Vogue's Grace Coddington and Anna Wintour
From the day I first saw the trailer online, I was super excited to see The September Issue, the documentary about the making of Vogue's thickest issue of the year. I've long been fascinated by the popular portrayal of Vogue editor Anna Wintour as the ultimate ice-queen boss from hell. And fashion is probably my #1 Un-Feminist Guilty Pleasure. So of course I went to see it as soon as it opened.
There are, obviously, a lot of valid criticisms to make of the fashion industry. It's sizist. It's racist. It's classist. And yes, absolutely, Wintour bears some responsibility for that. At one point in the film, they photoshop a whole different neck onto a perfectly lovely cover photo of Sienna Miller. (Quote: "Is this shot with the old neck or the new neck?") On these issues, the editors get no pass from me.
But fashion is also a major (the only?) global industry in which women run the show. Watching The September Issue, I was struck multiple times at how unaccustomed I am to seeing women in charge. Not just one woman in a male-dominated setting, mind you. But women.
Most of the documentary hinges on the relationship (or power struggle) between Wintour and Vogue's creative director Grace Coddington, who have very strong and sometimes opposing views of exactly how they want the magazine to look. When they clash, Wintour usually emerges the victor -- she's higher on the masthead, after all -- but Coddington is one of the few staffers with the gumption to stand up to her. It was, frankly, awesome to watch two women over the age of 50 portrayed as powerful and experienced rather than past-their-prime and shrewish.
Other bloggers have said they were surprised to come away from the film with the distinct impression that Anna Wintour is not a bitch. She's just... in charge. Maybe she was just playing nice while the cameras were rolling, but honestly, I was not at all shocked to see that Wintour's devilish reputation appears overblown. Women managers who are straightforward -- who don't sugarcoat their opinions, and who realize they're your boss, not your mother -- are always seen as irredeemable bitches.
There's also a common trope perpetuated by anti-feminists (and some feminists, too) that women are inherently more nurturing than men. That women are "naturally" power-averse and non-confrontational and inclined toward niceties. I think that is true for some women. But others who contradict that trope, like Wintour, are frequently declared to be in denial of their femininity or to be suppressing their true essence. That's bullshit.
Maybe Anna Wintour isn't super fun to work for. Maybe she doesn't make time for heart-to-heart chats with her employees. So what? At least in The September Issue,
Wintour knows what she likes, knows what she doesn't like, and gets the job done. Even though I don't find the resulting magazine to be all that great (on a feminist level, on a journalistic level, or on a fashion-taste level), I have to say I really admire her for that.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Decisive, Successful Woman Wears Prada.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16121
Its interesting to note that even though the fashion industry is run by women, that it stills adheres to patriarchy and women who have absorbed patriarchal ways of looking at themselves.
I agree with Gopher about how an industry that is ruled by women is still fused with patriarchy of beauty and body image. However, I wanted to point out something slightly different regarding this posting. As a feminist and animal rights activist, I think that it is extremely relevant to mention how women's issues and animal issues are linked and should be included in feminist discussion and the like. I am a vegan because I do not believe in exploiting or exuding "my" power over any being. I believe that animals hold a sense of value in our society and are not ours to do what we want with them. I am a vegan because animals deserve rights and are a valuable asset to our environment and social construction of our society.
Likewise I am a feminist because I believe that everyone deserves equal rights and are valuable to our society, no matter who they are. This comparison is very important to me and find it perplexing when I meet feminists who are not vegetarian. How could you fight for equal rights, as you exploit another group and place your dominant power over them? I hope this is not too bold of a statement, for I wish to not offend anyone but this discussion is far from over and needs to be included in feminist discussion and debates.
Furthermore, the reason that I posted this commentary to the above posting is because I find it so disgusting to see this woman wearing fur. I don't care who she is. Whether she or anyone believes this is "fashionable" is your right, however I find it unusual that we feminists would not consider that this woman in "power" is using it to destroy innocent animals for their fur in addition to "ruling" an industry. I think its more important to consider that she is using her power in a negative way.
Just something that I wanted to share, I get pretty heated when animals are not included in feminist discussion. What do you think?
