Canny businesses tap ordinary people's insecurity. Women are image victims once again
by Yasmin Alibhai BrownPublished: 04 June 2007
Today I take you into the tricky world of handbags. Most men who arenot thieves fear the dark insides of our bags. Ask them to get keys orcoins and they go in as if an alert Black Widow spider is lurking atthe bottom. They can't understand why we need these adult satchels, andso suspect the worst. This week the poor things must have been evenmore baffled to witness the two estimable female candidates forLabour's deputy leadership duelling over handbags.
You just don't get it, chaps. This thing we carry is loaded withserious meaning. Mrs Thatcher held her bags tight on the inside of heriron elbow. The incident of his dog chewing on the £2,000 bag belongingto Kimberley Quinn encapsulated the foolishness of Blunkett's obsessiveaffair. It revealed the dynamics of class inequality, exposed themanipulative yet dim rich and the envious face of Blair's Labour partydesperately seeking brassy, toff playmates. In today's Britain,handbags have become potent symbols of politics, power, economics,social mobility, pre-feminist proclivities or post-feminist libertiesor the death of feminism, ethical living, advanced capitalism, the ebbof socialism and possibly the end of history.
Hazel Blears owns what I am told is an Orla Kiely handbag, costing£250. It is a designer name I don't recognise, not being an aficionado.I could imagine Ms Blears buying Swiss army knives and Rosa Klebbshoes, but not, to be honest, softly voluptuous gear. Harriet Harmanwho always looks nice, averred righteously that she would never buy anaccessory costing more than £50 and criticised our divided society'where some people struggle and others spend £10,000 on a handbag'.
Sharp ripostes were returned by the diminutive and unbending MsBlears. Politicians had no right to tell people how to spend theirmoney, she scolded, adding that the party should never again weartank-tops and flares and needs to give people a 'platform foropportunity not a cap on aspiration'. I know, I know, I am,caricaturing Blears. But I am a Harmanite on this war of the bags. Andmillions of other women voters are Blearsites.
Ruth from Buckinghamshire, for one, who writes with much convictionon the matter, in an exchange on the net: 'I work hard to earn my moneyso if I want to blow an entire months [sic] wages on a handbag thenthat's up to me. I have no problem spending £500 on a handbag, its make[sic] me feel good to walk down the street with it. If you want to becheap with your plastic then so be it.'
Thus spake an aspirational babe on the nirvana of choice. How do youblow an entire month's wages without borrowing beyond your means? Thesewomen walk more proud because they are holding exorbitantly pricedcarriers made from cow skins, a cheap and ubiquitous material turnedinto gold by canny businesses who know exactly how to tap into theinsecurities of ordinary people seeking affirmation and the over-richwho have to find endless ways to unload their piles.
One day great leather handbags cost between £35 and £60, thensuddenly even the cheapest high street shops had hiked up the prices.And the trade roared as the herds rushed to purchase carry-outself-esteem. Today there are bags on the market costing £80,000. Ifthis is aspiration, no thanks.
I do have some high-label clothes - bought cut-price in sales andoutlets. Most of my best clothes are inexpensive. We were invited byfriends to Glyndebourne this Saturday, the temple of couture as well asmusic. I wore a lacy skirt (£12), a beautiful, amber 18th-century-stylebodice (£14 in a sale), and an even cheaper bolero. Two grand ladiesadmired the bodice, and I was pleased to tell them the cost. Real stylenever slavishly succumbs to diktats. Post-feminism has made women imagevictims again, confident only when they have, not for what they are. Tofree yourself from the fashion hounds is to free yourself from others,too, who would control you. Like Ms Blears.
Harman's concern about inequality adds moral weight to the revulsionrising against designer-bag shopaholism. More money is swilling aroundin Britain than ever. Ours is well on the way to becoming a suspicious,uncaring and dysfunctional society. Our modern over-rich do not turninto philanthropists as many do in the United States. They buy, buy,buy bleeding handbags, never unzipped to bring out two pounds for a BigIssue.
