Month: October 2023

Growing up in the 2000s, I loved watching TLC shows. Whether it was 19 Kids and Counting, Say Yes to the Dress, or Kate Plus 8, I would spend a lot of my free time watching such shows. One show which my mom and I particularly liked watching was What Not to Wear. We found it particularly funny to make fun of some of the horrendous things that people wear, which was quite entertaining. Thinking back on the show however, I’ve come to realize that there is almost no way that this show would slide now, as it would probably be deemed insensitive.

To refresh my memory on the show, I watched season 6 episode 9, which came out in 2009. The episode followed a woman named Michelle, who was identified as having a “frumpy” style and an obsession with outrageously patterned scarves from the thrift store.

One thing that makes this show particularly degrading is that people are nominated by their friends and family to go on the show. This means that the people closest to an individual think that they have bad style to the extent that they need help. This may be a different story if the individual seeks help themselves, but the fact that its’ at someone else’s discretion seems somewhat hurtful.

Luckily, Michelle was up for the “adventure” as she called it, and was given a $5000 gift card to fund her new wardrobe, while her old one was critiqued and thrown out by the shows’ hosts Stacy London and Clinton Kelly.

Michelle spoke about how she used to have self-esteem issues, so she began to express herself and feel happier through the clothes she wore. By criticizing her outfits, the hosts are in a way telling her that her style that makes her feel good is not beautiful, and she should stop expressing herself in that way. Much of the clothes she had in her closet previously were from the thrift store for $1-5. This is typically seen as good in society as it’s reusing used clothes and saving money. However, she is told that she should spend more money on clothes. The hosts make the point that there isn’t a problem of spending a lot of money on clothes if they are stylish and will last a long time, but this still is not always suitable for everyones budget.

There are various rude and insensitive jokes made throughout the episode. For example when Clinton learns of Michelle’s job as a telemarketer, he says “I would ask to be transferred to someone else if I knew you were on the other end of the phone”. Michelle was also made fun of for never have been on a date, and when she reveals that her type is jocks the comment that “this isn’t really the look to attract a jock” was made. Despite the fact that this is outwardly rude, it also puts the point across to Michelle and viewers that what matters when looking for a spouse is someones looks as opposed to their personality. The hosts also encouraged Michelle to find things that flatter her body. This is fine but making the comment that “when you carry weight in your midsection” while pointing out Michelle’s stomach, is quite rude and inappropriate, and is quickly glazed over in the episode.

The producers do a good job at the end of the episode masking some of these inherent issues. Michelle says that she feels more confident in herself now and that she will still go to the thrift store, but will find things that suit her body type there. Despite this positive feedback at the end of the episode, the show still projects a shocking and inappropriate idea that people need to change the way they dress to conform to the standards of society in order to find mates or just be seen as conventionally attractive. This takes away from the idea that people should be liked for who they are on the inside rather than what they look like. This may have been able to slide in the 2000s, but a show like this would never be successful in modern day society because of the many people who encourage positive body image and loving yourself for you, without changing the way you look for others.

“One size fits all”

This phrasing originated in the fashion industry, but since has expanded to mean a variety of different things in different industries. While most brands seem to cater to a diverse set of body sizes, there are still a few which only sell one size of clothing.

What first comes to mind for me is the brand Brandy Melville. Brandy has been a very popular brand for my demographic for the past 5-10 years. Almost constantly the styles that Brandy puts out are all over social media, seen as a trendy style. As I’ve discussed in previous posts, when a style is trending on social media, it is very desirable, and many people want to buy it so that they can fit in with the trend. The unfortunate part of this is, even if people have a desire to purchase these clothes, girls may not even be able to purchase clothing from the company due to their one size fits all movement, which restricts a majority from purchasing their clothes.

By only making one size of clothing, brands advocate that this is the standard of beauty, and that if you don’t fit into this one size, then you don’t deserve to wear the clothing from this brand. When you don’t fit into what “all” people should be able to wear, your self-confidence is likely to decrease and you may feel like you need to change the way you look to be accepted by society, when in reality this is not the case.

The typical model of Brandy’s clothing is a skinny, white conventionally pretty woman. When you are buying their products, you are essentially buying into the image that they display.

In addition, the employees at Brandy stores are notoriously rude to those who do not fit into this general stereotype. This has been a joke on social media where people are made fun of by the employees when shopping, not being the typical polite that they would to other customers, and in general not being inclusive to all sizes and types of people.

Unfortunately, by buying Brandy Melville’s products (no matter how cute or trendy they are) is supporting their idea that one size fits all means that they “normal” body type is a size small. The media’s treatment of the brand further showcases the commonplace that the brand is exclusive to bigger body types.

When I was researching topics to write about regarding fashion, one controversy from 2019 caught my eye. Most of us know of the brand Gucci for offering expensive, high-end products. If you are seen with the iconic G anywhere on your outfit or accessories, you would probably be perceived as wealthy and to some maybe even snobby.

The brand Gucci is associated with wealth, as can be seen in their iconic designs that are easily recognizable. However, the brand is also trying to branch out from this idea and step outside of the box of normal fashion, often to make a societal point.

This occurs more often at runway shows, which are typically to showcase the brands creativity, designers, and models, but not really to market the clothes that these models are wearing. This specific runway was a part of the Milan Fashion Week. Gucci decided to begin the show with models wearing white straitjackets. This specific style of straitjacket was what those living in mental institutions prior to the time mental health was really well understood wore. During this time patients in asylums were subject to cruel treatment because it wasn’t considered a health problem, and there was not much in terms of research to help those with mental health issues. Instead, they were treated almost as if they were animals, locked in cages and abused. The fact that Gucci used these outfits in their show was insensitive. This part of the show also featured the models coming out on a conveyor belt, which was also a poor touch by the designers.

One model, Ayesha Tan-Jones made a statement in protest of the show. When walking out onto the runway, they held up their palms, which read “Mental health is not fashion”. In an interview, they described how this hurt them because of their own struggles with mental health and those in their family and that “it is hurtful and insensitive for a major fashion house such as Gucci to use this imagery as a concept for a fleeting fashion moment” (Garrand).

The defense that Gucci had was that this was a statement on a societal issue and that the straitjacket style was included “as the most extreme version of a uniform dictated by society and those who control it” (Garrand). They also stated that since this was the opening part of the show and more vibrant styles followed they were trying to convey “fashion as a way to allow people to walk through fields of possibilities, cultivate beauty, make diversity sacrosanct and celebrate the self in expression and identity” (Garrand).

It’s understandable that brands are trying to make a societal point; we see this all the time in ads and other mediums. However, there must be a line that should not be crossed. Sometimes brands go too far and what may have originally been a harmless jab at institutions in society may turn into something harmful that hurts an already marginalized group of people. This is when fashion and other brands need to realize that getting involved in societies woes may just dig them into a much deeper hole.

Source