NEWS: Call of the Sirens

Re: cookie cutters, ten years ago it would have been true that tattoos and piercings make a girl stand out from the norm. To an extent that remains true today--you rarely see primary characters in film or television who would fit in on SG, and when you do, they're generally relegated to the 'tough guy' or 'badass bitch' role. But in fashion, porn, and popular culture in general, tattoos and piercings aren't something that make most people stop and look twice.

But... so what? I'm not sure it's necessary or important to deviate from the norm just for the sake of not being normal. Mainstream culture has sold out to Suicide Girls, not the other way around.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all the comments. I'm going to attempt to answer some of the criticism aimed at the article.

Firstly, I should probably point out that I am a writer from the UK. Therefore most of the comments I make about a monolithic media refer to the UK media, and not the American or Canadian media; perhaps that wasn't made crystal clear in the article.

I'm not really sure how common representations are in your respective media regarding images or representations of tattooed, pierced or "alt" people. In the media, in Britain, with the exception of a handful of magazines: namely Front, Bizarre and the tattoo mags, there are not an awful lot of mainstream media that give any kind of space to those women. I don't know how common it is in the States/ Canada, I'd presume more so. That said, of course there are metal dance troupes and this is perhaps not an uncommon "look" for people who take part in those "scenes", but you would get glared at walking down the street for looking like this; you'd probably get a lot of slack, especially where I grew up, where I constantly get told, "You'd be so pretty if you got rid of those tattoos and piercings." Perhaps the world in which I have grown up / lived, is very different to your own ones.

In our media, most of the women adhere to a standard of femininity far more constrictive than that which SG is criticised for - blonde, big boobed, size 6 (US0), tall, slim. Obviously there is an exception in porn, but not so much for the mainstream media, although it has got better over the years. You would not see one of these women featured in Cosmopolitan or any of the other high circulation women's magazines. But SG has been influential in putting pressure on the mainstream as motorfirebox pointed out, this is perhaps more to do with SG influencing the mainstream, than the other way around.

I wasn't trying to say that the Sirens completely subvert the mainstream, because they quite clearly don't. But there are subtleties there (which yes, can and probably will be airbrushed out) that make these women seem more "real" than what we are often forced to see as the "ideal". Again, I'm not saying that this isn't a common figure for porn.

The main premise of the article was as a statement to those "feminists" (I, invert feminist because there are many strands of feminism, and this is only one discourse of many) who are attempting to ban a group of women for doing something they want to. And they call themselves "liberal", which surely contradicts the definition of liberalism too. There's a famous quote that goes, "Just because I don't agree with your opinion, does it mean you shouldn't have it?" It's an age-old debate as to whether so-called liberalism should forbid or constrict people from doing something that is not outside the law (another very complicated debate that I'm not going to get into on a messageboard).

I'm obviously very happy to be writing for a publication where the readers are intelligent enough to understand the debates and discourses about a subject that I am writing about. But, you must understand the constraints of writing an article. It is not a thesis; it is an impossibility for me to cover every single feminist strand of thought in one article (and why would I want to?!). It's also great to be writing for Suicide Girls because it does give a voice and a space to women who don't fit the "cookie cutter" ideal, as do metal videos, as does alternative culture per se. That's not to say that there isn't a more dominant culture where these voices aren't heard, or where these representions aren't seen. That is what I refer to, not the culture of SG.

Life is, of course, contradictory. It doesn't fit into a nice linear monolithic discourse. I can answer Cherry2000's direct question in a general way, but it does not mean that I am ideologically naive enough to think that every man (or woman) in the world, ever, would respond the same way. Surely, there's no reason to state such a fact, since it's blindingly obvious?

One last note about feminism/s. They're plural. This is only a very very small article about something that is a million times bigger. It's unrealistic to expect a writer to cover the grounds of a thesis in one small article. I've done my job if I've at all made you think about the subject and caused a reaction in your consciousness, even if it's a negative one. Writing should engage you as a reader and give you something to think about, argue about, etc. And you're doing that, so I've done my job, haven't I? I don't expect you to agree with me, but if we all agreed the world would be pretty boring wouldn't it?

I hope that answered some of the criticism specifically directed at me. We don't live in a perfect world, and I'll take even the midly subversive acts that are forcing the mainstream to sit and take note, over the same old shit disempowering us. SG may have got their first, but can't we still celebrate those "other" women out there in the world, who are putting out the SG message?

