In a thread about the Henson debate in the article section, a OLOer suggested that some feminists "despise women's success in the fashion industry."

I love haute couture. I read European versions of Vogue and style.com. For me, it's art. I also love the streetware blogs that are popping up everywhere, like www.chictopia.com. I love dressing creatively, and I admire a lot of women (and men) in the fashion industry. Designer Vivienne Westwood. The late Lee Miller, photographer. The late Isabella Blow, eccentric. Enormously wealthy fashion adventuress Daphne Guinness.

In the earlier thread, I theorised that haute couture is about beauty rather than sex appeal. It's an industry of women and gay men, both of whom appear to value thinness more than straight men do.

But it's true that the relationship between feminism and fashion can be rancorous. Many believe the fashion industry is way too obsessed with thinness and encourages eating disorders. (Type "fashion industry eating disorders" into Google Scholar and you'll find an enormous amount of research papers.) Some recent shows have banned models with a BMI of under 18, but the fashion industry hasn't embraced this with much enthusiasm. In fact, models are apparently getting thinner — in the US, twenty years ago, the average model weighed 8 percent less than the average woman. Today, she weighs 23 percent less.

Then there's the beauty industry. I love sparkles and light-reflecting make-up and rouge noir nail polish, but I certainly think that the beauty industry works by encouraging women to feel anxious about their looks, then presenting them with clever solutions.

So what do you guys reckon? Aren't models supposed to be more beautiful than the rest of us? Haven't we always elevated beauty to virtue? Or should models look more like average women? Would women still be anxious about their looks if cosmetic companies weren't telling them that their tiny little lines are aging? How much are women programmed to preen? Why are we so obsessed with youth? Does the fashion industry give girls eating disorders?

I think anorexia gets an inordinate amount of attention when compared with obesity.

If plain old obesity in women, which is far greater health problem in our society, could somehow be made out to be caused by men, and hence taken on as an issue by feminists, it would get much more attention.

US: "I think anorexia gets an inordinate amount of attention when compared with obesity."

That's an excellent point. I couldn't find a direct statistical comparison, but around seven million Australians are now overweight or obese. Meanwhile, in Australia 2-3% of adolescent and adult females satisfy the DSM IV diagnostic criteria for anorexia and bulimia nervosa. It's hardly comparable.

Not only that, but fat people have political clout. In the US, people even fight for their right to be lard @rses by suing airlines for not having enormous seats etc. Anorexic girls only have those weird websites where the fight for the right to starve themselves. (They're called pro-an sites, I think.)

US: "If plain old obesity in women, which is far greater health problem in our society, could somehow be made out to be caused by men, and hence taken on as an issue by feminists, it would get much more attention."

But anorexia isn't "caused by men" and, as you point out, that gets plenty of attention.

Of course obesity is caused by men. Look at the average woman pre- and post-children... ;-)

Then there's this:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24195718-23272,00.html

Veronika, the fashion industry exists for one reason: to sell fashion to women. You ask what we guys think of it but really its irrelevant. The industry doesn't care.

For what its worth, I'd say most men find the fashion industry bizarre. Really, some of the getups you see on catwalks get our attention only because they are so outlandish, or because they come close to being the emperors new clothes. The hope of seeing a few of the latter is the only reason most of us pay any attention at all.

As for whether the fashion industry encourages unhealthily attitudes in women - I don't have a clue. What I do know is that what you see in the fashion industry is just mildly exaggerated version of what todays woman would like to be. Fashion walks a tight rope. It has to new and different, yet still familiar enough to appeal. Like every consumer market it doesn't lead you in one direction - instead it offers every possible variation and the best seller wins. In the end it is you girls that have the final say on what direction fashion will take - not the industry. If the industry has impossibly thin models then it is because you buy clothes worn by thin models, but not the same clothes worn by fat ones.

I guess that is the thing I find most puzzling about this love / hate relationship most women seem to have with fashion. The industry is just a mirror for your own attitudes. You don't like what it shows you. The solution isn't smashing the mirror. Not that you could bring yourself to do it anyway.

Dear Veronika,

Clothing fashions are related to broader social
trends. There is a distinct relationship for example
between women's clothing and society's attitude
toward's sexuality.

During the highly restrictive
Victorian era, women's bodies were almost completely
concealed; during the permissive 1960s (and with the
rise of feminism) the miniskirt was the rage; and in
the more conservative sexual climate of today,
slightly longer and less revealing skirts have come
back into fashion.

