Amanda Platell Says Some Fashion Designers Are Misogynistic
Daily Mail UK style writer Amanda PlatellA Charge of Fashion Industry Misogyny
Daily Mail UK writer Amanda Platell has written very cogent protest against the fashion industry’s new found love for Andrej Pejic. To be clear, Amanda Platell has high regard for Andrej’s looks as well as his personality and intelligence. Her issue isn’t with Andrej but the fashion industry that obsesses with him.
Platell echoes key points that we have made consistently about some fashion designers.
For years now the debate has raged over size zero models, yet each year they became skinnier and less like women. No breasts, no curves, so desiccated by starvation they’d be unable to have a child even if they wanted to.
They became utterly defeminised.
Now another issue is looming around the size 0 model and size 0 woman, one that seeks to eliminate women all together, writes Platell.
Platell continues:
It’s the ultimate in woman hating, to create a half-man, half-woman creature because the girls are simply not up to the job. They’re too — let’s face it boys — womanly, even when they’ve been starved to within an inch of their lives.
What an act of abject misogyny.
Preparing for an onslaught of criticism against a ‘hysterical’ Amanda Platell, let me say that AOC stands with her on this subject. We adore Adrej and our focus is not on Andrej Pejic.
Nor do we take issue with all male designers. Tom Ford and Marc Jacobs are big loves of mine, and I would feel comfortable confessing my fears to them because I trust their support of strong, vibrant women.
Having acknowledged all the body image issues like the luxury market is moving to Asia where women are smaller and inevitable changing beauty standards for women over the decades, we must understand that even ballerinas have been slimmed down fit this new beauty standard.
Are Women With Curves Just Jealous?
We moved from a post-feminist decade of size 4-6 US Supermodels setting a strong, sexy vision of beauty to women who must look like boys. I sound like a broken record asking this question every week.
Especially in America, fashion is not known for having an intellectual side. Anyone who asks serious questions about the meaning of fashion, model size, beauty and women’s rights is just a jealous, insecure, potato-chip eating mommy lacking self discipline, as Karl Lagerfeld calls us.
I am one very intelligent American woman who is getting nervous about what’s up with the female sex.
My relations with men are superb generally and I have a career of working great with men. Many of my men friends — some quite Conservative — agree that American women are getting hit from every angle.
I can’t speak for women in France — center to most of the intellectual side of fashion. For certain, there’s not a full court press going on to take away their hard-won rights to control their own bodies.
Religion, Fashion and Phylis Schlafly
Politically I’ve got Phyllis Schafly hammering me in a new book that as a feminist who wants American women not to stand with Swaziland and Papua, New Guinea as only three nations who have no family leave policy to help new mothers, I am the curse of the earth.
The men of South Dakota pulled back from an abortion bill that would have given men the rights to shoot a wife assisting her daughter in obtaining a legal abortion in another state as justifiable homicide. They only pulled back because women like me wrote every defaming headline we could think of to save another seizure of women’s rights and now our very lives from becoming law.
A woman in America is first and foremost an incubator in the minds of these men. ‘Incubator’ is not my word to describe American women; it belongs to former Democratic pro-life Rep Bart Stupak.
Karl and Phyllis
Karl Lagerfeld is on record also preaching monasticism and sex with prostitutes because passion never survives in marriage.In many of his views, Karl Lagerfeld and Phyllis Schlafly sleep in the same Conservative values bed.
When you accept that idea, a holistic examination of women’s worlds make much more sense. Lagerfeld agrees with Schlafly that women are the caretakers, which is why he doesn’t support gay marriage.
Women Want To Be Dominated in Bed
Then I read on Ask Dan and Jennifer’s blog ‘3 Sex Tips To Give A Woman An Orgasm Without Using Your Hands!’
Women have come very far, when it comes to equal rights in both the job and the home. Women can achieve anything men can achieve in our modern world. However, when it comes to sex, most women still have primal instincts that need to be satisfied. And these instincts tell her she NEEDS to be “owned” by a dominant man.
Telling a woman to come is one of the most powerful ways to get her to orgasm when having sex. This primal urge goes all the way back to our caveman days – she gets off on you being in control of her body.
I hate to tell Dan and Jennifer but I am hotter than Hades in bed, and it doesn’t work for me. I’ll take up this subject shortly because the nuances of this barbaric approach to handling women in the bedroom should not be generalized in this way.
Thankfully, after steaming over this article for a few days and reminding my own FB friends that women had multiple sexual partners before we became the chattel of the patriarchy, I saw a PBS nature show where a female tiger not only fought two male tigers successfully but then had them lying at her feet as calm prevailed.
