Hyperfemininity S/S 2012: Do women want to look like that again?

[Not Plain Jane]

^ In New Zealand you can. And I'm almost sure in most Western countries you can. After all isn't the west supposed to be "developed" or something?

I don't know about "developed." I think there are still many discrepancies and legal loopholes. Unions can help but in private companies it is a different matter, for example. Owners pay and promote how they see fit, and every woman who is mistreated isn't going to go to court; who can afford the legal expenses! And if a woman is trying to get her foot in the door in a certain industry, for instance, she is likely to suffer the lower wages for the bigger picture hopes. Even though that can backfire.

 

[tigerrouge]

While some job sectors have implemented open pay scales, and there is a degree of legal recourse for anyone who can provide outstanding evidence of discrimination, countless instances of unfair pay occur in a more insidious way, entrenched in cultural attitudes and the good old capitalist urge to find any reason to pay employees as little as possible.

As an amusing tale (although I wasn't laughing at the time) is that I once worked in a place where a family man was having trouble at home - through no fault of his own - but it meant he was away from the workplace for months on end, and I had to take over his role as well as carry on with my own.

When he came back, he was given a pay rise, while I got nothing. When I went to make my case, I remember being told that if I wanted more money, I should cut back on 'going out'. Given that I was a focused individual who was working a lot of overtime in that office, evenings and weekends, and had a alcohol-free lifestyle, for someone to imply that, if I was given the money, I'd fritter it all away on stilettos and a bar tab, was the most misguided statement that man ever made.

That company knew how hard-working I was, but they thought I would accept whatever they said, they were relying on me to just roll over and get back to the job.

After I left, there was a girl who got a decent pay rise, through doing something else other than work, and that ended with her getting the sack not long afterwards, when the novelty wore off and she became an inconvenience - so in that case, sex appeal led to an even bigger dead end than a future of merely being continuously underpaid for your efforts.

 

[iluvjeisa]

I think the biggest way women set themselves back is by being too conformist in general. Because, in general, social activities are really the field that women excel at and compete within.

For instance, it's well known that autism-spectrum disorders are more common in men. Now that might be misdiagnosis because girls don't act out the way boys do, but it could also be a biological difference that manifests itself in our neurons. High functioning autistic people can be very proficient at what they are obsessed with, but really sub par socially. I think this is less accepted in a woman. Women are expected to tend to things, help out, read people....etc etc etc. I work in a scientific field and the only women there seem to be either high functioning autistics who are poorly tolerated because of their oddities and high functioning, and highly neurotic, perfectionists who really don't get very far (because science isn't about perfection at all).

 

[PinkGoddess]

I honestly don't understand some of this. Is competition with men a masculine trait? If, let's say, Hillary Clinton is running for president versus Barak Obama is that a masculine trait, because she is running against a man? And why is it a "masculine trait" to have dominance or success in a professional or political field? That Donna Karan runs an incredibly successful clothing business is masculine? I don't see it that way. That Martha Stewart has her own conglomerate is masculine? Why can't BOTH men and women be "breadwinners" (a very outdated term on its own)? Why can't both men and women be successful in business and politics? Maybe the fact that women have different viewpoints might bring a balance to world affairs that is sorely missing. I also don't see why any such success needs to preclude feminine appearance. Certainly Donna Karan has a very feminine look, as did Margaret Thatcher, in her own way, as does, hmmm, Anna Wintour.

"Masculine" like "feminine" is a generalisation and therefore does not preclude exceptions to the rule; it simply means that a given trait is more commonly occurring among men than women. The reason being a breadwinner in families is a masculine occupation is because raising children has, among the majority of societies, always been a female one. The reason that seeking power and rising to the top of fields is masculine is because men have always done this even in fields that women traditionally excel in or dominate. The only way this could be seen as a problem is if people have the idea that being a breadwinner is somehow "superior" to being a full-time mother or housewife, or if people think that the drive to power and professional domination somehow is somehow "better" than stable employment. Interesting how men have never been considered "unliberated" for not spending as much time child-raising, nor has it ever been considered "oppressive" that a man's worth is often considered directly in relation to his occupational status.

