I spend most of my time in my daily life trying to be like a fashion noncombatant. My hands are up! I'm not even trying! That said, to talk about the impact of fashion is really interesting. I think so much of it is tied into feminism. I am a post-baby boomer who has been handed a sort of Spice Girls' version of feminism. We're supposed to be wearing half-shirts and jumping around. And, you know, maybe that's not panning out. But you can tell different generations of women by whether or not they wear that Hillary Clinton blue power suit or the reappropriated Playboy-symbol necklace worn ironically. I think women dress for other women to let them know what their deal is. Because if women were only dressing for men, there would be nothing but Victoria's Secret. There would be no Dior.
How much do I love that she turns a vapid question into an opportunity to criticize equally vapid, commercialized third wave feminist politics? The answer: A WHOLE LOT.
Also, that comment about women dressing for women seems layered and interesting. I totally agree that as women, we tend to see a lot of power in the way we visually represent ourselves, and I agree that we tend to gear that power toward intimidating other women. The last sentence, though, seems to suggest that "dressing for men" can only mean turning yourself into a sexual object, whereas wearing high fashion, like Christian Dior, pays no mind to the male gaze. I think that's a bit too black and white, but I understand her general meaning, I think.
I love that Vogue is running interviews like this now. Thanks, Tina, for showing the world that smart women are totally foxy.