Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Madness of Makeovers

By Lakshmi Chaudhry, In These Times. Posted July 7, 2006.


A new reality television show demeans women whose greatest fashion crime seems to be that they aren't rich.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Lakshmi Chaudhry

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Everyone knows fashion is pain, but on television it also involves a generous dose of emotional abuse. Not content with tormenting women with double-zero-sized clothing, arthritis-inducing stilettos, and the self-inflicted wedgie that is the thong, fashion experts have found a way to increase the level of violence: The makeover show.

On cable, shows that transform the average ugly duckling into a well-coiffed swan have become ubiquitous: "How Do I Look?" and "Look for Less" on Style Network, "Style by Jury" on Women's Entertainment Network, and the over-hyped metrosexual sensation, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" on Bravo. And that doesn't even include the innumerable makeover segments on talk shows hosted by the likes of Tyra or Oprah. With the exception of "Queer Eye," these shows are aimed entirely at a female audience, and their promise is that anyone can be beautiful, irrespective of age, shape or size. There's only one little catch: total public humiliation of the "lucky" fashion victim.

The reigning queen of the genre is BBC's "What Not to Wear," the enormous success of which in Britain has spawned numerous imitators across the pond, including its very own American edition on TLC. The show's original hosts (who recently defected to ITV), Trinny Woodall and Susannah Constantine, struck gold by marrying the self-help narrative of personal empowerment to the dictatorial ethos of the fashion industry.

The show is based on the premise that women's wardrobes reflect how they feel about themselves. Put simply, a woman who dresses bad is one who feels bad, so "What Not To Wear" is not just about changing how you look, but who you are. But the path to self-transformation bears an uncanny resemblance to the military boot camp. As one of the participants puts it, "They had to break me down in order to build me up again." Becoming a strong, self-confident woman requires complete submission; the woman has to surrender her mind and soul along with her entire wardrobe.

The "breaking down" process entails ritual debasement in various forms, beginning with the painfully embarrassing "secret footage" taken by the unsuspecting woman's family and friends, who have nominated her for the show. (Think shots of her ass stuffed into too-tight plaid trousers interspersed with those of her eight-year old telling the camera that she dresses like "a tramp.")

The American version ups the ante by forcing the target to watch the "secret footage" in the company of their kith and kin, who join in the good, clean fun of comparing the chosen target to a "bobblehead," traffic cone or stripper. The hosts, Clinton Kelly and Stacey London, deliver more of the same in-studio as the woman stands in front of a 360-degree mirror designed to reveal her body's every flaw ("Why is your tummy hanging out?"), and as they throw her clothes into a giant trash can ("Is there a fashion jail? Because I'm horrified!"). More abuse comes later, as she stumbles through shops trying to find clothes that meet the proscribed list of "The Rules" ("You're making me really angry," says Kelly to a woman foolish enough to buy yet another piece of clothing in her favorite color, pink.)

While public humiliation is de rigeur for reality programming, what makes "What Not to Wear" painful to watch is that none of its participants resemble the attention-hungry contestants on "Survivor" or "Real World." These are, for the most part, really nice women, many of whom are working moms with low-level white-collar jobs who simply don't have the money or time to preen in front of the mirror.

As the 19th-century sociologist Thorstein Veblen observed in his book, "The Theory Of The Leisure Class," "[O]ur apparel is always in evidence and affords an indication of our pecuniary standing to all observers at first glance. ... [D]ress, therefore, in order to serve its purpose effectively should not only be expensive, but it should also make plain to all observers that the wearer is not engaged in any kind of productive labour."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Lakshmi Chaudhry is a senior editor at In These Times and a former senior editor of AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
That's not funny!
Posted by: mokidugway on Jul 7, 2006 12:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've seen this program several times, and I have to disagree completely with the analysis.

First, "What not to Wear" is a light-hearted romp compared to programs that make women over using plastic surgery and then rate them comparatively in a beauty pageant forum. The program is to be commended for encouraging women to make the most of what they have, rather than having them resort to expensive surgical solutions or telling them they must lose thirty pounds before they can be attractive.

