MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W144616233

Fashioning Gender: A Case Study of the Fashion Industry

2013· dissertation· en· W144616233 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allyson Stokes

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2013
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFashion and Cultural Textiles
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFashion industryGender studiesSociologyPolitical scienceClothingLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation uses the case of the fashion industry to explore gender inequality in creative cultural work. Data come from 63 in-depth interviews, media texts, labor market statistics, and observation at Toronto's fashion week. The three articles comprising this sandwich thesis address: (1) processes through which femininity and feminized labor are devalued; (2) the gendered distribution of symbolic capital among fashion designers; and (3) the gendered organization of the fashion industry and the “ideal creative worker.” In chapter two, I apply devaluation theory to the fashion industry in Canada. This chapter makes two contributions to literature on the devaluation of femininity and “women's work.” First, while devaluation is typically used to explain the gender wage gap, I also address symbolic aspects of devaluation related to respect, prestige, and interpretations of worth. Second, this paper shows that processes of devaluation vary and are heavily shaped by the context in which work is performed. I address five processes of devaluation in fashion: (1) trivialization, (2) the privileging of men and masculinity, (3) the production of a smokescreen of glamour, (4) the use of free labor and “free stuff,” and (5) the construction of symbolic boundaries between “work horses” and “show ponies.” In chapter three, I use media analysis to investigate male advantage in the predominantly female field of fashion design. I find that the “glass escalator” concept typically used to explain male advantage in feminized work, is insufficient when applied to a cultural field. The glass escalator illustrates movement upward in well-defined organizational hierarchies where success is measured by pay and promotion. But success in cultural fields is also measured by symbolic capital (celebrity, cultural consecration, prestige). I find that male designers are attributed more symbolic capital by prestigious industry sources and the fashion media. In order to illustrate these advantages I make use of the concept of a “glass runway,” whereby designers are pushed forward into the spotlight, rather than upward within a single workplace or organization. I also take note of how these advantages are structured by the intersection of gender and sexuality. In chapter four I investigate the gendered organization of creative cultural work in the fashion industry. Literature suggests that these types of work are characterized by: (1) the need to mitigate risk through entrepreneurial labor and (2) an ideology of passion. I find that these organizing logics create a gendered conception of the “ideal creative worker.” Men more easily conform to this ideal since they have lower family responsibilities, are offered more flexible working arrangements, and since it is more culturally acceptable for men to put work before intimate life. Findings also suggest that gender intersects with age and class. The gendered organization of fashion not only reinforces inequalities between women and men, but also different groups of women. Women who are younger, childless, and have independent financial support can more easily conform to the “ideal creative worker.” Still, even women who closely match this ideal are questioned and criticized in ways that men are not.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0250.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicFashion and Cultural TextilesFrench-language works237,207