At Sunday’s Golden Globes, Connie Britton wore a cashmere sweater by Lingua Franca with the words “Poverty is Sexist” embroidered across the front in script. As I mentioned in our coverage of her, the sweater retails for $380, $100 of which goes to support the One Campaign. Lingua Franca also has a sweater at the same price point with “Times Up” written on it, with $100 from that sale going to the Times Up legal defense fund. Connie’s sweater is expensive, but it goes to a good cause and the cost is also extremely relative, considering how pricey custom-made red carpet gowns can be. Connie’s stylist told People Magazine that the sweater was Connie’s idea and that “The more I thought I about it, I thought it was genius and brilliant… it’s really about the message.”
Connie posted some tweets about her sweater, about the message it conveys and about the cause it supports.
#WhyWeWearBlack @linguafrancanyc pic.twitter.com/bYLqr4zXyJ
— Connie Britton (@conniebritton) January 8, 2018
Nowhere in the world are women economically equal to men. Which serves no one. Poverty drags down economies and spirit. #PovertyIsSexist
Think bigger. Think better. https://t.co/Ch2XUXjgHd— Connie Britton (@conniebritton) January 9, 2018
If you’d like to learn more about how poverty is sexist, this article on Thedebrief.co.uk is backed up by statistics that show that women are more likely to live in poverty both in the UK and the world. There’s also a quick video linked above by the One Campaign that emphasizes that the gender pay gap is 23% globally, that girls in developing countries are much less likely to get schooling than boys, and that in developing countries 1 in 4 girls gets married under the age of 18.
Connie used her platform at the Globes to both support the #WhyWeWearBlack movement and to bring awareness to this cause. However after she posted that on Twitter a bunch of people dragged her for selling an “expensive” sweater that people couldn’t afford, and for the mixed messaging of an almost $400 sweater with words about poverty on it. I don’t think they got the point at all, which is common on Twitter. Here are some of the detractors and I’m leaving out the deplorables screaming about the “hypocrisy” of the left. There were so many negative comments from people with Trump as their avatar.
She is trying make a statement about poverty. The sweater sells for $380.00. What is inspirational about that?
— Dawn Langer (@waita2nd) January 9, 2018
I am a single woman, who while not in poverty, cannot afford your sweater…
— Heather Hildebrand (@pikespeakahh) January 8, 2018
Poverty & a $380 sweater don’t mix. There is nothing wrong with me. I’m not a celebrity worshiper. I can have an opinion involving a celeb.
— Dawn Langer (@waita2nd) January 10, 2018
So I wanted to purchase @conniebritton’s “poverty is sexist” #GoldenGlobes sweater, but when I looked it up, it costs $380…. is it just me or does that seem ironic?
Ps- all @linguafrancanyc sweaters are $380, so I couldn’t get @IMKristenBell’s either :/ pic.twitter.com/vlKyEzO1Z0
— Kathryn Baker (@kathrynnbakerr) January 9, 2018
In response, Connie tweeted this:
For those concerned with the price of my Globes sweater I just don't think a $5000 gown would have added to the conversation in the same way. And @linguafrancanyc who designed it, inspired by @ONECampaign, is donating $100 of each purchase to @camfed https://t.co/9pwJwPecNd
— Connie Britton (@conniebritton) January 10, 2018
I agree with her, and to be fair she had plenty of supporters on Twitter too, I read more supportive tweets than not. Here are some of my favorites:
I love it! You are definitely best dressed! 😄
— Sara(h) (@myownsunshinee) January 10, 2018
Sorry that you feel the need to explain to ignorance.
— 💘🤘Kelly🌲👑❤ (@koolk4) January 10, 2018
True activism is not about caring only when it’s convenient or fashionable to do so. You are a beacon of hope in a scary & uncertain world. Thank you for your courage & compassion & for weathering the storms to give a voice to oppressed & marginalized groups around the world.😍🖤
— love. hope. resist. (@ckr1120) January 8, 2018
I’m definitely on the supportive side. She could have worn a couture black gown but instead she started a conversation, as she wrote. I like how she just issued this one statement about it and then let it go, that was classy. Connie is starring on the new Fox series by Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk (Gwyneth Paltrow’s fiance, in case you were wondering where you’ve heard that name) called 9-1-1. I watched some of the first episode last week after The X-Files and it was pretty engaging and well written. It was certainly better than the first episode of The X-Files.
Here’s Kristen Bell, also in a Lingua Franca sweater, on Globes night.
