Feminist ramblings: High heels, make-up and 'choice feminism'

This post has its origin in my criticism-reviews of the Plain Jane episodes, but this particular discussion turned out too long, so I decided to move it to a new post. So here I am to ramble a bit about heels, make-up and the so-called 'choice feminism'.

I have many problems about the inherent sexism of high heels (I did quite a lengthy (and depressing) study about high heels in history a few years ago, I might be uploading the Power Point in the near future). Their constraints on mobility and ill health effects should be reason enough to make quite a few people want to steer away from them. It's also part of the compulsory female uniform in many jobs, and anything that's being forced into me because of my sex is enough to make me wary about said item. And then there's also the fact that a high number of women wear them because they've been told it makes them look and move in a sexier, more attractive manner - and, although some claim that they do it for themselves, because they want to feel 'attractive' for themselves, or because they feel 'more confident' - high heels are nearly always related to and have their origin in the necessity of being attractive for men - while being as mobility-restrained as possible, which I guess also comes in handy. Personally, I'm not a fan at all.

So appealing

Other things such as make-up come from a similar background, and yet many women, myself included, often wear it thinking we actually do it mainly for ourselves, so these issues are undoubtedly more than a bit problematic when it comes to discussing if they're 'feminist' 'choices' or not - Especially when it comes to believing that any choice is 'feminist' so long as it's a woman making said choice.

See Source for the rest. An everyday feminism comic by Ronnie Ritchie.

 In my opinion,  the main problem of the so-called 'choice feminism' involves not realizing that all choices are rooted in something, in this case, patriarchal upbringing, and that women are perfectly able, disregardless of their sex, to make choices that are either simply 'non-feminist', or just plain 'anti-feminist'. Feminism is NOT simply 'about choice'. This doesn't only refer to heels and make-up, but also to other even more controversial issues, such as women who 'choose' to wear female-only religious headcoverings, or women who 'choose' to be an escort/stripper, for example. According to 'choice feminism', in any of these cases people shouldn't be able to point out the inherent misoginy of some of these choices (be that misogyny conscious or not) because they're automatically accepted and 'tolerated' because it's a woman who's making the choice, and that's enough to make said choice a political statement. I personally disagree with such a thought. Like I said, not only are all choices rooted in some sort of mindset - But also, women as well as men can make choices, out of their own free will, which either ignore feminist concepts or plain promote or help perpetuate patriarchal values - in a conscious way or not.

 About the 'choice' aspect, yes, there's a difference between being forced or feeling like we have to wear make-up or heels everyday (this can be extrapolated to other issues) because we owe a certain kind of attractiveness to the world and to men, and wearing them only when we feel like it, because we feel like it that day, and in a more self-oriented than men-oriented manner. But choices don't come from a void, we grow in a patriarchal-based, stereotype-ridden atmosphere, and if many women choose to wear shoes that are usually painful and difficult to walk in, or to try to cover all their natural pores every day before going out, we should maybe think why so many women can't feel as equally attractive or confident in shoes that are healthier and comfier, or why they can't feel as confident if they don't wear at least some subtle make-up to cover their skin every time they go out.

  That's why I can view these as 'choices', but not as 'feminist choices'. Wearing make-up is not particularly 'anti-feminist' at the best of times, as long as you don't go preaching about the utter necessity of wearing it to look good and be desirable to men, but nor is it a 'feminist statement' in most contexts, because it really doesn't do much for the emancipation of women, apart from the potential act of self-expression and rebellion that comes with applying gold eyeshadow or red lipstick and saying 'I'm doing this for myself, not you'. Also, men are not told to wear make-up or high heels to be attractive, so those choices are pretty much gender-based double standards, another reason why we shouldn't call them 'feminist'. Some of these choices shouldn't necessarily affect other people, unless we force them to do the same thing because it's what's expected of us as women, But they are choices that are rooted in a patriarchal society which views women as decoration, never 'good enough' unless they are adorned and flawless, and we should always bear that in mind. 

See Source for the rest. An everyday feminism comic by Ronnie Ritchie.

 That being said, I do consider make-up to be less harmful than heels. As long as make-up is a 'choice' that can be solely artistic, or a 'fun' form of self-love or self-expression that we don't force on others, and that we don't do as a necessity because we feel 'too ugly' and with human flaws without it (there is always the unhealthy notion, however, that make-up also exists to cover up all the human imperfections that women shouldn't be having. More on that later). Heels, however, remain painful, potentially very unhealthy for our bodies, and mobility-contraining. 'Choice' or not (which does not imply 'feminist'), I personally can't see a person wearing such a torture device as a form of 'self-love' or 'confidence'. Plus I think that heels are still potentially very harmful to women's status in society, a very powerful tool in male fantasies in the role of sexualizing and constraining women's bodies. How many women are being shown in 'artwork' and the media wearing high heels even though the context hardly calls for such shoewear? High-heeled warrior-women or female superheroes, anyone? Sure, most of these women are also shown with flawless skin, but at least that won't make them die in the first five seconds of a potential battle!

