Where do the attitudes in the fashion industry come from?  I don’t have a good sense of who the tastemakers are, and where their extreme-patriarchal values usually come from.  They’re clearly absorbing trends in wider culture, so to some extent, they’re reflecting society rather than driving it, but it seems too central to be that simple.

Yeah, the woman on the left (in the gold swimsuit pictures) looks much better. Mmm, curves.

Um… anyway, sorry. I don’t have much to add except to say that the fashion industry’s and media’s elevation of stick figures as the feminine ideal is an issue that I take great interest in, and find very irritating. It might not be the most pressing issue in feminism, but it does have serious consequences, such as, as you mentioned, anorexia. Back when I was in high school and college I couldn’t turn around without bumping into a woman who had internalized the idea that she could stand to lose a few pounds even if she was already down to 120.

I love flesh, not bones, and I have enough experience by now to know that I’m not the only man who does. Far from it. The media’s idea of an attractive woman is very far detached from what genuine men (men who haven’t themselves internalized that ideal, which many of them do) find physically attractive. Understanding that would help a lot of the women who worry unnecessarily about their weight.

Where do the attitudes in the fashion industry come from?  I don’t have a good sense of who the tastemakers are, and where their extreme-patriarchal values usually come from.  They’re clearly absorbing trends in wider culture, so to some extent, they’re reflecting society rather than driving it, but it seems too central to be that simple.

I have a couple pet theories, though with no real credentials to back them up. As most of us know, up until perhaps the 19th century in Europe, a full figure was considered attractive, not a skinny one. My understanding was always that a skinny figure implied poverty, whereas a full-figured woman could afford to eat. These days, as we all also know, being in poverty in our country doesn’t correlate with being starved (it just correlates with having a nutritionally horrific diet of McDonald’s and whatever you can afford from the local convenience store). So it gets inverted - it’s the rich people who have the luxury of being skinny. They have the luxury of being able to starve themselves if they want to because they’re not working 16 hours a day on wages to feed their kids.

What’s attractive in the wider culture has always, to me, seemed to be a matter of class privilege. Back when Europeans liked full figures, for example, they also liked pale skin. Pale skin means you’re rich enough that your wife can stay indoors all day. The women with the tans were the ones out in the field helping their husbands farm.

If what’s in the mall these days is “fewer ruffles,” I really, really don’t want to know what “more ruffles” would look like. I’ve been trying to grow up my wardrobe a bit (last year of college, going to need more business-appropriate clothes soon, aaaaah), and in the past two months I’ve found a grand total of two nice buttondown shirts that don’t have frills all over the neck and chest. (TWO. In, like… all of Northern New Jersey.) If I wanted to walk around looking like someone had squirted whipped cream all over my front, I’d wear a Victorian-style men’s waistcoat and lace cravat, or something. At least that’d be fun.

Of course, Triplanetary, putting the emphasis on what men find attractive in women, as you just did up there, does not really help all that much.  For one thing, it excludes queer people from consideration, but that’s a little sideways from the conversation at hand.  The main thrust is that my female body is not here to please anyone but me, and especially not all the collective men in the world, almost all of whom I have no obligation to even talk to and who have absolutely no justification for requiring anything of me, including that I look nice for them, whether they’re into skinny women or not.

Of course, Triplanetary, putting the emphasis on what men find attractive in women, as you just did up there, does not really help all that much.  For one thing, it excludes queer people from consideration, but that’s a little sideways from the conversation at hand.  The main thrust is that my female body is not here to please anyone but me, and especially not all the collective men in the world, almost all of whom I have no obligation to even talk to and who have absolutely no justification for requiring anything of me, including that I look nice for them, whether they’re into skinny women or not.

Fair enough. The media narrative is, of course, all about what men find attractive and how women should be conforming to that standard. But that’s no excuse for my myopia in my first post. You’re right.

That poor woman on the right. I’m hoping she’s naturally that skinny and isn’t actually starving, but yeah the bones sticking out aren’t a good sign.

That aside, where did those pictures come from ? Why do they have different backgrounds, and more to the point why does the woman on the left look like she’s posing sexily while the woman on the right looks like she’s having a full-body mugshot taken ? Although I agree with the message, it’s still pretty manipulative.

And yeah, inhumanly skinniness-promoting fashion moguls -> first against the wall when the revolution comes. They make me SO ANGRY.

The British modeling contestant on the left looks so much happier than the one on the right. I know how cranky I get when I haven’t eaten in a while so I understand. Skeletal models is an unfortunately effective way of shaming women into unhealthy dieting but there is a way to fight back. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has noticed how much older anorexics look than average sized women and in our youth obsessed culture we should start pointing that out. Because not only does the British contestant on the left look happier, she looks 15 years younger than the skeleton to her right.

I find that these fashion trends lead to bizarre unintended consequences.  Last spring I was looking for some maternity pants to wear. I found a pair of plus sized pants on sale and decided to give them a try.  They fit more or less ok in the belly, thighs, and butt.  But the legs were so ridiculously skinny that they barely fit over my calves.  I would love to know how exactly the design of that pair of pants got approved.  Did “they” geniunely think there are hordes of big-butt, chicken-legged women out there?  Really?

mutterhais, I object to the childish idea that feminism is simply achieved by being a “strong woman”.  That really goes against the egalitarian ideals of feminism, and implies that women who aren’t as “strong” as you don’t deserve their rights and their health, and even falsely implies they make no contributions to society worth honoring.

The pictures come from the show itself, Carvelle.  They think that pose is flattering for the woman on the right, probably because it highlights how gaunt she is.

I happen to LOVE skinny jeans, and I ain’t skinny.  I’m pretty much Mariah-shaped with a bit less on the bottom, and wider shoulders and ribcage.

