Breasts and Body Politics

Originally written for The Style Con (September 2014) and featured in the @FashionREDEF daily round up. 

Breasts and Body Politics on The Style Con website.

Breasts and Body Politics on the @FashionREDEF archive

I sometimes think of my body as something detached from who I am. I prefer to think of it as a thing that I wear or own, not something which I actually exist as. This detachment lets me pretend that the expectations women’s bodies are subjected to are further removed from me than they really are. Instead, I can imagine my body as something simply to be dressed up for the day – just an external shell for my inner being.

The body parts I most want to treat as separate from myself are my breasts.. The anxiety of having my body so examined has made me imagine a world where that gaze doesn’t exist. I’ve started to think of breasts as body parts to use as decoration – as accessories, even. This came after a conversation with a friend who said she wished she could just leave hers in drawer when she felt like it. I loved this concept, so I started to explore pop culture moments where breasts look like they’ve been taken out of the wardrobe, dusted off and returned to the body as carefully and as calculated as a necklace or a ring.

The most recent example of this has to be Rihanna at the CFDA Awards in that utterly see-through, utterly wonderful crystal-encrusted gown that was a beautiful cross between Josephine Baker and Rose McGowan at the 1998 VMAs. So much has been written about this now that it seems a bit redundant to bring it up again, but I can’t stop thinking about it even now. That dress made me think that maybe we can use our external body parts, our breasts, to actually poke fun at the patriarchal ridiculousness which sexualises them. When we see breasts uncovered as we might see an arm uncovered, the bizarreness of their status as supposedly sexual organs is drawn attention to and we are jolted into the realisation that they are just another neutral body part. Rihanna sums this up best herself, speaking to a reporter she asked “My tits bother you? They’re covered in Swarovski crystals, girl!” her casualness at her own nakedness showing us breasts are actually not that big a deal. In this way of thinking, to the owner (wearer?) breasts become just another part of the body to be adorned, or even treated as an accessory.

Siouxsie Sioux almost literalises this concept in my favourite picture of her, wearing a white t-shirt emblazoned with a grainy, anatomically correct picture of breasts as she yells on stage. The punk sub-culture she was part of involved women wearing fetish wear as every day clothing to upset and subvert male sexual desire, and this visibility of naked, “taboo” female-associated body parts does exactly that. The image on the t-shirt, so plain and unsexual, is clearly not intended for male pleasure, and seems to demand that we re-evaluate the way breasts are viewed. With the 1990s becoming an ever more popular reference point, The Spice Girls with their visible nipples in the Wannabe video and Lil Kim at the 1999 VMA awards in her one-sided cat suit and sequinned purple nipple pastie are aspirational because we are aching to be so at ease with our own bodies.

Recently, representations of breasts and/or nipples on clothing have been creeping into the mainstream, something which I’m pretty sure stems from Mean Girls (I mean, doesn’t everything?). The moment I am talking about is when Regina George looks down at her top to see two holes cut out over her nipples and, instead of screaming at this intended sabotage, simply shrugs and walks off to the awe of her fellow teens. Of course, every girl comes in the next day having done the same thing to their own clothes. Meadham Kirchhoff offered up a homage to this in their deeply loved Spring/Summer 2012 collection in the form of a sequinned cut out cardigan and now we are seeing clothes with hearts, stars, basically anything printed over the chest as smirking references to the real nipples that lie beneath the jersey. A clothes shop near me has some particularly bizarre ones including shirts printed with cats, alien faces and pineapples. These ersatz representations are not breasts of course but, as Susan Sontag would put it, “breasts”. These cutesy shapes highlight the body parts which are the most sexualised, the most shamed and most hidden, drawing attention to their presence while simultaneously keeping them covered at all times. You can laughingly reference the fact that you have breasts, but never actually reveal them. 

