On November 14th, 2020, Candice Owens tweeted, “There is no society that can survive without strong men. The East knows this. In the West, the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence. It is an outright attack. Bring back manly men,” in response to Harry Styles’ interview stating his love for experimenting with fashion as he graces the Vogue cover in a dress. While many fans and celebrities have responded in Harry Styles’ defense, I am he

re to give a deeper understanding as to why men adorning themselves in feminine fashion is not “an outright attack.”

Before I respond to Candice Owens’ tweet, there is something that needs to be set straight. Fashion is an art and can be expressed by anyone. We are not bound to the gender norms of society, especially when it comes to style. In fact, what is seen as “feminine” now was considered “masculine” back in history such as ruffles, lace, tights, wigs, heels, and makeup. “In 2016, Jaden Smith wore a skirt in a Louis Vuitton campaign”— Whitney Knotts (12). Because of these examples demonstrating the changes in fashion over time, I, along with many others, like to describe fashion as fluid. Clothing is not exclusive to men or women.

In response to Candice’s tweet, I am here to explain why fashion is not “an outright attack.” How is a guy wearing a dress so different from girls wearing pants? It’s not. She says “There is no society that can survive without strong men.” A man in a dress can’t be strong? Wrong. Clothing does not define one’s strength. She continued her tweet with “the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence.” Since when was fashion a political issue? Since when did the upcoming feminine fashion trends promote Marxism? Never. It is clothing. In the words of Gen Z it’s “not that deep.”