How a $750 Down Jacket is Dividing College Campuses

5 Responses

  1. Colleen says:

    The comparison with Black women sporting natural hair and African prints is disrespectful at best. I don’t disagree that there is an aspect of the whole “coastie” thing that problematically stereotypes Jewish women. However, drawing a parallel (and using the word ‘mirrors’) to Black women in the 1970’s is not helpful. They are not equivalent in these circumstances. I’m not arguing that the historical suffering of the two groups is not comparable…I’m just saying that these two specific examples (afros and north face) are not even remotely similar.

  2. Barbara Sommerfeld says:

    I have seen plenty of guys on campus wearing the North Face logo. Why just zero in on females? Good grief, stop with the sexism. For that matter, who cares what someone wears? Get a grip.

    • L. D. says:

      It’s reassuring to hear that you, Barbara, do not care what people wear. However, what this carefully researched and argued piece makes clear is that your wonderfully accepting view of others does not extend across the communities explored here. Dr. Gross provides abundant examples of how specialized outerwear has been used to denote certain groups as outsiders — a decidedly negative presence — on college campuses across generations, whether that outsiderness is based on gender, race, religion, class, and/or any combination of the above. Please read the piece again, carefully — no skimming. If you still consider this piece to be motivated by “sexism,” and if you truly care about sexism, then please consider reading up on what this word means so that you can engage in thoughtful commentary on a thoughtful essay.

      • Tracey says:

        I have to respectfully disagree with the previous comment. A close reading of the article does not give the impression that this piece was “carefully researched and argued”. Instead, the argument is poorly organized, poorly supported, narrowly focused, and vastly overstated. The author’s main point is perfectly reasonable: fashion choices must be examined within their context(s). However, she can’t seem to decide which context she wants to examine, hinting at (but never developing) the notion of class conflict, jumping to an analysis of race and gender identity, and ending with a discussion of expedition gear as a conscious expression of winter “preparedness”. This last section seems particularly awkward in relation to the rest of the article, especially since it challenges the author’s own argument that Canada Goose jackets are tactically chosen to express Jewish women’s identity. More problematic is the way the author cherry picks her evidence to support her claim. For example, despite a handful of lyrics in a student-created rap song, the term “coastie” is not limited to “young Jewish women from the East Coast”. It is also routinely applied to non-Jewish women and men from both coasts and, as one of the video links suggests, it is even used to describe wealthy students from Chicago. Likewise, Canada Goose jackets are not only worn by women on campus. A large and significant number of men also wear these jackets. Finally, despite her interest in context, the author chooses a single line here and there from satirical student newspaper articles, shakes them free from their context, and forces them into her own interpretive framework. For example, she centers on the phrase “North Face bitches go home” as evidence of anti-Semitism, but ignores that it purportedly appeared alongside phrases like “I hate Wisconsin hicks” in what the newspaper article described as a regional, class-based conflict. The whole enterprise gives the impression of an argument in search of evidence, a common risk when viewing the world through a narrow interpretive lens. This is apparent in the way the author ham-handedly attempts to apply strategies for black empowerment to the purchasing of Canada Goose jackets, or the disingenuous claim that questioning the wisdom of wearing subzero, expedition-level apparel in warm temperatures is tantamount to “policing women’s bodies”. Racist and sexist language is clearly apparent in some of the discussions surrounding the term “coastie”. Investigating this problematic language is definitely worthy of scholarly attention. But truly understanding context requires an interpretive openness that this particular article does not display.

  3. Jay says:

    And here I thought a jacket was meant to keep you warm. Who knew there were pretentious individuals out there that prioritizes status over application of a coat regardless of its effectiveness. I wear Northface because it keeps me warm and blocks out wind pretty well. I also wear no name brands which performs equally as well and for some strange reason, I don’t feel any less poorer or richer. Stupid trends are stupid and this is coming from a millennial.

Leave a Reply