Second, the hosts strike me as kind-hearted and sympathetic. The author unfairly quotes them outside this context and without acknowledging that many of the comments are made in humorous exchanges between the hosts and makeover candidate.

Third, I do not see the gender bias the author notes. All the candidates are encouraged to see their good points, and sensitive candidates invariably get more encouragement, less ribbing. Maybe the problem is that men are more sensitive to their looks overall than women.

There is a lot of self-improvement television that really does demean women. Dr. Phil, for instance, seems to hate women, and his paternalistic advice, followed by millions, is pernicious.

But to single out this flimsy little show--well, it does kind of recall the old saw about feminists changing a lightbulb.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That's not funny! Posted by: churchofone
» RE: That's not funny! Posted by: cordas
» gender bias is everywhere Posted by: four_legs_good_two_legs_bad
» The American Way. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: gender bias is everywhere Posted by: mokidugway
» RE: gender bias is everywhere Posted by: FauxPorteno
» Thanks Posted by: mokidugway
» RE: gender bias is everywhere Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: That's not funny! Posted by: Paul D
illustrative
Posted by: rsaxto on Jul 7, 2006 4:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These shows are illustrative of just how out of touch with reality and decency the Bushies have warped America into becoming. They warp decency and other good attributes that humans can have into a nightmare of indecent wars, indecent gluttony, indecent torture, indecent greed and indecent dominion. Impeach the Bushies before American completely loses contact with decent lifestyles and becomes completely indecent and completely globally hated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: illustrative Posted by: Paul D
» RE: illustrative Posted by: Conservasaurus
The Hawthorne Effect
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Jul 7, 2006 4:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 1920's when American business first began to look at worker productivity they studied a factory (Hawthorne) where garments were sewn (women mostly). Their intent was to change the lighting and see if productivity changed. It did in the beginning but the improvement continued throughout all light manipulations only to plummet again when the study ended.

The conclusion was the the attention these factory workers received as the study was being done lead to their improved performance. The Hawthorne Effect is still presented as a model that reflects the simple fact that these faceless factory workers blossomed when attention was paid to them.

These "reality" shows are not about gender, clothes, fashion or looks (but of course I am not minimizing those as essential factors) but is the response of any human being who feels lonely, rejected, alienated or lost in the shadows to the attention of anyone else who seems to care about them personally. It is unfortunate that this society seems filled with "factory" workers and anytime someone is on camera and they know it that is not "reality" but is called acting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obvious the author never watched the show
Posted by: admytrewycz on Jul 7, 2006 5:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, the host of the American WNTW is STACY London, not JESSICA London.

Second, it seems pretty clear that the author has never actually watched an episode. If she had, she might have realized that the show's focus is helping people dress and appreciate the bodies they have, not forcing them to get the bodies they want. The hosts don't make women feel bad because they can't afford to buy new clothes. They point out to women that how they dress isn't appropriate. Sometimes it's a woman that's lost 50 pounds but still wears her "fat clothes." Sometimes it's a 25-year-old who wears short skirts and low-cut tops to work and can't understand why she's not being promoted. But it's always people who don't dress the best they can for their bodies, and the show teaches them how to do that. I've been watching the show for years and I can't remember a single episode where the person wasn't unhappy in the beginning and completely thrilled by the end.

Finally, I think it's pretty ridiculous to attack makeover shows while ignoring the shows that encourage plastic surgery. Makeover shows are about helping a person look his or her best as they are. Plastic surgery shows tell people that they're not good enough the way they are, and that the only fix is a nose-job or boob-job. It's disgusting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Culture of Vanity and Meanness
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jul 7, 2006 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A couple of generations raised and conditioned by 24/7 365 marketing and advertising has changed our country from one that values individuality into one of conformity. Add class snobbery, social climbing and the "I've got mine" mentality and you can see where this all comes from. Why it's on television is another issue: namely it's cheap to produce.

The women that I find attractive do not have a particular look or style. What they share is that they are confident and comfortable in their own skin and dress not based upon trends, but based upon their own taste and sense of style. Rather than dressing in the flavor of the moment, they know what look they are trying to get and what looks good on them.

