# What Not To Wear and women's body issues



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jun 16, 2006)

I am assuming most of you know the show on TLC "What Not To Wear" - where 2 fashion *experts* help people nominated by their families or friends to dress and look better. I love this show. And I hate this show. I am compelled to watch it every week and I am ambivalent after every single show. 

Two things bother me about it. 

Who gives a damn what other people wear? 

Is this show not promoting the idea that what you look like is the most important thing about you - not who you are or what you have accomplished? 

What do I love about this show?

How the women feel so good about themselves after being made over.

Watching the women blossom as they learn how to look better.

However - it seems to me this show in some very underhanded and quiet ways reinforces the insecurities that women have about their bodies being more important than what they know or who they are.

The women (most highly educated and accomplished) come into the show - shy, embarrassed about how they look, hating their bodies, hating themselves - and leave the show confident and brimming with self-esteem over how they look. And yes - that is wonderful - but as a woman I get so angry seeing a beautiful young woman ashamed of her body because she's not "thin enough". It enrages me. What they hell are we doing to our young women?? 

When you have women selling diets on TV who want to go from a size 8 to a size 2 - something is wrong with our society and I think (in my own convoluted way) that this TV show is once again playing into this. Why are 99% of the people on this show WOMEN??? Is the subtext of this show that women have to look their best at all times and men can look like slobs??? That's how it seems to me. 

This is such a hot button issue for me - what society does to women and how we are constantly bombarded with images of *perfection* and how the number one issue we are all supposed to focus on is looking good. I'll say it again - when a woman can think of nothing but how fat her thighs are or how much weight she has to lose to be acceptable - she can never accomplish the things in life that she might if she could not think about such things and concentrate on education or career 100% like men do.

OK so if this makes any sense at all - please comment. Maybe I'm just ranting. And of course I will be watching this show again tonight like I always do. Maybe I just need to not watch it. LOL


----------



## Jes (Jun 16, 2006)

It's interesting, but almost point by point, I think I'd say I disagree with you. It's not my favorite show or anything but ... yeah, I have very different views. Just shows ta go ya!


----------



## bigsexy920 (Jun 16, 2006)

I like this show too and yes the best part about it is the person becoming more comfortable with themselves. 

I have found that the show is fairly size positive they tend to have women of all shapes and sizes. Stacey and Clinton never seem to make a person feel bad about their size infact I find they prefer they embrace who they are and then teach them how to dress their bodies and feel good about how they look. 

I have to say I wish I could be more like you when it comes to clothes and how I dress. I'm an admitted clothes horse and I love to look nice. I hate to admit it but I do care what people think of my outward appearnce and I want to put fourth the best image that I can. 

The only people that see me dressed down are my family. I cant go to the store in sweats I just CANT


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Jun 16, 2006)

Interestingly enough, as women's rights blossomed, thinner became the female ideal. I forget where I was reading it, but it was something like people who bash fat are actually afraid of the unrestrained feminimity that fat gives to the table. It does strike a chord with me. There's something very indulgent, luxurious, and feminine about fat.

WARNING: What I am about to write is going to piss a lot of BHM and their admirers off. 

Something I find interesting about the BHM board is that some of the guys almost immasculate themselves with the posting of almost feminine aspects, and they talk about themselves in almost a feminine way (not that femininity is BAD, guys). They discuss their "boobs," their weaknesses, etc. While fat men are often portrayed as strong in the media, they're often covered up and the focus is not drawn to the softness of their bellies, but upper body strength. Anyway, rambling much, shutting up.


----------



## SleepyNow (Jun 16, 2006)

I had to post because I like this show a lot and I think they're actually pretty size positive. I remember one woman in particular was like: "I don't want to buy new clothes until I lose weight." and Stacy and Clinton were both like: "Why do you want wait to look fabulous? You need to dress the body you have now."

It's not about trying to make the ladies into fashion plates, but instead dressing each body in styles that appropriate for body shape and size. Like certain people shouldn't wear turtlenecks (me!), and if you have wide hips you should wear straight legged pants to balance out your proportions.

I think there's a difference between wanting to look the best you can and thinking that it's only the outside that counts. Lots of times these people are dressing inappropriately for work, or in clothing that doesn't fit or is in disrepair. Then it's more about: "Let's make you look nice and appropriate for the workplace" as opposed to: "Let's get you into the latest fashions." Which reminds me of one episode where on woman was a CEO and they were getting her a suit and they told her: "Even though this short legged suit is in fashion we don't recommend it for you because you're in a more conservative work environment. If you did some kind of creative work we'd want to see you on the edge of fashion."

And I think there are more girls than guys becuase girls tend to care more about fashion and are a) more likely to be nominated by girlfriends (usually the nominators are mothers or female friends) and b) more likely to accept a shopping weekend in NYC. Even in the few episodes where people nominated themselves you see that 99% of the people who showed up were women. I think it's just the demographic of the show.

*cough* Okay I love (and watch) the show way too much.


----------



## Carrie (Jun 16, 2006)

Very interesting! 

I watch the show, and one thing that has always impressed me is that Stacey and Clinton try to help people dress better FOR their body types and their personal style. They don't say, "I can't work with this - lose 50 lbs. and THEN we'll go shopping," they say, "Okay, this is your body, and no, you're not a stick. Let's emphasize your better features." And what's really cool is that with the big girls who come on the show, this doesn't translate into "Let's put you in a bag and draw attention to your face." It's more of "You have a great bustline, or long legs, or a nice hourglass shape" or whatever. They work with what the people have to offer. 

And I think the whole point is what you said, Sandie - isn't it wonderful how the people feel afterwards? My sense is that your anger isn't at the show, or the hosts, or whatever, but that the need for this kind of show exists at all - that we should all be judged based solely on our character, accomplishments, etc., and it should have nothing to do with appearance. Does that make sense? I could be wrong, but that's what I sense. 

Here's the thing: while I agree that of course, there is WAY too much emphasis put on appearance today - I think most of us agree with that - I think that this goes beyond "is he/she attractive or not". If a person takes some time to put forth a well-groomed appearance to the world every morning, that sends out a message that he/she cares enough about themselves to do that. When people look like they just crawled out of bed, it looks like they're not willing to make an effort, or don't care enough to clean up a bit. That sends a message about that person, regardless of whether they're physically attractive or not. A lot of the women on the show come on with things like hair that hangs in their face, baggy clothing in neutral tones, etc, and the message they're putting out there is "Please! Don't look at me! Don't notice me!" Once they realize how much better they feel when they put forth a well-put-together look to the world, the difference is astonishing. 

Every day I wake up in this body, get up and see this face in the mirror. I'm pretty happy with what I see, generally speaking. But on the days when I'm feeling down and low and don't make an effort with my hair, clothes, makeup, there is a dramatic difference in the way I interact with the world and my surroundings. I feel less confident, shy, less attractive. It makes a difference even with my work performance! I work from home, and people make jokes about me working in my jammies, etc. - well, I can't. I've tried a few times, and I just feel so...schleppy and blah and gross about myself that I don't do good work. 