So at the moment I'm much more optimistic about make-up becoming more of a 'freer choice' for some people than heels, to be honest. At least you can walk freely and without pain while wearing lipstick and mascara. Personally, I enjoy make-up as artistic fun, and try to make it self-love oriented, not so much pore-concealing and flawless skin oriented. I don't feel like needing or having to wear make-up everyday, or the same amount (eyeliner vs naked eyes, for example), which I think is a very important point, not being pressured into thinking you need it because you're a woman.  Because if someone feels like she can't feel confident or comfortable without it, then we should seriously consider if that person is doing it 'for herself', or solely pressured by society to be considered as an acceptable woman.

Also, makeover shows such as Plain Jane and the like (like I said, this rambling has its origin in the criticism of a Plain Jane episode) are utterly simplistic in the sense that they go from 'girl with no make-up who feels insecure and is unfeminine' to 'girl with make-up who feels confident, sexy, and gets the man'. Make-up should not be a thing that you must like and put on every single day just because you're a woman, it should  be a choice (and I'm not talking feminism here, I'm simply talking about choice, if you wear make-up without liking it, to please someone else or because society says you're 'unattractive' without it, then I think you're not in a very healthy situation). Something that you use if you enjoy experimenting with your face in that way (and not necessarily all the time, there are people who like make-up, but who don't feel like they have to wear it all the time). Not something that you must apply on your face all the time in order to look good and attract men while you're at it. 

So apart from the fact that it shouldn't be a compulsory thing that I should do because I was born a woman, let us stop using simplistic clichés where you're insecure and feel bad and ugly if you don't wear make-up, but turn into a confident woman after caking foundation, mascara and lipstick on. I can record hair tutorials with 0% make-up on, upload them on YouTube for everyone to see, and then decide to put on powder foundation, eye make-up and lisptick to go for lunch with my mum. No simplistic 'choose this or that' sexist makeover needed, and no man involved in my motivations, thank you very much. Let's stop being so damn dualistic and simplistic about everything, and making women feel like they have to do certain things in certain contexts all the damn time!

No simplistic 'choose this or that' makeover needed. I enjoy make-up, but I also feel good about my no make-up face!

And before I finish for today, there's one more thing I'd like to comment about the topic of make-up and 'beauty', and particularly about the new trend of 'natural beauty'. Lately, there has been an increasing amount of activism against the utter pressure that women face about having to wear make-up to appear 'flawless' and 'beautiful', and that's great. Gendered obligations are not OK. However, I've been noticing more and more people (women and men) who tackle this issue by commenting in videos and posts that 'she is (as/more) beautiful without make-up' or the bit worrying 'She is still beautiful (without make-up/at her age/at her weight)'. While these people's intentions generally seem to be good and with the aim to empower women into not having to wear make-up to feel good (or into accepting their age or weight), I think it's worrying that telling a woman that she's 'beautiful' is still considered as the utmost form of praise. It is as if, make-up or no make-up, we're still being evaluated first and foremost because of our appearance. Complimenting a person about their appearance in a respectful, non-creepy way is generally an OK thing to do, and it feels generally good to receive such compliments, but haven't we thought about the fact that a great number of people seem to tackle the issue of 'women should not be forced to wear make-up' by saying simply that 'they're still beautiful without make-up'?

Plus this is really a no-win situation for many women. They can be told anything from 'You should wear more make-up, you look ill', to 'You wear too much make-up, you'd be prettier without it', People, and men, still seem to think that all this is exclusively intended for them, for them to evaluate.

 Some people, men and women alike, are actually turning this 'anti compulsory make-up' activism into a 'compulsory non-make-up' one, claiming that 'women are more beautiful without make-up' and that 'women shouldn't wear make-up'. This trend of 'natural beauty' is becoming steadily more aggressive, or so it seems to me, belittling women for wearing make-up, calling them empty-headed, vain and stupid (no sexist stereotypes there, no, not at all), and sometimes claiming in a rather aggressive way that 'no make-up' makes you somehow 'more feminist', same as not dyeing your hair and not shaving instantly makes you 'more feminist' (once again, I wouldn't claim so easily that a woman is more or less of a feminist because she decides whether to wear or not to wear make-up, dye her hair or shave).
Some of the men who have joined the ranks of the 'natural beauty' trend (notice we're always talking about 'beauty' here), choose a more demanding and egotistical way of telling women that they're 'more beautiful without make-up' (because they're here to decide how we should look, after all), also claiming that women 'lie' to them when they wear make-up, so they shouldn't, because hey, they're making an investment here and how are they to know that women happen to have human pores underneath their foundation and flesh-coloured eyelids (intense sarcasm)! -, and also because I guess that they think that all women put on make-up to please them, so if they don't like make-up, then what reason should women have to wear it? Women are here to decorate the male world, people!

