Upholders of the "gay designers" theory of women's fashions try to deny that they
are claiming a conspiracy -- but given all the other factors that operate in the
industry, the only coherent way in which the gay designers theory can be defended
is by charging or implying a conscious conspiracy. The gay presence in the industry
is simply not large enough to make this impact *except* through organized
conspiracy. Ditto with the influence of Jewish Bankers. I think the point Doug
makes has in fact been an open secret for nearly a century: clothes look better *as
clothes* on a stick figure.
Incidentally, Doyle is probably right on the term "homophobia." Yoshie and I had a
friendly argument on this a couple years ago. At the time I argued for "homophobia"
rather than "heterosexism" mostly on the ground that the proliferation of "isms"
created clutter. But if I remember correctly Yoshie's argument was complementary to
Doyle's: that by labelling hatred/suspicion/etc. of gays a "phobia" it turned a
social fact into a mere personal illness. Hatred of gays is not in quite the same
category socially as fear of cats or spiders, or germs. The latter fears harm only
those who suffer from them.
And as Doyle points out, it mocks those with actual phobias to place them in the
same category as gay-baiters.
Doug Henwood wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >How about some evidence that the ultra thin model began with their ascendance?
>
> A model once explained to me that the industry prefers thin models
> because corporeal terrain like breasts "interferes with the line of
> the clothes."
>
> And, in my other favorite quote about the industry, an early issue of
> Spy magazine quoted a long-time Vogue art director as saying (in the
> pre-Photoshop days), "We airbrush everything. Even the best models
> have a little tummy fat."
>
> Doug
