Fashion and Feminism

^ I'm not a big fan of rules either, but it's not unusual for a fashion image to feel like a slap in the face to me--that's what I object to. To me it's rather obvious that portraying women as dead or disfigured would be offensive. What's even more shocking to me is that more in the fashion community don't see it that way.

What I also don't get is how these images I find disgusting can be found in mainstream fashion publications, which at the same time manage to be incredibly white bread and repetitive. I mean how many times can Steven Meisel photograph models leaping (or appearing to leap) in the air, as they each wear a complete outfit from a single designer? Yes that was innovative when it was done for the first time decades ago, but it's far past its sell-by date now.

When I see these offensive images I wonder, exactly how difficult would it be to come up with an imaginative ed that's respectful to women?!?!?! I have to believe a lot of these photographers are in desperate need of therapy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^ I'm not a big fan of rules either, but it's not unusual for a fashion image to feel like a slap in the face to me--that's what I object to. To me it's rather obvious that portraying women as dead or disfigured would be offensive. What's even more shocking to me is that more in the fashion community don't see it that way.

What I also don't get is how these images I find disgusting can be found in mainstream fashion publications, which at the same time manage to be incredibly white bread and repetitive. I mean how many times can Steven Meisel photograph models leaping (or appearing to leap) in the air, as they each wear a complete outfit from a single designer? Yes that was innovative when it was done for the first time decades ago, but it's far past its sell-by date now.

When I see these offensive images I wonder, exactly how difficult would it be to come up with an imaginative ed that's respectful to women?!?!?! I have to believe a lot of these photographers are in desperate need of therapy.

I have never been offended by a fashion image. I have been disgusted by what some are doing with their talent, especially on glossy pages ready for the most beautiful prints, and I have been nauseated at the simpleton perfectionism pervading fashion imagery of the last ten years.

But I have never been offended as a woman by fashion imagery. And I actually have been by men's magazines. So to me, fashion magazines, for the most part, manage not to be offensive to women. Why? Because they don't portray women as idiotic f***bags.
 
Im sorry to resurrect a topic from a year and a half ago, but i think it is a very good and important one therefore one worth resurrecting. I would be interested to hear your opinion oh high heels for example. When i see somebody in high heels i rarely see a a sexy woman, what i see is mostly the effort to be liked and the unability to walk which makes them funny for me, but also scary because so many women gladly dress in a way that unables them to walk propperly and actually do stuff.(I remember girls from my hometown who would bring flats with them in handbags on a saturday night in case they needed to walk home for a couple of blocks).
Simone de Beauvoir wrote that womens bodies are inhibited and restraint with unappriate clothes and the rituals of good manners. It must have been more so in the 50s, but is it over now? I really don think so. I would be interested in hearing your opinion.
 
Im sorry to resurrect a topic from a year and a half ago, but i think it is a very good and important one therefore one worth resurrecting. I would be interested to hear your opinion oh high heels for example. When i see somebody in high heels i rarely see a a sexy woman, what i see is mostly the effort to be liked and the unability to walk which makes them funny for me, but also scary because so many women gladly dress in a way that unables them to walk propperly and actually do stuff.(I remember girls from my hometown who would bring flats with them in handbags on a saturday night in case they needed to walk home for a couple of blocks).
Simone de Beauvoir wrote that womens bodies are inhibited and restraint with unappriate clothes and the rituals of good manners. It must have been more so in the 50s, but is it over now? I really don think so. I would be interested in hearing your opinion.

I'm not sure why you thought it as a good idea to post a comment judging women's choices in a thread about FEMINISM lol. What I think is sad is that women are expected to look a certain way, but when they do, they're looked down upon or branded as "try hard" "fake" or "high maintenance, as you just did. It's sad how we're judged either way.

Also.... spell check.
 
^ Somebody already mentioned in this thread, what lies beneath choices is important too and should be debated about as well. Is conformity a good choice?

Respecting choices just because theyre choices made by a female person without questioning them and where they come from or how they affect the rest of the society is an attiude that i do not agree with. Women are expected to act and dress in alot of ways by a mysoginistic society and i can not automaticaly respect all of the choices made by people male or female.(which doesnt meen im not thinking about them, trying to understand them or that im not open to new attitudes if i hear an argument that woul persuade me to think otherwise) But lets not get too far with this. I was hoping for a discussion and hearing argumented opinions different to mine.