Next month the fashion changes and more will rush to buy moreleather, ending in bag mountains to fill in the sites of socialdemocracy and political engagement. We can carry on with such bingeconsumption or step towards a saner, equitable future. The battle ofthe handbags is about that crucial decision.
You just don't get it, chaps. This thing we carry is loaded withserious meaning. Mrs Thatcher held her bags tight on the inside of heriron elbow. The incident of his dog chewing on the £2,000 bag belongingto Kimberley Quinn encapsulated the foolishness of Blunkett's obsessiveaffair. It revealed the dynamics of class inequality, exposed themanipulative yet dim rich and the envious face of Blair's Labour partydesperately seeking brassy, toff playmates. In today's Britain,handbags have become potent symbols of politics, power, economics,social mobility, pre-feminist proclivities or post-feminist libertiesor the death of feminism, ethical living, advanced capitalism, the ebbof socialism and possibly the end of history.
Hazel Blears owns what I am told is an Orla Kiely handbag, costing£250. It is a designer name I don't recognise, not being an aficionado.I could imagine Ms Blears buying Swiss army knives and Rosa Klebbshoes, but not, to be honest, softly voluptuous gear. Harriet Harmanwho always looks nice, averred righteously that she would never buy anaccessory costing more than £50 and criticised our divided society'where some people struggle and others spend £10,000 on a handbag'.
Sharp ripostes were returned by the diminutive and unbending MsBlears. Politicians had no right to tell people how to spend theirmoney, she scolded, adding that the party should never again weartank-tops and flares and needs to give people a 'platform foropportunity not a cap on aspiration'. I know, I know, I am,caricaturing Blears. But I am a Harmanite on this war of the bags. Andmillions of other women voters are Blearsites.
Ruth from Buckinghamshire, for one, who writes with much convictionon the matter, in an exchange on the net: 'I work hard to earn my moneyso if I want to blow an entire months [sic] wages on a handbag thenthat's up to me. I have no problem spending £500 on a handbag, its make[sic] me feel good to walk down the street with it. If you want to becheap with your plastic then so be it.'
Thus spake an aspirational babe on the nirvana of choice. How do youblow an entire month's wages without borrowing beyond your means? Thesewomen walk more proud because they are holding exorbitantly pricedcarriers made from cow skins, a cheap and ubiquitous material turnedinto gold by canny businesses who know exactly how to tap into theinsecurities of ordinary people seeking affirmation and the over-richwho have to find endless ways to unload their piles.
One day great leather handbags cost between £35 and £60, thensuddenly even the cheapest high street shops had hiked up the prices.And the trade roared as the herds rushed to purchase carry-outself-esteem. Today there are bags on the market costing £80,000. Ifthis is aspiration, no thanks.
I do have some high-label clothes - bought cut-price in sales andoutlets. Most of my best clothes are inexpensive. We were invited byfriends to Glyndebourne this Saturday, the temple of couture as well asmusic. I wore a lacy skirt (£12), a beautiful, amber 18th-century-stylebodice (£14 in a sale), and an even cheaper bolero. Two grand ladiesadmired the bodice, and I was pleased to tell them the cost. Real stylenever slavishly succumbs to diktats. Post-feminism has made women imagevictims again, confident only when they have, not for what they are. Tofree yourself from the fashion hounds is to free yourself from others,too, who would control you. Like Ms Blears.
Harman's concern about inequality adds moral weight to the revulsionrising against designer-bag shopaholism. More money is swilling aroundin Britain than ever. Ours is well on the way to becoming a suspicious,uncaring and dysfunctional society. Our modern over-rich do not turninto philanthropists as many do in the United States. They buy, buy,buy bleeding handbags, never unzipped to bring out two pounds for a BigIssue.
Next month the fashion changes and more will rush to buy moreleather, ending in bag mountains to fill in the sites of socialdemocracy and political engagement. We can carry on with such bingeconsumption or step towards a saner, equitable future. The battle ofthe handbags is about that crucial decision.
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. Windows Live Mail.
No comments:
Post a Comment