Does this represent female empowerment?

[user1471506568]

I was watching some of Little Mix's latest music videos and felt a bit conflicted. Whilst I like their music and the fact they seem to represent empowered, strong women, I couldn't help but feel a bit sad that they now look so sexualised. The OTT make up and really skimpy clothes just seem so far away from what they used to look like when they won the X Factor and to be honest does seemed to be geared towards appealing to men. Thinking of other female music stars that people often refer to as feminist icons this seems a common theme (eg beyonce, RIta Ora).

I guess my post is an attempt to get other people's views to help me clarify my own. Is this kind of thing an example of empowerment because the women are choosing it for themselves and the fact they can do this, whereas in lots of more patriarchal countries this would be banned, make it a symbol for women's rights? Or is it more the case that this attempt to package female empowerment in a male friendly package another example of the patriarchy in full force? I think maybe the latter and to be honest it's making me feel quite angry and sad

I think there is little point criticising little mix individually for what they wear, they are just fitting in with an expectation within the music industry, particularly within certain genres that women are overtly sexual and sexy. The last time I had the misfortune to watch mtv I was struck how video after video had women in underwear or bikinis and yet every single man was fully clothed in baggy clothes. It didn’t matter if the women were backing dancers or lead singers.

Young women receive the message that the best, most important thing they can do in life is be sexy and pretty. It is very hard to resist that expectation if succeeding in your dream of becoming a pop star depends on it.

Women can be empowered in how they choose to dress. I think it depends on the culture you come from.
If you are from a culture where you are required to cover your hair, then simply removing your head covering is a radical act. Some men would view a woman like this as immoral, sexually available, (a derogatory word that I’m not going to use). The woman would still be empowered by her choice. It could be a feminist choice.
It’s been like this in the past in the West too. For example, with women in the early twentieth century shortening the hem length of their skirts to above the ankle. People were scandalised at the time, because women ‘shouldn’t’ do this.
Nowadays, when I have full freedom to choose what I wear, the act of choosing clothes is no longer empowering.
If Little Mix/ Jennifer Lawrence are told what to wear that is the opposite of empowerment.

*Totally - I agree. I just noticed this most with LIttle Mix as they had changed so much since the X Factor days. I guess with people that you have only ever known to be a certain way then you could believe this is just who they are whereas with Little MIx it does feel like there has been a deliberate change of image so it's more noticeable.

Trumps that is what I thought too. It just highlighted how ridiculous she looked, that it was mid morning on a cold day and evening dress was her 'choice'.

I think the owning their own sexuality thing is like.

With Madonna, she has always dressed skimpily / in a sexually forthright way

However, for me, this is AOK as she really does look, has always seemed, to be 100% in control. I also believe that most men (ordinary men like my DH) would be intimidated by her.

There's something about whether the person is demure or not. If they look you in the eye with a fuck you face then it's different somehow to if they are in a prone position looking at the floor or whatever.

Anyway what I came on to say was that many feminists are conflicted about this stuff and that's just where the patriarchy want us. On the one hand, yes women should dress how they want. On the other hand, why does this usually equate to taking lots of clothes off? On the third hand, men don't tend to do this, do they. On the fourth hand, women should be able to be unfront sexually this is freeing. On the fifth hand, we are regularly abused by randoms due to our sex, does presenting ourselves as sex objects assist with this? And so on and so on

It's fine to be comflicted as it's complicated. Not having a hard line on some stuff, having nuance is important. Of course patriachy uses this as a "gotcha" - what do you mean you don't think stripping is empowering? You said women should be able to walk down the street naked!"

Probably what women wear or don't wear is a symptom and if we tackle the causes we will have less conflict around the clothes.

Also, men used to wear much more revealing clothes in the past and they "did sexy" - that was all firmly stamped out with the rise of "lad culture" in the 90s...

Yes- great post nuff
The empowerment has been turned back on us, like so many great feminist advances.
E.g. the pill - now it's expected women will be sexually available without getting pregnant and women are blamed for getting pregnant. When originally it freed women by enabling them to choose when to have children.