Fashions change very rapidly, women's hemlines
rise and fall with the passage of the seasons.
One reason for the emphasis on fashion in modern
societies is that these societies are oriented
toward the future rather than the past. Novelty is
considered desirable rather than threatening.

A second reason is that powerful commercial
interests encourage changes in fashion because
they profit from the demand for new styles.

A further reason is that in a competitive,
status-conscious society, fashion is used to
indicate one's social characteristics to others.
People may wish to appear attractive, distinctive,
or affluent, and a new fashion enables them to
show-off, for a while at least.

Of course not all fashions are deliberately imposed
on the population, however, and people may resist
new fashions (feminism has helped women in this
area), even in the face of massive advertising
campaigns designed to influence public taste.
See through blouses for women, did not take off,
neither did the very, very, high chunky boots.

A new fashion is generally more likely to be
accepted if it does not differ too much from
existing fashions.

As for anorexia and obesity... Until a few decades
ago, people who deviated from the ideal physical
form by being overweight were held to have a personal
problem of eating too much or exercising too little.
Gradually, however, doctors have succeeded in defining
obesity as an illness to be cured. The same applies to
anorexia, as a serious eating disorder. Now despite
the fashion industry's emphasis on "thinness," anorexia
is slowly being voted out of existence as an "illness."

I agree pretty well completely with rstuart here. As a man, I've always been underwhelmed by high fashion and all the bullsh!t that goes with it. However, the same doesn't apply to those women to whom I've been close, who have all displayed some fascination with haute couture - even if only to reject it.

It's a chick thing, I guess - just kidding! :)

'But anorexia isn't "caused by men" and, as you point out'

Everything is men's fault. We dare to be attracted to women, so any method women use to be more attractive to men, no matter how misguided, is our fault. The Fake Boobs, the Fake tan, the waxing, the starving, the wasting of money on clothes and cosmetics... all our fault. We're objectifiers!

Joan Collins summed it up rather well:

"I dress for women,
I undress for men."

Now THAT post, Foxy, more or less deserves a 'Lester Moore' award.

rstuart: "You ask what we guys think of it but really its irrelevant."
Sorry, I meant "guys" as in "people", not men particularly. I was just throwing it open to the room.

CJ: "It's a chick thing, I guess - just kidding! :)"
Oh, but it *is* a chick thing. Fashion is a rarefied, feminised world. I regularly go out with my husband and regularly go out with my girlfriends, and dress differently for both. With my husband, I basically try to look as sexy as I can without looking like I'm trying. With my girlfriends, I put together an outfit. I experiment. We are all professionals, and yet most of us (not all — I have mates with zero interest) spend some part of the evening discussing what we're wearing. We use high fashion as our inspiration, then buy cheaply from eBay or op shops. Better a good vintage fabric than a knock-off from Target. We like craft. Meanwhile, my husband is like Wendy Cope's lover in her poem "My Lover": "For when I ask if this necklace is all right he replies, 'Yes, if no means looking at three others.'"

There's also no doubt in my mind that the desire/pressure to be really thin is essentially female. I've put on weight at different times in my life and the sole reason I want to get back to a size ten is so I can enjoy clothes. Men seem to be pretty happy with women's bodies as long as one is in proportion and has a bit of t&a, but it's clothes that demand thinness.

Which does seem to tally with Joan Collins' take on things, Foxy.

I guess I'm trying to unravel the relationship women have with the fashion industry. In thinking about it, I realise that I make a big distinction between creativity and mainstream fashion slavery. That I find icky. Everything the girls on Big Brother wear makes me sigh with despair.

Dear Forrest,

I'll take the award, Thanks.

(You grow up the day you have your
first real laugh at yourself).

"Here lies Lester Moore
4 slugs from a 44.
No Les, no more..."

Dear Veronika,

I wouldn't worry too much about women and fashion.
As Oscar Wilde said:

"It's only the shallow people who do not judge
by appearances."

Haute couture, by the way, does not make money for the fashion houses. These clothes are handmade — it costs them money. Most fashion houses profit from perfume and lipstick sales. The perfume L'Air du Temps, for example, accounts for 75% of design house Nina Ricci's revenue. Most women who buy haute couture come from Saudi Arabia. Hollywood stars expect freebies, the wearing of which boosts perfume sales. This symbol of the developed world is worn in the Middle East and uses models and fabrics from the developing world. We Westerners read the magazines.

(I looked at the Conde Nast website. Vogue's tag: "It's not just a magazine, it's a muse." Neat marketing, and, for me, true — I don't *buy* the stuff it shows me, I use it for inspiration.)

