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.  

British museum: Vikings and the role of Scandinavian women

Following last post's historical theme, here are some pics from some Viking items at the British Museum.

 

Other British Museum posts: Anglosaxons, Egypt and Greece, Celts

 

 

A Sword-woman admiring Viking swords :)

Penannular brooches

Decorated vessel

Ornaments, featuring the Pitney brooch 

Whalebone plaque

This artifact allows me to criticize Viking gender roles a bit:

   "Whalebone plaques probably had a symbolic function too. Their link with women is clear, being used by women in life and buried with them in death. Perhaps plaques like this one symbolized the central role Viking women played in the home – organizing the household, caring for the family, preparing food and making clothing." (Source)

Yes, Viking/Scandinavian women may have had a bit more freedom and legal rights compared to other contemporary European societies (such as the Anglosaxon one, it seems) - They could have their own money and property (which included inheriting and trading), commission rune stones and be patrons of art, have rich burials (if they were of upper class, of course), get a divorce, demand punishment if they were harassed or raped (although men weren't exactly taught 'not to rape', of course :S), and some women knew how to fight and it's probable that they would have joined the men in at least some battles, raids, and trading and exploration parties (Material such as archaeology finds, sagas and annals seem to confirm this, disregardless of archaeology gender bias, but seeing as we're talking about a strictly male-dominated society, these activities probably weren't the norm around women, although women warriors/Shielmaidens (and quite a handful, according to burial evidence), female settlers (female armed settlers and raiders ignored because of gender bias), and female explorers, traders and leaders definitely existed). Additionally, women also seem to have been able to gain some power by taking religious roles (priestesses and völvas (seeresses)).

Shieldmaiden Lagertha, by Morris Meredith Williams

In spite of this, we should bear in mind that these cases were not the norm either - Vikings (and Scandinavians in general) were still a male-dominated society with strict gender roles, same as mostly every culture, unfortunately, and the women were the ones expected to take care of the household/farm/estate (disregadless of whether the husband was away or not), the children and their husband's needs. Some argue that this role of taking care of the estate and household  involved more power than in other societies, but we should still bear in mind that all those (hard) tasks were the responsibility of the women, quite convenient for the menfolk and a double standard which is quite recurrent in most cultures.

Viking women by Angus McBride

 Women, exceptions aside, also couldn't hold significant positions of power or take part in political activities (unless it be as the consort, Siggy's role in Vikings, or as a very notable exception, such as Lagertha becoming Earl in the same series, which still involved taking a man's name and having her position taken from her shortly after). They seemed to be pretty much discriminated upon by the law in many ways as well, apparently being viewed as under the authority of their fathers and husbands (other cultures have it worse in this respect, such as the Greeks, but that's not a reason to ignore it), having limited freedom to do what they liked with their own property (even though they had their own property and could inherit), often not being able to have a say in their families' decision of who they should marry (even though if they were mistreated or insulted, they could get divorced and got granted custody of the children), not being able to be a witness or speak in assemblies (the series Vikings shows women acting as witnesses and speaking during the Thing, though, not sure how accurate that is), and also being punished for 'dressing like men' or carrying weapons, according to some lawbooks (this could indicate that the shieldmaidens were more of a remarkable minority among women, unless those kind of laws varied depending on the time and lawbook, as happened among the Celts, where the women were able to carry weapons until it was prohibited by law in Medieval Christian Ireland. I do find that this statement could also clash a bit with all the burial evidence of female warriors, which seem to have been a bit more numerous than 'just the random exception', though).

So there's no need to needlessly romanticize these cultures by calling them 'egalitarian cultures' in the sense we'd do and demand today - and I'm also talking about other cultures such as the Celts, Minoans and Egyptians here as well, because they may have been cultures that offered women some more rights and freedom - and compared to other contemporary or non-contemporary cultures these rights could be seen as quite remarkable (women being able to inherit property among the Celts, but not in Regency times centuries later, for example) -, but they were still generally male-dominated cultures and societies with no true gender equality - Hell, we haven't got true gender equality today! Women were better off in some of those cultures than in other, more patriarchal ones, but gender roles and male-dominated laws and rights still existed, and that is something that is sometimes ignored when it comes to praising a culture for their 'remarkable equality'. Yes, (some) women being able to have property, choose a husband or take arms to defend themselves are unfortunately 'radical notions' and remarkable aspects that should be taken into account and appreciated (because women in other societies and cultures don't get to enjoy those 'remarkable rights'), but they're, after all, 'remarkable' simply because the basis of all these societies is male-dominated, so basic human rights are considered 'worthy of praise' and 'a sign of a truly egalitarian society' if they're offered to (some) women, it would seem :S.