  Some women reply to this saying 'I wear make-up for me, not you' (examples here, here, here, here, here, here , here and here), and in this light I can say I do relate to this, and that I can see the potentially feminist implication of wearing make-up because you like it in a purely aesthetically way or as a rebellious form of self-love, as opposed to wearing it, or not wearing any, to please someone else. Of course, the same would apply to women deciding not to wear make-up as a political statement: 'I do not have to wear make-up as the compulsory requirement to try to appear 'flawless' for anyone and I have no need for make-up to feel confident about myself.' Or simply 'I don't like make-up, so I don't wear it' (examples here, here, here, here, here and here).  

 

People (especially women) who like and choose to wear make-up are always influenced to a greater or lesser extent by gender roles and societal rules. But even so, it's high time people (especially men) realized that many women actually do wear it because they feel good about themselves, not to please others or to be desirable.

The key of the matter here is, I think, not turning anything into a compulsory thing, something that is done solely to please others, or, indeed, a war between two sides. Because both of these postures are not contradictory at all. You can enjoy experimenting with make-up without feeling like you have to wear it every day, or without feeling 'unattractive' without it!

I switch between no make-up (glasses or not), 'natural' make-up and more elaborate or colourful make-up. It should be about what you like and how you feel good, with no disempowering motivations. 

• So, can make-up be seen as a feminist statement in certain situations? I think it can, same as no-make-up as a political statement, mainly as a response to men who demand that women either wear or not wear make-up, and who think that our decision to either wear or not wear it is motivated only by how they view us and how desirable we look to them. I resent men either telling me wear or not to wear make-up. It's a choice that doesn't come from the void, it has gendered roots and implications, but it's still a choice that I'm able to make without taking men directly into account.   And yes, gendered roots aside, it can be an artistic, self-expression area as well. 

• And Is it always a feminist statement or choice? No. In many cases I don't think it should even be called 'feminist', because it doesn't do that much for the equality of the sexes, which is what feminism is really about. Both feminists and anti-feminists can enjoy wearing make-up. And in any case, even though some women can wear it solely for their own aesthetic reasons, it's still a choice rooted in a patriarcal environment, and a gendered choice as well.  That doesn't make the choice 'anti-feminist', but it's something that should be born in mind. 

Btw, now I'm rereading this, the rambling nature of this post may give the idea that it seems that what I'm trying to say is that 'make-up is better than heels'. That was not my original intention, but speaking about that matter, I personally am not a fan of heels and do think they are potentially more harmful that other gendered 'beauty' aspects such as make-up, yes. Make-up can also be potentially very harmful, and it is in many ways, of course. The 'make-up empowerment' activists may not take this into account, but in our current society make-up is an important part of the women-focused, normative, gendered pressure to look beautiful every day. That's not what I would call ultimate empowerment, and that's why I generally try not to mix the terms 'feminism' and 'make-up'. 

 But I simply cannot see the pros of heels, not even in the cases where it's shown as a 'political statement' against men who are 'intimidated by them' (intimidated by the woman's height, maybe, but by what else? Intimidated by her inability to run or move well? By her pain?). Heels and make-up may be both gendered and they oppress women when being normative, and they share common patriarchal roots. But feminine heels, which are always thinner and higher than male heels, seem to have the eternal and gendered aim to make women 'sexier' while constraining their mobility and endangering ther health (and they're related to extremely mysoginistic practices such as foot binding). While make-up has been and can be a non-gendered beauty aspect depending on the period and culture (18th Century noblemen wore make-up routinely, for example, and so do some current cultures, men and non-binary/queergender people nowadays).

However, one word of caution about the 'more non-gendered nature of make-up'. Because one thing is to praise the self-expression possibilities, fun and artistic side of eye and lip make-up looks, which have been non-gendered in some cultures and periods - But other very different, and far more serious, thing is to take into account the way women are pressured into making their skin completely flawless with make-up: foundation, powder, concealer, blush, highlighter, all that myriad of products designed to make people think that women should have no pores, pimples, scars, discoloration, redness, or any other imperfections. Men, considered human beings with all their human rights in this society, are allowed such imperfections to a greater extent than women. But women are not seen as persons, but rather as pretty objects of decoration which should look flawless and inhumanly perfect every single day - for the men. And the gods forbid a woman has human pores or human pimples on her skin! That is a source of tremendous pressure and lack of self-esteem in so many women. The non-gendered side of make-up through the ages has been more related to eye make-up, blush, lipstick and the like - The more artistic, decorative areas, the ones which may actually have a say when it comes to self-expression, self-love, artistic aims (men did wear and do wear foundation and powder in certain times and contexts, though). But it is the women who have been most forced throughout history to hide their natural human skin in order to make it look 'flawless' - often endangering their health with poisonous 'beauty products' such as lead-based foundations. And that isn't about self-expression, or self-love, or art. It's a very sexist double standard.

