Worst Dressed

I don’t, as a rule, buy newspapers. I get all of my news from a couple of sites on the internet. One of those sites has a section dedicated to women, called Women24. I read it.

Or rather, I read parts of it. I can’t really get my head around “How to tell if he’s the one for you”, or “Get your body bikini ready for summer”, but there are articles there that grab my attention more than the traditional male articles about how a bunch of guys spent the day hitting a ball with a piece of wood before nipping off to shower together.

One of the sections I don’t read is the “worst dressed” section. You know the one; a panel of insightful humourists get together to mock other people’s clothes. I don’t avoid it because I am morally superior or too unspeakably masculine. I avoid it because I am aesthetically challenged. To me, a “worst dressed” column is just collection of pictures of beautiful women in fancy dresses with hysterically overworked captions about marshmallows dipped in glitter and mermaids with feathers.

AAARGH! My eyes! Make it stop!

AAARGH! My eyes! Make it stop!

But recently, the whole “worst dressed” thing bled over into the general news. A heavily pregnant MP attended a parliamentary event in a bad dress. The social media crowd went berserk, mocking her outfit in ways that were often very ugly indeed. And the MP went to hospital, presumably due to the strain of it all.

It was, to be fair, quite a dress.

It was, to be fair, quite a dress.

Women24 faced a bit of a dilemma. The site is strongly feminist. They felt bound to rush to the MP’s defence. But they also run regular “worst dressed” articles. Women24 leapt into the fray.

As an enthusiastic admirer of hypocrisy, so did I. I wrote an article about their articles about the other peoples’ comments about the dress.

As an enthusiastic lazy person, I’ve gone and reprinted it here. Enjoy…

*****

I’m not a feminist. I am sympathetic to the cause, but I’ve never been all that impressed by people who lay false claim to labels on the slimmest of pretexts. You are not an anarchist if you bunked school that one time and drew a funky “A” in a circle on your bag. You are not a Rastafarian if you put up a poster of Bob Marley, stop washing your hair and smoke some weed. You are not a revolutionary if you went to a Koos Kombuis concert in the 80’s and were on a first-name basis with your parents’ gardener.

So no, I don’t get to lay claim to being a feminist. I support the cause, but I’ve never been to the barricades. Women24 has. They regularly stand up for feminist issues. As, I suppose, one would expect. But I’ve always been a little curious about something.I’m the wrong gender, but I read the odd article on Women24. Unapologetically. They are smart and insightful and well informed, and interest me more than people droning on about cars.

But here’s the thing. In between articles calling out rape-apologist trolls like David Bullard, rants about sexist jokes, and examinations of how the law could better serve the cause of gender equality, they pause every now and then to find a bunch of women in a vulnerable situation, point at them, and laugh; “Look at this hideous ogre! And she was up there, in front of the world, daring to hope that she looked quite nice! Ha!”

Yup, I’m talking about the regular “worst dressed” columns that appear on Women24. I don’t really object to things like this; as much as we all pretend to be living in a touchy-feely, aren’t-we-all-just-so-caring world, we are human beings. The word “schadenfreude” exists for a reason. We like to see people fall down. We like to see Youtube clips of teenagers skateboarding their sensitive bits into signposts. And yes, we like to see other people mocked, especially if they dare to flounce around being more glamorous or successful than us.

But like I said, I’ve been curious. How do Women24, a news site with decidedly pro-feminist leanings, reconcile themselves with the fact that every now and then, they turn around and punch a bunch of women they’ve never met before right in the femininity. And yes, it is their femininity that is being attacked; in order to crack the nod for these articles, men have to go completely over the top.

I am curious no more. I have an answer. Badly.

The unthinkable has happened. Everybody else has pointed at a woman, and laughed; “Look at this hideous ogre! And she was up there, in front of the world, daring to hope that she looked quite nice! Ha!”

And she broke. As people sometimes do when they find themselves being openly mocked by strangers. The woman in question was Thandile Sunduza, an MP who made the mistake of wearing a rather eye-catching dress to the State of the Nation speech while seven months pregnant. The internet exploded with mocking laughter. Sunduza ended up in hospital.

And Women24 stepped up to the plate to do some reconciling. First up was the fashion editor, who placed one hand firmly on her hip, raised the index finger on the other, and called South Africa out for fat-shaming, ridiculing and mocking the good Ms Sunduza online. Fat-shaming Women24 does not do. But ridiculing and mocking people online? What exactly is a worst dressed column if it isn’t exactly that?