“Jeggings” just work with my personal body shape well, stay out of the chain, and stretch enough to be comfy when I zip my bike 2 miles to Trader Joes to stock up on breakfast and lunch items.

That said, there is a real world of real men who appreciate a certain voluptuousness on a woman.  I know that because I’m constantly catching guys looking at my butt - in a non-threatening way.  You don’t have to be Kardassian tiny to find admirers for that sort of cello shape.

I’ll also add that your emphasis on “strong” women also leaves out the health and lives of girls, who are also victims of sexism and are even less to blame if they don’t have the superhuman strength to shut out these messages.

I think you must have fallen victim to the “skinny is beautiful” mindset if you think Mariah Carey “looks fucking ridiculous” in those. I think she looks great in those, just as great as the “voluptuous” swimsuit model. What we’re seeing in both cases in the woman’s natural curves—what’s the difference?

Amen to DC Fem - the woman on the left looks like someone who’s quite happy with herself and proud to be seen showing her figure. The one on the right looks like a concentration camp inmate who’s been forced to dress in a swimsuit to humiliate herself.

BTW ... in any of these cases, the larger narrative is CONTROL, and DISPLAY EVIDENCE OF CONTROL.  Both the 1950s and the stick thin bullcrap is aimed at creating women who are under control and not fully grown up.  After all, WOMEN own themselves.  GIRLS do not.  The 50s fashions are all little-girly.  The stick thin thing is a denial of secondary sex charactaristics, butressed by lots of shaving of everything.

DC Fem noted that

he British modeling contestant on the left looks so much happier than the one on the right. I know how cranky I get when I haven’t eaten in a while so I understand.

True, and not new.  Back in the 30s or 40s PG Wodehouse used to do silly-but-fun little stories about Hollywood.  One of them turned on the fact that the Studio was keeping one famous actress so under-nourished in order to keep her thin for the screen that they had to install a siren to warn everyone on the lot to take cover when she went violently crazy as a result of this treatment.  The news that she was heading for the board room with a Roman sword causes people to hide in closets, jump out of windows, etc.

As for the wider topic, perhaps it is best understood as Art.  And what was it the Joker said in the first Batman movie?  “I make art until someone dies.”

I think you must have fallen victim to the “skinny is beautiful” mindset if you think Mariah Carey “looks fucking ridiculous” in those.

Why?  I think she’d look great walking around naked.  I reject the idea that looking good=maximizing the amount of sexual fantasies you’re provoking in men around you.  If that’s all there is to fashion, then why wear clothes at all?

Regarding 80s fashion I’m amazed that no-one mentioned the most obvious bit of fashionista BS: those “business” suits that had negligee tops, horizontal, low cut and with a bit of frill or lace at the top.  They were almost de rigeur for a while, despite the fact that they said “I want to be taken seriously, here’s my underwear!”

mutterhals,

Fuck you.

Fuck you with a rusted jagged pole.

And fuck the fashion and modeling industry to the end of time.

No, I will not be civil about this, since these jackasses are the ones responsible for my sister’s anorexia.  They can die in a fire as far as I’m concerned.

I think you must have fallen victim to the “skinny is beautiful” mindset if you think Mariah Carey “looks fucking ridiculous” in those.

What about those of us who don’t judge Ms. Carey on her looks at all but still think she’s fucking ridiculous?

Amanda Marcotte : The pictures come from the show itself, Carvelle.  They think that pose is flattering for the woman on the right, probably because it highlights how gaunt she is.

I was refusing to believe that. Do those judges have their brains upside down, what ?

I read the C&L;article, at least it showed some points of hope. And we really need some, with models starving to death and their bosses saying it’s “genetic”... (yeah, it’s genetically encoded that humans require food, can’t deny that)

The stick thin thing is a denial of secondary sex charactaristics, butressed by lots of shaving of everything.

Yes, I was thinking that, those extra-thin women have bodies like little girls’.

If you want a better example of people screaming FAAAAAATT!!!!!!! at someone who’s just not a rake, just watch how people describe Jessica Simpson some time.  It’s interesting to note, too, that Simpson really isn’t that much heavier from when she was very popular, so the FATBITCHFATTYFATFAT! slime thrown her way has more to do with hating her now than how she actually looked, before or after.  It’s the best way to bully the once-popular kid who is now disliked.

I think she’d look great walking around naked.

Second.

The one on the right looks like a concentration camp inmate who’s been forced to dress in a swimsuit to humiliate herself.

Cue music from The Night Porter.

Talk to any woman with curves and one of the things that you constantly hear about in their struggle to find clothing that fits is the endless battle with things that just don’t fit around the curves.  It’s almost as if the clothes are demanding conformity with the norm, like a uniform, determined to suppress any individuality found in the specific curves of individual women.

If Mariah made any misstep with her jeggings it was pairing them with a puffy jacket because her bottom half looks awesome.  Fitted pants are great on all sizes.  I think the problem is too many people subscribe to the belief that the only thing non-stick figures look good in is moo-moos.  I have seen women of many different body types pull off jeggings as well as just plain leggings.

I am a fan of leggings, jeggings, and skinny jeans because its the only style of pant that doesn’t make me look even shorter. 

Sure the fashion industry pushes thinness, but more through models and limited size ranges for the on trend pieces.  The message is that if you aren’t thin, you shouldn’t even try and that’s just sad.

I live in a midwest college town and I think it is interesting that there is a distinct difference between the college-aged girls, a good number of whom (though not all)  do manage to coerce their bodies into size 0 or smaller, and the rest of the population—including lots and lots of professional women—who mostly look like real people.  Yes, there’s a cultural model of super-thinness (with fake breasts, of course, since you can’t have natural breasts at that level of thinness), but I don’t think it has been universally adopted.  As usual, there is a coastal/media connected population that feels that their experience must the be norm, but there’s also a huge country in the middle where things are often different.

