Have you heard of the term “chick flick”? Widely popular on the internet, it has been used to label films that primarily appeal to women and are consumed by them, often dealing with love and romances. Famous examples include Clueless (1995), Mean Girls (2004), and All the Boys I’ve Loved Before (2018). One can easily assume from the popularity among women that those movies, with a focus on women’s lives, would carry feminist messages. However, unfortunately, the reality is different: chick flick movies often contain underlying anti-feminist ideas, unconsciously conveying those themes to the audience. The Devil Wears Prada (2006) is one such example. Its main character is Andy Sachs, an aspiring journalist, who becomes an assistant under Miranda Priestly in the high-fashion magazine Runway. The film follows Andy’s journey as she navigates the struggles in her career. Through the characters of Andy and Miranda, a multitude views The Devil Wears Prada as a movie that highlights the strength and success of working women. Nevertheless, a closer feminist analysis reveals the normalization of injustices faced by women in the workplace. The film insinuates that conforming to beauty standards, sacrificing personal well-being, and adopting traditionally masculine traits are necessary for career advancement.
In the beginning, Andy is constantly belittled by Miranda as well as her colleagues. Bearing so much of Miranda’s dismissive behaviors, she decides to ask for help from Nigel, the mentor figure who is an art director, and dramatically gets a fashion makeover. As soon as Andy begins wearing high-end designer outfits, styling her hair, and putting on makeup, the whole attitude of others toward her changes, later leading to success in her job. By portraying this transformation as directly driving her career advancement, the film solidifies the notion that conforming to external beauty standards is vital for women’s professional success. As Carver-Madalon mentions, women have faced and still face the historical double standards of their appearance and what they wear (Carver-Madalon). Andy is clearly subjected to these standards. Moreover, she is oppressed by them, as she is forced to meet societal expectations of how she should look to advance her career. This reinforces the idea that women’s appearance has historically been linked to their success in work, and still continues to have a direct impact. In addition, the film’s repeated longshots of her modern, chic, model-like look, paired with well-known high-end brand products she is wearing, suggest that appearance is all that matters; it is overly prioritized over ability in the workplace—of course, always for women. As Lilian Calles Barger comments on The Devil Wears Prada, “The viewer sees a pageant of young, beautiful, and fashionably dressed women heading off to a dream job,” in the film (Barger 345). Andy’s makeover into an attractive, seemingly perfect woman further encourages the audience to believe that feminine and high-fashion appearance is the key to success in their careers as females.
As Andy begins to earn recognition and support in her job at Runway, she loses her personal life as well as her own identity. The more she succeeds in her work, the more she fails with anything else. At the end of the film, Andy decides to quit her job to get her romantic relationship back. As seen through this plot, The Devil Wears Prada exposes the persisting anti-feminism in reality, presenting women making sacrifices in their personal lives to advance in their careers, but then also vice versa, as if those trade-offs are indispensable for women. This dynamic mirrors the challenges faced by women in the 1950s and 1960s, discussed in Betty Friedan’s renowned feminist classic, The Feminine Mystique. Turk writes that The Feminine Mystique shows how women felt trapped in a world, “where their corollary duty was to sacrifice their own interests and desires in support of their families” (Turk 25). She continues to underscore the problem with the double bind women face, that “they could not pursue ‘ambition[s] of their own’ that would take them into the male-defined sphere without sacrificing their femininity.” In this context, Andy’s return to traditional roles—here, choosing to be one’s girlfriend rather than a successful career woman—echoes the sacrifices women in the mid-20th century had to make. The fact that The Devil Wears Prada was released in 2006 further underscores how these outdated ideas persist, ultimately undermining the modern feminist message of women’s autonomy. It is equally important that Andy is the one who compromises in her relationship with her boyfriend, by giving up her job. This demonstrates that, in the eyes of the film, it is women who must adapt and sacrifice for the relationship, again reinforcing a traditional gender expectation that women should prioritize their family responsibilities over their own aspirations. In addition, Miranda is set as a character who had two failed marriages and has been asked for a divorce from her third husband. While the film does not directly criticize Miranda and Andy’s professional success, it apparently assumes that their ambition comes at a high personal cost; they are incompatible for women.