Many, many people think there's an inherent difference in fighting for the rights of humans vs. non-humans. Not to say that they need to be mutually exclusive, by any means. But linking the two too closely can be problematic, since it sometimes results in people comparing abuse of animals as equally a problem as the abuse of oppressed peoples (women, minorities, immigrants, etc.). PETA has tried to do this (comparing slavery in America to the practice of chicken farming now, I think was one of them) and people were pissed because it implied that chickens are as important as black people in our society. You see the problem?
I get what you're saying, but be careful. The gap between humans and non-humans, including their rights, is a huge gap for many people, and they would be downright offended to hear someone compare the murder of a woman to fulfill some sadist's fantasy to the murder of a mink to make a coat.
There's an innate degree of anthropocentrism that we'll never get around, true. But I take issue with this:
The gap between humans and non-humans, including their rights, is a huge gap for many people, and they would be downright offended to hear someone compare the murder of a woman to fulfill some sadist's fantasy to the murder of a mink to make a coat.
Of course humans are going to value humans' lives more than any other animals'. But the mink who are confined in atrocious cages, brutalized, anally electrocuted, skinned while they're dead or just immobilized, and then thrown in the trash have to enter into it. We can't disregard or devalue that aspect just because, unlike Homo sapiens, they cannot articulate their suffering in the same terms. And there are laws against brutalizing and murdering women - imperfectly enacted and enforced, but women are a hell of a lot better off than mink. And that matters, a lot.
PETA has tried to do this (comparing slavery in America to the practice of chicken farming now, I think was one of them) and people were pissed because it implied that chickens are as important as black people in our society. You see the problem?
Fabulous point.
Many black people have a huge issue with the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s-70s being connected with LGBT rights. I can only imagine what that group thinks of when being compared to chicken farming.
You have a complete right to your opinion I suppose, but personally I think animals are animals, people are people. You can disagree with that, and while I don't enjoy the idea of suffering in animals, I think that this is a different topic from feminism altogether. I will continue to eat fish, avoid meat, not understand the desire to wear fur but still refuse to hate someone for their personal beliefs regarding the fur industry, and still call myself a feminist.
I have heard the argument about how they're alive too, they're worthwhile as well, and I'm sorry, people are by far my top priority. That doesn't take away from the fact that I'm a feminist.
All of this isn't to say that I don't try to avoid meat, because honestly I do. But the two are not linked for me, at all - and any feminist I see scarfing down a burger while wearing leather shoes is no less of a feminist in my eyes.
But, you offer an interesting perspective, and I appreciate your honesty.
Hmm I see animal rights as strongly linked to feminism, in terms of rejecting oppression justified by 'traditional' and 'natural' roles. Whether or not speciesism and other isms are part of, or a logical reflection of feminism is maybe a matter of semantics.
And apologies if this sounds pedantic, but I don't think we should think about veganism in terms of what are our "priorities". Full time animal rights activism obviously takes time away from other activism, and people should choose what they feel is most important and where they can make most difference, but veganism doesn't preclude one from concentrating on other things - it's mostly about choosing another section of the same supermarket :) (and any inconvenience rather pales in comparison with the suffering avoided).
I appreciate your commentary Alessa and respect and value your opinion, however, may I suggest you read some of the following: "Sexual Politics of Meat," "Pornography of Meat" or "Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations." I think there you will surprised to discover the powerful connection between vegetarianism (animal rights) and feminism (womens rights).
Furthermore, it is acceptable to state that "humans are your top priority," however I am not suggesting that you nor anyone choose who is "most" important, but rather I am working to promote a important topic in the discussion of feminism and the rights of all living beings. For myself, feminism means the rights and equality of all living beings and that includes non-humans as well.