And let's finish this post with some shieldmaiden appreciation while closet-cosplaying (or should I say shop-cosplaying?) a pair of Viking warrior-women in the British Museum shop :D

 

British Museum: Anglosaxon England and Sutton Hoo exhibition

Today's post is a historical one, and it mainly involves a pic overload of Anglosaxon stuff without a lot of text, for a change :) 

 

Other British Museum posts: Vikings, Egypt and Greece, Celts

One year ago, Pilar Erika and I went to London for a week-long holiday trip, and we stopped by the British Museum with two (well, three) cultures in mind: The Celts, and the Anglosaxons and Vikings. With the Celts being one of my favourite cultures (if not my favourite), philologist Pilar Erika favours - thanks to Beowulf - the Anglosaxon-and-Viking section of history. So here's a pic overload of the Sutton Hoo burial exhibition:

• Sutton Hoo helmet (original and replica)

More info on the helmet here.

"The face-mask is the helmet’s most remarkable feature. It works as a visual puzzle, with two possible ‘solutions’. The first is of a human face, comprising eye-sockets, eyebrows, moustache, mouth and a nose with two small holes so that the wearer could breathe. The copper alloy eyebrows are inlaid with silver wire and tiny garnets. Each ends in a gilded boar’s head – a symbol of strength and courage appropriate for a warrior. The second ‘solution’ is of a bird or dragon flying upwards. Its tail is formed by the moustache, its body by the nose, and its wings by the eyebrows. Its head extends from between the wings, and lays nose-to-nose with another animal head at the end of a low iron crest that runs over the helmet’s cap." (Source)

And of course, before talking a bit more about the Anglosaxon artifacts at the Museum, I must talk about how we saw the actual first page from the manuscript of Beowulf at the British Library :D

More Museum Anglosaxon stuff after the cut!

Critisizing Plain Jane part 5: Episode 1 part III

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

Part 2: Opening credits

Part 3: Episode 1 part I

Part 4: Episode 1 part II
Part 6: Episode 1 part IV
Final part: Episode 1 part V

Continuing with my review-commentary of the first episode of this horrific makeover show...One long discussion in this part (one turned out to be too long, so I'll be posting it separately) that can be added to the 'read-later' list at will.

Part III: 

-Summary: The stylist takes Cristen to get some new clothes and manipulates her with sexist stereotypes in order to change her tastes and 'fashion sense'. Because she must learn how to be a feminine, sexy woman in order to succeed in her arranged date! Because being 'feminine' and 'sexy' sure doesn't involve a limited set of options and a lot of gender constructs and stereotypes! And what does it matter if she has her own tastes? Well, it does matter, because she shouldn't have personal opinions. Let us be logical here and think about priorities, folks.

-"She needs to learn about fashion [she needs?]. The best way to teach her is to show her what she's doing wrong"

 Here's the golden rule of our society's suffocating fashion area: Having her own style is doing something wrong because she doesn't conform to what (patriarchal) society dictates that women and men should wear. Once she's forced into the new 'fashionable' and 'feminine' style she will realize it had been her favourite style all along. Logic wins the day.

-And right then we have the lovely bonus of her relatives making fun of her clothes. Because family and friends in this show do not know the meaning of ‘empathy’ and ‘support’ if their relative happens to be a woman. Parents and family only support and approve of male offspring in this show, it seems (and they take their time to remind us all about how they are perfect in every way). Same goes for friends, both male and female.

-Meanwhile, Cristen is very naïvely selecting things she likes in the shop. The stylist is quick to snatch those offending items from her hands with some fantastic phrases as a bonus:

Stylist - "Is that a hoodie?! 
Cristen (apologetic) - "It's cute!"
Stylist (scandalized) - "Get rid of it, get rid of that!! Oh my god!" 
(I mean, how DARE you get hold of a hoodie, you tomboy!)

Darling, wake up, only men can wear hoodies in the 21st Century!

The stylist sees a floral dress, and goes 'Mmmh, cute...But it's too girly, I need sexy!'. Next moment, Cristen literally hugs the dress and says 'Oooh, I love this!'. But somehow it's wrong for her to have her own taste and be happy with what she likes. Just ugh.