Photos credit: Backgrid, WENN and Pacific Coast News
Kristin, what in hell are sister’s? No such thing, sweetie. Third-grade English, hello?
Yes! And “Happy New Year’s” does not make sense either, yet I see it everywhere, including on an episode of The Middle! It was a great episode grammar error aside.
Is it actually “Happy New Years”? I always figured that didn’t make much sense either, because why do you use a plural form of year? But then again, lots of things Americans say make no sense to me, like “I could care less”. Doesn’t that mean you do care?
Just “Happy New Year”. As in it is a new year, have a happy one.
If referring to “New Year’s Eve” (the eve of the new year, it’s a posessive) then the ‘s is okay but otherwise no…
“Happy New Year’s” as in Happy New Year’s Day… It ‘s not incorrect, people just tend to use the abbreviated version.
Phones tend to auto-correct. I try not to give a hard time to people that could be a victim of auto-correct. We’ve all had it get the best of us at one time or another.
Grammar is the 1st thing people attack when they have nothing else to complain about… even an apostrophe sets these would be editors off. I understand the annoyance with you’re and your but come on now!
I love that grammar is the first thing you focus on about the article. Jeezus. I’m an assistant editor, and even I look more towards the content of a message than the grammar. If I could insert a roll-my-eyes emoji, I would.
Both are equally important. The fact that someone gets paid to edit sayx this is sad.
Bunbun are you kidding? Grammar and sexism/poverty are equally important? Are you actually, seriously kidding? I teach both grammar and discourse and sociology at university and I don’t even think I’ve ever MET a linguist who would make such a claim.
It is not sad, that an editor says that message is more important than grammar. It means she is not a jerk about the part of the communication process that few master, most make mistakes in, and is the most easily attacked, usually as a diversion from the actual message. Research by the way shows that grammar nazis are judgmental. Just saying.
Good grammar is a lost art.
I look at grammar too and have to admit i noticed the apostrophe error. You can’t help what you notice. And i do care about things like that. However, i commit the same error myself sometimes. Not because i don’t know the rules but because i type in haste [and repent in leisure!].
I once saw a T – shirt that I loved; I’m secretly judging your grammar. Yes, that does somewhat describe me.
Oh, and another T – shirt that said something like, You had me at the possessive apostrophe. Loved it.
As for New Year’s, it might be partially correct depending on what the person is saying. It would be ok if they meant New Year’s Eve. So, the possessive would be accurate.
We had fun on New Year’s Eve and Happy New Year!
It’s not hypocritical. I hate how people are so either/or these days. Like those people that think some can’t work in a field that gives back to the community and own nice clothes, shoes, and handbags. Working to increase others quality of life/standard of living doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy your own.
This x100
Yes ITA 100%
This is true.
We live in a culture where people are always looking to be offended.
The thing about money, and how much one is willing to pay for an item—it’s so relative to how much you make. When I first started working as a single mom, I could not afford to buy clothes from, say, GAP, and relied on thrift stores and hand me downs. Today, I can afford to shop at GAP, but Eileen Fisher or Barney’s is out of my range. I still shop at Salvation Army, but GAP is also an option. I would not pay $380 for a sweater, no. But for a rich celeb, I can see how that would seem affordable.
If $100 of it is a donation, then it’s a $280 sweater. Totally Eileen Fisher level. I own a couple $280 EF sweaters. Probably buy something overpriced once every other year. Whoopdie Doo! How do you spell that? Anyway, if I made a lot of money I’d buy a few a year and this sweater totally would be one of them. Everyone gotta put each other down these days. Give it a rest when someone is trying to do something good or different. This is interesting and worth talking about. Plus… I know nothing about Connie Britton personally (until know) , but have always loved her on screen, which subconsciously makes me root for her as a person.
And if it’s really cashmere, then $280 is a pretty good price. I bet most women on the red carpet spent more on their shoes.
People in intl development say “poverty has a female face”. That’s why micro-finance concentrates on women and organizations like GirlEffect.org focuses on keeping girls in school longer.
What’s wrong with the sweater? Did she steal it? Are we gonna pretend that celebs wear forever 21 items on final sale? It’s about the message…
I know … cashmere aint cheap, y’all. lordy!
Would it have hurt her to put it on a cheaper shirt? Its like that 800$ !!! “feminist” shirt.
Totally ridiculous.
Yeah she should wear a $15 shirt made in China. FAR more socially-conscious. Because why support local artists when you can support the sweatshop industry?
