Feminist t-shirts, call-outs and commodification

At the beginning of the year I made a resolution of sorts, to distance myself from the sort of feminism that only actually mentions a feminist campaign or organisation when it's tearing it down. There's nothing wrong with critique and highlighting issues within reason, but by the end of last year I'd become thoroughly bored with performative call-outs as a primary form of engagement. This has had its plus points: for one thing I haven't had to spend most of my precious little free time telling everyone how I'm not here for this sort of feminism and not here for her brand of feminism, thanks very much. And one debate I haven't had to wade into recently has been the one surrounding ELLE's next step on its mission to bring a reinvigorated feminism to the readers of glossy magazines. 

It is definitely a good few years since I first wrote about my discomfort with the commodified 'trendy feminism' campaigns that women's magazines have run, with varying degrees of enthusiasm and commitment, in the last five years or so. Here's one disclaimer: I do appreciate ELLE's commitment to focusing on women's issues in recent years; they've managed to do it better than other women's magazines (putting aside that whole thing with the 'rebrand' of feminism. But I get it. I know they can't exactly take a crap on consumerism; I'm just not going to say I'm comfortable with it). But I haven't been able to force myself to care all that much about the magazine's new partnership with Whistles and the Fawcett Society and, it seems, various attractive famous men (another disclaimer: I own an original Fawcett Society 'This is what a feminist looks like' t-shirt, as I've supported its work for the last eight years). 

It's nothing we haven't been through before. Feminist merchandise at £45 a time (£85 if you want a sweatshirt), unavailable any bigger than a size 16. The publicity opportunities for politicians and celebrities and the 'outrage' that David Cameron wouldn't wear one. We know that there are some redeeming factors - well-known public figures at least claiming to support gender equality; exposure to people who might not otherwise think very much about feminism or think it's something they can be a part of. If it changes anyone's life and makes them a feminist or somewhere, somehow, improves a woman's life, then, I will concede, fair enough. In the spirit of the times, online news outlets have shown us image galleries of people wearing these t-shirts and proclaimed that Benedict Cumberbatch being our ally 'is everything'. So far, so predictable.

Things took an interesting turn on Saturday night, when Twitter got wind of the Mail on Sunday's front-page exposé of exploitative conditions in the factory where the t-shirts have been made. One worker is quoted as saying: ‘How can this T-shirt be a symbol of feminism? These politicians say that they support equality for all, but we are not equal.’ The Fawcett Society was absolutely on the ball with crisis management and quick to issue a statement saying it had been assured by Whistles that the factory producing the t-shirts complied with the highest ethical, sustainable and environmental standards possible. I don't doubt that this was a key consideration for Fawcett, and as we've seen, Whistles and ELLE have subsequently issued statements to the same effect. Ensuring standards are met isn't always easy and the garment industry is a minefield in this respect.

Much has been said about the credentials of all involved in the campaign and in the Mail on Sunday's exposé. Politicians taking part in publicity stunts - how much do they know about how their clothes are made? The investigative journalism tearing down a very public feminist campaign, published by a newspaper with absolutely no previous form for supporting gender equality or migrant workers. What I haven't been able to get behind, though, is the smug trashing of Fawcett, ELLE, and anyone who's supported their campaign and bought a t-shirt. It's a sad state of affairs when the first sign of interest in either ethical working conditions or marginalised women from the Mail comes at the expense of feminism, and the glee with which the whole thing has been reported needs nothing but contempt. What it doesn't need is to be held up, alongside the screengrabbed tweets of Fawcett supporters and well-known names, as 'everything that is wrong with feminism', a stick to beat the same old women about the same old things in the same tedious fashion. Nobody wins.

ELLE and Whistles have received a trashing, despite their best intentions. The Fawcett Society has, as far as I've seen, gained some support for its professional handling of the situation - yet has clearly still received a trashing. The Mail on Sunday has jumped at the opportunity to take part in the same tedious progressive/left/feminism-bashing they've been doing for years. And I'm betting it won't devote much time to covering exploitation of women and migrant workers overseas in the future, because clickbait misogyny and xenophobia will always be much higher on its agenda. Women working in factories in Mauritius are still working in the same conditions. The garment industry won't get an overhaul any time soon - and certainly not thanks to the sort of people on Twitter who, as ever, will keep on posting screenshots of Things Well-Known Feminist Campaigners Have Said and devoting hours at a time to sneering at them. Politicians will continue to display a dubious grasp of what 'improving women's lives' means. No-one will ever mistake David Cameron for a feminist.

So: no victories. Feminism got commodified, celebrities got column inches, activists got called out, and the majority of women in the UK remained completely untouched by whatever it was trying to achieve. Good job, everyone. I'm continuing to support the Fawcett Society because I believe it is a real force for good. I genuinely hope that this whole situation is resolved for the best and that all involved are able to make it clear that they did their utmost to ensure ethical production. But if awareness-raising initiatives can't make a break with consumerism and celebrity PR opportunities, then I can't help thinking that we'll see something similar happen again. The co-option of feminist activism into profits for t-shirt manufacturers has been much discussed in the wake of #YesAllWomen and more recently, FCKH8's 'Potty-mouthed princesses' video. Women in the movement can't prevent this sort of thing from happening, but campaigners can be smarter about how they hope to engage women with feminism.

