top of page
faces.jpg

Hot Feminism: A Contradiction in Terms?

An increasingly debated question in contemporary gender politics involves whether a feminist, occupied with female liberation from ongoing patriarchal oppression, can be simultaneously interested in their outward attractiveness. This essay is concerned with the exploration of this coexistence debate and in arguing that the concept of a ‘hot feminist’, particularly as it is outlined in Polly Vernon’s 2015 book of the same name, is in fact a contradiction in terms. I will be attempting to outline multiple, distinct contradictions with the ‘hot’ feminism form including its fundamental incorrectness in promising empowerment, its tendency to promote and encourage faux feminism (including femvertising), as well as its inherent exclusivity. Finally, I will argue for a distinctly more helpful solution to the issue of ‘hot feminism’, in the moving away from a preoccupation with palatable appearance and ‘towards the ugly’ (Mingus, 2011). 

 

An explicit contradiction with self-proclaimed feminists conforming to heteronormative beauty standards is that the arbiters of sexual attractiveness are men, rather than women. If a woman wants to be perceived as attractive, she often conforms to these male-orchestrated standards and consequently, what she wants/enjoys becomes what he wants/enjoys (Lintott and Irvin, 2016). These beauty standards are perpetuated through mass media that relies on stereotypical female representation for monetary gain. Cosmetic and fashion advertising, particularly, preys on this feminine insecurity through constructing female representation that appeals to the ‘male gaze’ (Mulvey, 1975). The ‘male gaze’ is the result of an assumed male, heterosexual audience and is when producers format their female representation to pleasure male viewers, doing so through the over-sexualisation, objectification and fragmentation of the female body. An infamous example of this concept involves the ‘Tomb Raider’ game and film franchise. Protagonist Lara Croft is consistently depicted in skimpy clothing, with a large chest and subtle make-up, all things that would render themselves completely impractical in physical missions. The character has been solely constructed to appeal to a largely male audience, with no regard for authentic, female representation. Game developer Adrian Smith (Steinberg, 2000) even admitted that their construction of Lara renders her ‘frail… someone you’ll want to protect and nurture’, juxtaposing the assumed capabilities of an action video game protagonist. In turn, the producers are solely attracting a male audience with an inherent, backward need to ‘protect’ women.

 

As a phenomenon entrenched in our society, women are raised to view male gaze-orientated representation as desirable due to its ability to pleasure a male audience and, in turn, gravitate towards products that can help them achieve this. Therefore, fashion companies like ‘Dolce & Gabbana’ and ‘Saint Laurent’ overly sexualise their marketing to appeal to the male gaze even when they are attempting to attract a female audience. In turn, women who continue to financially support the exploitative, patriarchal beauty/fashion industries, and engage in its ideas of ideal beauty standards, surrender their autonomy. As such, they are acting in direct opposition to the fundamental ideas behind feminism, contradicting the primary objective of freeing women from male-orchestrated constraints. In turn, certain women have adopted the view that women who express an interest in their appearance would be ‘too feminine to be a feminist’ (Lynch, 2018, pg.22). Furthermore, that ‘women of substance, politically conscious, world-changing women worth paying attention to were above the frivolities of feminine indulgences’ (Lynch, 2018, pg.22). 

 

There are two issues with the acknowledgment of this primary contradiction; two issues that do not undermine its existence but are worth noting to not harm the women who they involve. Initially, there is a risk that women who do adhere to heteronormative beauty standards will be ignored when speaking out about feminist issues. This is why ‘conventionally’-attractive celebrities like Megan Fox are often discounted by the public when they speak out against sexism in Hollywood. In 2009, on Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show, Fox discussed the predatory treatment she endured from director, Michael Bay, on the set of ‘Bad Boys II’: ‘they were shooting this club scene and they brought me in and I was wearing a stars and stripes bikini and a red cowboy hat and six-inch heels’. Fox, fifteen at the time, was then instructed by Bay to dance ‘underneath a waterfall getting soaking wet’. These incredibly clear condemnations of Bay’s sexist and predatory directing approaches, before the #metoo movement, were ignored by the public because, as Fox hypothesises, of how the actress ‘looked’ and ‘dressed’ (Lothian-Mclean, 2020). Clearly, Fox experienced some extremely predatory, sexist behaviour at the hands of Michael Bay but was ignored, meaning many more girls were endangered. Consequently, I would argue that these ‘hot feminists’, while partaking in contradictory behaviour, should not be completely discounted in their feminist work. However, I also believe that these women should not be used as the posterchildren for feminism, either. 

