Foibles of the Fashionistas-or- The Terror of Tiny Tees
While perusing the New York Times webpage this morning, two articles under the Fashion & Style banner caught my attention: one mentioning JLo'scurrent attempt at taking on the identity of fashion designer, and the other discussing the recent Marc Jacobs show and the credit given to his assistants who happen to be two faishon blasts-from-the-recent-past (Rei Kawakubo and Romeo Gigli).
And I got to thinking more and more about my own forays into the follies of modern fashion.
Now, the JLo article took on the tone of "Girls Just Want To Design"....it seems that she's always wanted to be a fashion desinger underneath all that singing and acting and dancing and such. Who knew? And, supposedly, she's got a show coming up in New York for Fashion Week. Alongside the article, the Times posted a small picture of a display of the current JLo clothing line at Macy's.
Honestly, it looked more like a pic from the local Forever 21....lots of jeans, khaki capris, flouncy little tops with spaghetti straps, and tanks with some graphics on them that are probably girly and unoffensive to the general populace. It appeared, to my eyes anyway, more like the one who wanted to be the fashion trend-setter was merely following the trend set by Old Navy, Forever 21, Aeropostale, or any other mall-dwelling casual wear shop that caters to those under the age of 25.
So, this is the trend for 21st century clothing...unstructured, low-cut and nothing that could be worn comfortably in weather below 70 degrees? Perhaps they really don't get the meaning of the term "global warming" at all.
And I had quite the laugh at the article on the Marc Jacobs line. It seems that Jacobs has resurrected to wunderkind of the past 20 years--one from the 80's and one from the 90's--and given them free reign to come up with some new designs. But, as the article notes, the new designs are kind of reminiscent of old designs....incorporating materials from the 60' and cuts from the 70's to create girly flouncy dresses with black tights and maryjane shoes like we wore sometime in the '90s. Can we say "gruge"? Oh, but according to the Times, it's not an echo of grunge days past, when both Kawakubo and Gigli were big deals, but a whimsical attempt to "imagine the runway as a giant dollhouse..."
Que?
The question that pops into my head in all this is: "where do women really fit into all this fashion"? By women I mean grown-ups...those of us who have to go to work where we don't want someone looking at our breasts, and whose bodies are so far past post pubescence that we scarcely remember it. Fashion, now more than ever, seems to be the provence of Peter Pans and little girls-- the same people who love spending time playing dress-up in their mother's closets (perhaps for the same reason). In that, there's something peculiarly pedophiliac and perverse that ends up stultifying an industry once known for sophistication and innovative style.
Maybe it's all this whimsy and concern with the egos of those backing the production of clothing that is behind the plethora of sizes and lack of true style we have out today. I found it funny that when I went into Torrid, a.k.a. Hot Topic for the chubby chick, that I was a size 0. But when I went over to H&M, the Top Shop of the U.S., I was a size 16. If I go to the Gap, I can sometimes squeeze into a 12. And when I go to Sears, and try on a size 12 in Levi's Nouveau Boot Cut jeans, I can easily slide in and out of them without ever having to unbutton them.
So, What SIZE am I anyway?? And where exactly do I look for clothing these days??
If I dare to go into Forever 21 (after More Magazine told me no middle-aged woman should be caught in there lest she invite the wrath of the younger set upon her graying head), I can barely fit a Large top around my head. But going over to Lane Bryant, the smallest size hangs on me like I'm wearing my mother's old mu-mu from Hawaii. If I pick up a graphic tee at Old Navy, I can take either a large or an extra-large, depending on whether or not I want the "easy fit" to fit tightly or the "tiny fit" to fit easily... but if I pick up a Sag Harbor sweater in Filene's, I might as well grab a medium because the large will probably drape on me like a rag.
That is, if I can find a sweater I might want to try on, since most of what is on the shelves consists of camis, graphic tees, long-sleeve layering tees...pretty much nothing other than tees. There are some manufacturers who cater to "mature" tastes...but their idea of "mature" is more like retirement-mature, with straight-leg pants and blouses with big padded shoulders. Or, there's the whimsy of Quaker Factory inspired embroidered sacks and lots of shapeless frocks displayed in monochromatic pallets--styles most forgiving to figures that have sprawled a bit.
