When buying magazines I am usually lured by the catchy titles of articles on the front cover that advertise the best outfits and hairdo’s, how to please your boyfriend, and the secrets to staying fit. I usually buy Cosmopolitan most of the time, but this time I decided to buy a new magazine that I had never heard of called “Complete Woman” because it had one of my favorite celebrities on the front cover, Kim Kardashian, and it also had interesting articles. I came upon on particular article that caught my attention which was an interview with Patti Stanger from the Millionaire Matchmaker TV show on Bravo. My housemates and I are huge fans of this show and can watch it for hours, but after taking this Intro to Women’s Studies course it got me to see the show on a different lens. This show is about this woman named Patti who has millionaires pay to join her matchmaking club and in return she introduces them to attractive women that fulfill most of the qualities that they want in a woman. She has a high success rate thus she is known for her great matchmaking skills. She has very few women in her club, which she refers to as “millionairesses,” but she mostly caters to men.
In the “Complete Woman” magazine there is an interview with Patti called “Matchmaker, Matchmaker Make me a Match (And a Fortune!).” In a sense this show basically objectifies women because it makes them seem like full-package dolls for men. Patti has her assistants go out to find women that have that “complete package”: beautiful, sweet, and intelligent. According to Patti, most millionaire’s want “a Madonna in the bedroom, Martha Stewart in the kitchen, and Mary Poppins in the nursery” and Patti does her best to fulfill such requests thus perpetuating the patriarchal ideals upon these women. When watching the show I was appalled to see how harsh Patti was with some of the women because of the way they dressed. She suggested that they wear more fitted clothes and show more skin, thus making the women seem more like objects by having them emphasis their physical assetts and practically serving them on a platter to the millionaire men. She is promoting the idea that women have to change their physical appearance in order to please men. One may doubt whether the basis of her matchmaking is based on superficial interests rather than love because she advises the women to look at the men”s attire when looking for a millionaire and if their shoes are not expensive or are not well dressed then they should not bother talking to them. I would think that those millionaire’s that wear the less expensive shoes are more genuine and less cocky than those that are only interested in women for their looks.
One problem that I had with this show is that Patti hardly chose or brought any women of color as possible candidates for the millionaires. What does this say about race and class? Most of the men that joined her club were while wealthy male’s, thus it leads me to ask whether women of color were less appealing to them because Patti never brought them as an option. Patti wanted to choose classy, educated, and beautiful women for the bachelor’s, yet there are many women of color today that fulfill these traits. She is promoting the perpetual image in society that praises europeanized features. For example, a couple of days ago I saw one of her episodes and she turned away a white woman who had beautiful big curly hair and told her to come back next time when she had her hair straight. She promotes the image of the all white American girl with the fabulous body and straight hair. Patti herself is a thick woman with curves and I think that it is unbelievable that she has yet to introduce any black women to the bachelors. In the book Enlightened Sexism by Susan Douglass, in the “You Go, Girl” chapter, black women show the different types of stereotypes that black women fall under such as being outspoken, loud, and overly sexualized. Stereotypes usually remain ingrained in society, thus many that are not familiar with women of color choose to stay away from the unknown which is probably why many millionaire’s do not go for strong outspoken women, and may not appreciate the curves. Patti instead perpetuates the submissive type and the objectification of women by men in society because she advises the women in her interview by saying that “He (the millionaire) must always be the leader....You want him to make the dates, arrange reservations, pick you up and take you out. He’s in charge and you’re along for the ride so you just need to smile, look good, smell nice, sit back and relax because all he wants is your company.” This goes on to further the objectification of women because she encourages these women to just sit there like barbie dolls and provide entertainment for these men. Patti herself is not the submissive type and is very outspoken, thus why should she contribute to this patriarchal oppression. Unfortunately Patti is faced with the difficult situation in which she has to please the men because she has to cater to their interests in order to find them their type of girl that would be an ideal match for them. It is ironic that this sexist interview with Patti would be in this magazine called “Complete Women” because it is not promoting a good image of women and instead emphasizes the patriarchal ideals in which women please men and paints women in a negative light by making them look like gold-diggers by when advising them to always go for the guy with the expensive shoes. It is shows like the Millionaire Matchmaker that is stomping the progress of women in today’s society because they see that it is the blond air-heads that are able to catch the successful men. Are we retrogressing in our feminist advances in society?
Work Cited
Susan J. Douglass, Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work is Done, 1st edition, Times Books.
Complete Woman Magazine. October/November 2010 edition. “Matchmaker, Matchmaker Make Me a Match (And a Frotune!) by Stephanie Lauritzen, pp. 37-39.
No comments:
Post a Comment