 

The other issue with the primary contradiction in ‘hot feminism’ involves women who utilise heteronormative beauty standards to achieve personal gain. For instance, Fox herself has modelled countless times during her successful career, including for brands like ‘Armani’ and ‘Frederick’s of Hollywood’. Likewise, infamous British band ‘Little Mix’ continually dress in ‘sexy’ clothing (latex, lingerie) while performing, particularly in their 2017 music video for ‘Touch’. In these cases, the women are offering up themselves, and their female bodies, to be looked at (specifically by men), but are doing so to exploit the system intended to oppress them. Consequently, they become a ‘strategic player in a complex social and evolutionary game’ (Boyd, 2018). Little Mix’s ‘Touch’ music video has over three and a half million views, which undeniably resulted in high monetary gain for the girls. As Boyd (2018) argues, ‘sexy’ women aren’t the creators behind the patriarchal system but are benefitting from it, a rhetoric that can be observed in defences for sex workers, too. Again, I would argue that such women should not be shamed for their appealing to ‘sexiness’ in an attempt maximise their lot in life, as the opposite is obviously not as attractive. It is no secret that more conventionally attractive people are treated better by the public; Irvin (2017) speaks of how, empirically, unattractive children receive less affection/nurturing, unattractive job applicants are less likely to be hired and unattractive criminal defendants are judged more harshly than attractive ones. Clearly, body oppression and lookism are issues at risk for those who do not adhere to beauty standards, avoiding them is understandable. However, this idea does not discount the contradiction entirely, and hot feminism still incurs many more damaging contradictions that cannot be defended in such ways. 

 

Many self-identifying feminists who engage with sexiness believe that an indulgence in one’s looks can be empowering and not contradictory of equality ideals. Polly Vernon, a British journalist, is an advocate of this argument and pushes it in her 2015 book, aptly titled ‘Hot Feminist’. A ‘hot feminist’, as Vernon (2015, pg.2) defines it, is ‘one who cares greatly about the way she looks and greatly about the rights of women, feels that neither is compromised by the other and would indeed go as far as to say each redefines the other’. In other words, or Vernon’s herself, a ‘hot feminist’ equates to a ‘looks-obsessed feminist’ (pg.6) whose interest in ‘physical allure’ (pg.14), ‘belts’ (pg.3) and ‘lipstick’ (pg.3) does not impede their ideals.

 

A detrimental contradiction with Vernon’s account of ‘hot feminism’ is the failure to apply any critical thinking when claiming that women can be interested in their appearance inherently and that conforming to beauty standards (waxing, wearing of make-up, dieting) is done solely for the woman herself. This is a comforting idea, and one argued by many women, including Refinery29’s Erika Stalder (2020). Stalder, while encouraging women to wear make-up even when working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic, argues that the idea of women wearing make-up for men is a concept fully ‘retired’. However, women who employ this line of thinking are completely ignoring that it is not inherent to want to appear ‘pretty’ or feel better about oneself with make-up on. Instead, patriarchal influence has enforced the idea that men will like a female’s appearance more if they wear make-up, or partake in other beauty rituals, and this has become a habitual desire to adhere to this.  As such, even if women feel as if they are conforming to beauty for themselves, and therefore attempting to disprove a contradiction between hotness and feminism, they are still conforming to the pressure of the patriarchy and going against fundamental, feminist ideas.