Wow, long post, sorry about this!  Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that yes, there's way too much emphasis on physical appearance, but I do think there's something to be said for what making an effort on one's appearance does FOR that person's self-esteem, etc. Just simply saying, "Hey, I'm worth this extra work." 

Speaking of work, I should probably go do some now. 

Excellent topic!


----------



## Carrie (Jun 16, 2006)

SleepyNow said:


> I remember one woman in particular was like: "I don't want to buy new clothes until I lose weight." and Stacy and Clinton were both like: "Why do you want wait to look fabulous? You need to dress the body you have now."



Exactly! I loved that.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 16, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Something I find interesting about the BHM board is that some of the guys almost immasculate themselves



I gotta agree with Sadeian here. 

The few times I've checked out the BHM board, some (notice I said some) of the guys (and their admirerers) did seem to be into immasculating the BHM. I remember commenting on one post where a BHM was complaining there are no cut-off shirts or "baby tees" for men. My answer to that was I think most men would fined wearing a shirt like that to be immasculating.

Not judging (too each their own) or stereotyping. Like I said my exposure to the BHM scene is limited and in no way am I saying everyone is like that. It's just something I don't understand.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jun 16, 2006)

I can't be the only one who thinks these make-over shows are all geared at women for a reason - can I?

Other than Queer Eye for the Straight Guy - when was the last time you saw a make-over show aimed exclusively at men?

There are a thousand of these shows on TV now and I gotta wonder what the hell is so wrong with the way women look that we need all these shows telling women they look like hell???

I know I am looking at it very differently then some of you - but I am a self admitted *makeup whore* I love makeup - I love being pretty - I love looking nice - but how I look is not nearly as connected to how I feel as it used to be.

I don't give a shit if someone *out there* doesn't like the way I look - too bad. Whether I have makeup on or not I feel good about me. And I find these makeover shows IMHO prey on women's insecurities. 

But like I said - I watch them. So maybe it's just me.


----------



## SleepyNow (Jun 16, 2006)

I seriously think it's because that's the demographic of the people who watch. I can't imagine that my boyfriend (or any guy I know for that matter) would be inteterested in a make-over show. Probably why professional women's teams don't do so well in the ratings. There's more guys who like watching sports, and they prefer to watch guys playing the sport of choice.

I guess the real question is why women are interested in clothes, make up, etc. Maybe because when it comes to sex, mating, dating, whatever you want to call it we know that men are visual creatures therefore we've evolved a high interested in looking visually interesting. Propagation of the species and all that.

Although I don't spend too much time on it myself I think clothes and make up can be fun. I like playing dress up. Maybe it reminds us of being kids. Who knows.


----------



## Carrie (Jun 16, 2006)

I agree, Sleepy. And hey, maybe I'm a sexist oinker, but I find the ones they *do* do about guys pretty damn boring. Women's clothing, hair, accessories, etc. are just much, much more interesting.


----------



## Carol W. (Jun 16, 2006)

I admit I am addicted to What Not to Wear. I find myself watching every new episode with bated breath! For me, it's something about Stacey and Clinton: they're a hell of a lot of fun, and you almost feel like they are friends of yours-or, WOULD be if you ever got to meet them in RL. I'm sure it's their winning personalities, and repartee with each other, that has floated this show to the top of the ratings. 

On the other hand, I know damn well they'd have a BIG problem with my style, and it has nothing to do with my size-as others have mentioned here, this pair are blessedly size positive with their guests. But here I am in my midfifties, LONG hair, floor length dresses, and lots of gothy black in the closet. Nope, they'd have a field day trying to convert me to "what's in": it just wouldn't happen, not for $5 grand or 50. I'd feel pretty bad, as if I was disappointing really nice people, but I just could never forego what makes me "me". So while I'll continue to enjoy Stacey and Clinton, I'll pray never to be nominated: God help poor Nick if he came after me with those scissors!!!

And yes, Sandie, I do agree with you: I think we all like to feel we look good and to get compliments, we're human after all, but in the end I have to dress and look in the way that pleases ME. The hell with what others think....


----------



## Tad (Jun 16, 2006)

SleepyNow said:


> I seriously think it's because that's the demographic of the people who watch. I can't imagine that my boyfriend (or any guy I know for that matter) would be inteterested in a make-over show. Probably why professional women's teams don't do so well in the ratings. There's more guys who like watching sports, and they prefer to watch guys playing the sport of choice.



*cough* I used to watch that show quite a bit when we had TLC *cough-cough* Of course, my wife was usually the one who put it on, but I wasn't often complaining. I think it was pretty cool how they could really transform someone's look--wouldn't that be a pretty cool job, helping people feel fab about their looks and sending them shopping? 

I had no complaints about the episodes with guys, although I agree with the other poster who said that in general women's clothes and grooming are more interesting--both because there is more variety in women's bodies and because there are a lot more style choices for women. With men it tends to be pretty subtle points of getting just the right black trousers--it matters, but it doesn't translate to TV as well.

Regards;

-Ed


----------



## MisticalMisty (Jun 16, 2006)

Stacy and Clinton make over men occassionally. I've seen a few shows and they do a fantastic job.

Many have voiced my opinion of the show. I love it, they show people how to accentuate their body and not dress it in either to big or tight clothes.

In theory, it would be great if we were judged on our characters..but in reality our clothes tell the world who we are. 

I'm a teacher and you won't catch me dead in anything too low cut or too short in public. I don't want to project that image. But there are people on their show, I remember a relator that wore belly shirts to work, that need help with what is appropriate for the work place or just in public period.

They've made over plenty of fat girls too. They've shopped at LB and at Old Navy and they help them pick clothes that flatter all of them..I'm an apple and there's nothing worse than trying to find pants that fit the belly and don't swallow my legs..that's the kinda things that help people with on the show.

I'm totally rambling..to each their own..but I enjoy both Queer Eye and What Not To Wear....

I think we all feel better with a fresh coat of paint somedays..I know there are days I'll put on a little more makeup and a totally rocking outfit and my day just seems better. It's amazing what a little clothing therapy does for a person..lol


----------



## Tina (Jun 16, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Interestingly enough, as women's rights blossomed, thinner became the female ideal. I forget where I was reading it, but it was something like people who bash fat are actually afraid of the unrestrained feminimity that fat gives to the table. It does strike a chord with me. There's something very indulgent, luxurious, and feminine about fat.


While the timeline is true historically, women's bodies have gone up and down in size, according to the dicates of the time, and I think it's merely coincidental that Twiggy was popular at a time when feminism's 2nd wave started gaining strength. I say that because most feminists agree that fat is a feminist issue, and a goodly number of feminists are fat. 