More about bodies. To dramatically over-simplify the pre-feminism problem, girls learned to look at their bodies as something with which to attract others. Boys learned to use their bodies to manipulate and interpret the world around them.

Gradually, things changed. Feminism challenged culture to encourage girls to value their bodies for themselves rather than worry about how others rate them. On the other hand, anorexia is still on the increase, and more and more men now suffer from it. Boys are starting to feel similar pressures to girls. Why? Why did feminism lose this part of the battle?

Is it fashion's fault? Yes and no. Fashion is obsessed with thinness. But fashion can be a way to love one's body — if we stage a return to thinking of clothes as a way to adorn and wrap it rather than fixing the body for the clothes. This is were I think the next generation is brilliant. On the chictopia website, you can search for a blogger with your body type and see what finery they've thrifted/found/created. Chunky thigh are not be eradicated, they are a feature, to be draped. The focus is on stylishness, not babe-ishness. Looking back at my list of women in the fashion industry I admired, I realise I unconsciously chose two rather conventionally unattractive women.

Veronika

"Better a good vintage fabric than a knock-off from Target."

Absolutely.

While Haute Couture may be inspired by the street, but it is more an art fest for the fashion divas than anything for the average person.

For me clothes are a chance at creativity and independence and celebration. A subtle way of saying 'I follow the beat of a different drum'.

I don't find women realistically portrayed in either women's magazines or men's - they both present an impossible, airbrushed empty image.

So I avoid both types of mags.

Fractelle > "I don't find women realistically portrayed in either women's magazines or men's - they both present an impossible, airbrushed empty image."

This is an interesting exercise. Mentally framing everything in reference to women distorts the discussion and could mislead people to believe there is something at play when there is not. There is no need to frame this about only women.

Neither men nor women are portrayed realistically, whether it is in the entertainment industry, or advertising. And this is fine. It's a little monotonous, uncreative and boring at times but that's about it.

Once you replace the women with "people" and say to yourself, "People in general are not portrayed realistically in magazines-they both present an impossible, airbrushed empty image." You simply say, so what? I doubt a magazine that presented the reality would sell. It would be an instant failure.

Would anyone actually read a magazine that had normal, average people in them that were about beauty? It doesn't make sense does it? So this debate becomes ridiculous, but another false flag for feminists to start campainging against the whole advertising and beauty industry rather than, for example, trying an exercise regime to make themselves feel better and healthier.

Dear Steel,

And here I was thinking all of us
looked like the women in Playboy...
I know Fractelle does, so do I,
so do all of my female friends.
And the men in our lives all look like
Beckham.

Seriously, I get what you're saying.
But, there are magazines out there
for "real" women.
The Australian Women's Weekly is one.
And it is a best-seller, and always
has been. The fashion house of
Maggie T. which caters to "real"
women is just one example of fashion
that sells well and truly.

Today, it's a matter of choice - for
both women and men.

Up to a point. You still can't walk
around starkers in the street, although
some come pretty close to it. But you
can pierce all of your body parts if
you so desire.

I saw a man on Andrew Denton the other week
who was into re-shaping his body.
He had titanium horns placed into
his head and his ears had enormous
holes in the lobes, and they dangled
almost to his shoulders (like those on some
natives in Africa).
He had tattoos all over
his body - and he thought he looked
beautiful.

No one dared accuse him of being ridiculous,
not even Andrew Denton.

Foxy: "No one dared accuse him of being ridiculous,
not even Andrew Denton."

He should have.

Fractelle said "I don't find women realistically portrayed in either women's magazines or men's - they both present an impossible, airbrushed empty image." and Steeel suggested that there would be no market for magazines which did not do this in the beauty area.

I got to thinking that the mens magazines with those images are only a subset of the total range of "mens" magazines. I don't know the range of womens magazines, do they have many equivalents to the enthusiast mags often targetting primarily men (and nerdish women maybe)?

What are the women in craft magazines like?

Other magazines sit in the middle, the outdoor magazine Wild tends to mostly have real looking people in them (some exceptions in the adds). Gardening magazines are another broad area which my impression is of mostly real people of both genders. Gardening Australia is both a TV show and magazine that does not put much stock in looks and which does an excellent job.

The stuff that makes it into waiting rooms seems to be mostly glitz and glamor (or fishing mags with fishermen and airbrushed women) but it's useful to remember that there is a whole other market out there.