 

As Vernon clamours to push her ‘sloppy self-help’ (Lewis, 2015) form of ‘feminism’, she is promoting an unhelpful, ‘faux’ (Martell, 2019) form. The author encourages the reader to create their own personal brand of feminism, engaging with the movement however they wish. This could even, for Vernon, involve encouraging catcalls, spending ‘5 percent’ (pg.3) of your waking life waxing body hair, or not caring about female representation on TV panel shows (a statement clearly in reaction to the BBC’s 2014 rule to inhibit all male line-ups on programmes like ‘QI’ and ‘Mock the Week’). In doing so, Vernon blatantly ignores the fundamental objectives of the movement, to incur change, as well as the idea that for a revolution to progress, it must do more than ‘validate your existing life choices’ (Lewis, 2015). Hot feminism simply encourages women to carry on acting the way they have been, like engaging in interest with their appearance, but does not encourage them to do anything to achieve female liberation. In fact, Vernon does no more than to mention real feminist issues like rape, the gender pay gap, and abortion than with a ‘bad things happening is bad’ (Lewis, 2015) attitude. As such, Vernon is formatting feminism as a noun, rather than a verb (as it is). One cannot be a feminist, as Vernon’s ‘hot feminist’ guide suggests, by just caring about their appearance. Feminism requires action and therefore, Vernon’s ideas seem contradictory to the movement’s very purpose.

 

Vernon admits ‘hot feminism’ is in reaction to what she believes to be the overly ‘judgmental’ form of feminism in our contemporary culture, arguing that it is no longer just men telling women what to do, but now other women. These ‘women’ are also condemned by Vernon for encouraging women to abandon things they enjoy, particularly liking men. Consequently, Vernon argues that herself, and countless other women, are beginning to develop ‘feminist fatigue’ (pg.17). Vernon’s condemnation of this progression inadvertently promotes harmful stereotypes surrounding feminists, suggesting that they are all male-hating, bossy and overly pushy. This stereotype is commonly observable in the modern media landscape including in the NBC sitcom, ‘Community’ (2009-2015). Character Britta Perry, played by Gillian Jacobs, is a self-proclaimed ‘activist’ and ‘feminist’, views that are continually used as bits or jokes in the programme. Perry is not incredibly successful with men, viewed by others in the ensemble as a ‘party-pooper’ and continually referred to as a ‘lesbian’. Vernon’s perpetuation of this misleading stereotype, in conjunction with its prominence in female media representation, presents the feminist community as a toxic environment, and one that will detrimentally harm the image of those who label themselves as such. This is potentially why, as Scharff (2019) reports for the BBC, ‘fewer than one in five young women would call themselves a feminist’. As such, Vernon’s condemnation of other forms of feminism, in support of her own ‘hot feminism’, can be seen to contribute to an issue affecting the movement as whole, and contradict any progress she, or other feminists, are attempting to make.

 

The encouragement of ‘hot feminism’ is the encouragement of appearing progressive, or attempting to appear progressive, rather than being authentically progressive. The allowance of this behaviour can lead to issues of ‘femvertising’, a phenomenon defined by Martell (2019) as when a company presents an ‘illusion of progress’ by utilising feminist aesthetics/themes in their marketing, while the company itself does not reflect the mantras of gender equality (i.e., face sexism lawsuits or possess all-male executive teams). If the company does reflect equality in their business, their marketing would not be considered performative. Katie Martell, owner of ‘fauxfeminism.com’, argues for the utilisation of her ‘litmus test’ to determine whether a company’s feminism is authentic or exploitative. The test involves a plethora of questions to determine the state of a company’s equality, including ‘does the company employ inclusive hiring practices?’, ‘are women represented on the C-suite, executive team, and the board of the company?’, ‘have they stopped objectifying women in all marketing?’ and ‘is there a strong family leave program in place at the company?’. If a company fails to fulfil the litmus test questions, their marketing is an example of ‘femvertising’. For instance, in Spring 2018, ‘low-fat’ food company ‘Lean Cuisine’ launched their campaign ‘#ITALL’, centring around women being encouraged to strive for ‘all’ the goals they have, including a prosperous career, happy family and financial stability. The reach for feminism is clear, ‘Lean Cuisine’ is clearly trying to subvert ideas of the restrictions on women’s lives, but the advert was received incredibly badly online, with user @RageMichelle (2018) arguing that ‘Having #itall as a woman would be if no one asked women to “have it all”. Does anyone ask men to have it all? No. No, they do not.’. Clearly, in trying to empower women, the company is pushing the damaging, mythical concept of the woman who can do ‘it all’, including being skinny with the use of their diet food! Furthermore, even if their message had not been fundamentally flawed, ‘Lean Cuisine’ fails the litmus test, and is therefore contradicting the ideas of feminism, by having an executive board that is 91% male and continuing to prey on women’s image insecurities through their products. 

