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!

           

 

 

Happy Earth Day! (a day late)

Happy belated Earth Day! Yesterday was filled with discussions about pressing issues such as global warming, pollution, and endangered species. Celebrities, talk show hosts and journalists across the nation offered advice on how to “live green.” But how does fashion fit into the green movement? Is it possible to be a frequent shopper and still minimize your impact on the environment? I did a little research and found some interesting stories about the fashion industry’s improving relationship with the environment.

According to EarthPledge, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the environmental friendliness in the fashion industry:

 

“Fashion uses more water than any industry other than agriculture. At least 8,000 chemicals are used to turn raw materials into textiles and 25% of the world's pesticides are used to grow non-organic cotton. This causes irreversible damage to people and the environment, and still two thirds of a garment's carbon footprint will occur after it is purchased.”

 

EarthPledge first helped to introduce eco-fashion during New York Fashion Week in February 2005, with a runway event called FutureFashion, co-sponsored with Barneys. Since then, many top name designers have incorporated ecologically sound materials and fabrics into their work – in 2008, Burberry, Calvin Klein, Diane von Furstenberg, Michael Kors, Ralph Lauren, Stella McCartney, Versace, and Yves Saint Laurent were among some of the bigger names that participated in an EarthPledge event.

            An environmental column on www.about.com also mentioned Heatherette’s work with corn fiber materials in their clothing and spotlighted designer Linda Loudermilk, who has made it her goal to produce stylish “luxury” clothing using natural materials, “including bamboo, sea cell, soya, and sasawashi.”

            The clothing we wear is just as much a part of our everyday lives and can make just as significant an impact on the environment as limiting the amount of water we use when we brush our teeth or switching the light bulbs in our house to compact fluorescents. In my search for eco-friendly clothing companies, I found a great website called www.greenloop.com, which lists and sells clothes from “conscientious companies.” A great place to find unique and environmentally friendly jewelry, made entirely from recycled materials, is www.uncommongoods.com.

            In the same vein as my sweatshop-free list, I will update the blog with any other good eco-friendly sites and designers as I come across them. 

Sweatshop labor: don't sweat it? Why aren't more people paying attention to this issue?

I’ve been inspired by a recent debate on the campus of the University of Maryland to discuss a hot topic not so much in the fashion world, but certainly in the commercial clothing market: sweatshop labor.

            First, a little background on the UMD issue, which has been around for a while but was raised again during the SGA elections earlier this month. Maryland administration is under fire from angry students after it was discovered that the supplier of Maryland spirit apparel (sweatshirts, shorts, t-shirts, etc.) sold by the Book Center and other university-run shops, makes their clothing in Honduran sweatshops promoting unfair labor practices. 1,800 workers for the successfully unionized Jerzees de Honduras factory will soon be jobless because Russell Athletics, the American company that runs their factory, has decided to close it down in a blatant effort to intimidate and discourage other sweatshop laborers who might consider unionizing. Russell Athletics has also been accused of trying to suppress organizing efforts and firing workers for unfair reasons. An opinions article from the Diamondback explains the issue in more depth. 

            My father works for a labor union (the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union), so I have always been a pretty strong supporter of unionization and workers’ rights. My family intentionally buys certain food products over others because we try to support unionized companies. I’m ashamed to say, however, that I have never given much thought to whether the clothing I buy is sweatshop free.

            In an effort to find out more about popular clothing companies and their involvement in unfair labor practices, I did a cursory internet search and found it difficult to discover much, probably because companies understandably don’t want this kind of negative information out in the open. After a little more in-depth searching, I found www.sweatfree.org, a website that seeks to improve working conditions worldwide and assist workers trying to unionize. Their annual “Sweatshop Hall of Shame” awards listed some major companies that I have unfortunately purchased clothes from before: American Eagle Outfitters, Cintas, Dickies, Disney, Guess, Hanes, New Era, Speedo, Tommy Hilfiger, and Walmart. Gap was also found to use child labor in their factories in India.

            Other than the lack of information available to consumers about clothing companies’ labor practices, I think another problem is that it is difficult to find alternative clothing companies that manufacture stylish and affordable clothing. Even companies such as H&M, which claim to be devoted to fair labor, have been accused of underpaying workers and other unfair practices. Students for Labor Justice, a group at MIT, list some sweatshop-free companies, but the only one that I had heard of was American Apparel. I will continue to research popular clothing companies and try to compile my own list, because I think that consumers could really use such a resource. Until then, I guess I’ll have to stop shopping at American Eagle – a shame, since it’s one of my favorite stores! 

Let them eat cake?

So here it is, the first post. Another fashion blog is born… but before anyone questions whether there is a need for yet another platform to debate the merits of leggings, deride or praise the resurgence of that 50s fashion staple, the romper, or gush about a gorgeous pair of J. Crew flats, I’d like to make my intentions for this blog clear. While the inspiration for its title, “a fit in the fitting room” comes from a Florence Eiseman quote imploring us not to have a fit in the fitting room (“your fashion life begins there”), my aim is to shake up the complacency that has fallen on much of the fashion and commercial clothing world when it comes to important issues like the industry’s effect on the environment, use of fur, sweatshop labor, and so on. This is not to say that I won’t occasionally write a frivolous post or two – I wouldn’t take the time to blog about a topic that I don’t enjoy – but I think that many valid concerns have been blithely ignored of late, especially because of fashion’s ability to distract and entertain us with beautiful design, to obscure any problems with a sheet of silk or taffeta.

One more thing before I move on to the first topic: I am not in any way an expert on the topic of fashion or the fashion industry. An admirer and enthusiast, yes – but I don’t claim to be an authority on any of the issues that I cover, and I realize that, as with any issues involving art and controversy, there are bound to be ten people who have a different opinion for every one who wholeheartedly agrees with me. Therefore, I’d welcome and encourage comments of any kind. Please tell me if you think I’m off the mark about any particular topic – or let me know if you love my point of view.

So, on to the first topic: fashion and the economy, a huge issue recently, and one that I’ll likely cover more than once. There were a lot of articles around New York’s fashion week last September (including this one from the Wall Street Journal) about the industry’s fears that shoppers might not buy into the idea that they had to completely update their look this spring. One woman in the Wall Street Journal article confessed to budgeting $15,000 for a new wardrobe each season, but suggested that she would be cutting costs to $10,000 while the economy is weak. Personally, I was shocked by the amount of money she admitted to spending, and by the fact that many fashionistas probably spend more each season. Where does the impulse to discard piles of clothes every six months and stock up on new ones come from? Does fashion’s short attention span spur creativity, or is it just another way to convince consumers to part with their money? Is funding the fashion industry like funding art, or could all of that money be put to better use elsewhere? Sometimes it’s hard for me not to feel a little bit revolted by the cost of a designer purse, and, especially now, even $10,000 for an entire wardrobe seems extravagant. 

Spending large sums of money on clothing seems to me to hearken back to the days of monarchy and aristocracy, when the goal was to make wealth apparent. In times of economic hardship, the fashion industry's continuing high prices make them seem out of touch with the majority of the country. Nevertheless, I can understand that designers consider their work to be art, and, accordingly, it will be more expensive than mass-produced, factory-made clothes. Designer clothing also inspires cheaper versions for the rest of us to wear, so it's not an entirely elitist industry. The question, I guess, is does the industry do more harm than good? I'd like to see more appreciation for the beauty of well-made clothing and less frantic trend-hopping and buying new clothes for the sake of having new clothes.