Is Burlesque Empowering to Women?

The title of this BBC article has started a flurry of conversation in the burlesque world.

As soon as women start enjoying anything, people immediately start asking whether or not it 'empowers' them.

1. Wearing makeup 

2. Going to the gym 

3. Having (or not having) children

This is the first question that is asked, and it's always an interrogation as to whether women are overstepping their positions in society.

This may not be the fault of the journalist as much as their editor. Holly Williams mainly covered the revival of burlesque - with Diamonds and Dust, starring Dita Von Teese, Burlesque the Musical opening on the West End and other commercial burlesque shows.

I was happy to read that she gave attention to the roots of burlesque as satire; "Burlesque is foundationally revolutionary feminist – a reclaiming of female sexuality," Kay Siebler, assistant professor at the University of Nebraska Omaha, tells the BBC. "The root, 'burle', is Italian, and means satire, and burlesque was originally created by women's suffrage performers." 

The article also acknowledges Dita Von Teese's audience as being predominantly women. 

The journalist then questions how much the revival of burlesque is part of 2000s nostalgia in general; "Is the revival of interest in burlesque actually part of a broader wave of specifically millennial nostalgia?" We see this across fashion, music, games and all over popular culture. Just as Moulin Rouge revived burlesque in the 2000s, the imagery of corsets, gloves and strings of pearls may create that comfortable sense of nostalgia.

And revival of something a little bit risqué always gets some people going. "Because the more popular burlesque got, the more it was scrutinised, with increasing debate over whether it was a really an art form or mere titillation."

The article eventually concludes that there is feminist, empowering potential within the artform, but the "polished, palatable commercial shows" don't show the radical potential of burlesque.

Is there anyone to blame for this? Would it be the producers, who in these trying times of dwindling theatre audiences, are becoming less and less risk averse? 

Or is it the general public themselves, who are at fault for not taking a risk to go and see burlesque shows, unless they are the highly polished, commercial, West End productions? 

Perhaps the people going to the West End shows are affecting this. Are the theatres aiming for their usual audience? If so, they are already sectioned off with the price point of a West End ticket.

The BBC article talks about the community aspect of the artform - "neo-burlesque was created and performed by women, for audiences of women and gay men" - but she doesn't talk about the history of intimate settings. She could also have compared the big theatre productions now with the large scale burlesque theatres of Minsky's time.

Nevertheless, I love that she put this comment on audiences in the article, because it reminds me of one of my first experiences at a scratch night in London. 

Storytime!

I was part of a pop-up show in a bar near Waterloo, which literally did 'pop-up' so nobody knew it was happening. The crowd hadn't seen cabaret before but were open to some free entertainment. There was a group of lads at the front, who people generally assume would be rowdy. The first burlesque act went on, they were awkward and quiet. The host returned to the stage and said - "Well, that's burlesque! So if you don't like it, now's the time to leave because we have more coming on". 

The group of lads got up and left! 

The host was like ... I was joking? 

We debriefed and that was when I truly saw that burlesque is genuinely not for straight men, because they just feel uncomfortable. That's a whole different topic though, for another blog post.

In day-to-day life, there is a stark difference between the way men treat me when I'm a burlesque dancer compared to my 'day job'. Here's where my 'lived experience' comes in.

Throughout my whole working adult life, I have experienced time after time of men touching me in inappropriate and completely unnecessary ways. A colleague going in for a hug instead of a handshake and squeezing me and holding on for way too long (you know that squeeze), kissing me goodbye... on the mouth, touching my waist in the middle of a conversation and then just keeping their hand there, putting their hand on my lower back as I walk. I have a long list but I won't rant here. Because the point is, this only happens in 'normal' life. It's never happened to me in burlesque.

I've had roles where I report to C-Suite Executives and I'm in the junior position, and conversely where I'm in a senior position to assistants. Whether I'm in 'a position of power' or not, this happens in every single situation - in a professional, office environment - where you should expect it not to.

When I'm a burlesque performer, even when there are straight men in the audience, I've never felt so respected in my life. 

I was recently on a film set, and the male actors beside me had never seen burlesque before. They went to every effort to be polite, to look away when I was doing my numbers and keep their distance, that it was actually very funny.

It sounds completely counter-intuitive, but there is something about burlesque that signals unavailability and inaccessibility. 

When I'm a professional, despite presenting myself with degrees, expertise and in a formal environment, that's when inappropriate sexualisstion and objectification comes in. I present as very feminine, and that often means I'm percieved as a girl who can be pushed around and boundaries overstepped. Professional qualifications are not respected. So it's okay to put your hands all over me. 

But when I'm a burlesque performer, I'm out of reach. Yes, people see me strip, but they never think they can touch. Because I'm looking right at them as I do it and they understand there is a boundary.

I can't speak for everyone. This is just my personal experience of burlesque. 

Returning to the revival of cabaret... 

At the end of the day, times are hard. And in hard times, people want comfort.

Some people find that by returning to nostalgic experiences and imagery (my friends are all playing Nintendo games and Animal Crossing lately). On the other hand, cabaret always thrives in tough times, because the shows are both entertaining and give comforting quips about socio-political issues that have created the rough times in question.

Recently, in The Stage, Lyn Gardner commented on how cabaret always does well during periods of war and recession.

Most of what's written has not differentiated between burlesque dancers. and showgirls. Showgirl are just one style of burlesque. That's like saying all dance is only ballet. 

And while we are on it, ballet used to be considered a 'low class' artform, and it was commonplace for ballet dancers to be watched by their 'patrons' as they got dressed and undressed between numbers. But someone once decided ballet was 'classy' so now ballet and the concept of empowerment is never asked.

It's not just women who perform burlesque, so why is the title of the article only addressing women? 

Because journalism is a business, at the end of the day, and editors need people to click on their articles. The headlines are designed to make people mad so they read the article, see the adverts and reshare the post. More views = more ad revenue.

Despite the aggravating title, it looks like Holly Williams made an effort to present a balanced argument on the topic. You can tell by the history she put in. Fairness and transparency is her job as a journalist but I think she could have gotten away with something with a much meaner tone. Let's blame our clickbait digital life, the editor and hope she's treated nicely in the office. 

The cast at D'Lecter Cabaret, Reading, February 2025.