Tag Archives: political fashion

Examining the “I Really Don’t Care Do U?” Jacket Fiasco

Screen Shot 2018-06-26 at 7.30.29 AM.png
SOURCE: Andrew Harnik/AP/REX/Shutterstock

I’ve written about FLOTUS Melania Trump’s attire before. The first time was her powder blue Ralph Lauren Inauguration suit. Everything from the choice of an American designer to her Jackie Kennedy-inspired aesthetic demonstrated that Melania was trying to convey the image of American royalty (an image Jack & Jackie had accomplished). It was strategic, as many of her outfits have been. She wore Ralph Lauren that day because she recognized the importance of wearing an American designer as she and her husband were sworn in as the leading family of the free world. It was incredibly calculated.

That’s why I struggle to believe that the jacket she wore to the Upbring New Hope Children’s Shelter, a Texas detention center for undocumented minors, doesn’t mean anything.

At least that’s what her spokesperson Stephanie Grisham claims. When Melania boarded her plane to Texas she was photographed in a $39 spring/summer 2016 collection Zara jacket emblazoned with the saying: ‘I really don’t care, do u?”, and the public was outraged.

Screen Shot 2018-06-26 at 7.32.41 AM.png
Click to view on Twitter.

According to Bustle, “Grisham denies that there was any message behind FLOTUS’ jacket in an email to Bustle, writing, ‘It’s just a jacket. There was no hidden message. After today’s important visit to Texas, I hope the media isn’t going to choose to focus on her wardrobe. (Much like her high heels last year.)'”

Oh, Stephanie, there is a message, though. According to The Washington Post, at least 2,300 children have been displaced and separated from their parents since the Administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy- a policy which President Trump later changed his mind about as nonchalantly as one changes their mind about ordering a soup instead of a salad. Therefore the message we are getting from your jacket is that you simply don’t care about the traumatized children you’re visiting. It’s not “hidden,” it’s blatant.

Fashion DOES mean something which is why politicians have been using style for years to subliminally communicate with the world. Do we have to mention Hillary Clinton’s power suits and strategic use of the color white, a hue associated with the suffragette movement and purity? Or what about Barack Obama’s dad jeans that proved he was “one of us”? Or what about Michelle Obama’s affinity for J. Crew that showed she didn’t need expensive labels? Oh, oh! And let’s not forget how Meghan Markle’s wedding veil featured hand-sewn tributes to all 53 countries in the Commonwealth.

Clothing is a way to speak without using our voices. In this digital age, a photo really does speak a thousand words, so we can’t afford to make reckless outfit decisions. In our FLOTUS’ case, her jacket spoke volumes. It said, “I don’t care about these traumatized families.” Yet, we could argue it actually says, “I don’t care enough to think.”

Maybe the FLOTUS didn’t take a second to think about her outfit decision on this important day, but that would be dumbfounding. This event follows her visit to Houston after Hurricane Harvey destroyed a nearby city. That day she was scrutinized and attacked by the public for wearing stilettos to the site. (She later changed into white tennis shoes, but the public frenzy had already broken out.) So it baffles me to assume she just “didn’t think” about the green parka’s message. After all, she did wear sneakers on this Border visit, so she learned something from past mistakes.

Perhaps our FLOTUS thought wearing an outdated jacket from a fast fashion company would make her relatable (like Michelle). Perhaps she thought it was practical for the day and would go along well with her Stan Smiths, which she remembered to wear this time. Perhaps she thought it was appropriate because it was casual. And even though she put all of this thought into those gritty details, she didn’t take the time to read the fine print. Literally. And that’s what has us all shocked.

It must be difficult having to pretend to care all the time.

Side note: I don’t believe, as the President has tweeted, that this is a message to the “Fake News Media,” nor do I believe the conspiracy theory that her jacket is a middle-finger to her husband.

The Civil Union of Fashion and Politics

By Mia Zarrella / Beacon Correspondent – November 10, 2016
Click here to read this article on BerkeleyBeacon.com.
Photo credit: Instagram.com/trapvilla

Fashion has been exceptionally political this year.

The campaigns, debates, and scandals leading up to the result of this 2016 election created a  divide in the American people, but also inspired members of the fashion industry to promote their favorite candidate and encourage citizens to vote.

On Oct. 18, Vogue endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. This is the first time in its 124 years that the magazine has endorsed a presidential contender.

Below a 1993 Annie Leibovitz portrait of Clinton, Vogue wrote, “Editors in chief have made their opinions known from time to time, but the magazine has never spoken in an election with a single voice. Given the profound stakes of this one, and the history that stands to be made, we feel that should change.”

The readers’ reactions online ranged from celebratory to outrage. Some stated they were going to become new subscribers to the publication, while others stated they were forever unsubscribing. After sifting through the 97 article comments, I started thinking about the important role fashion plays in politics, and how that role is so often overlooked.

