Thread for Thought

Over the summer I watched about half an hour of Silk Stockings (1957), a cheesy musical remake of the Greta Garbo classic Ninotchka (1939) where the cool, efficient, and distinctly anti-fashion Soviet agent Cyd Charisse falls in love with (capitalist) Fred Astaire’s flamboyant American producer character while on a government mission in couture capital Paris. Even with my passion for cheesy musicals I could not wade through the entire film, so bad was the dialogue and music, but the on-screen mingling of economic systems and fashion appealed to me greatly. Before turning it off, I did have the pleasure of seeing the namesake silk stocking dance solo performed by Ms. Charisse, a signal of her having fallen in love with Astaire and — not coincidentally — (capitalist) high fashion:

You can see she’s hidden various luxurious items — most of which are silky intimates — around her room, so ashamed is she of having been seduced by luxury goods. It’s a wistful number reminiscent of other more famous musical movies scenes like frumpy Audrey Hepburn singing “How Long Has This Been Going On?” while dreamily dancing around in an ostentatious hat left over by the fashion photo shoot in which she’d been forced to participate in Funny Face (from 1957 as well):

Or Anne Margaret’s “How Lovely to be a Woman” in Bye Bye Birdie (1963):

Or Natalie Wood in West Side Story (1961) singing “I Feel Pretty” and dancing in the dress shop where she works:

You’ll notice that all these were filmed in the late 1950s — the decade of hyper femininity in silhouettes — and early 1960s — the decade when sexuality and gender roles were being questioned more openly. What differentiates Silk Stockings from the other scenes I’ve grouped here (perhaps excepting Funny Face) is the heavy political overtones emphasized over a simple coming-of-age-as-a-woman, though all involve dress-up as experimentation. Though a love story, it’s also about a Commie Russian woman resisting  capitalistic inclinations who is ultimately seduced by the capitalist-produced clothes (the relationship with Fred Astaire is curiously tepid, further shifting the emphasis away from the human relationship). What the clip unfortunately omitted was Cyd Charisse seated next to a framed Lenin photo which she puts down to slowly discard her drab green dress (it’s supposed to be drab, though I think it’s quite lovely in its simplicity), black tights and sensible shoes for silk stockings, lace negligee and white sparkly mules.

I too struggle with my collector’s urges to accumulate (not the least of my obsessions is clothes), and my political / social ideology, which is opposed the stockpiling and hoarding tendencies Americans are told is our right — and more than that, a measure of success in obtaining the capitalist dream. Following this train of thought leads to even larger questions concerning labor rights and ethical practices within the fashion industry which has, as Silk Stockings exemplifies, been a symbol of tremendous creative and technological achievements as well as a hideous exploitative industry ever since the Industrial Revolution and the concurrent birth of Marxism.

I have an article examining the relationship of Communism, capitalism, fashion and film in far more depth in an upcoming edition of Worn Fashion Journal.

Recommend this Post:

: : : : : : : : : : :

tuxedoed Ceara Sturgis in her (banned) class photo

After reading the New York Times article “Can a Boy Wear a Skirt to School?,” exasperation and a wee bit of fury rumbled in my belly. As presented by Jan Hoffman, increasing numbers of school children are pushing the boundaries of so-called acceptable attire by cross dressing– a term used quite loosely here. “Cross dressing” could mean a boy wearing a bit of eyeliner or all-out lip gloss, dress and purse, or a girl in a tuxedo. Immediately obvious is a discrepancy between acceptable cross dressing for girls and for boys: girls may wear pants and button-down jackets or cut their hair short without having a finger pointed at them, but boys in a blouse are unacceptable.

Comprehensive dress rules are typically segmented by gender, revealing in and of itself. Girls may not wear midriff-baring blouses, stiletto heels, or miniskirts; boys may not wear sagging pants, tank tops, or hair longer than their shoulders. Dress codes in the office are an attempt to present a uniform level of professionalism, simultaneously curtailing skimpy clothes (generally targeted at women) that are deemed potentially distracting to coworkers and clients. In educational environments, they are supposed to improve academic and social behavior. Dress codes in schools have an additional moral argument: that of almighty child safety.

Hoffman sensationally mentions Lawrence King “who occasionally wore high-heeled boots and makeup” and who was murdered by one of his 8th grade classmates. Proponents of gender-specific dress codes claim they want to protect students who might attract assaults based on their garments, insinuating that the clothes themselves provoke violence, without actually addressing the root of the hate crimes and the subsequent pressure to outlaw gender bending in school dress codes. If a child or teenager has the desire to cross-dress in whatever subtle or loud form, I think that should be applauded. Thinking outside gender boxes and expressing creativity and originality should be integrated in every school curriculum– and dress is a wonderful, harmless playground in which to experiment with these concepts.

Though the article does not once mention homophobia, that is clearly at the crux of the anxiety surrounding cross dressing. It was instead pointed out that many so-called cross dressers are emo or punk kids whose boys may wear eyeliner and lipstick but who are staunchly straight, pointing to pictures of themselves with their girlfriends. While I agree that wearing makeup does not a fag make, the latent and pervasive fear of gays is undoubtedly the reason for people’s reluctance to accept even small gestures of cross dressing without trying to stamp it out under the guise of “safety” and learning without “distractions.” These anti-cross dressing codes are acts of willful, repressive ignorance. Hoffman mentions those who believe “high school should not be a public stage to work out private identity issues. School, they say, is a rigorous academic and social training ground for the world of adults and employment.” If unusual or gender bending clothes cause a dreaded disruption in class, banning the clothes is still not going to address the core problem: that gayness is considered an undesirable aberration, and adopting aspects of the opposite sex is interpreted (or misinterpreted) as a flaunting of gayness, which is inherently distracting. The feared (and yet misleading) link between gender ambiguity, cross dressing, and homosexuality should be confronted and addressed intellectually, ideally in an open health and sexuality class (and yes, I am woefully aware of the non-existent or inadequate health classes in schools).

Sexual self-discovery is an important and unavoidable part of puberty, and I can think of no redeeming argument to suppress this exploration– most especially in that playground of self adornment. The world is full of different people who dress is vastly different ways based on age, culture, personal taste, gender, sexuality, and more. By prohibiting creative or atypical dress in classrooms, are we teaching students that there is an inherent inferiority or unnaturalness in those who dress outside the “normal” dress codes they’ve been exposed to? If a youth in his awkward teenage years has the self possession to cross dress — in whatever form that takes — only hateful detractors should be afraid of reprimands. Think of the hypocritical disgust the Western world directs at the Muslim world for enforcing total body concealment and banning pants for women, circa 2009…. Uncomfortably similar, non?

Recommend this Post:

: : : : : : : : : : :