The author in this chapter describes fashion as a theory of poetry, as it has performative

power. He takes us through the display of how clothing divided sexes and separated classes
in the 19th century. In the early 19th century, women's fashion represented the wealth of the
husband in the leisure class. 70 years later, this ideology evolved and is interpreted as men
do not allow their bodies to hold the gaze, but women choose to have an empty appearance,
a blinding exteriority; that is, through fashion, she alienated herself from herself.
Back then, in the Monarchs, where the women were idle, luxury and gallantry reigned, and
men were supposed to join the tyranny to avoid being judged, The desire of women to
please men and that of men to please them in return led to both sexes losing their essential
distinctive properties. Nobility and femininity shared an emphasis on the body,which was not
meant for the citizens. As a citizen, he did not need to appear or represent himself to the
world; this ability led to the standardization of male clothing.
The uniformed men of the 19th century marked masculine sexuality, not particularly for the
bourgeois. But soon, The military’s norming and standardization of the human body
according to sizes led to the extent of prêt-à-porter-tailored uniforms. Now the citizen-man,
who renounced all their sexuality marked by clothes, was able to escape the threat. As the
noble became a symbol of power and women were absent from the political and productive
spheres, the bourgeoisie used women to exhibit their nobility; it was only the citizen-men's
clothing that made them appear authentic, while on the other hand, women appeared as a
sheer appearance.
Another event that undermined the social separation of the sexes was Dandy. Dandy was
described as a man who placed particular importance upon physical appearance and
personal grooming and who imitated an aristocratic style of life, despite his middle-class
origin. While the suffragettes, who can be called the feminist currents, strived to attain
subjectivity through naturalization of gender, they opposed male authenticity, asked for equal
rights, and rebelled against the objectification of women and customary.
All of this led to haute couture losing power in the 1960s, and by the 1980s, it had made the
transition to prêt-à-porter completely. In the present time, The production of femininity is still
a full-time job. Between diets, the gym, the hairdresser’s, the beauty salon, and shopping,
the woman in the visual still remains the heroine of manipulation. Fetishism is in the air, be it
consumer fetishism or women's objectification. In modern times, The realm of the stuff of
which dreams are made—the realm of accessories—oscillates between the animate and the
inanimate and is unceasingly staged in fashion. The artificial is naturalized, and the natural
becomes artificial. In current times, only men are allowed the privilege of proper meaning, of
a literal identity. This is the most profound reason why the feminine gender role is, from the
very outset, a travesty.
But again, like in the 19th century, fetishized femininity is no longer bound to woman. As
queens, fairies, and drag queens, men have long appropriated fetishized femininity for
themselves. Now, It does not exist as individuality in the sense of manly identity but rather in
the sense of feminine difference. This is what the author refers to as post-fashion. .The
change in perception of fashion,and breaking the dominance of Paris fashion, breaks the
dictatorial privilege of the great couturiers. Pos-fashion has begun to deconstruct this identity
of ‘woman, in which elements of the petit bourgeois enter into competition with the outsiders
of society