cross-posted at Politicoholic
A friend of mine just tweeted: “Susan Boyle gets a makeover. At last.” And then linked to this article . It’s a piece of crap, for many reasons. But I want this to be a short post with one main point, so I’m only going to highlight the most important thing. The article talks about how Susan Boyle has now died her hair, and got new, supposedly more fashionable, clothes.
“Susan Boyle, the frumpy “Britain’s Got Talent” sensation, has had a makeover. Boyle, 47, dyed her tangled gray hair a rich brown, and ditched her “drab dresses” for more fashionable attire. It’s heartwarming to see that having the opportunity to share her “beautiful voice” with millions has given Boyle new enthusiasm for life.” [emphasis mine]
When exactly did changing your looks to conform more to society’s standards of beauty become the same as a “new enthusiasm for life”? I’m not faulting Susan Boyle if she felt pressure to change her looks. Lord knows no one can talk about her WITHOUT talking about her looks. But I am faulting society for basing a woman’s worth, or at least part of it, on her looks. It doesn’t matter, apparently, how talented you are, unless you at least somewhat fit the description of what society thinks a woman should look like. No one is talking about Susan Boyle’s voice without simultaneously talking about her looks and how “frumpy” or “drab” she is. It’s sending the message that her talent isn’t worth anything unless she were better looking.
I know I’m going to get at least a couple comments saying, but it’s not bad to be more attractive if she wanted to update her look. No, it’s not. But it is bad that everyone is judging Susan Boyle - and her worth - based in part on her looks, rather than JUST on her talent. Her looks shouldn’t matter, people.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Who Cares If Susan Boyle Got a Makeover?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13278
The article made me wanna puke. If not really fucking boring. I don't think she looked frumpy or shitty or anything like that before. Not that I've seen the video.
Idk where I was going with this.
Her hair wasn't tangled. :(
I don't like how everyone seems to be knocking her hygiene! She looked perfectly clean and respectable, just not very fashionable.
As somebody who cares about hygiene a lot more than I care about fashion, I get annoyed when people conflate the two.
For example- the idea that "taking care of yourself" necessarily has to involve makeup.
"the idea that 'taking care of yourself' necessarily has to involve makekup."
Thank you. I never understood the theory that 'looking your best' involved lots of makeup and cosmetic surgery. The way I see it, you look the best with a natural face. It's what you were born in, after all.
Yes! Too true!
Me too! I hate that... and the other thing that really annoys me is when other people try to dress me trendy, do my hair trendy and put make-up on me, they talk to me as if I "don't get it", like I'm clueless about how other women are doing it.... and they act like they are doing this big life-saving favor for me. They can't grasp their little minds around the idea that maybe I just want to embrace my face the way it is.
I think all that really matters in this situation is if SHE wanted a makeover. We don't know if she was pressured or if she's truly happy with it. Like me..I'd love a makeover!
Right. If she really wanted a makeover, then that's her. And I wouldn't call what they did to her a makeover. She doesn't look much different from the way she looked before. She just has a different hair color and a different dress on. To me, she doesn't look worse or better. She just looks like her with the same great voice.
She originally did not want a makeover. I believe she mentioned it on a talk show (not sure which one). She said something along the lines of "why should I get a makeover?" There were also at least two articles out there after that (on Yahoo's main page no less) which made mention of the fact that she did not want a makeover. There was another article with a little kid (Shaheen) singing from Britain's Got Talent with the title "Better Than Boyle!" And all within the article it basically talked about her as if she were a has-been, with a few lines that may as well have condemned her for not getting a makeover. It talked about how the kid sang great, but was "more cute" than Susan; and how she has competition now, etc. Makes me sick. That's not even fair to the childrn. Lovely world we live in.
People are talking about Susan Boyle's looks because it's SURPRISING to them that a woman of her appearance would have a beautiful voice, highlighting the tendency to associate beauty with other positive qualities. It is not "sending the message that her talent isn't worth anything" because of her appearance.
