Empowering women doesn’t necessary mean to dress them with a men wardrobe to convey power and authority. To my opinion Empowerent is all about liberation to feel to wear whatever see fit when in a position of leadership. It means you don’t to emulate a masculine trope like a suit with feminine feature but to get the respect due while wearing whatever we want, like a children coat in an adult size. I always wondered how my friend nicolas Andrea Taralis had such an instant success notably with the American press and buyers. Alban pointed to me that his most successful items were a jacket and a tight pair of jeans. A masculinist look for an American business woman. Perhaps one that respect masculine hierarchy by perpetrating it and mimic it. I’ve always dressed powerful (and indépendant) women. I never designed a power suit.
I’ve never seen in my entourage neither women wearing suits to convey indépendance or power.
Not that she never wore one but I’ve never seen lotta wearing a suit. At the most of her power she is always extremely feminine. Almost naked.
She sometimes wore those oversized jacket but always with some friends, on her way to Festival or something. But in charge, for instance at the styling at one of the top fashion house in the world she doesn’t wear the traditional suit we imagine women of power wear. She’s … to the opposite extremely girly and naked almost like … a man’s dream. BUT and it’s a big but, the difference is that the fantasy world where woman are supposed (forced) to live in the male psyche doesn’t apply to … reality to the the reality of the work environment. As much as a man want his woman (as much as the male world want to project and define itself therefore by the opposite) or a mother or a whore, in real life, it is a convention that a woman showing a sexy side (the temptress) in the work space is intolerable not trust worthy.
And actually women want to be whatever they want whenever they want, like any good female vocalist who have a wider and much more cversatile range than any other male artist.
And as much as I adored Phoebe philo, I never really understood the connection that was supposed to be made between her wish to empower women but at the same time excelling in the least feminine possible apparel, never showing anything seen as sexy and doing her best business as dressing powerful business women as androgynous males. I mean she was terrible at dress at CELINE when she was the Leonard de Vinci at gowns at CHLOE creating the ultimate formula of the feminine dress BUT in those days would you have worn a silk peach appliqué biais charmeuse CHLOÉ gown at a board meeting? Never.
Therefore a feminist item came through in the 2010 when Roland Mouret changed the meaning of a dress created by Gallieno a decade earlier and authorise all rich powerful women of the world to enter those office and got things done, I’m talking of course of the famous Milano interlock tube dress: The Galaxy Dress.
At last a counterpart to the male suit. Talking about SUIT that’s how I realised what a real empowerment to women thanks to a fashion designer meant and our beloved Victoria Beckham one more time showed her cleverness by hijacking the fashion industry by storm when she include (own) the galaxy dress as her own vocabulary and complete what was lacking in the female wardrobe until that time.
En tant que designer masculin on se demande parfois si l’on doit ou pas se restreindre sur le sexy. Mais peut-être que la réponse n’est pas la. C’est plutôt le lieu et l’environnement qui de finissent la siberversion et de ce fait la garde robe pour le bureau qui est prévue en parallel (Phoebe philo)
L’ensemble de la garde-robe donne son sens final au corset.
Beth n’a finalement jamais vu ce combat que je menais contre les américains qui voulaient d’une certaine façon l’obliger à un stéréotype féminin, celui toujours masculin de l’homme, conjoint, boyfriend, mari époux.
Les femmes que j’habillais elles aveuglaient leurs compagnons obligés de se soumettre à leur vision individuelle personnelle (Courtney Love Kindergarten)
On ne soumet pas aux hommes comme on ne se soumet pas aux règles implicites du capital libéral masculiniste.