What does 'bigger' and 'sturdy' look like? The Sartorialist wants to show you

Making regular appearances on my Twitter timeline since this afternoon: the latest post from The Sartorialist.

He spotlights a woman who is, apparently, 'one of the crop of new bloggers' (sorry, I'm not an obsessive follower of fashion blogs so I don't know anything more about her) - incidentally, without bothering to link her. Not only is she a fledgling blogger, she's also special because she's a 'bigger, curvier girl than most of the other bloggers who you see in the the press and tend to represent the genre'.

Hear that, Scott? That's the sound of a slow handclap because I don't think anyone can quite believe that you just made a point of describing the woman in those pictures as 'bigger', before referring to her 'sturdy' legs and the way that it's okay, she's balancing out their proportions with big shoes because, you know, those legs would overwhelm dainty footwear.

Now I don't really take offence at him having called her 'curvy' as some people have done (including many commenters on the blog, who feel he is using 'curvy' as a euphemism for 'fat' and that the words he has used in the post are negative words - of course they only are if you make them so). We see her side-on. It's kind of difficult to tell what her body shape is so it's pointless to discuss it. Different people have different perceptions of body size and shape so all I will say is that she's a woman who's slimmer than the average woman.

So what is it which has bothered me so much about the post? It's the description of her as 'bigger than other bloggers', which is ridiculous. In my only other real foray into blogging about fashion I spent some time discussing how in general, the fashion bloggers which get the most attention from mainstream media, the sponsorships and the clothing deals are the very young, white, thin, moneyed ones. I also pointed out that for those who care and who want to participate, there are thousands of blogs out there which are inclusive regarding age, gender, race and size, which are run by plus-size women and women in their 40s. Blogs that don't treat anything which deviates from the usual formula as something worthy of a special mention, like fashion magazine editors putting out a super-inclusive 'curvy issue' or 'black issue' once every few years and patting themselves on the back for months about just how revolutionary they're being.

So while Scott's right that the big-name bloggers tend to look a certain way, it's not like the rest of them don't exist. And it's hardly as if Angelika's look represents a major change compared to these big name bloggers, is it? It's extremely telling that all those years of photographing the beautiful and the stylish have left him believing that her body shape and her look represents a radical departure from the norm. If he hadn't made such a point of discussing her size I wouldn't even have noticed the supposed 'difference'.

My question is, why comment on it at all? I like street style blogs. I like them best when they are a real representation of the city they focus on, regardless of how conventionally attractive, thin or young the subject is. If the blog's about the clothes, comments on the subject's body type don't need to come into it, much less such patronising comments - the 'sturdy', the part about the shoes, which leaves you wondering what Scott really thinks about how Angelika looks and why he really felt the need to discuss it. After all, this is the man whose equally well-known partner has described him as her "weight loss coach".

He has said in the past that 'older' and 'larger' women are often reluctant for him to photograph them, which may well be the case, but it does leave me wondering when there's no shortage of them on plenty of other street style blogs.

Furthermore, what's up with the policing regarding what people should and shouldn't wear? So Angelika, 'bigger' than other bloggers, needs a certain type of shoe in order for her legs to look okay? The notion that you should not wear various items of clothing and footwear because of your body type is one of the most tedious things out there. I know from past discussions online that one of the things that never fails to get people riled is the sort of 'advice' from magazines and websites which states that wearing clothes is all about 'hiding bad bits' and making your body into the most acceptable version of its natural shape possible. You know, creating the illusion of cleavage, or longer legs, or smaller hips, or making sure you choose jeans to balance out your proportions. So many bloggers spend so much time fighting these messages and being proud to wear what they want and express themselves through whatever clothes they want, yet the biggest names out there are still perpetuating this crap, these 'rules'.

Probably the worst aspect of it all was the fact that, as the negative comments poured in, Scott decided to do a post edit which increased the 'patronising' factor tenfold, describing to us as it does the way he sees the word 'curvy' and how it's totally okay, ladies, to be referred to as such. The edit finishes thus:

"Last week I did a post of older women every day, and I was proud of that. I am proud to be a blog that is showing women of different sizes."

You go, Scott. Keep being proud of the fact that you had a special 'older women week'.

I know, I know. The blog really does feature subjects of more advanced years, but more often than not it'll be older men that you'll see. And older men with slightly more diverse body types, while the older women are still without exception thin. His posts featuring women with the more, ahem, classic fashion blogger physique never include commentary on their size or shape. Does this show his singling out of Angelika in today's post as a good thing, or a bad thing? If you want to showcase diversity, just do it. Don't be self-congratulatory and patronising. Don't make it a one off and make such a big deal of it that you leave us in no doubt that it probably is just a one-off. Don't tie yourself in knots trying to sound less offensive and dig yourself into a deeper hole by inviting your readers to pass judgement on the size and shape of your subject in a way that you never would usually.

