Gok Wan: Not so Nice After all?
I’ve always felt a bit ambivalent about Gok Wan (i.e he’s very charming, I want to like him but often find him patronising etc etc) so the latest news that he may not be as much of a crusader for self-esteem as How to Look Good Naked would have us believe is all very intriguing.
In brief, the story is this: Daisy Idwal Jones was employed as one of the models flanking the show’s participants on the catwalk as they did their final walk of glory. Wan apparently turned the charm firmly off for the supporting models, calling them “slags” and “dirty little sluts” as he directed them. He also allegedly made references to their genitals. In addition to this, Idwal Jones states that she hadn’t given consent to be filmed at any time other than when she was on the catwalk but was, nonetheless, interrupted and filmed in the changing room by the camera crew. When she told the producer how angry she was about this, she was simply told it would “make great TV.”
There’s definitely a strong hint in the comments for this article (and aren’t the Daily Mail ones always a joy?) that Idwal Jones is just some “pass the smelling salts” type getting her knickers all in a twist about Wan’s camp and vulgar humour but it seems to me that it wasn’t the language that was the real problem here but the way it was directed. Personally, I don’t care what words he used. I’d simply say that behaving dismissively towards the models and directly insulting them, would be deeply hypocritical behaviour for someone doing a show that claims to be all about making people feel good.
There have also been suggestions from some commenters that Idwal Jones is just exaggerating the story in order to get publicity for the ethical agency that she is setting up. This is a fair point but, then again, it doesn’t take a genius to suggest that she must have had some shitty treatment somewhere along the line to even see the need for such an agency in the first place. Sonja’s comment on celebgalz.com backs this up:
…She gave this interview a year ago and the Mail tied it in with the start of the new series of HTLGN, not with Daisy launching her agency.
She was more bothered by Gok referring to her genitals (not on display, just to clear things up!) in front of a laughing film crew than the foul language he used in general, and I think it’s about time someone exposed the way so-called celebs are abusing fellow performers, as well as generally pointing a finger at the more unpleasant sides of the business. As a former actress myself I can really relate, and as her friend I know how shaken she was by the unprofessional treatment she received.
About time, too, agencies started treating models with the respect they deserve without withholding fees for months on end and encouraging girls to starve themselves! I don’t know how anyone can argue with that.
There’s also some scathing commentary from Paul English in the Daily Record:
Judging by this show’s central premise, Gok thinks the average woman’s self-esteem is so low, it holds her back from doing all manner of things that would make her happier.
These seem to include wandering through shopping centres in the buff - watched by her mortified children - and padding down high streets in her scants.
Emily Pankhurst would be proud.
Then again, many of the girls caught up in the self-destructive psychological circle of shows like this (ie - feed women’s neuroses, give them a make-over and smugly take their thanks and praise) probably think a suffragette is something they get under their eyes that can be covered up with a decent concealer.
Much as I want to like How to Look Good Naked, I’m starting to think perhaps the whole set-up is just a camped up version of the satirical man-takes-charge scenario that Lucy pointed out in the comments earlier today. I’m all for women and men crusading together but I do think something stinks when I see a woman who doesn’t like her body being urged by an over-zealous self-esteem guru to slip into something “more feminine.” As Natasha from London says in the Daily Mail Comments “Whatever happened to sisters doing it for themselves, not sisters getting a man to do it for them?”
Posted by Holly Combe on 10 April 2008, at 5:39 PM | Comments (20)
Have your say
In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space, comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.
- This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies. Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved. We get to decide what's anti-feminist.
- All comments must be approved by one of the bloggers. For this reason, there may be a delay before your comment appears.
- No sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist comments, comments which make personal attacks on any blogger or commenter, or comments that are otherwise deemed offensive by us will be posted.
- Trolls will be banned from commenting. We get to decide who is a troll.
- No anonymous comments - please feel free to use your real name or make one up, though.
- Be nice.
Feeds
Anji said:
Wow, you're fast! I only sent that email about this last night and there's an article about it today. Lightning-quick, you F-Word writers. :D
Posted on 10 April 2008 at 10:08 PM
Laura Woodhouse said:
I forced myself to watch HTLGN once, after various people insisted that it was very different from other make over shows. It is, insofar as it doesn't use plastic surgery or create insecurity or "defects" in the subjects in order to "cure" them. And in the one show I watched, Gok did make the woman feel much better about herself, much more confident.
