Ready, Set, Fashion!

Here we go,  embarking on a journey of exploring fashion and feminism.  You can thank my instructor for approving my paper topic.  My paper is going to explore whether or not a "real" feminist can be into fashion.

This is how I thought we would proceed.  For the next couple of weeks, I am going to present you with about five or six journal articles, giving you the summary of what they say, and how I think they relate to the topic. (Comments encouraged, welcomed, etc.)  I also hope to give you a summary and some information about actual facts about the workings of the fashion industry and garment making.  Ultimately, I will post the paper - or a way to get to the paper so as not to bore you if this just sounds like one big snoozefest to you.  My professor challenged us to submit the paper to a conference for extra credit (this is our capstone course).  I just might go for it.  We'll see.  Your comments might get a citation!  (Just so you know, the chances of this paper getting accepted to any respectable conference are  slim to none).  Sound kind of fun to the fashionistas and/or nerdy among us? :) Now for today's article:

Scanlon, J. (2009). Sexy from the start: Anticipatory elements of second wave feminism. Women’s Studies, 38, 127-150.  

Scanlon presents the tension between second and third wave feminists over views of fashion.  She begins by noting that the very concept of “waves" allows the image of simultaneously identifying with and breaking from the past.  Third wave feminists are a diverse, not easily defined group, but generally see themselves as making right of some of the second wave’s wrongs.  In the case of this article, the wrong would be believing that fashionable, "sexy," dress undermines women's power and ability to be taken seriously in the work place.

     Scanlon points to Helen Gurley Brown, long time editor of Cosmopolitan magazine, as the forerunner of Third Wave’s embrace of fashion.  Scanlon’s thesis is that the line between second and third wave fashion is blurrier than the either/or scenario it has been considered; Gurley Brown is an agent of blending the two.  Gurley Brown, like second wave feminists, pursued power for women in the workplace.  She disagreed, however, that it would come in dressing like a man, and instead endorsed mini-skirts, make-up, and high heels.  She asserted that dressing femininely is powerful, and that women do not dress for men; they dress to in ways that make them feel confident and good about themselves.  Gurley Brown was just as in favor of women’s independence and assertion of self as any second wave feminist, but thought that women defined that by the way they chose to dress.  Third wave feminists have continued her beliefs by maintaining that a woman can project any image they please, and are not at the mercy of anyone, be it men or second wave feminist’s, ideas of who they should be.  

Scanlon’s work is useful to my topic because she addresses not only the dilemma of whether or not fashionable dressing is fitting for feminists, but also because she attempts to show a hint of a possibility for middle ground between staunch second wave and freer third wave ideologies.  She does not quite give second wave feminists a fair portrayal of their reasons for shunning fashion, and focuses intensely on the merits of third wave ideas, almost endorsing third wave fashion views as the solution, or, as the evolved and better product of second waves beliefs.  

I am trying to stay fairly neutral when I do these article presentations in hopes of generating some great discussion...