It's not the clothes that make the woman-- it's her attitude, personality and confidence.

The women I am speaking of long ago recognized the fashion game for what it is and have gone their own way. Rather than let others define their life they have chosen to cut their own path. Some of the most beautiful women I have ever seen were simply and plainly dressed while some of the ugliest were decked out with the finest money could buy. Beauty and style come from the inside and are individual-- they are not issued from a clothes rack or cosmetics counter.

The makeover show glut is fed by the insecurity of the lemmings who follow the dictates of others and their desire or need to feel superior to others. The rest are just video voyeurs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Culture of Vanity and Meanness Posted by: churchofone
It is in the Eyes
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Jul 7, 2006 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is called entertainment. To try and make some larger social extrapolation is a tenuous endeavor. Makeovers on the outside having fleeting value to the inner person. Personally I look into a person's eyes to see what is inside and those you cannot change from the outside. And it takes a while to get to "know" another person's eyes. Longer than a TV show.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You Can Express Yourself By What You Wear
Posted by: april on Jul 7, 2006 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have spent years with no extra money for clothes etc... as a working artist in NYC. As a feminist I have also made many considerations in choosing what to wear. I think figuring out a personal style that fits your budget and lifestyle and reflects something about yourself is a great thing to do that can improve general well-being and confidence. Attention to clothing/fashion is not a recent phenomenon. Choosing recycled or organic clothing, wearing vegan clothing, choosing comfortable clothes, all this speaks in the marketplace and on the street. Having a good friend give you honest feedback on your wardrobe can be really helpful when you are too busy to think about it, or are blinded by something else you like about the clothes without really seeing the overall picture of them on you. If someone is really confident about a personal style that's very eclectic than I say go for it and who cares what people think. But if a woman is insecure about what she's wearing this can definitely show up in her day to day interactions.

I think it matters how you dress, but it doesn't have to be complicated at all. You can have a few things you love, that you feel good in and that's all you need. I don't like the thought of being punished before being "made-over", but I think someone with a good eye and a sense of one's personality can be helpful in sorting through an approach to one's style.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've watched "What Not To Wear"
Posted by: Sunfell on Jul 7, 2006 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've watched "What Not To Wear", and to be honest, I am sometimes totally baffled by the clothing choices of both the 'fashion victim' and the two hosts. But womens clothing is a baffling thing, and it's a royal pain to dress comfortably and appropriately. The choices offered are not the best, the workmanship is often substandard, and it seems that the ladies clothing industry is infested by the urge to put sparklies on everything.

I hate sparklies, spangles, beads, bling, and other 'girly' things. And what is it about these ugly pajama tops that have replaced normal blouses? And I won't even go into the flip flop plague...

So I've been learning to sew my own clothing. And when I find footwear that is comfortable, well made, and affordable, I buy several pairs, because goodness knows how long it will be before I find any more.

Someday, womens clothing will be as pleasant and practical and consistent with sizes as mens clothing. Then, hell will freeze over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» got my skates on Posted by: shellac'd
» RE: got my skates on Posted by: Kym525
A Man's View
Posted by: Riverside on Jul 7, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lakshmi, you are so right. I have watched parts of the show out of curiousity but my digestive system limited the length of any viewing.

The selected candidates for public disgrace seem so entranced that they do not realize they are "oafs on display." Now I do not mean the women are oafs, I mean the program intentionaly *oafizes" them.

I find the entire thing quite sad and quite dehumanizing. We have some really sick people running things these days, or so it seems to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A Man's View II Posted by: fairleft
» RE: A Man's View II Posted by: Riverside
Puzzled Person
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jul 7, 2006 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a person who has no clue about style I'm always puzzled. Why is it that something that was beautiful last year is ugly or comical this year? How can a style of 50 years ago that was laughed at 49 years ago be the rage today?

I suspect that a lack of style probably grates on the nerves of of the fashionable much as poor grammer grates on the nerves of the educated but I just can't make sense of it.

