When I think of burlesque, I immediately picture Liza Minnelli in Cabaret. So when I went to a burlesque show for the first time, I was expecting high heels, garter belts, and tight, sexy clothing. I saw the outfits I expected, but I didn’t expect to see all those items of clothing on the floor when the dance was over.

Though they are not to be confused, burlesque involves a whole lotta stripping. Burlesque has always been theatrical and humourous, frequently involving parody and exaggeration, but it wasn’t until the 20th-century that striptease became the main attraction.

Liv Yorston, founder and director of Studio Sublime Belly Dance in Calgary, has been involved with burlesque for the past seven years. She jokes: “[Burlesque] differs from stripping in the sense that we don’t take change.”

Kidding aside, Liv explains that, while one main element of burlesque is the striptease, burlesque dancers focus on a theatrical performance, often incorporating skits or mimicking the song’s lyrics, engaging the audience with class and sexiness, rather than simply stripping down and broadcasting their bodies. Liv’s burlesque troupe, Kabuki Guns Burlesque, produces shows that are particularly high-end, based on choreography and costumes. Strippers, she notes, are usually just girls getting naked for money: “No choreography, nothing left to the imagination, and half of the time they don’t even look like they are enjoying themselves.”

Burlesque dancers, on the other hand, have a lot of fun. With belly dancing, Liv feels she gets to showcase her more technical side, and 30 years of training. Her background includes a 10-year scholarship to the Royal Academy of Dance, ballet throughout North America, and four years of Russian and Cecchetti ballet in Australia. Another four years of jazz, some African dance work shops, and a year of Indian dance contribute to Liv’s diverse and well-rounded dancing.

It all comes together onstage — and then some. “With burlesque I get to be a little more cheeky, completely liberated, all chains and barriers broken through.”

She describes it as empowering, and notes that many women are eager to join. “Men love it for obvious reasons,” she says. “Women love it even more because they can associate with it. After a show I am bombarded with women wanting to take classes and get involved in any way, even if it’s just helping out behind the scenes.”

After being “harassed into starting a burlesque troupe,” Liz started Kabuki Guns Burlesque in January of 2004. Soon other troupes started popping up in Alberta. Driving the popularity is the women, not the men. “They see it and think, ‘Maybe I could do that?’ Once they start, they become so empowered by it, their enthusiasm spreads like wild fire to their friends and family, which in turn makes them want to get involved too.”

I must admit, seeing my first burlesque show made me want to join too. I oppose stripping on numerous levels, but as I watched the dancer dance down until she had nothing on but her top hat and cane, pasties and panties, I was attracted by the confidence she emitted. The stripping is the most obvious element, but the technically interesting and sexy dancing, combined with applause and laughter from the audience, makes it clear that this dance form is about so much more than just getting naked.

“There has to be something more left to the imagination,” Liv adds. “It is a ’striptease’ with the emphasis on the tease, rather than the strip.”

So while Liza Minnelli still pops into my mind when I think of burlesque, I also now think of women feeling sexy, strong, and having fun.

Either the media gods have been listening to my pleas or there’s a refreshing new trend in advertising these days.

Over the last few months, TV commercials have not only been advertising products and services, but have been encouraging something a little more surprising: gender equality. Amazing!

I first noticed it when Jason Alexander, more famously known as the rotund George Costanza on “Seinfeld,” joined the cast of Jenny Craig. Traditionally, diet and weight loss commercials have featured female spokespersons, while exercise equipment and work out programs tended to feature men (Tony Little, Tony Horton, Billy Blanks . . . need I go on?). You might well suppose that women are expected to eat less or take a magic pill to slim down, while men are expected to pump iron (or whatever the current gadget is) to bulk up. Left out of this advertising equation is the fact that plenty of men out there need to slim down, and plenty of women want to tone as well as trim.

 
Remember Hal Johnson and Joanne McLeod from the BodyBreak ads? They had it right, promoting a healthy diet and exercise for both men and women.

 
The Corona beer ads have raised their game too. In last year’s edition, we saw a couple sitting on a beach as a woman in a bikini walked by. The man made no attempt to disguise his ogling, and his partner calmly squirted him with a lime.

 
This year, Corona has changed sides.

