Coquette: Is It That Deep?
By Audrey Treon
Is “coquette” another micro-trend that just serves to harm people and the planet, is it an aesthetic that is helping girls find power in their femininity, and does it really even matter?
Coquette, defined simply as a “woman who flirts” aesthetic, has taken the internet by storm. The most recent sub-trend of the coquette style is the bow-ification of everyday objects. It's pretty much just sticking a bow on objects, from a cow to a corndog. Now, I’m not trying to fault anybody for participating in the coquette aesthetic or the activity of “bowing” but, just like every other internet rage, it has a deeper meaning.
Backstage at Sandy Liang Fall 2023 Ready-to-Wear, photographed by Phoenix Johnson
What does coquette really mean, besides a flirty woman. Described in conjunction with terms like “lolita” and “nymphet”, one can see how this seemingly harmless aesthetic has a more sinister connotation.
Yes, one could argue that “coquette” is all about young girls finding power and strength in their femininity and it is the fault of men and the patriarchy for sexualizing that, and I would wholeheartedly agree. One could even argue that participating in this aesthetic is a feminist act, after all, it’s all about girls, women, and femmes reclaiming their power through hyper-femininity.
I believe there is power to be found and reclaimed in hyperfemininity, and femininity in general. But there is no power to be found in the blatantly pedophilic beauty standards upheld by the patriarchy.
Simone Rocha Fall 2023, photographed by Armando Grillo
But what about the consumption that goes along with a viral microtrend like “coquette”? Is that a feminist act? It depends on how you’re consuming. One Google search of the phrase “coquette clothes” shows results of purely fast fashion, brands like Princess Polly, PacSun, and Cider. Sure, the clothes are cute. They’re flowy and flirty, and yes, have lots of bows. But dressing femininely does not make it a feminist act. And I don’t think dressing, in any way shape or form as a woman, is inherently a feminist act. Not everything has to be one. But, fashion is a humanitarian issue, therefore it is a feminist issue.
How is fashion (and feminine dressing) a humanitarian issue? Fashion involves sourcing materials, using human labor, transporting products, and marketing trends. We are all aware that fast fashion (which describes most of the coquette aesthetic and trend) is exploitative in every sense - exploitation of the earth and its resources, exploitation of human labor, exploitation of our climate, and exploitation of consumers. Unethical and exploitative practices for the sake of coquette is neither feminist nor humanitarian, even if the clothes make one feel cute. Fast fashion is inherently anti-feminist. There’s just no way to girl-boss fast fashion. But I would be lying if I said there is no power and freedom to be found in style and the act of dressing. It’s more than possible (and I would argue, easy) to participate in the coquette trend without harming garment workers, 80% of whom are women of color. Repurpose what you have, DIY it, do your research before hitting purchase, and ask yourself, am I buying because I feel I have to be in touch with my feminine side to be trendy, or am I buying because I genuinely like the trend?
Photo courtesy of Lina Sun Park
Some people would argue that dressing to the coquette aesthetic is dressing for the female gaze, but I would argue the female gaze doesn’t even exist. The male gaze, theorized by feminist film theorist Laura Mulvey in the 1973 essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema is essentially the idea that the patriarchy intentionally objectifies women characters. This definition extends to real women as well meaning that women, no matter fictional or real, are both internally and externally objectified for the sake of the patriarchy. I don’t believe in the female gaze because, as Mulvey argued, the male gaze exists within and because of the patriarchy, they are not separate entities. Dressing or acting towards the female gaze reinforces the male gaze's strength. I understand why women who dress in the coquette fashion want to dress for the female gaze, they want to reclaim their femininity and not lend credence to men and their opinions, and I would do the same if I were them. But, as Margaret Atwood observed, acting as if the male gaze doesn’t exist is acting towards the male gaze. The fault of dressing towards the male gaze or creating the idea of the female gaze is not the fault of women, both ideas are due to the patriarchy.
Photo courtesy of =Lina Sun Park
There is a recent social media phenomenon of invalidating those who critique simply because they critique. Critiquing things and working to understand them on a deeper and more nuanced level helps to elevate and advance trends and ideas for the better. Critiquing is not the same as faulting. If hyper-feminization makes you feel fulfilled and confident, then all the power to you, but it is important to not ignore or write off the grim origins of a trend like coquette.
Just like with everything, there is nuance to this conversation. Reclaiming your girlhood and your femininity by dressing in a hyper-feminine manner can be incredibly empowering, but participating in a fleeting micro-trend is quite the opposite, for all parties involved.
Chanel Fall 1995, photo courtesy of Condé Nast Archive
In writing this my goal was not to deter anyone from wearing bows or dressing in the coquette style, but rather to understand that trends don’t come from thin air, they have history and societal implications behind them. I recognize the intense double standard between leaning into one’s masculinity versus the implications of leaning into one’s femininity. So yes, if bow-ifying everything from bags to a croissant makes you feel power in your femininity and proud of your identity, then all the power to you, truly. I understand the satirical, hyperbolic, and, hell, even camp motivations to this bow trend. And I understand the purely aesthetic motivation. I can relate to both of those motivations. After all, I love a good bow.
Maybe that’s all it boils down to, “I love a good bow”, maybe not. Maybe it boils down to scrutinizing the patriarchy’s simultaneous adoration of and hatred of femininity. I tend to think a little bit of both.
