Fashion designer Stella McCartney says strong women aren't attractive

While speaking at Paris Fashion Week on Monday, fashion designer Stella McCartney introduced her new collection with a heaping side of gender norms. She explained backstage that her new collection welcomed the "fragility" of women and displayed their "softness."

"Strength on its own in a woman is quite aggressive and not terribly attractive all the time," McCartney said. "This collection is really celebrating the gentle side."

It's possible that McCartney meant that the clothing in her collection is supposed to help women feel softer and appreciate their gentle sides. That, in and of itself, is fine. But implying strong women aren't "terribly attractive all the time" is more problematic.

McCartney's comments are a reminder that the way a woman is supposed to look is dictated by society. Be thin. Be fragile. Be soft, social constructions say, but don't be strong because being strong is dominating and "aggressive," and women are supposed to be passive. McCartney's comments seem to say that these clothes are not for strong women — they are for beautiful women.

This is particularly ironic since McCartney recently created a clothing line for Adidas full of workout wear and tennis shoes. The workout clothes, we suppose, aren't meant to make women strong, so they must be meant to make women thin, something McCarthy also faced criticism about on Tuesday when she posted a photo of a very thin woman wearing her collection.

McCartney later deleted the image and replaced it with this one after users threatened to unfollow her:

McCartney is a leading designer of women's fashion around the world. Her words are a reminder that beauty in the fashion world is too often marked by a woman's body and her softness, leaving no room for other versions of beauty: ones that are strong and powerful and maybe even aggressive.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple reasons that we can't rely only on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on.

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. We can’t do that if we have a paywall.

That’s why we also turn to you, our readers, to help us keep Vox free. If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today?

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via