In Fashion, Who Really Gets Ahead? - NYTimes article

[Karl.Popper]

Not true for Vivienne. She is doing exceptionally well.

 

[softgrey]

look...
there is nothing to argue about....
if you doubt the fact that the industry is dominated by gay men...
then just have a look at the article...
it's all there...

that's the point of it...no?

and btw...vivenne westwood is not even sold in the US...
one of the largest markets in the world...
edit-much to my dismay...

 

[zamb]

well.......
if it is repression that leads to creativity,it would then stand to reason that the most repressed would be the most creative.
who is more repressed than a black gay man? not only is he gay but he has the issue of race to deal with. Yet, i see not one single succesful (by this i mean both commercially and critically) black gay designer, (i dont know if lawrence steele is gay, also of late he's been hugely marginalized) the success of Patrick Robinson for whom we can make an argument of him being an exeption, can be largely attributed to his marriage to Virginia Smith and the influence she has as a vogue editor.
so shabby is the state of black men whether gay or straight in the industry that the most prominent black womenswear designer today ( outside of the urban/ contemporary segment of the industry) is Mr. Stephen Burrows who made a career in the late sixties and early seventies!

 

[Karl.Popper]

My remark about Viv was a by the way response to your comment that she was 'underground' and without major financial clout. I'm indicating a point of fact, not arguing any particular point with regards to gay male domination in the industry. Curiously, or perhaps not so curiously, her main source of revenue is Japan and to a lesser degree, Europe. Why she chose not to enter the US market is a mystery to me, but it's not for lack of financial resources.

To my puzzlement, you then say:

"if you doubt the fact that the industry is dominated by gay men..."

But I don't doubt the fact. If I did why would I write two posts addressing the question of WHY it was dominated by straight men?

 

[softgrey]

great post zam.......

ps-she's not here because she doesn't sell...
that's why karl......
she pulled out and is in the process of trying to come up with a new way to approach it...

 

[Karl.Popper]

Above I meant 'gay' of course.

Zamb, that equation doesn't compute. It's not a linear calculus by which creativity can be measured by the degree of repression you're under. There is a complex host of social factors which increases the *incidence* of creative talent among gay white males (incidence is not the same as degree). Just as there may be sociological factors that work against the gay black male in the industry, which negate any creative spark he may derive from his being repressed (racism, perhaps? Self-selection?).

But the point is that the more gay white males there are with talent in the industry, the more likely they are to rise to the top. It's a numbers game isn't it.

 

[arlekindearrabal]

all the points mentioned in this thread are so valid and true, but i think we're missing a really important one: women prioritizing children and marriage over their careers... i think a perfect example would be phoebe philo for chloe. we know she's not happy with the way the brand is growing and what that means to her in terms of creative freedom and responsability... but in an article posted here in the spot some weeks ago, the writer made a point of philo struggling to either spend more time with her newborn and her husband, or devote herself to the increasing demands of chloe... i think this is a huge dilemma for many women

 

[arlekindearrabal]

Above I meant 'gay' of course.

Zamb, that equation doesn't compute. It's not a linear calculus by which creativity can be measured by the degree of repression you're under. There is a complex host of social factors which increases the *incidence* of creative talent among gay white males (incidence is not the same as degree). Just as there may be sociological factors that work against the gay black male in the industry, which negate any creative spark he may derive from his being repressed (racism, perhaps? Self-selection?).

But the point is that the more gay white males there are with talent in the industry, the more likely they are to rise to the top. It's a numbers game isn't it.

exactly, zamb had a really good point there... who could be more repressed than a black gay man??
but the race factor might work against him too, in terms of achieving notoriety and even financial and/or critical success

 

[Karl.Popper]

And she doesn't sell because . . .

Americans have bad taste? :-)

If true I appreciate that it's a market driven decision. In which case she is not really an example of her being discriminated against in a male dominated industry then. After all the reverse argument can be made - she sells exceptionally well in Japan, a country still remarkably sexist.