I'm trying to picture where the balance of this lies. The glitzy mags are much more in my face in public places but in my home it's lots of old copies of Model Engineers Workshop (not into models but love the machinery stuff) and copies of Wild with the odd gardening magazine. Some even older electronics mags and various other hobbiest publications which have caught my interest at times. Not a Playboy, Penthouse or Ralph in the place.

Veronika's comment "Men seem to be pretty happy with women's bodies as long as one is in proportion and has a bit of t&a" rings very true. Supermodels can look spectacular but I don't know men who claim that level of perfection is important or worth seeking.

R0bert

Steel: "Would anyone actually read a magazine that had normal, average people in them that were about beauty? It doesn't make sense does it? So this debate becomes ridiculous, but another false flag for feminists to start campainging against the whole advertising and beauty industry rather than, for example, trying an exercise regime to make themselves feel better and healthier."

Which debate? It shifted suddenly. I'm the feminist who started the thread and I'm defending the fashion industry. I'm for exercising regularly too. Your original statement was that there are feminists who despise women who are successful in the fashion industry, so I guess I wanted to ferret them out and see if that were true, which women they find so despicable, see what the attitude of thinking women to fashion really is.

Steel: "Neither men nor women are portrayed realistically, whether it is in the entertainment industry, or advertising. And this is fine. It's a little monotonous, uncreative and boring at times but that's about it."
Realism is a genre in art and fashion and film and even advertising. Ads for the Bendigo Bank and, as R0bert points out, Gardening Australia, feature normal-looking people, although the GA types certainly have talent. (There are three mags I buy religiously: The New Yorker, British Vogue and Gardening Australia.) I'm in the "creative" industry, and I cling fast to the idea of a meritocracy of talent, or brains, or creativity, or beauty. So I love the hobby stuff R0bert talked about, and the high fashion mags, but loathe the gossip magazines, which often feature talented people but only focus on their weight and sex lives.

R0bert, great post.

Veronika

Apologies - my simple comment on magazines has shifted the debate somewhat. Perhaps I should've made myself clearer - I was thinking of magazines that focus on images of women in particular, be they from Vogue through to Ralph. I don't particularly relate to either. That's just me, I guess.

And I don't relate to Women's weekly either (sorry Foxy) - I like a mag I can read. Therefore, R0bert's pretty well summed up the type of magazine I am interested in (yup a little nerdish) and relate to - gardening, science, geographic - they all feature articles and people (men and women) I am interested in and relate to.

Clearly there is a market for the fashion mag and in my gauche period (teens)I would purchase Marie Clare and Vogue, even Dolly. I was also more interested in the 'latest' fashion back then too. Like many people I have changed over the years. Tend to think for myself a lot more - as most of us do who gain some maturity. I don't feel any pressure to conform. As for feminists hating haute couture - have never met any, but I probably don't move in the 'right' circles, whatever that means.

And I haven't forgotten the inimitable Steel, is this what you mean?

"Feminism: A socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson"

Cheers

If the fashions shown in womens magazines, for example the latest trends or what celebreties are wearing weren't popular with women then the magazines wouldnt sell in the first place.

It is said in these magazines that these fashions or trends are HOT(translated - means sexy). That's right sex sells, not just to men but to women as well. Women like to look at fashions that make them look good, that is show their assets to their best advantage, this is undeniably sexy. Women like to look at sexy fashions and men like to look at women wearing sexy fashions, Everybody wins.

Women are biologically programmed to act like flowers dressing to enhance their female attractiveness and men are programmed to be attracted to those flowers like bees, trying to polinate them. Thats nature cant get away from it

Fractelle: "Apologies - my simple comment on magazines has shifted the debate somewhat."

No wuckers at all. I was just trying to work out what everyone was talking about. I was interested in this whole idea of feminists "despising" women who've made it in fashion and wondered if they were really any out there. I don't think there are too many. Both fashion and feminism are more complicated than that would allow.

Sharkfin, there is truth in what you say. But the picture's a little more finely drawn than that, I think. I've always been interested in the difference in body type ideals between Ralph and Vogue. We talk about supermodels being the ideal, but how many men really want to go out with a woman who's sixteen, 6"2 and 47 kilos? In terms of raw sexual pull, I think they much prefer the Ralph/Zoo babe.

The commercial calculation in your first paragraph isn't the full story either. Actually, women DON'T buy the clothes in high end mags. They can't afford them. The similarities/differences between editorial and advertising in those mags is interesting too. Fashion photographers make very little from editorial. All the money's in the ads, yet all the kudos are in editorial. You have to be doing the art stuff for peanuts before you get a shot at shooting the advertisment for big money.

