Pop stars prancing about in pants
by Guest Blogger // 11 April 2012, 12:21
A guest post from Kate Bellamy arguing that the pressure on women in pop to wear less tends to increase when there's a cause to be considered.
Feminism is back in fashion. Politics, business, comedy; the triumvirate of gender discrimination and centre of feminist umbrage that regularly become "trendy" get wheeled out again like bootcut jeans in Topshop. Topically they've been done to death, one too many spin cycles. This isn't about that though. I'm just fed up of seeing pop-stars popping out.
The personal is political. Unavoidably true in most cases, not when it comes to your private parts. What does it say about the feminist movement when to take a stand is to be half-naked and covered in the entire Dulux colour catalogue, a la Gaga or Minaj? Do we have to strip off to get taken seriously?
It's fun to sometimes look at Lady Gaga like a dress up doll - one of those rudimentary cardboard ones you used to rub the clothes on to with a plastic stick, before pleasingly peeling them off again - a surrogate for our more flawed fashion choices. But surely these outfits can't be taken seriously? What is the impact of feminism on fashion and vice versa?
Suzanne Moore wrote an article for the Guardian last week, in which she discussed issues of age-appropriate behaviour and Madonna, arguing that whilst the Queen of Pop may offer no qualms about covering up her madonna she recognises that "the one erogenous zone that women never need to cover up is our minds."
Credit where it's due, Gaga does draw attention to her mind as well as her minnie, recently launching a foundation for young people suffering from bullying and self-esteem issues. It champions tolerance instead of outrage, as Lady tweeted, but tolerance surely only extends so far if you concentrate on waltzing about with your woo-woo on display. And it's hard to have empathy with a spotty teenager in a rainy English suburb when you spend your working life an American millionaire dressed as a goth-biker-telephone.
Cynics may argue the "Harajuku Barbie", Niki Minaj, undermines her own subversion of the ideal woman by donning the trademark blonde wig of her apparent idol. But being Barbie doesn't seem to be the point; she wore more clothes. Caitlin Moran, after How To Be a Woman has become the poster girl for pretty feminism (and must be starting to redden at repeatedly being exemplified). And then there is the aptly named Charlotte Free: unshaven legs and armpits but pretty pink hair. Feminism and prettiness need not be mutually exclusive. Clothes and society are.
Like Gaga, Minaj has ideals; "don't allow people to knock your hustle just 'cause it ain't something that you're used to seeing." Great! I agree. I like her creative flare and how she has shaped her own success. But, do you really need to have your baps out to do it?
I realise reader, you may consider me old fashioned or a prude. I know women's magazines around the world call out, but believe me, "celebrating" my cellulite will do feminism no favours - I'll continue to cover up. Suzanne Moore is right, women need never cover up their minds but I'd say something more than your bra and pants, at least in public, would be preferable. Fully clothed feminism, for me anyway.
Picture shows a possibly naked Lady Gaga (aside from some jewel decoration and perhaps a body stocking) lying slightly sideways on her front and looking at the camera. By Ama Lia, shared under a creative commons licence. Post by Kate Bellamy.