Sexual Objectification of Women in Fashion Industry

image: Gucci

In addition to victimizing women – by mode of ad campaigns and editorials, alike – style thrives on the practise of objectifying women. This is a long-continuing practice and in recent years often includes hyper-sexualized fragrance ads for the market's biggest brands, and extends to apparel and cosmetics ads – for Tom Ford'due south eponymous label, for example, and during his tenure at Gucci from 1990 to 2004. As Fern Mallis said in 2015, Ford "understands more than than anyone else that sex sells."

While sex activity does sell – or at least, sells when it is in style, which is frequent – is its hyper-specific depiction, one that near exclusively serves to objectify women, good for the fashion industry? And better withal, is it good for women in general or does it drive domicile our larger social sense of sexism and a potential lack of value for women? These are particularly relevant questions in light of the larger conversation about sexual harassment and assault in Hollywood, in manner, and across.

This is besides a relevant inquiry, equally it is the product du jour existence peddled by manner photographer Terry Richardson (and others), who recently came under burn down – for the nth time – for allegedly sexually harassing and assaulting models, many of whom were young, vulnerable, and on the job at the fourth dimension.

Most of Richardson'south photos – whether they be for his ain site or for major brands' advertisement campaigns – are sexually charged, others are downright depreciating and exploitative. But Richardson – who has been linked to many a highly questionable ad campaign, including those Sisley ones in the mid-2000'due south and a slew of questionabe ones for Tom Ford – is merely part of a much larger issue. Or equally the New York Times put it, he is only the "tip of the iceberg."

Yes, as the Washington Post's Robin Givhan wrote terminal week, the trouble is much larger than Mr. Richardson. It involves all of the "creative types who care for women equally something other than sentient, thoughtful, individuals," those that "still manage to treat women similar crap."

image: American Apparel

At that place are countless examples within the past 15 years, lonely, of style demeaning women in the name of commerce. Consider almost every Dov Charney-era advertizement for American Wearing apparel. How well-nigh the many Tom Ford campaigns for his eponymous label, in which fragrances are positioned between models' breasts or between their legs? Practice not forget that Dolce & Gabbana very notoriously released what has been coined its "gang rape advertizing," which feminist author Louise Pennington called "a representative of an increasingly misogynistic contraction of women in the mode manufacture."

Every bit recently as concluding twelvemonth (six years after releasing a campaign featuring a semi-naked Lara Rock on the ground beingness manhandled by a gang of male person models), Calvin Klein put forth a campaign in which female photographer Harley Weir photographed a model from nether her dress.

Speaking of Calvin Klein, merely yesterday, Milk Studios posted what appeared to be a retro image of a model's behind, barely covered by a pair of Calvin Klein underwear, prompting veteran fashion journalist Christina Binkley to respond, "This ad is function of the problem. Some art director loved it, just what's the [message] and who is it for?"

While Binkley – an inherently thoughtful individual – might question the motive backside the paradigm, it has gotten to the signal that, equally writer Lauren Wade, put it dorsum in 2014, "as a whole nosotros've largely gotten used to seeing women depicted this way."

paradigm: @MilkStudios

Not only is it perfectly commonplace to see women sexualized and represented equally objects used to sell products (and note: women are depicted in this style with significantly more frequency than male models are), such imagery is existence put forth for the sake of "mode." And it is here that we really meet problems.

With this in mind, the question becomes, can we look manner to change its tune in terms of its practice of using women to sell sex and more specifically, fragrances or set up-to-wear? Besides, can we expect the industry to be explicit with its values and thereby, brainstorm placing greater worth in women, which includes how they are depicted in the media and in ad campaigns?

The answer: Probably not, in part because the fashion industry is, oftentimes, reacting to the desires of the zeitgeist at big in creating marketing materials, which it will happily remind yous. Alter hither would, thus, mean altering the cultural underpinnings of consumer preferences and purchasing decisions. And that is no pocket-sized feat.

However, having said that, fashion – equally a primal creator and disseminator of culture – has very substantial ability in terms of affecting the larger social narrative. This is a fact.

We – as the media, as consumers, every bit active participants in the conversation on social media and elsewhere – need to stop praising ads that objectify and/or scoff women every bit "provocative," as "art," and every bit "style." Because this is not "fine art" and it is non "style." It is objectification and it is damaging.

The skilful news? With an increasing number of women taking roles that were – for many years – dominated almost exclusively by men, including CEO and creative director positions at major houses, it would exist easier than ever before for them to flip the switch, then to speak, on advert that objectifies women. Such messaging only does not need to exist "in fashion" and bluntly, information technology should not be any longer.

Share this post