Also why are you singling out Mariah for “maximizing the amount of sexual fantasies.”  Having curves is not a provocation.  Her pose might be, but this Mariah Carey and maximizing sexual fantasies is her stock in trade. 

Jeggings are essentially stretch pants.  Ten years ago stretch pants were a staple of plus size clothing because the industry was to bored and lazy to tailor things to bigger women.  Now that skinny chicks are wearing them again people are convinced that larger people can’t.

Talk to any woman with curves and one of the things that you constantly hear about in their struggle to find clothing that fits is the endless battle with things that just don’t fit around the curves.

THIS!!!!  Complex contours don’t fit well in today’s clothing! They requre things like tucks and darts.

I’m so glad that I have a Talbot’s factory outlet nearby, which has curve friendly clothing, and they span the gap between women’s sizes and missus sizes instead of ignoring it, so I can have size X tops and size 12 bottoms that actually match.

Caravelle, I say believe it.  Since they sincerely have absorbed the idea that starving yourself is virtuous, I fail to see why they wouldn’t take photos that highlighted the effects to a maximum degree.

It was with some surprise that I woke up one morning in the aughts and realized that the presence of an ankle topped by calf muscles now made my legs, in theory, fat.

Of course, now if you have straight legs with any flesh, you’re also told you have “cankles”.  Read: there is no body that is acceptable.

As I recall, the deflated, skeletal look became popular because of fashion a few decades ago, but more or less by accident. I may be recalling my history wrong, but as I understand it, it used to be very common to use full figured (or dare I say, voluptuous)  models for fashion modeling, but fashion designers began to rebel against this, because the glamorous models because the focus of fashion events instead of the clothing they were modeling. To try and put the emphasis back on the clothing, designers sought out the skinniest models they could—effectively looking for ambulatory clothes hangers.

The end result, of course, wasn’t a refocusing on the clothes, but a change in what was fashionable wear underneath your clothing. This trouble with internalized, unrealistic self image is a big issue being tackled by media scholars these days as part of the greater fallout of increased volume and spread of media in the modern world.

Wow, the thin shaming is almost as thick here as fat shaming elsewhere.  I’m a fat woman (and totally okay with that), so maybe I’m more aware of how easy it is for people to use dislike for body type as a weapon, but if (when) I was a thin woman, this would have thrown me right off.  We don’t know that the thinner model has an eating disorder or is otherwise denying herself food, despite the prevalence of such things in the modeling industry (and acting, dance, etc.).  Maybe she looks miserable because she’s a pale woman in a shiny, ugly bathing suit with no beach in sight and boring, clashing shoes.  That, too, is speculation.  Either way, my preference for the body shape of the other woman should not in any way imply that the thinner, paler woman wearing makeup that does not suit her features at all is somehow less human simply because I don’t like the trend her body represents.

On the other hand, I think Mariah Carey looks great in those jeans precisely because they show her body as it is.  Yeah, I’m a child of the 80s and like leggings.  They’re comfortable and convenient and don’t require an entire wardrobe change when you go up or down ten pounds.  Considering the effects of certain medication, pants that stretch have been a godsend to me.

Anyone else notice how “curvy” is only okay if you are “curvy size 2 or 4”? If you are going to have a woman’s body, it has to be 5’ tall and 100lbs with curves.  That isn’t threatening.

The cynical romantic,
Go to a mens warehouse (or any men’s store that sells suits & does tailoring).  Buy the men’s size that fits around your bust and have them tailor it to you.  I had to argue with them about dark colors (the salesperson tried to steer me towards yellow, salmon-pink, light blue; I bought a white & a burgendy).  They will probably charge more for the darts if you want them.
Also, many professional settings are fine with women going the turtle neck or camsole or boatneck-style under a jacket, or tunicky looks.

Also why are you singling out Mariah for “maximizing the amount of sexual fantasies.”

I wasn’t.  I was pointing out that a dude whose idea of “looks good” is basically based on how much of your body is shown off is using a standard that is very narrow.  Women do want to express more with fashion than “this is the shape of my ass, like it?”  Mariah does, for sure—-which is why she picked that coat, too.

The stick thin thing is a denial of secondary sex charactaristics, butressed by lots of shaving of everything.

This is absolutely true.  I actually had a brief brush with the modeling/acting industry when I was just 13.  There are two types of models, “commercial” for catalogs and such, and “fashion” models which make the big money.  My agency told me that I probably couldn’t make it as a fashion model because my breasts were too big.  To be fair, they were already size C by then and went on to become freakishly huge, but up until that time I thought big boobs were a good thing.  It turns out that I’m also about 2 inches too short, and I never got into that much anyway.  But the standards are pretty ridiculous when a 13 year-old is too womanly and grown up.

Bye, mutter!

I’ve been looking for pictures of the thin model and indeed, while most are a bit more flattering than the one shown they’re still all pretty bad (in my opinion - which is obviously not he publicist’s). And there isn’t a single one where she smiles.

I also found this article that has more pictures (I’m sure Marianne Beglund is a perfectly nice person so I won’t comment on the top one, but Jen Hunter in the bottom picture is just so lovely !) and contains this interesting quote :

Ms Hunter, 24, was also told off by supermodel Rachel Hunter for saying she wanted to prove larger women could succeed as models. The supermodel said she had spent 20 years battling with her weight and that Ms Hunter should do the same.

Isn’t that so often the case ? Life sucked for me so I’ll be damned if it won’t suck for you too.