These issues may seem simple, but I think they're way more complex and less simplistic than many people - 'Choice feminism' included - think. After centuries of a male-dominated mindset with a lot of gender roles, it's hard to say that something is 100% gender role free or that we truly make a choice solely for ourselves, without being influenced by something else. The key in the matter is, I think, to be aware of that (especially because many of these choices can unconsciously promote a lot of double standards, misoginy and gender roles, and we should bear that in mind). And as for me, I'd try to choose the things that'd make me as happy as possible without harming others and, if possible, without relying in a major way on what society and any source of mindset-ridden authority may say I should be doing because of my gender.  

Critisizing Plain Jane part 3: Episode 1 part I

Continuing with my feminist criticism (and snarky rant) of MTV' Plain Jane reality show, here is the first part of my commentary on the first episode of the first season, 'Cristen' (So far, I've only watched and written these commentaries for the first season because there's only so much rubbish I can take, but we'll see if I'll continue or not :S xD).

Part 1: Introduction on why I hate these kind of reality makeover shows
Part 2: Opening credits

Part 4: Episode 1 part II

Part 5: Episode 1 part III
Part 6: Episode 1 part IV
Final part: Episode 1 part V

 Like I mentioned in part 1, these feminist 'reviews' are more of a commentary to the episode,  and a pretty thorough one, I'm afraid, seeing as practically everything is apt to be heavily criticized because of its sheer sexism :/ . Hopefully this commentary will make sense without the need of having to watch this garbage! (of course, if you're curious and want to know the enemy and/or form your own opinions, go ahead, this is just my opinion on the show).

    I’ll be writing a brief summary at the start of each scene/section of the episode so that this remains a bit coherent, but apart from that it's all going to be (snarky) comments about the scenes and as answers to the dialogue in the episode (which will be quoted, appearing in cursive), with some discussions in between about general aspects on which I wish to elaborate a bit more broadly from my feminist point of view (in purple). Like I said, the commentaries can seem a bit disconnected if you aren’t familiar with the episode, but I hope the gist of them remains.

-Disclaimer: This is going to be pretty long, so you’ve been warned! (the reason why I've decided to make a series of posts about this first episode, with my longest commentary, instead of just inserting a read-more break). But if you’re interested in reading a snarky feminist detailed commentary of a sexist makeover show, read on! If not, please don’t go commenting about how boring this is – I’m not the one repeating myself, the sexism in the show is!

So let's get started!

CRISTEN (‘FRIENDZONE JANE’)

-Sexism in the title: The term ‘friendzoning’, which is usually applied to women who offend a male acquaintance because they don't want to engage sexually with him, preferring instead to consider him ‘simply’ as a friend (the nerve! The offense! The oppression!). It’s supposedly a great insult not to give to every man the sex and romantic relationships they’re owed, regardless of your own feelings towards them. In this episode it’s also implied that if you behave and dress ‘like men’(aka favour casual wear and play guitar lol), you won’t get a man because all you do is friendzoning them by doing and enjoying 'similar things' and behaving 'in a similar way'.

Part I:

  -Summary: In which they briefly present the victim – I mean, the misguided and self-conscious ‘Plain Jane’ of the episode – , and show us the highlights we’ll be enjoying during Cristen’s ‘training’ and makeover. The makeover will involve changing her clothing style, her hair and her face (as in make-up), and teaching her how her appearance comes first and how she's expected to be beautiful for her man. The training aspect, meanwhile, involves Cristen suffering needlessly while experiencing her worst fear, plus being electrocuted while being taught how to flirt with and entertain men (yes, seriously), and also being objectified while being taught that learning the secrets of a Cabaret dancer is your best asset when it comes to successfully getting a man. Because it’s super empowering to cater to the male gaze, apparently.

Also, the summary of the MTV Asia online episode is priceless:
   "An uncomfortably shy and messy Jane attempts to shed her "one of the guys" status - along with her plaid flannels - to seduce her longtime crush, who only sees her as a friend."

You and I both, Donna!

 -The stylist-narrator-host starts talking dramatically about how important these dates are:  Such a big deal, such an important moment for a woman - getting a man interested in her. What can possibly compare to that in the whole of a woman's life?

-They arrange these dates. Scripted or not, I find that incredibly intrusive. It also places women in a position of submission and passivity - they're not told 'If you like this guy, go ask him out'. No, they have no part in any decision, and all is planned out for them. It's all surprise, giggles, fits of panic, getting directions on how to dress and how to act and what to do. And a full makeover and transformation, all thought to please the guy. Hell of a role model for young women, and hell of a 'romantic' story. Cinderella 2.0, here we come. Yay.