Breasts are unfortunately very political body parts. To those that own them, they often feel like they do not properly “belong” to us. But with this idea of detachment from the body there comes a possibility, a hope, that we can reclaim these bodies and body parts as our own, to enjoy and decorate them however we please outside of the dark cloud of patriarchy. In our bedrooms and our wardrobes, they can be ours and ours alone.

Why #BoycottDolceGabbana Won't Work

Originally written for Liberty Belle (March 2015), read it here.

Designer profiles are a staple of many fashion magazines, either to introduce new faces or to gain a deeper understanding of already established brands. In a recent interview with an Italian magazine, the design duo behind their namesake label Dolce and Gabbana revealed some pretty offensive views.

When discussing the concept of family, Domenico Dolce revealed that the pair opposes gay adoption, saying that the only valid form of family is the “traditional” one. He also described children conceived through IVF as “synthetic”. This is an understandably offensive blow to the LGBT+ community as it seeks to invalidate the families many have created. With LGBT+ rights constantly under scrutiny and attack from right-wing conservatives these comments – which come from members of their own community, as both Dolce and Gabbana are gay – is a harsh setback in the fight for equality.

The backlash to this homophobia came from Elton John, who condemned the comments made by the designers and asked for their brand to be boycotted as a result and coining the hashtag #BoycottDolceGabbana. Though this initial action was limited to those who can already afford Dolce & Gabbana clothing, petitions immediately sprang up calling for Macys and Debenhams to remove the brand from their stores until the owners apologise for their comments. At present, the petition has just under 17,000 signatures. Protestors have also taken to the pavement outside the flagship Bond Street store to call for the designers to take back their words.

The boycott may be set to divide the fashion world. Although Victoria Beckham and other celebrities have spoken out in solidarity with the campaign, others such as Gwen Stefani have been seen wearing the brand since the comments were made. Many stylists are unsure how to proceed, with several choosing not to make a stand themselves but instead to leave it up to their celebrity clients who in turn are following the advice of their publicists. Significantly, fashion insiders and big name publishers have remained silent on the issue.

It is difficult to see why the designers have made these comments, given that they are both gay themselves. However looking into the political background of Italy may give some indication. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Italy and IVF is only available for married couples, therefore gay couples are unable to have children in this way. Gay couples cannot pursue fertility treatment in their own country and must become “fertility tourists” elsewhere. Italy is a deeply Catholic and conservative country and Dolce and Gabbana frequently reference this element of traditionalism in their designs. Their clothes reference traditional Italian style and themes constantly with their ad campaigns consistently using scenes of the “traditional” Italian family to market their designs. Alongside the celebration of “traditional” and biological motherhood in their latest collection, it is uncomfortably easy to see where these comments might have come from.

The fashion world has a large LGBT+ community. Many non-heterosexual men and women work in the industry and it has become one of the better workplaces for freedom of expression. This is why comments like Dolce’s are so disappointing. Fashion portrays itself as a welcoming and revolutionary industry, so how can beliefs like this be made by two of its most prominent and beloved figures? Large brands and well-known names that reach beyond the fashion world have a responsibility to stop prejudice like this – and call it out when it occurs. While strides are being made in LGBT+ representation, e.g. trans models such as Hari Nef becoming icons on and off the runway, comments like this set the fight for equality back several years.

Unfortunately, as few big names in the fashion industry itself have spoken out against these views, it appears there is a long way to go. Though the brand may have bad publicity for a few weeks, possibly months, the lack of industry insiders condemning their comments means that their revenue will ultimately be safe. Clients who are wealthy but protected by a lack of fame will probably feel no guilt in buying from the brand and as advertising deals are fixed months in advance their clothes are likely to be seen in the pages of many fashion magazines this season. Having already defended their comments, it will be interesting to see how the designers will recover from their public display of bigotry.

As we fight for a liberated, equal society, it is important to critique the damaging views held by public figures – and this includes the fashion industry.

Galliano returns to fashion

Originally written for Liberty Belle (February 2015), read it here.