But, even discounting the contents of the Mail article, it's hardly feminist, certainly not radical, and I don't think it's even pro-women. It is based on the premise that women can only feel good about their bodies if they conform to the mainstream, sexy, feminine, "grown up" (in the case of the episode I watched) image of woman. And, yeah, they will feel good if they can achieve this, because it means they fit into society, they are acceptable. But this challenges nothing. It's not about celebrating women's bodies, just teaching women to conform. You reckon Gok and Channel 4 and the fashion and beauty industry that create and feed off women's insecurity and hatred of our bodies would be very happy if I marched naked through a shopping mall, make-up less, with two years' worth of body hair? You think they'd see me as empowered? A real woman? Good looking (not that I care, but that's the premise)? I doubt it.
Oh, and he used those scary looking tummy hold-in pants in the show I watched - why not just stick a label on her tummy saying "unacceptable"?
Posted on April 10, 2008 11:58 PM
mia said:
Alright, you know, I've said this before and I will say it again. HTLGN is a bunch of revolting bollocks? Why? Lets count the ways, shall we?
1. A woman is only encouraged to feel good as a sexual object
2. A woman is only encouraged to feel good as a sexual object when her looks are accepted by OTHER people.
3. Every show includes a line up women in the underwear, in varying degrees of weight. They are arranged like cattle, from fattest to thinnest, and the contestant is made to say where she thinks she fits. Of course, she is meant to be overjoyed when she finds out that she is not as fat as the fat cow she thought she resembled. Hurrah! Never mind that that poor woman, and those surrounding her, have just become an example of 'unacceptable' weight.
HTLGN has nothing to do with making women feel good. As long as we are being sized, measured, compared and categorised we will not be free to love ourselves for ourselves.
Posted on 11 April 2008 at 11:48 AM
Marie said:
I've always had mixed feelings about this show (and I think I've commented on them on this site in the past).
Having watched the new series, I'm now definitely anti-HTLGN. I always thought that the naked photo shoot was an ok idea, not great, but y'know, whatever floats your boat.
But the new "and now it's time for you to pose naked in a shop window" replacement for the photo shoot? Hate it, hate it, hate it. Why do we have to pose naked in front of an audience in a shop window in Oxford St to feel good about ourselves? I also felt GW was being pushy to get the women to do it, not supportive, which made me feel darned uncomfortable.
I think on balance that it's a really retrograde and sexist idea. Taking off your clothes in public = confidence and liberation? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And don't get me started on where. A naked woman in a shop window? Is anyone else making the same, obvious mental link as me?
Yeugh. It's off my Sky+, that's for sure.
Posted on 11 April 2008 at 1:00 PM
sian said:
i've only seen it once because it was on in a room i was in, so not sure if i am qualified to comment, but i was incredibly frustrated by his continually referring to the women as "my girl" or "my girls".
i found it so patronising, and well, wrong.
so they don't use plastic surgery but there is still this focus on the woman looking wrong and needing to be changed, by fake tan, make up, waxes etc. i certainly didn't find it feminist.
grat daily mail commenting as usual tho. liked the "she's a model, she should be used to being spoken to like that." where do they come from?!
Posted on 11 April 2008 at 1:25 PM
Holly Combe said:
Oh dear... I've not seen the latest series but the shop window thing sounds awful. What were they thinking?
I'd forgotten about the HTLGN practice of lining women up according to size and getting "Gok's girl" to say where she was on the scale. What a sour taste that leaves...
Posted on April 11, 2008 1:41 PM
Holly Combe said:
On reflection, perhaps that Daily Record quote I included was a bit unfair. I mean the HTLGN participants have already been patronised by Gok and then Paul English comes along and suggests that they're so unliberated that they don't even know what a suffragette is. Isn't this a double-dose of insults?