My best guess is that if it exists style iis an art that can't be learned. My second best is that it's rip-off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stock reply: what about men?
Posted by: lamar on Jul 7, 2006 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't recall a similar outrage when Queer Eye starting teaching burly men to wax their eyebrows. I guess watching guys be vain is funny, while watching women be vain is something much more complicated. For those who said "lighten up, it's just a show":

Its an industry and can harm your well being

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ever Notice?
Posted by: Joe Ox on Jul 7, 2006 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the midst of all the comparisons of clothing and the allegations of exploitation etc. etc. is a strange and everpresent thing. Talk of "personal style" is interesting, expressing yourself through what you wear. It is a dilemma.
I was in college in the early 80's, though I am sure this was going on long before, and I used to quietly admire the folks who dressed kind of "out there", seemingly not giving a damn what anyone thought, while the rest of us may have been turning the collars up on our pastel Izod shirts. That was until I listened carefully at the rants of these expression dressers. They claimed that they wanted to not conform, that they cringed at the notion of awaking and trying to think and dress like everyone else.
I started to ponder my morning routine. I woke up, jumped in some cloths, and never gave conformity or its lack a moments thought. Meanwhile, at the vanity of the nonconformist stood a person agonizing over each choice so as to be "different"
I concluded that in the endeavor to look as if they didnt care, they actually cared more then anyone, and that the greatest degree of conformity in society is expressed by nonconformists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ever Notice? Posted by: lamar
» RE: ever Notice? Posted by: Joe Ox
» RE: ever Notice? Posted by: lamar
» RE: ver Notice? Posted by: mokidugway
» True nonconformists Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Taking Responsibility
Posted by: Kym525 on Jul 7, 2006 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know this will probably get me thrown out of most feminist circles (and I consider myself pretty staunch), but we as women are just as responsible for this nonsense as are the networks that air these shows. We wouldn't complain if we didn't watch, even if it's a guilty pleasure. We bitch and moan about the fashion industry, how it doesn't cater to "real women", and yet the diet industry makes billions because few of us have actor/comedienne Mo'Nique's sass and verve. We try like hell to put ourselves into clothes that are created for adolescent coathangers and not for women at all. We pen letters to magazines like Glamour and Cosmo, demanding they stop using models and celebs who look as if they could use a good cheeseburger (or two), and yet will stand in line at the grocery store and digest the fashion tips geared towards women who don't look like us. For women of colour this is even worse, because the mass media tells us that our "ethnic" features are undesirable, not "American" enough.

We don't put our dollars where they will do the most good. We don't take responsibility for catering to an industry whose sole purpose is to make women feel bad about being who we are. We try to fight aging, even going as far as injecting a 'mild form' of botulism into our faces.

Face it ladies, many of us are between the sizes of 12 and 16, and you know what...that's cool! There are stores that cater to our needs, and we can look great without knuckling under to the evil fashion police. Lipstick can be fun (and I own at least thirty, including lots of red), but it isn't a necessity for our existence.

Over the years I've found that many men are much more attracted to a confident woman who feels good about herself and how she looks, than to some constantly dieting trendy overpampered princess.

Moreover, we should stop trying to compete with each other and instead celebrate our womanliness. If you've gained weight from having kids, guess what...it happens. Stop trying to be like Sarah Jessica Parker and other unrealistic "role models' who would probably give up trying to maintain this ideal in favour of a carton of Ben & Jerry's Phish Food. Iif you've got cellulite, DEAL WITH IT. Small boobs? Buy a Wonderbra or better yet, just learn to love your perky bosoms.

