Chester and the Rise of the Prickademics

There are a couple of things that have come up that I want to talk about. It has been a quiet time and all of a sudden you get hit by stupidity right in the face and you go just what the f***

So firstly I want to talk about Chester and the issues raised by the Council refusing to renew the license after 9 years of operating without any issues. Now I do find it strange that a handful of people managed to shut down a club the way it happened in Chester but you do feel that everything was being judged on moral standards rather than if the business was a problem. Certainly the police raised no issues and that to me is always a clue when an existing club is up for it's license renewal. Really you have to question what is behind this awful decision by the council. I hate to see this, where councillors morals creep into their representation of the public. I firmly believe that unless you can get 3% of the population of a borough or city council against a club you can't really feel that people are even bothered. And there in lies the problem, apathy by customers not to stand up for their clubs assuming the council will approve venues. We need to be active in the defence of the clubs, dancers you need to be pushing customers to write in. So long as you state that you do not want your details released the council cannot publish your details just a redacted print out of the letter/e-mail.

The local online paper (here) has noted the club intends to operate as a Burlesque bar with 11 full nude nights every year under the TENs regulations. Whilst reading the article I noticed that Debbie Lomas of the Rainforest Shop who has been at the forefront of trying to close the club pretend that her heart goes out to the "girls". No it doesn't you are busy applying your moral standards to other people and that is just wrong. And I would say that the dancers are no girls, you belittle them Ms Lomas while portray them as infantile and unable to make decisions. Now if a man calls gown women girls he is a misogynist so I can only assume that most feminists will see Ms Lomas's statement as Misogynistic.

Nice to see that personal attacks are a thing of the past.

Now onto twitter which I continue to have a love/hate relationship with. But I did spot an absolute classic in a snippet between our statistics heroine Julie Bindel and Gail Dines. In the photo you will see the lovely terminology that is being used by these two lovely ladies to judge others just because the research done by these "Prickdemics" (had to add that to the dictionary) shows that the views held by radical feminists may not be as accurate as they would hope. It sort of shows that blanket ad hominem attacks can and will be used when any research dares challenge the articles of faith of radical feminism. Now if I was to attack the two ladies using this language I would no doubt be called troll or even accused of using threatening behaviour which I have never and in now way ever condone. I would challenge Ms Bindel on her "research" for her report for Glasgow council which I have done in the past and to Ms Dines I have read your thesis and sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon. But I would never consider attacking their personalities or who they are, I just challenge the facts as they see them.

I was going to come up with amusing words to describe radical feminist journalists and academics but this would be sinking to their level and I have no need to do that as the facts are the facts and insulting those who produce them via peer reviewed research does not change the end results.

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)

Seeing the Same Old Same Old

Sorry people been quiet and distracted, I would say also there hasn't been much going on so it wasn't much to write about. However I do have a couple of things that are now doing the rounds. Object have been been quiet just the odd tweet or retweet, they have become a bit of a non entity.

So first I want to talk about a consultation being done in York about should they take a nil policy stance and if not how many venues should the clubs be limited to. If you live in York or the surrounding area you can complete the consultation here. Having looked at how the consultation is structured anyone with half a brain cell would question the bias of the questionnaire, I am going to do a FoI about how the questionnaire was put together as I am thinking whoever wrote the questions and structured the choices in the response options was just a tiny bit biased.

I would say if I didn't know better I would assume that someone had taken the last SEV consultation in Leeds and just changed the locations. I mean no one would be that lazy and biased would they? Any just so people who are not filling it in have some idea the questions are put together in such a way that it assumes the person filling the consultation is against the SEVs and really wants none. Now I understand that consultations are hard work but really this one just says we hate clubs.

Over in Chester the Platinum lounge is back up for license renewal, which means after all the issues previously I am not holding out much hope for a fair decision, more a case of bias by the council. What I do wonder is of the people who are objecting just how many are working on the basis of a moral opinion? I expect that this will require another FoI to find out just what was said, obviously don't care about the who unless they are not locals. The whole business has been complete but nothing like a council to create a situation that no one can get their head round. Of course nothing ois ever simple as apparently the local residents sent in secret shoppers who got all sorts of offers that are not with in the bounds of the club license. Now I am not sure how much I would trust an observer who has an agenda to give an honest an accurate report and they may have just misunderstood the marketing tactics of the dancers to get more dances.

However given the fact the council had already tried to close the lounge I fear that moral watchdogs will once again succeed to express their beliefs in getting the venue closed. I hope I am wrong and I am happy that are people standing up for the club, maybe common sense will prevail but I am not holding my breath.

Finally as a quick aside Magic Mike XXL is doing the rounds now and I hear that many female friends have enjoyed  what was on offer. Could you imagine the outrage if the film was Magic Mary? Of course there would be the usually issues and cries of sexism and objectification but guess most feminists will not watch this film and will decry it for perpetuating the gender stereotypes? When will some people realise people enjoy imagery and there is nothing wrong or unnatural about it? Time to move on and let adults make money how they want. Live and let live!

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)

Dancers in Chester Speak Out

So as we all know Objectification is a notion central to feminist theory and seen as one of the biggest issues that face SEVs. It is an argument trotted out on every occasion to attack clubs, now one of the issues that are defined within Objectification is defined by Rae Langton as silencing: the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.

So knowing how that stands one of the things that has been seen whenever dancers speak out is the ignoring of their arguments and denial of the ability to voice an opinion. Whilst not sexual it still reflects exactly what Rae Langton defined in 2009. So we often see discussions that are between the anti sev brigade and club owners who are often seen as the bad guy, the bully or the criminal. Now I don't know every owner but blanket definitions actual make things worse.

However you can imagine how please I was when I found that a local Chester paper had interviewed dancers and their opinions are voiced (here). I want to emphasise the voice of this blog is that we want to see well run clubs that are a good environment for dancers and customers and in the long term that will benefit the owners. There will always be the odd clubs that has issues but shutting well run clubs hurts everyone involved in that club.

So we see that dancers working there have paid mortgages or are planning to open their own businesses which is so much better than on zero hour contracts filling shelves and being abused by management knowing that the workers have very little choice if they want to earn but to take whatever is thrown at them. Dancers creating businesses are not the inert victims who are unable to think, uneducated and submissive. When you read what these women express that point of view seems foolish in the extreme. Sally Haslanger who draws her work from MacKinnon says that for men to sexual objectify women men believe that women are in fact submissive and object like and view this as their nature. Over the years I have met a lot of guys at SEVs and the one thing I have experienced is that none of us view the dancers as submissive or object like. I would not claim that I have never fantasised about a dancer but then I have fantasised about Debbie Harry back in my youth and if I am completely honest I would find my desire comes closer to Haslanger with Debbie Harry than any dancer I have ever met.

So what I am saying here? Well closing well run clubs that the dancers and customers enjoy being at is the least bright idea I can think of. However you do get people who will happily deny dancers their voices and in the case of many anti sev campaigners they treat the dancers as instruments to be used as part of the arguments which as we know reflects Martha Nussbaum's view of objectification.

Sometimes the best way of speaking is with many voices.

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)