And the winner quote of the day is: "If you're going to seduce a guy, you can't dress like a guy. That's Cristen's problem". 

Allow me a gif before anything else, because I can't even....UUUUGHHHH!!

Merida understands all my pain 

This 'simple' sentence is so wrong is so many ways!

   -Discussion-rant: This charming sentence is saying, as we all should know by now, that the main aim of this girl, and of any woman, is to 'seduce a guy'. That's it. No life choices, no studies, no aspirations, no dreams, apart from the utter necessity of  transforming her appearance so that she's considered 'attractive', 'sexy' and 'seductive' by her crush and by men in general - which, by the way, also implies that she must change and forgo many aspects of her personality which are not considered sufficiently 'seductive'. After all, seducing a boy apparently also involves putting his needs before hers in every way and hiding who you are for his convenience - And that's why she's changing herself so radically, after all. This is no 'I don't quite fancy my style, I think I'd like a change and would appreciate advice' kind of show (and those are also pretty stereotype-ridden, by the way). This is a hardcore 'change for your man' makeover show, and they mean it.

What else is this appalling quote implying? It's, once again, also full of gender stereotyping. Not only must the girl aim to 'seduce the guy', she must 'dress like a girl' in order to achieve that. And with 'dressing like a girl' they're choosing an incredibly limited set of gendered clothing options, and also a limited set of style options, and branding those, and only those, with the words 'feminine', and 'for girls' (these usually include heels, tube skirts or dresses, and 'feminine' colours and prints, depending on whether they want to go for 'cute-girly' or for 'seductive-sexy'). Any other items are quite simply 'not for girls'- these offending 'unfeminine' items can include anything from hoodies to...any kind of comfy clothing and shoewear, really. Girls are not supposed to wear comfortable clothing, for shame, we're supposed to seduce a guy in mobility-restraining and pretty much society-compulsory skirts and high heels. Or to drown in our own natural cuteness with pink frills, depending on the occasion.

And that is why I hate Hermione's Yule ball dress so much. I guess periwinkle blue was just too unfeminine!!  In a dazzling display of irony, it was bully Pansy Parkinson who wore pink and frills in the book, but the film wanted Hermione to be  cute and feminine, probably in order to remind us that she's a girl even though she's smart, logical and likes to read. The gods forbid we view her as too tomboyish for liking to read, so they had to compensate!

 This show, as many others and all other forms of media, endeavours again and again to brainwash us with an extensive set of gendered ideas and labels and categories, using not only gender bias but the subjective personal likes of the few who have the power of dictating what's 'fashionable' or 'trendy' - which, to quote Spock, in a dazzling display of logic, is what everyone else should be wearing and liking! 

I consider myself a non-binary woman in this respect, so I say no to any kind of illogical gender binarism that states that something is only 'for girls' or 'for boys'. Society should have no say in what is supposed to be worn or used by women or men. Nor should it be telling me what is 'trendy' or what I should like - and that I will be the weirdo if I don't conform to that.

Let's continue xD

-Cristen selects a series of clothing she likes, while the stylist does her own choosing for her (want to guess which items will win?). Then, Cristen is forced to try on all her choices ('Show me...your favourite pieces') and have the stylist tear her apart every single time in a very offensive and very humiliating way:

Cristen loves everything she shouldn't love. The stylist scoffs at her choices because they're "guys'  clothing" or "not sexy enough". 

Gender stereotypes? Check. Monitoring women's clothing choices? Check. Forcing someone to change their style to conform to some rubbish sexist ideals? Check. 

Cristen is always looking so mortified and apologetic for liking the clothes she likes. Just ugh.

-And there's a lot of very offensive bashing: "No! You look like a librarian" (An 'insult' the so-called fashionistas oh-so-love. Because reading is not cool or something). "You look like you slept on a park bench" (thanks for being insensitive) .  "Why would you put a hoodie over a dress?"  (well, no one’s forcing you to do it! I find dresses+hoodies to be a great combination, but I do not force other people to wear them!).

Now - This is what you should wear...and LIKE! Your whole life was a lie until I came to torture you!

"Well, you know you showed me that fairly awful, childish top that Tye saw you in...This is the grown-up version".  Of course, being grown-up women comes with some responsibilities, we are no longer allowed to wear what we like because, duh, we owe our body to society and men, so we should always dress for them!  