But even though I may have sprawled, I know how to buy a good bra, and I know what sort of underwear to put on so I don't have the "camel toe" effect.
So, I think I'm entitled to fashionable clothing--not necessarily jeans and camis produced by a celebrety who's trying to knock off Forever 21 or Baby Phat--but real, quality, stylish clothing. Not Quacker Factory kindergarten teacher clothing or overpriced Eileen Fischer gunny sacks. I'm talking about clothing that fits, that has style, that shows that I am a woman, not someone's mommy or teeny-bopper trophy. And I would like very much to go from one store to another and find my size...my exact size, the same size, from store to store and maunfaturer to manufacturer. If I'm a size 16, my vanity can take it. I'm not so fragile to get hung up on a number. I simply do not want to take into a dressing room three sizes of sweater and four sizes of jeans just to find one of each that fits.
BUT....if the fashionistas are going to make me choose between a flouncy little dress and black tights or some skimpy little tee and tight jeans that require I neglect to wear a bra or underwear, I think I'll take the dress and the tights. I've worn that style before and know it can accommodate a generous figure. I can exchange the maryjanes for motorcycle boots to add a bit of a fashion patina to the look. And I will have to hope that everyone around me can figure out that the fashion faux pas I've made really isn't all my fault--I just got confused.
And I got to thinking more and more about my own forays into the follies of modern fashion.
Now, the JLo article took on the tone of "Girls Just Want To Design"....it seems that she's always wanted to be a fashion desinger underneath all that singing and acting and dancing and such. Who knew? And, supposedly, she's got a show coming up in New York for Fashion Week. Alongside the article, the Times posted a small picture of a display of the current JLo clothing line at Macy's.
Honestly, it looked more like a pic from the local Forever 21....lots of jeans, khaki capris, flouncy little tops with spaghetti straps, and tanks with some graphics on them that are probably girly and unoffensive to the general populace. It appeared, to my eyes anyway, more like the one who wanted to be the fashion trend-setter was merely following the trend set by Old Navy, Forever 21, Aeropostale, or any other mall-dwelling casual wear shop that caters to those under the age of 25.
So, this is the trend for 21st century clothing...unstructured, low-cut and nothing that could be worn comfortably in weather below 70 degrees? Perhaps they really don't get the meaning of the term "global warming" at all.
And I had quite the laugh at the article on the Marc Jacobs line. It seems that Jacobs has resurrected to wunderkind of the past 20 years--one from the 80's and one from the 90's--and given them free reign to come up with some new designs. But, as the article notes, the new designs are kind of reminiscent of old designs....incorporating materials from the 60' and cuts from the 70's to create girly flouncy dresses with black tights and maryjane shoes like we wore sometime in the '90s. Can we say "gruge"? Oh, but according to the Times, it's not an echo of grunge days past, when both Kawakubo and Gigli were big deals, but a whimsical attempt to "imagine the runway as a giant dollhouse..."
Que?
The question that pops into my head in all this is: "where do women really fit into all this fashion"? By women I mean grown-ups...those of us who have to go to work where we don't want someone looking at our breasts, and whose bodies are so far past post pubescence that we scarcely remember it. Fashion, now more than ever, seems to be the provence of Peter Pans and little girls-- the same people who love spending time playing dress-up in their mother's closets (perhaps for the same reason). In that, there's something peculiarly pedophiliac and perverse that ends up stultifying an industry once known for sophistication and innovative style.
Maybe it's all this whimsy and concern with the egos of those backing the production of clothing that is behind the plethora of sizes and lack of true style we have out today. I found it funny that when I went into Torrid, a.k.a. Hot Topic for the chubby chick, that I was a size 0. But when I went over to H&M, the Top Shop of the U.S., I was a size 16. If I go to the Gap, I can sometimes squeeze into a 12. And when I go to Sears, and try on a size 12 in Levi's Nouveau Boot Cut jeans, I can easily slide in and out of them without ever having to unbutton them.
So, What SIZE am I anyway?? And where exactly do I look for clothing these days??