Btw. english is not my mother tonque so please try to tolerate spelling mistakes i might make or am making
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ssgghh - I too have to wonder sometimes when I see girls in very high heels and very short skirts who can barely walk; meanwhile they are walking alongside boys in baggy jeans and trainers. It's obvious who's the more physically comfortable in the group.

And you're correct to point out that people don't make choices in a vacuum; people make choices based on what they are exposed to a lot of the time.
 
^ Also there are people who welcome 'rules' that explain how to gain the approval of a powerful group of people (e.g., men).

I work with someone who is never (OK, once that I saw) out of 5-6" heels, tight and generally low-cut clothing. She wears bandage skirts to work. She has had plastic surgery (huge implants) and is a competitive bodybuilder (bikini class). I guess when you're used to wearing a bikini onstage, anything else seems like lots of clothes. It's interesting.
 
So glad someone resurrected this thread again! I look back a year and a half ago and I think that my views on fashion and feminism have continued to evolve. Right now I'm all about choice. And I think if a women chooses to wear tight clothing that's fine. Or if she chooses to dress baggy fashions that's fine too. But what's really key is if she's aware of why she's dressing a certain way. Is she doing it for herself? Is she dressing for a guy or for other people? Is she dressing to fit into what society deems the "norm?" These are all questions that I think are important to ask. If she's aware of why she dresses a certain way, then I think it's marriage of fashion and feminism. But I also realize that too often people are blind to why they are doing something or they don't believe that they are swayed by outside factors. But Ssgghh, I do see your point as well, it's important to also question (or perhaps it's better to phrase it as, think about) how a person's environment, cultural upbringing, and personal values reflects their fashion choices.

And as for your question about high heels, personally I won't wear them because they are so bloody uncomfortable. However, I have no problem with other women wearing heels if they feel comfortable or beautiful in them. Although at the same time I do admit it can be hard for me to watch girls teetering around in heels because I'm thinking to myself, "wouldn't it be better to change into something which doesn't restrict your movements so much?" I think restriction of movement or rather the restriction of self (physical or mental) is a difficult thing to experience or to see others experience because it just parlays back to misogynistic ideas like, women should just sit pretty and let the men do the talking. And for me at least, I find it hard to watch other funny, smart, charming, brave, and beautiful girls continue to take part in the system of misogyny and the worst part is that they don't even realize that they are just perpetuating it. So it's this obliviousness to the system that gets to me. I hope this explains a little bit more about my feelings on the subject, but it's late where I am, so I'm sorry if it's confusing at all. ^_^
 
I feel feminism & fashion can co-exist. feminism is all about having choice to do what you want with out constraints based on gender? so if you choose to dress in stereotypical girly fashion ie. skin tight & super high heals. Its all right as long as its for you & no one else. Your dressing that way because that's how you feel comfortable not because your trying to attract men or feel you have to dress that way to be a "woman". If any of that makes any sense?
 
^ make sense. :smile: This is the most important aspect imo:
"as long as its for you & no one else. Your dressing that way because that's how you feel comfortable"

Further, some women can really stomp around in high heels for example; maybe they can even run in them. It's the ones I see who are teetering and who look uncomfortable - even vulnerable - that I wonder about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whenever I see someone tottering about in improbably high heels, I just think they're going through that phase where the allure of shoes is such an exciting concept that it can overrule reality, but for a lot of people, their ability to endure footwear that can make such painful demands - both on their feet and their finances - is rather shortlived.

And when real life comes calling, and they start wearing trainers every morning, they get to be wistful about the time they ran about town in shoes they'd never consider wearing now.
 
Whenever I see someone tottering about in improbably high heels, I just think they're going through that phase where the allure of shoes is such an exciting concept that it can overrule reality
I really like how this is phrased - and i think the key point here is overruling reality. The thing is, i dont think its something that should be overruled. Others may disagree.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You could argue that women's magazines are entirely devoted to the art of overruling reality, with airbrushed celebrities on the front, cosmetics ads selling skincreams that won't work, fashion pages pushing items that cost three months' wages but will be 'out' by next season... if you buy into that world, having shoes you can't walk in makes as much sense as the rest of it.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
We all need fantasies to be sure, but fantasies need to be considered with caution - and knowledge. As tigerrouge points out - by all means, look at magazines and enjoy them, but be realistic about them - those are not how people really look. ^_^

For example, fantasy won't overrule reality if, say, one of those teetering girls I saw on the street needed to run from someone. I saw one girl who was heavily under the influence of alcohol, and the lad with her was kindly helping her. But she was falling down on the street, her skirt was rising up, her underwear was exposed; it was totally embarrassing and sad. :( And what if the lad with her wasn't being so nice? She'd have little-to-no way to defend herself, even if she hadn't been drinking.

