I've rounded up some of my favorite lesbian chic essentials - you know, boots, pomade for your faux hawk... You don't want to lag on this trend, ladies!
1. Warby Parker Everett, $95. 2. Lee "Saw" Shirt, $170. 3. Murray's Pomade, $2.29. 4. Black Leather Biker Jacket, $300. 5. Brooke Skinny Tie, $42. 6. Loake Burford Brogue, $330. 7. Mason Pearson Rake Comb, $30. 8. Filson Twill Computer Bag 9. There are a whole ton of other lesbian chic essentials at Babeland.com, but I wanted to keep this safe for work.
But, seriously - Style.com's major misstep is only part of an overwhelming conversation, at least for me, on the incredible lack of queer representation in the fashion industry. Besides the fact that it's horribly patronizing to reduce an entire demographic of people to a stereotype of combat boots and cropped coifs, the suggestion that appropriating that characturized (and dismissive) style for the sake of a trend? Baffling. It seems as though the relevancy of lesbians - or at least, the presumption of what it means to categorize a sexual orientation into a single aesthetic (which, obviously, I don't quite fit into - so I might need to make some adjustments on my own presentation) - comes up about every 10 years or so. It's not a new conversation, but to bill it as suddenly en vogue because Jenna Lyons "ditched" (style.com's word, not mine) her husband and found herself in a sapphic relationship, is just, well, kind of condescending - and in opposition to the actually quite diverse, queer representations of gay women working in the fashion industry - and all without the desire, or consciousness, to be on trend. Oh, and then there's the suggestion that women in fashion are so hard up for a date, but it's okay, because there's one final frontier - lesbianism! (At least until next season.)
Despite this weird, ineffective attempt at being progressive with a trend story, the truth is that there are not many representations of visibly queer people women in fashion -- only further proved by the example of Rihanna (who, much to my chagrin, does not identify as a lesbian) as a paradigm of lesbian chic and the fact that Style.com referred to Jenna Lyons so overtly without actually naming her, (perhaps because it's still taboo to discuss, or because J. Crew is an advertiser). It's a truism of the industry I work in and love that I often quarrel with, as I so often feel like an outsider in a world that bills itself as gay friendly - and frequently is anything but, at least for lesbians. I mean, maybe I'm alone in this, but I haven't been able to get a hold of the seven gay women profiled in London to get their feedback.
PS, If Style.com were a girl, I would probably not hit on her. I probably wouldn't even send her a "wink" on OkCupid. Just sayin'.
Original article after the jump.