I never said that women can't be breadwinners or dominate in professional/political fields; I'm merely making reference to the fact that they usually don't - even in societies where they have every available opportunity to do so. I'm not saying that the rights women have in those areas are gratuitous or that women in other societies shouldn't strive for the same rights, merely that we shouldn't define women's collective worth or success by how closely they imitate men in those regards. And this is what a large amount of feminists have done and still do. Women may not ever equal men in some regards, just as men will not equal women in many. The imperative should be opportunity, not competition.

 

[PinkGoddess]

That list of masculine traits is a mix of masculine traits and things that are dominant in the culture and are not masculine traits IMO.

The idea that social conditioning is somehow removed from nature is an erroneous one as culture and society are merely mankind's way of organising naturally occurring roles or behaviours. It's interesting how despite the fact that virtually every species has some form of instinctive social order or structure, it is only in humans that this order is perceived as opposing nature.

 

[fashionista-ta]

The idea that social conditioning is somehow removed from nature is an erroneous one as culture and society are merely mankind's way of organising naturally occurring roles or behaviours. It's interesting how despite the fact that virtually every species has some form of instinctive social order or structure, it is only in humans that this order is perceived as opposing nature.

For millenia most humans' primary concern was individual survival. We are now in the midst of a process of determining how we want to live--the best way to live. Therefore I believe it's important to distinguish between traits that are in fact determined by nature (though even testosterone is not destiny), and traits that are shaped by society (and ignorance).

Your argument seems to be that whatever exists, is utterly natural, and therefore absolutely fine.

Lots of people made the 'natural' argument for slavery, and domestic violence, and all sorts of other societal arrangements that we now consider unnatural and in fact highly perverted.

I am not willing to accept that the status quo is the best we can do as a species. And our history clearly demonstrates that we have both the will and the capacity to improve.

You have the right to cheerlead the status quo and the retrograde; I choose to cheer on those who are forging a new and better way.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

The reason being a breadwinner in families is a masculine occupation is because raising children has, among the majority of societies, always been a female one. The reason that seeking power and rising to the top of fields is masculine is because men have always done this even in fields that women traditionally excel in or dominate

Okay but surely just because something "has always been" a certain way, a tradition, doesn't make it right. It like we are discussing tradition versus transformation, but I think it is possible to hold onto meaningful traditions that are not hurtful towards others while still evolving as societies and people.

I would argue that the vast majority of feminists believe in opportunity - equal opportunity, not dominance. I do not really agree with your assertions that feminists want to "imitate" men. You seem to have an extreme view of feminists in general, when maybe only a small percentage of them are as militant as you imply. Many feminists advocate on behalf of women who choose to stay at home and raise children just as they equally advocate for choice, if a woman wants to work and/or a man wants to stay at home and raise children.

It is all about freedom of choice and what works best for each individual, male or female.

It isn't about dominating men, becoming men and imitating men.

Feminists can be feminine at the same time as they run a company; these qualities are not mutually exclusive.

 

[tigerrouge]

Sometimes I wonder what is 'natural' when it comes to humans, because as a species, we've been around on this earth for many thousands of years, and for a lot of that time, there's no definitive record of how people behaved or what social structures were in place. Civilisation as we know it is a relatively recent invention (or imposition, depending on your point of view).

And if you look at other apes, bonobos are a matriarchal society, where a male's status is dependent on his mother's social standing, gorillas have harems, chimpanzees are promiscuous within fairly unstable male-dominated groups, and orangutans seem to follow a more solitary model.

Popular science frequently looks to the chimpanzee in an attempt to explain the primitive roots of human behaviour, yet "bonobos are as genetically close to humans as are chimpanzees".

 

[PinkGoddess]

For millenia most humans' primary concern was individual survival. We are now in the midst of a process of determining how we want to live--the best way to live. Therefore I believe it's important to distinguish between traits that are in fact determined by nature (though even testosterone is not destiny), and traits that are shaped by society (and ignorance).