 
A muscular man strolls by in front of the sunbathing couple, and this time the woman gawks. A battle ensues in which, while she is distracted, he shakes her beer bottle, but the point is made: women look also. Thanks Corona!

Then there’s my favourite of the moment, Old Spice’s “I’m on a horse” man.

 
Too many romance novels, soap operas, and chick flicks leave too many women dreaming of the man Old Spice is poking fun at — strong, sexy, manly and sensitive, nurturing, and emotional. The ridiculousness of Old Spice’s perfect man illuminates, at least for me, the unfair pressure placed on men to be all things to all women. And instead of using a sexy woman to sell a man body wash (Axe), Old Spice uses a sexy man, making fun of the perfect man, to sell men’s body wash to women. I love it!

Advertising has a long way to go before I’ll give it a thumbs up for representing the genders equally and realistically, but I’m enjoying the direction it’s taking.

Gerald Caplan, G&M: The Harper government, women’s rights and the cost of speaking out.

The Tories are playing punishment politics with Canada’s progressive NGOs — and eroding civil society in the process.

“Despite the chill on speaking out, this week the Canadian Council for International Co-operation announced its fear that its funding is likely to be cut. CCIC is Canada’s preeminent coalition to end global poverty. Some 90 Canadian non-profit organizations, including most of the well-known ones, come together under the CCIC umbrella to monitor federal policies on foreign affairs, aid, trade and peace-building.”

Betty Plewes, former CEO of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, is not afraid to speak out. She wrote in Embassy Mag in May:

“At Foreign Affairs, the past year has seen the entire division focused on women’s rights and gender equality eliminated.

“In Pakistan and Kenya, two countries where women’s rights violations and violence against women are profound and systemic, CIDA has cut funds that were explicitly dedicated to gender equality. In Canada, Match International, the only international development organization devoted specifically to women’s equality, has lost its funding.

“Within CIDA, there is a noticeable retreat from gender equality work. Staff have recommended to NGOs that they remove the words ‘gender equality’ from their proposal if they want a chance at funding.”

Today, for the first time in my life, I was concerned for my safety based on my gender.

Working in a northwest Calgary neighbourhood, I was informed by a resident that a “perv” had reached inside a woman’s bedroom window (in a house just down the street) and fondled her breasts in the middle of the night. She indicated to me the address of the man she suspected as being the “perv.” Just minutes before I had been on his doorstep.

I wasn’t afraid, though — just a little uncomfortable. I thanked the woman for the heads up, and told her, “I’m not worried. I’ll be fine.”

“You have to be!” She said. So I asked why. “Because,” she answered, “you’re a woman.”

I’ve always rejected the notion that I should live my life on edge and constantly on guard simply because I am a woman. I resent the term “weaker sex,” though I do acknowledge that yes, most women are smaller in size and stature, and therefore not as strong, as most men. So does that mean it’s time for me to admit that I am less safe in this world because I am a woman?

I’ve always known my risks — girls learn from an early age to be extra careful. We are made aware of all the potentially dangerous situations: Walking to your car alone, drinking too much while out with friends, leaving a drink unattended, using public transportation alone at night, to name a few. Not to mention methods of prevention: Use the buddy system, always tell someone where you’re going and call them when you arrive, stick to busy streets and well lit areas, don’t wear your hair in a ponytail because it’s easy for an attacker to grab, and so on. We are told throughout our lives how not to get attacked. How not to get raped.

And then the onus is on us. But why should we live in fear?

Women need to be informed and aware, not afraid. Knowledge is power. Of course, we should also be aware of dangerous situations and take preventative measures. I walk alone at night on a semi-regular basis and I’m seldom afraid. I’m always paying attention and I’m always making smart choices. I walk on the sidewalk where there’s adequate lighting, not only because it’s safe but because the sidewalk is safer than the street and the lights help me see where I’m going. But that’s just common sense, not fear.

We also need to talk to the boys.

Tell them when they’re young. Tell them throughout their lives, as vigorously as the women have been warned, not to attack or rape. Tell the boys: if you see a woman walking alone at night, leave her alone. Insist that men do not abuse their position as the “stronger sex.” Instill in them the same concern for every scenario . . . if a woman’s bedroom window is unlocked, keep your hands out of it! A good friend of mine once said, “We wouldn’t have to protect our drinks if men would stop slipping drugs in them.”