 

The final, upsetting contradiction in Vernon’s notion of ‘hot feminism’ is its complete disregard for intersectionality; the concept of ‘hot’ in our contemporary culture is far too narrow to ever include all women and would therefore never be inclusive enough to ever benefit feminism, anyway. As Lintott and Irvin (2016) outline in their article ‘Sex Objects and Sexy Subjects’, the concept of sexiness can not only be criticised due to male arbiters, but also because the restrictions are too narrow to allow disabled, elderly, pregnant and non-white women (plus many other female minorities) to ever be considered ‘hot’ in the mainstream. For instance, as Lemish and Muhlbauer (2012) argue, as women age, they become invisible in media representation, making up only one-third of roles for older adults. This is due to the rhetoric that after older women go through menopause, they lose an inherent part of their feminine identity and, in turn, become sexually invisible. Hence, media texts with romantic plots/subplots rarely depict older women as desirable, while older men are continually presented in romantic films, often with far younger women. In ‘Entrapment’ (1999) there was a thirty-nine-year difference between Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones, in ‘Lost in Translation’ (2003) there was a thirty-four-year gap between Billy Murray and Scarlett Johansson and in ‘Magic in the Moonlight’ (2014) there was a twenty-eight-year difference between Colin Firth and Emma Stone. Contrastingly, American actress Maggie Gyllenhaal, in one instance, was deemed ‘too old’ at the age of thirty-seven to play the love interest of a fifty-five-year-old man; an age gap of eighteen years deemed too small. Clearly, in a genre that requires desirable leads to entice an audience and produce believable chemistry, older women are not considered ‘hot’ or ‘sexy’ enough to qualify in mainstream media, a direct effect of the inclusive beauty standards that ‘hot feminism’ upholds. Vernon’s ‘feminist’ mantras are far too exclusive as they play into the pre-existing ‘clique’ of hot; encouraging the continuation of the pursuit of beauty, and little else, does nothing but benefit those already considered attractive in the mainstream. Feminism already is not inclusive enough, ‘mostly reflecting the interests of white, middle-class, ambitious women’ (Urwin, 2015), and Vernon only perpetuates this. As such, it is contradictory for a feminist, who should be concerned with the liberation from patriarchal oppression for all women, to support a movement that perpetuates non-intersectional beauty and excludes large sections of the female population.

 

The contradictions between sexiness and feminist objectives are too detrimental for the coexistence of the two. Women cannot continue to conform to male-orchestrated beauty standards that pose too many risks and are too exclusive to benefit most of the female population. Instead, women should abandon patriarchal notions and move ‘towards the ugly’ (Mingus, 2011). In an environment where ‘ugly’s’ stigma is dismantled, the movement towards a complete abandonment of beauty would bring about an increasing amount of change for all women. Furthermore, an abandonment of beauty would incur a radical and transformational performance of gender, something Mingus (2011) argues will result in the prime feminist objective: radical and transformational gender relations. Arguably, if we continue to run from ugliness (i.e., continue preening and pampering), we continue to give power to the patriarchy and take it away from women not considered ‘hot’. Ugly bodies, as Mingus argues, are magnificent and are such that they ‘disrupt, dismantle, disturb, and are ready to ‘create a different way for all of us, not just some of us’, something not achieved by hot feminism.

