Dress Code

Véronique Hyland

• Publisher: Harper Perennial
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9780063050822
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Essays in Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

A New Yorker Magazine Best Book of 2022 * An Esquire Best Nonfiction Book of 2022 * A Town & Country Must-Read Book of 2022 * A Fashionista Summer Read

"Smart, funny, and impressively thorough."— The Cut

In the spirit of works by Jia Tolentino and Anne Helen Peterson, a smart and incisive essay collection centered on the fashion industry—its history, its importance, why we wear what we wear, and why it matters—from Elle Magazine 's fashion features director.

Why does fashion hold so much power over us? Most of us care about how we dress and how we present ourselves. Style offers clues about everything from class to which in-group we belong to. Bad Feminist for fashion, Dress Code takes aim at the institutions within the fashion industry while reminding us of the importance of dress and what it means for self-presentation. Everything—from societal changes to the progress (or lack thereof) of women's rights to the hidden motivations behind what we choose to wear to align ourselves with a particular social group—can be tracked through clothing.

Veronique Hyland examines thought-provoking questions such as: Why has the "French girl" persisted as our most undying archetype? What does "dressing for yourself" really mean for a woman? How should a female politician dress? Will gender-differentiated fashion go forever out of style? How has social media affected and warped our sense of self-presentation, and how are we styling ourselves expressly for it?

Not everyone participates in painting, literature, or film. But there is no "opting out" of fashion. And yet, fashion is still seen as superficial and trivial, and only the finest of couture is considered as art. Hyland argues that fashion is a key that unlocks questions of power, sexuality, and class, taps into history, and sends signals to the world around us. Clothes means something—even if you're "just" wearing jeans and a T-shirt.

Part I

Underpinnings

Why We Wear What We Wear

Chapter One

Think Pink

IN THE SUMMER of 2016, I started to see a predominant shade bubbling up on everything that was marketed to me. Rather than being some dictated-from-on-high runway “color of the season,” this was something aimed at the masses, backgrounding subway ads and fronting book covers as well as the windows of high-end boutiques.

It was a variation on the pink shade I’d always associated with girlhood, not necessarily my girlhood, but the concept at large. But instead of being the saccharine Barbie pink that brings to mind a disembodied squeal of “Accessories sold separately!” it was a weirdly desaturated hue that seemed stripped of all associations with bubblegum and Sweet Valley High book spines. I saw it on tubes of Glossier makeup, on the walls of the newly sprouted women’s club The Wing, and on what felt like every Instagrammable book aimed at women in my cohort—late twenties and early thirties—from Sweetbitter to #GIRLBOSS.

The color seemed to defy the generally accepted order of fashion, where a trend trickles down from high to low (think of the famous “cerulean speech” from The Devil Wears Prada) or trickles up from low to high (think of high fashion’s recent embrace of everything from sweatsuits to Crocs). Instead, it came from seemingly nowhere, and quickly blanketed every tier of design. Everything from the high-end Swedish brand Acne Studios to subway ads for Thinx period underwear used some variation of this shade.

After my then-coworkers at The Cut, New York magazine’s women’s vertical, started discussing the phenomenon, I wrote an essay for the site examining the idea, attempting to separate this strain of the color from the pure Elle Woods version. “The titration of actual pinkness varies a little, but it’s still a fairly narrow spectrum—from salmon mousse to gravlax,” I wrote. “It’s a non-color that doesn’t commit, whose semi-ugliness is proof of its sophistication.” I was just trying to tease out a cultural curiosity, but along the way, I ended up stumbling into coining the term “millennial pink,” a phrase that has gone on to make untold millions for . . . people who are not me.

In the story, I traced the phenomenon to a generational mood of “ambivalent girliness.” Women my age were starting to embrace the gendered tics we’d been told would hold us back in the workplace, like vocal fry or punctuating phrases with “like” and “um.” Now we could take pleasure in makeup—provided it was the kind that skimmed, rather than spackled, a canvas of perfect skin, and that came with collectible stickers. We could be bosses, though we’d probably use the awkward portmanteau “girlboss,” so as not to threaten anyone. We could lead while wearing sweatshirts and sneakers and nail art in that hyper-identifiable shade of curdled pink.

