Woah, Deep

Here’s a word that has no meaning anymore: empowering. You all know what I mean, it’s one of those words used by women to explain otherwise inexplicable behaviour in the face of criticism. This criticism is usually levelled at women who are overtly sexual, seen to be selling themselves through their attractiveness, their sexual prowess and generally playing up to the ideal misogynistic model of a female.
I’m only bringing this up because of that beauty pageant among the universities in London. A common defence for this kind of thing is that it is ‘empowering’. You’re a stripper? You’re empowered. You’re divorced? You’re empowered. With unashamed predictability, when one of the contestants in the show is asked why she is doing it, she replies “It’s empowering.” Was does she mean? Should an alien race be studying humans from afar, I am sure that their translation for the verb ‘to empower’ would be ‘to become an idiot’. It works.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with beauty pageants. They’re crass and tacky at best in this country, but so many people end up writing so many words about something so simple. Why does it have to be so complicated? It’s a contest to find the prettiest girl. Not out of every girl in the world, not in an attempt to show others how to look or to make other girls feel bad about themselves. It’s neither ‘empowering’ nor belittling to your gender. It’s belittling to your own personality maybe, but not your gender.
I think that things are often assumed to be a feminist issue when only females are involved. I think this is a bit of a red herring. It rarely happens for males. Is a boxing match empowering males? It has similar hallmarks to a beauty pageant, especially the big fights. Huge crowds, judges, high stakes and contestants you are unsure whether they’d be any good at anything else. The competition is to see who can land the most successful punches on the other guy until the end of the rounds or until the opponent is effectively beaten to submission. These guys have to train hard, build their lifestyle around their sport, live a life of intense pressure and self-denial all for the glory or humiliation in the ring. And when a victor is chosen, shouting into the microphone he thanks his mother, his wife, his trainer and God but never once have I heard him say that he has empowered males everywhere.
A female beauty contestant presents herself in front of a crowd, is pitted against other beautiful females and is judged. Her lifestyle is dictated by a routine of diet, exercise and self-denial. On top of this she must learn how to deal with questions from all sorts of people, hold herself with dignity and feminine charm and is very often educated to degree level. When questioned about her motivations for entering into such a contest a bog standard answer is that “to help make women everywhere feel beautiful and to show what can be achieved” or some other vacuous remark attempting to disguise the fact that she’s an exhibitionist with a plethora of near-psychotic neuroses. If she’d been briefed before hand by a savvy manager, she’ll throw in the all important word ‘empowering’ designed to throw off any male media executive who assumes that once that word has been used (a) it’s no longer any of his business and (b) it must be acceptable, it’s a feminist issue and the question of whether this kind of thing is misogynistic or puerile is nonsense.
This kind of pandering to the feminist crowd goes on all over the place. Recently I was tortured while visiting a friend by allowing myself to watch “Miss Naked Britain” or something on the box. This program purports to promote ‘real’ women in modelling and adv*rtising. This has something to do with the unfairness of always using stick-thin and stunningly beautiful models in commercials and on billboards. It makes women feel bad about themselves. Though of course in reality, this is a mere market research exercise to whether it would actually make a difference. A recent study has shown that there is no discernable difference between buying behaviour when a thin model is used and a size 12 model was used to adv*rtise a product. I can’t post the link because it won’t let me for no particular reason, but you can find it on Brand Republic if you type in ‘skinny’.
It’s not a perfect study, but the point is this has nothing to do with ‘empowering’ women and everything to do with making more sales. If it is proven that fatter models make people more likely to buy stuff, fatter models it is. Nothing to do with gender. Look at the Dove campaigns of recent years. It’s all about ‘real women’ and promoting ‘real beauty’. There must be a real ardent feminist somewhere in that company, who could make such a brave decision (conveniently rewarded by a huge increase in sales). Incidentally, the company is Unilever, who also own Lynx – you know that male deodorant that always adv*rtises using the fittest models and actresses they can find? So it’s not really a gender issue is it?
Another thing linked to this issue is the using the old scape-goat “they”. “They put thinner models on to make the product more attractive but they make us feel bad.” Who is this ‘they’? Could it be a reference to the three (on last count) female marketing directors for L’Oreal UK? Or the female marketing director for Chanel? The female marketing director for Christian Dior? Or maybe these people are only responding to market conditions and they are no more responsible than the consumers who buy their products. So who are the biggest consumers? Doctors? Teachers? Parents? No, you all know the answer. The high street is dedicated almost solely to the spending habits of females, by far the largest consumer group in numbers and in terms of spend. My point is that introducing feminism or gender into something which in reality is devoid of either actually does more harm than good.
People who have a problem with a university beauty pageant should have a problem with the fact that it focuses on the things that make anyone unappealing – vanity, arrogance, ambition and sexual superiority. These are not things that are exclusive to females. It’s not a gender issue, and if you keep bringing gender into it, all it’s going to do is weaken the feminist position because beauty pageants are not there for male amusement. The majority of the people involved and taking part are females. Beauty pageants are about vacuous, superficial and vain females who want to be judged by vacuous, superficial, vain and arrogant males. Overall it’s there to make money, like anything is.

Women keep favourite piece of clothing 'longer than they do husbands'
Women keep their favourite piece of clothing on average for longer than the length of many marriages, according to a survey.

"They keep their best garment for 12 years - a little longer than the 11.7 years that the Office for National Statistics says the average failed marriage lasts.

The finding underlines the deep attachment many feel to particular pieces of clothing."

From the Daily Telegraph today

And just when you thought this was going to be a frivolous article.  I thought for a moment it was going to be just a silly commentary about the profound problem that marriage and failed relationships pose to society.  I thought it might be about quiet and dutiful husbands everywhere being ignored and maligned my materialistic partners.
But no, it's about fashion, which is a relief -  And just when I thought that last line was possibly the most insensitive and typically vacuous (I'm enjoying this word today) sentiment that one expects of the media.

Fuck me.  We're going to hell in a handcart etc.

Fuck me.