People think that beauty opens doors, but it opens doors to cliff edges

November 26, 2015 8:40 PM

Caitlin Stasey talks about beauty and sexism in the entertainment industry. (SLYT) (NSFW swearing)

Previously.

posted by imaginary_mary (15 comments total)

Herself is a good idea, but I was dismayed to find out (when I asked about participating) that they don't pay models. Given that the project involves nude photography, and just having that can often be a setback to further earnings even if it's not sexual, it's a bit remiss to be talking about supporting women and not actually compensating them for giving themselves to your project.
posted by divabat at 10:07 PM on November 26, 2015 [12 favorites]

Somebody want to spell out for me why the flurk she was undressing while talking about this stuff??? What point does that prove? In what way is that helpful or meaningful?
posted by mysterious_stranger at 10:26 PM on November 26, 2015 [7 favorites]

mysterious_stranger: the gimmick of the series (as mentioned at the beginning of the video) is that style is all about "what's underneath" what you're wearing. Why? *shrug*
posted by divabat at 10:28 PM on November 26, 2015

"Brought to you by Olìe Biologique".

Companies that sell "beauty" products by co-opting the language of feminism make me very uncomfortable.
posted by jokeefe at 10:30 PM on November 26, 2015 [15 favorites]

I'll try to state my question more clearly: It appears to me that the message of Ms. Stacey's words is pretty much the direct opposite of the message conveyed by her actions. In what way does stripping off her clothes serve her, her message, her audience? Am I missing some profound point or angle here? Or is she willingly engaging in her own objectification while verbally protesting about the objectification of (attractive, young) women in the film industry?
posted by mysterious_stranger at 11:23 PM on November 26, 2015 [5 favorites]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion I suppose, but for whatever it is or isn't worth, as a dude I felt like the video actually subtracted from the power of her words. I "get" the gimmick, I just don't find it terribly effective or evocative in this case, especially with how this is shot and edited. I'd find this a lot more interesting (and would be a lot more apt to share it around) as a podcast, personally.

But of course, that's just me, and maybe I'm not the target audience for the artifice of this, and that's fine.
posted by trackofalljades at 11:45 PM on November 26, 2015 [2 favorites]

Yeah, I feel the same way re: the gimmick. I actually fast-forwarded to the end hoping that she doesn't strip off nude not because I have issues with that per se (I'd be a hypocrite) but because I didn't want this video to be "cheap excuse to show naked chicks through ~~feminism~~".

I guess in Stasey's case it would have worked anyway because of the parallels to Herself, but yeah, the strip-during-spiel stuff is distracting. I was kinda hoping for something a little more literal - "these scars represent X" or "they thought this was too flabby!" - something where the strip-down effect actually related to what she was saying, rather than as an afterthought.
posted by divabat at 2:03 AM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

I just don't like the premise of the What's Underneath project: that who you are is just you naked, period. It still feels voyeuristic and looks like some sort of creepy power exchange: We want to see you exposed and vulnerable but dealing with it with thoughtfulness, grace and like it's not a big deal.

Maybe I'd feel differently if there was a campagne like this for stodgy, well-respected, middle aged and older men in positions of power: politicians, serious authors, CEO's, archbishops, generals, opinion leaders... Why aren't they ever asked to take their clothes off? And why is it immediately obvious that none of them would comply?

That's right, because they don't have to. They get their platform even without that, whereas I'm pretty sure this project wouldn't get half of the clicks if these people weren't undressing themselves. Also, nobody's ever questioning if powerful men's "true self" (or style, or whatever this is supposed to demonstrate) is what they're doing in the world and choosing to project outwards, rather than their nakedness and how they feel about it.
posted by sively at 4:23 AM on November 27, 2015 [31 favorites]