I found the whole Filippa Hamilton image to be disturbing beyond words.  That was the one where Ralph Lauren fired her for being “too fat” and then “fixed” her picture in Photoshop to make her look sufficently thin.  Of course, that picture looks like a bizarre caricature of a human being as drawn by space aliens, but the people at Ralph Lauren thought it looked normal enough to use in a national ad campaign.  They pulled the ad after a public outcry, but the Ralph Lauren people thought that was what a woman should look like.

Creepy.

Isn’t that so often the case ? Life sucked for me so I’ll be damned if it won’t suck for you too.

In my undergraduate experience in engineering, I learned to avoid certain female professors because they had exactly the same attitude.  It is a common “I made it before feminism and I’m going to treat you like shit now that I have” attitude that creates all the lovely “bitter woman” stereotypes coming out of the 80s.  Fortunately, there were many who thought their peers were nuts and joined with the feminist male professors to create a better world.

As long as everybody has (more or less) the money to buy the clothes they want to buy, the fashion industry pretty much has to be backlash personified. Otherwise women would be able to be satisfied with the stuff they’ve already got, and would be in a position to complain about the shoddy construction of so many expensive women’s clothes. What’s in fashion? Whatever real women don’t have, whether coverings or body shape. There used to be a time when thesmall breasts that went with skinny were in fashion, used to be a time for muscles, and so forth. I think they’ve settled on anorexic because that’s the look that’s consistently hardest for real women to achieve, most effective at creating longterm body dissatisfaction, and thus most like to promote wardrobe churn.

To sell stuff to people, you’ve got to convince them that (in one way or another) they suck as they are. There’s a much smaller niche for “your life is great, but this product would make it even better”.

Talk to any woman with curves and one of the things that you constantly hear about in their struggle to find clothing that fits is the endless battle with things that just don’t fit around the curves.

It’s not just about body size, but shape.  The stereotype is that women carry weight in their hips, thighs and butt, and that men carry weight in their stomach.  Well, I’m a woman and I have a completely flat butt, but a big stomach.  So going up a few sizes doesn’t help, and even the rare clothing that is tailored for “curvy” women just doesn’t work for me.  A few years ago, Lane Bryant came out with a line of jeans that come in several different shapes.  However, I’ve lost a bunch of weight recently so I can’t shop there anymore.

The whole thing is really frustrating because people refuse to believe that my body doesn’t conform to the stereotype even when I’m standing right in front of them.  I’ve taken several exercise classes over the years, and the teachers always ignored the stomach while working out the butt, hips, and thighs, even when I requested that we do some stomach stuff.  Yes, I know that you can’t lose weight in a certain spot by exercising it, but I would have liked to at least tone up the muscles.  A few years later I tried out having a personal trainer.  I wanted to tone up my upper body muscles, especially the chest because I have such large breasts.  Even though I was overweight, weight loss was not my goal.  I made it very clear to the trainer that my goal was to gain some moderate upper-body strength, but I guess that’s a man thing so she assumed I didn’t want to do that even though I specifically told her what I wanted.  A lot of people can’t see past the stereotypes no matter how clear you make it to them.

Plus, it’s easier to stick some padding here and there to make the clothes fit the way the designer wants them to fit on a more or less blank slate (or flattened stick figure).

Anyone else notice how “curvy” is only okay if you are “curvy size 2 or 4”? If you are going to have a woman’s body, it has to be 5’ tall and 100lbs with curves.

Just chiming in to say that actually, it’s still not okay at that size. As someone who’s a curvy 4, I walked into a Betsey Johnson store and was told, before I even touched a rack of clothing—“Um, we don’t carry anything in YOUR SIZE here.” Since there were tons of size 4 items floating around, I can only assume that the size they don’t carry is actually “fits anyone with boobs.”

Reba, thank you!  I realize that the post here is commenting on/complaining about the absurd and (for the vast majority of people) unattainable vision of “Beauty” promoted by the fashion industry, and that it’s super easy to devolve from that topic into “OMG skinny women have ISSUES and are SICK and Real Women are so much better!”  But could we please not do that?  Replacing fat hatred with skinny hatred gets us exactly nowhere.

All women are real women—no matter how large or small, no matter their proportions, whether they can wear skinny jeans or not, what their cup size is, whether or not they have children or are married or wear makeup or meet any other arbitrary standard of Official Womanhood.

(No body is acceptable. Ever. Not if it contains a vagina.)

You don’t even have to know the whole story to figure what’s going on

Actually, when I first saw the photos I thought it was one of those “here’s how the product looks in the too-good-to-be-true ad (left), and here’s the sad reality (right)” comparisons. I guess I know even less about fashion than I thought, because I was under the impression that a garment that fit a person’s body well was preferable to one that hangs unflatteringly.

Slightly off-topic, I watched a good HBO documentary the other night called Schmatta: Rags to Riches to Rags. If you think the weight of models has dropped drastically between the end of the 1970s and now, you should see how the percentage of clothing made in the US has plummeted in that time.

Talk to any woman with curves and one of the things that you constantly hear about in their struggle to find clothing that fits is the endless battle with things that just don’t fit around the curves.

Seriously, this.  This a thousand times.

I’m tall and have an hourglass shape—big hips, butt, and thighs, proportionally really small waist, and big bust, but a little more bottom heavy than completely balanced.  Finding clothes, especially pants, that fit me is an exercise in torture.  They are never long enough, and if it fits me in the hips and thighs, the waist is too big, or if the waist is right, they’re too tight everywhere else, and anything that has even the slightest bit of stretch tends to fall and sag after a couple of hours of wear.  And, to make it even worse, I’m just a bit too big for the regular (misses, etc.) sizes, but slightly too small for plus sizes.  I wear skirts pretty much constantly when the weather is warm enough.