Our bodies, in their infinite and inperfect varieties, are beautiful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It helped me!
Posted by: ActivistEm on Jul 7, 2006 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love What Not To Wear - while sometimes host STACEY London's "Shut UP!" commentary can border on grating, for the most part, Clinton and Stacey help ALL women to look their best - and no woman, or person, for that matter, I think, can honestly say they don't want to look their best. and fortunately or unfortunately, how you dress is an enormous part of looking your best - as is the grooming and the other things the show offers. Personally, I spent the better part of my life to date (now age 29) shrouding myself in too large clothes thinking it would hide the extra pounds I carry. I couldn't seem to make whatever was fashionable at the time, fit my body and so covered up in jeans and flannel shirts. But after starting to watch What Not To Wear, I started to see how many more options there are out there, and was shown that women a lot larger than I was, or with different body concerns aside from just being rounder than the average fashion model, were able to find clothes and styles that accentuated the positive, de-emphasized the negative and made them look fabulous. I took the tips to the stores myself and had success finding new clothing for myself, over time. And now I look better and I feel better. What is wrong with that? It's not anti-feminist, in my book, or anti-woman; it's pro-woman, pro-me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It helped me! Posted by: Kym525
» RE: It helped me! Posted by: owleyes
» RE: It helped me! Posted by: Kym525
» RE: It helped me! Posted by: BlueTigress
» Yeah, it's a good show Posted by: fairleft
It's about homogenization
Posted by: Ahimsa on Jul 7, 2006 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The shows are what they are, c'mon it is reality TV...
What else can we expect beyond a refinement of techniques pioneered by the likes of Jerry Springer?
What bothers me, within the context of the show, is the rather tragic level of uniformity and the absolut submission to the business class: the standardization of all participants into a very corporate, proper and honestly, BORING appearance.
None of these shows engage in any kind of exploration of the participant's personality in order to help the person with wardrobe decisions that fit their actual lifestyles or characters. Maybe I'm being equally frivolous, and I'm not suggesting that we should increase the "circus" aspect, but I think creativity and adventure would make them, at least, more stimulating. How about looking at budget? Let's see, what is your personality? What is your general income "zone", how can you do better with what you have? Can you have a fashion makeover based on thrift shops? Can you design a wardrobe based on a minimum of pieces that combine? Wardrobe is important to people, without over-romanticizing, it does have an impact and can be highly symbolic. It has always been.
I know, we could do without the shows altogether, but then who'd teach Americans (particularly Southern Californians, YUK!) how to dress? Hey, can we be responsible citizens who care about real issues and look interesting at the same time? I'm not sure I see the contradiction. What I criticize is the one-way approach to image creation, the absolut lack of imagination!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ALSO
Posted by: Ahimsa on Jul 7, 2006 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is anybody out there humilliating millionaires with nauseatingly gaudy syles?
Who is saying no to bling? Is anyone saying money doesn't buy elegance?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ALSO Posted by: owleyes
OH, and the GUYS!
Posted by: Ahimsa on Jul 7, 2006 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is queer abour the Fab-5 beyond their mannerisms and their groping of the victims?
They are so proper! So corporate! so STRAIGHT!
This is probably the most annoting show of all; 5 guys trying to desperately display their gayness in all but their potential contribution, the "difference" that they can make. Why Queer Eye at all if the result looks like What Not to Wear?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How Do I Look?
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jul 7, 2006 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't watch "What Not to Wear" so I can't comment on it, but the show I find the cruelest is "How Do I Look?"

Not only does the victim have to volunteer to do this, she (90% of the show are about women) has to agree to lose the clothing items the collaborators throw out. Which means you run the very real risk of losing a beloved item, even if it is horrible. There was one show where the victim was told to toss a pair of jeans with patches and other bits sewn on them -- including the military stripes belonging to her late father. I almost cried for her. But as it turned out, the jeans were rescued and turned into a wall hanging. Cheap drama no doubt.

They also have to listen to people close to them tell them how they don't like her style, hair, makeup, whatever.

Then, the collaborators choose new clothing, hairstyle, and makeup, and she has to choose one new look and go with it.

The new hairdo is invariably done at an upscale salon, so if she wants to maintain the exact look, she is suddenly facing a salon bill of several hundred dollars every time she goes in, if she goes back to the place where it was done. If not, the regular stylist is faced with having to figure out how to maintain the style and match the color change.

The new makeup is invariably expensive and the new outfits total around $1,000.00.

So yeah, their biggest sin is not spending a ton of money on hair and clothes. And if you're busy, who has time every morning for a hairstyle? Or to shop for this season's latest?

