Sorry for the delay on this post. I've been taking a class on fashion in literature, and lateley we've been reading a lot of theory that relates to fashion in gender. In particular, i've just read an essay by Eduard Fuchs on Bourgeois Dress, and was wondering how you all felt about a couple of things. Long story short, Fuchs has paralleled the change of our society from the ancien regime to a bourgeois functioning class with the oppression of women by pointing out that the "Bourgeois culture is an altogether male culture; its entire orientation is toward production and creative drive...The man sets the tone and indeed reigns supreme....Consequently, men's clothing had to become just as masculine as women's clothing had once been feminine". Thus, the culture we subscribe to has allowed the man to become a productive contributor to our society, while the more slowly evolving dress of the female has forced her to remain an object to be looked at. In order to be set apart from the rest of society, the woman must dress herself differently, whether that entails bringing more focus to the body, or simply being of a higher class that is ahead of the fashion curve. Additionally, Fuchs points out that originally the Bourgeois woman was, "foremost mother, housewife, and companion". This article made me think about the slut walk, and woman's choice to dress herself according to modern fashion, or by displaying her body in a sexual way. I was hoping we could continue the conversation of the woman's body in society today, and what you think it does to detract or contribute to a feminist struggle.
Thank you for bringing this up, Sosi. I agree that we should continue to think about the effect that fashion has on the feminist movement. I think that Slut Walk is trying to make the clear statement/distinction that women cannot become objects because of how they dress. There is not always a correlative between the way women dress and the sexual attention/mistreatment that they desire. What goes into how people dress is so complicated and unique for each person—we cannot look at any person and judge based on appearance exactly what their intentions and desires are.
ReplyDeleteStill, it is interesting to think about how different trends in fashion say different things about what women are trying to achieve or what they are trying to say about what it means to be women.
Here are some fashion trends that I find interesting, and that seem to speak for/against various aspects of feminism. ***See pictures***
The power suit: The whole idea of “the power suit” is so interesting to me. I have heard so many women say, “I’m going to put on my power suit” when they are going into a business setting. I feel like this statement is usually used when the “business situation” involves men.
A dress made out of what?!: Specifically instigated by Lady Gaga, there seems to be a current trend, mostly in celebrity and high-fashion culture, of wearing ridiculous things (i.e. the meat dress). Possible method of subversion of typical feminine styles?
Boyfriend jeans, collared shirts: This style seems to me to take a typically masculine style and make it feminine. I think it sends conflicting messages. On one hand, they are called “boyfriend jeans.” That doesn’t really scream “I’m a feminist.” On the other, they make comfortable/semi-casual clothing once attributed to men available to women.
Just a few ideas. I would love to hear more.
I think this post is really interesting, especially in light of our reading of Harryette Mullen's "Trimmings" this week. I believe that, throughout history, fashion has played a huge role in "keeping women in their place" in our patriarchal society. How are women supposed to be able to do the same work that men do while binding their feet, wearing high heels, or not being able to breathe in a corset? Why is a woman considered less feminine, or manly, if she wears slacks to work instead of a pencil skirt? Why are men and women expected to dress so differently in the first place?
ReplyDeleteI think Mullen speaks to the relationship between femininity and clothing and accessories in "Trimmings," especially through her diction. For example, she writes, "Bag of tricks, slight hand preserved, a dainty...Tight is tender, softness cured. Alive and warm, some animal hides. Ghosts wear fingers, delicate wrists" (5). Words like "dainty," "tender," "warm," and "delicate" that she uses to describe fashion are descriptions that are generally considered feminine. I think that Mullen is mocking this idea, especially through her use of rhyme and word play like with the "Someone's in the Kitchen with Dinah" reference on page 7. I wonder if this effective, or if instead it further perpetuates the idea of a "feminine fashion."
Peyton, your comment about the power suit reminded me of an essay I read once (sooo long ago! high school!) by Deborah Tannen called "There Is No Unmarked Woman." Tannen looks at how women are always "marked" in society. She claims that in order to be successful (or at least to LOOK successful), women have to strike a balance between looking too feminine or too masculine in terms of fashion, makeup, and hairstyles. Women who look "too feminine" are often underestimated, thought of as unreliable, and and suffer from stigmas about "sleeping with the boss" if they do get ahead. On the other hand, women who are "too masculine" are distrusted because they aren't fulfilling their role in society. Power suits are designed to fit into the "just feminine enough" niche while still presenting a familiar visual of a successful person - that is, a man's suit. Pair that with a short (but not butchy) hair cut à la Hilary Clinton and a modest amount of "natural looking" makeup, and you have the image of a successful woman as defined by our society.
ReplyDelete