Also, the excerpt you quoted equates becoming more fashionable with a "new enthusiasm for life" suggesting that people who wear "drab dresses" are depressed or something. It's absolutely ridiculous. In fact, people who wear unfashionable clothing might just be more enthusiastic about other areas of life that don't involve clothing, such as helping people (which Susan Boyle does as a church volunteer) or, let me think, MUSIC.
But it all flip-sided and she became under far more pressure to stay the same. Lots of people are furious she got a dye job and a new jacket etc.
In the UK everyone was obsessed with keeping her the same, and there was this big deal about how she'd ruin her 'gimmick' if she plucked her eyebrows. But her eyebrows were never a gimmick - they were just eyebrows. Paradoxically, by plucking them she may get the world to shut up about her appearance sooner, and hopefully focus on the voice.
This really irritates me about makeover culture in general. All the makeover shows (whether it's your house, your clothes, your face, etc) imply or explicitly state that they're making over your life. As if changing your appearance or the material things in your life is going to make you a whole new person. Newsflash: you don't get a personality implant with a nose job or a boob job or a closet full of new clothes. You'll still have the same interests and issues and questions and characteristics and problems you've always had. You'll just look a little different having them.
...you are not your clothes, you are not your makeup, you are not your house...
And if their self-esteem is so much improved by going under the knife that it changes their life, perhaps we should be looking at why appearance is so important in our culture that the luck of the draw and/or tons of time and money spent makes one person so much more valuable than another. We're always going to admire beautiful people because it's human to enjoy what's aesthetically pleasing. But I feel like our culture often isn't even receptive to a woman's other talents, skills, and personality unless they first pass the beauty test.
It does make me sad that we are so fixated on looks. However, i have to admit that i am concerned about my own looks. Wheter it is the constant dieting, the buying of shoes and clothes, or it is trying on make-up. I am not above these behaviors, who is toe say that Susan Boyle had wished to do the same but never had the resources. We are a shallow, shallow society. I wish that i had the chutzpah to break away from the patriarchical constructs and forgoe the coiffe or the pedicure. Alas, i have red toes and a cute doo.
What bothers me is the implication that society is willing to overlook her appearance because she has a one-of-a-kind talent. So, less than modelesque women are only acceptable if their talent can overcome peoples' obsession with looks?
Exactly!
The narrative is that the judges & audience were dismissive because of her looks, and that by being very talented she "proved them wrong".
The problem is that even if she sang like a wet cat with a tracheotomy, they were still assholes.
I thought she was adorable to begin with =( She seemed to have such a cute personality that really lit her up.
i thought susan boyle looked good in that vintage dress (super cute) and conservative heels. i liked her bushy eyebrows because they accentuated her chirpy character. but with her success on bgt i'm sure she's made a little extra money and if i suddenly came into a little extra money i would also be tempted to buy a nice new jacket and get my hair done. financial limitations have a big impact on how a person presents themselves. i just hope she doesn't feel like she has to make herself look a certain way and that she retains that chirpy character!
I have to agree. I received some money back for taxes and I NEVER spoil myself. over 80% of the money is going to bills and medical care for my animals. I got a 1 hour massage and 3 shirts and a pair of pants. Had I not gotten the check, the clothes would be out of the question. I had to be persuaded to even do that! All I am saying is that sometimes people wish they could have things but don't have the $..
However, if what people were saying, that she didn't want to change, then that's no good.
People *shouldn't* judge her on her looks, but people *do*. Especially because she's a woman.
Are we really getting riled up because someone in the entertainment business wants to dress fashionably? Really??? On Equal Pay Day?
Anyone care to take a look at Paul Giamatti before & after "Sideways"? Or anyone consider how much Steve Harvey spends on hair care & clothing? Or, lest we forget, Sarah Palin spent over a $100K on fashion, accessories, and hair styling...We aren't talking radical plastic surgery here, who the heck doesn't like some new clothes & a hair cut in a while? Geez.
A fashion minded entertainer, now that's news...
But I think the issues you're missing are that 1) everybody originally made this huge deal about her because she was so horribly unfashionable and they were so shocked that anyone who wasn't conventionally beautiful could actually sing, 2) women are disproportionately pressured to spend a lot of their resources on their appearance, and 3) she already expressed no interest in a makeover, but then later succumbed to the pressure. These are all issues which should be addressed.
