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

Exactly Delete. Do what you want, just don’t try to sell it as feminism, and be honest about what it actually is. There’s nothing wrong with dressing that way and doing those things, it’s just not going to butter any parsnips (brother) in the whole tearing down the patriarchy thing.

The other point is, what is this "power" that women have when they take their clothes off? The power to appeal sexually to het men, to give them a hard on?

That's not a very impressive power, is it?

The power to be able to afford to pay someone else to do something that they don't want to do, or to coerce them into it, that is power. To run countries, religions, armies, that is power. To have the courts and laws set up in your favour, that is power.

Giving a man an erection is not power and I have no idea how it's been so successfully marketed this way.

Like all this stuff about how it's sexy and empowering to give a man a BJ.. I never even heard this idea until the 2000s! I mean sure maybe some people really love giving head but in general the idea that getting someone else off is power is weird. It's a reversal. This is where the idea comes from that working as a prostitute is "empowering" comes from as well I think. Generally, it is the man paying who has the power.

How have these reversals been so successful? Why are we as societies so keen to lap up these lies?

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

Men do get criticised for what they wear, by men, women, media, etc. Not as intensely as women, but they get criticised for underdressing (scruffy), overdressing (spivs or peacocks).

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.

Men's formal wear hasn't changed in around 60 or 70 years? Tuxedo/dinner jacket?
It's awfully boring. If women's formal wear was the same we'd be saying how restricted we were.

I don't buy the idea that women are all red hot keen on the type of clothes we are expected to wear for formal events.

I also don't buy the idea that loads of men are sad because they have less options (I have heard them say that).

Poor men not allowed to wear 6" heels and constricting underwear and then be expected to do an effortless sexy dance

(Of course they can if they really want to...)

Just read this again

When was the last time a man was referred to as a "spiv" or a "peacock" lol

I mean I don't read the popular magazines but it all sounds very delboy

It's awfully boring. If women's formal wear was the same we'd be saying how restricted we were.

When it comes to the shoes I disagree. I find nothing more restricting than strappy high heels whilst men get to wear comfortable, practical, but still smart looking footwear.

Women's formalwear is typically far more revealing than the men's equivalent. Why are women expected to expose themselves so much more than men?

Snibble I think they’ve been successful because for the past 30-40 years western society has become all about the individual, and on an individual level a woman (especially if she is white and middle class) can gain more freedom and success for herself by embracing the patriarchy-enabling libfem philosophy, than by joining in the collective feminist struggle to break down the cultural structures. Obviously only a small number of women are able to succeed, and at the cost of the influence of our sex as a whole.

It’s a pattern seen in class struggle too, with the dismantling of union power, replaced by completely toothless “anarchist” movements like Occupy.

The patriarchy, for obvious reasons, has not resisted any of this. Has in fact encouraged it.

I also don't buy the idea that loads of men are sad because they have less options (I have heard them say that).

I don't expect they want to wear 6" heels but then most women don't wear them either.
I stand by my point that if women were told there was basically one outfit they could wear, while men could choose from many, we wouldn't be happy about it.
You say that men could wear heels if they really wanted. But then women could, you know, not wear heels if they really wanted. And many don't.
Spiv might be old fashioned, but men that like to dress "well" are often ridiculed (and sometime lauded by totally different groups) for it.
Delete, I agree on footwear.

Looking forward to a sidebar of shame where men are discussed as "spivs" and "peacocks" and where the size of Benedict Cumberbatch's penis is the subject of prurient speculation "Benedict flaunting his manhood on Miami Beach earlier in the week, he is definitely all grown up......."

😀 Bertrand

I have had men at my work complaining that women are "allowed" to wear sandals and short skirts in the summer.

I pointed out that men can also wear sandals, and shorts, and you can even get suits with shorts instead of trousers and they looked n ok nonplussed.

When men complain about women "having" stuff, they usually don't actually want it for themselves, they just don't want women to have it.

I already said women get much more of this than men. Much more.
But men do get it.
You've never seen papers ridiculing the way men dress? Or heard women/men laugh at men who "overdress". It's still patriarchy. Men's appointed role isn't to preen themselves, and those who do are not doing what they're expected to.
I've even seem them in the sidebar of shame!
Not usually skimpily dressed, although I recall seeing shirtless hunks in there.