Yes, but our unconscious instincts do not transform overnight; it takes thousands of years for a biological trait to evolve. And as I have said, there is no fine line between a trait determined by nature and one by society, as man is a social animal is therefore naturally influenced and shaped by social order. That social order has always existed and has always affected our biology, just as it has the vast majority of animals on Earth.

Your argument seems to be that whatever exists, is utterly natural, and therefore absolutely fine.

I don't recall saying that.

Lots of people made the 'natural' argument for slavery, and domestic violence, and all sorts of other societal arrangements that we now consider unnatural and in fact highly perverted.

Yes, but those arrangements are unethical and treat certain groups as inferior, eliminating the right of choice for many individuals. The right of individual choice should always be of utmost concern, and I never said that it shouldn't.

I am not willing to accept that the status quo is the best we can do as a species. And our history clearly demonstrates that we have both the will and the capacity to improve.

Opposing the status quo and improving are not mutually exclusive with specializing based on our inherent qualities; on the contrary, it was specialization that allowed us to evolve to the level we are now in the first place.

 

[PinkGoddess]

I would argue that the vast majority of feminists believe in opportunity - equal opportunity, not dominance. I do not really agree with your assertions that feminists want to "imitate" men. You seem to have an extreme view of feminists in general, when maybe only a small percentage of them are as militant as you imply. Many feminists advocate on behalf of women who choose to stay at home and raise children just as they equally advocate for choice, if a woman wants to work and/or a man wants to stay at home and raise children.

I didn't say that all feminists do, merely radical feminists. They do not comprise a large majority of all feminists, but they are certainly the loudest, and as a result have been given a grossly unwarranted amount of media attention, resulting in the unfortunate popular image of feminism that we have now.

And the proof of my assertion that many such feminists want to imitate men, is as I have pointed out, their belief that a woman is 'unliberated' if she does not encompass male qualities and successes, despite the fact that they do not see men as such for not achieving or carrying out traditionally female responsibilities.

 

[Rova]

I react the most to the kind of looks that make me feel that we are americanized and hyperfeminine at the same time.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

I didn't say that all feminists do, merely radical feminists. They do not comprise a large majority of all feminists, but they are certainly the loudest, and as a result have been given a grossly unwarranted amount of media attention, resulting in the unfortunate popular image of feminism that we have now.

And the proof of my assertion that many such feminists want to imitate men, is as I have pointed out, their belief that a woman is 'unliberated' if she does not encompass male qualities and successes, despite the fact that they do not see men as such for not achieving or carrying out traditionally female responsibilities.

As tigerrouge pointed out, though, sometimes the militant people backing any cause are needed to get the ball rolling, so to speak, to draw attention to the issue - hence they do get the media attention, but it filters down to a more reasonable position generally. Also, I don't think feminism has such a bad reputation right now, does it? Certainly many celebs and other feminists speak out on behalf of women all over the world, which makes them feminists and proud of it.

Also, regarding your assertion -- "many such feminists want to imitate men...[they believe] that a woman is 'unliberated' if she does not encompass male qualities...despite the fact that they do not see men as such for not achieving or carrying out traditionally female responsibilities" I have to disagree. I just don't think it is true. Indeed, the other day I heard a radio program on which feminist panelists AND callers were speaking out to support any and all women who want to work in the home or stay home to raise their children; they were not saying these women were "unliberated" at all! They were saying these women need support and need to be respected for what they do. I am certain they would say and feel the same about men who wanted to raise children. Like I say, I don't know where you get your notions about feminists or feminism, but they seem very negative. To me, feminism is about opportunity and freedom of choice, and from what I have seen, many feminists are feminine, whether they work at home or run a company.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Yes, but our unconscious instincts do not transform overnight; it takes thousands of years for a biological trait to evolve. And as I have said, there is no fine line between a trait determined by nature and one by society, as man is a social animal is therefore naturally influenced and shaped by social order. That social order has always existed and has always affected our biology, just as it has the vast majority of animals on Earth.



I don't recall saying that.



Yes, but those arrangements are unethical and treat certain groups as inferior, eliminating the right of choice for many individuals. The right of individual choice should always be of utmost concern, and I never said that it shouldn't.