I find it a fascinating world, but I'm ready to accept I'm the only one!

Veronika

I find the high end of fashion fascinating too - in the way I am fascinated by contemporary art. However, throughout history, haute couture often reflects what is happening to women as their independence has increased, think of the Flapper Era - short dresses, freedom of movement. More recently women are free to wear trousers - not so long ago women were not allowed to wear trousers to work.

I suppose where feminism is concerned is the impossible 'ideal' of the 180cm, 47 kilo 16 year old - not a healthy image at all. Neither is the silicon boosted, airbrushed and plastic Ralph model something to aspire to either.

A healthy role model would be athletes, although I find marathon runners a bit too scrawny and at the other end, weight lifters too bulky. Or anyone whose lifestyle keeps them fit, gardeners, couriers, life savers, dancers etc. Sorry if this is too off-topic, but I find a pair of overalls on a well defined frame (male or female) most fetching.

Overall though, I don't see haute couture as a feminist issue, the way I do religious dictates on how women should dress, like the exclusive brethren. Ooops, probably just opened another can of worms.

Regarding the original post, I think it's a simple equation: the fashion industry is dominated by gay men, and to gay men the most attractive human form is that of a teenage boy. That's why the Marilyn Monroes are gone, and contemporary supermodels have no bums, breasts or hips.

Remember, too, that the fashion/beauty industry also trains men to identify particular body types as ideal. I distinctly remember that in high school and my early twenties, there was considerable peer pressure on boys to demonstrate an attraction to skinny girls. It wasn't until I was older and more self-confident that I was happy to shrug off criticism for being attracted to women who are shaped like, well, women.

Lastly, the fashion media are a poor guide to what men find attractive. Look instead to the wide world of porn, where curves reign supreme and underweight waifs are nowhere to be seen.

Naomi Wolf, in, "The Beauty Myth,"

says:

"In a world in which women have real choices,
the choices we make about our appearance will
be taken at last for what they really are:
no big deal.
Women will be able thoughlessly to adorn
themselves with pretty objects when there
is no question that "we" are not objects.
Women will be free..when we can choose to
use our faces and clothes and bodies as simply
one form of self-expression out of a full range
of others..."

and:

"A woman-loving definition of beauty...admits
radiance: light coming out of the face and
the body, rather than a spotlight on the body,
dimming the self. It is sexual, various, and
surprising. We will be able to see it in others
and not be frightened and be able to see it in
ourselves.

A generation ago, Germaine Greer, wondered about
women: 'What will you do?' ...as individual
women, as women together, and as tenants of our
bodies and this planet, depends now on what we decide
to see when we look in the mirror."

What will we see? In this day and age, the choice is
ours to make. There are no rules.Fashion can dictate
what it wants - we can accept what suits us and reject
the rest. So it's perfectly ok to love high fashion
(if we can afford it - or save up for it), or not.
My most recent splurge has been on Prada glasses, and
a Carla Zampati winter coat (divine), and "Oh what a
feeling!" ...

Veronika, Thank you for your reply to my post, you have asked some good questions about the fashion industry. Is the fashion industry influenced by what society wants or is it the other way around; does the fashion industry influence society?

I don't think they are quite as interested in the sexuality of their models as they are interested in the way their clothes hang on a skinny body. They are also aware that although men may prefer women with more meat on their bones they'll basically take anything in a skirt from skinny to slightly plump if they are given the offer. They know too, that models that are TOO overweight, will lack the attractiveness,(sex appeal) that will sell to both men and women. Hence they are prepared to go pretty far in the skinny direction. They are not prepared to go in the fat direction as they will loose sales.

Someone who is stylish without appearing to be using sexuality in what gives their outfit its standout style may be using a bright blue scarf that highlights their vividly alluring blue sexy eyes or something. I do think there is always an element of understated sexuality Or classy sexuality in things that look stylish.
Clothes are about how good you look in them, not about how good the clothes look.

I think the magazines do overpromote sexuality to young girls though. In fact I read somewhere recently "that men have seen more arse and tits in the name of women's liberation than they ever saw before,"

The beauty industry is much worse than the fashion industry in terms of fake claims,dubious ingredients,and mass overpricing of useless products. Anyone else in any other field of retail would be heavily penalised for such criminal information and claims.
I have just finished reading a book by Paula Gedoun who researched hundreds of cosmetic creams and lotions and often found ingredients like VitE were barely there in some products. Cant the goverment regulate to make cosmetics companies give the percentage of the claimed ingredients in things? Like say 10% vit E etc.