Nothing aggravates me more than men who reinvent history with the science behind their assertions. What I know for certain is that sex in nature in full of fun and frolic, and women are often on top, not dominated. We know that early humans were not monogamous. I want to see the science behind Dan and Jennifer’s assertion that women want to be dominated in bed, due to our ‘natural’ as opposed to ‘forced upon us’ history.
Note: I am not suggesting that many women don’t enjoy being ‘taken’ by their strong man (or woman) lover, and I will discuss the topic shortly in another essay.
But wait. We have more talk about the natural civilizing benefits of BDSM.
Next up is a quote from a deliberately anonymous person who wonders aloud about feminism and submission, writing:
That BDSM has become a hot topic is evidenced all around us, in magazine ads, the creation of erotic art, and the proliferation of adult novelty items sold in high-end lingerie stores such a Coco De Mere. But whether we will find ourselves collectively chatting about the latest gadgets to tie, bind and pleasure us (hmm, we have a new feather tipped flogger, and is it ever exquisite!) in the process as casually as we discuss, say, the best coffee makers or summer camps for the kids is another thing altogether. For most of us, and by that I mean those who call themselves feminists and those who aren’t sure if the shoe fits, sexual liberation hasn’t yet matriculated to that level of openness, never mind the political climate that wants to put discussions about ordinary sex back in the closet.
Not that I think that’s a problem seeking a solution; being pleasure bound may intuitively and correctly lead us towards a safer society, sexually speaking, but that doesn’t mean diarrhea of the mouth should supersede couth with regards to our private play. Language that is raunchy for the sake of gratuitousness will only serve to alienate those who come to this table timidly to begin with. Let’s not get bound up by an inability to share our views on eroticsm, and thereby miss all the fun of blindfolds.
I asked several of my friends to read the post and especially the line “Not that I think that’s a problem seeking a solution; being pleasure bound may intuitively and correctly lead us towards a safer society, sexually speaking … “
How, I ask you, does BDSM intuitively and correctly (now that’s a loaded word) lead us towards a safer society? My group is clueless.
The argument that women submit our bodies to men (90% of submissive are women) because we should or it’s good for society is coming from so many ardent Conservatives, Congressmen, fashion designers and sex bloggers that I want to just get under the covers and stay there with a strong Conservative man I know well.
Thankfully, he prefers femme fatales like Dagny Taggart, the heroine of Atlas Shrugged and would differ with Schlafly’s assertion that I am a good for nothing example of a woman. Give me Dagny or give me death.
Alexander McQueen and BDSM Forniphilia
Back to the fashion size 0 patriarchy — which is not all gay — by the way.
Like so many people in fashion, I loved Alexander McQueen’s fabulous fashion talents. I always regarded him as a man who loved women, but honestly got a bit rattled the day I saw the photo of McQueen and his table.
I was writing Is Forniphilia Essentially Women’s Sex Slave Work? and stumbled into a photo of the guy I revered. McQueen’s table didn’t use a real live submissive to host his dinner parties but I couldn’t help wondering about the mind of the man who spent a lot of time with this relationship with the female form.
Visually, it looks like a love-hate relationship to me, but I’m not a sexual psychotherapist. I know the drill. It’s just art, Anne.
A documentary about Alexander McQueen airs tonight in Britain and offers insights into the extent of the brilliant designers demons and extensive drug habit that came with his success and pressure to top his great collections every season while remaining true to his own vision.
As part of the conversation that Amanda Platell launched today, it’s relevant to mention that McQueen’s design assistant says in the documentary, describing a Givenchy show:
‘There wasn’t a lot of space, people were running around and I remember (McQueen) running over to Eva Herzigova and cutting the laces on her corset saying ‘You f***ing bi**h and you know dragging her to get her to exit on time.”
‘She was in tears by the time she was out there. No one had ever treated her that way before.’
Truth Serum
I adore Andrej Pejic, but it has gone through my mind more than once that this new trend is just one more example of the female body under assault.
Because I worked around the great Supermodels — who were kick butt women with big personalities and Amazonian bodies, to quote Crystal Renn — there is no doubt in mind that many men prefer that women be taught their proper place in life.
As a consultant I’ve received incessant praise for my ability to connect seemingly unrelated dots into large cultural patterns. Fortune 100 clients have learned not to call me crazy.
The fashion eyebrows will rise and the fingers will be wagging over Amanda Platell’s diatribe. From the bottom of my heart, I wish it didn’t ring true to me.
