David Mitchell: mortal enemy of eight-foot metal poles everywhere.
If you don’t like David Mitchell you’re probably not worth bothering with. You see, every generation has their own spokesperson for disillusionment. At one point it was James Dean screaming ‘You’re tearing me apart!’ at his parents in Rebel Without a Cause. At another it was Sid Vicious carving ‘Gimme a Fix’ into his chest in real life. David Mitchell is the unlikely heir to this tradition. Mark Corrigan’s quiet despair, at a world full of haircuts, iPods and strap-ons, is all too resonant for most of us. Mark Corrigan once said, however, that ‘to enter the elite I must shit on my heroes’. With this in mind, I’m afraid I’m going to have to take a 900 word long dump on David Mitchell for his condescending appraisal of pole dancing lessons at the Union.
The first key point of Mitchell’s argument, I agree with. He pointed out that the term ‘empowerment’ has been co-opted by idiots to disguise the fact that they are demeaning women. He is, of course, correct, and indeed most intelligent people see through my attempts to explain away my time as a sex trafficker as merely committing ‘serial empowerment’. I’d argue, however, that the reason the Union had to cast their sexy, sexy dance lessons as ‘empowerment’ is precisely because of prudish Guardian columnists who have nothing better to do than sneer at students from their former universities.
Pole dancing is performed by women for the gratification of men. This is indisputable, although I’ve personally always thought that pole dancing is about as erotic as watching Alan Titchmarsh kill babies with a hammer. I understand that the pole is supposed to be a phallic symbol, but if my penis was long, thin and metallic I’d probably seek medical assistance immediately. If this was the case I especially wouldn’t want scantily clad women dancing around it and giving it elaborately choreographed Chinese burns.
For a certain breed of man though there’s nothing more sensual than heading into a room full of sweaty men, paying £8 for a beer and watching women they could never fuck swing around some rudimentary scaffolding whilst jiggling their hands in their pockets until they spray their fetid seed into their unwashed undergarments. As Jack pointed out last week, however, if some Abercrombie clad undergrads want to learn how to do this away from a crowd of leering men, what exactly is the problem? Pole dancing may be a good form of exercise but it’s designed to turn men on. If women want to learn how to make the blood rush from an idiot’s undersized brain into his undersized penis why should we stop them?
Rather than wanting to know how to redirect blood to various male organs, David Mitchell suggested that the Union and the undergrads interested in the classes were performing some kind of youthful doublethink. For Mitchell, it was a classic case of students being contrarian at any cost, led on by a vanguard of swaggering amateur orators trying to prove their debating prowess by casting something sexual as enlightening. I can only assume that David is sick of winning comedy awards and this is his early entry for ‘Most Condescending Broadsheet Prick of the Year 2010’.
As a former History student, Mitchell surely knows that people’s words in public don’t always match their actual thoughts. I’m sure that the Union committee aren’t stupid, David, they realise that pole dancing is hardly empowering. I also doubt that the women attending the classes see it as a way of advancing female equality. The fact is, however, that everyone has to pretend that this is the case because they’re too bloody scared of the approbation of columnists desperate for something new to condemn. Simply because students at our university are generally successful and clever, the fact they have sexual identities seems to receive more column inches than if the Pope raped the Dalai Lama in most papers. With this in mind it is perhaps understandable why those involved are terrified of acknowledging these classes have anything to do with sex.
The implication of Mitchell’s criticism, on the other hand, is that those who attend the classes are only doing so as part of some intellectual exercise in cultural rebellion and that only idiots learn how to pole dance for any other reason. Suggesting that we’re far too clever to be indulging in this kind of activity is demeaning to those who learn how to pole dance without the advantage of a Cambridge education. Pole dancing lessons are popular and most people who learn don’t then become strippers. The reason for their popularity, I would guess, is probably simply due to the fact that those who attend them enjoy them. I know it seems a novel idea, but this is usually why people pursue something in their leisure time. David Mitchell, on the other hand, obviously finds it far easier to cope with the idea of women sliding up and down poles if they are doing so because they have been brainwashed by leering men stuffing empowerment into their thongs.
Maybe I’ve got the wrong end of Mitchell’s stick though. I don’t usually find myself disagreeing with him after all. In fact, David suggested that they should set up classes for men as well which can only lead me to believe that he himself wants to learn how to pole dance. If this is the case, I can only tell him that if he wants to give me a private session in my college room I’d be more than happy to stuff fivers into his Y-fronts for as long as he wanted.
Leave Mitchell alone.
"Pole dancing is performed by women for the gratification of men" – No! Pole dancing can be performed by women for the gratification of men, but how can that be it's exclusive purpose? If pole dancing was simply designed to turn men on, we would just learn to gyrate and spin round a little bit, spreading our legs. Job done.