Personally, I've watched the show many times, though I don't now as I no longer have cable. But as someone who has since childhood loved real fashion (as opposed to ridiculous runway coture) likes to be well groomed and nicely put together, I think it's good for women to understand their body type and how to flatter their own particular body shape and coloring, because let's face it, fat or thin, most people don't really want to look like a slob and not everyone understands how to best dress themselves to achieve the effect they are desiring.

Having said that, I agree with you, Sandie, about the pressure to feel that women MUST do these things in order to be acceptable, and moreso than men are pressured. Though sometimes the language that is used is not what I'd like to see, like you I have mixed feelings, Sandie. But in the end find that it's more positive than negative.


----------



## GPL (Jun 16, 2006)

We have such a show in The Netherlands, called "De Modepolitie" (The Fashion police). It seems to me the woman who presents the show and the woman who make them dress better are always focussing on hiding bigger bodyparts. "Oh, she's got wide hips? Well, she MUST dress like this to cover them" or "Oh, her belly is so round, she better not wear horizontal stripes, 'cause it makes her look even fatter". 
Why can't women dress great with some extra curves? If I take a look at Melissa (Largenlovely), Heather or at 'our new' Shawna (BBHCgirl) for example, I KNOW big women can dress sexy as hell!!

GPL.


----------



## pattycake (Jun 16, 2006)

I've not seen the American version but the original British version with Trinny and Susannah is a love/hate thing. The positive effect that their makeovers have on the women is truly touching. And they NEVER tell anyone to lose weight. And there's nothing wrong with actually getting properly measured for a bra and wearing the correct size for a change. Of course, I'm never comfortable watching women being told what to do but WNTW is a hell of a lot more positive than this other show we have, '10 Years Younger' where they stand a woman in the street and 100 people guess their age (whilst making awful comments about their appearance) and then the team of 'experts' set out to make the woman look 10 years younger than the guessed average using make-up, styling and brutal cosmetic surgery.
Fat is a symbol of sexual desire and saying no to denial and thinness is about denial of desires and stifling of the emotions (according to Naomi Wolff), making women 'less' physically and emotionally. But I personally don't feel that WNTW has anything to do with weight. It's a sad fact that when we feel we look good, we feel good. That said, why should these women who feel they already look good be told that they don't and be made to change? I feel women should nominate themselves if they feel they need some help with styling and those that feel they look great should be left alone. Sneakily nominating someone and them being told that 'everyone thinks you look awful so you have to change' is pretty nasty.


----------



## Esme (Jun 16, 2006)

I love watching WTNW. I've always thought the show was really good about featuring women of all shapes and sizes. I've seen a LOT of episodes, and have never felt any hints or urging for the plus sized participants to lose weight. The hosts, Stacey and Clinton, always seem to encourage people to dress well and feel good about who they are now... no matter what the body shape. 

It reminds me of when I was working in clothing retail during college. I worked exclusively in plus size stores, and it was always gratifying when I could help a customer find an outfit that made her feel really good and sexy. It was especially nice when it was a woman who didn't often feel as if she was attractive. Perhaps that's the appeal of the show to me. I love seeing the women on the show begin to believe in the possibility that they *just* might be beautiful, when it seems clear that she probably hasn't felt that way before in her life. 

Oh, and Hi! This is my first post... of hopefully many more.


----------



## AgentSkelly (Jun 16, 2006)

The Original British verison I find is a bit more stapstick and they say "tits" a lot  

But yes, the show I find is a good thing in the long run.


----------



## Carrie (Jun 16, 2006)

Esme said:


> Oh, and Hi! This is my first post... of hopefully many more.



Hi, and welcome!


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Jun 16, 2006)

Tina said:


> While the timeline is true historically, women's bodies have gone up and down in size, according to the dicates of the time, and I think it's merely coincidental that Twiggy was popular at a time when feminism's 2nd wave started gaining strength. I say that because most feminists agree that fat is a feminist issue, and a goodly number of feminists are fat.
> 
> Personally, I've watched the show many times, though I don't now as I no longer have cable. But as someone who has since childhood loved real fashion (as opposed to ridiculous runway coture) likes to be well groomed and nicely put together, I think it's good for women to understand their body type and how to flatter their own particular body shape and coloring, because let's face it, fat or thin, most people don't really want to look like a slob and not everyone understands how to best dress themselves to achieve the effect they are desiring.
> 
> Having said that, I agree with you, Sandie, about the pressure to feel that women MUST do these things in order to be acceptable, and moreso than men are pressured. Though sometimes the language that is used is not what I'd like to see, like you I have mixed feelings, Sandie. But in the end find that it's more positive than negative.



It seems though that with feminism there's always this bastardization movement that follows it, which mainstreams women as more masculine with their desires for equal rights. Maybe it's the media latching onto their perception of it?

I consider myself one of those girly Spivakian feminists, but she's hardly mainstream.


----------



## Jane (Jun 16, 2006)

Carrie said:


> Hi, and welcome!


Carrie!!!! What a sweetie you are, with that title!!!!!


----------



## Tina (Jun 17, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> It seems though that with feminism there's always this bastardization movement that follows it, which mainstreams women as more masculine with their desires for equal rights. Maybe it's the media latching onto their perception of it?
> 
> I consider myself one of those girly Spivakian feminists, but she's hardly mainstream.



Of course it's the media, and it's not a movement. Yes, you're going to have your lesbian bull dykes on the screen so that the entire group can be painted that way. That's sensationalistic journalism and it's been around longer than most of us can remember. What is the best way of trying to weaken something like that? Subvert the true message to make the members sound crazy or radical, or socially 'unaccaptable.' "Feminazis," "hairy-legged dykes," "man-haters," and on and on. Personally, I have no idea what a feminazi is other than something likely created during one of Limbaugh's drug-infused trips. 

Yes, I know a few hairy-legged dyke feminists. I know even more few hairy-legged straight feminists. And at least as many shaven-legged strait feminists. I do know 2 or three out of the hundreds -- by now thousands of feminists I've posted with on a regular basis who are separatists. They want nothing to do with men. The second smallest group would be lesbians who are not separatists, and there are men in their lives as friends or family. The rest are women who are either in relationships with men, or who are straight or bi-sexual, but are not in relationships. Many wear dresses and skirts; many use make up. Many daily defy the labelling that those who mis-characterize us out of fear would like the world to believe that we are.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Jun 17, 2006)

Given, but I'm talking about masculine in the "acceptable" sense. More like small-breasted, heroin chic. But I likes your point.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 17, 2006)

Tina said:


> I do know 2 or three out of the hundreds -- by now thousands of feminists I've posted with on a regular basis who are separatists.



I thought that was just talk show sensationalism or bad jokes from the far right? So their really are Lesbian separatists? Is this accepted behavior in the feminist community or something looked down on? 

