A Reluctantly Serious Post

The Politics of Anorexia

As much as WWP enjoys writing about the sartorial mistakes of politicians, recent discussions with friends have compelled me to write a post on the darker side of fashion.  No idea how much politics will really come into it.

I never used to take anorexia or any eating disorder that seriously.  Probably because when I was thirteen years old and obsessed with Marisa Cooper in the OC I went through a stage when I didn't eat that much (although it was probably more than I eat now) because I wanted to be skinny like her.  The fact of the matter was I was tiny and probably still fitting into children's clothes.  In any case, I was 'suffering from anorexia' in my head and in my diaries, but as this nonexistent eating disorder lasted all of a couple of months, I always assumed it was an easy thing to get over.

When everyone grew up a little bit I had a friend at school who came very near to hospitalising herself over anorexia.  She then proceeded to find God/an older boyfriend and recovered.  But when I moved to university, it was a different story.  I've realised that those of my friends (and there are substantial amount of them) that have suffered from an eating disorder all went to all-girls, usually private schools.  

An urban, female-intensive situation in my mind, spawns anorexia.  When trying to explain eating disorders to a male friend a couple of nights ago, he genuinely couldn't comprehend how skinny is attractive.  And 'attractive' is the key word, even discourse.  In a rural small town and co-educational comprehensive school, attractive means appealing to the opposite sex, which in turn equals breasts.  In a heterosexual, girls-only boarding school in the middle of nowhere, attractive means fashionable.  And in fashion, fashionable tends to equal skinny.  Until this is turned around I cannot see a way the anorexia problem can be solved, in white middle-class England at least.

Urban Controversies

Nava-no!

Urban Outfitters is the hipsters' brand of choice: strange dress forms, see-through material and interesting prints.  Said interesting prints however have landed UO in a political storm, moreover one that is debatably racial.  A couple of months ago the store brought in the Navajo print, one that takes its name from a real, proper Native American tribe and to add insult to injury, directly copies their traditional prints.

After a young Native American woman wrote an open letter to the CEO of UO (on a website called 'Racialicious' I kid you not), the culture and fashion blogosphere apparently imploded with anti-racial good intentions.  Petitions circulated demanding the line, which includes amongst other harmless products knickers and a hipflask, be discontinued.  In one blogger's words: "The arrogance of this company should make other groups wary of their products, lest their culture is the next to be satirized for a quick hipster buck."  Oh dear UO.


Maybe it's because WWP is of British refinement, maybe it's because WWP is an ignorant bigot, but the point that could crucially be missing here is that these outcries are coming from America, and Urban Outfitters is a global brand.  It is entirely possible that the designs were dreamt up by a Danish design genius who hadn't even watched Pocohontas, let alone known who the Navajo were.  And in a wider context, where would this debate put George Michael's cross earring, Marlene Dietrich's turban or every Islamic rug that decorates the parquet flooring of middle-class Surrey?  Every fashion design will have been influenced by religion somewhere along the line, as that was the first thing in history to give humanity self-identity.  Except in the case of Jack Wills.  Which I suppose could be classed as Satanic.