“My Most Worn Clothing of 2019” Analysis: Is Fashion Frivolous?

Ashley Rous is a 23-year-old influencer and former Youtuber who graduated from UCLA with a film major. She is the face and brains behind the popular YouTube channel “bestdressed” which has accumulated over 3.8 million subscribers and 300 billion views since its inception in 2015. The content largely revolves around fashion, thrifting, and interior design. The description for the channel reads, “fashion, thrifting, and other misadventures of a 20-something living in nyc, clinging to her glory days when she won the best dressed senior superlative. all served with a spicy side of dry humor” (Rous, “Description”).

One popular video on the channel is entitled “My Most Worn Clothing of 2019.” In the video, Rous highlights ten of her most worn pieces of clothing and four of her most worn accessories, detailing what it is about each of them that draws her to them. The pieces include her most worn pair of jeans, t-shirt, hoodie, dress, sneakers, earrings, etc. In the beginning, she frames the video as a sort of guide to navigating how to choose items that “fit[s] well into your wardrobe that makes you feel comfortable and makes you feel like yourself” (Rous, “Most Worn Clothing” 00:01:37-00:01:41). Each item includes a talk-through portion in which she details what particular features of the item make them work for her in her life and she pairs this with cutaway clips of her modeling the piece and demonstrating exactly what she is talking about. The cutaway clips often include handwritten notations of the brand, style, and price in the upper left corner in addition to arrows pointing to the features she wants to highlight. In talking through the items, she also gives tips about how viewers might go about picking similar items that they would enjoy and where they might find them. Sarcastic comments, humor, and niche cultural references are interspersed among the description and advice. There are also many references to “everyday struggles” ranging from existential dread to the “bodycon miniskirt shuffle.”

While the video may just appear to be another video giving fashion advice, Rous interestingly professionalizes fashion and speaks about it as a source worthy of attention. In this paper, I seek to explore the relationship between Rous and fashion and how it may be representative of women’s relationship to fashion on a more general level. The word choice/language Rous uses while talking about fashion is professional in nature and demonstrates that she takes fashion seriously. In the introduction of the video, she uses the terms “‘investing’ in some really good quality pieces” and “staples,” (Rous 00:02:01-00:02:09) which are terms from the business field. Using business language shows that she believes that clothes have a certain importance and are worthy of being seen as important.

She also seems to approach fashion as a study as she uses the term “learning curve” (00:01:48) when talking about her journey with fashion and approaches the topic with a significant amount of attention and detail. It is unlikely that Rous would do so if she did not see it as important or did not enjoy investing time into it. Rous talks about clothing in a very specific, almost scientific manner that demonstrates a strong attention to detail and therefore shows that it is something she cares a lot about. She often mentions the material composition of the pieces and gives specific measurements. For instance, she mentions that she loves that her favorite pair of jeans are a “very stiff denim that is a high percentage of cotton,” “12- or 13-inch rise,” and a “27 inch inseam” (Rous 00:03:40 - 00:04:47). She is equally meticulous in her analysis of other items citing specific materials on five other occasions, and consistently mentions other practical considerations like when to wear certain pieces, what to wear them with, and even when to buy them. 

It also appears that Rous has spent a significant amount of time educating herself and gathering expertise on the topic, which is also an indication that she sees it as worthy of study and investment of her time. Rous’ thorough and systematic advice demonstrates that she has gained expertise through experience. For example, she is notably methodical in her analysis of other items like her most worn t-shirt. She says, “The reason I wear this shirt so much is...I have found that the colors on this graphic match perfectly with the color scheme of my closet. For example, there are some dark green leaves that go well with these dark green corduroy pants that I have. It has these red roses that tie in with red bottoms that I have. I even have this leather jacket with [like] a red lining on the inside and those little [like] colors match up and then make the outfit look really cohesive.” She then advises viewers to “dissect the colors and think critically about [like] each color in the graphic whether it would compliment items that you already own” (Rous 00:05:53-00:06:29). She also gives the advice to buy a winter coat a size up so that one has room to layer underneath and also to buy off-season in order to get a better deal (Rous 00:17:50-00:18:40). This tip is certainly something someone without experience might not know, thus showing Rous’ expertise.