Not that I was so composed as I walked my route. (I deliver mail.) After five or six warnings in half an hour, I started panic. I felt unsafe. There I was in broad daylight, a strong, confident woman capable of self-defense, shaken. Waiting for something bad to happen. And then I was angry, because I should not be afraid.

Telling me I’m more vulnerable makes me so.

My advice? I think all women should take self-defense courses. We owe it to ourselves; if someone else isn’t going to respect our bodies and our safety, we need to be equipped to do so ourselves. As early as elementary school girls should learn how to compensate for their smaller size, and how to protect themselves and ward off threats. And we should make a life-long commitment to taking courses and encouraging other women to take courses. When schools educate females by placing “No Means No” stickers and posters in the girls’ bathrooms, they should also appear in the boys’ bathrooms. Boys should be active participants in women’s safety.

Not all men are rapists, attackers, or peeping toms and I don’t think we should treat them as though they are. But we should educate them equally so that boys grow up with an understanding of what is and isn’t acceptable behaviour, and what their role is in women’s safety.

As women we should stop allowing fear to dominate us. We don’t have to be afraid to be safe.

If there’s one thing Steve does really well, it’s using hot button issues to sew strife and division among his enemies.

Within a day of Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth’s tactical warning on Monday to NGOs that their insistence on having access to abortion included in Steve’s maternal health initiative for developing countries risked blowing the whole thing up, proponents on the pro-choice side were at each other’s throats.

Progressive Bloggers featured a whole page of moronic posts denouncing the pro-choice Nancy Ruth, founder of LEAF ferchissakes, for “intimidation” and calling for her dismissal. A quick check just now reveals those “intimidation” posts are still coming.

The Liberal Party immediately dashed off a fundraising letter to supporters:

So this is how the Conservative government treats those who work with women and children in some of the world’s poorest nations?”

Shut the f—- up on this issue,” Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth told international aid workers who gathered on Parliament Hill earlier today to express their concerns about the government’s maternal health policy. She then warned them the organizations they represent risk losing their funding, or worse, if they continue to speak their mind. “If you push it, there will be more backlash,” she said.

We cannot let the government treat Canadians this way. Their contempt for the public has reached a level you and I just can’t tolerate.

The men and women who were insulted and threatened today have every right to be deeply concerned about this government’s backwards approach to maternal health, which departs from over 20 years of established Canadian policy supporting women’s rights to access safe, legal abortion and the full range of family planning services.

And when they say they find it tougher to do their jobs effectively under Stephen Harper, we believe them.

Thanks, Libs. You know what would have counted? Showing up in the House to vote for your own party’s motion to include contraception and the unspoken word “abortion” in Steve’s wee world stage gambit.

Over at Rabble, the regulars are busy announcing their intention to pull financial support for any aid group that buckles under Harper’s pressure — you know, the aid groups that have been working for years to get some kind of maternal health funding — any kind of maternal health funding — going for the women and children in poor and war-torn countries.

It’s principle vs pragmatism for the aid groups.

Pragmatism: If they insist women in poor countries are accorded the same rights women have in Canada, they risk losing their funding — and the desperately needed aid they can provide — after the G-8 spotlight moves on. In fact Harper cut funding for 11 women’s groups in just the last two weeks, although I see Wycliffe Bible Translators and Chakam School of the Bible will still be getting their funding.

Principle: Experience shows shutting the fuck up is indistinguishable from compliance — it just encourages the bastards, and your silence will not protect you.

JJ, Just Another Willy Loman, and Dave at TGB have already advised not to shoot the messenger, Nancy Ruth, and to take note of the end of her warning:

“Canada is still a country with free and accessible abortion. Leave it there. Don’t make this an election issue.

Today JJ takes it further: It’s a trap.

“. . . eventually the spiraling debate over funding abortion as part of foreign aid would boomerang as the focus inevitably shifted back to our own domestic policies.”

Yes. It may have started with funding abroad but now it’s on its way home.

I don’t think Steve intended his moms and tots feel-good world-stage initiative to blow up in his face this way, putting the spotlight on Canada as the most backwards nation in the G-8. No.