Or the sex positive movement - originally all about how women can expect to enjoy sex, one night stands etc. Now twisted into accepting all fetishes and kinks, an explosion of online porn all about men, and being able to criticise and shame women for being too "vanilla"

Yes-funny how when women make free and empowering "choices" they are the sort of choice that misogynist men would like them to make.

"It sounds more like internalized misogyny than empowerment.

Young women, in particular, often confuse the two."

"It’s not real power though, and the patriarchal structure infantilises women, because older, educated women are a threat to the structure. Keep women wanting to look like and behave like girls, and they are less likely to pose a threat to male dominance."

This rings true, and explains a lot I think.

I had some thoughts about clothing empowering people when I went to a royal garden party some years ago. Everyone there was dressed to look their very best, in their own individual way. It was very heartening to see Large/small/old/young/disabled people all looking lovely. When young women with great looks chose to wear very minimal and sexualised clothing they create a situation where it makes it harder for the rest of us to feel really good about ourselves. It is, in a way, lacking in consideration.

Young women lack consideration by dressing up in the way that society tells them they look "nice"?

Because it makes others feel "not so nice"?

I would argue that close to 50% of the "Large/small/old/young/disabled people" aren't going to be fussed by scantily clad young women as they are men.

Also many women have no issues with young women looking "nice".

I don't really understand that comment I've got to say, women have to bear enough responsibility for everything pretty much already, now we need to add that we're in the wrong if we're young and attractive as it makes other feel bad...?

Also I've noticed that attractive young women always get accused of dressing for attention even if they aren't.

Girls in school uniform for example (not even with particularly short skirts) if they are very pretty and tall and slender with long legs are always seen to be somehow "showing off" when in fact they are just trying to get on with their lives while being young and female and good looking.

Maybe it would be better to move away from so much of people's self esteem (and espeically women's) being based in what they look like, rather than telling young women that they mustn't dress according to the latest fashions as it's inconsiderate.

Sorry for multiple posts I just dont' really get it?

I wonder if females will ever just been seen as people . Depressing .

Astrabees that seems unfair. Are you including the summer too? You can't expect fit women to hide their bodies (especially when it's hot out), because of your own self esteem issues. If you truly feel good in yourself, you won't be intimated by other woman.

*Women

*Intimidated (damn phone).

How often do men get commentary about dressing too sexy / not sexy enough / last season etc?

Not very often is how much.

We are still judged and valued based in our looks, and are not seen as full people.

Men wear clothes at formal occasions that are cut to give a mascluline sillhouette, are generally forgiving, have pockets, comfy shoes, and draw attention to the face, to the head, to the bit where the brain and talking goes on.

See also - advertising where women's body parts are shown by themselves.

It is not feasible for all women in the world to simultaneously turn their backs on fashion and societal messages - especially not the het ones! And it shouldn't be down to individual women anyway that's never going to work - hence patrirachy loves libfem. Pushing for change in society - in the media, in the way things are reported, in the way employers say their employees can act etc is better.

This is an area that makes me think in circles, I find it confusing and conflicting and something I struggle to articulate.

I start from the position that woman can wear what they want and it shouldn't matter if Little Mix choose to sing and dance on stage in revealing variations of leotards or pants and bra top outfits, or wear provocative clothing in their music videos.

If a Kardashian wants to wear a completely sheer shirt with no bra for publicity pap shots when out shopping then that's their decision. Just like it shouldn't matter what a women wears on a night out, the length of her skirt is her choice and not a declaration of consent for unwelcome attention or assault. Nor is it an indication of her intelligence/morals/worth. Who are we to judge?

But then I look at the sheer volume of partially dressed, semi or full naked imagery of women on a daily basis in mainstream news media sites. In my SM feeds. In magazines I read (particularly online). In blogs.

We celebrated when 'page 3' was finally ended, yet I see far more explicit and sexualised imagery of women countless times on a daily basis now.

I dont wish to single out Kim Kardashian particularly, but she is the one that immediately springs to mind when I think of repeated semi and full naked selfies and promo shoots being re-printed across dozens of media outlets. Highly sexualised imagery and posing which is then emulated by celebs further down the A/B/C/D list hierarchies, which in turn dominates their SM feeds, again reposted by a wide reach of online and offline media.

