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

It's why Madonna now has actual power rather than having to feel empowered - and on the flip side why your bank manager doesn't feel empowered when you pay your mortgage...

I am conflicted about this issue too. I'm not sure how being scantily clad is a symbol of women's empowerment. However - choice is, and I am proud to live in a country where women can choose to dress how they like.

However I'm not sure it's the best message for young children, who Little Mix seem to attract as well as older fans.

So do we encourage our daughters to do well in education, not conform to celebrity role models, even follow science careers, I know going one step to far or do we pay for plastic surgery, encourage dieting and buy skimpy clothes to encourage empowerment for them.
Because at the moment the clear message to teenage girls is the latter.
I’ve been sad about this for quite a while.

I find it very interesting, that in the example of Little Mix their image, and clothes do shout 'male gaze' but their fan demographic - the ones who actually shell out money for the music, the tour tickets and the merchandise - are predominantly young women and girls. They also have a notable LGBT following.

The men might be 'gazing', but you'd be hard pushed to find them adding their latest album to their iTunes account.

A friend has taken her daughters and their friends to a couple of Little Mix concerts now. She says the audience is very female dominated and young, with most of the men in attendance appearing to be Dads doing the same job as she was in chaperoning a group of daughters and or friends.

The same friend says her daughters also love Ariana Grande, and that it is actually her image that she finds more uncomfortable.

At 24 Ariana is tiny and still very young looking. She is often photographed and styled in a way that has similarities in anime cartoons. It's strangely sexual and childlike at the same time.

Then how are boys brought up - they also emulate pop stars, follow fashion, spend hours on their hair but the role models they have are more varied and more presented as whole people...

They can follow fashion etc without it having to be a concern or whatever as they are people, and it's understood that the clothes they wear are just clothes. Grown ups don't see a boy growing his hair and then styling it carefully like as defining anything about him, they see it as a lad trying to follow fashion. Girls are far more judged on the clothes etc choices they make, and they are deemed to define them. Girls with short skirts are genuinly seen by many as "tarty" and wanting male attention (even if they're 12). A boy in ridiculous jeans with his arse hanging out is seen as a boy in ridiculous jeans with his arse hanging out.

It's just so different. This entire conversation doesnt' happen with boys. They can do much more what they want, that's where we need to be.

Earlier there's the idea that men are policed as much and in a different way and I think we all agree that toxic masculinity exists. But, I see men in ridiculous clothes all the time. One man at work goes running every day in teeny 70s shorts and no-one says anything when he wanders round the office. Young men wear eyeliner and grow their hair, maybe not as much as the 70s or 80s but they still do it.

And you know what I went to a schools dance thing last week (primary schools) and I noticed that when there were boys doing a bit of in-the-middle / solo / pair type at the front stuff, they got a MASSIVE round of applause and whooping, much more than the girls.

I don't buy that men "can't" do this stuff, in most places in the UK, not really. They do it all the time and no-one really bats an eyelid.

And when they do do it I think they are more often admired as being "brave" or mavericks or eccentric or whatever.

The applause at the dancing was a real eye opener for me. I thought, when men do the things they are "supposed" to do, they get kudos. When they do the things they aren't "supposed" to do, they get kudos.

When do girls get kudos? Maybe the only time is when they look "sexy".

And this is a societal issue.

And I'm not surprised we all get so confused with it.

I think the fact society still expects women to shave their legs and underarms, but not men, says it all (public hair is different, many men also trim down there or at least try to keep it neat for hygiene reasons).

I have a date tonight. I shaved in prep last night. I think it's unfair, but most men would balk at a woman having legs as hairy as him. It would take enough women to say, "we're not doing this to please you anymore, get used to it, we cope with your hair now you'll have to do the same with us", before it would become socially acceptable. But so many women can't see that it's unfair. They think that's what women should do, and women who don't are lazy or whatever. It's not internalised misogyny, but it is internalised something.

Wicked, you only have to look at other sections of MN when body hair threads come up to see that it would be exceedingly difficult to convince most women to retain their body hair.
I wouldn't want to tell women that they couldn't shave their body hair.
Given free choice, most seem to want to do it.

Is this kind of thing an example of empowerment because the women are choosing it for themselves

I doubt they are choosing much for themselves, tbh. They are effectively owned by the music industry and their record label which rely on their being commercially desirable in a patriarchal society in order to make profits.

Women should be free to dress as they want without judgement, but I think it's naive to assume that these women are free. Not because they dress like they do, but because every artist knows that compromise is often involved in making a living.

"Given free choice, most seem to want to do it."
I really don't want to go down the body hair rabbit hole (so to speak) but do you really think it's a free choice?

"Given free choice, most seem to want to do it."

Ah

Most girls start doing this when they are young, as it is a "grown up" thing to do. I started shaving mine at 11 or 12. Then I just carried on.

I think a lot of women don't give it much thought do they, it's just something that they do as a norm and maybe it's a PITA but that's what they do.