I agree. If we don't watch them they will go away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Participants on WHAT NOT TO WEAR know what they are getting into
Posted by: markedwmn on Jul 7, 2006 11:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because by agreeing to be on the show (and being chosen by the casting department) the woman agrees to play her part in order to receive a free new wardrobe. She generally knows what is being asked of her in order to receive the clothes - reality participants of this kind sign contracts, go through a lengthy screening process, give access to their friends and families willingly, and are by no means lambs to the slaughter. I work for the devil that is reality tv, so this is something I know about in detail.

That being said, some women are aesthetically inclined and some are not, and they would like to look better but really don't know what to wear, what looks good on them, etc. Many women wear horrible things because they think that the clothes that would make them look good are "inappropriate" because of their age or weight or social standing, or whatever complicated negative self image they have been nursing through the years. Usually a confident woman is an attractive woman, and no, I dont think that Vogue destroys women's self confidence, anymore than a trip to the museum makes the architecture of strip malls unbearable.

I think that everyone has the desire to look good. This show offers practical advice on not wearing clothes that are wrong for your body type. That is bound to help someone.

Really, I think it's the pressure of being wives and mothers that cause women to give up on their aesthetic selves. If they had more government mandated health and day care, or husbands and partners who did housework, and didn't refer to watching their own children as "babysitting", they would probably have time to use a blowdryer occasionally or pick an outfit that mtached.

Quit your whining about the evil media that enslaves women to wear 7 jeans. It's really beside the point, and its this kind of pointless, ninny feminist journalism that is a waste of breath and time. The ONLY thing worth writing about is how to bring equality into the home, how to get the government to start supporting mothers in deed and not just in word, and how to pay all people of this country a living wage.

If WHAT NOT TO WEAR is the trappings of evil consumerism, then that is all it is - the symptom and not the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Being Queer
Posted by: Glait on Jul 7, 2006 12:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being queer and dressing mainly in boys clothing, I always feel uncomfortable watching the show, know that if they got there hands on me, they would make me dress like a girl, which for me is a kin to dressing in drag. I greatly dislike the idea of conforming to what it means to be a female, that you have to wear dresses and shirts. The show makes me sad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Being Queer Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Being Queer Posted by: fairleft
She hit the nail on the head!
Posted by: Gravitas on Jul 7, 2006 1:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with her that many of the reality shows are demeaning. We have a horrid show in the U.S. called the Biggest Loser (and also one for celebrities) which features contestant humiliation for the purpose of weight loss. IMO these folks are absolutely pitiful! Sometimes I wonder who could be that morose about their bodies? Then I realize that, bombarded by celebrity culture, everyone feels entitled to their 15 minutes of fame. And the thing about weight loss it is perceived than anyone can do it, at least temporarily. Thats why Oprah audiences will clap harder for a woman who dropped 50 lbs than a woman who just won a Nobel prize. The average viewer will never will a Nobel prize, but they do think they can drop 50lbs and become Thinderella for a brief shining moment. So, in preserving the madness that is weight obsession, they are preserving their chance to star. I think this mentality is expanded with makeovers of all sorts for all women. Very sad people trade in their dignity though. Losers indeed!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sheesh
Posted by: Maryanne on Jul 7, 2006 1:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was a time when I was tall and very thin, and the style was to be curvy- so nothing fit. Now I am still tall and but very curvy, and the style is to be masochistically thin- so nothing fits.