My feeling on something like this has alway been bigotry is bigotry. It would be disappointing to hear that type of mindset would be acceptable in feminist circles even if it is in the minority.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jun 17, 2006)

Carol W. said:


> On the other hand, I know damn well they'd have a BIG problem with my style, and it has nothing to do with my size-as others have mentioned here, this pair are blessedly size positive with their guests. But here I am in my midfifties, LONG hair, floor length dresses, and lots of gothy black in the closet. Nope, they'd have a field day trying to convert me to "what's in": it just wouldn't happen, not for $5 grand or 50. I'd feel pretty bad, as if I was disappointing really nice people, but I just could never forego what makes me "me". So while I'll continue to enjoy Stacey and Clinton, I'll pray never to be nominated: God help poor Nick if he came after me with those scissors!!!




You took the words right out of my mouth, sweetie....I love them....they are totally size positive, and I wouldnt wear a single item of clothing they would put on me....no knee length tweed skirts and fitted short jackets (that arent made of velvet, anyway) for me.....and NICK! he is brilliant at what he does, but he is not cutting my hair, thanks....

Also....Carmandy...with her "We all must wear light colored lip gloss only" manifesto.....sorry baby.....I know why you like the easy care of lip gloss....but a goth without dark lippies in her makeup bag is a goth with too much sunshine....feh!


----------



## Jes (Jun 17, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> It seems though that with feminism there's always this bastardization movement that follows it, which mainstreams women as more masculine with their desires for equal rights. Maybe it's the media latching onto their perception of it?
> 
> I consider myself one of those girly Spivakian feminists, but she's hardly mainstream.


awww. i met one of my good friends at a Spivak lecture. Then we went for subaltern coffees.

OH I KILL MYSELF.

(but we really did go for coffee)


----------



## butch (Jun 17, 2006)

Please no Spivak on this board! I thought I had found a safe refuge from the horrors of that woman, but I guess nowhere is safe.

Wouldn't you rather be a Butlerian than a Spivakian, anyway? Or better yet, an Anzalduan? I just don't get the appeal of Spivak, since she takes Derrida's word play one step too far, in my opinion.

Oh, and about the feminization of BHMs that popped up in this thread? In some of the research out there about fatness and gender, you'll often see that popular representations of fat men and women seem to correspond with gender flips. In other words, fat feminizes men and masculinizes women. Seems odd, I know, but there are some interesting insights out there about this phenomena. As far as the BHM/FFA board here, I'd say that the focus on bellies and boobs aren't about emasculation, but about fixating on the male body parts that most readily accentuate the fatness of the body. If someone is attracted to fat men, and genetically most fat men store most of their fat in their torso, then of course fat men would want to dress in a way that highlights this fact if he thinks FFAs will respond. 

As far as expressing 'weaknesses' on that board, if you look at popular culture, depictions of fat men looking for intimate relationships (and also some fat females, too), many of them have the men being very open and vulnerable with the women of their desire about how difficult it has been for them to find women who find them desirable. If you watch 'Lost,' you know that this is how the writers had Hurley interact with Libby. He was mostly had an 'oh poor me' attitude around Libby, which I think was more than just him responding to Libby's being a psychologist (as she claimed to be). Anyway, maybe this behavior isn't so odd for anyone, fat or thin, male or female, who have been inculcated to believe that they are not attractive to other people. 

Ok, back to WNTW. I have nothing of use for that discussion (and fear that in general I have nothing of use to any discussion).


----------



## CaliBBW (Jun 17, 2006)

Hi my name is Lori and I am a What Not To Wear addict....

Seriously though, I personally love the show. I tape all the shows (even the reruns) on the dvr. I love Stacy and Clinton they are great. It has been said before but I love how confident and beautiful the women feel after they have been made over. In watching the show I have never thought that they are not accepting of different shapes sizes. In fact, they always have something positive to say about the persons body. The thing is that most of the women on the show are trying to hide their bodies because of insecurities they already have. Stacy and Clinton often show them that their perception of their body is wrong. Dont get me started on Nick ( I think I am in love) I would surely give him "carte blanche" to do anything he wanted to my hair. I mean if by some slight chance I didn't like it, hair grows and he is so good at what he does.

As far as it being targeted to women, I think women are more interested in it and that is why they makeover more women then men.... that being said my husband loves the show too but he likes watching the women makeovers more than the men.


----------



## BeaBea (Jun 17, 2006)

Great thread! 

WNTW here in the UK did a Celebrity makeover for two women wanting red carpet outfits. Sophie Raworth was the first, she's a tall thin blonde newsreader who was a bit dowdy and bookish but the second was Jo Brand, a quite militant feminist comedienne who usually wears leggings and boots and is definitely a plus size. 

The presenters of the show Trinny and Susannah were FURIOUS about the lack of choice for Jo. Trinny in particular spoke at some length about how ridiculous it was that designers they approaching point blank refused to make larger clothes. She was very positive about Jo's size and shape and how she could dress to look good and at no point did she suggest she should lose weight. 

On a slightly seperate note I do see both sides of this argument. It shouldn't matter a damn what anyone wears and no-one should be judged by their appearance. One day the human race might reach this enlightened state... 

In the meantime though clothes are a uniform and allow us to fit in, they are sign-posts which give information about our role, they act as canvasses for us to express and communicate our personalities, they are tools which help us get our jobs done. They really DO matter. 

My job allows me to see the difference that good, well fitting clothes can make to someones life. I've spoken to a Mother who's child was being bullied at school who was too intimidated to complain to the school until she had good clothes to wear. I remember another women who had avoided every family party because her skinny sister-in-law made her feel bad about her weight. She chose a fabulous shocking pink dress to hide behind and use as a shield to get the confidence to just walk through the door. Yes, I do think it's shame that something as simple as a bit of cloth and some stitches can make that much difference but I'm SO glad that self confidence can (sometimes) be fixed in such a simple way.

For these reasons I have to say I'm completely in favour of WNTW. It seems to me it's just a small voice amongst the make-over shows that says looking good is available to everyone. I like the way they focus on affordable high street shops. Most importantly they dont say you need surgical or other forms of drastic weight loss or cosmetic surgery before you can look good. 

Looking forward to reading this debate as it develops  

Tracey xx


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Jun 17, 2006)

HEY, I LOVE Derrida! Sh'up. 

For me, Miss Gayetri has served for more of a bouncing off point for my own form of semiotic feminism. She's got her flaws, and I's crazy.


----------



## Still a Skye fan (Jun 17, 2006)

I've seen this show a few times and it doesn't really intrigue me enough to watch on a regular basis.

My library job doesn't require an actual dress code, per se, so I pretty much wear what I want to wear within reason.

Yes, this place gives me a paycheck every 2 weeks and it's a place of business so I leave the REALLY casual clothing at home and stick to my usual dress shirts, ties, cargo pants, hikers and that's about it. Once in a while I wear library-related t-shirts. I also own a suit for special occasions.