But never underestimate Steve’s ability to turn a seeming loss into an opportunity to set his enemies against each other to quietly further his agenda.

For weeks leading up to this, various noosemedia editorials, polls, and live “discussions” have noted the fact Canada doesn’t really have its own codified abortion law.

Seriously, who the fuck wants one? Who wants government interfering in this in any way at all?

Speak out for all the aid groups forced to struggle with an unnecessary principle/pragmatism divide imposed by Harper. Speak out against being silenced with threats.

But when it comes to reigniting the abortion debate here in Canada, which it will, could everyone please just shut the fuck up.

If last year’s film version of the musical Nine is at all true to life (and I hope that it is, as there are gratuitous tambourines) then Daniel Day-Lewis gets all the ladies.  And apparently he is good for what ails you.

Exhibit A:  Nicole Kidman.  The frozen-faced starlet has wandered vaguely about town looking all one color for the past few years, drained of both emotion and of that lovely red hair that made her so stunning in Moulin Rouge.  While proximity to The Lewis failed to resuscitate her auburn locks, it at last gave her a red-gold sheen and about four minutes of actual emoting.

Exhibit B:  Kate Hudson.  Kate Hudson looks like she would cut a bitch.  The girl’s stank-eye switch is stuck in the “on” position, but you toss her next to El Daniel and suddenly she’s all dimples and beaded fringe and kicky dance numbers.

Exhibit C:  Sophie Loren.  Marginally less weathered.

Exhibit D:  Judi Dench.  No, scrap this one.  Judi Dench is and always will be flawless.

Exhibit E:  Penelope Cruz.  Stunning and intimidatingly perfect in real life; winsome and adorably dumb as D-L’s mistress.

Exhibit F:  F is for Fergie. Her stint as Young Dannyboy’s Favorite Beach-Whore saw her lose the severe SpaceLady make-up, gain about ten pounds, and let her hair down.  Pretty!  Relaxed!  Still slutty (Beach-Whore, after all) but way less pointy!

Exhibit G:  Take one Marion Cotillard, add one Daniel D-L and stir gently.  End product: Audrey Hepburn (with one Day-Lewis, remainder). 

Conclusion:  Someone needs to bottle this man’s essence and sell it.  I mean that in the least-dirty way possible.

Thirty years ago in 1980, Canada joined the U.S. in a 64-country boycott of the Moscow Olympics to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. On Feb. 15, under cover of wall-to-wall Olympics news, Canada joined 15,000 coalition troops in Obama’s assault on the town of Marjah in Helmand province, the biggest offensive since the U.S.-led invasion of Afganistan in 2001. Nine hundred families have fled ahead of their arrival.

On Feb. 14, 12 civilians including six children were killed when two NATO-fired rockets missed their intended target by 300 meters. Gen Stanley McChrystal sent along his regrets. The next day five more civilians were killed in a NATO airstrike in Kandahar.

The photo above shows women university students in Kabul in 1995. Prior to the CIA-backed civil war in Afghanistan and the beginning of the Taliban rule in the mid 90’s, 50% of the students and 60% of the teachers at Kabul University were women. 70% of school teachers, 50% of civilian government workers, and 40% of doctors in Kabul were women.

Most romantic holiday of the year, hey? Valentine’s Day is more like the Paris Hilton of holidays: It’s there, we all observe it, and aside from the potential for an anti-climactic sex tape, it’s pretty much useless.

I’m not anti-love, romance or grand gesture. I’m a sucker for all the unrealistic romantic drama that is “Grey’s Anatomy” and I love me a cheesy chick flick, but I find Valentine’s Day an unreasonable pill to swallow. Aside from being overly commercialized and materialistic, it’s the most sexist holiday ever.

V-Day as it exists today operates on the presumption that women associate the worth and merit of themselves and their ability to be loved, not to mention their current romantic relationship, on gestures and/or gifts presented to them on February 14th. Every lady I know has a story of a horribly devastating V-Day when she was alone and depressed (though they were fine with singlehood the week before) or disappointed because her man didn’t deliver the diamond ring or sky banner or beach walk she’d had all organized in her imagination. Boo hoo.

