Fashion and Feminism

[pixiedust1603]

Fashion and Feminism joined together at the Chanel show today, well visually at least. What did people think of it?

 

[eizhowa]

^It wasn't reflected in the clothes as far as I could see. A weak nod towards the 30s and 70s, but nothing noteworthy. I think the protest is this years sneakers and weird hairstyles; just another thing to make people talk about Chanel...

 

[VersaceVixen009]

^^ Oh I think it meant nothing. It was a just gimmick/theme for the show. Karl has said in interviews he has no interest in politics/or making political statements. You really think Karl is trying to make a political statement? The collection had a seventies feel, when the feminist movement occurred, and he probably paired it off with that.

 

[Scott]

^if it were merely a trend from karl's point of view,then how horrendously disrespectful for all those women who fought for and continue to fight for gender equality. and the slogans were terrible and hypocritical...feminism BUT feminine? clearly karl didn't do very much research otherwise such a misogynistic slogan would have never been part of that parade of mockery.

 

[Nepenthes]

^The "Feminist but feminine" slogan was just ridiculous. As much as we all want feminism to be a seamless part of our culture(as it should be), it's pretty obvious that this was just a gimmick. Maybe even disrespectful to the movement.

 

[YoninahAliza]

I wrote about the Chanel show on my blog and thought I'd just post what I wrote here as well since it encapsulates a lot of my feelings about the show...

The other day Chanel held its RTW show for Spring 2015 and while the collection had some beautiful pieces it also raises some important questions regarding fashion and feminism. The runway show ended with the models carrying signs that were meant to embody the feminist movement and sentiments. On one hand I do think it is very cool to see feminist-y signs at such a high profile fashion show. On the other hand I think it is gimmicky as f***. Chanel is a brand which wields a lot of power (both in illusion and promise and in economic power) but its head designer, Karl Lagerfeld, has stated before that he is not overly concerned with his collections being filled with social and political statements. The feminism which these signs appear to be referencing is the 2nd wave- the 60s and 70s feminist movements- and it is not necessarily the feminism of today. Feminism of today I would argue is far more concerned with intersectionality rather then focusing on the bourgeoisie and white women’s feminism of the past. I think that these movements are valid, we should acknowledge their importance but also their pitfalls. Perhaps this show would resonant more and feel believable if it actually had a diverse cast to go along with the ‘protest.’ I counted 10 non-white models in the show, but that was only 10 out of 86 models who walked, so yeah…. not very good numbers when thought about it in that way! Of course Chanel is not the only brand to fail at diversity in casting, but they are the one at the center of this debate and it is something which should be brought up. We can’t disregard the fact that those numbers could and should be better. If Chanel consistently had a more diverse cast then I might believe that Lagerfeld had sincere intentions and meant the show to be more then a gimmick. Perhaps then I might believe that the signs and the “protest” was truly about feminism and that he meant to look at its place in todays context and within the fashion world too. If done right feminism and fashion can go hand in hand. And if you want to see a fashion designer using the runway show as a platform for protest then look at Vivienne Westwood’s shows, she’s been using banners and protest through fashion for many years. And she is genuinely concerned with the issues that are raised during the course of her fashion shows (past shows have centered around issues like climate change her RTW Spring 2014 included anti-fracking shirts). This Chanel show is just a stunt and does not truly seem concerned with feminist issues (look at what some of the signs read… “Boys should get pregnant too” and “tweed not tweet.” Others were less silly and actually wonderful sentiments, if the intentions had been honest from the beginning. They included signs that read “#HeForShe and “history is her story.”). This ending for Chanel is just a way to make the label receive press and thus the ‘protest’ which it put on is not at all, truly revolutionary.

 

[pixiedust1603]

That's a brilliant post and you articulated everything I felt about the Chanel show and its "feminism".

 

[Not Plain Jane]

nice job yoninah!

there were some very inane signs, like "free freedom" and so forth. gimmicky indeed.