 -Discussion-rant: For society, you're either a ‘slut’ ("dress more modestly or you'll get harassed!"), or ‘not girly enough’ ("be more cute and feminine, you tomboy!"), or ‘not sexy enough’ ("you look like a librarian/nun! Show some skin!").  Everything revolves around evaluating and objectifying women. Please notice how most guys can rock their baggy jeans and T-shirt (clean or otherwise!) and still be considered hot and brimming with macho sexiness. On a general basis, hardly any male is aggressively asked to wear tight shirts and tight jeans or smart clothing such as suits on a daily basis in order to be attractive to women. And finally, notice how we hardly ever worry about a man not having flawless skin or even flawless hair. Scruffy masculinity is actually pretty attractive to many. This is still a huge double standard, and it’s not OK.

So let me take some notes: 'Wearing...hoodies...and...comfy...clothing...is...not...grown-up...or...feminine...and...I...won't...get..a man'. I hope my grown-up girl-brain copes when it comes to assimilating that information!

-Now Cristen's trying on the stylist's clothing choices, so she turns from bashing Cristen's choices and belittling her to objectifying her. Because don't be mistaken, if she's being forced to show 'curves' and cleavage, it's hardly for her self-esteem boost, but to gauge how attractive the man will find her:

"How skinny are you? Why are you hiding that bod?" (hello, fatphobia) ; "Take your hands away! Where did these curves come from?" (if you're not curvy you're not a woman, probably) ;  "We must get these girls out...we have to get you out of the friendzone, and this (pointing to her cleavage) means business and it's sexy" (objectification 1.0. And the fact that it's a woman spewing all this rubbish makes my blood boil).

 And Cristen's apparently a prude because she 'feels uncomfortable' about wearing shorter dresses with cleavage - 'This dress would get attention that I'm not used to', she says, to which the stylist replies: 'You've got a tiny waist, amazing boobies, little butt!'. When she repeats that she's not comfortable, the stylist says that it's good to get her out of her comfort zone, and that "Tye's gonna die!! God!" Obviously, everything is for Tye. Not only is it invasive to force her to wear things she isn't comfortable with, please don't let these people make you think it's about her and her self-esteem.

Remember, dear, you're wearing this dress for your man and your body is for public comsumption, OK? That's why you're dressing sexy, it's definitely not for you.

Because hell yeah, women's bodies are objects to be enjoyed. ‘Dress sexier so that men can ogle! But if you're being too sexy, we'll call you a slut, don't worry’. And 'Why are you hiding that body, but let's also slim it at the right places and make it look how people want it to look, because you are never good enough and you better remember it'.

How about showing what we want when we want, with no sexist constraints? And because we want to, for ourselves, and with our own style (and this doesn’t include religion-based female-only head and body coverings, in case it’s ambiguous, because I consider those very much in the 'sexist constrains' category and inherently misogynistic. Sue me). 

-Also, "This is how I want you to be". The damn summary of all these episodes.

Valar, give me strength to keep on listening to this 

-I recently read about this same stylist claiming that one of the girls looked 'feminine and sexy' instead of 'like a Physics student' during her clothing makeover. Here it also looks like being and/or looking like a college student is wrong. How interesting. I'm a physicist and was a college student, so I’m a disgrace to society in so many ways (yay!).

You were so right, my whole life was a lie, please teach me more, oh sexist fashionista!

-Here come the heels ('Best tip ever to give you superlong legs')! Absolutely essential. From now on, Cristen has to wear them all the time. You don't like them? I don't care, you need to bring a guy out of the friendzone and that means getting sexy (like getting sexy always means one limited set of gendered options, such as heels). Apparently, being ‘sexy’ means wearing painful, mobility-free shoes, yay.  And not chunky heels, no, this show loves the uncomfortable stilettos, because the most mobility impairing shit is the most feminine, I guess.

Because you're not a woman and you won't get a man if you don't wear heels all the damn time, just like I do!

And at the end of the shopping trip, Cristen exclaims 'I'm really happy!'. That's it, we all need a sexist stylist to change our style and teach us how to seduce a man. That's patronizing as fuck and paints women as childish beings who need supervision in order to be told what they really like.