It's so commonplace, its so accepted - expected even. If you are a pop star, or aspiring actress, or wanting to join the 'reality tv' celeb ranks you need to compete for media exposure on sites. So you emulate Kim, you look to Little Mix or Rita Ora or Jennifer Lawrence and you learn what gets attention, what gets clicks, what drives up your YouTube stats (and revenues) for video views, what adds more IG followers, what gets on the Daily Mail sidebar.

And yes there is a choice at that point, but a choice of what? You wear what is expected or needed to succeed, you present an image that meets requirements or you don't and risk the drop in exposure.

So I remain confused and conflicted. My gut tells me I don't like it, it feels exploitative and degrading and argues that it isn't really a true choice at all. But this in turn makes me feel judgemental, out of touch and wrong.

I'm conflicted. I lived through the Spice Girls n all that. Among other things, it was about women saying 'I know what I want (sex), and I'm dressing to get it'. There is empowerment - a sexual liberation - in women choosing to be the seducer if she so wishes. I follow this and applaud it. But yes, ultimately, it does end up looking the same as a patriarchal stamp of approval. The SG's rhetoric fell down however because so many 'followers' just ended up on the other end of a male's gaze and it all became, yet again, about what men want.

Another thought: this debate strongly reminds me of the feminists that came out in support of women wearing hijabs in France. There was much talk of 'your choice', 'wear what you like', and absurd photos of bikini clad women standing in solidarity with head-to-toe covered women. The same way I'm far from comfortable with the sex positive music industry, I'm uneasy with this. As a class, women who cover up - even if it their explicit choice - are doing so to please a patriarchal religion.

I would like to know other people's thoughts on this.

I think that it depends on whether they really choose it freely or they feel pressured into it to make more money.

Thanks so much for starting this thread OP, it's something I have been wondering about too.

Is it an empowered choice to be a porn star, or a prostitute, or a barely dressed pop star? Or is it not really a choice at all, but something they are fooled into thinking is a choice by a patriarchal society? But is it not incredibly patronising (and non-feminist) to tell a woman they shouldn't wear a burka, or sell their body because they don't really know own their own mind?

Flytipper - yes it's interesting the similarities that exist between women saying that they choose to wear very little and to cover up completely in different cultures. I guess no (wo)man is an island so it is understandable when so many societies are dominated by the patriarchy that it all seeps into a woman's mindset and the societal norms influence what a woman would choose to do.

I liked this clip!

m.youtube.com/watch?t=7s&v=FYLiSl3-NIA

It's classic choosy-choice liberal feminism "I'm doing this because I want to". Individuals may indeed find those things empowering but there's no class analysis behind it.

This. I believe women can and should wear what they like, but I don't see how essentially dressing to please the male gaze is empowering for women as a class. I don't see how taking up pole dancing/stripping etc is empowering for women as a class. These things may feel empowered ok a personal level. But I feel like this is playing into the hands of the patriarchy somewhat and giving men exactly what they want.

It adds to the pressure that many women already feel to look 'attractive'. It also feeds into the idea that strip clubs, porn, prostitution etc is perfectly fine to indulge in because women are 'choosing' to do those things.

There's no such thing (rarely any such thing?) as a completely free choice in a species that is highly social and highly socialised like humans.

Ditto free choice in a sexist society.

Everyone is doing the best they can.

Women and girls can earn a lot of money / approval from taking their clothes off / sex related activities.
That doesn't mean it's a good thing, it means that in our society men are prepared to pay to purchase women, and also, that society puts value on women's bodies.

What individual women do or don't do is rarely the point. The point is to change society so that women are not valued mainly as ornamental blocks of flesh with holes in for penises, and once we are free of that, some women and some men will choose to dress is revealing or sexualised ways, and that is all fine.

It's the porn argument as well. In a sexist society, porn is misogynistic and I can't see that it's anything but harmful to both men and women (and boys and girls). In a free society with no sexism, there'd still be porn (probably) but it wouldn't be so entirely male gaze and eroticising humiliaiton and pain for the women and girls. But we're not there, so it's a moot point.