Fashion also appears to bring Rous joy because of the genuine excitement she displays while talking about it. Her excitement is evident in her body language and facial expressions: she is consistently smiling in the video while talking about the different pieces which shows that they make her happy. On many occasions, she grins from ear-to-ear, showing her teeth, and creating wrinkles near the corners of her eyes which are all indications of authentic joy. She also goes as far to almost hug the pair of corduroy overalls she shows, bringing them close to her face like one would do with another person they are fond of. Even more, she places her favorite purse in her lap and wraps both arms around it, which is similarly reminiscent of a hug. In addition, she often unnecessarily holds the purse with one hand underneath and one hand on the side, in a similar fashion to how one might hold a trophy or another prized possession. 

Yet at the same time, Rous appears to feel guilty for taking enjoyment in fashion because she realizes that fashion is often regarded as frivolous. This observation is evident in two moments in particular. The first occurs during the introduction of the video, when she transitions to informing the viewer of the topic of the video. She says, “World War III jokes aside and more politically relevant news, today I'm gonna be talking about some cute clothing that I wore this year” (Rous 00:01:09-00:01:17). This comment reflects how she believes fashion is frivolous because she is clearly poking fun at how “cute clothing” is not more politically or socially relevant than World War III. The intonation of her voice also changes when she says, “cute clothing,” as if she is in an info-mercial, which are known for selling products people don’t want or appreciate. She also makes an info-mercial-like gesture towards the clothing. In conjunction, her mannerisms which are reminiscent of those in info-mercials lead me to believe that in creating this video, she understands that she is attempting to “sell” something that isn’t seen as valuable by others. Another moment that demonstrates that Rous recognizes fashion is frivolous is when she begins talking about her favorite skirt. She says, “something that people don't talk about enough” and then the following words appear on the screen for a time span of about two seconds: “the fires in australia? the lack of female directors in hollywood? the fact that we’re giving our data to china on tiktok? nah, skirts!” (Rous 00:13:48-00:13:51). This moment similarly demonstrates that Rous recognizes the comparatively menial status of fashion as regarded by society because she can easily list many things that are more important than skirts, or any item of clothing for that matter.

The fact that she regards fashion as important while also making fun of herself for emphasizing its importance is an interesting and complicated dynamic. The article “Personal Fashion Blogs: Screens and Mirrors in Digital Self-portraits,” written by Agnès Rocamora, a Senior Research Fellow/Lecturer in Cultural and Historical Studies at the University of the Arts London offers a possible explanation for why Rous feels so conflicted about her relationship to clothing. In the article, Rocamora writes about how blogs and in particular, fashion blogs “represent a significant space of identity construction” (407). She further explores how she observes both “empowering and disempowering” forces “at play in the formation and representation of femininity” (407). I thus believe and aim to show that Rous has a conflicted view because she feels simultaneously empowered and disempowered by fashion and fashion blogging. She feels disempowered because she realizes it is a part of a larger narrative that perpetuates unprogressive, patriarchal ideas by emphasizing the importance of women’s appearances, but she is also empowered by fashion and fashion blogging as it allows her to construct her own identity.

The idea that fashion and fashion blogging allow Rous to construct her own identity is a likely explanation for why Rous enjoys clothing and creating content about it. Rocamora clearly articulates the connection between “identity construction” and fashion blogging:

Because they enable self-reflection, blogs facilitate identity construction (Sundar et al. 2007: 90) through creative processes of articulation of the self, a creativity bloggers often lay claim to. The Pew Internet Project Survey on American life mentioned earlier, for instance, found that ‘Three in four bloggers (77%) told us that expressing themselves creatively was a reason that they blog’ (Pewinternet 2006). (qtd. in Rocamora, 412)

Essentially, she says that most fashion bloggers choose to blog because the process of doing so allows them to reflect on themselves and then express and tell a story about themselves in a way of their choosing. By establishing this relationship between fashion blogging and identity construction and including a statistic that proves the validity of the relationship, Rocamora illuminates a likely reason for Rous participating in the practice.

Meanwhile, Rous likely also finds fashion disempowering because it perpetuates the patriarchal idea that appearance is an important part of a woman's identity and worth. Incorporating some of feminist philosopher Diana Tiejens Meyers’ findings, Rocamora writes about the relationship between women and their appearance, and the role fashion plays in this relationship:

Makeup and dress become tools for their self-accomplishment, mirrors instruments for the satisfactory completion of their femininity. As Diana Tietjens Meyers (2002: 115) writes: “Women are supposed to depend on their mirrors to know who they are ... For women, to know oneself is to know one's appearance and the worth of that appearance in the parallel economy of heterosexual partnership.” (415)

In other words, Rocamora articulates that makeup and dress can be seen and used to “improve” women’s appearance and in turn, their worth, as there is a historic tendency to use women’s appearance as measures for their worth. In elucidating this phenomenon, Rocamora provides an explanation for Rous’ conflicting attitude toward fashion: she feels as though she is participating in an unprogressive, un-feminist practice. 

