There’s something that bothers me about this picture but what bothers me more is that I can’t work out what it is, that bothers me.
It’s a female in front of a few guys, no big deal. If it was Suzi Quatro standing in front of a backing group I’d probably join in and start singing, The Wild One.
This is commercially inspired advertising, marketing from a clothing company, with this season’s message to women.
Here’s another old picture, from the archives of Feminism.
If you watched the video clip, then you’re looking at 3 snapshots about 50 years apart that span the last century.
When it comes to the battle of the sexes, combat fatigues can be a serious business. If you are old enough to remember back last century when women wore dresses and skirts only, you might also remember the roaring national debate in conservative New Zealand as to whether women should wear this new thing called trouser suits. The issue briefly surfaced again when Helen Clark as our new prime minister wore trousers to her first meeting with the Queen.
Is there a bigger message, a more threatening message in this latest take on the clothing issues that cross the genders?
There’s more to this than meets the eye, so help me out here, what’s going on in this latest round of daily battle dress?
Adding in this last picture in relation to the discussion in comments 4 an 5.
It’s said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But the goal of feminists has long been to muscle in on every male domain they see as desirable.
The woman is a model.
But the face she’s wearing is the wrong attitude for the picture.
Cover up the rest of the photo and look at her face in isolation and you’ll see what I’m getting at.
Starting to get some other ideas now.
It’s like the Richie McCaw haka walk with a bunch of sloths for a team.
Or is the model just doing the wrong pose for a suit?
But the muscle in! I don’t think feminists muscle. Guilt trips, shaming, dirty tactics, you can tell the girls that own their credentials.
We need a new word here. Fooscle in perhaps? Especially for these feminist wannabes.
Foo has a suitable history.
Fooscle: verb, noun, adjective. We claim the whole caboodle You saw it here first.
I thought it best to get a woman’s opinion so I asked Wellington artist;
The only thing wrong is our gender biases and the meaning we give to attire. So she wears a suit, np, but in our view it has the implication that she has to wear the suit to be in the same team as the big boys, by their stance, the suit is a symbol of power. I’d much rather see this image [Oscars man in a dress] of men dressed as women with her dressed as our definition of womanly attire to show equality than the other way around
So, I should take from that?
Women should have their own power suits but if men want to be girls they’re welcome to feminise themselves.
Yes, I think we’re all human and equal. Attire is just costume and we should be able to dress the way we want. The fact that we associate meaning to how one dresses has everything to do with our history and baggage we carry. 🙂
Thanks for that, in terms of clothes.
What’s wrong with the actual picture. Especially the models expression when you look at it in isolation?
I see it as an image of a female at the forefront with a predatory look to show that she is leader? I don’t know…what do you think? What do you see?
That’s what I’m thinking too a seductive look rather than a business look. So does this image portray getting you a man rather than suggest success in the business world – would a woman get that message?
I don’t know as immediately I saw it as a construct to manipulate. I don’t see it as a way of getting a partner nor success in the business world.I just see it as an image construct meant to show that women can be at forefront but fails because of the need to portray her as sexy.
And this from one of our ‘impoverished’ cheap-skirt writers;
Men wearing dresses/women wearing suits to the Oscars doesn’t bother me. An awards ceremony is a spectacle, where the actors are advertising themselves, & their movies. Re Hallenstines, I bet their suits are a 100x cheaper than at a women’s clothing shop. Heading there now.
Don’t shop Hallensteins.
I am so sick of Women being pushed in my face, this is tooo muchhhhhh, screw em.
Cars, houses,bank loans, you name it, advertising is pushing through with women and alternative peoples and ways of life taking the place of the family unit.
Where is the family, are we no more, oh thats right TORN APART!!!!
@6 So, should we assume that the model has difficulty in portraying herself in any other way other than sexy?
And I thinking about this from the point of view of sexual harassment complaints.
This from Cecile Meier.
The ad, promoting “The Power of the Suit” (a power obviously reserved to men exclusively, as well as the right to have pockets and walk the streets free from sexual harassment) has Evans wearing a men’s tailored skinny fit suit in the photo-shoot.
Fire outside Hallensteins on Auckland’s Queen St,,, I wonder.
@10 I think even Feminists would back you on that one.
A men’s clothing store marketing its woke awareness without realizing the current trend is virtue signaling and the rise of the divine idol.
You can understand the Oscar man being flavor of the day with them.