Really?

            A little over two years ago, in September 2007, a few of the world’s most prominent supermodels – Naomi Campbell, Liya Kebede, Iman, and Tyson Beckford among them – launched a protest. But it wasn’t about anorexia, money, or any other issues that might immediately spring to mind when thinking about issues within the fashion world. Campbell and her supermodel peers were protesting racism within the fashion industry.

            I didn’t read anything about the protest at the time, so I was surprised to stumble upon this issue when researching discussion points for my blog. I have never really thought about the fashion industry in terms of race before – but once I started to look at it from that angle, I realized that the supermodels have a point.

            Other than the black supermodels that I noted, I cannot think of many big names of minorities within the fashion world. Tyra Banks, of course, has gained a lot of popularity through her modeling career and subsequent television shows, but part of her rise to fame is that she was an exception during the time that she was modeling.

            The instances of discrimination raised by the models in their protest were surprisingly blatant. Campbell, for instance, asserted that she could no longer get on the cover of British Vogue and that she had been featured on the cover of French Vogue only after Yves Saint Laurent had applied pressure on the magazine to use her picture. The group also pointed out that one of the Calvin Klein shows that season had hired exclusively white models.

            Two years later, one would hope that some improvement has been made. And yet, in March Sean “P. Diddy” Combs came under fire for a promotion casting call for Ciroc Vodka, a brand that Combs endorses, that requested “white, Hispanic, or LIGHT SKINNED African Americans,” according to a blog called “The Frisky.” To paraphrase the title of the Frisky’s article: It’s 2009, world. So why is there still racism within the fashion industry?   

Shopping for charity

Fashion is often associated with greed, materialism, and selfishness. After all, the industry’s focus is on making the individual happy on a purely superficial level. But what if you could do good while shopping?

            Product(RED) was started a few years ago with just that idea in mind. Dedicated to the cause of eliminating AIDS in Africa, Product(RED), according to the group’s website, “is a simple idea that transforms our incredible collective power as consumers into a financial force to help others in need. (RED) is where desire meets virtue.”

            (RED) products cost the same as similar products, but a percentage of the proceeds are donated directly to the Global Fund, an organization established in 2002 with the support of former UN secretary Kofi Annan to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. For example, a (RED) Apple iPod costs the same as a regular iPod, but part of the profit is donated to Global Fund’s campaign when a consumer purchases the (RED) version of the iPod.

            Since the Product(RED) campaign began, eight companies and one product have signed on: American Express, Apple, Converse, Dell, Emporio Armani, Gap, Hallmark, Starbucks, and Windows Vista. Each contributes a different percentage of profits, with contributions ranging from 1% to 50%.

            I like the idea behind the (RED) campaign because it helps shoppers to make a difference by buying a product they would have bought anyway, in addition to raising awareness about the continuing AIDS epidemic in Africa. If more large companies followed the same model, they could make a major difference financially while probably generating some positive PR about their product as well.

            I always have wondered, however, just how effective Product(RED) is at raising money for their effort – in other words, does it actually make an impact at the level that such major companies should be able to create, or is it mostly a way of making the consumer feel good about himself or herself while hauling in larger profits?

            Critics have charged that not a lot of money is contributed to the Global Fund proportional to the amount of money spent on advertising for the campaign, others argue that the allocation of the money is not transparent enough, and still others charge that (RED)’s focus on AIDS treatment means that a lot of money will end up in the hands of pharmaceutical companies. Meanwhile, the Product(RED) website claims that every penny goes directly to the Global Fund.

            Whether or not Product(RED) is a completely transparent process, I think it is a great start. Campaigns like (RED) remind shoppers that there are people who have it much worse than we do – and hopefully will inspire us to contribute the money that we were going to spend on a new handbag to charity instead, every once in awhile. 

Anti-fur protestors: more harm than help

            A few posts ago, I wrote about the fur industry and all of the horrible things that are done to the animals raised and killed for their pelts. I think it’s only fitting to follow up with a post about the anti-fur movement and the controversial tactics employed by some of its members, notably at protests staged by PeTA.

            As I described, many fur farmers show little concern for the comfort of the animals they raise (and I’m not talking about padded cages or acres of open field for them to run around in, I’m talking about basic comfort like being able to move more than a few inches). The methods that are often used to kill animals for their fur are even more sickening. It’s no wonder that many people would have a very visceral reaction to the thought of animals suffering in such awful ways.

            Anti-fur activists, perhaps for this reason, are very forceful with their views and often use methods that many would consider extreme. Methods used by protest groups such as PeTA include painting a few protestors’ bodies to look like skinned animals, lying nude in masses with blood splashed over their bodies, and, perhaps most famously, throwing blood on passersby wearing fur coats. Anti-fur groups have also used shocking media campaigns, such as celebrities posing nude, to attract public attention.