And if we thought this makeover was getting extreme, they still have to teach Cristen 'empowerment' by learning how to objectify herself and turn Tye on in a Burlesque local, plus receive electric shocks while learning to flirt with a handful of strangers, and changing her hair and befriending make-up in the final stage of the makeover. So long way to go yet...

• Discussion-rant: Society's evaluation and objectification of women's bodies. 

In case it may seem ambiguous, I'm not having a go at the stylist's choices because I'm somehow against cleavages, or showing your legs, or wearing tight dresses.  I actually really like low necklines and miniskirts myself. There is nothing wrong with dressing like that. And there's also nothing wrong with a woman who genuinely likes to dress "sexy" (that is a concept with many different answers, though, depending on your personal style. 'Sexy' is definitely not always tube dress+heels, and not everyone who wears a short dress wants to be seen as 'sexy', that's usually a very male-gazy sexualizing way to see it, I think :S). 

But telling someone that she MUST dress "sexy" and in a certain way to be desirable, to get a boyfriend (heteronormativity, of course) , to be noticed, to be appreciated, to be loved, basically to be accepted by society...That is WRONG. That is objectifying women. Women should not dress for men, or for anyone, for the record. They should dress for themselves. And that can involve short dresses OR Cristen's casual, baggier style. Or BOTH, depending on the day or occasion, same as I said about make-up above, because both styles are not mutually exclusive, for heaven's sake.  It doesn't matter, and it shouldn't change the way we see that woman. And if you have to alter your style and dress sexy and put on heels for a man to notice you, that's not okay. Fellow women, please don’t feel like you have to do that. It really is not worth your self-esteem to view yourself like that, an object to be evaluated by men and other women.

And you know what the really sad thing is? This mentality (that a woman must dress or look a certain way on order to be noticed by men) is so ingrained in so many parts (cultures with the oppressive 'modesty mindsets' still working very much included!) that so many women genuinely try to dress for everyone else, and not for themselves.  And it is so ingrained that, even if you dress "sexy" solely because you like it, most men are going to think you're doing it for them. Does it ring a bell when you decide to wear a low neckline or a short skirt simply because that day you feel like it, and you're uncomfortable when you're ogled and/or harassed in the street? Yes, rape culture and objectification and harassment is not flattering and it's not a compliment. 

This mentality is bound to lower women's self-esteem instead of "boosting" it, because it means that women have a terrible pressure of looking good for anyone else and to conform to a certain style and appearance, and it really doesn't matter if you don't like it. You'll be attacked if you don't conform and you'll be objectified and harassed if you do. There's no winner.

That's yet another reason why I find these kind of 'let's change your style' shows so unhealthy and wrong.

Critisizing Plain Jane part 4: Episode 1 part II

Part 1: Introduction on why I hate these kind of reality makeover shows
Part 2: Opening credits
Part 3: Episode 1 part I

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

Continuing with my review-commentary of the first episode of this horrific makeover show...

Part II:

-Summary: Cristen’s sexist training begins. The first step is as invading and insensitive as it is illogical: It involves making her face 'her biggest fear' (in this case, snails) in order to put her date with Tye into perspective. Because that makes so much sense.

-So the first step of this stylist's genious plan to make Cristen desirable and 'girlfriend material' is the phobia strategy ('This is the real beginning of your transformation'). Yeah, because tackling your biggest fear is comparable to asking someone out (I'm not saying that it can't be difficult, but yeah. And don't forget about all that emphasis on dates, and especially, your first date: ‘one of your biggest moments of your life’!).

  I really don't like this 'strategy' because it's massively out of context and because it's downright mean  - Why force her to be in such an uncomfortable situation? Exactly how is that going to help her to give her ‘courage to go on a date’? This is abusive. This is emotional manipulation. As everything in this show, really.

Tackling your biggest fear in a right context or brainwashing a girl into thinking she must go through this ordeal because of sexist and out-of-context reasons?  My money's on the latter.

-In a flash-forward, Cristen thinks about the experience and says: "It was one of the most horrifying, terrifying experiences of my life...I don't think anything could be worse than that, even getting rejected by Tye" - Notice how he's the one who gets to decide about the relationship status. She’s afraid of being rejected by him, if he doesn’t find her desirable and flirtatious enough, apparently.

Also, it's also worth mentioning that Cristen's relatives make sure to laugh at Cristen becuse of her oh-so-stupid phobia. Sure, let's talk about how awesome and smart and wonderful Tye is every single tme, but let's tell the world about Cristen's irrational phobia, and, as a necessary bonus, about how messy and 'masculine' she is. Hello again, double standards. Hello again, casual misogyny.