I also had problems with the undressing because what she was saying was very interesting and I found it distracting. But then I thought that if she wasn't conventionally attractive I wouldn't have had a problem with it and that was interesting to me. I haven't seen any of the other ones, but I was thinking if it was a woman who somehow defied what "pretty" women are supposed to look like - if she was a larger woman, or had scars, or had a physical disability etc - would I have seen it as more empowering? Would that have made more sense of the "it's who you are not what you wear that matters" message? When she got down to her underwear I was cringing because that's the moment she was talking about women being sexualised and I found it uncomfortable that she was potentially being sexualised right then. Would I have felt less uncomfortable if she inhabited a body that isn't seen as sexual while she was talking about that stuff? Does her having a stereotypical beautiful body negate what she's saying in a way that would have been easier to ignore if she didn't? I don't know. It just was an interesting realisation for me.
posted by billiebee at 4:30 AM on November 27, 2015 [3 favorites]

I also find the premise odd. I remember seeing these interviews linked before and watching a few; the talking was great but the stripping felt dissonant. I get the point they are trying to make, but I don't think it works in the way they want it to.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:35 AM on November 27, 2015

"Maybe I'd feel differently if there was a campagne like this for stodgy, well-respected, middle aged and older men in positions of power: politicians, serious authors, CEO's, archbishops, generals, opinion leaders... Why aren't they ever asked to take their clothes off? And why is it immediately obvious that none of them would comply?

That's right, because they don't have to. They get their platform even without that, whereas I'm pretty sure this project wouldn't get half of the clicks if these people weren't undressing themselves. Also, nobody's ever questioning if powerful men's "true self" (or style, or whatever this is supposed to demonstrate) is what they're doing in the world and choosing to project outwards, rather than their nakedness and how they feel about it."

I'm not so sure. Just reflecting on what I know of my own stodgy, well-respected, middle aged and older male bishop, I could actually see him really loving at least the abstract concept of stripping down while bearing his soul, and getting really into the hilarity of doing it all the way from a mitre and chasuble to gaunt wrinkles and boxers. However, I'm also dead sure he'd never do it if only for how very strongly naked male bodies in unfamiliar contexts triggers very legitimate fears of sexual violence, and can itself easily be a form of sexual violence, where the more power/influence the dude has the stronger the effect.

While this series makes me uncomfortable for a lot of the same voyeuristically imbalanced reasons as you, I'd suggest that how this project would relate to male bodies would be differently complex.
posted by Blasdelb at 5:36 AM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

I didn't even think about the triggering/threatening angle, but you're right, I can see how that could happen. Complex, indeed. (Ack, I just realized this may look like I'm trying to introduce a "what if the genders were reversed/let's talk about men" derail here. Dear Metafilter, I may be a new(ish) active(ish) participant, but I really do not want to do that.)

Also, I'm a bit annoyed with myself right now for focusing on Caitlin Stasey getting undressed in stead of engaging with what she's saying, because her interview is really interesting and worth listening to.
posted by sively at 6:08 AM on November 27, 2015

I'm a bit annoyed with myself right now for focusing on Caitlin Stasey getting undressed in stead of engaging with what she's saying,

I had the opposite reaction. I found the act of disrobing emphasised that this is what is normally required of her, that she is a object for display and for projecting fantasies onto.

In the media I consume, women who look like her are not intelligent, perceptive, or willing to speak out. I never known anyone who is 'Hollywood beautiful', and all my media tells me these people are stupid, so I have kind of looked down on beautiful women and thought them rather odd creatures not worthy of empathy.

I am embarrassed now.
posted by devious truculent and unreliable at 11:09 AM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

I found most of the videos interesting -- the stripping in front of a brick wall on a wooden stool thing didn't really make me think more deeply about what was said. It just induced a winter-time sympathetic reaction which made me chilly...
posted by smidgen at 1:05 PM on November 27, 2015

This is just weird timing for me because Baltimore's Visionary Arts Museum has a display on St. Francis, nudity and closeness to God, mentioning that Isaiah and Saul preached in the nude as a Biblical influence on the practice, mentioning that the spirit would move Quakers, who would disrobe, with the difficult intersection of social norms, so I'll re-read this once my brain re-sets.
posted by childofTethys at 8:52 PM on November 28, 2015