Post-Feminism: Can't Win, Don't Try.
In yesterday's (27 June 2006) edition of the Washington Post Express, Patricia Field – the costume designer for "The Devil Wears Prada" – opines, "'I think [Anne Hathaway's character] Andy always dressed a little immature [sic]. There was no sexuality to her at all even though she had just graduated college [sic]'" (p.31). And what earned Andy this slight? Why, she wore "shapeless sweaters and skirts that literally came from a middle-America mall" (ibid.).
Do I really need to spell this out for you? The equation of sexualizing oneself with social maturity? The implication that not showing off your body is somehow childish and unsuitable behavior for a grown woman? (And anyway, WTF? Is this woman stuck with a 1960s image of the collegiate [shudder] "co-ed" {ooh, how I hate that term} [/shudder]?)
The message here is not just that unattractive women get taken less seriously. (Hell, it's not even "not just" that: if you're too attractive, or you overdo the self-sexualizing, you get dismissed as a skank or a twit, too: viz. Britney and Tori S. And god help you if you're both. You have to look good enough to get people's attention, but not so good that all of their brain power goes to their visual cortex and genitalia.) The message is that, for women, part of being an adult is looking fuck-worthy. That part of being an adult is complicity in your own personal objectification. Oh, how much we've learned in the last four decades!
I am reminded of the uproar when Britney came on the scene: parents wished she would stop dressing like a slut so that their daughters would stop clamoring to dress like sluts, too. (Not that I had any sympathy with the parents — in my opinion, they just didn't want the responsibility of saying "no" to the kids and thereby turning into latter-day June and Ward Cleavers. Instead, they wanted Britney to make the problem go away for them.) It's not a coïncidence that she was the one to cover "I'm Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman." But it's not sexuality per se that adults often find unnerving when seen in girls, I think — rather, I think it's the implied passing of innocence (innocence being one of the supposed rights and responsibilities of childhood; one of the most poignant things I've ever seen was a fashionably-dressed tweenager perusing the dolls in Wal-Mart's toy section).
The suggestion that wearing "shapeless sweaters and skirts" is evidence of sexual naïveté, if not social immaturity, rests upon the belief in a straight line from awareness through acceptance to celebration — if you've got it, flaunt it, baby! So if you've got it to flaunt and you don't, it's because either you're aware but suffer from some sort of psychological flaw – like discomfort with one's body (and why would anyone have that problem in this day and age?) – that keeps you from flaunting; or you're sadly unaware and need the kind of consciousness-raising that you can only find in boutiques. The possibility that maybe you just don't feel like being ogled all the time – or that you'd rather spend your time and money on other things – is, evidently, no excuse for dressing comfortably.
And this is without considering the, well, the outright idiocy that passes for au courant fashion sense these days.
For what it's worth, I'd say it's having the idea that particular personal styles and (emotional and social) maturity go together that's a sign of immaturity. That's what goes on in high school society. One would hope that adults would be past that.
UPDATE: Oh, boo hoo hoo! The fashionistas feel misrepresented by "The Devil Wears Prada"!
Do I really need to spell this out for you? The equation of sexualizing oneself with social maturity? The implication that not showing off your body is somehow childish and unsuitable behavior for a grown woman? (And anyway, WTF? Is this woman stuck with a 1960s image of the collegiate [shudder] "co-ed" {ooh, how I hate that term} [/shudder]?)
The message here is not just that unattractive women get taken less seriously. (Hell, it's not even "not just" that: if you're too attractive, or you overdo the self-sexualizing, you get dismissed as a skank or a twit, too: viz. Britney and Tori S. And god help you if you're both. You have to look good enough to get people's attention, but not so good that all of their brain power goes to their visual cortex and genitalia.) The message is that, for women, part of being an adult is looking fuck-worthy. That part of being an adult is complicity in your own personal objectification. Oh, how much we've learned in the last four decades!
I am reminded of the uproar when Britney came on the scene: parents wished she would stop dressing like a slut so that their daughters would stop clamoring to dress like sluts, too. (Not that I had any sympathy with the parents — in my opinion, they just didn't want the responsibility of saying "no" to the kids and thereby turning into latter-day June and Ward Cleavers. Instead, they wanted Britney to make the problem go away for them.) It's not a coïncidence that she was the one to cover "I'm Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman." But it's not sexuality per se that adults often find unnerving when seen in girls, I think — rather, I think it's the implied passing of innocence (innocence being one of the supposed rights and responsibilities of childhood; one of the most poignant things I've ever seen was a fashionably-dressed tweenager perusing the dolls in Wal-Mart's toy section).
The suggestion that wearing "shapeless sweaters and skirts" is evidence of sexual naïveté, if not social immaturity, rests upon the belief in a straight line from awareness through acceptance to celebration — if you've got it, flaunt it, baby! So if you've got it to flaunt and you don't, it's because either you're aware but suffer from some sort of psychological flaw – like discomfort with one's body (and why would anyone have that problem in this day and age?) – that keeps you from flaunting; or you're sadly unaware and need the kind of consciousness-raising that you can only find in boutiques. The possibility that maybe you just don't feel like being ogled all the time – or that you'd rather spend your time and money on other things – is, evidently, no excuse for dressing comfortably.
And this is without considering the, well, the outright idiocy that passes for au courant fashion sense these days.
For what it's worth, I'd say it's having the idea that particular personal styles and (emotional and social) maturity go together that's a sign of immaturity. That's what goes on in high school society. One would hope that adults would be past that.
UPDATE: Oh, boo hoo hoo! The fashionistas feel misrepresented by "The Devil Wears Prada"!
posted by Dr. Bubbles at 11:15
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home