Pages

Sunday 19 May 2013

Sexism in Fashion




The objectification of women in fashion is not something new - it's been going on for decades and shows no sign of dying just yet. It's a strange notion that whilst fashion is made for women prominently, we're also oppressed by it. Why is misogyny so prevalent in an industry that is considered feminine as a whole?



The hyper-sexualisation of women in fashion is excessively common. Women are shown mid-orgasm, or appear to be touching themselves, even in vulnerable positions, young and Lolita-esque (that is to say the aptly dubbed "jail-bait" look of young women). American Apparel is a very obvious example to use, particularly the "Now Open" advert we see below. Is this a witty, sexy advert to advertise a store opening, or it is really a grossly provocative and over-sexualised image simply to make sales? Make note that it is not a male in use despite the fact American Apparel cater for both men and women. This is hardly a coincidence. The women shown in advertising are always "readily available" for sex, feeding the idea that all women are "asking for it" and fuelling "rape-culture" (this is a particularly good article is you're new to this phrase). 



And we can't address this sexualisation of women without mentioning the "male gaze". Rosalind Coward explains this phrase perfectly as the camera being "an extension of the male gaze at women on the streets. Here, men can do and stare at women' men assess, judge and make advances on the basis of these visual impressions... Indeed, the look confers power, women's inability to return such a critical and aggressive look is a sign of subordination, of being the recipients of another's assessment". The females who are the faces of fashion return the desirable gaze that men would expect to be returned from theirs, in short. The works of Laurie Anderson, Fully Automated Nikon, turns the "male gaze" on its head by taking photographs of those men who have harassed her on the street - the result of course is that these men instantly felt agitated and became aggressive and defensive of their actions. 

Very well censored image from Godammit.com

Terry Richardson is a photographer who uses the sexualisation of women frequently in his photos. Not only is it repulsive enough that he asks to be called "Uncle Terry" but he's been accused of sexually harassing his models many times (though to no avail). This picture above shows just how far he will go, he's been known for asking models to get naked and also getting naked himself, asking for hand jobs... He has pretty much based his career on his manipulative nature on young models. It's also his assistants that enable him to do so, on one models account she said that they even seemed "stoked" that he was asking the model to touch his penis. He's said previously about the modelling industry; "It's not who you know, it's who you blow. I don't have a hole in my jeans for nothing". 

According to the author, Susan J. Douglas, in 'Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message', she thinks that "because it is done in the spirit of irony, anyone who criticises his art if forced to ask themselves "is this an endorsement of sexism or a parody of it?"". I for one believe it is an endorsement of sexism, though a parody of sexism wouldn't exactly be greatly approved either because it's hardly a laughing matter when you have phycopaths like Uncle Terry running around sexually harassing women and passing it off as "fashion photography". It's hardly a secret that models willingly sleep with photographers, but Terry Richardson takes this much further so that it seems like rape. I don't think we can call this art, or fashion, especially if it is fuelling the notion that all women are put on earth to fulfil mens sexual needs, and it perpetuates the idea that women who are sexually active are "whores".

No comments:

Post a Comment