Green Fashion: Help or Hype?

Green is not merely a color palette in fashion anymore. Like many other industries, it has also begun to “go green” in attempt to become more environmentally friendly. As hybrid cars and organic eating have become more and more popular, the fashion industry has also jumped on the bandwagon in using eco-friendly materials and different means of production. This week University of Southern California’s newspaper, The Daily Trojan, reported on a green fashion show taking place on campus the last Friday in March. This green show promoted designers who have all taken steps in becoming environmentally friendly. In the article JJ Jiang, the president of A.L.I.V.E (Always Living in View of the Environment) who put on the event, stated “The fashion show is a great opportunity to put on an entertaining event and at the same time try to appeal to [different groups] interested in fashion and the environment.” That being said, this week I decided to delve into earth conscious fashion and find out what exactly green clothing means. Although many labels are introducing green lines or clothes that are supposedly less harmful to the environment I was surprised to learn what it takes, or rather how easy it is, to be considered green. Before buying something because it is “green” it is important to understand what this may or may not mean. Furthermore, in realizing the lack of regulation in the green industry, I purpose putting guidelines on what measures must be taken before a company is able to label itself green.

Green can mean many different things depending on the industry. In fashion alone it has many meanings, some more legitimate than others, although all of them are able to call themselves eco-friendly. There is a wide range of materials and types of production that are considered green. For example, the use of un-dyed or naturally dyed organic fabrics reduces the industry’s carbon footprint by not creating harmful waste and byproducts. Also, companies that use wind energy or only use factories with fair wages and humane conditions overseas can be considered green. However, there are also companies that seem to be cheating the system. These players concern seem to be less about the environment and more about the appearance of caring for the earth and the steeper price tag that comes with it. In an article titled Green Fashion: Is It More Than Marketing Hype? it states that some companies take advantage of the lack of regulation. For example, Banana Republic introduced a green line with names such as “Leaf Tee” and “Bamboo Printed Wrap”. These names do indicate eco-friendliness. However, these clothes are not green in the least. So how are they able to call themselves green? The price tag; the tag is made out of recycled paper. Not only are they able to call themselves “green” companies, but they are on the same platform as those that use completely eco-friendly materials or use green production. In the same article by Gloria Sin she explains this is called “greenwashing”, when companies lie about environmental claims. She states, "…marketers often employ tactics that paint products greener than they actually are." This hardly seems fair considering the extent some companies are willing to go in order to help our planet while others are simply cheating. So why do these companies bother at all? Firstly, green clothes equal a higher price. People are generally willing to pay more for something when they feel they are doing it for a purpose or cause. Second, as being green begins to be more popular it is becoming a demand rather than a want from consumers. Finally, although eco-friendly clothes are able to increase the price, it is not profitable for companies in the beginning therefore some cheat for the higher price tag without actually making a big effort to become green. In an article by Amy Lieberman she quotes Leslie Hoffman, director of Earth Pledge, who speaks about the hesitation some clothes companies have about going green. She states, “It [the sustainable transition] takes some effort, and let's assume that time and effort equal money.” Money is at the root of for-profit companies, and the fashion industry is not different. Where companies see time and effort without the reward of increased revenue the earth will continue to suffer. However, if companies can see past the first few years of investment in sustainable resources, it is possible to see a return. In an article published in the UK it states, “Although 57% of UK manufacturers report no measurable return on investment from their green strategies in the past year, over 40% of manufacturers still feel that green initiatives are key to cost reduction strategies in the coming year." It takes patience to see these returns, but in the end it can both reduce a companies cost while simultaneously helping the earth. Some companies, however, only see short term goals and will keep cheating the system, especially because there are no regulations in place.

While it should be up to the company whether they want to go green and help the environment or not, companies should not be able to pretend they are aiding the earth when others are actually earning their green label. Putting a price tag of recycled paper, although better than nothing, is not the same as producing a green product through either the production or the materials. There should be criteria put in place in order to call a company green. Recycled tags, which have little to nothing to do with the actual product, should not count. As long as there are no rules, companies will continue to take advantage of the positive connotations of what it means to be green without actually doing so. On University of Southern California’s campus some of the companies who are actually making a conscious effort to be green were celebrated while also aiding individuals to understand the importance of eco-friendly clothing. These companies’ reputation should not be harmed because of others who are unwilling to change until it is proven economically viable. They are piggybacking on those who are actually making a difference and until regulations are put in place consumers will not know whether they are paying for green clothing or a green price tag.

Barbie's 50th Anniversary: Reason to Celebrate?

