Cynthia Nixon’s Viral Video Duplicates the Male Gaze it Advocates Against
Why Cynthia Nixon’s viral video, Be A Lady They Said, is a perfect example of a circular message with no point but shocking the audience, and how a feminist message can be more effective
Cynthia Nixon, the former Sex and the City actor and current feminist activist, is reading Camile Rainville’s blog post called “Be a Lady They Said” in a video advertising the new Girls Girls Girls magazine. The video became popular almost instantly. It presents Nixon, with full make-up and a fashionable outfit, looking straight at the camera and reciting the blog post, while the screen is filled with a sequence of images of models in fashion shots that resemble the male gaze: objectifying them and highlighting their sexuality.
The blog post is beautiful. It gives an impressive list of social and cultural rules that women need to follow in a patriarchal society that worships beauty, fashion, and slim figures. The poem acts as a critical and even cynical voice calling out the impossible demands on women in a patriarchal society. For example:
“Don’t be too fat. Don’t be too thin. Don’t be too large. Don’t be too small. Eat up. Slim down. Stop eating so much. Don’t eat too fast. Order a salad. Don’t eat carbs. Skip dessert. You need to lose weight. Fit into that dress. Go on a diet. Watch what you eat. Eat celery. Chew gum. Drink lots of water. You have to fit into those jeans. God, you look like a skeleton. Why don’t you just eat?”
Nixon’s video has two levels of content: audio and visual. On the audio level, the actress is reciting the blog post. On the visual level, we are bombarded with a stock of images, presenting beautiful models in sexual, seductive positions: some are naked, and some are wearing exaggerated make-up. In between, we see ridiculing images of men, cynically justifying the rules Nixon recites.
Psychological research has repeatedly shown that people are more receptive to clear visual images than audio. For example, researchers at the University of Iowa have found that when it comes to memory, we don’t remember things we hear nearly as well as things we see or touch. There are numerous indications that visuals are more effective in education and communication than aural messages.
In this sense, the video is promoting the very messages it advocates against. When it presents blunt pictures of women’s exploitation by the same rules the poem highlights, the video attracts our attention to the models’ fragility and exploitation, resembling the classic male gaze. The video is not, however, communicating any actual message of strength or support. The models are delicate and weak, dressed and designed to look like mechanized dolls.
When the verbal message is the antagonistic patriarchal rules imposed on women and the video shows them directly, the outcome is a circular and redundant composition of negativity, enforced by the sharp visual images. The video exposes women to demeaning pictures of other women to make the point that patriarchal society demeans women.
What is the point of this video? I assume it is to remind women that patriarchal society expects them to adhere to its expectations and shape their bodies and souls accordingly. Yet, in reproducing the outcomes of these rules through highlighting pictures of fragile and exploited models, it seems pointless. By the end of the video, we are left with a series of sexual and sometimes violent images of women subordinated to the male gaze.
This is the simulacrum, an image without a substance or original, imitating reality. By focusing on the abstract notion of patriarchy’s rules for women, Nixon is saying nothing about Girls Girls Girls, the magazine she is advertising. The video focuses on creating an identity for a product. This identity means everything to women, but it says almost nothing of substance about the product behind the feminist branding. This is also a questionable move when empowering women not to settle for the obvious.
Cynthia Nixon is the sender in this video, carrying the voice of women. As she is reciting the feminist text, she is wearing full-makeup in a heroin-chic style, echoing the same fashionable and fragile look the models show in the clips.
In the name of feminism, she is advertising the same industry that created the male gaze and put women on the pedestal, to begin with, focusing on their visuality and attractiveness, instead of shifting the focus away from the strict rules of fashion, body shaming, and beauty. Thus, she is sending a contradicting circular message: advocating against the practices of the beauty industry while promoting the industry itself.
What is the main goal here? If it is to shock the viewers, the video is a success. The video went viral in a few days. Yet, along with the critical poem, the viral video spread the demeaning pictures as well, exploiting women’s bodies to deliver its commercial goal. Nixon may have wanted to say something meaningful about the representation of women in culture, but her message merely reproduces the culture she is advocating against. The critical and cynical blog post does not gain strength from the degrading pictures. They undermine its originality and irony.
Telling a story of social change is a different craft than advertising for the beauty industry. Social change and activism require storytelling that is tailored to a more complicated message that has meaning and calls for action. These messages can unite different audiences and can last longer.
Could this message be done differently? Yes. Preferably by adding a positive content that explains how to change this pattern of patriarchal demands. What can women do? How can they stand strong against the flow of demands? They can offer a path of unity and solidarity, with more diversity of color, body shapes, and types of beauty. A more powerful feminist message would provide more substance and actual content that extends beyond the list of rules, that women can carry with them. A more inclusive and compelling message would go beyond the ‘against’ the standard narrative.
Nixon’s video emphasizes what is wrong about patriarchy, but it does not say anything more than that. It does not unify women, nor does it present them in a dignified way. It offers neither consolation nor a path to a solution for women. All the women in the video, including Nixon, seem to be orchestrated by the same rules of patriarchy the video is arguing against. And that is the circle that neither Nixon nor the audience can exit. Back to square one.
