Emma Watson’s recent U.N. speech deserves the praise it has received, undoubtedly. Her stance on feminism was uncomplicated and refreshing, especially with its 'formal invitation' to men to partake in the conversation. It makes ideological and commercial sense to have men at the front of a feminist campaign, especially HeForShe; men, as Watson poignantly reminded us, are also affected by gender stereotypes.

But then they decided to make T-shirts, and what a can of worms they have turned out to be. Admittedly, the first time I saw Benedict Cumberbatch donning the bold letters declaring "This is what a feminist looks like", I felt reassured by the thought that a man as attractive, successful and intelligent as Cumberbatch was supporting the campaign. The campaign needs such men, who are role models to countless young adults, as its face, both to encourage male support, reassure and empower women, and add further appeal to the cause.

However, isn’t it slightly worrying that feminism has to be ‘fashionable’ for people to want to support it? And fashionable in two ways – the ‘in’ thing to be because Cumberbatch and Watson are feminists, and literally an item of fashion, as sold by Whistles and modelled by various celebrities. Of course, Watson is (quite rightly) trying to combat the consensus that feminism has been ‘unfashionable’ for a while. But I remain unconvinced that the T-shirts – and especially as they bear the words “This is what a feminist looks like"– were the most sensitive promotion for these ideas.

When the Mail on Sunday reported that the T-shirts were made by women paid 62p/hour in a sweatshop in Mauritius, things inevitably turned sour. For a time, David Cameron didn’t look like such a bad sport for refusing to wear one, although the Fawcett Society has since declared the T-shirts categorically conformed to ethical labour standards. Which is good, of course, but slightly worrying that an enquiry had to be made in the first place: ethical standards of labour should be guaranteed, emphasised and publicised from the start in such a campaign.

The real problem with this campaign, however, is not these hiccups along the way but its underlying emphasis on fashion. The T-shirt idea isn’t inherently wrong – it gives wearers the feeling that they are part of the feminist club, and should be proud in their team kit. However, other T-shirts saying “This is what a feminist looks like” have been available on the Fawcett Society website for some time, but their version hasn’t been designed by Whistles. Are these not fashionable enough for the new feminists? Elle UK declared that the collaboration with Whistles had in mind feminism for the “modern” woman, but isn’t feminism for the modern woman anyway? In fact, when Elle says the clutches, T-shirts and iPhone cases are for the “modern feminist”, it’s hard not to read this as for the “fashion conscious feminist” who is now supporting the cause because it’s the ‘in’ thing to be doing, and wearing.

It’s all very well that this campaign is getting people to buy the T-shirts, with 100 per cent of the profits going to the Fawcett Society, but I can’t help but worry it’s a case of ‘been there, done that, bought the T-shirt’. Because buying a designer feminist T-shirt does not mean you’re totally committed to the cause, or that you’re going to do anything else to support it. It simply means you want to be seen to support it, and to support it in the most fashionable attire.

This might be cynical – and I am sure some owners of these T-shirts are meaningfully committed to the cause – but it’s hard to ignore these nagging thoughts when the Fawcett Society has chosen the fashion industry as its ally. An industry that values a woman for her looks above everything else, and contributes to so many female insecurities with its obsessions over unattainable thinness and beauty. It’s certainly clever marketing, because lots of people will want to be seen to support a worthy ethical cause (as with those awful Ice Bucket videos). But isn’t it a bit weak to resort to such an idea? And then there’s the word 'look' smack in the middle of the T-shirt: “this is what a feminist looks like”. Why should it matter what a feminist looks like? Of course, this slogan is trying to change the prejudice that all feminists are butch man-haters with short hair, but it still seems a slightly insensitive turn of phrase, especially now that the new designs have been reinvented to look more fashionable.

Again, so many feminist issues are based on women being looked at, objectified, valued for their beauty alone – the campaign might have done better to move away from the question of looks all together. Though the slogan makes more sense when worn by a man, because it shows that anyone can and should be a feminist, there is no one feminist “look”, and we should be suspicious of discourse that tries to pretend there is. The campaign’s association with fashion, if not tasteless, is rather inconsiderate.

Let’s just hope all these fashionable feminists will make sure feminism isn’t a seasonal trend, but one that’s here to stay.