One of the most famous fashion icons is turning 50. She has had over one hundred careers, thousands of styles, and she is plastic. Barbie’s 50th anniversary marks her half century as one of little girl’s favorite dolls. Mattel launched Barbie in March 1959 and has since become one of their most successful and most notorious toys. During New York Fashion Week there was a special tribute to Barbie’s iconic trends. American designers, including Diane Von Furstenberg and Calvin Klein, designed life size outfits for models to strut down the runway, chronicling Barbie’s past looks (seen left) and extended into future fashions. However, Barbie's 50th milestone is not being celebrated without debate. While Barbie has had huge victories, she has also had many failures. Controversies surrounding her career choices, her disproportionate body, and some of her doll friends are once again coming to the forefront. The same time as her birthday, officially March 9th, came the release of a new Barbie, Totally Stylin’ Tattoos Barbie. Barbie has been a teacher, astronaut, and doctor, just to name a few. Along with a lengthy list of professions, Barbie can now add tattoo enthusiast. Not everyone is elated with the new doll, which features a purple tattoo gun and dozens of tattoos that can be placed anywhere on Barbie or a child’s skin. This week I have examined a post by JR Raphael for The Inquisitr, which takes a closer look at the new dolls reception from the public. Additionally, I reflected on a post entitled “Barbie Gets Edgy New Makeover” by Emerald Catron. This post also speaks of Barbie’s new look, but in addition the author examines West Virginia’s State Delegate Jeff Eldridge’s campaign for a ban on not just Tattoo Barbie, but all of them. My response to both these posts may be found below, as well as at their respective sites.

“Tattooed Barbie Stirs Up Controversy”
Comment

Some parents do not love Barbie’s new affinity for tattoos. Though, as your post states, Mattel thinks Stylin’ Tattoo Barbie can be used as a creative outlet for children, parents are not as enthused. Parents criticize TV shows and movies for makings today’s youth more violent, sexualized, or rebellious, they are following the same theory with Tattoo Barbie, without taking any responsibility themselves. Firstly, if parents do not buy the doll for their daughter she will not play with it. It is the adults who have the power. Secondly, just because children are surrounded by media, and in this case a toy, does not mean parents can stop parenting. Instead of decrying a doll for possibly making a child want a tattoo, parents should talk to their kids about that decision. As one parent states, “Now she’s teaching our little girls how to apply tramp stamps.” That is giving Barbie a lot of credit. If parents do not want their daughter to have a “tramp stamp” then it is up to them to talk to their child. This goes for several situations. Just as parents should not rely on movies for their children to learn about sex, dolls should not teach kids behaviors, such as getting a tattoo, which is permanent and can be dangerous.

Furthermore, although there is abundant talk about the affect toys can have on a child’s behavior, there is no empirical research about the impact of Barbie on girl’s lives. Therefore, parents should stop putting responsibility on outside entities, and instead focus on relationships with their children. After all, parents are the one’s that should ultimately guide and shape a child’s decisions, not a toy. Stylin’ Tattoo Barbie is just that and should be treated as such.

“Barbie Gets Edgy New Makeover”
Comment

Many things need to be put on the political agenda today, especially in this economic crisis; Barbie is not one of them. West Virginia State Delegate Jeff Eldridge apparently does not agree. In your post you quote Eldridge as stating, “I just hate the image that we give to our kids that if you're beautiful, you're beautiful and you don't have to be smart.” Who says Barbie is not smart? She is a doctor, lawyer, veterinarian, nurse, teacher, and the list continues. Granted, she is also a fairy princess, but I do not think it is accurate to assume Barbie’s looks have anything to do with her IQ. One of Barbie’s most controversial identities was Teen Talk Barbie; in which on of her phrases was “math class is tough.” However, Mattel quickly corrected the talking computer chip when the American Association of University Women attacked the company. Because the company was so receptive to the complaint back in the early 1990’s I think it only shows how concerned the company is about Barbie’s reputation. Barbie is everywoman. She can be as smart or dumb as a child’s imagination will take her. Eldridge states he is concerned that Barbie has an unhealthy body image, but he neglects to note any of the positives Barbie possesses.

While toys are becoming more technologically driven, they in turn, are creating a lack of imagination it takes to play with them. It takes creativity when playing with a doll like Barbie. The world of pretend and make believe are getting pushed aside for video games and TV programming. This is the true travesty. Video games can harm childhood development in several ways including lack of social interaction. Although I do not think these should be banned any more than Barbie should, they are much more detrimental. Barbie uses imagination and social interaction. She is far less harmful than other games children play. Barbie’s possess many positive qualities which Eldridge is choosing to overlook. Barbie has been around for 50 years, and we will be lucky and in no worse condition if she is around for 50 more.

Michelle Obama: Stimulating the Economy with Fashion?

