Covering Up Britney

It’s hard for a girl to dress like a slut these days. Walk into any store, and you’re greeted by chic blazers, tweed skirts and argyle sweaters, instead of tube tops, miniskirts, and low-rise jeans—virtual staples of recent years past.

Preppy is back. After two years, the trend that started with Vogue’s May 2002 declaration that low-rise pants were “out,” has finally filtered down to the masses. This season, everyone and their grandmother are dressing, well, alike. Newspapers have loudly proclaimed the return to simple, clean, conservative looks. Express’s best-selling new offering, the Editor Pant, is marketed as the “best-fitting pant in America” and features a waistline that actually covers the hips. Sarah Jessica Parker, best known for her role as sex columnist Carrie Bradshaw, has appeared in Gap ads sporting a blazer and pearls. Even Jay-Z has admonished America’s teens to “button up” in his songs.

Who can argue with a fashion trend that actually listens to women? Finally, we can sit down without worrying about flashing the entire room, or resorting to what one high-schooler termed the “wiggle dance” to adjust short skirts. Picking things up from the floor no longer requires strange and impossible body contortions to avoid indecent exposure.

But let’s get one thing straight. The return to more conservative trends should be about the fashion cycle, and nothing else. After five years of Britney Spears’ bare midriff, “slutty-chic” has worn out its fashion capital, and designers need a new look to bring consumers back to the stores.

Which is why the puritanical glee that has greeted this new trend is so creepy. Newspapers have heralded the “end of pop-tart influence” with a self-satisfied, victorious air not seen since the conviction of Martha Stewart. One of Seventeen’s editors dubbed the new look “Miss Modesty.” Women interviewed for news articles cite a desire to avoid looking “trashy,” and state that “being a lady is big.” As one told the San Diego Union-Tribune, “It’s about values.” Really? I thought fashion was about looking good.

But maybe she’s right. Fashion has always been connected to politics. After all, the sexy look first started during the sexual liberation movements of the 70s. And now, the return to conservative dressing seems to forecast a return to conservative values. Across the board, fashion analysts point to a “backlash” against overtly sexual attire. Apparently, America’s gotten tired of the sexually aggressive woman, and now the demure lady is back. But women’s roles shouldn’t change with the hemlines each season, nor should they be reduced to a binary distinction. As Lyn Mikel Brown, an associate professor of women’s gender and sexuality studies at Colby College, told the Orlando Sentinel, “‘modesty’ sounds like pre- or post-feminist jargon for stepping back, acting nice, not making waves… I worry that what will follow is a push for girls to be more accommodating and conservative.”

In the end, maybe the fantasy just got a little too real. It’s one thing for men to check out Britney Spears online. It’s something else to see their 10 year old daughters turn into her. While we’re rejoicing over the demise of pop star-driven fashion, we might want to examine just who made them pop stars in the first place.

In a post-9/11 world, fashion analysts have suggested, “security” is the new watchword not only in politics but also in clothing. With the uncertainty over the economy, the Iraq war and the threat of terrorism, there’s just no time for a sexy look. In such a world, it seems that fashionistas find the protective coverage of a blazer or knee-length skirt as comforting as voters find Bush’s “moral values.”

Only GUESS seems to be bucking the trend, with a fall ad campaign that features the antithesis of modesty, Paris Hilton, lounging around in a bikini, clutching a stuffed animal to her bare torso, and removing the pool boy’s shirt with her stilettos, among other things. But wait. Isn’t GUESS a French brand?

Sanby Lee ’08, a Crimson editorial comper, lives in Thayer Hall.