Here are two great pieces for some weekend reading.
1. Over at Alternet, Lakshmi Chaudhry tears into makeover reality TV shows. Almost every young feminist I know has a love/hate relationship to reality shows that are, more often than not, degrading, demeaning or insulting to women. We don’t agree with anything being done on Canada’s Next Top Model (especially the parts where the ultra-thin models wear a layer of saran wrap under their jeans so they can sweat off extra weight they frankly don’t have), but we tune in nonetheless, often using the excuse that we’re “doing research.” Chaudry provides an excellent reality-check: though we may think makover shows are just about giving some nice woman a total makeover so that she can feel good about herself, these shows have extremely classist elements to them and rely on the complete and utter humiliation of women.
2. At CBC.ca, one of my favourite Canadian columnists, Heather Mallick, stands up for feminism in a column that exposes REAL Women for what they are: professional anti-feminists (and anti-womanists, in my opinion) who want to see the end of abortion, a ban (is that even the right word?) on homosexuality, the demise of federal agencies like Status of Women and the closure of women’s shelter’s across the county, to name a few examples. Mallick takes particular issue with the group’s objection to feminist concerns (and aid) for women overseas. She raises the disturbing example of “breast ironing,” which is happening in Cameroon, West Africa. Mothers are trying to repress their daughters’ sexual attractiveness (to prevent harassment and rape) by ironing their breasts with hot stones. This is a painful and damaging procedure that is being addressed through campaigns by Cameroon’s government and other women’s groups. As Mallick writes, “Mothers are so frightened for their daughters at puberty that they pound the developing breasts with pestles, and bananas and coconut shells heated in a fire. The breasts are beaten to destroy the connective tissue, as you would tenderize a chicken breast for dinner, and they are burned. Some girls iron their own breasts so as not to be married off.” I wonder what REAL Women would say to that?
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
two comments
Nicole, your recommendation of Chaudhry's article was very timely, as a week at my parents' house has found me watching What Not To Wear on almost a daily basis. And, I have to admit, it's beyond a guilty pleasure - I really do enjoy the show. As fluffy and lacking in stimulating content as it is, I'm impressed at how, underneath all the bitchiness and catty comments, Stacey and Clinton actually do try to find clothes that look good on women with regular, non-model bodies, rather than trying to fit them to a Western beauty standard through surgery or fad diets. They know about colour and cut, and they know how to choose outfits that are flattering to women who are full-figured, or bony, or petite, or unusually proportioned. The tearing-down and "humiliation" aspect of the show is a little grating, but most of the women do genuinely seem to appreciate the effort the hosts make to deck them out with style.
Of course, Chadhry's point about the underlying class structure of the show is dead-on -- when the women are chastised for their tacky or out-of-date wardrobes, it's always because they don't have time to shop, they don't like shopping, their husbands shop for them, whatever. No one ever mentions that, for goodness' sake, clothes are expensive! Single mothers can't afford Macy's! Saks 5th Ave is out of reach for the average woman, career-oriented or not! These women don't have time to shop not because their schedules are too full with massage appointments or trips to the Bahamas, but because, guess what, they have to work! So Chadhry's point is well-taken, and I often wonder why none of the women ever say that they otherwise couldn't afford the outfits the show tells them they need. Maybe the network has a ban on any statement that might possibly provoke a Marxist revolution, who knows.
What I would like to see is a thrift-store version of What Not To Wear -- a show that teaches people how to shop for *affordable*, sweatshop-free, stylish clothes that look good on them. Heck, I'd even sign up to be the victim. Just as long as I don't have to give up the brown hoodie I've been wearing for the past eight years, right ladies?
Posted by Anna
July 10, 2006, 4:05 PM
That would be a good show. I doubt you'll see it on a major network anytime soon, though, since thrift stores (affordable ones, that is) can't shell out the big bucks to get all that promotion. Have you seen Canada's Next Top Model? The show is basically one long commercial for various beauty products.
Posted by Nicole
July 10, 2006, 5:37 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.