            While Rocamora’s article offers some explanation for Rous’ conflicting attitude, it focuses on how blogging about fashion is a space for identity construction and does not fully address the idea that fashion in itself is a space for identity construction. To learn more about how clothing itself (not blogging about it) allows women to construct their identities, I turned to the article “Personal Collections: Women’s Clothing Use and Identity” written by Professors Alison Guy and Maura Banim. The article explains the findings of a study they conducted on the subject matter of the article. In the study Guy and Banim conducted, they gathered data from an intentionally diverse (in relationship status, age, race, and sexual orientation) group of women “who defined themselves as interested in clothes” (315). They collected their data in three different ways: a free-form response explaining what clothes mean to the participant, a daily log (kept over a two-week period) in which participants detailed the clothes they chose to wear that day and elaborated on how they feel about their clothes, and an interview about their wardrobe. In the article, Guy and Banim argue that “women have a dynamic relationship with their clothes that can be grouped around three co-existing views of self; ‘The woman I want to be’, ‘The woman I fear I could be’ and ‘The woman I am most of the time’” and that these three views demonstrate “women’s attempts to achieve satisfying images as they engage with clothes to create, reveal or conceal aspects of their identity” (313).

Guy and Banim’s findings about the relationship between the women in the study and clothing are very similar to the relationship Rous seems to have with clothing and thus leads me to believe that Rous’ attitude is not unique, but rather exemplary of how many women feel about their clothing. For example, Guy and Banim’s elaboration on the “The Women I Want to Be” view of clothing describes Rous’ video perfectly:

Having items of clothing that could be depended upon to ‘perform’ well was an important dimension of creating ‘The woman I want to be.’ The most useful, and often favourite items were those that women were confident would look good on them and are generally easily managed (e.g. wouldn’t crease easily). Specific aspects of clothing (such as colour, style or length) were also seen to be reliable indicators of the usefulness of items in creating ‘The woman I want to be’. (318)

This description matches Rous’ video in three different ways; just like Guy and Banim write about, Rous also talks about her favorite pieces making her feel confident, being easily managed, and references certain aspects of clothing that make them particularly useful. In fact, she talks about all three of the specific aspects Banim and Guy write about in addition to material composition. Therefore, it seems as though Rous, like the women in the study, definitely holds a view of clothing that relates to ‘The Woman She Wants to Be.’ Additionally, in their summary discussion of their findings, the authors write, “Another theme to emerge from the three views of self was the level of effort the women invested in clothes selection and the expertise developed in wearing their clothes,” (Guy and Banim 323) which is also true for Rous as I showed in my earlier discussion of how she is an expert on clothing. This further shows that Banim and Guy’s three views of self in relation to clothing hold true for Rous.

The article also provides further illumination on Rocamora’s idea of fashion blogging and fashion being simultaneously empowering and disempowering. In their introduction to the discussion of their findings, they consider how women find their interest and use of clothing satisfying and frustrating:

The women’s accounts illustrate they are aware they are dressing in a context where clothes consciousness is… ‘downgraded and relegated to the sphere of the vulgar and the marginal’ (Sparke, 1995, p. 234). However, the accounts also revealed the pleasure they derived from thinking about their clothes and the sense of self-expression they experienced through their choice of outfits. Despite the general devaluation of clothes consciousness, the women valued their interest in clothes and indicated it would continue. (Guy and Banim 323)

In other words, although women tend to be aware that their interest in fashion is not seen as important by greater society, they find enough personal satisfaction in experimenting with and expressing themselves through clothing to continue doing it. This relates to Rous because it encapsulates that she is aware that clothing is generally devalued by society but continues to be interested in it and has even made it into a career for herself.

