Prevalence of flowery fashions isn’t sexism – it’s just business
By Daily Bruin Staff
April 16, 2001 9:00 p.m.
Petersen is a fourth-year theater student.
By Mike Petersen
Who, might I ask, is the editor who deemed fit for printing the
bizarre and, yes, laughable commentary by Peijean Tsai on the
“sexism” and “oppression” rampant in spring
fashions (“Sexist
patterns revealed in spring fashion scene,” Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, April 13)?
I kept waiting for Tsai to switch gears and reveal she was
joking, perhaps turning her piece into a clever commentary on
feminism and political correctness run amok. But she never did.
Yes, of course, stores like Old Navy have specialized seasonal
collections of clothing that generally revolve around some sort of
theme, like flowers or pastels or a certain fabric. It makes
perfect sense for a store brand like Old Navy to try to build a
general “look” or theme for its spring collection, just
as a record label only signs artists of the genre of music it wants
to be known for.
This is how companies build up their image, which, like it or
not, is what sells their product. Calling Old Navy
“sexist” for only offering bright, flowery spring
clothes is like calling Death Row Records “racist” for
only offering rap music by African American artists.
If Old Navy took Tsai’s misguided advice and expanded
their line to offer a million different looks to satisfy every
single person, their line of clothing would be so wide-ranging that
you wouldn’t even be able to tell that any two pieces in it
were both Old Navy. Not good for brand image.
So it’s rather obvious that, yes, when you walk into Old
Navy in the spring, you’re going to see a lot of
similar-looking clothing, which this year apparently features lots
of floral prints. It’s not sexist in the least ““
it’s just a company doing business.
And did it occur to Tsai that perhaps there are other places one
might buy clothes besides Old Navy and the Gap? If you don’t
like the admittedly narrow style of what Old Navy is offering this
spring, then shop somewhere else! Don’t claim that stores are
“oppressing women” simply by selling bright, colorful,
flowery clothes. That’s ridiculous.
Nobody is forcing you to watch Gap commercials, and certainly
nobody is forcing you to buy Old Navy clothes. If the government
suddenly decreed that “All Women Shall Be Required Under
Penalty of Death to Wear 3/4 Length Pastel-Colored Capri Pants
Every Day from April 1 to June 1,” then that would be
sexist.
Tsai goes on to write, “Corporations callously tell women
what they need to buy by producing a limited variety of clothing,
giving women no choice but to buy that pair of gaudy, pink and
green flowered capris.” Does Tsai think that she has
“no choice” but to succumb and buy gaudy Old Navy
clothes she speaks against? May I remind Tsai that we live in
America? Our country’s philosophy of capitalism is entirely
based on choice!
Capitalism says, if you don’t like something, don’t
buy it! Having no choice would be living in a place like Syria,
where instead of whining about how “sexist” the many
varying fashions available to women are, a woman might rightfully
object to being strictly forbidden to show even an inch of skin
anywhere on her body. That’s sexism.
What Old Navy, the Gap, and other clothing retailers are doing
is simply business. And if you don’t like what they’re
offering, don’t take it. But please, don’t diminish the
seriousness of actual sexism by tossing around the word
“sexist” on such a ridiculous issue as the spring
fashions at the mall.
