... and ain't I a woman?: What's glamourous about oppression?
An African-American woman with shackles on her neck and wrists, her arms chained together in a slave-like fashion. Another with the elongating neck rings that are designed to stretch and distort the shoulders. Two women in full veil with only a tiny slit for them to peer out at the world. Another woman dressed as a bull, wearing horns and an enormous nose ring, enabling her to be led compliantly.
Seen at a conference discussing the oppression of women through clothing and restraints? No, these are examples of the latest fashion from designers like Givenchy, Gai Mattiolo, and other similarly exalted "setters of trend".
These creations appeared in the September 26 issue of New Idea under the headline of "Fashion gone too far — Wild and wacky or just plain tacky?", and are only some of the examples of bizarre fashion that reflect the centuries-old sexist degradation of women.
That designers are able to use these oppressive images of women in "high" fashion highlights the ignorance of the struggle women still face around the world to liberate themselves from extreme subjugation. A fashion model dressed in full veil, coloured black to absorb the stifling heat, belittles the fight that women in the Middle East, especially those living under Taliban control, face on a daily basis. The veil is a symbol of their lower place in a society which excludes them from public life.
One of these women in full veil has it cut at miniskirt length, showing her legs — but not her face — to the fashion viewer.
The image of the model in chains is just as disturbing. While there is no official slavery left in the United States, African-American women and men still face some the worst conditions of life and lowest wages in that country, with discrimination that continues to this day.
Neck rings are not an exotic thing of the past. Women of the Kayan tribe of Burma, seeking refuge in northern Thailand, are still forced to wear the metal neck rings (weighing up to 13kg) which give the impression of a long and graceful neck, but in fact force the collarbone down, grossly distorting the ribcage. The Good Weekend magazine reported on January 24 that these women are still kept as virtual prisoners to amuse and encourage the tourist trade. Serving this up as fashion reinforces these exploitative practices.
By using these oppressive images of women, are designers trying to reclaim this clothing just as some feminists are trying to reclaim sexist language? This implies that there was a time when this language and the way women were (and still often are) forced to dress was a neutral, or even a good, thing. This is not true of either.
No example of uncomfortable, restrictive, damaging dress or ornament has or ever will be progressive. Without exception, they have been used to restrict the freedom of women to take part fully in society, and are seen as going hand in hand with women's lesser status.
Even wearing the simple sarong is often different for women and men. In Indonesia, the men's sarong is worn loosely, giving freedom of leg movement, while the traditional women's sarong is tightly bound.
It's no coincidence that loose, comfortable clothing was adopted with vigour at the same time that women were standing up for their rights during the second wave of the feminist movement. Gone were the tight bodices of the '50s, and for many the tyranny of high heels.
By glorifying the projection of women's appearance, designers reinforce restrictive practices as not only okay, but attractive and appealing — isn't that what fashion design is meant to do? Money and acclaim are the rewards for trivialising the misery of women around the world.
Women have achieved much in our fight for equality, but these examples show that around the world, women still have a long path to emancipation. We, both women and men, have to stand up against all oppressive images of women, most of which are now presented to sell goods and services.
If there is anything to be reclaimed, it is for women to be able to dress however they want, and as comfortably as they desire. Women are not peacocks nor animals of burden. We are half the population and entitled to participate fully in society, without restrictions of any kind.
By Margaret Allum