Think about it. Are you criticising the article because of how engrossed you are in "alternative" culture? Does that now seem "normal" to you? Have you seen the mainstream recently? It's not even half as cool.

Thanks for reading anyways. x

1. Who are/were you writing this for?

If for the membership of SG (those who likely comment on a published story anyway), then you're not really telling us anything we're not awfully familiar with already. Some of us have long experience, at this site and elsewhere -- and the scars and wounds to prove it -- of critiquing the kinds of feminisms/feminists who reflexively attack or disapprove of representations of female sexuality/sexiness.

What have you added?

And if not us then ...who?

2. What were you writing this about?

It starts off as some kind of a profile of a rock'n'roll burlesquey dance troupe. As such it would have been better just being that, and being placed in the Interviews section of the site. (And probably aiming to be more insightful and informative, and less of a gushfest, but whatever.)

Then it morphs into a self-important and not very novel critique of girls who attack girls under the guise of feminism, and says nothing that most of us haven't already thought about and discussed at some length already.

3. You don't expect us to all agree with you?

This isn't about agreement or disagreement. I don't think you've made a coherent argument that can be agreed or disagreed with. I think most of us responding critically don't think you've actually said very much that's very interesting.

I agree with TheFuckOffKid's boiled-down critique of the article, but I do like where you're coming from and will read whatever else you write for SG.

Regarding who it's written for--it's written for the SG blog, which (to put it in the most mercenary terms) is an advertisement for this site. It's not really for us; rather, it's to make people want to be us. There's bound to be a lot of stuff there that is pretty "well, duh" to those of us who have already literally bought into it.

Then the writers should be advised to not kid themselves into thinking it's about us or for us, and to avoid responding to our snarky comments.

Well duh!

God forbid the site actually have news the members would want to read. What a novel idea...

I totally take your criticism, really, on "not telling me anything I don't already know?". I'm also an SG member and I've had conversations with people on here regarding reps of women before, esp in the feminism group. But like motorfirebox mentions it was written for the SG blog. But obvs I'd like to create stuff you'd all read too, so I will take on board these comments, when writing further stuff for the site. If you could be constructive rather than attacking me that would be helpful!

Thank you lady. xxx

Yeah, I agree. x

Thank you. x

It's posted on both the SG Blog and on here and if people ask me questions or need a response from me, I'm happy to reply. I don't agree with the "lynch the writer" approach but am happy to take criticism, as long as it's constructive, and I can improve what I'm writing.

I can't boast a fondness for the Fuel Girls I'm afraid and the article was more directed at the fact that the girls are trying to create their own brand and be in control of their own show; something that did not happen with Fuel Girls. Sure you know where I'm going with this....

Edit: sorry, my mistake.

Yup

Not to be disrespectful (and I hope you don't think I'm being so), but the fact that they are quite high profile is interesting to me. They could've sat on their pretty little laurels and have been all of the attitude of "lookie how hot we are, fuck the rest of you bitches" but I honestly don't think they are. The fact that they've CHOSEN to split from the Fuel Girls speaks volumes to me!

I have lots of friends in much lower profile burlesque troupes and dance groups but where's the story? The story here is about how they're trying to overcome discrimination against them by "feminists" due to their affiliation with a previous group. That's how I came to do this article. There were words to be written.

But you never said that the reason they were "discriminated" against was because of their affiliation with a previous group. You said,

Which frames the argument in a much different light (and one that's a bit out of date--Laura Mulvey!) than you're trying to portray it in the comments. So if the "Story here" was about their association with the other group, you missed your own story. BTW, I doubt the Sirens were booted from the fest because they "sexualized the female form" but because they were the only female act performing at the festival, and not coincidentally the only act that didn't play any music.

Also: you keep trying to present these women as somehow breaking the mold. I'm sorry, but being skinny, white and attractive is the mold, whether or not you have a few tattoos (Hell, our biggest pop stars and movie actresses have tattoos now)--another thing that makes your article seem a bit out of date (and makes it seem like a advertisement for one group rather than a critique of feminist opinion on burlesque or stripping or performance).

Last:

...come on.

You'll always be our digital siren feminist dream date!