The designer Rachel Antonoff has made a point of dressing cool, feminist women like Aubrey Plaza, Jenny Slate, and Alia Shawkat (often in pink), and has held fashion shows with sleepover and school-dance themes that explicitly reference girlhood. Antonoff told me she sees this new wave of pink as a way of “reclaiming something that . . . was maybe thought of before as too girly.” When she was younger, “it was imprinted on me that it was cool to be one of the guys and to not be girly . . . to not be too feminine. A phrase that I have been thinking a lot about lately, which is just rife in pop culture and films, is a man [saying] to a woman: ‘You’re not like other girls.’ And that drives me fucking insane. Let me tell you who I’m exactly like: Every girl I ever thought was cool or smart or fun or funny. Why is that a compliment? Because that’s not a compliment that women give to men.” She sees this wave of pink as a way to “reclaim these things that we thought made us less serious, less to-be-reckoned-with . . . and say ‘No, we can be serious and like pink.’ ”

There are certainly things to embrace about this color, but a lot of its more questionable aspects got power-washed away by the frantic media coverage. Most people who’ve used the phrase “millennial pink” did not learn about it from my essay, but even I was surprised at how divorced the term became from its origin. I saw little analysis of its negative connotations. It had been reduced purely to its consumerist id: “Here are more things to buy in this color you love!”

Only a few months after I wrote the story, the phrase, which I’d initially used to define a much narrower color range, had entered the lexicon, like “normcore” before it. It had come to encompass everything from straight-up pastel pink to Fran Drescher magenta. My lazy coinage had gone viral, and pink’s hegemony was complete. My life quickly became a chromatically themed Groundhog Day. I got daily press releases pointing me to the best “millennial pink” artwork, snacks, Airbnbs, and blushes. People at parties explained the definition to me, usually incorrectly. I went to a pink-branded Pilates studio that, like so many things in this hue, seemed to exist mostly for Instagram; its wan rosy lights, embedded in small, shrine-like structures in its walls, lit us as we studiously planked. I went to an all-pink restaurant in Nolita where the food was, mercifully, not pink. (At least, I remember thinking, my insides could be shielded from this scourge.) Even when I went to Disneyland, not my idea of a hotbed of bleeding-edge cool, they were selling millennial pink Mickey ears, which might have been the breaking point for me. Everywhere I turned, I was swaddled in pink, as sticky with it as though I’d stepped in bubblegum, longing for the embrace of a cool blue or green.

It had started to feel as though the color itself was a shorthand directed at an entire generational cohort, shrieking “Buy me!” And as with any trend, there were hangers-on, too: attempts to make millennial teal, purple, and even something called “Gen Z yellow” happen. As far as I can tell, they didn’t. We’ve cycled through the many spokes of the color wheel, but pink has hung on, trapping us all in sickeningly sweet stasis. Like people on an endless layover, we’re stuck here for a while.

Who is “we”? Well, there have been other color trends that swept an entire generation: the baby blue of Hard Candy’s Sky nail polish that dominated the mid-’90s, the aerobics-evoking neons of the ’80s. But I’ve rarely encountered a visual phenomenon that felt so generically aimed at an entire demographic. Like pinstripes to a yuppie or a Lacoste croc to a prepster, the shade came to stand for an entire generation’s and gender’s worldview—the Lena Dunham of colors.

The color pink didn’t always telegraph “girl.” It was only in the 1940s that parents began to differentiate boys’ and girls’ clothes by color, and not till the ’80s and ’90s, when millennials were growing up, that various shades of pink ran riot on every holiday season’s It toy aimed at girls (see: Pretty Pretty Princess, Little Miss Makeup, Dream Phone, Mall Madness. For Barbie, a special Pantone shade, #219C, was copyrighted). But by the time I was a young adult, pink had full-fledged connotations of not just female, but young. Vapid. Incompetent. Clueless (in the Horowitzian sense). It was not a color you’d wear to be taken seriously at your job. Elle Woods wore it. So did the Plastics (on Wednesdays, at least). So when it came creeping back into our consciousness, pink had an almost return-of-the-repressed quality, oozing through the brick wall of social conditioning, defying the demand that it be put away like so many other childish things.