Women, and people generally, need to be smart about their fantasies. Overruling reality isn't always safe or wise.
 
Right now I'm all about choice. And I think if a women chooses to wear tight clothing that's fine. Or if she chooses to dress baggy fashions that's fine too. But what's really key is if she's aware of why she's dressing a certain way. Is she doing it for herself? Is she dressing for a guy or for other people? Is she dressing to fit into what society deems the "norm?"

First off, I think this is a lovely post. I read this thread while bored at work, and it's been great.

However, I think we need to be careful when talking about the notion of dressing for oneself. At face value it seems like a feminist notion- you step outside of systems of gender and power and do your own thing. Unfortunately, I think it's a fantasy. Whenever you put on clothes of any kind you're participating in systems of dress which are, in various ways, tied to historical power structures. Or, the idea of dressing for oneself presupposes the existence of clothes which are, in a way, ahistorical. Wearing clothes is necessarily a public and social act. As much as I would like to think otherwise, "dressing for yourself" is only one way of reacting to and synthesizing elements of a system which constrains and defines our clothing choices. The idea of dressing for yourself is a reaction or opposition to dressing for other people, and is defined by that contrast.

So, dressing for yourself is only one way of engaging with a social system of dress. A feminist mode of dressing, in my mind, would acknowledge and engage that system directly. If dressing for yourself ignores in inherently social nature of clothing, then maybe one ought to give it a rest (though telling people what they ought to do is a sticky issue). So when people are talking about feminist designers, the one who springs to my mind is Rei Kawakubo. I know she claims to have no interest in feminism, but her symbolic (and actual) deconstruction of gender performance / codes is really quite powerful. It actually engages the issue. I'm not saying we should all go out and buy Comme or anything. In fact, I think feminsts have bigger fish to fry than fahsion. Be aware, be agentic, and screw everyone else.

also: First post, hi everybody.
 
We all need fantasies to be sure, but fantasies need to be considered with caution - and knowledge. As tigerrouge points out - by all means, look at magazines and enjoy them, but be realistic about them - those are not how people really look. ^_^

For example, fantasy won't overrule reality if, say, one of those teetering girls I saw on the street needed to run from someone. I saw one girl who was heavily under the influence of alcohol, and the lad with her was kindly helping her. But she was falling down on the street, her skirt was rising up, her underwear was exposed; it was totally embarrassing and sad. :( And what if the lad with her wasn't being so nice? She'd have little-to-no way to defend herself, even if she hadn't been drinking.

Women, and people generally, need to be smart about their fantasies. Overruling reality isn't always safe or wise.

If wearing stilettos, you can always take one off and use it as a weapon :wink:

Recently I watched a video of Miuccia Prada on Charlie Rose talking about wearing fashion to feminist gatherings and being active in the women's movement. I found this quite interesting giving the outrage here at her last collection harking back to the 50s. I think it's possible to do that in an ironic way--I've done it myself. Probably no one got it--I guess I was dressing for myself :wink:
 
Does Fashion fetishize the Female Corpse!? :shock: Makes me think of that infamous Edgar Allan Poe quotation that goes something like this: "the most poetic subject in the world is the death of a beautiful woman"...

How female corpses became a fashion trend
Beautiful women posed as dead bodies are an advertising campaign staple, including the new Marc Jacobs shoot starring Miley Cyrus. Why does fashion fetishise the female corpse?

For once it's not the image of Miley Cyrus herself that is controversial. It's the woman lying next to her. In a new advertising campaign for Marc Jacobs, Miley and two female models pose on a moonlit beach, Miley sitting up, staring moodily into the middle distance, a woman standing behind her, while another lies on the sand. This model isn't reclining happily, or curled up asleep; she is flat on her back, hair partially covering her face, with the stiff, sightless demeanour of a body in the morgue. A beautifully dressed one, of course.

This ad campaign was released a day after the latest cover of US magazine Entertainment Weekly, which shows the two stars of upcoming film Gone Girl lying on a gurney. Ben Affleck is fully dressed and alert, curled awkwardly around Rosamund Pike, who is in a bra and slip, pale, wide-eyed with surprise, very much dead. A tag is tied carefully around her toe.