Our country made history this year by electing the first African American President, however in the fashion world the spotlight is shining not on him, but on the First Lady. While campaigning through the primaries into elected office Michelle Obama’s wardrobe has caught a considerable amount of attention. This begs the question of whether the press has their priorities straight. There are several comments criticizing the press for such frivolous stories whereas others feel it is anything but. Many are calling Michelle Obama a fashion icon and a hopeful savoir of the fashion industry during a time of economic hardship. Although, as I will point out, there is some truth in the latter, it is quite a stretch to first label Michelle Obama a “fashion icon” and secondly to call her a “savior of fashion”. After all, without her where was fashion going to go? Certainly, even in this economy, fashion is here to stay. But what role does Michelle Obama play in this world of style? She is one of the most publicized females both in politics and recently, in fashion. Bearing testament is Vogue’s March issue with the First Lady on the cover. Though I would argue Michelle Obama is not a fashion icon, a category with the likes of Jackie Kennedy and Katharine Hepburn, she does have an impact on the fashion economy in a positive light. Not only has she helped up-and-coming American designers become noticed, she also brings a refreshing style to the White House that might just stimulate the economy with her clothing decisions and inspire women to keep buying.

Michelle Obama may have the presence in the media to help the suffering fashion industry, but some do not approve of her wardrobe, or her use of White House employees. In a recent article by Byron York he questions what the social secretary of the White House was doing at New York Fashion Week. The answer is quickly revealed that she was Michelle Obama’s eyes at the tents for runway shows such as Carolina Herrera, Donna Karan, and Marc Jacobs. The article goes on to contemplate whether the First Lady’s choices of haute couture clothes are appropriate during this “widespread economic misery”. York states, “…in this economy that is inflicting hardship on so many, the first lady is celebrated for her new vision of haute couture, while her social secretary socializes with the most glamorous names in the world of fashion. Change has indeed come to Washington.” However, the article chooses not to acknowledge that Michelle Obama is just as comfortable and often seen wearing affordable, off the rack clothing. Regardless of whether the First Lady’s clothes come straight from the New York runways or from middle priced stores, it does not make her a fashion icon, not yet anyway. Yes, she wears clothes, sometimes designer, sometimes not. And yes, she is a breath of fresh air from Laura Bush’s boring suits, but this does not put her in the same fashion league of great icons. Great women in fashion are those that start a trend, have a look, are imaginative and step beyond the scope of what fashion is at that moment. Jackie Kennedy did this with her famous Jackie O wide rimmed sunglasses, and Katharine Hepburn is an icon for her high-waisted trousers when women were rarely seen wearing pants. Michelle Obama, although usually well dressed, has not shown an ability to move fashion down a new path. As Helen Job, a trend forecaster, notes “When you think about a fashion icon, it's somebody who has this ability to influence the public to such a degree ... to change the direction (a style) is going in.” The new First Lady has not yet had this effect so it is extremely premature to call her a fashion icon. However, this does not mean she does not have influence. Being a fashion icon and having influence over American women’s purchasing are two very different things.

Michelle Obama has already helped the industry, and will continue to do so, in two ways. First, she wears up-and-coming designers rather than well-known labels to give the creators a chance in the spotlight. This helps the industry breathe new air into a staling commerce. Second, the First Lady buys off the rack at stores such as J. Crew, influencing women to purchase from these stores and sending sales through the roof. As Jason Wu, a young innovative designer whose dress can be seen on Michelle’s Vogue cover, points out, “In her own way, she is like a stimulus package for the fashion industry.” Michelle Obama’s clothes are in high demand, even if her fashion status has not reached an iconic level. Because of this she single-handedly does have an effect on the fashion economy. New York Magazine’s blog The Cut illustrates her impact for new designers stating, “She made up-and-coming designer Thakoon Panichgul a veritable fashion star when she wore one of his dresses at the Democratic National Convention." Fashion is a very hard business to break into and Michelle has the ability to shoot designers quickly up the ranks. It helps bring fresh imagination and ideas to the fashion world. She also makes women want to buy. For example, after Michelle wore a J. Crew outfit on the Tonight Show the website instantly saw a 64 percent increase in traffic. She caused a mad dash to the American store White House Black Market after wearing one of their dresses to The View. These examples show the First Lady encourages women to purchase at a time when budgets are tight, and this no doubt helps the industry.

The First Lady, although not an icon, does and is helping bring some cash into a dragging economy. Being one of the most photographed and followed women in America has its advantages. In an article titled “Michelle Obama to Save U.S. Fashion Industry?” a designer, Arnold Scaasi writes, “The First Lady is seen every day in some form of media, and what she looks like is copied by other women.” This copycat formula is working well in a time when people are very hesitant to dip into their pocket books. Although the First Lady is sometimes criticized for her high priced fashions, these people should look at the bigger picture. She is not just frivolously shopping everyday, but has already successfully started her role as someone to be admired for the good she is doing. So, for the people who are less-than-impressed by Michelle Obama’s wardrobe, there is a lot more to consider. Her impact can already be seen in her first few months as the First Lady in fashion and otherwise. In fashion terms she gets up-and-coming designer’s names out in the media and she boosts sales in middle priced stores. She has time to grow her styling clout and may very well be a fashion icon by the end of Barrack Obama’s first term. Meanwhile we can only hope that her fashions continue to be emulated and cause women to purchase. Any help in this economy, fashion or otherwise, we will take it.