This is what girls are supposed to do in these episodes: Low self-esteem, and lots of cringing, giggling, self-doubt, passivity and lack of personality. The ultimate role-model, right?

-"We're gonna change the way Tye sees you, so you have to change the way you see you"

So women basically have to hide and change and lie so that the guy finds them attractive. Both to him AND to themselves, which is even worse. The healthy alternative of 'just be yourself, and if he likes that, great, if he doesn't, hey, go look for another one' - That's unthinkable. After all, this series is all about how to alter your appearance so that you please your date and he finds you attractive. And changing the way you see you includes a limited set of options established by an stereotype-based society: Wearing make-up, heels, feminine and sexy clothing, and acting flirtatious. Whether you like it or not. That's basically the.only.damn.way.

You see that body? It's not yours, it's for your man, and I'm going to tell you what you have to wear to look like an attractive woman. Because if you wear plaid, your crush mistakes you for a man, apparently.

-Plus they actually frigging train her to flirt with random guys and engage them in conversation, and if they're bored or uninterested… guess what? They give her electric shocks as punishment. Hell yeah.

Stylist and 'flirting expert' training women like animals so that they learn to entertain their men

-And apparently, in order to win your man, you must indulge your charming trainer-stylist and experiment with your phobias. After all, asking a man out meeting a guy you know for an arranged date, is such an awe-inspiring, terrifying, challenging event that if you face your deepest phobia, you'll be able to face that with no problems! I don't even know why those two situations are even related, in the first place. Do you go face your biggest phobia before sitting an exam or going for a job interview on a daily basis? "I have a difficult exam tomorrow and I'm so nervous, so instead of revising and/or switching off to relax, or doing something even remotely useful in my life…let's go touch some snails! [this girl’s particular phobia]"...Yeah, I thought not.

Because watching frightened women is fun, apparently

-And, of course, she cannot say 'I wanna be more than just your friend' directly and in her everyday clothes, oh no, she must be all decked up and sexy and she must have a date arranged. Yes, I see an awful lot of potential there. 

  -Summary: The show presents Cristen, who is seemingly in a bad state because of her personal style and hobbies, and needs someone to make her crush, Tye, like her. The stylist begins to make her first judgmental remarks about Cristen while watching her video message, and then meets up with her in a café in order to tell her how misguided and ‘tomboyish’ she is.

-Enter Cristen, dressed in casual clothes with a casual hairstyle and no make-up. Message:  She's so awkward and unfeminine! Right??

So they're basically telling us that if you look like this, you're sloppy, unfeminine and won't get a man. There are so many wrongs things about this, they won't fit in a caption, so yeah.

Cristen favours casual, sporty wear, especially, and hang on to your seats,...plaid shirts (Wow, she's such an unattractive tomboy, yuck!), and she's so distressed because she thinks she 'kinda dresses like one of the guys'  (Who thought that in the 21^st Century wearing plaid shirts was dressing like a man?) and that 'she needs help'. "Oh no!" exclaims the obnoxious stylist with distaste and horror when shown Cristen's style in clothing.  Sure, everything that's not dresses and heels is unfeminine and transforms you into 'one of the guys'. Yay progress and 21st Century thinking.  How are we even allowed to wear trousers?!

Btw, her natural hair is also 'ugly' because it's not heat styled and chemical-coloured to an inch of its life, apparently.

Overall, the message is that she's messy and sloppy and, gods forbid!, the worst thing a woman can be…'tomboyish'. Oh, that won't do. "This girl definitely needs my help".

So liking casual wear and plaid shirts means you need help?? In which sort of patriarchal universe? Oh wait

-Extra discussion: So she's so messy and unfeminine exactly why, may I ask?? Because she dresses in plaid shirts, casual-wear?  That is just so sexist and narrow-minded.  The very word 'feminine' as in constructed femininity really bugs me, because 'feminine' and 'masculine' are nothing more than societal, patriarchal constructs that dictate how men and women must look and behave. It's unfair, it's narrow-minded, it's binary thinking. What's this girl doing wrong exactly, having her own style? Of course her friend doesn't tell her he likes her, look at her unfeminine style how could he be interested! But of course, when she starts wearing heels and feminine dresses, that is to say, when she starts conforming to the societal construct of 'femininity', because it is expected of her and not because it fits her personal style, then he'll definitely notice. Oh, such a healthy, open-minded mindset. I bow before your dating advice.

-Cristen also hangs out a lot with her male friends, playing music and watching baseball. That makes her even more unfeminine, as our stylist is quick to say  - 'So you're pretty much a male'. Hey, sure, playing music is unfeminine, let me write that down so that I can bear it in mind because I do that a lot and the gods forbid I appear tomboyish or threaten my inner femininity. And sure, having male friends and enjoying hanging out with them in plaid shirts watching sports and playing guitar basically makes a woman a man. She should be at home sewing in high heels and wearing pink frilly dresses so that people can recognize her as a woman. Sexist thinking at its best.