 

[softgrey]

all the points mentioned in this thread are so valid and true, but i think we're missing a really important one: women prioritizing children and marriage over their careers... i think a perfect example would be phoebe philo for chloe. we know she's not happy with the way the brand is growing and what that means to her in terms of creative freedom and responsability... but in an article posted here in the spot some weeks ago, the writer made a point of philo struggling to either spend more time with her newborn and her husband, or devote herself to the increasing demands of chloe... i think this is a huge dilemma for many women

i couldn't agree more...
that was what i was alluding to when i mentioned the pressures women face in their personal lives...

*perhaps karl...
but she is certainly unique and an exception to any rule...
she is the queen of punk after all......

i still hail yohji and rei for making their own rules...

 

[finalfashion]

I read somewhere that 97% of apparel startups are by women... and by the end, 98% of apparel companies are owned by men.

I agree with softgrey that the negative stereotyping is enhanced by the low self esteem of women... not only the customers but the designers themselves. As the oppressed try to rise to the top they are threatened by others in the same position... women are less likely to raise and promote other women for this reason. In fact, women are less likely to outsource than men would... stunting their company's growth.

The numbers just don't add up. In my fashion design grad class this year there is only one man. You'd think that in a female-dominated industry we would support eachother but actually women will cut eachother down. We have to realize that this is stupid. We need to help eachother, and believe in ourselves, and not feel threatened by sharing the responsibilities in our businesses with others.

We all know how much Anna Wintour loves women... not... remember that designer-group photo where Muicca Prada was the only woman there?

The issue is money. There are plenty of female designers, but they lack the funds to make their companies grow.

Vollbracht and Ford... should be ashamed of what comes out of their mouths.

The idea that someone is a better designer because of their sex or sexual orientation is ludicrous. A good designer is a good designer - full stop.

 

[sandra]

Another point It's like apples and oranges. A good designer does not necessarily make a good business. How many times have we read about talented cutting edge designers closing up shop because of financial reason or bad business. On the other side, many designers, who on this board are considered meh because they didn't reinvent the wheel, have GREAT businesses. An a lot of them ARE women like Ms. Buchman, Donna Karan, Maggie Norris, Tracee Reece, Amsale and even regional business women such as Jessica McClintock and Pat Kerr. They may not all be fabulous or cutting edge but they have profitable businesses. It goes both ways.

OT: I saw once on HGTV a segment on Jessica McClintock's home in San Francisco

As for that Vollbracht person..............

 

[Zazie]

Hi Ta-ta! I've been really, really busy, and do miss you all.

Back to the debate, while I believe that a lot of gay men face discrimination in life, the ones who end up as fashion designers don't! The latter, the Proenza Schoulers, simply move their way up the fashionably supportive gay scene in most major cities. It's the lone/few homosexuals who have to live within contexts such as middle America who really struggle against serious odds. I don't really buy into the repressed-therefore-more-rebellous&creative theory. I believe it's the opposite - the more flamboyant and "liberated" ones get to dominate THE SCENE.

And fashion is about flamboyance. True, the Ann Taylors will always be there and always lucrative, but we are only inspired by the sublime and ridiculous. Fashion occupies the realm of dreams, and it is no coincidence that the bright, frivolous demi-monde provide fodder for these dreams. It has always been and will always be! Therein lies the connection between the predominantly gay scene and fashion. Most straights just get staid, unfortunately, while gays may party till they're geriatrics with no teeth, like Warhol.

 

[classic1908]

Another point It's like apples and oranges. A good designer does not necessarily make a good business. How many times have we read about talented cutting edge designers closing up shop because of financial reason or bad business. On the other side, many designers, who on this board are considered meh because they didn't reinvent the wheel, have GREAT businesses. An a lot of them ARE women like Ms. Buchman, Donna Karan, Maggie Norris, Tracee Reece, Amsale and even regional business women such as Jessica McClintock and Pat Kerr. They may not all be fabulous or cutting edge but they have profitable businesses. It goes both ways.