Its semi-familiarity was part of its appeal. Think about the trappings of millennial pink culture—the stickers, the crop tops, the high-end jelly shoes, the many gingham things. What are they but our childhood favorites, repackaged into something palatable to our adult selves?

Revisiting my original story, the whole phenomenon feels more insidious than I once thought, especially as I consider how the past few years have unfolded. When I first wrote about millennial pink, I thought it represented a kind of half step on the part of women toward embracing, not apologizing for, our gender—an improvement on cloaking ourselves in shoulder-padded blazers and trying to be permanently in corporate costume, the way our mothers’ generation did in the ’80s. It was a rebuff to the Lean In school of feminism, which encouraged us to subsume those feminine-coded traits in service of climbing the ladder. Now, I’m not so sure.

The color came to stand in for a softer, non-confrontational strain of feminism, wherein women proclaimed their inclusivity while joining exclusive clubs and buying expensive signifiers of sisterhood, like a $650 sweater with a patch that reads RADICAL FEMINIST. How different, really, were these items from the dolls and tutus and teacups we were sold as children? And if we were so committed to wholeheartedly loving pink, why did we still swerve away from the saccharine side of it?

I think the association with childhood is crucial here. For many women in their twenties and thirties, adult life has not delivered on CEO Barbie’s promises. Those of us who graduated from college are mostly saddled with student loans, underpaying gig-economy jobs supplemented by side hustles, and limited prospects for the future. (And that’s if we’re lucky!) Add to that the challenges of succeeding as a woman in the workplace, from the pernicious (sexual harassment, the gender pay gap) to the everyday irritants (men taking credit for our ideas). Meanwhile, we’re being told we can achieve anything, and that if we haven’t achieved all we wanted, it’s our fault for being weak or unmarketable or insufficiently self-promotional. Why don’t we have more Instagram followers or a more finely honed personal brand? We are transitional figures, vessels stuffed with empty empowerment, launched into an environment that hasn’t caught up to that idealized vision of gender equality.

With all this in mind, who wouldn’t long for the prosperous years of our childhoods, and instinctively be drawn to anything reminding us of them? The color’s popularity can be read as the incomplete embrace of full-on femininity. No, we shouldn’t be ashamed of being girls. But we also shouldn’t be ashamed of being women.

Fashion and consumption can bring legitimate joy, and I don’t necessarily begrudge anyone their millennial pink bucket bags. It’s fun to have what everyone else has, and even smart people secretly enjoy being marketed to. But I wonder if this period in fashion history, with its toothless pastels and sweet, ruffled, Regency-style minidresses, will come to be seen as analogous to the ’80s fashion backlash against strong-shouldered power suits worn with sneakers.

If you’re young enough to be getting millennial pink nail art, you weren’t sentient for this moment. But if you’re older, you may remember that fashion reached a crisis point in the early half of that decade. Women began buying less clothing, preferring to budget for practical line items like homes and cars. Into this void came designers like Christian Lacroix, who began offering enormous, restrictive gowns complete with bustles, with prices topping out in the mid-five figures. Susan Faludi, writing about Lacroix’s collections in Backlash, her seminal work about the one-step-forward-two-steps-back landscape of 1980s feminism, called the style High Femininity. Lacroix said he designed for women who want to “dress up like little girls.” Faludi, being a third-waver, preferred the phrase “punitively restrictive clothing.”

As with today, the trend was accompanied by a political rollback of women’s freedoms, bent on legally reducing them to impotent childhood. But the difference is that back then, the infantilization thing did not play. Yes, socialites swanned around in Lacroix’s designs, enjoying their Marie-Antoinette-at-the-hameau quality. But women, for the most part, did not want to dress up like Little Bo Peep, and the mass-market versions of Lacroix’s confections lingered on department store racks.

Now, we’ve entered the stealth sequel to this period, what you might call High Femininity 2.0. But this time, the crucial difference is that women are buying in: to ruffles, to rompers, to all manner of smocked things straight out of an ’80s Laura Ashley catalog. If there’s a loose equivalent of Lacroix in these times, it would be the designer Batsheva Hay, who makes Laura Ingalls Wilder–esque dresses apparently designed for traversing the plains of Williamsburg and fording the Gowanus Canal. Like Lacroix’s Marie Antoinette–evoking frippery, they look back to vague memories of a simpler, “less complicated” time. There’s no frontier left, but her designs are a form of frontier nostalgia; to some commentators, they have evoked homesteading or Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) garb.