I love cute clothes and I would like to enjoy shopping, but it’s just too difficult and depressing trying to find clothes that actually fit.  And I know women who are shaped differently than I am who have similar problems.  It’s a rare woman, in my experience, who doesn’t have the same difficulties with clothes.  I don’t think that clothing designers make things for actual, real people at all.

Love this article, first and foremost as someone who loves, and wears, vintage fashion. The fifties and early sixties are my milieu. I wear a vintage dress probably at least 2 days a week, and my outfit almost always includes vintage elements.

What I wanted to emphasize, though, is exactly how restrictive wearing these garments can be. If you frequent thrift stores, you probably sometimes encounter these tiny little dresses with big collars and metal zippers that make your eyebrows suddenly approach your hairline as you try to imagine what it would be like to fit inside one. The way women our shape and size accomplished this? Well, it’s called a reinforced bodice, and they are very hard to find, because most women THREW THEM THE FUCK OUT in 1968 and never looked back. Here is a picture of my body after 6 hours in a bodice:

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff301/seizebeck/tummy.jpg

Wearing a bodice or a corset makes it difficult to breathe, impossible to turn at the waist, and impossible to bend over. The implications of wearing this type of fashion even barefoot in the kitchen are huge: try lifting a toddler if you can only bend at the knees, or tossing a heavy bag in a garbage can if you can’t twist your torso. Add heels are you are officially hobbled.

And all this from a vintage enthusiast, who wears this kind of think multiple days a week! I spend most of my time sitting in a chair listening to lectures, a low-stress activity that does not require much flexibility, so i enjoy performing my femininity in this way. My body shape (CURVY, people!) makes 50’s styles look great. But I am completely, absolutely certain that the fashions I love were created to force women out of factories and into kitchens.

The woman I immediately think of when this discussion comes up is Christina Hendricks (Joan from Mad Men).  IMHO, she’s the most beautiful woman on television right now, but when I compare the clothes that I see her wearing to award ceremonies and so on against the clothes she wears on the show, it just seems like modern clothing doesn’t know what to do with a woman with actual curves.  Granted, I’m sure the costumes for Mad Men are probably custom tailored for her, and maybe the stuff she wears in her regular life might not be, but it’s also kind of ridiculous to expect everyone to be able to afford custom clothing.  Seeing her on Mad Men was a revelation to me.  I remember being just blown away with her and thinking “Why the hell is this such a surprise?  When did curves go out of style and why?”  I never spent much time thinking about fashion or women’s clothing, and I’m still new to the whole debate, but this seems like such lunacy to me.  Of course women with curves should have flattering clothing, these dopes would sell way more stuff if they were trying to make it for people with real bodies instead of only for androgynous toothpicks with money.  There’s gotta be more Joans than there are twigs like the woman in the gold swimming suit on the right.

And, to make it even worse, I’m just a bit too big for the regular (misses, etc.) sizes, but slightly too small for plus sizes.

I’m exactly the same way!  I started buying a lot of clothing at Old Navy for this very reason, because they don’t split their different sizes up into different departments.  You can get a size 6 or 22 of the very same style hanging on the same rack.

I don’t think that clothing designers make things for actual, real people at all.

You’re absolutely right.  I’ve considered opening a clothing store that carries clothes in different shapes as well as different sizes, but I don’t know the first thing about running a business or the fashion industry.

Amanda Marcotte : The pictures come from the show itself

The photo on the left is credited to a newspaper photographer, and is clearly posed.  The one on the right looks like an unposed still from a TV show.

DC Fem: The British modeling contestant on the left looks so much happier than the one on the right.

And in this photo, Barack Obama looks like he’s ready to resign his office, or something.

Of course, Amanda’s argument is strong, and the photos help make the point.  But there’s no need to oversell them, and we shouldn’t read too much into them.

(Uh sorry for that typotastic last para, I think it is readable though.)

I could be wrong about this (and I can’t find a link) but isn’t it a pretty well established feminist talking point that, over the last 100 years, whenever women start gaining some real traction—particularly in terms of sexual freedoms—fashion suddenly declares emaciated, weak body types to be preferable? The examples I’ve always heard bandied about are the 1920s flapper clothing that forced newly liberated suffragettes to bind their breasts and diet like mad, followed by how the 1960s sexual liberation gave us twiggy and the 1990s backlash-backlash gave us the size 0 model.

Granted, I’m sure the costumes for Mad Men are probably custom tailored for her, and maybe the stuff she wears in her regular life might not be, but it’s also kind of ridiculous to expect everyone to be able to afford custom clothing.

They make her clothes, but more than that—-she’s forced to wear the miserable 50s era underwear to pull those looks off.  It gives her a very authentic, hobbled carriage, but I can’t imagine what it’s like for her.

The cliche used to be that women’s fashions were designed by woman-hating faggots.  I find the idea that fashion actually serves the desires of the Patriarchy only slightly less dubious, but I can see the sense in it.

I think, though, that more than anything else, fashion is a slave to marketing, to the need to persuade people that they have to buy the Latest Thing, no matter how bad it looks on their own personal bodies. 

Just the other night, I was watching DVDs of the 2006-7 season of “Smallville”, and I thought I saw a woman who had just discovered she was pregnant overcompensating by dressing in 1960s maternity wear, but my wife pointed out that all of the women on the show were wearing the same sort of dreck.  Just a fashion I had failed to notice.

The pictures come from the show itself, Carvelle.  They think that pose is flattering for the woman on the right, probably because it highlights how gaunt she is.

