news story involving one of America's favorite dancers/actresses. Julianne Hough, a professional dancer who performed on Dancing with the Stars and also starred in Safe Haven, dressed up for Halloween in 2013 as a character from another popular show- a series called Orange is the New Black. The character Hough was portraying, "Crazy Eyes", is originally played by a black actress named Uzo Aduba. Even in our modern, progressed society, this blackface caused quite the controversy! Hough released a statement afterwards, saying, "It certainly was never my intention to be disrespectful or demeaning to anyone in any way. I realize my costume hurt and offended people and I truly apologize." Perhaps, despite all the progress made and obstacles overcome, America will never fully accept this form of entertainment, and, I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.

The Juxtaposition of the "Black" Body's Power

Blackface Minstrelsy seemed to have such opposing purposes in the 19^th century. On the one hand, it solved a problem for white society by its portrayal of slaves but simultaneously created them as well.

Using blackface minstrelsy, whites could portray slaves as they wished and as was comfortable for them. They could overly sexualize them, depict them as content as they toiled their lives away in fields so the whites that profited from their work could live in ease, and ridicule them through malapropisms.

It seemed pretty ironic to me that by reducing blacks to sexual beings onstage, they actually created a fascination with miscegenation because the audience had an appreciation of black male sexuality. And to combat that sexuality, they used malapropisms, which the minstrels then used to weave a more sexual subtext. Furthermore, songs such as “Jumbo Jum,” which describe exactly how “easy” a slave is to seduce (which I found deeply disturbing), all fed into this skewed view of black sexuality. According to the song, all a man has to do is look at a black woman and already she’s “reeling” from desire and drops to the floor in “a state of agony.” And even more disturbing is that white men were encouraged not only to fantasize about such encounters with black women, but also to indulge their desires.

The flip side of the minstrel show is that they are exaggerated imitations of black men and women. They were masks the dancers painted on for the span of the show and then took off again. Whites portrayed embellished versions (if they can be called that at all) of the role of blacks in the society of the time. Can anyone really believe such an extreme misrepresentation of blacks in America even during the 1800s? As Lott says, “If all doers are mere masqueraders, minstrels are no different from anyone else; their falseness is the only reality there is.” 

An Op-Ed Piece from the Atlantic

I found this opinion piece, Let's Talk About Sex - In English Class, whilst surfing the web.  I've always found sex education in high schools (or the lack thereof) to be an interesting topic.  The author argues that it isn't fair for teachers to fear getting fired over assigning readings that deal in heavier topics, especially sexuality.  There are important lessons to be learned about sex and sexuality that can be taught in English classes, and sheltering high schoolers from the realities of life (both the good and bad parts) isn't doing them any good.  I thought it related well to our discussions about women being viewed as almost asexual in the mid 19th century.  American school systems also fear that children exposed to "risque" material will undoubtedly become sex addicts.

Being a Woman

"She was no actor; she merely showed herself. And she succeeded to the degree that she revealed herself to be what she was: a woman." (125)

Holy crap. Wait, what? That thing on the stage is a woman?! You could've fooled me.

No. Just no. I understand that view of Logan (and everyone else) in this book are from a time hardly comparable to 2015. So, with my postmodern view on life and sexuality, I am kind of offended that a woman has to hide the fact she's a woman. Um, duh. You cannot kind your sex behind the folds of a cloth, no matter how hard you try. (Unless you're a bank robber wearing an all black sweatsuit, but that's irrelevant to my point.) To me, Logan makes it sound that being a women is a horrendous thing that should be kept a big secret. I compare that to dress codes in this time. I do believe there is a fine line between "showing off" your body and simply having a body that can be seen. For example, t-shirts. Sorry I have cleavage and I'm not going to run around everywhere in a turtleneck. Yeah, I try not to let the world see EVERYTHING but sometimes it's hard. And yoga pants. I know some people will probably stare at my butt. I take that into consideration when I wear them. But, it's not like I go buy a butt enhancer body shape wear thing to enhance it. This brings me to the thought of tank tops in schools. So many dress codes require a 1-2 inch strap that conceals all other straps (of, specifically [dare I say the offending name] a BRA) so that others (presumably boys) won't see it. LITERALLY EVERYONE knows that most females wear a bra. Wearing a bra is socially accepted and expected. So, why should we hide it? What about my middle-high school bra strap or shoulders makes a young boy drool and lust after me? Is it my fault I have shoulders and wear a bra? I'd probably be stared at more if I didn't wear a bra! SO WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO?!

Moving on.

"The nude woman succeeded monetarily but not because of her hard work and training. She advertised her sexuality and was paid for doing so." (126)

Okay okay okay hold up here. First of all, as I mentioned in class, dancing/pole dancing/Burlesque/anything related is hard. I can hardly dance for fun without getting winded and exhausted. These women are indeed athletic, as we also mentioned in class. They don't just hop up on the stage and walk around showing a leg or two. They physically move, which is exhausting! And in this day and age, men too "succeed monetarily" through their bodies. Modeling, being a hot celeb, even being on the Bachelor. These people aren't featured on popular culture because they're ugly. People aspire to be like them because of how they look and the money that they make. If you look good, you might as well use your face to make some money. Unless you don't want to, that's perfectly fine too. Get a behind the scenes jobs such as a telephone counselor where no one can see your pretty face.

Moving further.

