Madonna Whore Syndrome: Do Women Believe This, Too?

An acquaintance said something to me a couple of days ago that made me a little uncomfortable and I think I may have just figured out why.

She was talking about how we both have friends who are strippers or in the porn biz. And she is aware that I've had some "dancing" experience in the past.

She commented that she didn't understand why anyone who had a legitimate choice would choose such a career, even temporarily, for money, if she wouldn't do it for free.

She then said that of course, if she found a wealthy guy who just happened to be attractive, and wanted to pay her for some level of getting nasty, that'd be OK.

So a number of things bug me about this.

First of all, I would venture that most people who work do so for money. If all of us who are employed won the lottery over the weekend, I'd bet very few of us would report in to work on Monday. Maybe just to say seeya, and give the boss our forwarding address in Maui.

But somehow, it is wrong to trade sexy dancing, or flirtation, for money. Why is that? Our minds, creativity and business talents are eminently for sale, during work hours. Off the clock, only loved ones have access to our deeper thoughts and ideas. Why isn't the same true for sex-related work? Some people may love it and be willing to do it for free -- great for them. But for those who can tolerate it for the nice paycheck, just as they'd only tolerate brief-writing, what's the matter with doing it coldly and calculatingly?

The other thing I found cringe-worthy was the idea that she would welcome an opportunity to be "taken care of" if the man were attractive. He wouldn't necessarily have to have other attributes she'd ideally want in a mate. And he would be in charge of the transaction, so it might not be as lucrative as the pure business approach -- he would decide if a given evening out would be worth a thousand dollars, or a bracelet that he picked out that she might hate.

So the message I picked up on was -- it's OK for women, in a passive way, to accept a pleasant benefactor who makes decisions about our worth and treats us like fragile, undemanding flowers. But it's somehow trashy for us to own this as a BUSINESS, target a motivated and high-paying client pool, and control the billing for our services.

So it ties in to the whole "some feminists are better" thing: There's a good "madonna" way for women to be, both as women and feminists. Which is basically: reject femininity and capitalism as wholly stemming from the patriarchy, and thus ALL BAD. Any femininity that you espouse should be written off as bad conditioning and not enjoyed or flaunted. Any success that you've achieved in the capitalist world should be a bain and not a benefit.

What's missing here is that this BUYS INTO one of the biggest patriarchal myths: women don't, or shouldn't, have the capacity to be logical, rational and utilitarian. They are emotional creatures who need to be protected. They should only want to do certain things for money if they'd do them for free.

Well, guess what? If women's higher nature requires the "I'd do it for free" test, then we wouldn't have many or any opportunities to acquire material resources. But men, for whom it's OK to get a little dirty, would. And the result? I think that'd be called: the patriarchy.