One reader, @Connie05, triggered me especially when they commented, “Stick to fashion! For the love of all things sacred, stick to fashion. I buy your magazine for fashion and stylist and current trends in the beauty business not to endorse candidates…Glad to know where your publication stands. I cancelled my subscription.”

The typos, by the way, are @Connie05’s, not mine.

And @Connie05 wasn’t alone. Most unhappy readers had three things to say: stick to fashion, stay out of politics, and Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be president.

I understand that readers might be upset that Vogue endorsed a candidate they don’t like. Yet suggesting a fashion magazine has no role discussing politics and should “stick to fashion” is disputable.

Fashion and politics are not mutually exclusive. In fact, fashion is inherently political as designs are born from the designer’s culture, and style is determined by a person’s values and beliefs. Not to mention a fashion company’s own set of laws and ethics: who it employs, how much it pays its employees, what materials the garments are made of, etc.  All are determined by politics and speak to the company’s bureaucracy and legislation.

Fashion has been changing the political and social culture for centuries.

When Levi Strauss first designed Lady’s Levis in 1933, women could finally wear jeans made for their bodies, while working in the yard or farm. Then, in 1966, Yves Saint Laurent created Le Smoking pantsuit, allowing women to wear pants in a formal setting. These designers were influenced by feminist movements toward gender equality.

In 1994, the cruelty-free organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) broadcasted an advertisement protesting the use of animal fur in clothing. Supermodels like Naomi Campbell and Tatjana Patitz posed nude with the slogan, “We’d rather go naked than wear fur.” Though PETA has a reputation for being radical in its scare tactics to promote animal rights, this was a tasteful advertisement that used style and beauty icons to promote change through clothing.

In 2013, after neighborhood watch guard George Zimmerman was acquitted for killing Trayvon Martin, a black 17-year-old, black T-shirts reading “Black Lives Matter” in white font were the uniform of what would become the Black Lives Matter movement. The recognizable shirts became a way to share and vocalize the need for racial equality.

And in September 2015, Kerby Jean-Raymond, designer for Pyer Moss, produced a short film about police brutality and racial injustice that aired during his New York Fashion Week show. Earlier that year, Jean-Raymond designed the “They Have Names” shirts that list the names of those wrongfully and/or brutally killed by policemen. The profits went to the American Civil Liberties Union.

And this year—an election year—the trend continued with a fervent sense of urgency to get Americans to vote.

Opening Ceremony’s Fall II and Winter 2016 New York Fashion Week show was a mock-pageant featuring comedians like Fred Armisen, Carrie Brownstein, and Whoopi Goldberg, who gave commentary on the democratic process. The show, dubbed “Pageant of the People,” had real voter registration booths on set while a dozen of A-list comedians talked on issues of immigration, feminism, economic inequality, police brutality, gender discrimination, and more. In its show notes, Opening Ceremony wrote: “No decisions we make this year are as critical as the ones our country will consider on election day.”

The same week as Opening Ceremony’s show, Vogue hosted a Hillary Clinton campaign fundraiser. The event was organized by Vogue’s Editor-in-Chief Anna Wintour and Huma Abedin, the vice chairperson of Clinton’s 2016 campaign. In the spirit of NYFW New York Fashion Week, 15 designers, including Diane von Furstenburg, Marc Jacobs, Jason Wu, Joseph Altuzarra, and Tory Burch, featured designs for the Democratic Party nominee. The designers all created T-shirts showing they are with her—designs which can be purchased from Clinton’s website. The collection was dubbed “Made For History” to underline the possibility of a woman being elected president of the United States.

In an industry that thrives on appearances, to design a shirt that promotes one presidential candidate polarizes consumers. Yet it seems that during this high-stakes election year, designers and public figures are taking that risk.

 

The night of the third presidential debate, singer Rihanna wore a $35 Trapvilla T-shirt with a screen-printed image of Hillary Clinton wearing a Yankees hat while serving as New York’s senator. She shared two pictures of the shirt to her 45.6 million Instagram followers. Each post received over 1 million likes and between 4,000 to 8,000 comments.

Those who have the gusto to support or defame a candidate on their chest offer themselves up to scrutiny, but also has the ability to influence. Fashion is a platform for communication, a utility for expression. Therefore, naturally, it makes sense for it to be used to spread political beliefs.

As you can see, @Connie05, fashion has always been political, from the moment women started wearing pants to when men started wearing dresses, from the first Black Lives Matter T-shirt to the “Made For History” clothing line.

When we read about style and trends and when we go onto Instagram or flip through a magazine, there are political connotations. As long as politics are present, fashion will remain the powerful force it is today.