"...most American feminists agreed that in order for sexual equality to be achieved, sexual passion had to be brought under the control of women and carefully regulated, rationalized, and channeled exclusively into procreation." (126)

Excuse me. This relates back to my first point: is it the male's or female's fault that people stare at a woman's body? Probably a bit of both, depending on the situation. But it is not entirely up to the woman to hide who she is. If I'm a female, I am going to have female physical characteristics. Sorry. Also, I am more than a procreator. Yeah, women carry the child and have the eggs, but they don't do it without the male's help! Men help procreate too! Why aren't they seen strictly as procreators?

One of my male friends told me "Katrina if you're not a feminist by now I don't know what's wrong with you." I don't consider myself a diehard feminist. Yes, I believe in equality between all sexes and genders, but I don't think I have to "be" a feminist to expect that. I just believe equality should exist, just like speed limits and cookies should.

Olive Logan's Opinion

While reading chapter five, the first thing that peaked my interest was Olive Logan’s opinions of burlesque. After publicly ripping into all burlesque performers and directors, Logan continued by stating she was only directing her negativity to those that were not “decent young women.” She then listed following the questions that if answered yes, meant she was directing her negativity toward that woman.

·        Is your hair dyed yellow?

·        Are your legs, arms, and bosom symmetrically formed, and are you willing to expose them?

·        Can you sing brassy songs and dance the can-can, and wink at men, and give utterance to disgusting half-words, which mean whole actions?

·        Are you acquainted with rich men who will throw you flowers, and send you presents, and keep afloat dubious rumors concerning your chastity?

·        Are you willing to appear tonight, and every night amid the glare of gas-lights, and before the gaze of thousands of men, in this pair of satin breeches, ten inches long, without a vestige of drapery on your person?

When reading this, I almost laughed out loud. Are the above questions not similar to the qualifying questions one would ask of today’s actresses?

“Is your hair dyed yellow?” I wonder how many actresses actually sport their natural hair color. I would bet a very low number. In fact, how many women in the country, no matter if they are on TV or not, sport their natural hair color? Probably a low number as well. I find the cultural acceptance of dying hair in the 19^th century to be quite interesting.

“Are your legs, arms, and bosom symmetrically formed, and are you willing to expose them?” Being gorgeous and racy are nearly a necessity to be an actress today!

“Can you sing brassy songs and dance the can-can, and wink at men, and give utterance to disgusting half-words, which mean whole actions?” How often do we see singers, actors, and dancers crossing over into each others’ industries?! All. The. Time.

“Are you acquainted with rich men who will throw you flowers, and send you presents, and keep afloat dubious rumors concerning your chastity?” Ever heard it’s not about what you know. It’s about who you know. I think that is part of what Logan was saying here. All that a young girl could sleep her way to the top…some things haven’t changed.

“Are you willing to appear tonight, and every night amid the glare of gas-lights, and before the gaze of thousands of men, in this pair of satin breeches, ten inches long, without a vestige of drapery on your person?” I’m not sure if you all watched the Super Bowl last night, but my sister and I couldn’t help but think that Katy Perry’s outfit seemed to be quite modest. Then I thought it was kind of sad that we thought a crop halter top and short circle skirt were modest. So doesn’t being an actress (or performer) today ask you to wear very little clothing a lot of the time?

I guess I just thought it was ironic that this critique was coming from an actress when today’s actresses are on par with burlesque dancers. Even more irony-actresses playing burlesque dancers like Christina Aguilera who started out as a brassy singer. That’s enough irony to last me the rest of the week! In conclusion, I wonder what Olive Logan would say about today's entertainment industry.

Ixion Revisited Revisited - The Leg Business

“That? Oh! That is my wife; but, by the Prophet! I am inclined to think, by the way she dresses tonight, that she is the wife of every gentleman in the room!” (p. 149)

Although I do occasionally yearn for the day when the average American’s vocabulary and style of speech was a tad more sophisticated, I am not jealous of the perceptions about women’s bodies from the 1860’s. Allen writes that even the ability to look at a woman’s body was solely the right of her husband—so called “scopic possession.” A woman who was wearing anything that even partially suggested that she was a sexual being was interpreted by the masses as an attempt at adultery or prostitution.  This risqué wardrobe included anything showing the outline of her lower body especially, the baby-making area that was the sole property of the husband. 

This got me thinking about the word “hypersexualization.” I’ve heard many times that we live in a hypersexualized society.  There are ads all over the place showing almost naked men and women. Sex scandals between celebrities and politicians are top news when they are released.  Girls pledge their purity to their fathers at “purity balls.”  However, when I walk out of my house in the summer wearing shorts, I don’t expect people to sexualize me in any way.  On the other hand, if I were to have done that in 1868, William Dean Howell probably would have fainted and written five articles about the need for decency in public.

 

Mirriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines hypersexual as “exhibiting unusual or excessive concern with or indulgence in sexual activity.” I think it works for both societies, just in opposite ways.  Women in the 1860’s wanted to hide their sexuality as much as possible, whereas women today (in some cases) try to embrace their sexuality and their looks.  In other words, if you got it, flaunt it.  There is still an underlying fear of women’s sexuality though, but it has shifted into something new.  It‘s still around in the form of purity rings and high school dress codes that don’t allow leggings, and it’s present when women talk about how many sexual partners they have had. 

Trying to look beautiful and trying to look sexy may be deemed as two separate goals in our culture, but in Lydia Thompson’s time, they were very much seen as the same thing.  Showing some leg was about as sexual as actually having sex.  So I guess my question is, what changed? How did women start wearing pants? When did women start to embrace their looks and their sexuality, and how did society’s ideologies change to allow this?  In what other ways are our societies different or the same in terms of hypersexualization?  I think burlesque definitely played a part. Any thoughts?