Does Beauvoir Define Male Gaze To Success Or Failure?

Beauvoir claims in her The Second Sex that fashion has two main functions; “to show the woman’s social standing . . . but at the same time it concretizes feminine narcissism” (649). She is right that it shows a social standing, meaning that it reflects the wealth and the socio-economic class someone belongs to. She continues, “the woman who suffers from not doing anything thinks she is expressing her being through her dress . . . she thus believes that she is choosing and recreating her own self” (649-50). So, Beauvoir states that women who are housewives, purport to express themselves and who they are through their fashion, and fail because this is just an illusion. In this essay I will argue that Beauvoir does describe the later defined male gaze, in which women are partially dressing

Beauvoir is partially right in her statement that women’s fashion is used to desire men, however, not obeying to this sexualization does not mean a rejection of fashion. She suggests that fashion is solely used for the male gaze, and is used to further sexualize women. Beauvoir comprehensively explains how fashion and the way women dress is solely to please the male, “the goal of fashion to which [the woman] is thrall is . . . to offer her as a prey to male desires (650). She also proves this theory by explaining how elderly women, feeling no pressure to seduce males anymore, experience more fun in their fashion, just like little girls do. Even though her argument suggests that women cannot dress to please and have fun themselves, which is not true as I will explain later in this essay, she is right in the sense that the male gaze enforces sexualization when it is up to the male only. However, this does not have to be the