Look, call me crazy, but I think people have a point about the price of her sweater. If it we’re Gwyneth, we’d drag her for being tone-deaf. No doubt Britton’s heart is in the right place, but the message is always lost when someone of great privilege conveys such messages in gilded, expensive packaging. $400 is what some people receive in food benefits a month. I like Connie Britton, but even my activist side chaffs at things like this.
Exactly, like I said above: Couldnt she have printed or written it on a cheap shirt? “Its about the message” Yeah exactly, thats why this is a bad look.
But then she’d be stealing a design from the original artist so, no. Plus part of the cost goes to charity.
Annaloo this sweater was probably made in fair wage conditions. I mean, I am against mass produced items by poor workers. I realize that items made in a decent way will cost more.
Not to mention the cost of high quality, ethically sourced cashmere is really expensive. Those $99 Macy’s sweaters skew people’s idea of what cashmere should really cost.
Exactly, Bridget. There are problems with cheap cashmere. The quality is usually poor, the goats are often in huge herds that overgraze a small patch of land, leading to desertification, and the garments are often produced using cheap labor.
Good point Bridget. When this first came up a few days, I thought the price was a bit high, but didn’t realize it was cashmere.
I wouldn’t buy it for myself to wear, I am far too messy to wear a sweater that expensive, but I am on board with her choosing it for the red carpet, and people who can afford to buy it doing so. I’m betting most of those women made an additional donation as well.
While I don’t have a problem with the sweater, I do disagree with people who say $380 for a sweater is simply the “cost” of ethical production. This is why some people won’t support ethical production — because they’ve been scared into believing that it will result in things like $380 sweaters. Please don’t spread these types of untruth. Ethical production is not THAT expensive.
A price tag of $380 is absolutely what you would you would expect for a CASHMERE sweater with HAND-EMBROIDERY on it, particularly if they’re donating part of the cost to charity. Obviously other ethically made items are not going to be that high priced, but a high quality fabric manufactured in the United States with skilled workmanship, yes, that is absolutely what I’d expect to pay. It’s a luxury item. It has luxury pricing to reflect that.
Veronica –
Yes, it is a luxury item. It costs $380 because it is marketed to women who can afford a $380 sweater, just like a $20,000 handbag is marketed to women who can afford a $20,000 handbag. I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem with people who say $380 is simply the price you have to pay for an ethically sourced sweater. It’s not. $380 is the price you pay for a luxury item marketed to wealthy people, that is also ethically sourced. It is NOT the “price” of ethically sourced sweaters.
We seem to be talking around each other, here. I am not suggesting that $380 is what you should expect to pay for ethically made sweaters as a whole. I am suggesting that it is an entirely fair price to charge for a full-blend cashmere sweater, made in a country with a relatively fair wage system, that is then hand – rather than machine – embroidered. Not even so much as a luxury item, but yes, as a luxury item, because that’s fundamentally what cashmere is. Even more affordable ones will easily run you $100, and that’s usually on the cheaper end of the spectrum and they’re usually blended.
Ok, I can agree that $380 is the going rate for a quality luxury sweater, as long as people don’t think that is the price BECAUSE it is an ethically sourced sweater. I just don’t want the campaign to increase ethically-sourced products to be hurt by people thinking it will lead to $380 sweaters.
First off, it’s basically a $280 sweater with a $100 donation.
And it’s cashmere. Do you know how expensive good cashmere is? It’s not going to be my example of the cost of regular ethically sourced goods, because cashmere is a luxury item.
They only have a point in that they clearly have no concept of how expensive ethical production really is. There’s a reason why most of us own very few goods that were 100% made in America. The entire capitalist system here is built on exploitation of impoverished areas.
I mean, it’s the Golden f*cking Globes. Should she really be expected to wear a $15 sweater when other women are wearing $50,000 gowns and jewelry? I mean, come on.
Also, nobody seems to want to mention that the sweater is cashmere. THIS IS TYPICALLY WHAT CASHMERE SWEATERS COST, PEOPLE. Good quality cashmere isn’t cheap.
She did far more than most women there and still it’s not enough.
Yeah, I find it odd that people are glancing over what the product is made out of and only looking at the price. If the sweater was 100% cotton, then sure, complain about the price. But cashmere? $380 is on point. And, as it has been point out, this company is in America, so that also is a factor. And, on top of all of this, out of that price tag, $100 goes to a charity.
(yes!.. I inserted above before seeing all y’all down here saying it too… cashmere from Costco = no thank you … its just not the same)
This is why we can’t have nice things. So she is making a statement about women and poverty and in response, people envy a woman for being able to afford an expensive sweater that supports a good cause. WHAT?
