Matthew Bourne's Sleeping Beauty

I love the ballet. I love the sounds of pointe shoes thumping on the stage. I love the artistry and the strength of the women dancers. I know ballet is one of the least-feminist friendly sports going because of the physical toll on women's, and it's mostly women's, bodies. I know and agree with all of the feminist arguments against  ballet; from it's origins with its relationship to prostitution to the quite serious long-term health implications for dancers, particularly in relation to the fetishisation of eating disorders within the industry. Yet, I still love ballet. I know I shouldn't but it's one of those things I can't *quite* give up.

I've been taking my eldest daughter to the ballet for years. It's one of the best parts of living in this city: the sheer number of brilliant dance companies that tour here. Scottish Ballet's The Nutcracker and anything by Northern Ballet Company remain my favourites. Recently, I took my daughter to see Matthew Bourne's Sleeping Beauty: A Gothic Romance. It's the first production I've seen by the company and I have to say I found it really quite disturbing. The story of Sleeping Beauty is the story of sexualised violence and the control of women's bodies. I've just not seen it performed in quite so blatant a manner without any attempt to deconstruct the myths. 

There is so much wrong with this version that it's hard to know where to start. It still uses the modern telling of the myths of "Patriarchal Love" but rather felt like Twilight with tutus.  The "evil fairy" dies quickly after cursing the princess Aurora so it is her son who makes the curse come true by pricking her finger. Aurora is not awoken by a kiss from a stranger but rather by the gardner she'd been fooling around with before pricking her finger. He lives for a 100 years because the good male fairy bites him and turns the gardner into another fairy. The erotic connotations of that "kiss" go unremarked. The son of the evil fairy guards Aurora's body for a 100 years desperately kissing her to bring her back to life now that he has decided he wants to fuck her. There is a rather lot of rolling about on the stage between the son and the unconscious body of Aurora. In the original fairy tale, Aurora is awoken by the twins she conceived after being rape whilst unconscious by the king. I don't know if Bourne was actively trying to reference that version but the implications of rape were very obvious. After a 100 years the son tricks the gardner into waking Aurora and then the son tries to ritually sacrifice her. She is saved

by the gardner/ new fairy whilst the other fairies kill the son. Then, Aurora gives birth to a half baby/ half angel.

I don't expect much from productions of Sleeping Beauty. There is no way to reclaim the story from its original construction of rape but I have never seen a version so utterly problematic before. I'm actually surprised their was no trigger warning or child-viewing warning to the production. The dancing was beautiful but the story Bourne chose to show wasn't.

Read More

Harrod's "Degenders": In the Stupidest Way Possible.

I'm not actually sure why the Guardian ran this piece since its basically an unpaid advertisement for Harrods. And, even then, it's not a very good advertisement; after all it's not really degendering to 'theme' rooms whilst still dressing employees in pink and blue. Apparently, staff can "choose" to wear the colour of the opposite sex because the colours were only "chosen" because they are "pretty". But, they are cut "differently" which, I assume, means blue t-shirts on a woman will make them look like aliens and the men wearing pink will turn immediately into fluffy bunnies or something equally heinous. Or, Harrods staff think their customers are really, really stupid. I'm leaning towards the really, really stupid bit.

I nearly fell of the chair laughing when I read this bit:

"We felt it was a bit of a risk, when that formula traditionally works, to turn around and break the mould," said David Miller, director of Harrods Home, who said the store was aiming to create "retail theatre" and attract the customers of the future.

Dude, in no way shape or form, is pink fairies and blue trains a 'risky' business decision. It's the same old shite just packaged slightly differently. Frankly, you'd have to have been raised on a cave on Pluto not to get the pink fairies = girls and blue trains = boys. And, you aren't "trail-blazing" in making this decision. Feminists have been banging on for years about how dangerous the colour-coding of children actually is. All Harrods are trying to do is capitalise on the work of Peggy Orenstein and Pink Stinks. Plagiarising the work of women isn't a new thing for men. After all, D.H Lawrence, Thomas Hardy and William Wordsworth weren't pioneers of the cultural femicide either. If you don't believe me, you should read Dale Spender's The Writing or the Sex?

I loathe being patronised by companies who assume that I lack all critical literacy skills. It's a marketing gimmick based entirely on the concerns of parents and activists. It isn't new or clever. Lying about your geniusness just pisses me off. And, it makes me want to boycott you even more for lying about degendering. I prefer my misogyny straight up. The pretence of the "we aren't misogynists, we're just giving customers what they want" makes me nauseous. I'd rather buy from Toys R' US who, while utterly horrendous patriarchal indoctrinators don't try to pretend they are anything but.

The gendering of children is a harmful cultural practise and should be treated as such. The Guardian is a news organisation. They shouldn't be running such utterly stupid free advertising for over-priced toys which harm children.

UPDATE: INTERESTING REVIEW IN NY TIMES

Read More