Everything fits me fine, I shave and shower regularly...while I'm never going to be mistaken for a GQ model, I feel comfortable with who I am and what I wear.

I'm not a clothes horse, never have been. The fondness some women have for shoes puzzles me...I own a pair of winter boots, one pair of sandals, one pair of dress shoes (which I seldom wear), one pair of cheap pull-on shoes for mowing the lawn and one pair of sneakers and that's it.

I like dressing comfortably and have no one to impress but myself.

I can't even fathom having 5K for a new wardrobe since every stitch of clothing I currently own is probably worth 500 bucks, if that much. I would never in a million years need or wear that much clothing. If I ever wound up on the show, I'd probably keep the receipts and return 4K worth of the clothing and buy books with the cash...or I'd probably just refuse to be on the show in the first place. 

If the show makes people feel better about themselves, wonderful! I'm certainly not knocking that. It just isn't my thing, is all.



Dennis


----------



## Tina (Jun 17, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> I thought that was just talk show sensationalism or bad jokes from the far right? So their really are Lesbian separatists? Is this accepted behavior in the feminist community or something looked down on?
> 
> My feeling on something like this has alway been bigotry is bigotry. It would be disappointing to hear that type of mindset would be acceptable in feminist circles even if it is in the minority.



It's the vast, _vast_ minority. It's not encouraged but they are not taken to task for it, either, as they don't talk down about men, but just live their lives in a way where they feel men are not necessary to them.


----------



## AnnMarie (Jun 17, 2006)

I'm on board with most others here, I love the show, love the message, and love the fact that they never, ever harp on changing anyone in terms of their body size, shape, etc... just dressing them beautifully and making them more confident in their own skin, should they have areas they don't particularly like. 

As for being judged on how we look... well, in a perfect world it wouldn't matter. I take a lot of pride in my clothing, appearance, and style, and I appreciate it when it's noticed or I get a compliment on something I'm wearing. Do I feel pressure to dress up for others? Not at all. 

I dress well, stylish, cute, etc... because I want to, and I want to be seen that way. I have no idea if it should be important to me, but it is. I don't wear stained, out of date, ill fitting clothes (well, ill fitting at NAAFA maybe, but that's a whole different story... LOL). As a fat girl my whole life, it's important to me to show people that being fat doesn't mean being frumpy and out of style (no, I'm not a fashionista, either).

Anyway... I love WNTW, and I'm so happy for all the great tips and good feelings they've given their participants.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Jun 17, 2006)

Jack, even though I'm bisexual, I was a "political lesbian" for about two years. Why, you ask? The men in this area are notorious for their bad work ethics, abuse of women, etc. I'm not kidding. The workforce is over 80% female. I absolutely do not like men from the Cumberland Plateau.

You can say that's sexist, unfair, etc., but I think most people simply don't have a clue. Men aren't like this in such vast numbers elsewhere in the world.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 17, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Jack, even though I'm bisexual



You're bisexual? Really? I don't think you've ever mentioned that before.  

I'm just teasing.  

Anyhow, back to being serious. 

Yes, I realize there are terrible sexist men out there. You are preaching to the choir here. 

Back to the lesbian separatists. 

I still do find it very disappointing to find that separatism of any kind would be tolerated in a group that is supposed to be about equality. I stand by what I've always said, bigotry is bigotry. 

I remember catching a talk show many years ago ( I think Oprah?) with self proclaimed lesbian separatists on it and they were really extreme in their man hating. Going as far as saying men serve no purpose and if it were up to them all men would be put down and have their sperm frozen to ensure the continuation of the species. Adding that any male children born would also be put down.

I thought this had to been some kind of stunt or joke. Ah, well live and learn.


----------



## Jes (Jun 17, 2006)

butch said:


> Please no Spivak on this board! I thought I had found a safe refuge from the horrors of that woman, but I guess nowhere is safe.
> 
> Wouldn't you rather be a Butlerian than a Spivakian, anyway? Or better yet, an Anzalduan? I just don't get the appeal of Spivak, since she takes Derrida's word play one step too far, in my opinion.
> 
> .


You went _right there_ with Butler, didn't you? RIGHT THERE! I'll tell you what--I saw her speak one night a million years ago, and I tried my very best, but about 12 minutes in, my eyes got all muppety. It was some heady stuff and apparently, I'm too dumb. Though it IS true that transvestites mock a gender that doesn't exist, I'll give her that. 
And my friend wrote her MA thesis on Anzaldua! How funny to see the name back...I haven't thought of her in a while. Since we dated. Me and Anzaldua, I mean.


----------



## Tina (Jun 17, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> I remember catching a talk show many years ago ( I think Oprah?) with self proclaimed lesbian separatists on it and they were really extreme in their man hating. Going as far as saying men serve no purpose and if it were up to them all men would be put down and have their sperm frozen to ensure the continuation of the species. Adding that any male children born would also be put down.
> 
> I thought this had to been some kind of stunt or joke. Ah, well live and learn.



Basically, that kind of talk isn't tolerated well, and others counter it, but the person themselves are tolerated, if that makes sense. Heck, it goes on here, too, when it comes to size acceptance, eh? Also, what SL said can happen. There are larger groups of patriarchal assholes in certain regions; why should women have to be silent about it and take it. If I were a lesbian and I lived in such an area I might shun most men from my life, too, but that's not the larger part of my experience, given that I grew up with guys, have a son, and have been in several relationships.

Anyway, why should anyone be forced to have someone in their lives that they don't have to? If a couple of women want to only associate with women that is their perogative, as long as they don't invade my space with extremist talk that could include my honey, son, father, and male friends.


----------



## SleepyNow (Jun 17, 2006)

edx said:


> *cough* I used to watch that show quite a bit when we had TLC *cough-cough* Of course, my wife was usually the one who put it on, but I wasn't often complaining. I think it was pretty cool how they could really transform someone's look--wouldn't that be a pretty cool job, helping people feel fab about their looks and sending them shopping?



LOL We'll don't feel too bad. Although my BF won't watch it on his own he has suffered through a few episodes while I was watching. (And I caught him making fashion comments during one of them. )

Not too sure about the "men vs. women's" fashions though. Although he usually wants me to go with him while he shops he refuses to go with me! It might have to do with the fact that I take hours shopping though. (Or maybe he's just a selfish bastard that can't match a tie to a shirt on his own.  )


----------



## MissToodles (Jun 17, 2006)

butch said:


> Oh, and about the feminization of BHMs that popped up in this thread? In some of the research out there about fatness and gender, you'll often see that popular representations of fat men and women seem to correspond with gender flips. In other words, fat feminizes men and masculinizes women. Seems odd, I know, but there are some interesting insights out there about this phenomena. As far as the BHM/FFA board here, I'd say that the focus on bellies and boobs aren't about emasculation, but about fixating on the male body parts that most readily accentuate the fatness of the body. If someone is attracted to fat men, and genetically most fat men store most of their fat in their torso, then of course fat men would want to dress in a way that highlights this fact if he thinks FFAs will respond.
> 
> 
> Ok, back to WNTW. I have nothing of use for that discussion (and fear that in general I have nothing of use to any discussion).