I recall the story of an old acquaintance who marched into a pub on Feb. 14 to berate her ex-boyfriend for breaking up with her the previous November and make sure he knew that because of her pain and suffering over said breakup she hadn’t moved on and was all alone and miserable on Valentine’s Day. I believe “Only losers spend Valentine’s Day alone” was uttered repeatedly as she recounted the story to her girlfriends.

I thought we lived in a society where women reject the notion that we need to be attached to a man in order to be whole and happy. I thought women had been fighting for generations to gain independence from men and to be valued for who they are and what they are capable of. And then we all go and sob if Valentine’s Day isn’t perfect?

Ladies, really, it’s a day. One day. Are we so petty and insecure that we can’t be satisfied with being loved and respected 365 days a year? Do we really need to feel exponentially more loved on February 14th than we do any other day of the year?

Which brings me to the heart of my problem with Valentine’s Day. I often refer to it as “International get pissed off at your man day” because frequently that’s what happens. It is impossible for men to do anything correctly on V-Day.

Say you get your special lady flowers and card, maybe some chocolate. Why didn’t you take her out to dinner? What are you, cheap? Or, you make reservations months ahead and take her out for a fancy dinner and split a heart-shaped dessert. Well, that’s original. That’s what everyone does on Valentine’s Day. Where’s the thought? Dinner is so cliché. Or, you take her on a carriage ride and a walk along the waterfront or to some moonlit meadow somewhere peaceful. Doesn’t that sound lovely? You’re in trouble for that one too — you didn’t get flowers. Or a card. Or chocolate. Instead, you took her for a walk (which is free — again, you’re cheap) and she was in heels because she thought you were going for dinner and now she has blisters. Way to go.

It’s also entirely possible that everything seems to go smoothly, she seems happy and thrilled, and then wait . . . what’s with the cold shoulder on February 15th? One of her girlfriends got an engagement ring or a diamond necklace or a trip to the Bahamas. Clearly you don’t love her as much as so-and-so loves so-and-so.

Meanwhile, did you even get him something? Do women have spoil their men on Valentine’s Day the same way men have to spoil women? I’m pretty sure the answer is No.

Men are expected to turn into McDreamy on Valentines Day, which is hopelessly unfair, given that McDreamy is a television character designed to appeal to women’s schmoopy side. Don’t get me wrong, I swoon for him too, but I also know he’s not real. Women don’t like being expected to fit the stereotype of a model or movie star because we know it’s all airbrushing and make up and personal trainers. So don’t expect your man to be a McMan. He writes his own dialogue; he doesn’t have Shonda Rimes to help out.

The solution to the Valentine’s Day conundrum is simple: break up with it. Ladies, release your man from the shackles of this over-emphasized and sexist holiday. If you do, both of you will be relieved of the Valentine’s Day pressure and drama and you’ll be able to celebrate your love the way you should: everyday.

According to this perky little item, lipstick sales are up 40% since the start of the recession. Apparently the same thing happened after the 9/11 attacks, leading the chairmain of Esteé Lauder to coin the term “lipstick index,” to account for the phenomenon of glossy sales during bad times.

Women would be well-advised to keep an eye on another lipstick index, though — the amount of lead contained in their favourite brand.

According to a 2007 report from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC), “More than half of 33 brand-name lipsticks tested (61 percent) contained detectable levels of lead, with levels ranging from 0.03 to 0.65 parts per million (ppm). None of these lipsticks listed lead as an ingredient.”

While the FDA has not set a limit for lead content in lipstick, it has done so for candy: 0.1 ppm. The FDA acknowledges the potential danger of children directly ingesting lead via candy, but doesn’t seem overly concerned about the millions of women and teenage girls who are ingesting lead via lipstick. One lick of lipstick may not seem harmful, but lead accumulates in the body over time, so small, repeated exposures can result in an unsafe presence in the body.

The dangers of lead are concisely addressed in the CSC’s press release: “Lead is a proven neurotoxin that can cause learning, language and behavioral problems such as lowered IQ, reduced school performance and increased aggression. Pregnant women and young children are particularly vulnerable to lead exposure. Lead easily crosses the placenta and enters the fetal brain where it can interfere with normal development. Lead has also been linked to infertility and miscarriage.”