            I am certainly sympathetic to the cause of anti-fur activists. It is also obvious that their methods successfully create a buzz whenever they are reported on. But I wonder whether all the attention they garner also comes at the expense of their cause. Destroying someone’s coat by throwing blood on them is not only illegal but also makes you come off as crazy to most normal people, especially those who have not been exposed to your cause.

            Unfortunately, once the anti-fur movement becomes too entangled with activist groups, a lot of people tune the issue out. It really wouldn’t be too hard to get people to pledge not to buy fur by showing them a few pictures of suffering animals, but when all they see are rabid protestors screaming and terrorizing bystanders they are a lot less likely to be at all interested in associating themselves with the anti-fur cause.

            Although I’m sure anti-fur protestors have the best of intentions, I wish they would step back and look at the kind of attention they are getting in mainstream society. Maybe then, the fur industry’s heartless actions could become the topic of serious debate rather than the secondary story next to the anti-fur freak show. 

Fashion: a right, not a luxury?

            In light of all of the depressing posts lately, I thought I’d try to brighten the mood a little this time. What better way to do that than to talk about something that everyone loves – cute clothing at cheap prices? The rise of designer lines for big chain stores like Target and Kohl’s has kept me excited for the release of a new collection every few months since the beginning of 2006.  

            The first introduction I had to this phenomenon was in January 2006 with the Luella Bartley for Target collection that launched their Go International line, now on its sixteenth designer, Tracy Feith. I remember buying a pair of obnoxiously large sunglasses that were popular that season and a tote with a cherry design that I carried around for months… until I decided that it looked too young for me and gave it to my little sister. But that’s the beauty of these collections: the items are cheap, so when the trend moves on you can too, without much guilt.

            The lines’ cheap prices also make fashion available to a larger part of the population. Sarah Jessica Parker’s Bitten collection for the now-bankrupt Steve and Barry’s chain summarized the sentiment best with its motto: “Fashion is a right, not a luxury.”

            I love the idea of making fashion accessible to more people and I certainly have benefited from the lines’ creation, but I do wonder if the collections really do as much good as they suggest. For starters, how do the companies make their clothes so cheap? Is it simply a matter of mass production and cheaper fabric, or is it possible that the clothes are being made using sweatshop labor in some developing country? I tried to figure out where the clothing from the Go International line came from, but unfortunately couldn’t find anything.

            The other thing that got me thinking, and I know I’m being more than a bit hypocritical since I just praised it two paragraphs ago, is the disposability of the items. Fashion is an industry that strives to constantly be in motion, to be shifting and evolving and coming up with new ideas all the time. Naturally, the popularity of trendy clothing is lost just as quickly as it is gained. Still, with all of today’s environmental concerns, is now really the time to be encouraging mass consumption of temporary objects? Should we instead focus on buying classic, longer-lasting pieces at higher prices but with much longer lifespans? As a broke but environmentally conscious college student with an interest in fashion and all of its trends, I’m not even quite sure how I’d answer this question…

More designer lines for cheap: 

-Vera Wang for Kohl's, Converse OneStar for Target, Miss Trish of Capri for Target, Felix Ray for Target, Erickson Beamon for Target

America's Next Top Model: positive or negative influence on the world of fashion?

While I’m on the subject of models, I figured I’d bring up everyone’s favorite fashion show, America’s Next Top Model, hosted by Tyra Banks. For those who haven’t seen or at least heard of it (which would be pretty hard unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past five years), ANTM is a reality-slash-fashion competition show that takes ten to fourteen hopeful amateur models and whittles that number down, through a series of competitions and photo shoots, to one. The lucky winner earns the title of “America’s Next Top Model.” I honestly can’t remember the names of all the past winners nor have I seen any of them in a fashion magazine lately, but nevertheless, the show is very entertaining.

While I hate to rip on a show that is pretty universally beloved, I do have one big problem with its focus. Tyra Banks has been one of the most outspoken defenders of natural beauty and “normal women” in recent years (notably telling paparazzi who snapped unflattering photos of her in a bikini to “kiss my fat ass”), but the tone of ANTM is not quite as consistent. While last season’s winner, Whitney Thompson, was “plus-sized,” several cycles have had girls who have been told to watch their weight despite their already thin frames.

Perhaps more surprising was the episode this past season where prospective top model Celia Ammerman was told by judge Paulina Porizkova that she was getting “too old” for modeling – at the age of 24.