I wouldn’t buy it, not even with the 100 bucks for a good cause because relative to my budget, it’s simply too much. But today I spent €50 on a skincare item. That would make many people weeze. So …
I think we can find more important things to argue over than a $380 sweater.
Especially since women tend to spend much more on stupid make up and dresses for once occasion only and we have to have perfect lingerie and nails and hair and freaking Kylie Kardashian has make that costs more than this sweater…
Wrong. We will argue about this because, not good enough.
Wearing the statement on a cheap sweater made by women in sweatshops would have been considerably more ironic.
I’m not sure people realise just how much truly ethical fashion costs.
Love this.
I love cashmere, am wearing it now. I get mine at goodwill, wear and wash the crap out of them, then upcycle. I think my daughter and I should start embroidering our stuff…
Some of you really need to take a look at the studies on ethical consumption and capitalist models. $380 for a hand-embroidered cashmere sweater from a non-corporate entity made in America is not outrageously expensive. Lingua Franca is not Walmart. It is not shipping its resources out to Eastern Europe or Vietnam to get this shit made. That is a fair price for the production of an expensive material and the labor involved by an independent company. The reason you pay so little for corporate product is because we’re exploiting the shit out of impoverished people in other countries. Lingua Franca has to offset the costs of their materials, production, and shipping costs without that buffer – and they’re eating that $100 loss. The cost of that sweater is what FAIR LABOR looks like.
Now, I do realize that it’s out of the price range of most of us here, but that ties into a larger factor of how the current capitalist system purposefully exploits domestic poverty (lowered wages in America force people to turn to corporate run business, choking entrepreneurship) and global poverty (exploitation of developing areas by American capitalist systems). The better question to ask Connie Britton is – what work are you doing to help the average American escape that cyclical poverty?
THANK YOU.
People are f*cking ridiculous.
There are no sweatshops in eastern Europe. I do think there are in south America, but not in any part of Europe.
There are absolutely sweatshops in Europe, just as there are in the United States. The only reason the practice is beginning to lessen in Eastern Europe is because the increased productivity is increasing the average wage and living standard and making it less economically appealing for the companies exploiting them.
Great comment, thanks for posting. The outrage on this is so blind, imo.
Yes, Veronica Says, you’re spot-on. So tired of good women being dragged for trifles when they’re willing to step up to the plate about social injustice. A man would practically get the Nobel Peace Prize for doing the same thing. Just sayin’.
Connie is great but her hair is even better! I’d kill for her hair!
This is just me but I think it would have been more powerful if all the black gown and $300 sweater wearers had agreed to wear black t shirts, jeans and no makeup. An act of rebellion that screams we are more than our finery/hair/makeup/jewelry. Connects to “ask me more” as well as #metoo.
all of the points already made about ethical fashion are on point. this is the cost of things when you arent exploiting people.
also, i fail to see why we would drag ONLY her when somehow wearing a beautiful couture dress that is worth more than some cars and some people’s annual mortgages is somehow a statement because it is in black.
The recently revelations about haute couture brands offshoring their labor into impoverished areas is far, far worse to me than this sweater. For a $50,000 dress, every thread of that outfit should be made ethically in countries with good wage and labor. There is literally no excuse for brands like Prada and Hugo Boss to be taking advantage of poorer countries.
you are 100% correct, that is so appalling and pure greed
and if that price tag isnt based on being 100% handcrafted by a skilled artisan who is compensated for his skill and talent, it’s only based on the perceived value of the label, like any old thing in the mall
For some reason I find more insulting that someone would charge 380 for an ugly sweater than 5,000 for a couture gown. I think the “poverty is sexist” message is misguided and needs too many explanations and statistics so people will understand it. Not the best choice in my opinion.
First of all, I like her sweater because it looks comfortable and cozy. Second, you have to be careful going the exhorbitant price route. $380 is pricey for me, but if I spend $39 on a sweater from Target I must also acknowledge that in many places of the world $39 is a lot of money and could feed a family. If we criticize Connie, are we ready to go the route of many religious orders in which you give up all possessions and embrace poverty? Or be like Gandhi? It’s tricky.
I get why some people are snarky about it. But if you read a lot of the comments up thread $380 for an ethically produced and manufactured cashmere sweater is probably a fair price. Plus a $100 is being donated to charity which is very generous. Let’s put this in perspective – to a third world family or someone on welfare or food stamps my $50 sweater probably seems outrageous and indulgent.
