What does it mean to “remake” a woman?

Remaking a woman, a theme central to many films (Cinderella, Pretty Woman, My Fair Lady, etc) reinforces the stereotypes and genuine beliefs—of both men and women—that women are objects to be used for entertainment and pleasure, they are airheads, they are obedient, and their worth is measured by their appearance. A woman is not the sole beneficiary when she is “remade”; the male who transforms her also enjoys the benefits of this change, and he is usually the one who initiates the remodeling. This encourages the sentiment that women are objects meant to be altered to improve certain qualities (usually for entertainment or sexual purposes) for men. Rarely are women remade for their own benefit, and rarely are they shown discouraging this transformation; they always seem to be incredibly pleased with these changes and are forever indebted to their benefactors. They are especially grateful, it seems, because they couldn’t possibly have figured out how to recreate themselves on their own (if it’s even necessary); they have no opinions and are lost without the guidance and advice of a man. This breeds a strong reliance on men, which in turn highlights the notion that women are malleable and docile, vulnerable to the changes a man thinks essential to implement.
Usually the process of “remaking” involves changes in the appearance of the woman, coupled with an increase in her status or opulence. Emphasis on increased beauty and wealth promotes the idea that looks are indicative of worth, hence, ugly women are worthless and poor women are worthless. Consider the reality TV show “The Swan,” in which women who are considered “ugly ducklings” undergo a three-month intensive transformation in which they are plucked, squeezed, and redressed by a team consisting of a coach, therapist, trainer, cosmetic surgeon, dentist and stylist. The final results are revealed when all the women participate in a pageant show in which one of the many women is crowned the “ultimate swan”. Not once is their former self valued. Gross. These women are portrayed as ugly, unhappy people before they have a series of plastic surgery operations, but after they spend months working on the ultimate renewal, they are suddenly beautiful, happy, and confident women. What sort of message is this sending to the general public? I think it forces us to think that in order to be happy, we must be beautiful, and in order to be beautiful, you must have money to pay for multiple therapies that will recreate the way you look. Personality and intelligence are not factors considered in what makes a woman beautiful. Women are to have white shiny teeth, perky boobs, curvaceous hips (but not too curvy), a fit body, and radiating confidence; if they do not, their worth plummets.

Connell Reflection

The world is “gender polarized,” but it doesn’t have to be. So says R. W. Connell, who brilliantly brings attention to the multiple and constraining dichotomies that force us to concentrate on sharp distinctions between men and women, especially biological differences. Phrases like, “the opposite sex” encourage us to think that there are only two types of bodies, and therefore only two types of people. We are apt to think that because of our biological differences, men are stronger, women are weaker; men are aggressive, women are passive; men study science, women are intuitive, etc. Connell argues that physical differences between the sexes are more subtle than we think; but Western culture has done a damn good job amplifying these varying characteristics, which helped lead to the establishment of a patriarchical society, since male characteristics were deemed worthy of leadership apparently.
Even with the emergence of the word “gender”—which attempted to provide a new vocabulary to differentiate between male and female humans (biology) and masculinity and femininity (gender)—we are still encouraged to use our bodies to demonstrate our gender identity. We “present and decorate” ourselves through the way we dress and modify our bodies. For example, women shave their legs, men take steroids to beef up, women get breast implants and men get calf implants. I think it’s our responsibility to challenge these expectations, which takes a lot of guts. Our outside appearance—whether we like it or not; whether we are conscious of it or not—sends a message to the public about who we are. I am not suggesting that, in order to combat this required presentation of ourselves, we should completely stop dressing the way we do; that wouldn’t solve very much. You can’t tell girls to rid their wardrobes of dresses because they emphasize the female physique too much and feminize women more than necessary; but it would be nice if men could wear dresses too without being gawked at. After all, dresses are comfortable and fun to wear! If we could slowly integrate an androgynous attitude toward clothing into our society, or at least reduce the pressure to look a certain way, then maybe the emphasis on appearance as a prevailing indicator of gender would be less prominent and more focused on expression and comfort.