With the 2016 presidential election just a couple of days away, there's probably no better of a time than now to talk politics and fashion. When Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be nominated for president, she strutted along the Democratic national convention wearing a suit impeccably tailored to convey her message: she was the embodiment of the women's movement. The suit's snowy whiteness connected Clinton to the suffragette movement of the 1900s, and unnamed, it belonged to every woman.
But there was one tiny but significant omission -- the suit had no pockets, the greatest gender divide in clothing. Behind the pocket is an entire sexist and political history. The video shows how as women's clothing evolved to accommodate beauty over efficiency, pockets were exempt from the tight corsets and long skirts that they wore. At the turn of the 20th century, dresses with pockets made their comeback. Whether or not voters are aware of this long history behind a piece of fashion, Hillary's pocketless suit is "the answer to what women can wear to convey relatable power." We communicate who we are to a certain extent through what we wear. And our Democratic presidential candidate seems to be reminding us of the struggle behind the progress of women, both explicitly through her words and discreetly through her clothes.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Our Goal:To inform on the ongoing crises that the clothing industry poses on our community and applaud any acts that rise over the conventional ways of consumption.
Archives
January 2017
Have a story you want to share?
Contact us at our email or phone number!
|