Naturally, models are expected to be thin. Naturally, they’re supposed to look youthful. Perhaps the judges on America’s Next Top Model are only trying to be truthful about the harsh world of fashion in order to give their fledglings the best guidance possible. However, part of me feels that with such a prominent platform, perhaps Tyra and her fellow judges should try to be changing fashion stereotypes instead of reinforcing them. And again, perhaps they are changing some stereotypes – choosing a plus-sized model as winner doesn’t count for nothing. Am I being too nitpicky? 

Runway models: what's the skinny?

When you think of designer clothes and runway shows, one of the first things that usually comes to mind are the super-skinny fashion models who walk the catwalk. It has become a given that models should have no curves and even look borderline anorexic (according to the Associated Press, one young model even said that she was told by people within the industry that “the look this year is anorexia. We don’t want you to be anorexic but that’s what we want you to look like.”). Much has been made of this issue already, but lately it hasn’t been discussed as much, perhaps because the fashion industry claims to be making improvements.

            A September 2008 article published on the Huffington Post’s website had many within the fashion world claiming that a visible effort had been made to bring a healthier look to the runway. The models selected no longer wore size 0, but were up to size 2 or 4 instead. Models had to be at least 14 years old and some notably tiny girls who had walked the catwalk in the past were not selected. Still, the pictures from the shows (and the commentary of the HuffPost blogger who had posted the article) suggested that not much progress had been made – many models still had twiggy arms, knobby knees, and a complete lack of chest.  

            My view on the size of fashion models is complicated and somewhat personal. While I certainly do not condone starving yourself or throwing up to achieve a certain body type, I also wonder if some of these girls might not be able to help their small size. Up until pretty recently (i.e. the end of high school), I used to be tiny like some of the models pictured – and when I say tiny, it is not to flatter myself; I mean I was what would be considered by many to be unattractively thin. This was not something that I could help; my growth pattern was simply a lot different from the way other people developed. People used to tell me that I was “too skinny” or ask me if I had an eating disorder. I resented the implication that I was unattractive or sickly-looking when I had no control over how much I weighed.  

            My point is simply that perhaps some of the models in question are naturally tiny people, and cannot help the way they look. If someone grows up noticeably thin, it is more likely that they might become interested in a career in fashion. However, I realize that the fashion industry sets the standards for women across the country, and for most normal people, the bodies seen displaying clothes on the runway are simply unnatural and unattainable. Instead of punishing super-thin models for being too small, perhaps designers should select a greater variety of body types to show off their clothes, or refuse to hire models until they are physically mature (part of the problem seems to be that a lot of the girls on the runway are still very young and haven’t yet grown into their adult bodies – just because you are 14 doesn’t necessarily mean that you have hit puberty and seems to me to be a pretty arbitrary age requirement). In any case, I think that the idea of requiring models to be examined by a doctor to ensure that they are healthy before being hired is a great idea. After all, the most important thing to consider is not someone’s size but their health! 

The hairy truth about the fur industry

A little over two years ago, it came out that clothing by several prominent companies, such as Rocawear, Tommy Hilfiger, Oscar de la Renta, Michael Kors, and Baby Phat, had been made with dog fur that was incorrectly labeled as faux fur or “raccoon fur.” People were outraged, and members of Congress even tried to pass a bill, the Dog and Cat Fur Prohibition Enforcement Act, to ensure that consumers would not be misled when buying clothes.

The whole scandal really made me wonder how much information we ever get when buying clothes – as an article by the Humane Society of the United States pointed out, people who think they are buying faux fur might actually be buying real fur. There’s even a loophole in the law that states that if there is at least $150 of fur trim on an item of clothing, it is allowed to be sold without a label. This seems ridiculous to me… if you’re paying more for an item, you should be able to know what it’s made of! Imagine spending hundreds of dollars on what you thought was a faux fur coat, only to discover that it was made of dog fur!

One of the most unsettling things about the fur industry is the shadiness behind its practices. Just by typing “fur industry” into Google, I found pages upon pages of horrible stories. Animals in fur farms are kept in confined conditions (often in small cages with limited space) and are killed in sickening ways, like anal electrocution, neck-snapping, and gassing, to preserve their fur. Some don’t even die immediately and are skinned alive, according to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA). Those who are trapped in the wild are caught in heavy traps, often for days on end, although they rarely die right away. There are videos with undercover footage of the cruel practices on fur farms, but I didn’t have the heart (or the stomach) to watch them. Just reading the stories was enough for me to renounce wearing fur entirely.

PeTA is a big opponent of the fur industry, but since many consider their tactics (such as throwing paint on people wearing fur – more on this in another post!) extreme, I figured I’d get most of my background information from a more moderate source, the Humane Society. They have a great webpage called “Infurmation” with facts and statistics about the fur industry, as well as a handy guide of retailers who have refused to use fur in their clothing.  Check it out!