I cut short your posting but nevertheless found it interesting. Because of my size (and I'm sure many others too), I found my sexuality and total being negated. It started when I was 9, at JCC camp. My group was to lipsync to the musical Grease. The counselors told me I couldn't do the girl roles because "I was too big". As if womanhood (or girlhood) is always in a small, dainty package.

I also find it interseting how fat woman are portrayed in the media. Ever notice on variety shows, the fat dudes always play and mock fat women? They make them very "masculine", therefore unattractive. Is it a sense of power that makes others fear us? Does sheer size overwhelm and therefore most people have what I call "small dog syndrome"--they have to bark at everything and everyone.

I know it was a sidenote but I couldn't help but respond. And yes I used way too many quotation marks in this post!


----------



## MissToodles (Jun 17, 2006)

SleepyNow said:


> LOL We'll don't feel too bad. Although my BF won't watch it on his own he has suffered through a few episodes while I was watching. (And I caught him making fashion comments during one of them. )
> 
> Not too sure about the "men vs. women's" fashions though. Although he usually wants me to go with him while he shops he refuses to go with me! It might have to do with the fact that I take hours shopping though. (Or maybe he's just a selfish bastard that can't match a tie to a shirt on his own.  )



My boyfriend claims to hate the show but he always ends up watching along with me. Yes, he also does the fashion commentary too. He also finds Stacy very attractive, so maybe it's another reason he watches, heh.


----------



## Rainahblue (Jun 17, 2006)

MissToodles said:


> ...I also find it interseting how fat woman are portrayed in the media...



I do too - it also appears to be a media favorite that fat women are *confident! bold! brassy! funny! outspoken! fierce! sassy!* Yes, with exclamation points. I rarely see a fat woman as the sensuous, understated vixen. The calm and cool woman radiating self-confidence. My friends and I don't totter around on heels snapping our fingers and pointing at the thin women, who of course, cower in fear. 

Ok, well maybe we do it _occasionally_. 

R​


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 18, 2006)

Tina said:


> why should women have to be silent about it and take it.



No where did I say that.  



> Anyway, why should anyone be forced to have someone in their lives that they don't have to? If a couple of women want to only associate with women that is their perogative



That's like saying why should white people have to associate with other races or why should thin people have to associate with fat people or Christians with Jews, etc. 

Take this little hypothetical example.

"I will only associate with other women and only shop at women owned business. Women power!" 

Now replace the word "women" with "white(s)" and see how it sounds. 

I know I sound like a broken record here but, bigotry is bigotry.


----------



## Tina (Jun 18, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> No where did I say that.


I never accused you of saying it, Jack; it was a rhetorical question.



> That's like saying why should white people have to associate with other races or why should thin people have to associate with fat people or Christians with Jews, etc.
> 
> Take this little hypothetical example.
> 
> ...


That is a person's own perogative. I remember some PC program on some campus (wish I could be more specific, but it was a good while ago -- years), where the students could not stand more than X-number of feet away from a gay student or they would be descriminating against them. That is patently ridiculous, and exactly where PCness run amok can leave us.

We all make decisions every day who we will talk to, who we will do business with, etc. I do not advocate bigotry in any way, but I uphold the person's right to make the decision of who they will associate with for themselves. People have a right to disassociate themselves with whomever they so choose to. You cannot _make_ poeple associate with others of a size/gender/color/sexual orientation that they do not want to associate with. The question is, are they being rude, abusive, etc. in the way they are treating the person? 

This is a very similar mindset to my own about those who judge me for my big ass: I don't care as long as you don't get in my face about it. If you do, you are stepping over the line, and if you are rude to me, there are a variety of actions I may take, depending upon what kind of a day it's been. If the person is not crossing the line with me, I don't care what they think of me, and further, I even consider it none of my business.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Jun 18, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> You're bisexual? Really? I don't think you've ever mentioned that before.
> 
> I'm just teasing.
> 
> ...



You know, I can probably whip your ass.  Jus' saying. 

I agree, equality is equality, and most of the lez separatists aren't quite so crazy. (Some are. I've met one to date.) I have to say, I would not raise a son in this part of the country because of the role models he'd have. If you are interested in hearing more of my hate of the Appalchian people, buy my book on tape entitled _I Hate Everything About the Slackjawed Yokels_.

Like Tina said, you can't make anyone be rational or socialize. I don't care if someone dislikes me. Then they can stay away. I intensely dislike men from this area; I think almost all of them are good-for-nothing lazy bums. But I usually don't hunt 'em down to tell them.


----------



## Jane (Jun 18, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> You know, I can probably whip your ass.  Jus' saying.
> 
> I agree, equality is equality, and most of the lez separatists aren't quite so crazy. (Some are. I've met one to date.) I have to say, I would not raise a son in this part of the country because of the role models he'd have. If you are interested in hearing more of my hate of the Appalchian people, buy my book on tape entitled _I Hate Everything About the Slackjawed Yokels_.
> 
> Like Tina said, you can't make anyone be rational or socialize. I don't care if someone dislikes me. Then they can stay away. I intensely dislike men from this area; I think almost all of them are good-for-nothing lazy bums. But I usually don't hunt 'em down to tell them.



I grew up in an area much like you, SL. 

It's that male-on-male...only friends they are allowed to have are guys...if they hang around with girls they're "queer," knuckle-dragging mentality. I looked upon it as my opportunity to open a few eyes, ears, well, actually whatever I could reach with my 2x4.


----------



## wtchmel (Jun 18, 2006)

I tend to agree with Sandie Z. Yet I feel torn about these shows. On one hand I feel they are very lookist, sexist, and ageist. I feel they perpetuate societies fixation on "you're not ok", "you need to 'fix' yourself up", or "you're not young enough, pretty enough, skinny enough" I wonder to myself, why can't we just be, and do, how we feel without being judged by others. Why can't we just say screw it, i like this type of fashion, hair do, or the like, and forget you all. In othe words, why must we conform?
Now, On the other hand I love make over shows, and will watch them any chance I get. I really enjoy watching the make over shows they have on talk shows.I enjoy the Ten Years younger show as well, but at times i do feel like, damn, should I be dye-ing out that gray hair? LOL. 
Even though I enjoy watching these shows, I can get on a soapbox about these issues all day long. LOL


----------



## saucywench (Jun 18, 2006)

Tina said:


> We all make decisions every day who we will talk to, who we will do business with, etc. I do not advocate bigotry in any way, but I uphold the person's right to make the decision of who they will associate with for themselves. People have a right to disassociate themselves with whomever they so choose to. You cannot _make_ poeple associate with others of a size/gender/color/sexual orientation that they do not want to associate with. The question is, are they being rude, abusive, etc. in the way they are treating the person?