Lead-laced lips are a far cry from the advertised kissable lips we see sparkling in magazine pages or blowing kisses and smooching at us on TV.

Thirty-nine percent of the lipsticks tested by the CSC contained no lead, so you don’t need to swear off lipstick just yet. The FDA may not regulate the cosmetic industry, but the CSC and other organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Environmental Working Group (EWG), have ample information to help consumers make informed, safe choices.

Skin Deep is a cosmetics safety database created by the EWG that “pairs ingredients in more than 42,000 products against 50 definitive toxicity and regulatory databases, making it the largest integrated data resource of its kind.”

You can search cosmetics and other products by product, ingredient, or company, and have instant access to information on ingredients, potential hazards and concerns, as well as a hazard rating from one to 10, in order of increasing hazard.

Cosmetic companies themselves are obviously not willing to admit their products are anything less than safe, offering virtually no information about the ingredients. They will, though, run the “not tested on animals” logo. Hm. Besides the fact that this doesn’t guarantee the product is low in toxins or toxin-free, it ought to make you wonder: what is it they’re putting in there that is potentially harmful to animals — and why they don’t care if it’s harmful to human beings?

Now here’s a thought: According to the crown prosecutor in the case of Christopher Pauchay, the father of two children who froze to death while in his care, it’s important that people care for the children they have. Marylynne Beaton says the three-year sentence handed down on Friday, March 6th, sends an important message to parents. “It’s really important for people to realize, especially parents, [that if] you have children you have to take responsibility for them,” she notes, “and you can’t put yourself in a situation where they’re going to be at risk.”

We’ve actually reached the point where somebody needs to say this? Maybe as a society we all need to be sent to parenting classes.

Take the ongoing response to the “Octomom.” Nadya Suleman bore eight children via in vitro fertilization, on top of the six she already had. Outrage followed. In response, legislators in Missouri and Georgia are now seeking to limit the number of embryos that may be implanted by IVF, to no more than two in a woman under 40, and no more than three in a woman over 40 (the latter to account for “increased difficulty” in bringing the birth to term). In response to the response, legal experts say “limiting a woman’s right to procreate raises constitutional concerns.”

Constitutional concerns? What about the children’s rights to grow up in a home where they’re properly cared for? The kids almost seem to be an afterthought in all this; even the politicians say their chief concern is saving taxpayers’ money.

Here’s another well-known example: Chantelle Stedman, of Eastbourne, East Sussex, Britain, became journalistic fodder in February for having a child — not because she’s just 15-years old (that’s not news), but because a baby-faced 13-year old named Alfie Patten claimed to be the father. (For the tabloids, that’s news.) Another eight boys have now come forward, also claiming to be the dad.

Predictably, but pathetically, our focus has been on the teenage mom and boy-father involved, rather than on the most important person of all: their infant, Maisie. How will she respond one day to having been the video du jour on You-Tube? How will she feel about being an involuntary celebrity due to her possibly 13-year old dad? What a lovely contribution all those news clippings will make to her baby album. Maisie will now grow up in a home with her grandma, her out-of-work granddad, her five uncles, and her teenaged mum. Instead of worrying about paternity tests, how about asking if Britain’s social system is up to the task of making sure she’s well cared for?

Thank heavens at least some people act responsibly in this over-populated world, and choose not to have kids (though they tend to need groups like this one, No Kidding, to find support for their decision). Others seek out children who need help, whether through organizations like World Vision or by fostering or adopting a child.

Speaking as a parent of two, I would argue most parents, while not perfect, are doing their best to raise their children responsibly. Granted, awful things happen. Log onto “Parents Behaving Badly” for a collection of the horrific tales. Sometimes we make silly choices that our children manage to survive, as in the case of the mother in Kettering, Ohio, who was spotted chatting on her cell phone and breastfeeding her baby while driving. While I applaud 39-year old Genine Compton’s obvious multi-tasking skills, I wouldn’t recommend her choices. Fortunately, a fellow motorist reported her in time, so that she, baby, and those around them remained safe.

To get her licence, Compton had to pass a driving test. But as has been often remarked, there’s no course of study, no exam to pass, no degree granted, before one can become a parent. Until there is, it’s up to all of us to act responsibly, quit focussing on the lurid news, and start paying attention to the little ones behind it.