This has been frustrating, so style has gone out the window. What is inecessary is to find what fits, and be comfortable. It's what is inside that counts, and people who really matter judge you for what you are, not what you look like or wear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sheesh Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Sheesh Posted by: Maryanne
» RE: Sheesh Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Sheesh Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Sheesh Posted by: Kym525
reality TV presents a united front
Posted by: owleyes on Jul 7, 2006 2:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reality TV, at its heart, promulgates one simple message: in order to be worthwhile in any sense, one must appear on TV. One cannot appear on TV if one is not beautiful. One cannot be beautiful if one does not invest in any or all of the beauty products manufactured by the shows' sponsors. Reality television's passionate embrace of shallow consumerism is only a more honest version of what TV has always been: a forum for advertising. There is no good reason to participate in that. I do know, however, that women want to be attractive. I know this because I am a woman, my friends are women, and I pay attention to women. But. You don't have to be a 10 to be attractive, nor do you need advice from a self-styled expert. All you have to do is know yourself, know what you think is sexy, and be that. I myself am not particularly thin and am starting to get a little rough around the edges. But because I do not believe that sexiness is about being 22 and a size 0, I never have trouble convincing people that I am hot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Women" need to get over it
Posted by: sirossisofliver on Jul 7, 2006 3:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until women (as a race) can live their lives without worrying obsessively about whether some article of clothing makes their "butt look big", or without flipping through women's magazines and asking: "do my tits look as good as hers"....they will collectively remain victims.

Embrace your fat butt and your sagging pendulous breasts, and get on with your lives as Human Beings!

If you have a paunch, don't where a bare middrift;...a fat ass, No lycra stretchpants or ass thongs;....swinging udders, no braless halters or string tees...Duh?

and most importantly....THROW AWAY THE DAMNED WOMEN'S FASHION MAGS!!!

It's all just "Udder Nonsense"!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Women" need to get over it Posted by: sirossisofliver
Seriously now...
Posted by: acp on Jul 7, 2006 5:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Compared to other shows, WNTW is much more sane. Having watched it, it is nice to watch the hosts complimenting guests who have an "imperfect" body type like everyone else. And besides, I don't know if there is anything demeaning about knowing what length of skirt or height of shoe or color will make me "pop" as I pop to make a statement about this immoral war or serious womens' issues like abortion rights and the feminization of poverty. You know, about some right wing religious zealots would find this show demeaning as well, necklines and all.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

E-MAN
Posted by: ehatman71 on Jul 7, 2006 6:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think all of the ridiculous reality TV shows are a sad testament to what is becoming of our society. It seems everyone is so wrapped up in self nowadays and there is little sense of community or the desire to help each other, especially anonymously, without any though for personal benefit or gain. Turn off the TV and don't support these ridiculous shows.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: -MAN Posted by: TerryS
Napoleonne
Posted by: ankhet on Jul 7, 2006 8:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the old saying goes, "You'll never be a leader if you worry about how you look on a horse."

It's a perfect ploy, isn't it, to make women complicit in creating their own failure, putting shame to good use. Plus ça change!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've never seen the show but
Posted by: MEL810 on Jul 7, 2006 8:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have seen the books by the original "What Not to Wear" women and to tell the truth, I wasn't impressed by their make-overs. I thought most of the clothes were ugly.
But then, like one of the earlier posters in this thread, I also feel that women's clothing these days is poorly made and mostly in poor taste.
I dress fairly well by buying classics at thrift or consignment shops that feature the cast-offs of well-to-do women and by supplementing my thrift shop finds with items on sale at retail establishments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TV is destroying our self-worth
Posted by: TerryS on Jul 8, 2006 12:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Men are barraged with images of extraordinarily
beautiful and unobtainable women in the media,
making it difficult for them to desire the
ordinarily beautiful."

Is it any wonder that women are obsessed with
how they look?

http://www.psychologytoday.com
/articles/pto-20010701-000023.html


The Beautiful People Syndrome

http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/commentary/syndrome.html

"The Beautiful People Syndrome is attacking the
psyche of television-addicted America. For a man,
if you are not 6'1'', handsome and wealthy you
are not ideal. Any woman who isn't bone-thin with
a large chest certainly is below the standard.
Television is warping the American mind...
Everyone wants to be one of the beautiful
television people."

"What is the result of The Beautiful People
Syndrome? A lot of unhappy citizens.
Post-traumatic-television depression can
set in after you realize that your life isn't
as wonderful as it TV says it should be."

http://www.tvsmarter.com
http://www.trashyourtv.com/node
http://www.whitedot.org
http://www.turnoffyourtv.com

Remember TV = Soma

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't like reality shows at all!
Posted by: tristansmum35 on Aug 22, 2006 2:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't stand ANY of them!!!! Won't watch them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]