 It's all right to encourage someone who's shy about asking someone out if they ask for help, but that's extreme. And like I said, illogical and out of context. And not only that - It's insensitive and pretty sadistic, to tell the truth. It seems that we enjoy watching scared and passive girls here. Also, the scene includes serving live snails in a French restaurant (they serve a bucketful of live snails and make her touch them, just so you get the idea). So very civilized and nice. I will never understand how people can go and eat live things and think themselves sophisticated, I just can't. But that's a different topic.

-So yeah, let's force this girl to have a terrifying time because we're doing it for a great cause (making her succeed on a date), and because they’re gifting her loads of money as a bonus incentive, namely a thousand dollar cheque that will pay for her new clothes (it’s not for her studies or anything, don’t be misguided – Hey, we don’t even know what she’s studying, if she’s studying!).

-Upon informing Cristen that there’s a thousand dollar cheque in the live snail jar, the stylist claims 'I would do anything for a thousand dollars'. Well, I definitely applaud you for your moral high ground, stylist.

 I find so many wrong things with this scene. Oh, and she's supposed to "feel empowered, because you can kick ass". Well, we have different ideas of what it means to be empowered, if that's the best you can think of. Try about learning to love yourself, maybe? Even with all that 'overcoming your fears' talk...let's talk about the fact that she's basically doing it so that the date seems innocuous to her in comparison, additionally manipulating her with the materialistic motivation of a money cheque, and because forcing someone to overcome a traumatic and TOTALLY UNNECESSARY experience is necessary to feel ‘empowered’, apparently. You know what? When in danger or need, people are ready to try to overcome their fears. Doing this for such shallow (and sexist) reasons is what makes it unnecessary and outright sadistic. Like I said in the introduction, people with fear of heights don’t go jumping off planes in a parachute because they are nervous about an exam, for heaven's sake!

Makeover shows tip: This is the right way to feel empowered

And it's also interesting that in all these episodes the girl's (probably scripted) deepest fear goes along the lines of bugs, heights or darkness - All these fears and phobias are completely legit, but it's also easy enough to create a frightening experience or scenario around them in order to terrorize these girls into feeling that going to a date with some guy is so challenging they must go through that rubbish before (allow me to rant again because this 'tactic' is pure idiocy and very creepy emotional manipulation as well). But if one of these girls went and said something like 'death', 'illness', 'natural disasters' or 'something happening to my loved ones' (or, in my case, an example could be 'extreme theocratic misognystic regimes à la Handmaid's Tale'), then what? Would they be expected, I don't know, to die or walk through a house in fire in order to face a date? I guessed not. That's how logical this 'phobia strategy' is. 

  And all that twisted 'conquer your fears' talk is about the best morals this episode gives us, by the way. Yaaaay! *sarcastic slow clapping*

Ten also thinks that all this is plain disgusting

 -Summary: The stylist bashes Cristen’s room and clothes style using infuriating rudeness and sexist stereotypes as her arsenal.

-As they are making their way to Cristen's room, Louise very knowingly starts: "Now, when a Plain Jane doesn't have love in her life [and we all know how essential that is for women] a good first step is to check out her house and her bedroom [Yay privacy! This woman really does like invasive actions and situations, doesn't she?]. Her surroundings say a lot about her [Probably about how messy, sloppy, unfeminine and depressed she is, right?]"

-"This is like house of horrors". It's fascinating how utterly rude she is and how incredibly charming she thinks she is. 

So, boys can have messy rooms, and it's more or less OK, doesn't challenge their masculinity either (and anyway, we don’t even care about Tye’s room, he’s already awesome in every way and he keeps an aura of mystery, or, at least, he gets to have his privacy and personal likes respected, which must be so nice). But if a girl has a messy room...She isn't 'girly' or 'feminine', and she hasn't got love in her life. The thought didn't enter into her narrow mind that depending on each one's personality, you have a different take on order.

Also, is it me or is it glaringly obvious that they made this girl’s room so messy in order to emphasize just how ‘tomboyish’ and ‘in need of a man’ she is? This show likes to link casual wear and lack of make-up and heels with messiness, lack of hygiene, ‘tomboyish’ behaviour, self-consciousness, shyness and the like - just because the girl in question isn’t the tube-skirted, high-heeled, made-up flirty sexy woman she’s supposed to be just because she's a woman. These people are making us think that this girl has a messy room because she's not dressing sexy and because she's depressed and forlorn for not having a man in her life. Clichéd and utterly sexist.