Exactly Snibble. In my experience these types are quick to label anything designed to benefit women in some way as women wanting 'special treatment'.

REality (and others) - I find this idea of class Vs the individual fascinating and very important.

The Kim Kardashians and Katie Prices of the world have certainly made a lot of money and therefore, as we live in a capitalist society where money is king, gained a lot of power at an individual level through taking their clothes off for men. They then market this to girls and young women as a form of feminism where you game the patriarchal system to get as much money as you can and once successful can turn it around to be all about empowerment. Of course it detracts from the feminist cause as instead of fighting for equal pay and careers (all hard, difficult battles with the patriarchy) they see women getting rich quick through just taking their clothes off. They then harp on about 'women supporting women' essentially making anyone that doesn't agree that their activities support women seem like a woman hater themselves. It's just all so messy.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

The "oppression" that men experience based on societies assessment of the looks and sartorial choices is simply not the same as for women.

When was a child, 12 or 13, a male child last presented in the papers as knowingly and deliberately "sexy"?
When was a man or a boy last blamed for a sexual assault because of what they were wearing?
How many religions with extreme dress codes for women around "modesty" take them to the same lengths for men?

"They then market this to girls and young women as a form of feminism"

Did Katie Price do this?

I'm also not sure whether it's them or whether it's their advisors. These people have teams controlling their messaging.

I am just not sure that they are sitting around thinking, how can I get loads of teenage girls into stripping, for eg. I just can't imagine many women would think like that.

I mean I think they do their thing, they are advised or maybe justify it with the choicfem thing, they like making money

But I don't think they actually are looking to sexualise young girls, I think that is more the aim of the men around them, the merchandisers, the perves that seem to be in charge of lots of media / music industries etc

I remember "Like a Vigin"

I don't think Madonna was singing for children - it was very much a grown-up song about grown-ups having sex (ones that had been round the block a few times)

While having little kids copy her and sing was the result, I doubt she set out personally with the aim of getting little girls to sing not-so-double-entendre lyrics at the primary school disco

No I don't think she necessarily wanted to get women into stripping etc but she definitely presented it as a valid career choice that made her a strong, independent woman. This was so she could sell all her random merchandise to women without alienating them.

Snibble. I agree 100% with your last post. Every word of it.

Patriarchy harms women and men, we all agree on that. I'm not trying to say "poor men". But patriarchy ascribes us roles. Women, look pleasant and don't deviate from that or you're a threat and criticised. Men, look functional and don't deviate from that or you're criticised.

The end result is it's more harmful for women of course.

When I said last post, I mean four posts ago, where you say agree to disagree. I can't keep up :)

I think that amongst the older generation, ( ie me Im 49) , groups like Little Mix and The Spice Girls are so obviously manufactured. I don't believe for one minute they dress like that themselves.
They are usually co-ordinated in some way. Ok they are performing, but when you think of women like Debbie Harry, Madonna or Courtney Love I would say they didn't let a couple of blokes tell them what to wear. But, more importantly, they fronted bands (apart from Madonna).
They are talented, whether its what you like or not . They write, produce and play instruments.
Patti Smith hated Debbie Harry because she used her looks to get a head according to her . But in a vast majority of old photos Debbie is make up free, she was just a very good looking woman.
I would say Beyonces image is also very closely managed, though probably more by herself and stylists.
Can you image Kathlern Hanna, Tina Weymouth, Chrissy Hynde sitting down to plan what to wear with a group of stylists, designers etc?

I loved Tina Weymouth and Talking Head's style. For sure they put a lot of thought into it.
I doubt it was with a group of stylists, but who knows. Sometimes fashions aren't all about showing flesh.

Don't buy the ladette "this is empowering" bs. This is performing for the male gaze. It's no coincidence that some women who veil also claim it's empowering. The one because it panders to the male gaze. The other because it hides from it. In neither case is the woman marching to her own drum.

If you want to know how empowering it is, ask yourself how many men choose to dress like this. They don't. It doesn't bring them any power so they don't do it.

I think the key here is that word empowering is by its essence means a temporary feeling which therefore gives away the lie that it has to do with having real power.

If you want to have power you need influence, money and rights that are respected as a full human being. Now you may GET there by doing stuff that makes you feel empowered, but those things in themselves are only temporary until you acquire the first lot.