It does look goofy presented that way, but.... women are the ones buying the collections. And none of it is necessities, so it's not really dictated. So it all comes down to personal preference for which brands and designers one would like to support. Something is considered a "main" show because of the success/size of the brand, but that's entirely dictated by the consumer which, in the case of womenswear, is 95% women. Gucci, Bottega, Saint Laurent, Balenciaga, Alexander McQueen.... these are all brands founded by, in most cases named after, and currently led by men. Is the solution just plug-and-play diversity? Hire a woman CD to front an already successful brand founded by a man to design within a recognizable and proven-successful brand "aesthetic" developed by a man? There are plenty of brands founded by and led by women, so the option is there to vote with one's dollar. Chloé, Chanel, Stella McCartney, Simone Rocha, Ulla Johnson, Vera Wang, The Row, Isabel Marant, Miu Miu, the list goes on of brands that either already are or have the visibility and opportunity to become a "main" brand with consumer support. Still more are already wildly successful brands founded by men but led by women today - Dior, Hermes, Prada, Versace. I notice on here at least, that many of the female designers are constantly being torn down and mocked - even in the face of marked success, like Virginie and MGC. And I don't think it's just male commenters doing that.
Well, there's one more pressing issue than men historically dominating all fields but particularly doubling down on one that exclusively targets women, with all that entails (notions of how we should look like, dress like, ideals, what's 'desirable' and what isn't and the amount of value on image, you name it), and also fashion's biggest challenge: the dominance of conglomerates and the fact that they primarily operate through the laughable 'tribute band' format, revitalizing ancient houses and their "codes"
(was that the word you hate? sorry 
).. codes/guidelines that were created for a very different society where they were, for the most part, in the closet, and we were in the kitchen. And yes, you can inject some 2023 dose in them, reinvent them, spice them up, but it doesn't change the foundation, that your designs are a 'continuation' of that relic, and the fact that the voice "reinterpreting" said codes needs to be secondary to the 'worshipped' dead person that founded the house, and that's issue #3 because you are deflating the potential for that person who's very much alive, and allegedly talented or at least well-trained and capable to communicate more accurately design through his/her own sociocultural context.
This issue with the ancient houses being the absolute authority in fashion is not really unbreakable, only 13-18 years ago there was a nice balance between independence, some notion of autonomy and the people who wanted to be trapped in these machines by choice and not because it's their only way to secure a steady income. That is super problematic to me and I'm really hopeful/crossing fingers that in a generation or two a group of people will open up their eyes and see how NOT normal that is and how you can challenge the suits and this ultra-corporate direction of fashion.
Moving past that (but without ignoring that), that a company was founded by a man... I mean... most companies in this planet were founded by a man, tampax was founded by a man lol.. it's a patriarchy, supported by a very defensive and ultra-sensitive group of men
and women who will take
anything, except you questioning
their favorite men. In an ideal world, old houses would go back to where they belong: a museum exhibition every 15 years with low attendance because their input on 1950s women is THAT fascinating for the general public.... and the tribute bands that have been playing their hits over and over (aka. designers that are really just hacks that know how to suck up to suits or rise to the 'bro'occasion for their approval) would have to design for women in this time and age and that's one hell of a challenge because we can all have an idea of the past, but it takes actual skills, sensibility and having a sharp ear/eyes to capture the present and the future.
Back to the initial part of your post, I think you underestimate the role of marketing in an industry that relies on notions of beauty and luxury and the aggressive way it needs to make its way through popular culture so that a potential consumer is finally engaged. The consumer doesn't 'dictate', the state of the economy moderates its participation but marketing leads the consumer and indoctrinates, teaching him what he didn't know he wanted and with enough insistence, convince him that he wants it now. So it is more of a personal
effort, not entirely a personal
preference, especially for a group whose entire value in society, has been placed not on skill, but on appearance.
Now, I'm going to jump back to the end of your post (sorry, I'm..
).. there's a difference between mockery and criticism. Women are not above criticism, especially in a field that does have an impact on how we present ourselves. In all my years in this forum, I have seen a fair amount of criticism for every designer regardless of gender but it really is only in the past 1-2 years when I have seen pure sexist
mockery, and I personally have never seen it coming from a female member. I know the demographics here changed a lot and ignorance can be one tragic display of tastelessness sometimes but even last week or so, I read something like 'wE aLl kNoW mEn aRe JuSt BeTtEr dEsIgNeRs' when talking about womenswear. That doesn't even merit a reply but it goes to show how a) people won't pick up a book even if it's for the sake of enriching their own passions lol, and b) convenient way of obsessing with the past.. you want nothing more than lusting after dusty old houses, but simultaneously choose to ignore the social disadvantage in how up until 30-40 years ago women were expected to fulfill their
main duty (home) and defying that often meant (and it still does for a majority) being alienated even from society or your own family, and fashion (as conceived by Rose Bertin), became a safe haven for discriminated men, where women accepted them and cherished them, and supported their creations and businesses. So there are more elements at play besides... divine superiority, or what you usually hear here explicitly or implied.. that, of all things, women are somehow incompetent in the one thing that's made them visible, and.. rankable, for centuries.
..why?. So yeah, odd, not odd enough to break stuff or scream 'injusticeeeeeee!' on social media but it still begs a really deep question: what's up with that? lol.
) directed at him on twitter or anywhere else. i think people are mostly either apprehensive (rogue pick, unqualified) or unreasonably upset simply because he's a white man lmao.