"Help me describe this young lady without using the word 'normal', but in a way that addresses her body size..."

Now I know that commenters being judgmental is just what happens on a lot of fashion blogs (including on this particular post - "yes, the jeans do make her legs look chubbier") but you don't have to ASK for it, as if you're talking about some sort of exhibit at a show, a woman whose size and shape needs to be 'addressed' like some sort of oddity. Help me describe this young lady so that my judging of her will be done in a way which is acceptable to you, my fans. It's not good however you look at it.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

When waifish, white and wealthy wins

I used to look at quite a lot of fashion sites and style blogs. While not obsessed, I do have an interest in fashion and the explosion of blogs over the past few years, coupled with the popularity of sites such as Lookbook means that you can spend hours looking at the way 'real people' dress. However these days I'm finding I look at them less and less. It was a while ago now that I started to feel completely uninspired by most of the blogs I was reading, not because they were full of badly-dressed people, or because I'd lost interest in clothes, but because it was difficult to find anything new. Many fashion bloggers are building up an incredibly high profile for themselves now and I've always hoped that this could bring a bit more diversity to the images of style and beauty the industry gives us. An end to - or at least the beginning of the end for - the dominance of the rich, the white, the very young, the very thin and the generally privileged when it comes to clothes and what's considered attractive. But while a variety of bloggers have gained fame and fans on the internet, it seems that the fashion industry is proving resistant to change, preferring to work with those who fit a certain mold and don't deviate from the classic 'model' image we're used to seeing in magazines and on the catwalk.

Fashion bloggers at the Weardrobe NYC Conference earlier this month (image from nyc.weardrobe.com)

In terms of what people on the internet want to see, you can tell nothing has changed simply by looking at the highest-rated photos on Lookbook or any similar site. Despite some variation in ethnicity what you end up with is a very uniform collection of extremely young, thin people with the same features, the same hairstyles and the same 'look'. They're the 'most popular'. The 'highest rated'. What hope for everyone else? I feel over the hill just looking at those pictures - and I'm only 25. I know that a lot of other people feel downhearted when they see this sort of thing for other reasons - they see nothing which represents their style, their size, their shape. I've seen people say as much in discussions online and witnessed people commenting back with no offence, but they 'don't want to see pictures of fat and ugly people on fashion blogs' (how on earth can this be a case of no offence, but?). Clearly this attitude comes through strongly when people decide what they want out of a blog.

Obviously there are plenty of bloggers and fashionistas out there who are challenging the status quo and gaining recognition despite not fitting in with the industry-approved image and many of them have to deal with a hell of a lot of criticism because of it. But when high-profile bloggers are seen at huge fashion events, or start modelling, or design their own collections, or get courted by of-the-moment designers, they become the 'ones to watch' and inspire young women who are just starting up blogs of their own. And because these are invariably the well-connected, catwalk-thin, conventionally-attractive bloggers, it remains that there's a sadly small range of people being seen as 'inspirational' - hence the seemingly identikit host of blogs about at the moment. A couple of days ago I started a discussion about this online and got some interesting responses - the definite feeling was that a lot of bloggers who make it big stop being 'one of us' and become something 'unobtainable', with the ideals of the fashion industry and magazines still being the ones which young bloggers want to aspire to. Many of the young women who commented on the discussion expressed a desire to see more popular bloggers who were 'like them', or otherwise more daring and outspoken - women who are defining fashion on their own terms rather than sticking to magazine-approved 'looks' to 'flatter' their figures and 'disguise' their 'bad bits'. One even talked about how she'd been heavily into style blogging and Lookbook but decided to stop because she didn't like the way it made her feel about herself and the way she felt towards others. Another said she didn't like the fact that (on fashion communities on Livejournal) 'as long as you're white, thin and wearing something designer, your outfit will ALWAYS be applauded'.

Part of the problem is undoubtedly the fact that designers are still very reluctant to embrace your average person on the street, with their average body types, heights and facial features. In the past week alone, the news that a stylist walked out on designer Mark Fast over his decision to use size 12 and 14 models at London Fashion Week has generated a lot of debate. And that's size 12 and 14 - still smaller than the average woman. It's been recognised that sample size clothing has got so small that models have trouble fitting into it - and although many professionals are calling for a more realistic standard to become the norm, many others in the industry are resisting. As long as this mindset is in place, I don't think the internet will have the democratising effect on fashion that there is such potential for and challenge current beauty standards as much as it could. Privilege always wins and people still idolise the catwalk, the classic 'model' physique and expensive clothes. It doesn't challenge us, but people go for it every time.

As part of my discussion, I asked people to come up with their favourite style blogs or the ones they find most inspiring. Here are a few of them:

Style Bubble
Kingdom of Style
Young Fat and Fabulous
Luxirare
Flying Saucer
Saks In The City
Corazones Rojos
Fatshionista
Hel-Looks
Style Rookie
Hail Mary
The Fashion Void That Is DC

Feel free to comment with more inspirational finds!