This is really interesting to me, because it directly contradicts something I read about the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit layouts. Yeah, not exactly a vanguard of feminist imaging, I know. Still.  Anyway, the photographers insisted that the models pose in ways that suggested the letter S—like standing with an arched back and a bent knee, or maybe a contraposto hip, whatever—because that visual is empirically more appealing. And if you look at the SI swimsuit site, a large majority of the photos conform to that edict.

Which is why I’m not surprised the left image won with the public. She’s S-ing it up, while the model on the right is not. (Well, that and that the leftside model is wearing a garment that fits her, whereas the rightside one is wearing a garment that does not.) That the professional stylistas don’t get that is a surprise. Unless they really just hate womanflesh, and then, not so surprising.

“(No body is acceptable. Ever. Not if it contains a vagina.) “
You make it sound like women have a monopoly on body issues.

Ok, and I didn’t mean to imply that someone should have to wear clothing that hobbles them either.  Like I said, I don’t know much about it.  I was just trying to say that I support the idea of people having clothes that are made to make them look good, rather than clothes that force them to conform to an impossible ideal.

Wow, the thin shaming is almost as thick here as fat shaming elsewhere.

Perhaps, but within limits, given that OEB looks like a Fifth Wave Dorothy Parker who bikes a lot.

I took up sewing as a teen because I’m really short and have a basically square torso.  If you have the time and resources to learn and the motor skills to do it reasonably well, making or at least altering your clothes lets you stick it to the Ralph Laurens of the world AND have pants that fit both your waist and your butt.  And after the initial set-up costs, it’s generally cheaper than buying even cheap clothes.

As Gracchus said upthread, the clothes are supposed to fit you, not the other way around.

I don’t understand why you think that some women can pull off the leggings and that other women can’t.  I think all three women look amazing in different ways (in relation to their legs).  Only the last one also shows courage, too, because people will tell her she looks “ridiculous.”  Why she is so, to some viewers, seems to vary, some seem to think it is overtly sexual (which is strange to me because a skinny woman apparently isn’t sexual), others because she is emphasizing her “flaws.”

Dr. Psycho, the patriarchy and the market are firmly entwined, but I’m actually a pretty big believer that prejudice gives way to the market only under serious duress.  Blaming gay men is missing the point.  I think a lot of people who dictate fashion have serious purity and body issues, and that gets projected out on to the clothes.

Ok, and I didn’t mean to imply that someone should have to wear clothing that hobbles them either.

No worries.  I don’t think anyone thinks you were implying that.  It’s just that the 50s clothes were also daunting in a way that fashions in the 40s or the 70s were not.  But it’s true that there are ways to style clothes to flatter all body types without making you look like you can’t dress yourself of that cram you into immovable underwear.  Larger women are especially denied the right to have clothes that have some shape to them.

And, to make it even worse, I’m just a bit too big for the regular (misses, etc.) sizes, but slightly too small for plus sizes.

Howling the eternal YES here ... and worse!  I have been dropping weight lately because I have arthritic knees and I reasoned that IF carrying a lighter pack helped then losing weight might make them last a bit longer.  (And, yes, they bother me much less now that I have).  That said, I fell into this gulf for a time with pants and am falling into it even worse with shirts now.  I can’t find suits that match because I still need a women’s size jacket.  One reason I mentioned Talbot’s: they double cover the size range (missus to 16 or 18, Women’s from 12W) instead of ignore it.

As a cyclist and a kayaker I have a massive and strong upper body and wide shoulders, thick upper arms, and a strong core pulling in a proportionately smaller waist.  I also have big boobs - they don’t look big on my rib cage, but the recent weight drop took me from a 40D to a 38DD - weight loss apparently isn’t going to change those. Men’s clothing works for the arms and shoulders, but doesn’t accomodate the bodacious tatas and flaps around my waist until the tails hit my backside sticking out.  Even women’s size clothing presumes a certain lack of bicep and tricep development and can pull funny across my shoulders - even when the boobs fit.

Oh, and I’m short-waisted, and relatively long-armed, too.  All that “complicated geometry” as my husband calls it in a short span of torso.  Maybe I’ll have to go to Hong Kong for work soon - if so, I’ll just have a classic suit custom made.  Grab a pic of Jane Russell.

Pants are easier to find since they come in several different cuts and styles now, some that flatter a round butt, and relatively thinner legs (even if the “skinny” label engenders much cognitive dissonance in a someone who was a “chubbie” sized girl).  I wear them with a sweater or tunic purchased to fit my shoulders and arms and boobs.  Otherwise, I’m pretty much limited to serious exercise clothing designed for women who work out a lot.  If only they could carry the specs over to office wear!

The reason is that a very skinny woman in those “jeggings” still has a dignified shape to her.  When women are put in clothes that look like they’re straining against your body, it’s hard to get past that, even if you think they’re beautiful.  I’m with Kate Harding on the leggings-for-larger-woman thing: at best, it’s infantilizing.  Why shouldn’t fat women be able to wear clothes that skim the body in a sexy but dignified way?  Thin women get to have that.

Amanda, it isn’t the cut but the fit in the Mariah pic.  Skinny jeans don’t have to be tight.

It’s not just about body size, but shape.

Tell me about it.  When I was younger and much more visually thrilling I played soccer in the summer and hockey at least three times a week for the rest of the year.  Result?  A 29” inch waist and the jutting ass of a running back.  Try to find men’s pants at 29-30” inches which have any ass room whatsoever: they just assume that at that waistline you don’t have an ass, you merely have thighs that social climb up to your waist.

#2: I have a couple pet theories, though with no real credentials to back them up.