-Oh look, having plush toys in her bed is bad and shameful as well, especially if you want to start a relationship.  For shame! You can't get a boyfriend if you have children's toys on your bed, you're not sexy or seductive or grown-up enough! "There is no sexy time going on in here" Seriously? So many girls, myself included, have plush toys in their bed, disregardless of our freaking relationships! Hell, many boys have a lot of toys and stuff in their bedrooms. Guess it's OK to have toys and/or be geeky if you are a guy, but not OK if you're a girl. I think the guitars are going to pay soon, too, seeing as playing the guitar is so utterly 'tomboyish'.

I guess the only aim of a girl's room is to furnish it for  'sexy times'. You know, because her life revolves around men and that's the only aim her room should have as well. How dares she have plush toys, guitars and other out-of-context, off-putting objects!

-Now they’re going on about a prom pic she’s got on her wall (of course, she liked the guy for eight years, and he had to ask her. And then proceeded to cheat on her. But somehow, it's all her fault for being messy and shy. Victim blaming.). First of all, even if for once the stylist does have a point (why on earth do you keep a picture of one who dumped and cheated on you on your wall, for heaven’s sake??), you don't take a pic from someone's wall without permission, jeesh. Also, you go and remark 'that's not good for ego'. That's rich coming from a stylist whose only  job is to alter young girls' looks, personality and lifestyles. Hypocrisy much?

-Another scene of Cristen’s parents and friends, who just keep insulting Cristen. Now she's 'shy' and 'walks hunched down'...'because of guys like this'. Guess she needs to learn to flirt, without even considering that crappy guys who cheat on people are the bad element of the equation, NOT HER!

-"Can you imagine Tye in this room?" The one and only reason why you should redecorate your room, Cristen!

-So yay, now she's going to criticize the hell out of her clothes. What the stylist doesn't like, she throws to the floor, and her commentary takes being rude and obnoxious to a whole new level. In the meantime, Cristen has to justify herself and laugh apologetically for liking those clothes and having the nerve to have her own choices. The conclusion is that Cristen needs to be sexier, of course. It's basically compulsory.

-The rude, sexist commentary included: Oh look, she does wear dresses, maybe she's not as 'tomboyish' as we thought, but oh, they're ‘old-fashioned’, ‘childish’ and ‘oh-so-not-sexy’. The cheerful coloured plaid shirts are allegedly so ugly as well (you can only wear them if you own an ice-cream van and are not female, apparently).  And yes, it gets worse: 'Tell me this was your granny's, and you're looking after it for her'.  "I got it from a thrift store" - "Is that supposed to make me feel better?". This person is so rude it's disgusting.

Let me tell you how everything you wear is ugly and rubbish and how you must wear exactly what I tell you in order to succeed in life - or that is to say, in order to succeed in your date, because that's basically what your life is, right?

"Okay, what's the last thing Tye saw you in...(ugh) Oh my god! Don't do this to me! Good news is, my love, I'm going to take you shopping" Yes, thank you for reminding us that we must dress for men's eyes.  And thank you from the bottom of my heart for being utterly rude and dogmatic and  for imposing your personal style and preferences to everyone else.

What the hell, I now applaud Molly Hooper from Sherlock BBC more than ever. She has this cute, unconventional, whimsical kind of style (a bit like Luna Lovegood, actually, another great model in this respect) and she rocks it without really caring about what people think (She did dress conventionally 'sexier' during the Christmas party in order to try to impress Sherlock, but that was the one time, and even then she was pretty much 70%+ Molly with the plastic bow in her hair). What's also important, Sherlock doesn't give a damn about her needing to change her style in order to 'impress him'. By season 3, he's already pretty impressed with her and her wonderful personality (think friendship or Sherlolly ship, or both, your choice) WHILE wearing her whimsical clothes. Take that, stylist!  

Now, this is a great example of people who don't give a damn about changing their own clothes style *while* having troubles with a crush at the same time. Molly gains Sherlock's respect and friendship (at the least) because of her intelligence and her kind and trustworthy character, not as a result of her having to change her clothes or appearance. Which makes it an infinitely healthier relationship.