River definitely doesn't approve of this shit

'That's an easy thing to fix', she says. Gods, how is Cristen even coping, she is so misguided, she should be hanging with a group of girl-friends going out to buy shoes or staying at home painting their nails and gossiping! (an equally offensive idea of what it means to hang out with girls. I personally geek out and play music with girlfriends. It depends on each one's likes, not on their gender, people!).

So it seems that the fact that Cristen likes to hang out with male friends makes her unable to date a guy. It also makes her sloppy and unattractive, because she doesn't care about her looks as much as she should (references to her 'messy' hair, her clothing, her feet being ugly because she actually uses them to play sports, gods forbid, and her nails are not perfectly painted, jeesh). 

So first of all, she has the nerve to believe herself to be at the same level of her male friends, wearing the same comfy clothes and partaking in the same hobbies (as we know, women should hang out with other girls painting their nails and talking about men while men play video games, like The Big Bang Theory showed us again and again). And also, apparently, if you are friends with 'a lot of guys', you just stay their friend. Period. It isn't possible for a man to be feel attracted to you if you enjoy the same things they enjoy and if you don't look sexy and flawless. You have to stay gender segregated following the masculinity and femininity constructs in every way, from clothes to activities, so that attraction can work. Playing music and using your feet to kick a ball? Instant turn-off, folks. Write that down, ladies!

 The narrow-mindedness is so glaring it physically hurts, and I've just mentioned what happens in the first three minutes. 

-'You go straight into the friendzone instead of a sexy, seductive, pretentious girlfriend': That's the role model we must fulfill if we want to get off with someone. We must be sexy. We must be seductive. We must be pretentious (is that even a good thing??). Casual, sporty, friendly, easy-going, nice, enjoying hobbies that are not the limited 'feminine' things to do? SHARING INTERESTS AND LIKING EACH OTHER IN A MORE EQUAL LEVEL? Yuck.

-Did I mention the corny background music? Because hell, it’s cringeworthy.

-Also. Reasons why Cristen likes Tye (the male crush in this episode). 'He's really cute...really tall...really handsome...really good-looking'.  So basically she lists appearance, too.  Such deep feelings. All right, appearance does have a factor in sexual attraction and all that, obviously, but are those the only reasons she likes him? Does she even know him as a person, really? Please don't make these corny (and sexist) reality rubbish in order to tell us again that this is love. This is attraction. A crush. It's totally OK, totally natural, but let's not mix terms for young girls, please. And love certainly doesn't involve changing yourself for your crush. 

 Only, of course, he doesn't have to alter his looks in order to be attractive to her. But she does. Oh boy, that she does.

-'I want to work on your confidence building'.

 Please tell me again why having that particular style and those hobbies and friends makes her have low confidence in this script? Believing that a person must CHANGE and alter their way of looking and thinking in order to be attractive to another person is what truly gives good reason for them to have low confidence about themselves.

 You are not helping girls to boost their confidence. You're making them think that their way of looking, of dressing, of hanging out and of thinking is not right, and that she won't get the crush of her dreams until she changes. Way to go.

Molly has a crush and she doesn't approve of  this sexist crap

And she isn't even remotely ashamed to state it just like that: 'working on your confidence'  means learning how to flirt and be seductive. Hell yeah.  You make a man attracted to you if you learn how to bat your eyelashes seductively. To hell about being yourself and attracting someone because they noticed the real you and liked it.

-When talking about Tye, people mention his being 'smart', 'talented' and 'awesome', as well as good-looking. Does anyone ever mention that Cristen is smart or talented? Nope. She's just unfeminine, tomboyish, sloppy and self-conscious because she isn't the flawless sexy woman she's supposed to be. The inner Cristen? Who cares!  All she needs is to be trained for two days in order to become more beautiful and sophisticated, as well as seductive and flirty.  Because that's what's going to matter, not her brains or any other aspect of her character. We don't even know what she studies and/or does for a living. Only that she likes music, but hey, that makes her tomboyish, so no luck there.

-Summary: The stylist phones Tye and gets him to accept a blind date in two days time. After that pretty invasive call, Cristen and our favourite stylist drive in search of the male crush of this episode and proceed to stalk him while praising his virtues and manliness. Sexist creepiness ftw.

-When they're stalking Tye, just the background music tells us just how active, awesome, empowered and macho he is. 'Cute, tall, sporty'. 

And he doesn't get points off for playing sports, right? Must be a nice life.

This is the male crush, he's already perfect, he makes all the choices, is allowed his own style, and he's also allowed to play sports. No, I don't see a double standard here...not at all

-And I have to say this. All this for what? If Cristen has been friends with him for a few years and she wants to take the relationship further, why doesn't she ask him about it, or ask some friends to help her if she's feeling shy?  This is all orchestrated for the sake of the show, but anyway,  does she really need to go through all that? I don't think so.

