Isn't that the problem? That women have been swindled for centuries into substituting adornment for love, fashion (as it were) for passion?

The speaker frames a feminist critique of how patriarchal culture channels women’s desires into socially approved surfaces—beauty, dress, and “adornment”—instead of encouraging emotional and erotic fulfillment. By calling it a “swindle,” the line suggests an intentional, long-running cultural con: women are taught to treat fashion and attractiveness as substitutes for love and passion, which can keep them preoccupied with appearance and external validation rather than agency, intimacy, or pleasure. The rhetorical question implies exasperation and invites recognition of the trade-off: when appearance becomes a primary currency, authentic feeling and desire risk being diminished or commodified.