Sure, there are many parallels between feminism and animal rights. Especially when you look at the connections between animal cruelty and the prevalence of domestic violence (DV). Early on, advocates recognized how batterers used the threat of harming pets to control their partners…police would look for signs of pet abuse to indicate a higher likelihood of DV. There are some shelters just for dogs/cats whose owners are fleeing DV so that leaving their pets behind is not an impediment to the woman leaving her abuser. This is great, however, remember the public outrage and calls for accountability towards Michael Vick? There has never been the same kind of outrage at any professional athlete who has brutalized, beat, and terrorized their wives and there is certainly not a lack of examples to choose from. It is disgusting to me the obvious minimizing of DV against women and the fervor over which people were ready to lock Michael Vick up for his actions. What other conclusion can I draw except that we as a society value dogs more than we value women? In addition, there are significantly more animal shelters in this country than there are domestic violence shelters for women fleeing abusive partners. Where are our priorities?
I also disagree that being a meat eater and being a feminist is mutually exclusive. Nor does eating meat call into question my beliefs on hierarchy, dominance, and control of women. There are many health benefits, for women in particular, to eating red meat, fish, and other protein. I am a feminist and I cannot envision a life without a good steak every once in awhile! I don’t see this as exerting “power over” animals. Yes, many animals are mistreated and abused in our corporate controlled production of food-so are the human factory workers, for that matter-so I try to make choices to minimize my support of those sources of food. I try to buy only grass fed, organic, free range, non-hormone injected beef, chicken, eggs, and pork. To me, this is just like not buying products from companies that are sexist, or treat workers inhumanely. This to me, is a feminist act and in line with treating animals humanely.
I agree with you, if only from a pain-reduction standpoint. And there's no doubt in my mind that the brutalization and mistreatment of animals not only in the fur industry, but in the agricultural-industrial and food complexes, has got to be tied to the normalizing of violence in our culture (including profiting from violence, as military contractors) and the venerating of the virtues of force. Really, when you can't respect an animal life enough that you think it's fine to torture it so it can be turned into a luxury item and symbol of the world's ever-increasing wealth gap, I think there's a problem.
People can emphasize the many "differences" between human and animals all they want. There's really no question that it's irresponsible to compare, e.g., human slavery to animal treatment. But it still means something in a society where your kid can watch a rape occur on primetime TV and where we make entertainment out of terrorized women, that equally thoughtless mistreatment and violence against animals is also brushed aside because we don't have to witness it in our everyday lives.
I have advanced before, without knowing any better, the notion that women are more nurturing than men, and as such I renounce my original position. I'm not sure why I overlooked the obvious. Though I am male, I am also very nurturing myself. Still, I know I'm not exactly what constitutes "average".
There's so much ingrained patriarchy in everything and I guess what I lament is that one almost needs to take a class to understand how to both perceive it an unmask it as such. It's interesting to see how the dynamic works within families. My Grandmother was a woman much like Anna Wintour was quite unapologetic about it. I've talked to my mother about this on several occasions and she, by contrast, felt a compulsion to overcompensate and be super feminine as a result. The implication, of course, is the same---women need to be feminine.
I have advanced before, without knowing any better, the notion that women are more nurturing than men, and as such I renounce my original position. I'm not sure why I overlooked the obvious. Though I am male, I am also very nurturing myself. Still, I know I'm not exactly what constitutes "average".
There's so much ingrained patriarchy in everything and I guess what I lament is that one almost needs to take a class to understand how to both perceive it an unmask it as such. It's interesting to see how the dynamic works within families. My Grandmother was a woman much like Anna Wintour and was quite unapologetic about it. I've talked to my mother about this on several occasions and she, by contrast, felt a compulsion to overcompensate and be super feminine as a result. The implication, of course, is the same---women need to be feminine.
The fur coat she's got on tells me all I need to know - and she knows what she's doing on all levels there. Anna Wintour shouldn't get any more respect than Michael Vick just because she has a vulva. Being white and rich doesn't get her off the hook either.
If she's such a successful businessperson then it is very likely she is a manipulative and ruthless person and almost impossible that she is an honest and compassionate person.
There are some good people who are moderately successful though.
I think she's a genius, and I think she is a victim of some serious sexism.
I'm also a fashion geek, and what this woman puts together is nothing short of art. Anybody can disagree, but personally I think people find her easy to hate because she's a white "ice queen" fashion editor who has everything anyone could want. I admire her for the fact that she actually managed to get to where she is from sheer determination.
Learning that animals are sometimes vaginally electrocuted while fully conscious just so their skin can be ripped from their bodies and turned into accessories - and that Wintour is fully aware of this and continues to support it - is all I needed to never want anything to do with any of her business ventures.