Posted on April 11, 2008 2:34 PM
ohdearyme said:
I find it hilarious that you bloggers spend most of your articles criticising the daily mail, saying how anti-women it is and how garbage it is, you cant understand why anyone who want to read it apart from women who hate themselves blah blah. Yet, you derive almost all your blogging articles from the Daily Mail!! How contradictory is that! Not only that ...but you also believe everything thats reported in the mail! Has it not occur to you that the model who made those accusations was just promoting her new job? Not only that, but you dont realise that the daily mail readers are predominantly female! Another thing, I dont see you criticising other shows like trinny and susannah which are equally as bad, is that because theyre female presenters? Or do you just have a problem the presenter because hes a man? bearing in mind, hes not quite a man, hes a well known 100% homosexual!
Posted on 12 April 2008 at 5:10 PM
Holly Combe said:
“Hilarious”? Are you sure? Because that sounds to me like the bitter talk of a person who finds the idea of feminist critique rather threatening and would prefer to imagine a bunch of foolish, neurotic women who can’t help but unknowingly rise to the Daily Mail’s bait.
Personally, I find it quite funny (though, admittedly, not “hilarious”) that you’ve devoted a whole comment to making inflammatory claims that you make no effort whatsoever to back up:
1. “You derive almost all your blogging articles from the Daily Mail!”
Over the month of April so far, the F-word blog has linked to approximately 189 pages and just 7 of them were on the Daily Mail website. I think we can safely conclude that is not “almost all” don’t you?
In all seriousness, I do appreciate that the Daily Mail is generally a place where one would expect bigotry and that this lends some weight to the argument that we shouldn’t waste a disproportionate amount of time on the anti-feminist articles they publish. (What do others think about this?) However, I would still say some critique is called for. In my opinion, a complete absence of it would mean letting retrogressive views on gender go unchecked. This would help to enable such lazy thinking to further weave its way back into the dominant fabric of society.
Sometimes, I think people forget that embracing the principle of free speech isn’t about just rolling over and saying “oh well, you’re entitled to your opinion. Who am I to argue?” Free speech enables us to argue against ideas we don’t like.
2: "...You can’t understand why anyone would want to read the Daily Mail apart from women who hate themselves.”
I don’t recall any of us ever saying this. Care to supply a link?
3: “You also believe everything that’s reported in the mail!”
Again, I’d suggest you need to read in a little more depth because, much of the time, we are arguing that the spin the Daily Mail has put on a topic is not doing it justice.
4. “Has it not occur to you that the model who made those accusations was just promoting her new job?”
Yes. That particular concern was discussed in my original blog post. Didn’t you read it properly?
5. “...You dont realise that the daily mail readers are predominantly female!”
Well, as far as I can recall, none of us has ever claimed the Daily Mail readership is predominantly any sex over another so I really can’t see what led you to that conclusion. Perhaps you think we’re such rabid man-haters that the oh-so-startling revelation that some Conservative material is produced by or enjoyed by women will send us into a helpless rage. Perhaps you reckon it will make us choke on our words and say “Shit! It was the women all along! We may as well pack up and go home!”
6. “...I dont see you criticising other shows like trinny and susannah which are equally as bad, is that because theyre female presenters?”
Actually, Trinny and Susannah have been criticised quite a few times on the F-word. Here are a just a few examples:
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2007/11/afterthought_an
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2007/11/mind_the_gap_is
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2007/11/trinny_and_susa
http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2008/01/what_not_to_wat
My own opinion of Trinny and Susannah is, in many ways, similar to the one I have of Gok Wan: ambivalent. A positive aspect, in my opinion, is that the women in the shows (and, no, I haven’t missed the fact that men are sometimes featured too) undergo a process of transformation that reminds us that “feminine” style is not the effortless natural essence of being female but a superficial thing that is created and learned. This, however, is probably outweighed by the many things that I don’t like about both shows.
7. “Or do you just have a problem the presenter because hes a man? bearing in mind, hes not quite a man, hes a well known 100% homosexual!”
No, obviously not (see 6) and what a blatant double-whammy of sexism and homophobia you display!
Perhaps you need to check your own assumptions before you attempt to highlight those of others?
Posted on April 14, 2008 6:19 PM
Danielle said:
Holly, I vigorously applaud your most excellent retort to the idiotic ohdearyme! It did make me laugh, particularly the bit about packing up and going home.
