Oh , Elle (MacPherson). Thank you for reminding me yet again of why we still need feminism. In an interview today with The Guardian, the Australian fashion-model-turned-designer said:
Are you a feminist?
I'm somebody who truly honours femininity. And I believe in individuality, and uniqueness, and that's all I'm going to say on that.
But you shy away from the word "feminism"?
It's one of those coined phrases that has a lot of innuendo and not much meaning these days. There's a stereotypical perception that a feminist is somebody who believes in equal rights for men and women. Well, I believe men and women are different and they have different needs, therefore the concept of equal rights doesn't really sit with me in many ways.
Newsflash to Elle: It’s not a "stereotypical perception"; it’s what feminism is . And it’s thanks to all those “stereotypical” feminists who fought for equal –not different– rights for women that you have been at all able to become the successful model and businesswoman you are today. You’re welcome.
This and other gems from Elle's interview are cross-posted on www.the-F-word.org
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Elle Macpherson on feminism.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15114
How on Earth can equality not "sit" with someone? As you said, she wouldn't be were she is without equal rights. Plus, what "differences" could be so great as to deny a group civil and human rights?
*where not were.
Yeah, Elle, damn that stereotype that feminism means equal rights. Our numbers would be so much better without that obviously untrue perception.
My oh my.
"Different but equal". Remember how well that worked? (sarcasm intended, obviously)
I read this too. Talk about cringe.
Not all feminism is about equal rights...some activists prefer to talk about liberation. By this meaning, the freedom to be women (and different from men), but also the freedom to take full part in society. I don't know if I'm explaining it well...the ability to be free to do whatever, but also not be just like men, or something? *grrs at inability to express self* I tend to use both "equality" and "liberation", when describing feminism anyway.
What interests me, is which feminism does she think doesn't advocate for equal rights?
Many separatist feminists, for example?
If only there was a stereotypical perception that feminists want equal rights for men and women. It'd sure beat the ugly man-hater one.
How annoying....and how sad that a woman who holds her own feminist beliefs (without knowing it) feel uncomfortable with being called a feminist.
How did feminism develop a bad name? Who did it?
stupid idiotic men who didn't want us to get the vote. It actually started with the senators who were trying to keep Alice Paul jailed when she went on her hunger strike. Iron jawed angels talks about it.
Well this just takes the cake. I would honestly compare what she said as being as damaging as this quote by Pat Robertson:
“Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”
LOL. If only we had the powers of witchcraft, this feminism business would be so much easier. A few billion common-sense potions, coming right up!
"And it’s thanks to all those “stereotypical” feminists who fought for equal –not different– rights for women that you have been at all able to become the successful model and businesswoman you are today."
Ah really? Feminism has helped McPherson become a successful supermodel? I was under the impression that the patriarchal concept of women as being beauty objects was what helped women become supermodels.
Let's be honest here, McPherson has traded off her looks for her entire life. There's no doubt she's a smart woman but she wouldn't be as successful in business if not for her success as a supermodel. When I see her saying "Don't treat me like an idiot," in ads on UK tv (for an insurance company or something I think) I cringe. I cringe because modelling is a stupid profession, it is one obsessed with beauty – has beauty as its main focus – to the point where the profession seems to teach that nothing else is important to a woman.
If someone with intelligence is going into modelling it's an indication that beauty is valued above intelligence. Complaining for being treated like an idiot for engaging in an idiotic patriarchy reinforcing occupation when you have other options seems a bit rich to me. McPherson is beginning to learn, a bit late, that choosing to trade off your beauty does not afford you respect. Giving people the ok to judge you on your looks is never a good idea. She has exploited the patriarchy for short term gain. In doing so she has done a dis-service to the rest of us.
I don't think it is surprising that McPherson would want a type of equality that doesn't include feminism. Nor that she would have a warped idea of it. She's been successful by exploiting an unfeminist profession. Elle McPherson is not a feminist.
Sigh. I understand this sentiment in a way - and in another it makes no sense to me.
Clearly we need models in this world. Someone has to help sell products, promote shows, promote events, etc. So modelling in itself is required.
But doesn't it only seem natural to have a model who people want to look at? How is a company going to outsell their competitors, attract those extra fans to their event, etc. if the models they use are not visually appealing? But if you accept this, then how to reconcile that with your post?
It's fine to say models should come in all shapes and sizes, but if doing that is just going to result in your company losing business to your competitor - you aren't going to do it. So since the models must be attractive, then who is going to do it? Anyone who takes a modelling job can't be a feminist? I can't agree with that.
I understand the way this world works and how it values looks so much. But that isn't ever going to go away. So what are people who are attractive supposed to do? Someone born as a good athlete, a genius, a good artist, etc. They are all able to benefit and profit from these skills. So why can someone who has a gift in a different area, aka beauty, not also benefit from their gift?