Hanging upside down by the crook of your knee is a pretty obtuse arousal technique, but it looks beautiful, in the same way gymnasts and ballerinas create beauty. There is not much place for beauty in the sex industry.
People seem to have a problem with pole dancing because it evolved in the sex industry. So what? Dancing is sensual. If women can develop something designed to appeal to men's basest instincts into something incredibly elegant and beautiful, then surely that is empowering?
I have been to pole dance classes for about 4 years now. I think I have 'performed' in front of a man (my boyfriend) about 3 times. I do it because I love dancing, I hate exercise classes, I like learning a skill, I like feeling fit, I love expressing myself to music. Outside of the seedy world of lap dancing clubs, you will generally find that girls are more interested in pole dancing than men.
But thank you, your article was incomparable better than David Mitchell's waffle.
Thanks Bee. Some great observations, and I think I've addressed a lot of your points in my response to Elaine. It's also good to hear from someone who has actually gone to pole dancing classes and knows what they are like, rather than a load of sensationalist London media types stirring up controversy with no knowledge whatsoever of what these classes entail.
Pole dancing as carried out in many classes across the world today has nothing to do with titilating men, and everything to do with enjoying a non-tedious way of keeping fit, learning demanding physical / artistic skills which are akin to corde lisse and similar, and socialising with like minded people (who are more often than not business professionals or mothers, not wannabe strippers).
The recent media coverage displays attitudes typical of those who have never tried pole dancing / fitness but nonetheless trot out the same tired old cliches and stereotypes. Perhaps writers preparing future pieces might attempt a couple of pole tricks first, and if their prejudices about how sleazy and degrading it all is haven't changed after staggering out of the class, sweaty, bruised and exhausted through the sheer exertion (did someone say it was 'sexy'? Hmmm) then don't hold back…
I'm not a fan of the word 'empowerment' either, but beyond all its new age-y connotations, pole dancing literally 'empowers' the body. I wouldn't fancy David Micthell's chances in an arm-wrestle with someone who does pole dancing.
Good comment Elaine, I wish i'd reflected this in the piece now to be honest. I guess it's sort of what I was getting at when I said that people obviously learn pole dancing because it's fun and not because they're deluded or thick.
I perhaps overegged the pudding and made it seem I thought pole dancing was only used for sex. It was because I was trying to stress that to try and deny a sexual aspect to pole dancing is stupid; even if people aren't learning it because they want to become strippers, and purely want a rewarding challenge, they are still learning seductive moves. My point was that this doesn't make it any less valid or technically impressive and we shouldn't condemn something which has a lot of value just because it can be used in a sleazy setting. As I said in the piece, if some Cambridge students want to learn how to pole dance without a leering man clutching notes in sight then what's the problem?
Although I don't think pole dancing is empowering this isn't because I think it's anti-feminist. I don't think snooker is empowering. I don't think juggling is empowering. I don't think learning to pat your head while you rub your stomach is empowering. I just think it's a down right silly term to apply to skills that people learn because they are fun and rewarding.
Anyway, I hope that clears some of my views up a little!
"If pole dancing was simply designed to turn men on, we would just learn to gyrate and spin round a little bit, spreading our legs. Job done. "
I actually think that's a pretty good summary of pole dancing, to be honest…
Yes, but you obviously think that because you don't know anything about it, which was partly my point. Those cliched moves can be learnt in about half an hour, it gets rather more challenging! Try looking up felix cane or tracey simmonds on youtube and you will see what real pole dancing is! It is beautiful and sexy and very impressive. Some people may still think it is sleazy, but I think most people would be surprised that it is not at all what they expect.
I just looked up Felix cane, and saw lots of spinning around and spreading of legs, albeit with some pretty impressive athleticism, and awesome core body strength.
and that is the main point, the athletism and body strength. this art form inspires people to keep fit and healthy which, lets face it, is well needed in this country (maybe more americans should do it too, might reduce the obesity problem) it is sexy, and so it should be. women need more sexual confidence, it is severely lacking with all the free availability of porn and the way young and older women are 'expected' to look in the view of the media. why should it be degradng for a woman to feel sexully good and positive about her body? it does not mean that she wants to be a stripper but it might make a difference in her own personal bedroom. and what difference does it make if she does want to be a stripper, confidently ripping men off by dancing about in front of them knowing full well that they are never gonna get any!
this, however is not the point. pole dance for fitness is a very different beast to pole dance in a strip club and this should be recognised by anyone who is going to slag it off. there are also many brilliant male pole dancers so the argument that it is female orientated is obsolete.