I wish to begin this public statement with a quote from a
great lady:
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Most of the regular readers of this blog, vintage-lovers and
feminists alike, will have seen the article recently published online as part
of the Daily Mail's Femail content.
While I shouldn’t have to feel so apologetic for something
not of my direct doing, I would however like to express my sincerest apologies
to anyone who was offended by this article, because it was due to my own
naivety that it was published in the first place.
It was not remotely my intention for my interview to provoke
such an outrage, and I consider it to be my responsibility to fully acknowledge
the anger of my peers, friends and readers alike.
I appreciate that this statement will not come as a
surprise, given the reaction the article has received in some circles. I have a
right – and full intention – to defend my honour, integrity and title. And I
have taken time to carefully write this response, to be sure of no ambiguity or
further misrepresentation.
You may consider that it is all very well making a
repudiation of the quotes made in the article after the fact; however, I wish
to point out that this is not the case.
I am writing this because I feel obliged to be honest
regarding the content of the article, the majority of which contains factual
inaccuracies, which I specifically asked to be omitted prior to the publication
of the article, knowing they were completely taken out of context, and some
fabricated altogether!
As a result, I am now suffering the backlash of what was
meant to be an article about buying clothes to increase confidence and nothing
more.
Since its publication on the Femail section, I have
contacted the editors and publishers to petition for its withdrawal from public
view. Both of these appeals have been ignored without any acknowledgement of my
request for a full retraction.
While I do not expect anyone to pity the situation, I feel
it is extremely important to give my own true representation of the
proceedings.
I will state, here and now, that I am in no position to
criticise anyone for the way that they dress, nor do I have any objection to
anyone who dislikes the way that I dress.
I believe that everyone should be free to dress how they
want to, despite what the article claims. I have NEVER condoned sexual
violence; I do NOT in any way believe that if someone wears a short skirt they
are 'asking for it'!
The main focus of the article was indeed 'dress like a
lady'; however, certainly NOT to the extent that the Daily Mail sensationalised
the headline, that I had 'slammed' Miley Cyrus for her style. When approached,
I was asked a few questions about what I thought of recent articles in the
press where popstars were criticised for wearing too little, and Miley Cyrus
has been featured repeatedly in every publication going regarding her lack of
clothing.
Referring to my 'hypocritical' reference to Dita Von Teese
as a style icon: although she is a burlesque artiste, her everyday style is far
more demure and yet she manages to look glamorous at the same time. This is
what was meant by my reference; nothing more, nothing less.
Yet I was blasted by the press for my supposed unusual
choice of style icon.
Some of my quotes I will admit have been misguided by some
of my own failings, both to comprehend the intentions of the press, and my
failure to recognise that this would provoke such outrage on social media.
I do not blame anyone for wanting to criticise the article.
My interview was given in blind and good faith, an example of my naivety at its
worst, and I regret the outcry and hurt it has caused.
It will also surprise most of the readers of the article to
know that despite my choice of style in emulating a 1950s’ housewife, I
strongly consider myself to be a vehement supporter of women in the boardroom
and beyond and am very much a feminist.
Furthermore, the Daily Mail claims that I ‘recommend
converting to her strict dress regime in order “to be treated like a lady”’. I
did NOT, in any way, shape or form say this. As far as I am concerned, it is
the individual who should make the decision on how to dress. I wear jeans like
anyone else, why should I be fodder for their un-PC views?
The answer, of course, is that the press are never on your
side.
I have learned this in the most brutally hard way and I urge
anyone in the creative industries to refuse any opportunity to get 'five
seconds of fame'. That five seconds leaves an imprint which is impossible to
fully retract.
I wish to highlight also another erroneous section:–
‘Obsessed with homing the perfect look and collecting
precious items, Holly hopes to purchase a Lilli Ann suit worth up to £3,000,
which she describes as the “Ferrari of the vintage world”’. But Holly wasn't
always so confident in her appearance, and says that before discovering retro
styles she had struggled to accept her body growing up and blamed feeling
awkward in “ill-fitting high street fashion”’.
– This was grossly misrepresented. To those in the know, the
Lilli Ann suit would have cost as just much when it was new. I did NOT say that
my aspiration was to own one; I simply admire the designs with my
vintage-lover‘s passion. And I absolutely did not spend my entire university
maintenance loan; it was one small little joke during the interview that caused
a huge row.
As a matter of fact, I spent most of the first term at
university campaigning against tuition fees – note how that was left out!
My personal love for vintage and how I feel in dressing as a
lady of a bygone era does not mean I consider anyone who does not dress as I do
inferior to me.
And I personally refuse to consent to feeling inferior,
despite some of the unfair and ill-expressed things about me that have been
said in recent days following the deliberately inflammatory Daily Mail article,
using me as the target for their own twisted agenda.
I will let my recent mistake in trusting the British press
serve as a stark warning to others to be careful whom they talk to; you never
know what the recipient’s motive is.
To those who took my publicised ‘quotes’ as gospel, please
be assured they were the spectrum opposite to what was printed.
But when isn’t that the case with the press? I never knew
just how much until now.
For the record: any person, any woman, should be allowed to
walk down the street and not be leered at or subjected to abuse of any kind,
regardless of what she wears, even if naked.
Whatever confidence I gained from finding my passion in
vintage has been considerably dented by what this publication has claimed about
me, and for that reason, I shall never again be caught in the vortex of a web
of lies, spun solely to gain attention, without a care for the real – and
decent – truth.
With all sincere
regards to readers,
Miss Vintage UK