It's a complex subject and I don't have the answers myself. I totally understand the feelings behind this post. I just don't know how to reconcile those feelings with reality or how we can avoid ostracizing any woman is who is even remotely attractive. Someone has to be that model, someone has to do that job, that role in society will never go away, and just damning them all, saying they aren't feminists, etc. just doesn't seem right to me. These are women and they are real and they deserve respect too.
There's a difference between simply modelling clothes and being a supermodel. Someone who wears clothes for a K-mart catalogue is doing something quite different to the fashion modelling that is (as I see it) unfeminist.
The types of shoots that supermodels do aren't about selling a product to consumers so much as selling fashion and beauty to consumers. Supermodels are the ones who do bathing suit calendars or runway walks wearing not clothes but some twisted form of artwork that uses the human body as canvas. A woman is more than a canvas for artwork. Good clothes complement the wearer while still allowing them full functionality. Fashion takes this idea and turns it on its head.
Supermodels are used to sell the idea of beauty. It is in this environment that beauty products can be marketed to the wider community, so that women will aspire to look like other women. Feel they must aspire. Beauty marketing relies on this desire to be like the idealised model. Yet, there is no ideal body type, no ideal of attractiveness, the supermodels used by marketers are chosen because they are close to the unobtainable. Whereas in fact what passes for beauty is simply a fashion.
Researchers, in one study, have analysed writings from all periods of written history looking for mentions of female features in relation to their desirability. What they found was that in some periods small breasts were desirable, in some large, in other periods large women were in vouge, in others petite athletic women. The only feature showing up consistently was a narrow waist (possibly this feature as attractive may be biological, signalling that a woman is now mature), but even this varied a little. What this means is that the idea of the supermodel is socially constructed and reinforced. How anyone who identifies as feminist can support the reinforcement of the 'ideal', I just can't fathom.
BUT you do think that modeling reinforces unrealistic beauty standards that don't even really exist, right?
Skin that looks like plastic? Fake eyelashes? Highheels? Fake hair color? Make-up? Push-up bras? It reinforces the idea that women have to look completely fake and unoriginal in order to be beautiful. In terms of media - women basically should deny everything that makes them unique in order to consider themselves beautiful.
I mean - all of these things coined "feminine" by the industry are FAKE. They have nothing to do with any woman, really. Strip those models of all of those things, and they look like average, everyday people - like any of us.
It feeds consumerism - a consumerism targeted at women that promises feminine perfection. Which is something that doesn't even exist!!! Not to mention - these cosmetics have tons of harmful toxins and chemicals (but that's a whole other debate).
And the thing that really gets me - is that this idiot claims that women and men have different needs. What needs do I have that differ from my boyfriends? We both NEED food, water, shelter and love to live as productive human beings. Those are ANY animals needs... Anything above and beyond are WANTS. And wants can only be individualistic - not decided by sex or gender (unless people let advertisements, popular media and insecurities decide their wants).
Another thing that totally amazes me - CONSTANTLY about the modeling industry is that many models work side by side with transgender women. They are basically denying the transgender place in society by claiming that men and women have different needs - if men and women are so different, than how is it that some men prefer highheels to a pair of basketball shoes? It's too black and white and it's sooooo untrue. If that industry really respected the needs and wants for all human beings - than maybe some transgender people would be in ads or even people who don't adhere to any gender either way.
Yes, people need to buy things in order to keep the economy going but if people spend money on crap that they don't even need, that promises things that aren't even attainable - than people waste their money on things that inevitably could lead them to bankruptsy or in debt, so that they lose their home etc - which ends up damaging the economy so much worse in the end. If advertisments stuck to the truth - I would have more respect for it... but the problem is that almost everything being advertised isn't needed, so they have to trick people into thinking that they need it or they attempt to make people feel like shit about themselves so that they will spend more.
Almost everything modern humans spend their money on are things they are told they should want.
Yeah I suppose she doesn't need feminism...after all, she's filthy rich and has a successful career as a model...who cares about the rest of society.. *rolls eyes* (I'm being sarcastic, obviously)
"It's one of those coined phrases that has a lot of innuendo and not much meaning these days. There's a stereotypical perception that a feminist is somebody who believes in equal rights for men and women. Well, I believe men and women are different and they have different needs, therefore the concept of equal rights doesn't really sit with me in many ways."
I think she actually has a point! Feminism has now degraded to a point where feminists concentrate on women in relation to men only. This is useless - feminism should be a movement about raising the consciousness of women, all women, and only then will we then demand a fairer place in the world on our basis. It is down to us to do it for ourselves and a lot of stuff that I read on this site has nothing to do with feminism. After reading a piece on third wave feminism yesterday I can't see the point of it at all. Second wave feminism is even more relevant today than it was in the sixties and seventies - the attack on it by the patriachy has diluted it's message and the movement, and so we end with up with this pointless selfish third wave stuff that will do nothing for women at all except help to her submit to her inadequate place in the world. Wake up!!!