Fashion activism // winter wardrobe character
Being narrative and visuals-driven, I plot my clothing by fictional archetype. For work I’ve mentioned “60s professional lady” but for winter, and probably forever, it is Fairytale Murderess. It’s a little bit folksy and a little bit princessy, but grumpy and dark-toned and maybe slightly more practical.
Of course, today is also the 350 wardrobe challenge, and if there is one thing that a fairytale murderess wants to be, other than “not in jail”, it is warm. Don’t argue with me, I am in charge here.
So to stay temperate, over the normal underwear and under the outerwear goes this:
l-r: knitted shorts (Swimmer), slip (ebay), sweaterdress (NoaNoa)
Sweaterdresses make really good mid-layers when it’s on the freezing side of cold; layer them with each other or with more rigid dresses like this one. Or just underneath a jumper and a skirt, who’ll know?
I was extra prepared, today, as one must be sometimes - three hats, for the small fluctuations that breezes or electric lights can effect:
Fur vs no-fur, for the different moralities in one’s life:
And for when it got REALLY nippy, my Dad’s boarding school dressing gown. It’s fully wool, so it itches like a bassard if there aren’t enough layers below. THANKFULLY, in this case there were!
And for inner warmth, ginger wine. Non-alcoholic, because when something is delicious I like to be able to have as much of it as I like, but I do not like to fall down and be sick.
Overdress: Jane Marple
Stockings: Pretty Polly
Boots: Dr Martens
Gloves: gift, Accesorize
Fur: jumblesale leftovers
Wendy House: made by my Dad when I was knee high to a grasshopper.
One more for luck? Why not. I’ve had a king, some wolves, a witch, a plotter, some waifs and a shifter, why not have an off with her head?
December 13th, 2009 at 08:02 pm
hey i love your post the dress looks amazing. I’m glad you kept warm
December 15th, 2009 at 05:11 pm
Hi Claire!
I love your warm clothes - you look so cosy - and your drawn-on faces are so much fun!
About fur: I wouldn’t think you were being confrontational at all and I’m glad you asked :)
Basically, I’m a vegetarian and try not to eat/use/wear anything that has caused harm to an animal. I feel a bit differently about leather; while I do try to avoid it, I recognise that it’s often more of a byproduct of other processes. What I don’t like is when an animal - especially an endangered one - is killed for the sole purpose of using its fur. I understand the argument about the food chain and needing to eat meat (even though I choose not to, myself) - so, having leather as a byproduct is okay with me. But we don’t *need* fox/mink/rabbit fur (unless, of course, you are an eskimo and there is absolutely no alternative to keeping warm).
In my opinion, animals are living beings and we should cherish them, not kill them! But if we are going to kill them, it should be for something more ‘necessary’ than just adorning ourselves. That being said, if one IS going to wear fur, I would rather it be vintage/secondhand so it doesn’t promote the killing of even more precious animals :)
What do you think?
December 15th, 2009 at 05:38 pm
Basically I have the same views, but am a little more.. ruthless? And with differently angled priorities.
I eat meat, partly because it is delicious and partly because when I don’t I feel unwell and unsatisfied. And I wear (vintage) fur because a) I have no compunction with wearing something that died before I was born and b) there is just nothing warmer. I think that the stigma fur wearers in general have is unfortunate, because whilst I don’t agree with cruel farming practices and needless death, wearing fur got me through a year (including all of winter) of no heating in a damp old house in the North of England, which is no mean feat! And I think that people who don’t have an aversion of their own to fur could benefit/reduce carbon footprints by wearing (vintage/reasonably sourced) furs.
Basically I don’t think that “fur” is a big enough word to cover the whole variety of industries and sources and ethics that it entails. For example, fur farming does provide many jobs. (Not implying you want to abolish fur and are a cruel job-stealer! D:)
I absolutely agree that animals dying just so rich people can look richer is crap. I agree that unnecessary deaths are.. unnecessary! And that of course people have the right to make their own decisions. But involved in all of that is that it’s important for everyone to have all the information so that they can make *informed* decisions, which a lot of people don’t. PETA campaigns have led to a pretty black and white view of fur in the mainstream public eye, which is why I’m interested to discuss it whenever someone makes a judgement call on the matter. I just think it’s really interesting hearing people weigh in.
Thanks for being willing to get into it a bit! :]!
December 15th, 2009 at 06:03 pm
I agree with you for the most part. But you know, lots of people lose jobs/livelihoods if there’s a crackdown on poppy farming/dealing … but does that make it okay to fuel a drug industry? Child labor allows children from families with meagre incomes to work and contribute to food & other necessities that their families need… does that mean child labor is okay? I myself don’t know where I stand because it’s so hard to pick one or the other… loving animals is so much easier because you can put an outright ban on unnecessary (as long as you can define what you think is unnecessary) killing.
December 15th, 2009 at 06:15 pm
True!
But I do, personally, place human rights above animal ones. I don’t want animals to be killed all over, but if the alternative is humans starving then..
In the case of child labor, the thing is that whilst it is not, at all, okay, the alternative is that that family has no food, or commonly the child in question has to turn to begging and/or prostitution. Child labor DOES need to go away but the problem there is not a simply a ban on child labor but rather in-depth community readjustment and help that will destroy poverty - poverty being the root problem. Drug farmers and field workers, also, need the abolition of poverty more than the abolition of drugs, and I feel that drug use and the ‘drug industry’ has more layers of harm to it than fur farming. Farming is farming, drug running has links to slavery, rape, general oppression, other organised crime and harm to people on both ends of the chain as well as (arguably) society in general.
I guess in the end we land upon ‘the world will probably never be perfect and someone/thing will always be getting hurt’. We just have to choose our corners, maybe?
December 15th, 2009 at 08:52 pm
All valid points. But you’re too young to be so cynical! Haha. I’m doing a Masters in Development, and it seems like all our lecturers end up saying, “Human beings have messed up the world beyond repair. There’s nothing we can do about it. Sorry!”
I firmly believe we need to have a positive outlook. There’s enough food in the world (surplus, in fact!) to feed everyone. There are enough ways to wear clothes and be warm without having to skin more animals (of course, I’m leaving eskimos out of this). We just have to figure out a way to distribute income so the benefits are felt by all, but work within the capitalist system - we just need an amazing theorist who can combine communism with capitalism and we’ll be all set! Ha!
December 15th, 2009 at 08:57 pm
Oh, I wouldn’t say I was cynical! Just aware that there’s no sudden solution available (yet?).
Is there really surplus food? That’s quite fascinating.