The fashion industry would be more honest if they admitted that they have huge influence on how women see ourselves. The ideal woman today is a disempowered, size 0 version of her nineties larger-than-life self, with no breasts and what the heck — perferably she’s a nice-looking man.
We should wonder how we got here and why. There is something rotten in the state of Denmark and it extends beyond the fashion industry in America. Anne
Share Article
Reader Comments (6)
Imagine female designers telling men that the perfect male body was a woman... and them getting away with it. Men would laugh them out of the room. Unfortunately, far too many women are complicit in their own subjugation.
To my mind this subjugation of women is not far off the attitude towards women of more overtly oppressive regimes.
Is the use of a man to model women's clothing misogynistic? Of course it is. Everyone i know thinks it is, it's just that the cry of homophobia (which Platell was branded with) stops people from saying what they really think.
The reality is that Pejic is attractive enough, passes for female with heavy make-up and airbruishing, but if female would be considered highly average by the designers. There are far more exquisitely beautiful women, but they are sidelined for being too feminine.
Very interesting comment Emily. I had a similar one on FB today. You are correct in saying that the cry of homophobia would be ferocious, even with someone like myself. Actually I was criticized recently for discussing female sexuality from a heterosexual perspective and not including transgender persons -- not only bisexual and lesbian women -- in the conversation. This seems rather tyrannical to me -- that a heterosexual woman can't discuss female sexuality from that perspective on her own website, with her audience which is probably 80% heterosexual. The focus was this stupid argument that arose recently about the "natural submission of women". Talk about pc police.
Re Andrej Pejic, I can't tell you how much traffic he drives. And I do believe that Andrej's attitude and confidence before the camera is stunning. He owns the camera and I feel many of the women wait to be directed. Andrej is very much his own person. In the last two days since the Andrej bra ad came out, he has driven more traffic than last week's Pirelli calendar, which was a big driver, too. Andrej can lift traffic an extra 5,000 unique visitors a day for us. It's amazing.
Again, all your points are well taken, Emily. Anne
Hi Anne
Controversy always sells... That's why the media pushes more and more controversial viewpoints every year. As for prejic owning the camera, plenty of women do that but those women are rejected by the fashion industry, and increasingly Hollwood: they are being airbrushed away. Instead we are pushed asexual, skeletal females that noone finds attractive.
The misogyny in the fashion industry is now unbelievably brazen: women's bodies are apparently so repulsive that it is only those born male who are truly desirable to model clothes for... women. Prejic is one of many. Females are only tolerated if they are malnourished or children (many models are pre-pubescent 13 year olds and in Paris at 21 you are 'too old').
What I would like to know is why so many women, gay and straight alike, are such patsies in terms of their own subjugation. As I said before, men would never, ever fall for it. So the real question is, why do women?
Again, I welcome your comments Emily and -- as you say, wonder why more women don't join you. I don't know if you read my recent Self Love Is Saying 'No' to Fashion Body Images You Hate:
http://www.anneofcarversville.com/body-politics/2011/12/11/self-love-is-saying-no-to-fashion-body-images-you-hate.html
The act of refusal is actually very liberating, once a woman finds her own voice. You may also be interested in the new Mar Montoro editorial and commentary from me:
http://www.anneofcarversville.com/style-photos/2011/12/19/mar-montoro-by-leyla-ugarte-in-lady-noir-3-smart-sensuality.html
Mar has a very large radio audience in Spain and then broadcasting into 50 million listener base in South Africa. She wanted to take up the 'real woman' topic because she has a teen show on sexuality and also writes erotica.
You realize, of course, that I'm not 35, this mindset we see among women today -- participating in their own subjugation as you write -- is absolutely foreign to me. Young women today think they are so post-liberated but on this topic for certain, women behave like total doormats when the subject is the fashion industry. I hope to work with women like Mar and her photographer and others who are reaching out to me to provoke some kind of response from women. I don't know how to unlock the passivity but you are correct that it is a form of participating in one's own subjugation.
My greatest concern is the future development of AI (artificial intelligence.) which is also being done largely by men. Thankfully the head of the MIT robotics lab is a woman. There are days when I am deeply concerned that if there was a way to dispose of women, replacing us with robots that behave as women, many men would be happy to have such a future. You can't image how sophisticated sex robots have become. Women are so preoccupied with following orders and being non-disruptive so that Karl Lagerfeld loves us, we could wake up one day to find that we've been replaced on the planet.
