The feminism in fashion is not “women removed corsets”, and not Coco Chanel as it is accepted to think was the main feminist at all. The journalist tells about what prepared revolution in fashion of the end of the 80th and that changed since then. And also, about why modern designers want to make women sexy, and those go to shops with husbands.

It is unlikely with something else so many myths, as are connected with feminism – at least, from all of the known sociocultural phenomena. In our mass consciousness the feminism is absolutely ridiculous set of something it seems not to shave hair standing, to pay for itself at restaurant and to push away indignantly the male hand helping on with the coat or opening before you a door. In masculine consciousness something still is usually added to it type “ugly calves rage” because beautiful all this, of course, to anything, and so all pay attention to them. Meanwhile the feminism gave to men not less freedom, than to women, and it convincingly shows series Mad Men where at the beginning of feminism all men it is universal are unhappy because that machoes are forced to be and to correspond to stereotypes traditional and consequently, sexist culture. The feminism exempted them from it, allowed to be first of all people with weaknesses, problems and frustrations, but not the cool guys beginning day only with whisky. In effect, we are obliged to feminism by the main achievement of a modern western civilization – absolutely legitimate opportunity to be as much as ridiculous idiots and to enjoy at the same time life.

Transformation of the woman from a passive object, sexual and social, in the active operating subject – is also essence of feminism

Ideas of how the feminism affected fashion, left not far too. Usually here first of all corsets from which women were allegedly exempted by Coco Chanel emerge. But, first, it was made not by Chanel, but still Paul Poiret, and secondly, of all people Poiret was farthest from any feminism, believing the woman exclusively graceful knickknack which needs to be decorated. Chanel’s figure here, however, makes sense because she was the first someone began to simplify considerably a women’s suit and to add to him men’s things. All this made not only practical sense – in simple (and the more so in men’s) things became banal to move easier – but also symbolical: the woman from subject to dressing began to turn into a subject with the inquiries. Namely it is transformation of the woman from a passive object, sexual and social, in the active operating subject – and there is an essence of feminism.

But to put on men’s things is yet not feminism. The real feministic revolution in fashion took place strongly after Chanel and even after Saint Laurent who loved all this easy games in men’s/women’s too. There is she exactly at that time, as a feminism victory in society – right at the end the 80-h-beginning of the 90th. Also it is connected with appearance of essentially new designers – Yohji of Yamamoto and Rei Kawakubo’s, “the Antwerp six”, minimalists Gilles Zander and Helmut Lang. Beginning at different times, but by the beginning of the 90th come to the peak of the popularity, they considerably changed idea not only of what is fashionable clothes, but also that it in principle beauty. Develop a thing on components and to put them in the most fancy way to remove any inertia of perception as the Japanese fashionista did; to displace all proportions, to bring separate details to grotesque, to mix street and couture as Belgians did, or, on the contrary, deliberately to simplify everything to a basic framework, to remove any arts and embellishments, any decor as the German minimalists did. All this would be impossible without Simona de Beauvoir, Hanna Arendt and an other feministic context in which sexual freedom not only as refusal of passivity, but also as different ways of expression of sexuality was formulated.

At the heart of they are considerably new ideas of a female body and its beauty. Beautifully – it is not classical “a high breast – a slender waist – round hips”. Beautifully – it is in the modern world much more difficult concept including various shifts. Suddenly it turned out that not all women want to tighten a waist and to fit a breast that many feel far more comfortably – so, more surely, so – is more sexual – in simple (or, on the contrary, recomplicated) the things which are leaving space between a bust and the world around, acting not so much as a glamour decor, how many armor separating and protecting. And in this case it is far simpler to woman to be not an object, and the subject, that is to solve most not only where as well as with someone, but also in what. The clothes became in the way to show complexity of own personality, but not the size of the bust. During creation of any image the word sophisticated which is ideally defining the difficult and refined intellectual taste became key. It became far more important to be modern, than to be only beautiful. Moreover, without the present in all its manifestations it became impossible already to be fashionable.

Beauty demands not so much the glossy picture,

but all imperfections,

because they are unique

Here it would be possible to write that women ceased to put on for men and began to put on for themselves, but you should not slide off in such banality. No modern phenomenon is described by such simple formula. Beauty and attractiveness for an opposite sex – piece quite difficult and often far from stereotypes of mass culture. And understanding of it just is also one of the main gaining feminism. Beauty demands not only (and even not so much) the glossy picture, but all imperfections because they are unique, and any uniqueness – discharges, that is aggravates perception and all five feelings. It just also became fashionable at the beginning of the 90th. Certainly, the designers saying that the purpose of fashion is to dress women for men did not get to anywhere and to make them sexy in the most traditionalist sense of this word. We will always have, figuratively speaking, our Roberto Cavalli and his dress – as well as girls, sure that it and is sexy. But what was made by stars of intellectual fashion of the 90th had the most serious consequences. And the current surge in fashion for men’s things, on free volumes, on all heritedge and the street-fashion, on Phebe Faylo and Stella McCartney are the circles which are still dispersing from the stones thrown then. And the fact that in Russia as in any traditionalist society, in any shop it is guaranteed possible to hear “I I buy nothing without the husband! Only if it is pleasant to him!” – so it no wonder. Feminism in Russia, approximately as Christianity, yet not spread.