OT: I saw once on HGTV a segment on Jessica McClintock's home in San Francisco

As for that Vollbracht person..............

Glad to read this post. I can also add Linda Allard as one of these designers who are considered "meh" and not cutting edge, but she's got a nice lifestyle, for sure. Her s*** works for me.
The Vollbracht quote annoys me, too. I have a couple of Blass items, and am willing to buy more if I find them secondhand or at places like Last Call Neiman Marcus. I find it odd because BB, to me, seems like a house that acknowledges and dresses non-model-build women.

 

[Karl.Popper]

Back to the debate, while I believe that a lot of gay men face discrimination in life, the ones who end up as fashion designers don't! The latter, the Proenza Schoulers, simply move their way up the fashionably supportive gay scene in most major cities. . . . I don't really buy into the repressed-therefore-more-rebellous&creative theory. I believe it's the opposite - the more flamboyant and "liberated" ones get to dominate THE SCENE.

Missing the point yet again. And begging the question. How is being "flamboyant" and "liberated" later in life inconsistent with a feeling of repression while growing up? Why do you think that gay men do not feel a degree of repression, growing up, with respect to something as base as their sexuality? It is absurd to think that they are comfortable in their skin from the beginning, when even adolescents feel a ridiculous degree of angst, let alone gay adolescents.

More to the point, the repression does not stem from actually "facing discrimination", but in knowing that creative fields aside, they might have a problem reconciling their inclinations with the expectations of a straight-male dominated field. That is why they go into fashion in the first place. That is why they devote their energies to a field in which they think they might be true to their base inclinations.

Indeed, your argument is inherently self contradictory. For how can you be "liberated" if you were never repressed?

 

[Zazie]

Missing the point yet again. And begging the question. How is being "flamboyant" and "liberated" later in life inconsistent with a feeling of repression while growing up? Why do you think that gay men do not feel a degree of repression, growing up, with respect to something as base as their sexuality? It is absurd to think that they are comfortable in their skin from the beginning, when even adolescents feel a ridiculous degree of angst, let alone gay adolescents.

More to the point, the repression does not stem from actually "facing discrimination", but in knowing that creative fields aside, they might have a problem reconciling their inclinations with the expectations of a straight-male dominated field. That is why they go into fashion in the first place. That is why they devote their energies to a field in which they think they might be true to their base inclinations.

Indeed, your argument is inherently self contradictory. For how can you be "liberated" if you were never repressed?

There are so many assumptions in your post, I don't even know where to begin. First of all, there are gay men and women in almost every field, legal profession, finance, media, healthcare, sales, everything. They aren't particularly more "creative" than non-gays, even though I'm sure they feel as much 'angst" as the gays in fashion and other creative fields growing up.

Second, I did not as you said assume "they are comfortable in their skin from the beginning". Actually, I did not equate "angst" with "feeling repression and discrimination", you seem to though. These are completely different things. You can feel angst without having been repressed by others, like the typical adolescent growing pains you mentioned. What exactly constitutes "angst", "identity", etc. can itself merit a separate discussion.

That answers your question "Indeed, your argument is inherently self contradictory. For how can you be "liberated" if you were never repressed?" You can be liberated without ever being repressed by others, as most of us did, by coming to terms with yourself, your identity, what you want to achieve in life, etc.! Of course you can talk about "self-repression", but that's a far cry from feeling "discrimination", which was your original point of argument for asserting gays are more creative.

Zamb also answered that point of yours, by using the hypotehtical black gay male example. If discrimination is the root of the creative wellspring, then black gays must be the most creative of them all, and the profile of the creative population would tilt disproportionately in their favour!