And I appreciate that she is trying to use the golden globes as a platform to make a point and spread a message as opposed to the other actresses who used the globes red carpet to look sexy in slinky black dressed.
It’s always difficult to talk about privilege when you’re…well, privileged. Nonetheless, would be worse if privileged people said nothing. Connie is a good person.
I agree. I love Connie, but it’s just a weird ‘statement’ coming from a millionaire. I don’t know the best way to address poverty is an expensive sweater at an awards show.
So, people are tearing her apart online for donating 100$ to charity, wearing black in solidarity AND starting a conversation about deep rooted issues of global sexism leaving women in the cycle of poverty?!?! Yeah-makes total sense, said nobody ever.
There is a tangential conversation to be had related to the cost of being a woman in western society. Is everyone familiar with the Pink Tax? Women’s clothing costs 8% more than men’s, even if it’s made in the same fabric by the same company, women’s personal care products are 13% more than men’s. Even children’s toys aren’t exempt, toys marketed to girls cost more than those aimed at boys.
Here’s more food for thought…How much does the average woman spend – in both money and time – just to meet some arbitrary minimal standard of attractiveness? How many hours of our life are devoted to making sure we are “presentable” before we leave the house? It’s not like we can just opt out of the beauty or fashion culture without suffering the economic consequences. Woman who wear makeup are perceived as more competent, likeable and trustworthy. Someone who is “attractive” will make $230,000 more in their lifetime than someone who isn’t. Even a relatively affluent woman living in a first-world country pays a very real penalty for their gender.
The pink tax, yeah. Disgusting. ITA with everything you said?
I read a few years ago about this experiment – this woman substituted all she could substitute with products targeted for men, and the difference in the money she saved by doing so was significant. I wish I could remember all the deets.
There was something about decreasing the VAT for tampons/pads at some point and the outrage, wow, it was claimed that the VAT for shaving products for men should be decreased as well because hey, since women don’t get to choose what their biology makes their body do, men don’t either – facial hair. I don’t care, decrease the VAT for shaving products too, not that it’s, ha, the same.
It’s infuriating that pads/tampons are considered “non-essential” or “luxury” items and therefore subject to sales tax. There is nothing optional or luxurious about needing to use them.
Of course it’s infuriating. The whole male-led discussion about women’s periods is infuriating. Nature is unfair. Nature should have “gifted” men some monthly painful bleeding too, on par with what we go through since we are young girls. I don’t want to get graphic here.
The pink tax is f*cked but I remember complaining about the cost of women’s clothes in this forum before (like really? We use FAR less fabric than men’s clothes–why do we pay MORE?) and a bunch of commenters who work in the clothing design/textile industry explaining to me that it simply costs more to design women’s clothing. I guess the cuts/patterns are more complicated thus more costly to produce or something?
If someone who is more knowledgeable (and articulate) than I am would like to weigh in on this, that would be great…
Why should that “cost” more? It’s not like inventing something new. But we are made to think we **have** to be fashionable and attractive all the time. The pressure is real. I am so over that – have been for a long time.
I’m getting to that point too. Don’t get me wrong, I love fashion and I love a beautifully-made piece of clothing that fits well and a new bag fills by heart with joy, but what gets me especially annoyed is the double standard. A guy can show up in public rocking a food-stained polo shirt, baggy-ass jeans, with his funky-ass hobbit toes hanging out of his raggedy sandals and no one questions it. If I did the same, I’d get horrified looks from nearly everyone.
@Kitten, I get your point about construction, but the difference is an arbitrary one. Yeah, a woman’s blouse would look baggy as all hell without bust darts and a tapered waist, but when did it get decided that our clothes have to be “body-conscious” in order to be fashionable, but the same isn’t true for guys?
Ugh, of course there is a Pink Tax. This world is created by men, for men to profit. This crap pisses me off so bad. We need more women holding powerful positions. It’s total bs. How can they get away with this??? They charge us more for the same goods, then pay us less for working the same job?!?!
Spot on!
But women in powerful positions per se is not a guarantee that things will change for the better. Because not all women support women.
How about this? If you really care about the cause just directly donate $100 and save yourself $280 – simple!
I think the crux of the issue here is less about the ‘worth’ of the item and whether it is value for money but more around the irony of being aghast at poverty whilst flaunting wealth. And yes; I know that wealth is subjective.
It just seems a bit condescending to me – let me assist you by donating to charity 1/3 of what I’m willing to spend on this sweater….