Suffering is not exclusive to humans and as a female with a vagina I'm particularly sensitive to the thought of anyone - regardless of species - being anally electrocuted.
*And vaginally electrocuted.
I wonder what that says more about the industry who kills the animals that way as connected to how they think of women and humans in general.
That seems like a better question than attacking Wintour for promoting fur.
Philisophical question:
Why do many women find it ok to find lots of pleasure in activities that they themselves define as unfeminist?
Is it Equivalent or similar to a POC saying i really don't support racism but I think racial profiling is an appropriate method for police officers?
Able-ism or Catharsis? Sinner or Saint?
Im curious on everyone's thoughts
Is it a vegan saying, I hate cruelty to animals, but I have to have taco bell every once and a while?
I too have wondered about this question, mainly in regards to myself. All too often do I feel like a hypocrite when I buy the occasional Glamour magazine, or laugh at a joke that I inherently find offensive, but hey - it was funny. I like clothes, and I love stores like Sephora, I'm not going to lie. I also have an MA in Human Rights and have done various things in the human rights sphere. What it comes down to for me, is simply an everyday battle of choices. And I am speaking just for myself here, I don't find it "OK" to find pleasure in these activities, but I am not going to beat myself up over it either. Rather, I try to make a conscious effort to stay away from things I find in conflict with my own personal beliefs, which might not be the same for the feminist in the next office over to mine, or at the local coffee shop, etc. It's like someone who is trying to lose weight. You know you shouldn't eat the extra brownie, or second helping of pasta, but you do it anyway. But I do find irony in this whole idea of "unfeminist-guilty pleasures." But at the same time, we're only human. That's just my ramble for now, but I think I am going to sit on this idea for a bit and maybe post again. Thanks for bringing this paradox into the comment section :)
As far as I see it, defining myself as a feminist means I don't constrain myself to things that society dictates that women "should" like, do, think, say, be, etc...
So. While the fashion industry is sexist, classist, racist, size-ist, and so on, I still enjoy the art of fashion. This is part of who I am; fashion is a beautiful art that has gotten muddled up in those terrible -isms, but because I understand this, I feel like it's okay to allow myself to enjoy what I like while being aware of the bad.
What is the other option? Never look at the fall collections again? Deny myself the occasional Vogue because of my overall beliefs? What about the rest of who I am as a person, I can't starve that part which loves to look at all of that beauty, analyze the combinations of color, texture, and proportion, or read about up and coming designers and their new fresh takes on our social climate and translating their observations into cloth.
In order to be a feminist I think first and foremost you need to be completely who you are. Because that's what it's about isn't it? Not allowing anyone to tell you who you should be, what you should enjoy, what you should do.
I wish I could like this comment a million times.
Don't you think that philosophy is a little individualistic though? are you basically saying that YOU are feminist and you couldn't give two shakes about how objectified other women are? and when you say that you can enjoy the good while realizing the bad, is that basically like saying Tucker Max is a huge jerk who objectifies women, but I love his prose and writing style, so I buy his books anyway? Shouldn't we be fighting for women's right even at the expense of some things we may enjoy?
PS i totally agree with you Im just trying to foment discussion
I watched the movie version of Devil Wears Prada a few months ago for the first time (Mostly for my love of Meryl Streep) and my biggest take-away from that movie was that the Devil character was Ann Hathaway, not Meryl Streep.
Ann Hathaway's character (the supposed author of the book) is portrayed as a super-sweet, down-home, just-us-folks character who is sucked in and VERY NEARLY CORRUPTED by this horrible devilish character played by Meryl Streep. Except, you know, she went to write a kiss-and-tell book about the experience, completely betraying the confidence of her former boss (and yes, mentor) by exhuming not only business issues but personal ones as well.
I don't know if I was supposed to feel this, but I had zero sympathy for the Ann Hathaway character and didn't believe a word of her protestations that she was a "good" person.
Okay I'm going to be controversial for a moment...