 

[matryoshkadoll]

Yes, the Fashion Industry is supportive of feminism as it caters mostly to women's interests. Chauvinists are critical of the industry, labeling it as shallow precisely because of that. Women, and some men, use fashion as a tool of expression through which fragments of their personalities are revealed. Those who have never worked or partaken in the industry have a very poor understanding of how it functions. They assume that we are all minions to whom gay men dictate what is stylish and what is not. The reality is that designers simply present their vision on the runway and consumers simply choose and buy what appeals to them. The process is obviously more complex than that, but that is essentially what happens. If somebody told me that metallic penny loafers are stylish, I would still not be convinced to purchase them. However, it might appeal to somebody else.

I am aware that women's movement groups like FEMEN, for example, are critical of the Fashion Industry. However, their version of feminism is fairly outdated due to no fault of their own. They come from a fairly repressive country and are ignorant of the reality of the Fashion Industry.
Posted via Mobile Device
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[matryoshkadoll]

YoninahAliza, those were precisely my thoughts about the stunt Lagerfeld pulled. While I don't agree with Westwood's politics, she is far more genuine and principled.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[ssgghh]

Yes, the Fashion Industry is supportive of feminism as it caters mostly to women's interests.
...
...
The reality is that designers simply present their vision on the runway and consumers simply choose and buy what appeals to them. The process is obviously more complex than that, but that is essentially what happens.
Posted via Mobile Device

The process is so much more complex than that, especially considering that the women´s "interests" that you say the industry caters for are not developed in a vacuum and represent some of the society´s misogyny and chauvinism. For example a woman´s interest to look hyper sexy by dressing scantly may be met by a designer, but the clothes objectify her and even though it may represent an individuals interest it does not by any means mean that the whole affair is progressive or feminist. Just because some woman´s interests are being catered to, does not make the whole affair feminist.

 

[fashionista-ta]

The process is so much more complex than that, especially considering that the women´s "interests" that you say the industry caters for are not developed in a vacuum and represent some of the society´s misogyny and chauvinism. For example a woman´s interest to look hyper sexy by dressing scantly may be met by a designer, but the clothes objectify her and even though it may represent an individuals interest it does not by any means mean that the whole affair is progressive or feminist. Just because some woman´s interests are being catered to, does not make the whole affair feminist.

Agreed. I think there are also distinct limits on the range of fashion choices available to us. At times, even certain colors cannot be found, never mind styles. I think fashion is far (far) from being a feminist proposition. It's possible to be a feminist and interested in fashion, but if I'm being completely honest I'd have to say that feminism + anti-fashion is a far more natural combination.

 

[Wintergreen]

I think the harm that fashion does to women is comparable to the harm that masculine stereotypes about the way that men have to be do to men.

Fashion dictates what women have to be like (thin, fashionable, capable, educated, affluent, etc.), and if you aren't a good amount of those (positive) things you're basically worthless to fashion, which is something negative. To feminism you still have a lot of value even if you are none of those things.

But you know, at least those things are positive. A lot of straight guys out there still dream with a Stepford Wife woman, that would live to serve them and be nice to them, and many of the positive things that fashion demands of women are actually undesirable and threatening for them. And this kind of influence for women is way, way, way worse than fashion's.

So in my opinion if fashion was a parent she'd be the over-controlling mother that tells her children how to do absolutely everything and is extremely tough on them if they don't do stuff her way. Which is still better than the abusive misogynistic father anyway.

 

[pe77]

@Wintergreen, I am sorry, but I have to disagree with your last sentence; how can one abuse be better than the other? Mental abuse is such a sneaky bastard, sometimes impossible to see the cause of possible disease as aftermath of mental abuse.

Regarding fashion and feminism, there is a quote I find relevant:

‘Every woman knows that, in regardless of her achievements, she is a failure if she isn’t pretty.’ Germaine Greer, The Whole Woman, 1999.

I would ditch 'Every woman' because it is something that cannot be proven, but I feel like this is the submission of feminists who love fashion; we close our eyes on some things because we deeply believe they are better, prettier, stronger etc.

 

[Wintergreen]

@Wintergreen, I am sorry, but I have to disagree with your last sentence; how can one abuse be better than the other? Mental abuse is such a sneaky bastard, sometimes impossible to see the cause of possible disease as aftermath of mental abuse.

Pushing someone too far and not accepting them if they don't do everything well does a lot of damage, but letting someone believe that no matter what they do they'll always be a worthless 2nd class citizen because it's in their nature, that their only purpose is to serve others and that they have no business being empowered does so much more damage in my opinion.

