Who convinced Henar Álvarez that the tie is not masculine?

On Tuesday, June 2, the presenter of the TVE program Al cielo con ella, Henar Álvarez, starred in an unusual scene that soon went viral. During her usual opening monologue, she complained that not a week goes by without some viewer asking her why she presents the program "dressed as a man". The question is not anecdotal.

Since she took charge of the show, Álvarez has made the tailored suit and tie one of her main aesthetic trademarks. "Excuse me? For wearing a suit and tie? Honey, wearing a suit doesn't make me a man," she replied to the camera. And after lamenting that women continue to be judged by their appearance, she added: "I thought that the idea of fashion having a gender was something already overcome." Tired of the comments, she announced that, from that moment on, she would present the program naked so that no one would focus on her clothes but on what she said. Immediately after, she simulated undressing completely in front of the audience.

Let it be clear from the outset that I share, without reservation, your indignation at the sexist pressure that society continues to exert on women's bodies and appearances. However, I disagree with both the strategy used by Álvarez to combat it and, above all, with the diagnosis. Because there are few things more frustrating than seeing a legitimate and shared demand sustained by inconsistent arguments and resources typical of easy click logic. But let's take it step by step.

At this point in the game, I think we can accept without regret that gender is one of the great determinants of clothing and that traditional masculinity and femininity find in clothing a privileged tool for reproduction. How can it be that Henar Álvarez, especially experienced in the feminist struggle, has never asked herself why, when entering any large store, the men's section remains separate from the women's? It is also not difficult to conclude that the suit represents a certain conservative masculinity that has dressed men and power for more than two centuries. Denying it does not make sexism or inequality disappear, it simply reveals a surprising blindness to the evidence. From feminism, we cannot participate in the innocence of children who believe that if they cover their eyes, they will no longer be seen.

One of the strengths of any struggle is to be fully aware of the symbols that have legitimized and structured inequality in order to, from there, appropriate them without needing to ask permission and deactivate them. In this regard, presenter Marc Giró has openly positioned himself on the use he himself makes of the tailored suit. Aware of the power space this attire occupies, he uses it as a Trojan horse that allows him to infiltrate spheres where a queer identity would hardly be heard. Álvarez, on the other hand, justifies her choice by stating: "All I want is to be comfortable." But, if what is truly sought is comfort, it is hard to believe that a tie and a blazer are a more efficient option than a tracksuit or pajamas.

What is evident is that clothing and physical appearance are first-rate weapons that serve, with great effectiveness, both to consolidate power structures and to question them. Women must rebel so as not to be reduced to a body. But this does not mean getting angry because appearance transmits information, as Ada Colau also did when she reproached a journalism student for linking her stylistic evolution with her political trajectory. If aesthetics were irrelevant, neither Colau as mayor nor Henar Álvarez as presenter would have stylists.

In any case, I doubt that the solution to the aesthetic pressure that women suffer requires undressing in front of the cameras. What is achieved is media repercussion and virality on social networks: a strategy fully in line with the patriarchal culture that continues to use female bodies as a hook.