Opposing the status quo and improving are not mutually exclusive with specializing based on our inherent qualities; on the contrary, it was specialization that allowed us to evolve to the level we are now in the first place.

I don't really know how long it takes a biological trait to evolve, but I see no reason to be driven by biology. When my grandmother was born less than 100 years ago, women in the US didn't have the right to vote. Now we have that and much more. I believe that we should take full advantage of our status as a higher species and choose to evolve our society. Some species may have no choice about whether to be driven solely by their instincts. We, however, do.

Advancing as a species is not just a luxury; it is now a matter of our collective survival. We now need all of our skills, and all of our perspectives ... we can no longer allow patriarchy to throw half of the human skillset down a rathole. We cannot afford for women to be relegated (and to relegate themselves) to the passenger seat.

I don't see how your statement doesn't apply to women being second class citizens just as fully as the other previously "normal" and accepted practices I mentioned.

 

[fashionista-ta]

I react the most to the kind of looks that make me feel that we are americanized and hyperfeminine at the same time.

That's interesting ... tell me more about 'Americanized.'

 

[Rova]

fashionista-ta:

I think for me as a Swedish person it is impossible not to react to American influence since we love to hate America at the same time we go on imitating American culture.
If there is a trend among women to dress like 50's housewives and bake cupcakes I suspect that it says more about other values (lifestyle, social, political, cultural etc) than other random super feminine trends such as dressing like a Japanese lolita or a Ukranian bride.

My mothers generation always blamed America for having us shaving legs. They didn't blame the French for bringing feminine shapes to the world because they at least had this romantic perception of French women with hairy armpits.

 

[tigerrouge]

If you say "1950s fashion" to me, the first thing that comes to my mind is not America, but the Teddy Boys (and Girls) of Britain, who came from lower-class backgrounds and worked in factories, but took great pride in their appearance.

And while the style was associated with young people, it also referred back to the clothing their grandparents had worn during the Edwardian era, so the idea of a different generation reusing past fashions to send their own social message is certainly nothing new...

 

[Rova]

Tigerrouge: The funny thing is though that people want to dress in 1950's style after watching Mad Men and they want to bake cupcakes which I'm sure the teddy boys never did.
I think a lot of people in Sweden want to make the 50's style more American than it perhaps was back in the days.

I don't know the history of burlesque but I know people who like to pose in corsets because they look up to Dita Von Teese.

It's hard to explain but since I live in a country that likes to borrow from American culture i pick up on those things. There is a lot of different take on 50's style. I'm talking about when someone makes it (what they think is) stereotypical American.

 

[softgrey]

well- speaking strictly from a fashion point of view...
there's bound to be some backlash to all of the edgy darkness that has basically gone mainstream now...
'girl with the dragon tattoo' kind of stuff...
a lot of stuff that rick owens does and ann demeulemeester...etc...
stuff that used to cater to a very particular niche consumer is now being knocked of by mass market chain stores...

it's only natural that there should start to bubble up some alternative options for those fashion forward people who have already been wearing that look for several seasons now and are ready for a change...
those people usually are pretty tired of something by the time it has gone mass...

and that's what prada does here and has done historically...
presents alternatives to what everyone else is doing...
gives us a glimpse into the future...

i'd say we should be looking carefully at this...
it may not be literal- but there is bound to be something here that is at least a hint at where fashion is going next...

 

[luckyme]

this trend is in hyper speed off the cliff. i am not convinced its going to find its way onto the backs of anyone but "need to seen fashion people". the colors are wimpy, its way too busy...discombobulated, retro feminine, wannabe, grasping at straws, design prowness. prada, marc jacobs (as two examples) have done this ultra feminine theme so well before but nothing about the recent offerings comes off as a successful venture into opposing waters of the dark side. its a miss this season by giant proportions.

my eyes hurt looking at the current editorials in elle and bazaar, which are truly bazaar and very uptight.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ I don't know ... I can kind of appreciate the lightness of some of it. It looks to me to be gathering momentum ...