I am reminded of a "situation" at my place of employment. We have a department chair who is very out in his gayness. Ordinarily, that would be fine by me--more power to you, knock yourself out, all that jazz. He is even "married" to his partner. Now, I don't know if they went to one of the few places that recognize and legitimize gay marriages or not (I'm assuming they did), but I was told by a good friend of mine who works in the adjoining department that they held a reception shortly afterward at which some other faculty members were invited and attended. Again, all fine and good.

My "problem" with his politicization of his gayness--well, see, that's just the thing--I feel (and of course this is just my gut feeling and not based on any hard and documentable facts)--that it serves as a thinly masked veil for his disdain for and dismissiveness of women. And that is definitely NOT OK when he maintains that attitude at work:

(1) Office setting--He has a male assistant. No problem there. "X" is a really sweet guy and I'm sure he is good at his job. However, "X" is bisexual and conflicted. From what I have been told, "X" has been leaning toward heterosexuality but his boss has been trying to persuade him to go strictly gay. (Hello? Is this really an acceptable exchange between a boss and his subordinate?)

He also has a female (minority) employee. I have been told that he belittles her in certain ways and often finds fault with her. It is my understanding that this is more because she is female than that her work is substandard, or any legitimate reason for finding fault (not that I feel it is EVER ok to berate an employee.)

(2) Clinical setting--I had occasion to meet him in the clinic. I wasn't aware that I was going to meet him, but he was brought in to assess my condition by the resident who was treating me. He entered the examination room whereby the resident introduced me to him. I extended my hand as I normally would during introductions and I immediately sensed his reluctance. He proffered his limp, uninterested hand reluctantly. My anti-fat radar was already heightened in this particular setting, but now add to it the less commonly experienced anti-female bias. He grudgingly examined me, asked me what I felt to be a really bizarre question, then shortly afterward left the room. It made for a very uncomfortable situation.

My point of all of that is, there are many instances in where who you meet on a day-to-day basis is not up to you. In a professional setting, I feel it is imperative, and a large part of maintaining professionalism, to leave such quirky behaviors, if you MUST have them, at home or at least in your private life. When your personal biases are so extreme that they negatively influence your professional behavior, that, in my opinion, is when you have crossed the line and compromised your respectability.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 18, 2006)

Tina said:


> I uphold the person's right to make the decision of who they will associate with for themselves.



On a social level, sure. But on a person's regular day to day existence going about their jobs, shopping, etc. refusing to have contact with people different from themselves (to the extent of gender and racial separatists) is bigotry pure and simple and there is no excuse for it and no way to justify it. 

Wrong is wrong. Bigotry is bigotry. Hate is hate.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 18, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> You know, I can probably whip your ass.  Jus' saying.



Eh, who couldn't? So that's really not saying much.


----------



## MoonGoddess (Jun 18, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> Eh, who couldn't? So that's really not saying much.



*
Would you like your ass whipped by a professional? I have this nifty cat o' ninetails, and some black leather corsets buried somewhere around here... 

No charge for you Jack...goes without saying.*


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 18, 2006)

MoonGoddess said:


> *
> Would you like your ass whipped by a professional? I have this nifty cat o' ninetails, and some black leather corsets buried somewhere around here...
> 
> No charge for you Jack...goes without saying.*



As long as a Morticia outfit is involved, I'm good.


----------



## MoonGoddess (Jun 18, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> As long as a Morticia outfit is involved, I'm good.



*
I can do the Morticia outfit...I do cut a stunning figure in a tight black dress! If it makes you happy, I'm there!*


----------



## Tina (Jun 18, 2006)

> Tina said:
> 
> 
> > I uphold the person's right to make the decision of who they will associate with for themselves.
> ...



I'm not sure what you're saying here. You're saying it's okay on a social level but on a day to day level it's not okay?

What I'm saying is that we all make decisions based upon our preferences and dislikes, and as long as a person is not invading a person's space with their dislikes/prejudices -- and as long as the person is not in a position of power and acts on them -- whaddya gonna do? Fine, it's not okay. I agree that it's not okay to be bigoted (though we all are to one degree or another, and anyone who says they're not, even a teeny, tiny bit, I just won't believe). But you cannot stop, say, a black person from avoiding a korean market because the owner behind the counter consistently accuses the black kids of stealing even when they haven't, etc. You can't change the korean's mind any more than you can change the black person's mind, because they are allowed their own opinions. 

Are you going to tell me that a woman who has been raped by her uncle for most of her childhood, and who was disbelieved by her father when she finally told him, and who was beat up by the boys when she was too much of a 'boy,' and who was then sexually harrassed by her employer when older, should be forced to associate with men if she doesn't need to?

People have lots of reasons for feeling as they do, and some of them are good reasons. This woman's reasons are good. The black person's reasons are good. But often bigotry is a learned response ingrained since childhood. Those who were raised to be prejudiced, but who have fought it are doing the right thing. Those who were raised, through hurt and pain, to avoid certain genders, races, etc, cannot be blamed, but they should, IMO, get help to work through it, for their own benefit. 

You see this issue as black and white, with no gray areas. While I do not support bigotry and descrimination, even a little, I see some gray areas based upon experience. Personally, I do not choose to associate with someone who uses bigoted language and acts in bigoted ways. I have a choice of who I associate with. But I also know that there are some things that I cannot change, and some things that I do not have a right to change even if I could. Which goes back to my philosophy that it's not my business what a person thinks of me, as long as the person is within the law and not in my space.

And with this I will bow out, as we have really been derailing this thread.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 18, 2006)

Tina said:


> Are you going to tell me that a woman who has been raped by her uncle for most of her childhood, and who was disbelieved by her father when she finally told him, and who was beat up by the boys when she was too much of a 'boy,' and who was then sexually harrassed by her employer when older, should be forced to associate with men if she doesn't need to?



I agree we have derailed this thread enough.

So, I will adress your hypothetical with one of my own and also bow out. 

So, a white person treated horribly by black people should have the right to hate the entire black race? 

Hate the individuals that hurt him/her, yes. An entire group, no. The hate has to stop somewhere. Just something to think about.


----------



## Esme (Jun 18, 2006)

Ok, I just watched the show again yesterday afternoon... kept an open mind and the whole bit... I still love it and felt good about how they helped the woman feel. 

I guess I need to say:

Hello. My name is Esme, and I'm a WNTW fan!


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jun 18, 2006)

OK I'm gonna try one more time to make my feelings about this show and those like it clear - because I don't think I have done that. 