These looks have a kind of hazy, appealing familiarity, too. They harken back to the vogue for lacy, frilly Gunne Sax and Jessica McClintock dresses that peaked in the late ’80s and early ’90s along with the craze for American Girl dolls—again, the formative years of so many millennials. On Instagram, Alexa Chung called her high-necked, ruffled look “A throwback Friday, if you will (to the 1800s.)” Molly Fischer, writing in New York magazine, said that trendy prairie dresses “offer conventional girliness drained of any prettiness, any elegance, any beauty: a gender norm codified as its homeliest possible husk.” Sounds like the sartorial version of millennial pink.

The prairie look has come back at a time when the ironic distance between dress-up and reality has narrowed. Abortion rights are being rolled back; the gender pay gap has barely budged. In a more progressive time, reverting to signifiers of old-fashioned repression might feel like an interesting choice; right now, it’s getting harder to separate the hipsters from the handmaids.

We’re in a time where traditional femininity has been repackaged as cool, as chill, as “woke.” The all-things-pink beauty brand Glossier commands us to be a body diversity–embracing “Body Hero” as part of its lotion campaign; The Wing (with an influx of series B funding from corporate giant WeWork) was touted to be “reviving the radical women’s club movement,” according to a Vice story. (What, exactly, is radical about an institution that costs more than $2,000 a year?) One of the most confounding things about the pink-tinted economy is the way it’s selling back existing things to us and making them “new,” painting them as essentials of self-actualization and empowerment. An elite women’s club isn’t new. Nor is makeup. Nor is a modest floral garment. Nor is pink. What we have here is a rebranding of the reactionary.

This kind of virtue signaling, in tandem with a lack of real progress, is part and parcel of the pink-tinted economy. The railroad barons of the Gilded Age would never have said, “We’re building cross-country rail lines to make connections and bring like-minded people together.” But now, especially in the world of tech, their contemporary heirs make these kinds of faux-philanthropic statements as a matter of course. And while these companies might align themselves with values you agree with, at the end of the day they still just want to sell you a ticket. The CEOs of supposedly female-friendly companies are—whoops!—sometimes still guilty of denying employees maternity leave. Meet the new girlboss, same as the old boss.

The writer Ann Friedman has talked about the insidiousness of this idea, coining the phrase “millennial pinkwashing,” which she defined on Twitter as “when you take an established feminist concept and drape it in pale-pink startup branding and sell it off to sponsors, ideally companies that are selling women fitness, beauty products, or corporate advancement.” Friedman and the writer Aminatou Sow had coined the term “shine theory,” which they define as “a commitment to collaborating with rather than competing against other people—especially other women” back in 2013, and Friedman explains that she was frustrated that a phrase they came up with had been co-opted without credit by various corporate entities. (I can relate.)

I called Friedman to ask more about her thinking. “I started noticing more recently that [millennial pink] has become the signifying color of choice for what I would call ‘empowertising’ organizations,” she said, noting that that term is itself a coinage by the writer Andi Zeisler. “It’s not like I’m the first person to say, ‘Look at the ways capitalism is taking feminism and using it to sell stuff.’ But the color is strongly associated with the kinds of companies, conferences, platforms that market themselves to creative-slash-entrepreneurial millennial women and promise information about getting ahead in your career . . . Ultimately they’re selling brand integrations, brands that want to be in front of young women whose earning power is increasing. But it’s framed very much as, ‘We’re doing this for feminism.’ It’s kind of the background color for quotes about getting what’s yours.”

Friedman quickly clarifies that she doesn’t have a problem with being a feminist who wants to learn how to advance her career. But “when you frame advancing your individual career as some sort of movement work, I get a little prickly about it,” she says. “The kind of women who are likely to be in the demo for platforms like this are probably attracted to certain Instagram design tropes that you and I are both very familiar with, and this color is a big part of it.” She draws a comparison to the pink ribbon–branded merchandise that is used to advertise breast cancer awareness, sometimes by companies who are contributing to that very disease with carcinogen-ridden products. Their philosophy seems to be, “Hey, if we put this color on it, it’s good for women—and don’t ask any more questions.”

Be...