I think where we all diverge with you is your assertion of some kind of societal victimization which leads gays to dominate fashion. I believe that gays are discriminated against and face a lot of adversity in life, but definitely not in the fashion cradle of New York, L.A., Paris. Most cities in the world, Seattle, Boston, SF, Bangkok, Shanghai, Berlin, etc. are also openly supportive of gays without being particularly fashion-oriented. I really balk at the suggestion that the more flamboyant among the gay population chose fashion as a career becaus ethey were "repressed", that is too simplistic and too much of a stretch. We're all hardpressed to think that the phenomenal success and exposure of unproven talents like Proenza Schouler, with their privileged upbringing, had experienced much more "repression", giving them a creative edge over others who had to struggle.

In fact, the article's premise is the opposite, that non-gays, especially women, feel discriminated against in the field of fashion where gay men dominate. So we all push different theories, but I think most of us don't buy into "it's because gay men are repressed" one.

I do believe there is an institutional structure that privileges a certain group of gay men, to the point of even excluding other gay men, not just women or straight men. Definitely, if you read the interviews of Lanvin's Albaz detailing his debut struggles, you get an inkling of what some of that may be. Hint: he wasn't like the "Tom Fords" of fashion. I differ in that I believe that isn't the whole story, that there are also other social factors that work to the creative advantage of the white gay male population in fashion in general.

This article is therefore interesting and fascinating, as it articulates in open what many of us secretly ponder.

Anyway, don't get me wrong. I'm sympathetic to the plight of what a lot of gay people face, in the creative field or otherwise, and abhor the ignorant hatred they face from the narrow-minded right-wing bigots, which I would warn is on a steep increase in the US.

May we all fight back.

 

[Lena]

very interesting exchange

to start with i find it very sexist to categorize the market based on designer's sexual prefferences.. i certainly dont believe in the 'gay mafia' scenario/propaganda i find it a bit naive.

It happens that in our days gay men are 'dominating' succesful designer positions and that's mainly because gay men are very totally fascinated by fashion and style, somehow more fascinated/dedicated than hetero men, than straight or gay women.. there are some people that have more drive than others, determination rules.

i dont find gay men are more talented, this is ridiculous to think off brings us back to 'the gay DNA' issue, which i find fascist.. gay men are just so very obsessed by the glam/camp element that they do much better PR, they love going to all parties and they are willing to compromise much more easily than others, in order to stay within the 'glam world of fashion' no matter what. I dont think its design that attracts/results in this drive, its the whole 'celebrity/glam' scene.

i'd like to see women in the industry stop moaning and drop the 'that's not fair'/'we are victims' attitude, cause in my book they sound a bit pathetic.
yes, gay men are willing to take all the sh*t in order to 'make it big' and have a tremendous drive for social and economic success, dealing with their own sexuality early enough has shaped them to 'warrior' stage (see the ..politics of sexual preference) it's not their fault if they have what it takes to make it happen.

Can they design fashion? Who is to say? Some can, some dont.. same as with straight men/women or with gay women.
excusses, but i dont believe there is a 'creative' issue here.
It's an attitude and drive issue, people who are ready to fight to 'make it' will succeed regardless sexual tag.

as for the article, i find it a bit sexist and quite annoying.
women should take some lessons of how gay designers PR themselves if they want to make it big.

 

[birdofparadise]

I'm not sure how important the issue is.
The IOC designer made those comments because she wanted to be cheeky, she felt uncomforable for some reason and decided to be all 'knives out' and ruin an experience people apparently shelled out some cash to participate in. There's too much moralizing, too much good and bad about male/female, black/white, gay/straight. I don't know if those issues directly influence a consumer. I know that I've never bought anything just because a gay white male with brown hair and nice nipples designed it

There's always room for someone who has something substantial to contribute as long as they're willing to rid themselves of the instant gratification mentality that infects everything.

 

[young_divine]

the old bag wintour hates the ladies, and to be fair, the ladies often fear and hate her. it's a mutual type-a situation. But if i were in AW's place i'd prefer proenza schouler boys to ms. subkoff any day.