I've read so many depressing articles today (including that awful one about witch-hunts in India), so thank you for making my day :)
Posted on 14 April 2008 at 9:20 PM
Juliet said:
ohdearyme (admirable choice of pseudonym there!) seems to be referring to a response by McDuff to the 'Daily Mail Attacks "curvy" Miss England finalist" post by Samara Ginsberg on 11th April. The full quote was, "they're (Daily Mail readers) either men who hate women or women who hate themselves". Call me a nitpicker. I just wanted to check.
I think it's vital that virulently anti-feminist publications such as the Daily Hate are regularly monitored by the F-Word and other feminist sites, in order to be able to counteract at least some of the misogynistic bullshit they put out.
Posted on 14 April 2008 at 10:56 PM
Cara said:
Hmmm. I used to quite like HTLGN, at least it put out the message that real women are not stick insects.
This new series, however...well...
yes, the posing in shop windows...objectification, much?
And last night Gok made "his girl" (yeah, I hate that) learn...POLE DANCING! 'Cos it is like liberating and sexy, ha.
Add to which he seemed to be going on about making her look more "feminine" by wearing frilly, pastel clothes and heels. 'Cos obviously a woman cannot look attractive without 6 inch heels and pink frills.
Posted on 23 April 2008 at 1:04 PM
Naz said:
Seriously, Bravo for the article you've written, its like my long-held frustration being expressed into words because, quite frankly, I don't know where to start when it comes to Gok Wan.
I REALLY do not like Mr. Wan. and the ideas he tries to oppress onto peoples minds. Worried for the little girls and boys in particularly...
Thanks for this article,
Feminist Alli
Posted on 18 June 2008 at 2:50 AM
Emma said:
I do watch HTLGN and yes you all do have some points in your arguemens but think of the women he has helped and reffering to the other women he has on his show they feel confident about their bodies to appear on the show.
Yes what he said and did to the various models was wrong I cannot defend him on that he had no right to say an do the things he did but he is one of he few people who has not used plasic surgery as a way to get women to love heir bodies again.
Posted on 04 July 2008 at 9:14 PM
Me said:
Firstly the women that go on HTLGN have chosen to do so, they are grown ups who are advised about the show and what to expect and based on this still chose to go on the.
Surely part of being a strong woman is being able to make your own choices and not being told by anyone even a feminist blog that the choices they have made are wrong.
Whi are we, am I, to tell anyone that they are WRONG.
There are women out there who aren't as confident as the next. Personally I would much rather take advise than pay some quack to chop up my body.
I would much rather a few frills and a kitten heal than a six inch scar across the tummy or a wonky boobs.
The model in question well.....why is she right. How do you know? Were you there? We will never, ever know.
If this programme has stopped even one young impressionable hating him/herself for being "fat" then surley it has been a success.
Be open minded.
Stop hating and start encouraging.
Posted on 11 July 2008 at 11:58 PM
Holly Combe said:
I don't recall stating that anyone's choice to go on Gok Wan's show was "wrong." You seem to have misread the post and missed my point. Also, if you look at the comments, you will see I criticised Paul English's suggestion that the women who go on the show are hopelessly un-liberated so I don't think the overall picture is quite the one you seem to want to portray.
I did not claim to know whether the story is accurate. Indeed, the title has a question mark at the end of it and I use tentative terms such as "may not be such a crusader for self esteem" and "allegedly" throughout the piece. You draw attention to the fact I don't actually "know" what happened because I wasn't there. Well, there are a lot of things that nobody really knows. Does that mean we should just close all debate on those issues?
You say women choose to go on the show and are grown ups who are advised about it and "know what to expect." I don't want to put words in your mouth but what exactly is your implication here? That Gok Wan can say whatever he likes because the women have chosen to go on the show and its out of their hands now? Then you go and say it's inappropriate for women's choices to be criticised. What exactly is your point?
You also seem to be under the impression that being open-minded is actually the same thing as being unquestioning. Your instruction to "Stop hating and start encouraging" is ridiculous because I never actually said I hated Gok Wan in the first place! I simply said I was ambivalent about him and reported on a story that suggests he was in the wrong on this occasion. Does making a show apparently designed to help women mean Gok is beyond criticism? Does it mean he becomes some untouchable guru we should be grateful to?
Personally, I am pretty weary of this current tendency for any kind of criticism to be labelled as "hating." It's as if society has now decided that we should all be floating about in an insipid haze of unwavering positivity and claiming everything is "amazing" in some desperate effort not to be seen as "haters." Questioning things? Not cool!