My pet theory is a) designers want models who are shaped as much like clotheshangers as humanly possible to avoid embarrassing surprises when their stuff is worn in front of an audience, and b) there is absolutely no shortage of women wanting to be models. So, buyers’ market, and the sellers compete by approximation to clotheshanger shape.

#3: If what’s in the mall these days is “fewer ruffles,” I really, really don’t want to know what “more ruffles” would look like.

Probably like the blouse I wore for my confirmation in the 80s. You know the saying about the bodybuilder having to go through doors sideways? I wouldn’t have fit through sideways.

#5: It does not “help” (not sure what would), but it deepens the mystery. If even the argument “But men like skeletons, if you have curves you’ll be lonely forever!!!” does not hold up to a cursory look, the question “why the hell is this regarded as desirable?” becomes even harder.

Not to be contrary, but I distinctly remember my Baby Boomer friends (and my parents) telling me about the fashion in jeans at their time, which was: “If you can sit down in them, they’re too loose.  If you need less than a quarter stick of butter to get them on, they’re too loose.  If you can take them off without lying down and asking someone to help you, they’re too loose.”

Aren’t jeggings just a callback to that style, although perhaps slightly more convenient since they’re made of a stretchier material that impedes movement and donning/doffing a little bit less?

Oh, and the fashion of ultra-tight jeans was for women and men, as I recall.

I am struggling with the issue of “thin-shaming” here. 

I definitely understand the concept of “thin-shaming.” I am thin myself and have often received insulting paternalist comments about my weight, including people telling me I need to eat more. I am also used to discussions about how unattractive thin women are because “real women have curves” and “real women shouldn’t look like a 13-year old boy.”  As someone above pointed out, there are plenty of women who naturally have thin, stick or bean-pole type figures.  These are real women too. 

At the same time, I cannot help looking at the model on the right and thinking, “HOLY CRAP!!!! She looks like she is about to die!!!!”  The fact of the matter is that our fashion industry is now glamorizing models who are not just Twiggy-thin but concentration-camp thin.  Granted, I am not a doctor but I can’t imagine any woman would look the way the model on the right looks without deliberately engaging in dangerously restricted eating.  This woman looks like she is dying in front of our very eyes—and being encouraged and rewarded for killing herself.

But now that I said it, should I have said it?  This is an issue that affects women, especially young girls, throughout our culture.  How can we talk about this without shaming the woman in question about how her body looks or engaging in paternalism whereby we random members of the public claim to know better than she does whether she is healthy?  But at the same time, the situation seems so severe that it is disingenuous to pretend that this woman might just naturally look this way.

“But men like skeletons, if you have curves you’ll be lonely forever!!!” does not hold up to a cursory look, the question “why the hell is this regarded as desirable?” becomes even harder.

On a psychological level, I don’t think it’s that hard. Body-type fetishization seems to fall along the lines of other “control” issues. What is desirable is whatever requires ridiculous levels of self-control and self-manipulation in order to qualify as acceptable, physically.

Why shouldn’t fat women be able to wear clothes that skim the body in a sexy but dignified way?  Thin women get to have that.

I would like further elaboration on that word, “dignified.” The image of Mariah Carey doesn’t ping my “undignified” meter at all, certainly not in the way that, say, Lindsay Lohan’s wasted-gaze crotch shot might. It’s arguable that no, they don’t fit her as well as they might. But undignified? That’s awfully harsh.

However, if that’s your metric for dignified, I’d note that even most thin women don’t really get to be dignified either. Clothing rarely fits anyone unless they can afford alteration, because it is mass-produced to a less-than-representative model. I’m willing to posit that making us ALL look undignified is a feature, not a bug, of the system though.

Well, during the 80s they tried to bring back the midi and maxi—skirts that go to the ground, and it just didn’t happen.  It was the beginning of the end for fashion magazines exhibiting clothing that women actually wear.  Women would not wear those ugly things (though we were willing to wear different ugly things).  As for the ruffles and petticoats—they were short and didn’t restrict movement.  Think Madonna and the whole “inner wear as outer wear”.

Magazines used to display clothing that women would wear.  It’s part of the reason models might have been skinnier than average, but not dramatically so.  As women refused to follow the mandated trends, fashions became more and more bizarre and haute couture became more about “influencing” what the plebes might wear and more about dressing the very very rich.  Designers all have multiple lines now, with a down-market (though often still pricey) version that offers clothes that women can wear.

As for the models from the British contest, the reason the skeletal one is posing in such a dour fashion is that is the way models pose now.  Hunchbacked, splayed legs, ‘broken doll’, and the every enchanting expression that’s not just unsmiling, but looks abused.  You aren’t supposed to smile, b/c then people might look at the model and not the clothes.  Why the abused, vacant-eyed look appeals to them, I’ll never understand.

The skeletal one is what fashion designers want.  The curvier one is human looking and more attractive to most.  She still couldn’t get a job at anything other than a plus-sized modelling agency, despite appealing to a majority of Britains.  The fashion industry doesn’t want her.

“Skinny jeans” are much harder to wear than leggings or jeggings.

Once you internalize the concept that leggings are not pants, everything’s groovy. Leggings are just warmer, more casual, opaque tights. Tights can flatter anyone. It’s all about the top and the shoes you pick to go with them. Leggings are about the least physically restrictive garment known to man.

This thread, like all fashion discussions, makes me want to switch to overalls and men’s shirts for the rest of my life. If I could sew (and had several 100 bucks for a good machine, and about 3 extra hours a week…) I would definitely look into it. Because nothing fits me right, fat or thin, and it’s irritating as hell.

and I work in an office, so I can’t actually do the overalls thing either. Argh.

I would only wear leggings under a skirt, and if they bring back long sweaters too, that’s just too much 80s flashback for me, sorry.

