Technically Speaking

Or, East meets West in another cultural head-butt.

I posted a comment on Leesa’s blog awhile back which Prata found not to his liking. I think he objected to the statement itself, while I was focused more on the use of the language. I started to discuss the matter with him, but then I realized I could cheat and get a quick post out of the situation, so here I go. I’ll start with the full quote, which is from Roger Ebert’s review of Memoirs of a Geisha:

“I know, a geisha is not technically a prostitute. Here is a useful rule: Anyone who is ‘not technically a prostitute’ is a prostitute. As dear old Henry Togna, proprietor of the Eyrie Mansion in London, used to cackle while describing to me his friend the Duchess of Duke Street, ’Sex for cash, m'dear. That's my definition.’"

I have to agree with his assessment that anyone who argues that they’re technically not something is in fact that very thing in every way that matters and is playing that most American of games, “Let’s ignore the point and quibble over the label instead.” It’s like those bizarre twists of corporate logic wherein they give a person a longer title in lieu of a raise. “Technically, I’m not an accountant. I’m a Fiduciary Engineer.” To me, whenever I hear a statement prefaced with the word “technically”, I immediately think “whatever follows is going to be a load of BS.” I’ve heard strippers make the claim “I’m not a stripper – I’m a dancer.” They should have used the word “technically” so I could immediately identify their statement as crap instead of later when I discovered their professional dancing involved a runway with a metal pole and a g-string.

So here’s the problem – to the best of my limited understanding, a geisha actually isn’t a prostitute, by which I mean their job does not involve an exchange of sex and money. Notice I didn’t need the word “technically”. From what I’ve read, geishas are girls and women trained in the arts of dance, music, and light conversation and are professional entertainers. True, they are mostly used to entertain men, but I don’t think the entertainment involves any sexual favors. Anybody who knows more than I do about the subject, please leave a comment. And that means leave a comment if you actually know what you’re talking about. Don’t bother me with anything you’ve seen in an American WWII movie. I already know the Western conception of the geisha – flowery silk kimono, hair piled on top of her head and held in check by some oversized knitting needles, pasty white makeup straight from the kabuki theatre and, yes, a glorified prostitute.

Roger Ebert claims to know some of the Japanese culture based on authentic Japanese movies (of which, Memoirs is not one – looking for J-culture in this movie is like discussing military tactics with Captain Kangaroo), but he doesn’t know they aren’t prostitutes. I blame their defenders more than his ignorance. When some fecking uptight Americans started claiming the whole movie just venerated prostitution, the people defending the geisha invariable made statements including some variant of the phrase “Technically, a geisha is not a prostitute.” Technically, I’m not a prostitute – I’m a database administrator. Defending the geisha in that way is tantamount to defending me to the people who think I’m an idiot by saying “Technically, Grant’s not an idiot. He’s merely stupid.”

With friends like that, the geishas don’t need enemies. As it happens, I would be more than happy to defend and take care of any who have need of a big, strong, dumb redneck.

Damn. Now I wish they were prostitutes.