 

[pe77]

Pushing someone too far and not accepting them if they don't do everything well does a lot of damage, but letting someone believe that no matter what they do they'll always be a worthless 2nd class citizen because it's in their nature, that their only purpose is to serve others and that they have no business being empowered does so much more damage in my opinion.

Ok, this is something that cannot be measured, so let's agree that it depends on the heaviness of the situation.
I partly agree with you, but misogyny can be a woman's attitude too. There are mothers who tell their daughters that they aren't worthy because they are women.

There is, imho, a lot of misunderstanding of feminism, especially these days when it is hugely popular among celebrities. It is ridiculous how EVERYTHING someone says is interpreted as sexism.

I saw this the other day on some website. Journalist told Emma Stone that she looks beautiful as ever and she replied 'Thank you, that's all that matters.'
First I think it's ridic to answer on a compliment like that, especially because her beauty is a very big part of why she is famous, and second IT IS JUST A COMPLIMENT, not a sexism, get over it.
I think it's contra-productive for this subject to let young uneducated people to speak of such important matter.

 

[eizhowa]

@Wintergreen, I am sorry, but I have to disagree with your last sentence; how can one abuse be better than the other? Mental abuse is such a sneaky bastard, sometimes impossible to see the cause of possible disease as aftermath of mental abuse.

Regarding fashion and feminism, there is a quote I find relevant:

‘Every woman knows that, in regardless of her achievements, she is a failure if she isn’t pretty.’ Germaine Greer, The Whole Woman, 1999.

I would ditch 'Every woman' because it is something that cannot be proven, but I feel like this is the submission of feminists who love fashion; we close our eyes on some things because we deeply believe they are better, prettier, stronger etc.

I am sorry, but I don't understand who "they" are?

I actually think women have a lot of freedom with fashion; we can dress feminine or masculine etc.. Men can only dress masculine... However, we do not have freedom to not try to dress nice and care about out look in to the extent men have...

 

[pe77]

I am sorry, but I don't understand who "they" are?

I actually think women have a lot of freedom with fashion; we can dress feminine or masculine etc.. Men can only dress masculine... However, we do not have freedom to not try to dress nice and care about out look in to the extent men have...

I agree with you, I think every gender has its issues with sexism coming from society.


'They' as in 'some things' and 'some things' as dieting, being skinny, having to be pretty etc. Well, this sounds confusing.

 

[eizhowa]

^"They" as in the fashion people, models etc. and the image they present? That makes sense.

I think it is just common biology though. We will always want to appear attractive in some way, because who wants to be alone? Fashion helps define attractive, which can be both good and bad. I don't think that will change much.

 

[dior_couture1245]

Those who have never worked or partaken in the industry have a very poor understanding of how it functions. They assume that we are all minions to whom gay men dictate what is stylish and what is not. The reality is that designers simply present their vision on the runway and consumers simply choose and buy what appeals to them. The process is obviously more complex than that, but that is essentially what happens. If somebody told me that metallic penny loafers are stylish, I would still not be convinced to purchase them. However, it might appeal to somebody else.

This is exactly my thought.

I think people need to understand that designers, photographers and stylists, etc. within this industry simply are presenting ideas. They're just ideas. And more than that - it's a LOT of ideas, considering how much product and output is required from everyone in this industry. As a designer myself, I have to churn out tons of product, and I can assure you the last thing I'm thinking about is being dictatorial about my product being worn by everyone or that it would symbolize being "correct" by wearing it or whatever. It's simply an idea, and it's usually an idea that I've moved beyond creatively by the time the product is actually presented...on to the next!

If you think a designer's collection is somehow telling you what to wear, I can guarantee you that that is the last thing the designer is thinking or intended.

So to give this industry the power to determine your self-worth shows very weak character, to me. If anyone honestly thinks that they have to wear what a designer presents, or look exactly as a model does simply because those things exist and are presented is very, very foolish. I understand people can be and are impressionable, especially at younger ages, but I believe people are responsible for their own lives and their own happiness. Blaming others or blaming entire industries avoids the real central issue of learning to find satisfaction and happiness and validation from within yourself.