Sex, power and the fetish of dress - Part 1

Maximilian Gedra A/W 2025

Fashion has long been a tool for both self-expression and societal positioning, and the persistent trend of power dressing in womenswear reflects this dynamic. In a world where authority is often visually communicated, broad shoulders, masculine tailoring, and structured fabrics like tweeds, leather, and denim are used to "empower" women, borrowing from the traditional signifiers of male dominance. This aesthetic, reminiscent of the 1980s power suit, suggests that strength is best communicated through rigidity, sharp lines, and an imposing silhouette. However, as women continue to break barriers across industries, one must ask: Does adopting these symbols of power actually shift societal perceptions, or does it reinforce the notion that dominance must be visually coded?

Conversely, menswear has taken a turn toward softness, embracing fluidity and androgyny in ways that challenge conventional gender norms. Crop tops, low-cut trousers, sheer fabrics, and flowing silhouettes are increasingly seen on runways, signaling a shift away from the rigid constraints of traditional masculinity. This gender-bending movement raises important questions: Is the embrace of softness in menswear a rebellion against norms, or is it merely a cyclical trend without real cultural weight? Furthermore, does adopting femininity in clothing make men more vulnerable, just as adopting masculinity was once seen as a way for women to gain respect?

Beyond aesthetics, the deeper issue remains: Despite power dressing, are women treated with more respect or afforded better opportunities? While visual representation matters, structural inequalities persist, suggesting that clothing alone does not dismantle deeply ingrained biases. Power dressing can be an armor, a tool for psychological empowerment, yet it does not inherently shift the power dynamics that dictate women’s experiences in the workplace, politics, or everyday life. If true authority is based on competence, influence, and autonomy, should fashion still be the primary battlefield for asserting dominance?

This raises the broader question of whether fashion inherently carries meaning or if its significance is entirely subjective. Is a sharply tailored blazer a symbol of power, or does it only hold that weight because we assign it? Can a man in a lace shirt be seen as revolutionary, or is it the audience who perceives it that way? While designers often craft collections with deliberate messaging, fashion ultimately interacts with cultural context, personal biases, and historical associations. In this way, clothing is both a mirror and a projection—imbued with meaning not just by its creator but by the world that interprets it. 2025-2026 season references:

Saint Laurent presented sharp tailoring paired with leather jackets, taking viewers back to the power-dressing era of the '80s.

Both Ferragamo and Bottega Beneta, under their new creative direction, explored the idea of power dressing, presenting several silhouettes that featured masculine tailoring, suiting, oversized and accentuated shoulders in subdued nuances ranging from grey to black. At Ferragamo, a noteworthy counterpoint was the use of satin as both belts and suits, it being a traditionally "feminine" fabric. Stella McCartney and Jil Sander are all banking on very masculine tailoring for next summer with flannel and heavy canvas suits, wide-legged trousers, and blazers with broad, marked shoulders, in the purest 80s style. Max Mara used clean lines, sharp tailoring, and a muted color palette of coffee and caramel that are all go-to elements of menswear.

Maximilian Gedra presented a bold, gender-inclusive reinterpretation of classic business fashion with the collection "The Office"