            Although Rous is similar to other women in being disempowered and empowered by their interest in fashion, she differs from most other women in that fashion is a part of her job. I therefore turn to Professor of Management Patricia Lewis’ article “The Search for an Authentic Entrepreneurial Identity: Difference and Professionalism Among Women Business Owners” to explore how fashion being Rous’ job may factor into her relationship with fashion. In the article, Lewis writes about the complex task for women in business; they must balance a feminine identity with being perceived as professional in a male-dominant field while also trying to maintain a sense of authenticity, defined as an adherence to one’s values. In the beginning, Lewis introduces us to Philosophy and Religion Professor Stuart Charme’s notion of “existential authenticity,” “which places an emphasis on the cultural, historical, political, economic and physical limits to being ‘true to oneself’” (252). She incorporates this concept into her discussion, showing how “the situated nature of women’s search for an authentically driven entrepreneurial identity means that they draw on a feminized discourse of difference and a contrasting masculine discourse of professionalism in their identity construction labours” (252). Essentially, her main argument is that within the current business landscape, women must combine feminine qualities (which they believe will help them succeed) with pre-established male-associated professional customs in order to maintain an authentic entrepreneurial identity. I therefore argue that not only is Rous grappling with being disempowered and empowered by fashion, but she’s also disempowered as a woman in business, and this further complicates her relationship with fashion because it is a part of her job.

            Rous is disempowered as a woman in business because many characteristics that are associated with professionalism, such as “detachment, commitment, autonomy, expertise, [and], self-discipline” are associated with men and masculinity (257). Lewis’ reference to past findings about women in business is even more discouraging as it illustrates how strong the association between men and business is. She writes “Commentators such as Fondas (1997) have argued that, while depictions of contemporary management behaviour have placed an emphasis on stereotypically feminine traits such as empathy, co-operation and affiliation, there has been a refusal to accept the value of such traits when they are labelled feminine” (Lewis 262). That is to say, even traits that are useful in business are seen as less so when associated with femininity. This means that not only is masculinity associated with business, but also that people look down upon business behavior that is associated with femininity. Lewis goes a step further writing, “To be recognized as professional means developing a set of attributes and engaging in behaviour that is historically embedded in cultural notions of masculinity and an institutional set-up that is based on patriarchal power” (264). In essence, women must borrow from masculine notions in order to be seen as professionals. Consequently, this provides further explanation for why Rous professionalizes fashion: she needs to do it as a woman in the male-dominated entrepreneurial space. She must show herself to have expertise if she wants to succeed as an entrepreneur.

            In conclusion, Rous’ relationship to clothing appears to be representative of women’s relationship to fashion as it is something she enjoys despite society’s general devaluation of the field because of how it allows to express herself; however, her relationship with it is further complicated as fashion is her job and as a female entrepreneur, she must borrow from typically-male-associated notions of professionalism in order to succeed. Be that as it may, Lewis makes an encouraging claim at the very end of her article that I hope can be applied to fashion as a field. She writes, “Of particular importance is that though these women draw on masculine and feminine discourses in the creation of their entrepreneurial identity, they do this as a means of representing themselves as women in business. What they demonstrate is that they can successfully do the ‘men’s work’ of business as women, not as honorary men, maintaining a strong sense of authenticity” (Lewis 265). To summarize, Lewis acknowledges that despite the difficulty of navigating being a female entrepreneur, some do succeed as women in business and do so authentically, incorporating masculine and feminine traits. I hope that this idea of authentically reaching recognition can be applied to fashion as in my own experience, perceptions around it seem to be shifting towards having a greater appreciation and understanding for the exercise it is in self-expression and experimentation. Should this trend continue, I hope that it is because women have figured a way to authentically represent the power of fashion.

Works Cited

Guy, Alison, and Maura Banim. “Personal Collections: Women’s Clothing Use and Identity.” Journal of Gender Studies, vol. 9, no. 3, Nov. 2000, pp. 313–327. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/713678000.

Lewis, Patricia. “The Search for an Authentic Entrepreneurial Identity: Difference and Professionalism among Women Business Owners.” Gender, Work & Organization, vol. 20, no. 3, May 2013, pp. 252–266. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00568.x.

Rocamora, Agnès. “Personal Fashion Blogs: Screens and Mirrors in Digital Self-Portraits.” Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body & Culture, vol. 15, no. 4, Dec. 2011, pp. 407–424. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2752/175174111X13115179149794.

Rous, Ashley. “Description.” YouTube, Bestdressed, https://www.youtube.com/c/bestdressed/about. 

Rous, Ashley. My Most Worn Clothing of 2019 ♡. YouTube, Bestdressed, 10 Jan. 2020, https://youtu.be/wO0gV7SRXeM. Accessed 20 Dec. 2021.