-Incidentally, the stylist seems to like to call herself a 'fairy godmother' for doing all this. I weep for humanity.

To be continued...

Critisizing Plain Jane. Part 2: Description and Intro

Following with my MTV Plain Jane feminist criticism (and snarky attack) (Part 1: Introduction here), let’s take a look at the great description and intro of this show:

You can watch the intro here

"PLAIN JANE" is a new summer reality series that transforms one woman from the inside out to reveal a brand new woman. Each of the eight episodes will feature a new "Jane" searching for the change of a lifetime. With the help of British fashion expert Louise Roe ("Fashion Police: The 2009 Grammy Awards"), each "Plain Jane" will receive a head-to-toe style transformation, including new wardrobe and confidence-building exercises. Once the transformation is complete, the formerly "Plain Jane" will surprise her unsuspecting crush with the new look and reveal her true feelings to him. A love connection is - or isn't - made.

Charming description, isn’t it? Just like a fairytale!

And the intro is even better! (I have omitted the ‘Hello, I am Louise Roe, the world's best stylist with a frightening sexist mindset’ line - which didn't run like that of course - because it didn't add much to the criticism and I'm not wasting typing time on her, thanks).

 "Meet Plain Jane. She's ordinary, awkward and forgettable. Every Plain Jane has a secret crush, but she can't imagine telling him how she feels. And that's where I come in (…) My job is to help every Plain Jane come out of her shell by facing her biggest fear head on and being transformed into a new woman with style and confidence to surprise the man of her dreams on a romantic date. Will it be true love? Find out in Plain Jane!”

Just the title is so freaking offensive. 'Plain Jane' - Let's turn a "plain girl" ('plain' according to your narrow-minded standards, of course) into a sexy princess so that she gets her prince. Nice, respectful.

 "Meet Plain Jane. She's ordinary, awkward and forgettable - So everyone who doesn't conform to your sexist and very limited rules based on patriarchal gender roles and the beauty and fashion industries is 'not special', unattractive,, forgettable, and awkward. Wow. So respectful. I'm digging this attitude.

Every Plain Jane has a secret crush - Yes, because the major problem of any girl is to find a man - heteronormativity is also the norm here, remember - who will find her acceptable and sufficiently attractive!! And this guy comes into the intro with self-confident manly swag and bravado included, because he’s perfect already.

But she can't imagine telling him how she feels - Because she is oh-so-awkward and because apparently all girls who don't wear heels and/or make-up on a daily basis can't be confident and direct enough to ask someone out. Suuuuure.

And that's where I come in (…) My job is to help every Plain Jane come out of her shell... - Because if she's different in some way from your COMPULSORY flirty/sexy/feminine/cute patriarchal af mold she must be in a shell and in need of some change and a sexist fairy godmother to give her a dress and a pair of heels, OBVIOUSLY.

...by facing her biggest fear head on... - You think? That's a woman's biggest fear?? Asking a guy out? Oh, do educate yourself and respect women's lives and goals a little bit more! My biggest fear here would be that I would be forced to endure this kind of makeover, to be honest xD

...and being transformed into a new woman - Transformed. They don't even try to lie about this -  with style and confidence... Again, to these people confidence means altering someone's style and personality so that she fits in with society's limited ideas, right? I guess her original syle wasn't her true inner style, she just needed someone to change her, lucky her for finding you!

...to surprise the man of her dreams -  all for him, folks, never forget that!-  on a romantic date. 

Will it be true love? - True love? Seriously? You make a girl think that she can only go out with someone by dressing and behaving in a certain way, to please her crush so that he finds her desirable enough, and you call that love?  ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?? That kind of relationship-wannabe doesn’t even deserve to be called legit ‘attraction’!!)'

This series sucks.so.much!

I can't wait to rip it apart here *muahaha*

My response to '20 Things Women Do That Men Probably Don't Know About'

I found this list about "20 things women do that men probably don't know about"  the other day (thanks, Facebook, for giving me such profound things to read). You can find it here. Not the best read (I will copy the points of the list below when I comment it, too).

Although I usually just scroll down these kind of lists (after scoffing inwardly for a bit about sexist stereotypes),  I'm feeling activist and snarky, so let's critisize stereotypes for a bit.

Before I begin, I suppose that some people will not be interested in a more or less lengthy, and 100% snarky, commentary about a theoretically "harmless" list ridden with gender stereotypes. I really don't force anyone to read anything. So please, let us not have any comments about how I overreact to a harmless 'fun' list on the Internet, and how I must have a lot of free time, or how I'm a 'crazed, bitter feminist'. I do enjoy myself by writing snarky responses to stereotyped texts, because yes, I am against stereotypes and don't think they're fun or healthy. And no, I'm not exactly bitter because of it, although my life would be so much better without unnecessary gender roles. To each their own :)! Only, I don't feed trolls.

