London, United Kingdom

Responsibility in Fashion

In his recent interview with The New Edit, Daniel Pascal Tanner spoke passionately about the responsibility he feels as a man designing clothes for women.  A responsibility to revere women through his design rather than exploit them.  Hearing him speak on the issue made me want to reflect on my own conceptions about fashion and feminism and reflect a little on the responsibility I have as a man writing largely about women’s fashion.  

“Even today there are many countries where it is illegal for women to wear mini skirts. Fashion remains as much a tool for female empowerment as it does a tool for female exploitation”

Fashion is not inherently progressive or conservative.  It can be either and both.  We are socialised into viewing garments in specific ways.  But too often we forget a garment is at the end of the day just a garment and it has no political leaning.  A mini skirt can be a symbol of the sexualisation of women, the objectification of femininity and the exploitation of female beauty for the male gaze.   But it can also be a symbol of female empowerment demonstrating a woman's control of her sexuality.  It is easy to forget in our hyper sexual age that for much of human existence women were forced by men to dress modestly.  Fashion was often used to keep them chaste.  Even today there are many countries where it is illegal for women to wear mini skirts.  Fashion remains as much a tool for female empowerment as it does a tool for female exploitation.  The key is in the context.  You may be surprised to find out that the mini skirt it self was first designed by a women, Mary Quant, and that it became intrinsically linked with the Second Wave Feminist movement as young women resisted the patriarchal societal demands of female modesty to show some skin.

Similarly, the hijab can be both a symbol of female empowerment and patriarchal oppression.  When it is imposed it is a symbol of patriarchal dominance of forced modesty and chastity.  But it can also be empowering.  A mark of a woman's identity and a testament to her spirituality.  Those who wear it often speak about how in a world where women are so sexualised, there is something extremely powerful about covering yourself, about being judged for who you are and not.  Your hair or beauty, and in embracing a part of your identity and cultural history.   We in the west spend hours debating the merits of the hijab or burqa and yet we rarely speak about the high heel or how just as some women live in a society where they are forced to wear a hijab.  We live in a society where some women are forced to wear heels to work and sometimes even revealing outfits.

“So once again context is key. Heels can be both tools of female empowerment, symbols of their sexuality and a literal form of their oppression”

There is considerable medical evidence that suggests high heels are unhealthy for your feet.  Excessive use can cause back pain as well as bunions and hammertoe.  So why do we live in a society where women are expected to wear them? Do we fetishise height? Or is it something else? Perhaps understandably heels have been a source of considerable feminist debate.  Heels have come to be seen as the shoes for women in power.  They demonstrate ambition, success, femininity and even sex.  A symbol of female empowerment then? Well, Christin Louboutin explained the appeal of high heels being that they slow women down giving men longer to stare, so maybe not.  As Summer Brennan argued in the guardian “A woman in motion, outside of male control, has long been viewed as a problem. What better way to tame these fleeing women than to literally root them to the soil?”

And yet some women find them empowering.  As Brennan goes on to argue “I still want to wear dresses and high heels. I like my femininity, or what I have been acculturated to think of as “my femininity”, even if it is cultural. I do not want to have to imitate a man, in behaviour or in appearance, in order to have power and freedom. If I want to run, I’ll put on running shoes. I like to wear makeup. I enjoy adornment.”

“Ultimately, Clothes are not inherently feminist or patriarchal, but society can be”

So once again, context is key.  Heels can be both tools of female empowerment, symbols of their sexuality and a literal form of their oppression.  But at the end of the day they are just heels.  It is society that gives them meaning.  It is whether they are chosen or imposed that defines whether they are freeing or oppressive.  Because feminism and fashion is all about context and like most issues a woman's right to choose.

Fashion at its worst imposes on women with enforced sexualisation or enforced modesty, but at its best it allows women to challenge a society's pre-conceptions.  To take control of their bodies and break down patriarchal norms.  Ultimately, Clothes are not inherently feminist or patriarchal, but society can be.  So when it comes to feminism and fashion the key is female empowerment.  And when it comes to being a man writing about women’s fashion, well I think Daniel Pascal Tanner put it best - “it should be about revering women not sexualising or exploiting them”.

Written by Samson Royston, May 2020

Check out our recent interview with Daniel Pascal Tanner, Shivangi Sahni and Rose Danford-Phillips to learn more about the talented designers from The New Edit's Future of Fashion series.