i don't really care about fashion. or designers. nor do i follow what many high end clothing companies say/do. but this made me really happy to read.

Hugo Boss has financed independent historical research into the company's activities during World War II, to be published today in Germany. It is the second such study that the company has commissioned. "We don't want and have never wanted to hide anything, but rather want to bring clarity to the past. It's our responsibility to the company, our employees, our customers and everyone interested in Hugo Boss and its history," said the company's head of communications. Hugo Boss says it had no influence over the research or writing of the new book, which concludes that Hugo Boss was indeed one of the more than 15,000 German factories that produced uniforms for the Nazi military during the war, although it was not a leading producer or a designer of Nazi uniforms. Hugo Boss also employed 140 forced laborers, and 40 prisoners of war. The company has made donations to the international fund set up to benefit former forced laborers. It's interesting that Hugo Boss seems to take an open attitude towards its wartime history. In contrast is Chanel, which continues to deny mounting evidence that its founder, Coco Chanel, was not only a wartime collaborator, but an actual Nazi spy. Modern-day Chanel has even tried to spin Coco Chanel's involvement in a Nazi plot as a benign attempt to negotiate an end to the war.

"The fashion industry shouldn't be using kids, tweens or teens in mature fashion campaigns because it sexualizes young girls in the name of art. Portraying young girls as fully sexualized adults obscures the fact that they are only 'posing' in adult roles,” pop culture expert Jessica Wakeman says.
“This contributes to a society that's desensitized to the inappropriateness of making little girls into Lolitas for the enjoyment of adult men. I question why young girls are dressed up like adults in revealing outfits, hair and makeup. Do the ad campaigns have nothing else going for them so that they have to resort to sensationalism?"

AND THEN:


However, Los Angeles-based fashion and business reporter, Anne Riley-Katz, said that while such campaigns and couture-driven spreads do push boundaries, that doesn’t automatically make them distasteful.

“The creative and artistic direction in the fashion world is intended to be far afield from traditional commercial advertisement, often by being outrageous. The photographers, makeup artists and stylists will most certainly be adults, and for luxury and high fashion ads, will be very experienced – they want the best for the ads. Does that make them pedophiles? I would strongly disagree,” she said. “The ads make more of a statement. Whether that translates into sales for a luxury label is harder to measure, but it creates unmistakable - and valuable - brand awareness. There may be questionable innuendo in the ads, but short of pornography or something actually illegal, it's near impossible to regulate taste level.”


So... even the contact speaking FOR the campaigns has to admit that it's only for the value (re: $$$) that they are sexualizing little girls. She says that "the ads make more of a statement" but the only positive (?) statement they make is brand awareness. Even someone who's job title is "pop culture expert" (i mean really, that exists?) knows that this is wrong and inappropriate.

oh my.

long sigh

Hillary Clinton was recently interviewed in Krygystan, where she said this:

SECRETARY CLINTON: "It requires, for a woman, usually in today's world still, an extra amount of effort because I think it's - the fact that women are still sometimes judged more critically. If you are in the courtroom or you are presenting a case, it still is a fact - and this is not just in Kyrgyzstan, this is everywhere - that when a man walks into a courtroom it's rare for someone to say, "Oh, look what he is wearing." (Laughter.) But if you walk into a courtroom, or any young woman walks into a courtroom, people are going to notice. And that will be an additional requirement that you have to meet."

then, MOMENTS LATER, the interviewer decides to spice things up.

MODERATOR 1: Okay. Which designers do you prefer?

SECRETARY CLINTON: What designers of clothes?

MODERATOR 1: Yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Would you ever ask a man that question? (Laughter.) (Applause.)

MODERATOR 1: Probably not. Probably not. (Applause.)


well played Clinton. well played.