I can share the news that the Mar Montoro editorial is the first one, including the Pirelli Calendar as I wrote, to take out Andrej Pejic, and I think it will go on for quite some time. Given the purpose of the editorial to promote 'real women', it's one small piece of solace. I'm sure it also helps that we have an exclusive on the editorial and she has a large audience.
Thanks again, Emily.
Yes the Stepford Wives syndrome! I have thought of that too but my fear is more along the lines of reproduction - if there comes a time when cloning or some other genetic discovery allows reproduction and the bearing of children without women, that's when I think the misogynists will do what they can to get rid of us! In the most misogynistic societies (like ancient athens) the role of women is reduced to simply being a bearer of children. Overcome that and these men won't want women around at all.
So I find it interesting that the media increasingly pushes a view of women that goes completely against the rules of attraction: which is one based upon signs of health and usually fertility. The ancient part of the brain is geared to finding a partner who will thrive - and for the majority that includes the ability to conceive or be around long enough to rear children. A skeletal woman with no body fat tells our subconscious that she is unable to fulfill this role: she is most likely unable to conceive (indeed periods stop when you starve yourself) and if she does manage it, the child or the mother is likely to suffer during pregnancy or childbirth. She is unlikely to be able to breastfeed either which is not essential of course but does have benefits for mother and child. I am not talking about naturally thin women, but the size zeros who can only get to that size by depriving themselves of essential calories. Fake boobs can mask this reality to some extent, but the jutting bones will always signify illness.
I personally think most men do like women, I have lots of male friends in their 30s and they do not display the same ingrained sexism of my father's generation - in the UK and US at least. But I heard some teenage boys the other day talking about a slim girl saying she was fat (she wasn't in the slightest). It's the teens that have been got at in my view. Aside from the fashionistas, the majority of girls in their 30s are not taken in because we grew up with the glamorous, vibrant super models of old (who were still very thin, mind). It's the teenage girls who are being told that a mutilated female or androgynous male is the ideal. Of course, when you deprive yourself of food, you develop all sorts of mental health issues - anxiety, depression - so not only are these poor girls being told to make themselves physically ill, they are also being made miserable even if they do succeed in fulfilling this warped image.
I think some women who identify themselves as feminist have misguidedly thought that it's ok to push women who look unfeminine / very thin because this subverts the reproductive desire, and therefore promotes the idea of women being more than just child-bearers. But how can women succeed as well as men if they are spending so much time and energy trying to deform their bodies? How can it be good for them to be depriving their brain of nutrients that are essential for them to function at optimum capacity?
I personally think the misogynists are a small minority, but a very motivated one. Unfortunately positions of power (propaganda, politics) are often filled by highly motivated people with a malign agenda against others.
As for putting androgynous men on sexy calendars for straight men, that may well backfire?
Nice talking with you!
Very interesting link into feminism, Emily. I never thought of that actually -- feminism, androgyny and bodies w/o curves.. That's a biggie that I will ponder.
Yes, I agree with you re the majority of men, with whom I get along very well, but I also fear 1) the power structure and passion of the minority, as you reference and 2) unintentional results of technology use.
The majority never rules on anything, whatever the rhetoric, in America at least. I was watching a show last night on new drugs and implants that will create memories so effective that a person would actually believe s(he) had been to Mars.
We know that the glut of digital pornography is having high impact on male expectations and understanding of female sexuality. I'm not anti-porn per se, but I do believe that the evolution of robots and digital experience will be so strong -- even 20 years from now -- that androids may well become a preferred partner for busy people. Of course, women could have a male android partner programmed just the way she desires, too. The technology works both ways.
I just don't see how leaving the development of androids and AI to the men -- with some but not many female scientists exceptions -- will result in AI that fully captures female traits. Even there, feminism has an interesting role -- just as you raised up top with feminism and androgyny in body. (Man, I TRULY never thought about that concept!!!) I do know that many believe that true equality won't come until gender is dismissed with.
Years ago I was at an AI conference at Intel and asked a simple questions about the differences in the male and female brain. The Berkeley women practically threw me out of the conference, arguing that there is no difference between brains. With brain scans, we now know that I was absolutely asking the right question. Yet feminists (and I am one) were arguing for one universal 'male' brain. I don't want a male brain but a female one. I like my womanly brain, because it has ways of working and thinking, of processing information that I prefer.
Because today's young women could care less about these issues -- believing they are liberated fully -- the science will be driven by the minority stockholders, as you write.
Absolutely nice talking with you, too, Emily.