I am a makeover show junkie. I watch them all - it is not the concept of helping an woman feel good about herself and helping her self esteem by doing so that I take issue with. It's the greater issue.

Why do we as women - fat or skinny feel so damn badly about ourselves and don't shows like this on some level feed into those bad feelings?????

How many of the women on WNTW come on the show feeling GREAT about who they are and looking forward to feeling even better after the makeover. Not many if any I have seen. At some point in most shows we find out how really badly the women who were nominated for makeovers really feel about themselves - when most if not all are very beautiful women. Doesn't THAT aspect make anyone else angry? It INFURIATES ME!

Our society still wants women to feel inferior and I think on some level these shows feed into our already fragile self esteem. We're not OK just the way we are. We're not blonde enough - thin enough - dress well enough blah, blah blah.....

For the individual women who get the makeovers YES the shows help them feel great. But what does it do to the greater numbers of women out there who watch the show? It seems to me it reinforces how badly we already feel about how we look as women.

If that's not clear - I give up. LOL

Maybe I'm just tired. LOL


----------



## Tina (Jun 19, 2006)

Of course I hate it, Sandie. It's that sort of frustration and disdain over the way that feeling has made most women feel that was the impetus for writing this poem. It's an ongoing process as a feminist to be aware of how we're manipulated by society and the media to fit the 'womanly ideal' that has been set before us, and to make mindful grooming and dressing choices. In other words: am I putting make up on because I have been conditioned to think that I'm ugly and unacceptable without it, or do I do it because I enjoy it? And am I being honest with myself about the answer? It's kind of a reality check to not let myself get too caught up in trying to look 'perfect' or like some perfectly groomed poodle -- and to feel good about myself if I'm not. Self image should be separate from how others feel about us, but that's the ideal and not reality for most women.

So yes, I think we hear you, Sandie, and I know I can relate exactly to what you're talking about. Am I angry? After all these years as a feminist I'm beyond anger about some of this stuff and have moved into trying to stay honest with myself, and to increase awareness as I'm able when the occasion presents itself. No woman is immune to the social disease of sexual expectation, and particularly when it comes to how we look, which is tied into sexual attractiveness.


----------



## SleepyNow (Jun 19, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> For the individual women who get the makeovers YES the shows help them feel great. But what does it do to the greater numbers of women out there who watch the show? It seems to me it reinforces how badly we already feel about how we look as women.
> 
> If that's not clear - I give up. LOL
> 
> Maybe I'm just tired. LOL



I understand that that's your view point, I just take a different message away from what I see!

These women generally already have low self-esteem. I think this is reflected many times in their poor wardrobe choices. Many wear all black clothes that are in disrepair and are many sizes too big for their body. They dress to hide themselves because they already feel badly about themselves. I don't think it started the other way around. (ie. they dressed poorly and then began to feel badly about themselves) There is the opposite wardrobe as well, but to me it is still symptomatic of a self-esteem problem. Women who wear flashy clothes that are too young for them--mini skirts at age 40, belly baring shirts to the office--are not happy with their age and wish to be seen as younger even though wearing age innapropriate clothes dates them even more harshly.

What Not To Wear lifts these women's self esteem by teaching them to dress in a way that presents their best face to the world. When they look in a mirror now they see a reflection of the great self they feel on the inside.

Certainly I think you can ask the question: why is the outside necessary to reflect the inside? Why can't we all wander around with unkempt hair and baggy clothes and have people realize that we're great? That I'm not sure of the answer--but there have been studies done that show that grooming can affect how we see ourselves. For example all the guides I've read on doing phone interviews have said to dress as though you're doing a face to face interview, because it puts you in the right frame of mind. I know that when my outfit is put together I generally feel more together than when I'm schlepping around the house in boxers and a t-shirt.

I think you'll find those women who already have high self esteem are not nominated for the show because they already dress themselves very well.

I personally like these shows for research. I just recently got a great new job. The only problem being that my current organization does not have a dress code, and my new one is business casual! I'll be watching the show in the next few weeks so I know how to build my new career wardrobe. (I'm very bad at creating mix and match outfits which Stacey and Clinton seem to be masters of! I tend to buy one outfit at a time and then nothing else matches. )


----------



## bigsexy920 (Jun 19, 2006)

I think women have these issues not becuase of the way they look but something that happened to them that caused them to feel as if they are not worth looking good or feeling good. Honeslty, I think it is in all womens nature to want to look good to whom ever and for some reason they were stripped of that. 

I mean even wild animals groom and have differnt things they do to improve how they look when trying to attract the oppisite sex, or try to defend their families. I think a lot of it is just part of our make up as humans to want to look well to others. 

So I guess what I'm saying is, I think women big or small have other issues going on when they don't take care of themselves. 

Shows like this may make a person feel bad but that is because they already feel bad. I don't think it's the shows. I think it is the parents that were horrible to the child or the teacher that was mean or the kids in the school or what ever horrible thing that may have happend, abusive partner whatever. 

Most of us, men and women alike have been in situations that can weaken our esteem we have all gone through it. I think we should try harder to break the cycle and instead of thinking a positive show is something negative maybe we should look at the more positive side.

Or not


----------



## Friday (Jun 20, 2006)

I don't see the problem with trying to help people look better. In some cases they're doing it to help a person advance career goals or the like and in some cases it's to get people out of horribly inappropriate and/or just plain ugly clothing and habits. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting things to look their best, whether it's painting/cleaning your house, mowing your yard, washing your car or wearing clothing that makes *YOU* feel good. There is no virtue in being unhappy or feeling ugly and although society is certainly somewhat at fault, we are our own worst critics.

The key I think is doing it to make _yourself_ feel good. Like some of our Goth patrons who are happy and secure in how they look. I confess that I absolutely love WNTW. I was impressed from day one (clear back when they had Wayne instead of Clinton), by the fact that the were totally not about your shape but strictly about looking your best in a way that makes you happy. My sis and I tease each other by saying 'Clinton and Stacy wouldn't approve of that <fitb> you know' and laugh about it. But as an apple of size (and a somewhat smaller pear for sis), we've learned things that make us much happier about ourselves. I just can't conceive of how that could be bad.

And I will always think Stacy's pointy shoes make her look like a one toed stork, but they make her feel good so go Stacy go.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jun 20, 2006)

Thank you for your opinion on this ladies I appreciate every single one.


----------



## AnnMarie (Jun 21, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> But what does it do to the greater numbers of women out there who watch the show? It seems to me it reinforces how badly we already feel about how we look as women.



I hear what you're saying, but I just don't see it the same. I think it sends a message to the women out there who DO already feel bad that they can take simple, easy steps to see themselves in a different light. In "you too can do this little bit to give yourself a confidence boost, learn to see yourself in a more positive light as you are today, but with a spiffy scarf or a pleated jacket!"

I think you're expressing yourself just fine, but some others are just not feeling the same about the message.


----------