Last month saw the unveiling of John Galliano’s first collection for his new design home, Maison Margiela (the “Martin” having been dropped shortly after his arrival). The Artisanal collection was, unusually, presented in London rather than Paris and attached to the end of the menswear shows, suggesting a wish for the designer to return to the fashion world quietly and without his usual trademark fanfare.

The collection itself was beautiful and proved that Galliano’s extravagant, decadent design style does indeed have a place at Margiela, the infamous house of minimalism, despite doubts across the fashion community. The clothes showed a remarkable marrying of the two concepts. A simplistic colour palette of neutrals, black and red blended seamlessly into extravagant shapes and highly intricate gold embellishments, demonstrating Galliano’s undeniable vision and skill as a designer. There were hints of showgirl glamour in glimpses of leopard print through multiple layers of sheer material, a nod to his showboating collections of seasons past. The humour of the Margiela brand was also seen in the bizarre faces constructed out of everyday objects on the front of several garments, as well as in the see-through PVC pockets. One of Margiela’s most famed concepts is deconstruction, which Galliano engaged with refreshingly in his choice to have models wearing the toiles of the same garments heading in the reverse direction, revealing the process which proceeded the final designs.

By all accounts, this was a triumphant return for the designer and for his many, many fans in the fashion world. However, it is important to bear in mind what Galliano has returned from. Four years ago, footage of him being abusive and anti-Semitic towards a group of Italian women surfaced on the internet. He was subsequently dropped from Christian Dior, his employer at the time, and forced to pay reparations and a fine of €6,000 by the French courts. He was also sent to rehab for drug and alcohol abuse as this is what he argued, alongside stress, caused his outburst. He was rightfully exiled from the fashion world for this abusive behaviour, until now. There are some, many in fact, who feel that Galliano has paid his dues by being absent for so long, he has even been granted a pardon by a respected rabbi. The fashion world, including Anna Wintour, is rallying round him and hailing his return as triumphant, divine, the Second Coming.

While Galliano may well have repented for his actions, the language surrounding his return in the mainstream fashion media is troubling. Several news outlets described him as “the disgraced designer”, but made no further references to the offence he caused other than calling it an indiscretion. Many framed his return in terms of him having a “point to prove” or asked how good his clothes for Margiela would have to be for him to earn forgiveness. The very fact that he has been able to return shows that he has been forgiven by the fashion world. Galliano’s anti-Semitic comments and his return to fashion are linked, but not by the quality of his designs. There is no denying that he is a talented designer, but this is not exactly the point.

In a cultural climate where attacks on synagogues happen on average about three times a week in France, the home of Maison Margiela, I am uncomfortable about his return. The video of his tirade is shocking and violent in its language: he directly wishes death upon the women in front of him and brings up the notorious gassings of the Nazi extermination camps. He proclaims that he loves Hitler. Should this all just be swept under the carpet because the man makes great clothes? Many European fashion houses are built on the back of Nazism. Coco Chanel was a spy for the Gestapo and made her money by providing details of Jewish families. Hugo Boss made suits for Hitler’s officers. Elsa Schiaparelli apparently had fascist ties. The pattern of designers profiting from the suffering of the marginalised is well documented throughout European fashion history.

Racism and prejudice are rife within the fashion industry, from white-washing and white-only runway shows to cultural appropriation in both design and editorials. Jourdan Dunn is the first solo black woman on a British Vogue cover in 12 years and magazine pages are regularly filled with uniform white models who conform to Eurocentric standards of beauty. Racism is a historical and current problem in fashion which we cannot run from but must confront it to change it. I loved John Galliano. I have always admired his designs. The Christian Dior couture collection Spring 2011 is one of my favourite collections of all time and his Marie Antoinette collection inspired my Textiles final major project when I was at college. His designs are brilliant and visionary, but his return is a move backwards for the fashion industry, not a progressive look towards a more inclusive future. The clothes do not erase his past. We must be careful in forgiving prejudice and offensive remarks so easily as to stay silent is to allow these “indiscretions” to continue and worsen.