I always like the justifications though - there was a woman on a thread once who said shaved legs felt nicer to a partner, and someone said what about your fellas legs then should he shave them to get them to feel nice for you and she said it was unnecessary as women don't really touch men's legs

There was a woman on the telly the other day talking in defence of having grid girls, she claimed that women are objectively more attractive than men. Nicer to look at, nicer bodies. I've heard this quite a lot. It's incredible how far the straight male gaze embeds itself in everyone else. I think it's because we're presented with so many images of women as decorative, ornamental, sexy everywhere we look. Everyone ingests it. Then you get this weird self-objectification effect.

Sorry tangent.

Great points about women in music from the past.

I think there was much more scope in 70s/80s/90s to not conform and explore your own ideas about image & sexuality and there was room for everyone - now almost every female performer is slick, corporate & dare I say it dull even when they're trying to be out there.

I bloody love Debbie Harry - she was something like 34 when Blondie made it big, she literally wore a bin bag and still looked amazing, and you knew she was nobody's puppet. Cool AF.

An interesting tangent, and I agree. It's the same with bike races, blondes in short skirts presenting prizes. Because of course women are so decorative

Empowerment without power is simply the illusion of the thing and not the thing itself. Power is the thing itself. They may acquire fame and fortune, both of which have a power component, but the path to power is not the clothing they wear. It is part of the illusion.

I think masculinity is a very tightly policed code and so if you want to be "a man" you have to be dedicated to maintaining the code of masculinity. Women have been trying to bust out of the constraints of "femininity" for millennia but being a woman is not a prized state, unlike being a man.

This is why the TRA thing is so annoying. Why don't they expend all their effort busting open the code of masculinity, making it easier for all men. I think the TRAs already know they are not allowed into the elite cadre of men so they need to take women's identities instead. There they can be elite and untouchable because you are not allowed to say they are not women or you are a bigot. They also get to be "better" women than we are thanks to their strength (entering women's sports, remaining aggressive), entitlement (effectively choosing which services to use depending on which one is more appealing - taking women's prizes and places on all women shortlists) and telling us how to do femininity from a man's perspective).

When Blondie were ?touring a couple of years ago - I saw them interviewed a couple of times, and I felt that the interviewers were very unsure, almost uncomfortable with Debbie Harry being the age she is, and still being a confident outspoken centre of the band. It was quite interesting.

I also saw an interview with the woman from moolighting where she has a hat on and the interviewer says oh nice hat and she says yeah I couldn't be bothered to do my hair, do you want to see it? And she pulls her hat off and her hair is a right mess and the interviewer just doesn't know what to do

What they have in common is that they were both feted for their beauty irrespective really of other talents, them being beautiful women was the #1 thing, and now they're older and still confident and a bit fuck you, it makes people uncomfortable.

As I see it, Little Mix are empowering capitalism. They're a product themselves, created to sell more products.

Nothing to do with empowering women.

It's interesting everyone mentioning female artists who found fame in the past. So many of them seemed to be about more than sex. Even the Spice Girls who arguably created the template for bands like Little Mix were much less sexualised. Yes they wore short skirts etc but the clothes were often more like costumes as opposed to underwear and the poses they did just seemed more innocent. I find it interesting that they also had Sporty Spice who wore tracksuits and went around doing back flips. Now it seems that everyone needs to be super sexy in these bands and there is simply no room for anything else.

Or maybe we've just got older

Remember hot gossip? - I think the production standards have changed and the "sex sells" is dressed up differently but it's all the same.

And of course "sex sells" in a straight male dominated society means "sexy women".

God remember the minipops! That was very weird.

Music is always about sex in some ways I think, but back in the day as some pps have mentioned there was more diversity and performers seemed more real if that makes sense, not just empty corporate money makers (although they've always been there too)

I loved Siouxsie Sioux for her fuck you attitude and I think Debbie Harry definitely had that too - mess with them at your peril. But they still had glamour and I'm afraid I do like a bit of glamour...

As for Hot Gossip, I Lost My Heart To A Starship Trooper is a camp disco classic...still find it hard to believe it's Sarah Brightman trying to be sexy in a leotard though

Re: the male gaze and little mix’s fans being predominately female - the thing about male gaze theory is that we all, male and female, see with the male gaze. We’re conditioned to it.

*GardenGeek “I was talking to DP about the pay gap and I said men were pretty short sighted. If men set up and control the patriarchy why did they make it so they had to go and make all the money, surely you would get your lowly woman slave to go do it so you could lounge around.

DP said 'Its so women need them'*

In a capitalist society, you have to have capital to have power, so the system is set up for men to ‘earn’ and control most of the money. Women in fact do work harder and do more hours statistically, and always have, doing undervalued and unpaid domestic labour. i.e. slaving while men lounge around. Even when women also have full time paid jobs this is often the case.

It is a swiz, and it’s been seen in every settled human society, past and present.

Yes. Little Mix are coaching their little girl fans to evaluate what's appealing through the eyes of men. Then they are coaching them to attract the male gaze themselves by copying Little Mix.

DD is a fan and I actually have tickets for her and cousins to go and see them in the summer. I really wish they didn't dress like that though.