If I dare to go into Forever 21 (after More Magazine told me no middle-aged woman should be caught in there lest she invite the wrath of the younger set upon her graying head), I can barely fit a Large top around my head. But going over to Lane Bryant, the smallest size hangs on me like I'm wearing my mother's old mu-mu from Hawaii. If I pick up a graphic tee at Old Navy, I can take either a large or an extra-large, depending on whether or not I want the "easy fit" to fit tightly or the "tiny fit" to fit easily... but if I pick up a Sag Harbor sweater in Filene's, I might as well grab a medium because the large will probably drape on me like a rag.
That is, if I can find a sweater I might want to try on, since most of what is on the shelves consists of camis, graphic tees, long-sleeve layering tees...pretty much nothing other than tees. There are some manufacturers who cater to "mature" tastes...but their idea of "mature" is more like retirement-mature, with straight-leg pants and blouses with big padded shoulders. Or, there's the whimsy of Quaker Factory inspired embroidered sacks and lots of shapeless frocks displayed in monochromatic pallets--styles most forgiving to figures that have sprawled a bit.
But even though I may have sprawled, I know how to buy a good bra, and I know what sort of underwear to put on so I don't have the "camel toe" effect.
So, I think I'm entitled to fashionable clothing--not necessarily jeans and camis produced by a celebrety who's trying to knock off Forever 21 or Baby Phat--but real, quality, stylish clothing. Not Quacker Factory kindergarten teacher clothing or overpriced Eileen Fischer gunny sacks. I'm talking about clothing that fits, that has style, that shows that I am a woman, not someone's mommy or teeny-bopper trophy. And I would like very much to go from one store to another and find my size...my exact size, the same size, from store to store and maunfaturer to manufacturer. If I'm a size 16, my vanity can take it. I'm not so fragile to get hung up on a number. I simply do not want to take into a dressing room three sizes of sweater and four sizes of jeans just to find one of each that fits.
BUT....if the fashionistas are going to make me choose between a flouncy little dress and black tights or some skimpy little tee and tight jeans that require I neglect to wear a bra or underwear, I think I'll take the dress and the tights. I've worn that style before and know it can accommodate a generous figure. I can exchange the maryjanes for motorcycle boots to add a bit of a fashion patina to the look. And I will have to hope that everyone around me can figure out that the fashion faux pas I've made really isn't all my fault--I just got confused.
posted by Tish Grier at 12:50 AM
3 Comments:
YES! You took the words right out of my mouth!
Were is the fashion justice?
Is this some kind of sick joke or are the clothes my middle school daughter wants fashioned after prostitute wear?
What are the motives behind the so called fashion designers?
To see our little girls dressed like hookers? I don't understand!
And the size and style issue for the almost middle aged generation makes me want to hide and never go into another clothing store again.
It takes me 4 hours to find a pair of jeans that fit right. Then I buy 10 pair so I don't have to go to the mall for another 3 years.
This is a sick joke that I can't find the humor in.......
I am sending this article to all my girlfriends. You are so right-on! I'm 25 & slender & *I* have problems finding appropriate clothing.
"There are some manufacturers who cater to 'mature' tastes...but their idea of 'mature' is more like retirement-mature"
This really struck a chord with me. I'm fresh out of college & trying to enter the professional workforce. It's hard for me to leave my tees and jeans behind, but I thought it would be kind of fun to "play dress up" and find "grown up" clothes. WRONG! I look awful in clothes that look semi-professional at Express and...where do I go to find a suit I can afford? Men have the "Men's Warehouse," which might be cheesy but I imagine they can find an affordable job-hunting suit. Do I have to go to boutiques? I'm job hunting! I don't have that kind of money! And if I can do "business casual," where do I find that? Mervyns, Pennies, Sears, etc etc, places my mom used to shop now only carries clothing that, as far as I can tell, look good on college-age or below or grandma-age and above. I can't win!
Sorry for the rant, I am really frustrated.
I hear ya, alanna! I used to have a similar problem when I was your age (believe it or not.) I had no problem finding club clothing, but trying to find what would be called "business" or "business casual" and nice and stylish, but not trashy, was very, very difficult. It seems that you definitley have to pay a high price for clothing that will not only fit right but also be stylish *and* business appropriate. Truly sucks.
(fyi, I'm learning to like Bananna Republic for certain things, Talbot's for others. When Talbot's has a sale, they're great! I never buy whole outfits, but mix and match between stores. That's one way of avoiding the "old lady look")
Post a Comment
<< Home