At first glance Nick Bradshaw’s image is boring. It captures the back of a male referee in prematch discussion between the female captains of the Kilkenny and Dublin camogie teams.
But the context, as Denis Walsh notes, is that the person in the middle wearing shorts is telling two other people in shorts that they must not wear shorts. Can the shorts-wearing male count the precious playing days lost to his elders droning on about whether his shorts were sufficiently masculine to meet the GAA’s famously scrupulous moral standards? Zero. But the man was only doing his job here, enforcing rules dictated by the overwhelmingly female-dominated Camogie Association.
At this the eye instinctively does precisely what it shouldn’t: it zeros in on the women’s shorts. Are they doing peculiarly suggestive things with those shorts? Are those “short shorts”? Not even nearly. They’re normal players in normal togs like the ones Paul Mescal wore in Normal People, wearing minimal make-up (if any, unlike Paul), hair mussily tied back, jerseys hanging out, sticks to hand, helmets alongside ready for serious action. Then those serious women had to leave and change into “skorts” for permission to play.
The topic hasn’t been worth even five seconds of the tedious hours devoted to it. The spectacle of politicians wailing about the tragic skort imposition on their preadolescent daughters, yet strangely disinclined to wade into the less sexy but massively more important subject of integration with the GAA and the LGFA – which has been haunting the Camogie Association’s agenda since Methuselah – is particularly headmelting for many such serious women.
Skorts issue is about policing women. The fuss around Kim Kardashian’s courtroom garb is not
Who felt informed enough in those first few days to call Alan Hawe a cold-blooded murderer?
‘Woke’ keeps coming up in elections but it is a meaningless insult
I leaned over to the man beside me and asked him to put on headphones. Everyone looked away
Skorts are a distraction. Most women just want a choice. Like so many “big” debates relating to women, that’s all it comes down to. Choice. It was the contrast between the camogie women and Instagram mega-influencer Kim Kardashian making her deeply silly progress through Paris last week that made the “skorts” row all the more frustrating.
Kardashian, now 44, was the victim of a terrifying 2016 Paris hotel jewel heist by a gang dubbed “the grandpa robbers” who left her fearing for her life. So naturally her response was to show up for the criminal trial dripping in conspicuous wealth and an outfit resembling something a six-year-old would dream up for Barrister Barbie.
It included a showstopping $3 million necklace incorporating 80 diamonds, sparkly earrings, a plunging black Galliano blazer with a long black skirt slit up the back and stiletto heels that obliged her to negotiate the streets and steps with a slow hip-wiggle.
But choice is choice and Kardashian’s ensemble can be interpreted “simultaneously as a nod to traditional courtroom attire, a reminder of feminine vulnerability in its wasp waist and skirt rather than trousers, and a reclamation of power through its broad shoulders”, as Prof Susan Scafidi, a pioneer in fashion law, told Women’s Wear Daily.
Sure, professor. And the role of the diamonds? “The diamonds are a reminder of the stolen jewellery and of her wealth and celebrity.”
Mmm. But why? Why would anyone in that courtroom – least of all her attackers – need an in-your-face reminder of anyone’s wealth and celebrity?
The language and interpretation of clothes has always attracted bloviators and poseurs and many people – including this one – would normally defend the whole package as a gift to the gaiety of nations.
But when Kardashian’s stylist, Simone Harouche, took issue with the trial judge asking if Kardashian had put herself in danger by publishing images of herself online, it took it in another direction. “Just because a woman wears jewellery, that doesn’t make her a target. That’s like saying that because a woman wears a short skirt, she deserves to be raped,” said Harouche.
No, it’s not at all like saying that. There is a fundamental difference between a woman coming under threat because she’s wearing a short skirt (or skort or shorts) and one who routinely flashes her multimillion dollar bling on- and offline. One is a very specifically gendered threat. The second is not. One high-end French watchmaker for example warns that wearing a luxury timepiece requires greater awareness against targeted attacks or pickpocketing in larger cities such as Paris, a point that clearly holds true for both men and women. And it hardly needs repeating that Gisèle Pelicot – for example – was not wearing a short skirt when she was drugged and raped repeatedly.
Clarity is important because clothing choices have suddenly re-emerged as a hot issue in recent months. Kardashian’s decision to turn a solemn court appearance into a blingy costume drama was less an admirable “reclamation of power” than a bald attention play for the paparazzi gaze.
The same applies to the ongoing debate about so-called nearly-nude or naked dressing among celebrities and stars at industry events. Nude bodystockings, transparent mesh and cobweb-like fabric posing as designer (non) garments have been having a moment but the irony is that it looks like anything but fun. Instagram comments about Bianca Censori’s (Kanye West’s partner) Paris promenade wearing a cropped jacket with sheer pantyhose were more of a yawn than a wow. The truth is that those revealing “outfits” look strangely neutered and try-hard, like plastic Barbie.
The organisers of the Cannes film festival obviously don’t know where to look and have banned naked dressing for “decency reasons” from the red carpet. But high fashion has handed down its verdict. “Enough with the boobs,” said the New York Times’s Vanessa Friedman after a St Laurent show. Like discouraging a toddler’s curse words or people who insist on skorts, the best approach may be to ignore it.
For pity’s sake, Camogie Association, spend tomorrow’s “emergency special congress” focusing on the truly urgent and important stuff on which your lifeblood depends. Skorts will not feature in your legacy. Let it go.