This isn't the first time dead women have been used in fashion or entertainment, of course. Over the years female corpses, especially beautiful female corpses, have become a staple of fashion shoots, advertising campaigns and TV shows – with sexual and fatal violence against women a favourite of TV programmes looking to boost a waning audience or build a new one.

Last year Vice magazine decided to illustrate their Women in Fiction issue with a fashion shoot depicting a range of well-known writers in the throes of killing themselves, or trying to: Sylvia Plath kneeling in front of an oven; Virginia Woolf standing in a stream, clutching a large stone; Dorothy Parker bleeding heavily into a sink. The fashion credits were included in full, down to the pair of tights used as a noose.

A 2006 Jimmy Choo ad showed a woman apparently passed out in a car boot, a man in dark glasses sitting beside her, brandishing a spade. In 2007 W magazine ran a fashion story featuring model Doutzen Kroes that ticked every box of objectification – multiple images of her seemingly passed out, semi-naked; one in which her lifeless hand held a teddy bear.

That same year, America's Next Top Model illustrated this trend with an episode in which the contestants had to pose as if they'd just been killed. This prompted surreal comments from the judges. One woman, posed as if she'd just been brutally stabbed, was criticised for not looking dead enough. Another, posed as if she had fallen from a tall building, was told "death becomes you, young lady". Still another, covered in deep bruises at the bottom of a flight of stairs, was told: "the look on your face is just extraordinary. Very beautiful and dead." The show could hardly have gone further in illustrating fashion's fetishisation of the female corpse.

This obsession with death isn't so surprising, when you consider it as the obvious and ultimate end point of a spectrum in which women's passivity and silence is sexualised, stylised and highly saleable. Over the past few years, there have been a number of brilliant projects that have shown the eye-popping strangeness of how women are posed for the camera, contorted into positions which make them look simultaneously ridiculous, weak, sexually available and highly vulnerable.

In 2011, for instance, Spanish artist Yolanda Domínguez created Poses, a project in which ordinary women reproduced model poses in everyday settings. One reclined awkwardly in a flower bed; another stood on the street, legs apart, bent forward, sucking her fingers; another posed, hip cocked, a clutch bag held dramatically to her forehead. People all around them gawped and did double takes.

Last year, a Swedish project showed the difference between the way men and women are posed in the notoriously creepy American Apparel ads, with a man gamely copying some of the female poses favoured by the company. Suddenly the incredible weirdness of a woman crouched on all fours, naked from the waist down, back arched to show off a denim shirt was completely clear.

A similarly effective gender swap was carried out by cartoonist Kevin Bolk, who decided to transform an Avengers poster so that all the men were posed as the one female character, played by Scarlett Johansson, had been on the genuine poster. The male characters immediately went from looking active, engaged and ready to defend themselves to being little more than display vehicles for their own buttocks.

Do people actually want these images? Do they want violence against women to be sexualised? There are some strong signs that they don't, from all the women who speak out against these images (Vice magazine ended up apologising and removing their fashion spread from the web as a result), to the news item, published last week, which showed that films that pass the Bechdel test – which offer at least two female characters, who have a conversation, about something other than a man –outperform their counterparts at the box office. Last year, of the 50 highest-grossing films in the US, those that passed the Bechdel test earned $176m at the box office, while those that didn't averaged $116m.

Still, there's a reason these images proliferate. If the sexualised stereotype of a woman in our culture is passive and vulnerable, the advertising industry has worked out that, taken to its logical conclusion, there is nothing more alluring than a dead girl.

Source: The Guardian.com
 
I'm glad others are starting to notice. This is the very reason I canceled my subscription to W years ago. I really, really hate these types of fashion spreads (as well as the shots I see from them around tFS used as avatars). I find them unbelievably creepy.
 
This is not a recent phenomena, Vogue Italia has been publishing dead girl editorials since the 80s at least.
 
I personally believe that we(humans) dont dress for ourselves, generally speaking, but feminism is about what do you want to do, whether that is dressing for your cat, man or whatever. If some girl feels confident about attracting guys with her looks, why cant she be a feminist?
We tend to look things only from our perspective and basically we, claiming that we are feminists, tell people what to do and how to act and how to dress, which is not a feminism.

Feminism is about a personal preference.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,496
Messages
15,187,219
Members
86,385
Latest member
muglaasli
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->