This weeks readings on fashion distinction and hierarchy and the author’s discussions on femininity, expression, culture and political identities made me take a look into start-up clothing lines such as DimePiece, HellzBellz and Married to the MOB. These clothes are not only designed to cover up your body or to make you look good, but are designed to create a certain type of woman that truly embodies the concept of female empowerment.
DimePiece designers Laura Famo and Ashley Jones started their clothing line two and a half years ago in the Spring of 2007. Famo and Jones have taken the concept of female empowerment and the breaking of typical feminine stereotypes to create their intentionally, what they call, ironic brand name ‘DimePiece.’ Ashley Jones from DimePiece quotes “How dense is our society that we rate women by a number scale? We mean for the term ‘DimePiece’ to be ironic and rule-breaking. We intend to turn the perception of a ‘DimePiece’ around so women would be able to use it proudly. A Dimepiece is a woman who is unique onto herself and doesn’t place herself into any categories. She’s self-governing, opinionated and doesn’t rely on her appearance for sole-recognition. She is a positive representation of today’s young female and is essentially the perfect ten… all around.”
This weeks readings and DimePiece clothing line go well with one of our course themes that fashion discourses and clothing practices drives identity as a term of history. DimePiece’s t-shirt design “Love Don’t Pay The Bills,” is an example of how DimePiece challenges stereotypical notions of love and woman. Professor Nguyen describes Enstad’s take on historical notions of woman during the 1900s as woman not being seen as actual workers because their earnings were only a small contribution and because of this woman had to forcefully create their “worker” identities by claiming a right to their earnings to buy a shirt or shoes.
What kind of identities and historical notions/stereotypes of woman do you think DimePiece is trying to address through the images and description provided? Can DimePiece clothing be seen as a contemporary example of the creation of woman as political and well off identities in today’s society? Or does fashion itself and the act of wearing these clothes say nothing at all or make you less than the person DimePiece is trying to create? Can DimePiece and it’s sort of “girl power” t-shirts be a seen as a signifying practice where woman create themselves as these strong, independent, self-governing woman, just as the working woman in Enstad’s article created themselves as ladies?