Becoming more and more common in catwalk shows for a couple of seasons now are genders replacing genders. And why not when the garments surfacing from designers are becoming more and more androgynous.
Is this the pivotal point of equality? No longer will there be a discrepancy between genders about whom is wearing the trousers and whom the skirt.
Men's skirts by the way? A nice touch by Thom Browne - he was not the first designer and won't be the last this catwalk season to reintroduce what was once excused as: the kilt. In fact, I am all for mixing icons of femininity and masculinity resulting in a fierce football player come sunday school teacher style.
No women featured in Mr Browne's show, unlike Givenchy's, who in January of this year, paraded their AW12 menswear collection down the runway during Paris fashion week, using both male and female models.
I am far from condemning it.
This is praise for androgynous fashions.
This wave of ideology has been coming long before Agyness Deyn hit the runway with her boyish strut and a haircut which claimed: "Anything you can do I can do (better?)"
Since the female form first donned a suit - the trousers, the shirt, the tie, the blazer, the full monty of empowerment - there has been a shift in ideas that if women can wear men's clothes, why can't men wear women's? (Without the potentially discriminatory social labels) Why is there even a barrier between them?
Perhaps the designers are simply all trying to cause a stir. But if the liberal and changing attitudes of this generation are open minded enough about once taboo subjects like sexuality, I would not put the divide between men and women's clothing past becoming obsolete.
No comments:
Post a Comment