 Before commenting on each point, I'd just like to mention that I'm not a fan of generalisations. Generalisations are often wrong, misleading and/or prejudiced or ridden with stereotypes. Generalisations do people very little good and they're certainly not the best argument to use if you want to validate a point.  I'm saying this because this list - as well as so many others - is brimming with generalisations about how women supposedly act and think, thus promoting a lot of stereotypes that are not true in many cases (some of these, or all, may be true for a faction of women, but certainly not for all), and not exactly harmless, either.  And the same goes for lists about how men supposedly think and act.

 I think these lists bug me quite a lot because they appear shallow and harmless, but they keep promoting these unhealthy stereotypes that just enforce sexism. Just notice how this list about 'things women do that men don't know about' MAINLY focuses on physical aspects having to do with clothes, make-up, evaluation of the body and so on. There is practically nothing about character or mind or thought, or anything else (after all..."what else is there?!"). According to this list, women are beings who overly focus on their bodies and are usually self-conscious about them, feeling pressured to conform to a certain 'ideal body'. It is inferred that all use make-up and shave their body hair. It is inferred that all have deep interest about clothes. The only non-physical point of this list is that theoretically women get emotional in an irrational way from time to time. And for them, apparently, breasts are apparently so important when it comes to defining their "womanhood".

While many women may identify with some or even all of these points, what bugs me is that the writer chose these frankly shallow points as points that theoretically describe what a woman is versus a man. Men are also pressured to conform to certain body types and ideals in our society, but to a lesser extent than women, of course, and if one takes a look at these kind of lists, for men, there are comparatively very few points about physicality and 'beauty themes', and way more points about character, thought and action. And specifically quite a few points about how women make myths about men, and how they aren't really true. And yet women's lists, not all of them but way too many, still focus on these beauty points and apparently they're not myths or generalisations or anything. See, just at the right of this '20 things women do that men probably don't know about' is another list called '20 myths about men that need to be erradicated immediately'.  Double standards much?

Some of these points I have done or experienced. But I would never say that such things as poking myself in the eye with a mascara wand or wearing the same bra for a few days defines me as a woman (I'm also non-binary and gender critical, so the concept of 'defining myself as a woman' doesn't even apply to me). Given that 99% of these points are about someone's  beauty routine and thoughts on their body, generalized to extend to all women, I would hardly say they're a good way to describe a whole sex, or a whole gender (even if the gender construct does come with a lot of these subjective stereotypes). 
And about the title, 'that men probably don't know about'...No wonder men don't know about aspects having to do with someone's private routine!  Some of these stereotyped thoughts are so stereotyped, though, I do think men already must know about them. After all, we don't stop reading about how all women should be self-conscious about their bodies because they don't conform to the idealised body of society, or how women are so irrational and governed by PMS, right?

If someone wanted to 'define herself/themselves as a woman', first of all (and I repeat that for some people who are trans, agender, non-binary, genderfluid, and/or queer in some other way, that concept nay either not 't even apply, or apply in a very different way), I guess they'd prefer to define herself/themself without using too many gender-biased stereotypes, which basically make no sense. And second, while they could talk about their body at a certain point (this post is focused on women with female bodies only, though), they would probably choose aspects that had to so with character and way of thinking before and/or at least in addition to their body and, indeed, before their personal beauty routine.  Also, you cannot expect to summarize a complex individual, disregardless of their sex (and/or gender), by 20 points about someone's personal ideas, like I said. According to this list, I'm just someone who's seemingly rather obsessed with her breasts, self-conscious about her body, jealous of the bodies of other women, equaling her beauty routine to everyone's beauty routine and the very "essence of womanhood", and crying irrationally to add a bit of variety. Yeah, I think I'll write another list for myself, if you don't mind.

Pretty much

So, a bit of a more detailed commentary on each point.  Read on if you're interested!

-UPDATE: A commenter just kindly let me know that these points were selected in a pretty biased way and taken out of context from this Reddit, where individual women are commenting about things that they do or have done. Meanwhile, the Tickl post takes the problematic turn of selecting (in a biased and subjective way) a few of these personal, individual experiences, taking them out of context and massively generalizing them so that they're the things that apparently define women vs men. Thus, we go from a series of relatively harmless, individual experiences (still influenced by gender roles, but that's another issue) to a stereotype-promoting message implying that women are these beauty-obsessed and emotionally unstable beings who owe society (and men) their appearance. Proof of the harm which something can do when taken out of context and interpretated in a subjective, biased and manipulative way. And that is NOT OKAY. I don't care if the selecter's original intention wasn't to promote an stereotyped view of women. That's what (s)he is doing.