And then things got really fun. She folded her arms, looked us right it the eye, and asked the immortal question; “Since when do we expect members of parliament to look and dress like A-List celebrities? And why do we care?”

Well, part one of that question is pretty easy; that would be since at least this time last year, when Women24 ran an article called “State of The Nation Address: Worst Dressed”, which ridiculed and mocked a bunch of members of parliament. Online. For not looking and dressing like A-List celebrities. Which means that Women24 should be in an ideal position to answer part two for themselves.

Then it was the editor’s turn. And she tackled the issue directly. How could Women24 condemn what happened to Ms Sunduza while running worst dressed columns?

Well. It’s all very simple. The ladies in the worst dressed columns are all very pretty and that’s kind of their job and besides, they can get nice dresses and it’s all just a bit of harmless fun and criticising women’s clothes helps them to dress better and you can play the dress but not the woman inside and it’s all just gentle teasing and….

Bullshit.

We are the same species that packed the circuses in Rome to watch people get thrown to the lions. News sites need to entertain as much as they do inform. And we are entertained by worst dressed columns because we like to see a little blood, not because we are gently helping the pretty-girls to choose a better pair of pants. It’s ugly and it’s personal and like the Romans, we want more.

Unlike the Romans, we don’t want to see too much blood. That’s icky. That was what was different about what happened to Ms Sunduza. She was standing just a little too close and bled just a little too much.

Should, the editor asked, Women24 do away with worst dressed columns? Hell no! Bread and circuses keep the mob happy. But maybe they should change their approach. Instead of mumbling on about what harmless fun it all is, they should turn to us, teeth bared and arms spread wide as they stand over a prone and weeping actress in a ridiculed dress and scream “Are you not entertained?”

That way there’ll be no misunderstandings about what we’re all up to.

imagesCA64R1Q3

About these ads

27 thoughts on “Worst Dressed

  1. Linne says:

    I think what offends me the most about all this is the equation of pregnant with fat. I’ll stop with that, or I might rant for hours . . . but I do have to ask, ‘what’s with this obsession with pre-pubescent bodies as the ultimate in feminine appeal?’ Ok, climbing off soap box now . . . thanks for an insightful post and thank you very much! ~ Linne

  2. Thank you so much for posting this! This issue bugs me so much. All of the “worst-dressed” celebrities look beautiful. Why do we need to be so negative? It is rather sad.

  3. Kami says:

    Great post pointing out the emperor’s lack of clothes! Kudos to you!

  4. Lyn says:

    The word “Bullshit” just about sums up 99% of all women’s magazines. When I was younger by some 45 years, I’d buy 2-3 different ones every week. Then I got sick and tired of reading gossip about some celebrity and how he or she was cheating on their wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend, seeing photos taken by some low-life paparazzi hiding in bushes, reading about some actresses’ “secret tragedy” which showed a picture of a weeping actress (who shall remain unnamed) with the caption, “I’m heartbroken. I can’t do a thing with my hair.”
    Once again, Mr 23Thorns, you’ve nailed it!

  5. Well called sir – well called! And let’s all remember these thing only continue to exist because there are folks out there who do queue up with great joy and anticipation to read ‘em and/or watch them. We do have a vote!!

  6. Lyle Krahn says:

    You definitely hit the nail on the head!

  7. narf77 says:

    It’s the dangly baited fishing rod effect Mr 23Thorns, where a magazine will sell a tiny little piece of its soul in the hope to have a bit more mass appeal to the market and to appease their shareholders in the profit stakes. It’s treading carefully through the lion’s den and hoping that you don’t wake up the lions by treading ever so lightly on their tails…its hoping that they don’t pique the interest of people like Mr 23Thorns who might just notice that they have a conflict of interest a mile wide and that their Achilles heel is exposed with a target tattooed on it and a little sign saying “please insert sword here…”

  8. Mary Southon says:

    SNAP! Thank you.

  9. Reblogged this on The Zombies Ate My Brains and commented:
    This topic, celebrity watching and best/worst dressed reports came up in conversation the other day. I’ve never understood or have been attracted to this brand of “humour”. Mocking is another form of attack. I love this guy’s writing, so if he is not yet on your reading list now might be the time to change that.

  10. Women’s magazines invariably have this kind of hypocrisy across the board. Much like my gardening magazines that yak on about organic gardening but carry ads for gas-guzzling tillers. It’s hard to be a purist in a world of commerce and as you point out, the human inclination towards schadenfreude sells magazines.

  11. menomama3 says:

    Bang on with the banging on.

  12. That was very well said. I have never understood these types of columns…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s