The feminist case for Fashion Week

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/07/new-york-fashion-week-feminist-case

Version 0 of 1.

It's New York fashion week, and there's a lot to hate about it. The crash diets. The extremely skinny, disturbingly young runway models who are held up as "ideal", and all the ways they're exploited. Then there's the extravagant cost of the clothing, where a shopper may drop in one trip what many Americans make in a month.

What's not to hate is the creativity, the art and the women whose shopping sustains the industry.

It's all too satisfying to brand women who like fashion as shallow, self-involved or dumb. And there's certainly a lot to be criticized when it comes to promoting consumption based on a particular brand identity meant to signify wealth – the signature Louis Vuitton bag, the big Chanel Cs. Through the recession, brand identity went slightly more covert in response to an increased hostility to gross displays of wealth, but also as a way to establish a sense of insider-ness. Only the "in crowd" knows the exact shape of a Chloe bag or the signature weave of Bottega Veneta.

Displays of pure consumption to signal social and economic status are not exactly progressive, but it's hypocritical to single out women for being shallow in their wardrobe spending. Men spend money on things that are just as unnecessary and just as intended to signal class and social tribe. For men, items like bespoke suits, fancy cars or innumerable electronics somehow signal a James Bond image, not a shallow one.

While it's a common assumption that women simply have more clothing items in their closets than men, that also reflects social necessity. Women can be (and are) fired for not being attractive enough, for not wearing enough make-up, for being too attractive or for not putting out the right "look". And being attractive isn't just about whether or not your face is pretty; it's about how you signal your social class and your sexual availability.

Women walk this tightrope daily, which is why this fantastic piece of feminist art by Rosea Lakes went so quickly viral. Her piece shows a woman's leg with horizontal lines written on it – lines closer to the ankle are labeled "matronly", "prudish" and "old-fashioned", while lines higher up the thigh segue from "flirty" to "provocative" to "asking for it" to "whore".

Many women, myself included, recognized the inherent silliness in those lines, but also the fact that we have a skirt for every one.

When it comes to fashion, then, women are socially shamed no matter what we do. Don't engage at all? There are entire television series dedicated to making you over, since you clearly lack self-esteem. Do a little shopping but at cheap low-end stores? You look "trashy". Buy pricier items and enjoy it? You're shallow and materialistic.

There are of course some extremely talented women who excel at perusing the aisles of thrift stores and second-hand shops, and who balance loving fashion with a dedication to social justice (no sweatshop labor) and the environment (recycled clothing). My friend Kate Goldwater, the owner of New York's AuH2O boutique, is one of them. But stores like hers aren't nearly as ubiquitous as designer shops, and women who work in places that demand business wear usually can't get away with only rocking vintage and thrifted finds. And unlike men, women can't recycle through the same three high-end suits and be considered "well-dressed".

Women, for better or worse – although mostly worse – are the class of people who are on physical display. Sure, men are judged by their appearance, but as long as they look clean and are wearing an outfit within the universe of what's considered socially appropriate for the occasion, they'll avoid criticism. While being an attractive man is beneficial in the job market, being an attractive woman is beneficial only if you're in a traditionally female career. Otherwise, even pretty women face job discrimination.

There are racial elements to this as well. Some companies, like retailer Abercrombie & Fitch, have reportedly favored hiring employees with "all-American" good looks. Black women have long been told that natural hair or braids aren't "professional" (meaning they should have to spend money and time chemically straightening their hair to fit someone else's aesthetic ideal).

And, of course, the body you're putting into the clothes changes how the outfit is read. A relatively thin, flat-chested woman wearing a v-neck blouse isn't a problem, but bustier women are accused of attention-seeking or looking "inappropriate". A few years ago, conservative bloggers went wild over a photo of Bill Clinton and several liberal writers, because Jessica Valenti, the founder of Feministing.com and one of the bloggers in the photo, was wearing a crew-neck sweater, under which were two breasts. For women who are big-busted, sometimes a turtleneck isn't even enough coverage to be considered "professional".

Of course a lot of us have closets full of clothes to make sure we can meet these ever-shifting demands, and the many requirements of varying social and professional settings.

Fashion is also fun, at least for some of us. While I'm the first person to object to the social expectation that women be visually pleasing creatures, as long as I'm in that jail, I'm gonna take joy where I can get it.

Aesthetics aren't the enemy of feminism; social codes that require women to meet certain aesthetic principles, and to be constantly putting in time, effort and money in the service of femininity, are the enemy. Fight the system, not the people who do their best to operate in it, or, God forbid, take a little pleasure where they can find it. Gendered fashion requirements are bad. Enjoying the self-expression and aesthetic appeal of clothing? Girl, go ahead and enjoy your new shoes.

That's the central issue though, isn't it? That fashion is a thing girls enjoy, and so therefore it must be silly and stupid. There's nothing that makes an afternoon of shopping any sillier than an afternoon watching football; there's nothing inherently less useful about a handbag than a new video game. But because fashion and clothes are stereotypically feminine pursuits and sports are stereotypically masculine, fashion is frivolous and sports are awesome. Women who spend money on themselves are self-involved. Men who do are either dapper or early adapters of the gadget du jour or just "that guy with the boat".

Men, in fact, spend more money on consumer products than women. They spend $11 a day more on average, and they're less likely to be the kind of smart shopper who compares prices and returns items they don't like. But men aren't considered frivolous spenders, because the connotations of the very word "frivolity" are feminine.

Men are also the ones enjoying the lion's share of the money and the fame for women's "shallow" interest in fashion. They outnumber female designers and they get more recognition. The New York Times noted in 2005 that The Council of Fashion Designers of America had given its prestigious annual award to young talent to 29 men and eight women. While male designers have taken home the Womenswear Award 13 out of 18 years, a woman has never won the CDFA Menswear award.

The system that keeps women out of top tier positions, even in industries that largely cater to and are supported by women, is worthy of condemnation. And I won't argue with critics of mindless consumerism. But for all of its faults, the fashion industry creates wearable art, and its designers display laudable ingenuity, creativity and commitment to aesthetic pleasure.

So I hope Fashion Week naysayers were also turning their noses up at last weekend's money-drenched Superbowl, even the best fashion shows don't cost $126,666 per second or $4m a spot like Superbowl ads. And for everything you can say about fashion being a mindless endeavor, at least it doesn't require its players to literally destroy their brains in order to succeed.