I hadn't seen a picture of Susan before clicking on the link, though after hearing all about her I expected someone truly horrifyingly ugly. To my surprise I was met with an ordinary looking middle aged woman. Nothing to comment on really. I am truly horrified that she is being judged so harshly...
Nisha,
And why is the question posted to a Feminist site?
"But I am faulting society for basing a woman’s worth, or at least part of it, on her looks."
That phrase, with a few changes, applies equally to men (I am a man). Are you enraged because a person's worth is based on looks or because you think that only women are judged on appearances?
Would you have commented if a man had boosted his appearance? With a new haircut. New teeth. Better suit.
Just think of Paul Potts (two years ago, on the same programme). He now has straight teeth, and his suit fits.
If your comment is aimed at all people - women and men - then fine, at least you are being consistent (but I do think you are overreacting). If it is aimed at women only, then you are being shortsighted.
But don't you think that the fact that women are disproportionately pressured to focus on their physical appearance makes it a feminist issue? Look at the amount of money women spend on their appearance compared to men. The difference in the numbers are staggering, especially given the differences in disposable income. And it's common for male actors, singers, news anchors, etc to get away with flaws in their physical appearance that a woman would never get away with.
And the fact that she publicly stated no interest in a makeover but was then pressured into it also makes it a feminist issues, as it's another example of women's autonomy and their choices for themselves being overridden by public pressure and paternalism.
It's not fun having people force feed you the idea that you need to look like a Playboy Bunny to be considered as a human being deserving of respect.
The worst part is that they have to add insult to injury by implying that not wearing the newest fashions or makeup makes you incompetent at your job, being a good mother, sister, daughter, etc.
I don't remember Ruben Studdard being publicly pressured into dieting. I certainly don't care if Susan Boyle gets a makeover.
He most certainly has been. His failure to do so is why people say he's fizzled.
Why hasn't anyone noted that this whole Susan Boyle thing reeks of a set-up? They're trying to duplicate the publicity bang that was the stubby little gap-toothed cell phone salesman who could sing opera a few years ago. I've now seen the video a few times. The way it's edited, it just doesn't have a strong feeling of authenticity. I'm not saying she didn't surprise the audience. But the extreme reaction seems scripted and shaped. They've got it clipped to stage the reactions of the audience and the judges, and some random dudes in the wings who say perfectly timed pat lines such as "You didn't expect that, did you?" The immediate and radical transformation of the audience's reaction after Susan's first sung phrase also just doesn't make sense.
Moreover, and more importantly, does anyone really believe this reality show exposure is good for Susan Boyle? This is not real success. They're exploiting this woman, who may be mildly intellectually disabled or autistic, and they, and the public, will drop her after her 15 minutes.
sarahtheterra,
Why so antagonistic? The woman is a fine singer. Were it not for "Britain's Got Talent," she may never have been able to share her voice with the world.
And who are you to say what is "good for Susan Boyle"? Because of your inclination that she "may be" disabled or autistic.
That's rather presumptuous.
Perhaps you should ask her.
I for one support strong female presences on television, and the corrosion of stereotypes about "beautiful" people on the airwaves.
Jaime, Sorry, not trying to be antagonistic, just raise questions. I live in LA, where I know people who script reality shows. Susan Boyle's performance on Britain's Got Talent is not a transparent event, but one carefully controlled and dosed out by the show with only the show's interests in mind. We continually build people up in the media on basis of threads of nothingness (like one dramatically edited performance), then drop them, or in the worst cases, destroy their privacy or tear them down. I absolutely don't know what is good for Susan Boyle, but don't think it should be taken for granted that celebrity - and the inevitable make-over, then make-fun, narrative to follow - is good for her. I get the impression that she is being used by the show, and that the imperatives of the publicity wave are driving her to do things she wouldn't otherwise and to submit to the show's demands, and that bothers me.
That's so sad. What drew people to her was the fact that she was her spunky and natural self, seemingly oblivious to how society judged her. I understand her feeling the need to conform, but it is really sad to see it actually happening.
Am I the only one horrified that the article linked in this post called Susan Boyle the "Hairy Angel"?!?!