I love fashion and Vogue magazine. There are problems, sure, but for me the only things that make this an even somewhat guilty pleasure is the way the magazine portrays women and the sizism and racism. But that's it. I cannot support any animal right's movement. I own fur, I eat meat, and I support both of these industries. Studies have proven time and time again that animals are not human. Some are smarter than others, but animals killed for fur cannot reason and think on the same level as humans. They are not humans. For me it's insulting to women to say the women's rights movement must be linked with the animal right's movement. Women are human beings capable of thinking, feeling, and doing the same things men do. Animals do not possess those capacities. You can be a feminist and support animal rights, but to say the two are inherently linked makes no sense at all to me. If being a feminist required me to not wear fur or eat meat I don't think I could call myself a feminist. I would still support equality between men and women, but I see nothing wrong with fur or meat and couldn't bring myself to fight against it.
Not to say I don't care about animals, I have a cat and love her very much, but she is not a human being. I'm not saying I don't support laws against animal abuse, mind you, but those laws are mostly for animals humans have emotional attachments to, like dogs, cats, horses, and the like. The laws are mostly centered around property rights and what bothers humans rather than the animals themselves. As well as when there is a purpose to the killing. Which is why it's legal to kill chickens (even in a fairly cruel way) for meat, but not for a cock fighting ring.
I'll also have to take issue with the assertion that "fashion is also a major (the only?) global industry in which women run the show." As I understand (though I don't really have specific numbers to back this up), an awful lot of women's clothing companies are owned and run by men, and an awful lot of men design women's clothing. And I'm thinking of this NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/08/fashion/thursdaystyles/08FASHION.html?ex=1291698000&en=6b4f8d3bed20e670&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss . Off the top of my head, from Susan Faludi's chapter on fashion and lingerie in _Backlash_, Victoria's Secret was started and is owned by a man, and the Marciano Brothers, founders of Guess, were notoriously misogynist.
Also, as a plus-size woman who's basically dictated to to wear ugly flower-patterned shit shaped like a tent, the fashion industry can kiss my ass. This sticker accurately sums up my position: http://www.stickergiant.com/fashion-designers_mcs69.html .
I think MEN designing WOMEN'S clothing is probably part of the reason women's trends are often so ridiculously silly-looking and impractical. If women could design clothing, there may be more offerings for plus-size women, and more offerings of items that are both comfortable AND stylish, instead of "comfortable" primarily signifying cotton fitted Mom-T-shirts with squirrel appliques from Shopko.
Actually, there ARE numbers to back it up, in the article I linked to above:
"The Council of Fashion Designers of America, a trade group that vets those who apply for membership, is made up of 121 women and 156 men. Since 1986 its annual Perry Ellis awards for young talent have been given to 8 women and 29 men (20 of them openly gay).
"Who's Who in Fashion," a directory published by Fairchild Publications, is split 60-40 in favor of men, and "The Encyclopedia of Clothing and Fashion," published last year by Charles Scribner's Sons, included entries on 36 female and 69 male designers."
I'm glad you posted this. Although I never doubted that there are feminists who are into fashion, it's still a tad jarring to see some saying what amounts to "yeah, yeah, I get that it's racist, sexist, and sizeist, but...". If I were a woman and everything else about me were the same (a huge imaginative leap, I realize) I would find the various "isms" associated with fashion a huge obstacle to my enjoying it, if not an insurmountable one.
As a man who has the luxury of studiously ignoring fashion (if I'm ever in doubt about whether an article of clothing has any business being in my closet, I just get a female friend's opinion), I've tended to regard fashion (the industry, not the concept itself) as, if not quite evil, still an atavistic force in our culture. At least, I would hope that those who are into fashion but still avoid Vogue and its ilk like the plague would eventually speak up on a thread like this one.
As for the movie's portrayal of Anna Wintour, I get that she busts stereotypes, but is that really so radical anymore? An imperfect analog would be BET founder Bob Johnson. Sure, it's kinda cool that he proved it's possible for a black man to become a billionaire media mogul, but really, it's mainly cool for Bob Johnson. It's not that hard to find black folks who think that the product he created has set us back as a people. As for Wintour, it's worth keeping in mind that the majority of the people that she steamrolls over (employees and models) will be other women.