Posted on July 16, 2008 10:33 AM
Me said:
Holly, my comments were based on this blog as a whole and not soley on what you have written. This is not a personal attack. Other opinions have been expressed.
I find that it always smarts a bit when I read " He said, she said. This does not mean that as far as I am concerned the debate is closed, no. What it does mean is that I am aware words are worth a buck or two.
Again, I hope these grown up women would feel strong enough to speak out if they did not agree with anything in the show. No, nobody has a right to treat anyone with anything other than respect. I don't see myself as having any implication here and I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this? My point is that these women are the only ones that can decided whether they are being made objects of or not. If they don't feel that way after appearing on the show, they might well just after reading the comments made. I don't think this is entirelly fair as it is then the blog that has made an object of them.
The Hater comment, I will give you. This is a broad term and perhaps not used in the best possible context but the sentiment was that rather than concentrating on the negatives which is very easy to do, we should be encouraging people to feel more positive about themselves. Move away from surgery and look to other methods. Whilst some people are not for make-up and glamour, others are. We are all different.
On reading through the blog again, I can see why people would not be some parts of the show. I do think that there are positive elements however.
I realise I have written nothing about the thopic of the blog, so far. Well, it seems that the positive role model in media is a myth. There will always be someone ready to dish the dirt.
On another point, I am slightly concerned that it seems acceptable to use derogatory comments about other bloggers. It's seems a bit unfair to label someone as idiotic.
Just because one person is not as eloquent as the next and perhaps does not get their point across in the best way, it does not give other people the right to name call.
Posted on 17 July 2008 at 1:18 AM
Holly Combe said:
Thanks for your reply and for clarifying what you said about the participants knowing what to expect on the show. I thought there was an implication that the models who took part should have been able to take whatever was thrown at them (i.e any rudeness from Gok, as the presenter of the show) but can now see you were referring to the participants and the importance of respecting their choice to take part.
I agree that talking about other women's experiences and choices can be problematic (the Paul English article perhaps being a case in point). However, I also think it would be wrong for us to hold back on criticising a TV show on the basis that it might be patronising or disrespectful to the participants in it. Obviously, the women taking part in How to Look Good Naked have all been very different so I wouldn't attempt to make any generalisations about them personally.
You mention name calling and derogatory comments. I've had another read-through and, yes, Danielle does refer to Ohdearyme as "idiotic." However, I would suggest the problem was not Ohdearyme's lack of eloquence but the rudeness of her/his tone. I still reckon Ohdearyme was behaving like a troll (just check out the name) and framing the comment in a deliberately insulting manner. S/he didn't seem to be making any effort to engage and, while I appreciate that words like "idiotic" are inflamatory, I still think the comment deserved scathing responses.
If the homophobic statement that Gok Wan is "not quite a man" because "hes a well known 100% homosexual" was meant to be ironic, it wasn't very effective!
Posted on July 17, 2008 10:08 AM
saza said:
yes i met him at bluewater and i asked politely for a photo and he said no and walked off!!
Posted on 17 July 2008 at 12:13 PM
Jo said:
I have read all the comments on this forum so far and all I can say is good on the women who go on the show. Not every woman thinks they look "BAD" naked and some really lucky women even have very high self esteem. However, some people need a confidence boost to get them out of a rut and through a bad patch so they can feel good about themselves and do something positive with their lives. If that requires they go on a show like that and get naked in a shopping mall to shock themselves out of a slump in their lives then good on them for knowing they need help and having the guts to get out of their comfort zones and do something a little more riskey. I read the comment made by Paul English and I quote: "These seem to include wandering through shopping centres in the buff - watched by her mortified children - and padding down high streets in her scants."
If you actually watch very many episodes of the show you would see that none of the children were "mortified". In fact the majority of them were quite proud that their mothers felt good enough about themselves and had the courage to do it at all.
In my opinion it would be nice to see the women from previous episodes to see if they are still carrying on with their new appearances or if they have slipped back into their old habits.
At least this show does not advocate that women chop themselves up with plastic surgery or go overboard with exercise and dieting and it tells women that no matter what their body shape they can look really stunning IF THEY WANT TO.
Posted on 19 July 2008 at 2:42 AM