 

Lintott and Irvin (2016) argue for the redefining of beauty over the abandonment of it, believing that a basic element of selfhood is to be on the receiving end of a sexual gaze. To be stripped of this gaze is to be ‘rendered sexually invisible’ and ‘have your full personhood denied’ (Cahill, 2011, pg.84). They continue to state that sexiness should be redefined as bodies infused with an authentic sexual expression (Lintott and Irvin. 2016). However, their notion of beauty still excludes groups of people including women too insecure to own their sexuality and the arbiters, again, being external. As such, the abandonment of beauty (something that has always been ‘hurled at us as a weapon’ (Mingus, 2011)), while radical, seems like the sound method of liberation. The reformatting focuses on and values the progressive actions facilitated by women’s bodies, a state that all women can achieve regardless of their identity.

 

I conclude that the concept of a ‘hot feminist’ is in fact a contradiction in terms. Not only does the feminism form involve the basic contradiction between desiring female liberation but following male-orchestrated rules, it also incurs issues surrounding the promotion of ‘faux’ feminism. Most detrimentally, ‘hot feminism’ (particularly as author Polly Vernon promotes it) is inherently non inclusive and, while attempting to promote a more ‘liberal’, relaxed form, promotes a mindset that incurs no radical change, as feminism is intended to do. It also excludes a large portion of the female population, which contemporary, intersectional feminism should strive to avoid. As such, I propose the following of Mingus’ (2011) ideas and the movement into ‘ugliness and magnificence’. A reformat would result in women no longer pushing power into the patriarchy through following their beauty rules, as well as feminists no longer promoting ideas of ‘faux’ feminism due to actually radicalising their actions to achieve change. Finally, and most attractively, the movement would no longer exclude a large proportion of women from any progression achieved, an end that all intersectional feminists should be striving for.

 


Bibliography: 
 

  • Black, A., Buller, L., Hoyle, E. and Todd, M. (2019) Feminism is.... GB: Dorling Kindersley Ltd. 


 

 

  • Cahill, A (2011). ‘Overcoming Objectification: A Carnal Ethics’. New York: Routledge.


 

  • Community (2009-2015) NBC. [Netflix] (Accessed: 01/05/2021).


 

  • Entrapment (1999) Directed by Jon Amiel [Feature film]. US: 20th Century Fox.


 

 

  • Irvin S. (2017) 'Resisting Body Oppression: An Aesthetic Approach.' Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 3, (4). Article 3.


 

  • Lemish, D and Muhlbauer, V. (2012) 'Can't Have it All': Representations of Older Women in Popular Culture, Women & Therapy, 35:3-4, 165-180, DOI: 10.1080/02703149.2012.684541


 


 

  • Lintott, S. and Irvin, S. (2016) 'Sex Objects and Sexy Subjects', in Irvin, S. (ed.) Body Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 


 

  • Lost in Translation (2003) Directed by Sofia Coppola [Feature film]. US: Focus Features.


 


 

  • Lynch, E. (2018) 'Cat Woman', in Curtis, S. (ed.) Feminists Don't Wear Pink and Other Lies. London, UK: Penguin, 16-31.


 

  • Magic in the Moonlight (2014) Directed by Woody Allen [Feature film]. US: Sony Pictures Classics.


 


 

  • Mingus, M. (2011) Moving Toward the Ugly: A Politic Beyond Desirability [Speech]. Femmes Of Color Symposium, Oakland, CA. 21 August.


 

  • Mulvey, L. (1975) 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema', Screen. 16 (3): 6–18.


 


 


 

 


 

 

  • Vernon, P. (2015) Hot Feminist. GB: Hodder & Stoughton.

bottom of page