Along with the storyline, the portrayal of Miranda and the way she is perceived must not be overlooked in this film, as it subtly reinforces harmful stereotypes about women in power. She is shown as a bossy, mean, ruthless head editor—the devil referenced in the title. For example, in one of the scenes, Miranda orders Andy to arrange flights to Paris for herself and her daughters. When Andy notifies her of a looming hurricane, Miranda denies her explanation, cutting her off with, “Please, make it happen.” These kinds of scenes encapsulate Miranda’s absurdly demanding characteristics, further forming a wrong stereotype of women in high-powered positions. This stems from the gendered concept of ideal workers, as outlined in Krista M. Brumley’s research. She mentions that “Workplace logic favors employees with few or no responsibilities outside the workplace” (Brumley 799). Traditionally, this applies to men. Thus, as she continues, “policies and practices privilege masculine characteristics and exclude most women, given caregiving expectations.” That is to say, the ideal worker is characterized by traits that are non-feminine. Brumley illustrates that even modern work cultures continue to create gender-based disparities in opportunities, reinforcing this ideal. She explains how women now face the glass ceiling instead of the once-impenetrable steel ceiling:
Under the paternalistic work culture, characterized by deference, loyalty, and traditional work and family roles, the workplace was overtly gendered. Women experienced an impassable, opaque steel ceiling that relegated them to low levels and forced them out. In the neoliberal competitive work culture, women experience a glass ceiling. It slows and limits advancement, but the next level is visible and the ceiling may be permeable if women fit the ideal (Brumley 800).
The point here is that although it seems possible for women to break through the glass ceiling, doing so essentially requires them to adopt masculine attributes. Miranda’s character in the film clearly demonstrates this limitation. Her detachment and no-nonsense attitude come from the gendered social expectation that “If they want to advance, professional women need to ‘act like men’” (Brumley 819), perpetuating misleading stereotypes about women in leadership. Therefore, the negative portrayal of female executives, like Miranda, reflects the real-world pressure women face to embody masculine ideals to advance in their careers.
Some might question: doesn’t managing one’s own appearance simply reflect the artistic values of the fashion industry? Why would it be related to gender? In fact, above all, Andy was Miranda’s assistant, neither a stylist nor an artist. Her role was to help Miranda with tasks, where her competence had nothing to do with her fashion itself. Beyond this, The Devil Wears Prada mainly emphasizes how Andy starts to earn praise and approval from others in her job ever since her makeover. For instance, in a scene on the very day of her transformation, colleagues suddenly become more friendly as they recognize the brands of her clothes and notice her better appearance. Also, there’s a scene in which Miranda glances at her outfit and begins to smile, something she never did before. However, these examples illustrate how women are disproportionately impacted by their physical appearance in the workplace. Indeed, it is proven that women encounter measurable consequences when they fail to meet the American feminine beauty standards. One study conducted by Cornell University found that when the average white woman gains 64 pounds, her wages drop by 9% (Carver-Madalon). This goes beyond the clothing they wear, forcing women to be perfectly groomed at all times. When it comes to the workplace, attention to appearance overshadows women’s professionalism, a disadvantage not equivalently placed on men. Ultimately, Andy’s transformation mirrors the gendered injustice still prevalent in society.
Others might argue that Miranda’s demeanor can be characteristic of the position itself and not necessarily a feminist issue. However, its exaggerated portrayal directly reinforces the stereotype of the “ice queen” woman, shaping the audience’s perception of women in power. This implies that women in power cannot be both likable and effective, which aligns with research by Heilman; it shows that assertive women are often penalized socially, being viewed as less favorable compared to assertive men due to the absence of expected communal traits (Heilman). This bias not only frames Miranda’s authority negatively but also reveals a double standard: while men in leadership are commonly praised for their assertiveness, women in similar roles are criticized for exhibiting the same qualities, undermining their professionalism.
The Devil Wears Prada, along with many other films, even those targeted at women ( referred to as chick flicks), perpetuate outdated gender norms. They back up the injustices women face, by illustrating “an anti-feminist backlash cloaked in a superficial gloss of female empowerment,” Barger argues (Barger 336). Simply watching them without critique can unconsciously reinforce anti-feminist messages, and further hinder the progress of modern feminism. Specifically, when women internalize the idea that their success in the workplace is inherently more adverse compared to men’s, it restricts both their personal and professional potential. If these stereotypes persist, people will continue to shape environments where women feel pressured to prioritize appearance over ability, resulting in an inequitable work structure. This, in turn, could deter women from pursuing higher career paths, especially in male-dominated fields, and contribute to a way less inclusive world. To break this vicious cycle, we must first start by approaching media with critical awareness and engagement, recognizing the unconscious injustices hidden behind them. By doing so, we can encourage more progressive representations of women in professional roles, ultimately strengthening feminist values. A truly feminist chick flick should not contain underlying assumptions that women must be disadvantaged to succeed; instead, it should represent women as multifaceted individuals who can excel in their careers while maintaining their authenticity, personal lives, and femininity displaying that success does not require compromising who they are—an increasingly common reality nowadays. Films like Hidden Figures (2016) and Legally Blonde (2001) are great examples, as they feature women who defy societal expectations and stereotypes, achieving success through self-empowerment. By encouraging more media like these genuine feminist films, awakened audiences can ultimately break down gender injustices and shape equal opportunities for women in the workplace.