I do kind of miss the cutoff shorts over longjohns with hiking boots we wore in college, but I am way too damn old for that anymore It was comfy though.

I understand that eating disorders are a real problem in this country, but as a woman who looks like the model on the right (I actually tried on a swimsuit like that once, I looked as silly as she does in it and did not buy it) I’m tired of being told to eat a cookie. I’ve been trying to gain 15 pounds for 2 years. I can’t. When people label women shaped like me as “adolescent” and not “real” it is just as hurtful as fat shaming. Can’t anybody dress in a way that flatters the body they have without threatening somebody else?

I’m going to say a word in favor of Mariah Carey.  When you’ve got legs of a certain conformation (the kind where the calves, thighs and ass are all prominent, the kind which are usually attached to rather wide hips) you can’t wear loose pants or your legs will look thick, like trunks.  Whereas if you wear your jeans kind of snug, you at least demonstrate that your legs have a shape.  The second effect is much less off-putting than the first.  (I know this because I have approximately the same body type.)

I admit that Mariah has overdone it, but I don’t see that she’s got the wrong idea.  She can’t walk around in floaty P.J.‘s and look good; apparently she realizes that.  What she’s done is to go too far in the opposite direction (it’s a good rule to never wear pants in which you can’t sit down) but IMO if she were to go with the same jeans in a slightly larger size she’d be okay.

This thread, like all fashion discussions, makes me want to switch to overalls and men’s shirts for the rest of my life.

Tell me about it.  I work from my home many days and I just want to get a jumpsuit like this…
http://www.shadowdalecreations.com/star-trek_nemesis_jumpsuit_1.jpg
and slap my corporate logo on it.

Mmmmm…....  Comfy and futuristic. .... and Eassssyyyyyyyyy.

Another thing to note is that while plus-sized/curvy women can find attractive clothing, they usually have to pay more for it. If you’re already being discriminated against for your body size, you have less money to spend than does someone of the “ideal” body size, and women on the whole are paid less than men anyway.

This is why I like stretch pants. Screw anyone who has a problem with this for whatever reason, unless they want to buy me a wardrobe.

Purpleshoes:

I really feel like the push towards boniness is an attempt to pare down the body and make it sexless, or to clean up any hint of self-defined sensuality it could exude to fit into a fairly narrow sexuality defined mainly by the eroticization of feebleness or fragility.

Western society has a problem with the fact that people are embodied. And women, who tend to be fleshier and whose reproductive functions are more visible, have long been perceived as more embodied than men (consider the ancient dualism in which women are considered creatures “of the body” and men, creatures “of the mind”). And women’s bodies are the battlegrounds on which these societal anxieties play out.

Catgirl:

The whole thing is really frustrating because people refuse to believe that my body doesn’t conform to the stereotype even when I’m standing right in front of them.

It reminds me of how people will say, “Oh, you’re not fat!” or “Oh, you’re not that big!” to a fat person and mean it as a compliment. It’s not about physical reality; it’s about how well the person perceives you as conforming to whatever norm is in their head. If they like you or are simply trying to be polite, they’re going to see you as conforming better.

“What about teh menz” didn’t happen until #61? Wow, that’s impressive.

And, as a fat chick, I second the remarks about thin-hatred. I do think Laurie at #76 has a point, but what I hate is the “Real women have curves” meme. Also, men are not, FFS, the arbiters of what constitutes “realness” in women, either. (Which is why the comments on Nonny Mouse’s thread are so full of fail.)

Just a couple more ranty things since I’m on a roll:

When I was a teenager, knee-high boots were in.  I have normal-looking calves, but every pair was always too small to fit around my calves.  I had to use pliers to pull up the zipper and my legs would be sore afterward.  Even though I wasn’t overweight at all, it made me feel freakishly fat that I couldn’t find a singe pair of boots that fit around my apparently-enormous-but-actually-normal calves.  That’s not a healthy feeling for a teenager.

When my mom was a kid in the 50s, her mom had to cut a slit on the inside of those puffed sleeves.  This made her feel like a humongous freak.  The way she talked about it, I thought she was huge as a child.  I was extremely surprised when I saw pictures of her, and she was just a slightly chubby little girl.  Her arms weren’t even fat, but muscular.

Clothing styles can make people feel really terrible even when they’re completely average.

But I am completely, absolutely certain that the fashions I love were created to force women out of factories and into kitchens.

You are absolutely correct. It started with Christian Dior’s “New Look” in 1947 and was quite overtly pitched as a “return to femininity” in contrast to the styles of the 30s and early to mid-40s which assumed, for the most part, that the women wearing them were going to work in them. But, since women were actually continuing to work (50s mythology not withstanding), the style died without Dior to push it (he died in ‘57 IIRC).

I was just reading an essay on Wonder Woman’s fashion changes over the years and it dealt with this period in some detail. What’s odd is that in the 50s WW went from being a rather imposingly large woman to a tiny wasp-waisted wisp of a thing and the stories also switched from her fighting villains to being more love-story related. In the 90s she went through a similar, but far more magnified, physical change - stupid-long legs, impossible waist and tits like Zeppelins - but her character went the other way to hyper-competent and somewhat dark.

Ach; working link.

I’ve pretty much given up on fashion—I’m trying to make more of my own clothing (a real luxury of time, I know). But it just seemed ridiculous to me that I would go to a place like Old Navy, find an awesome sundress in XL size, and it still wouldn’t fit because some jagoff in the design department decided that an XL woman would still be a B cup. It fit fine over my waist and hips (generous even), but I couldn’t get the bloody thing to stop with the peek-a-boo buttons at the tits.

Triplanetary, I think that you’re generally right that aesthetic ideals are more classist than anything else: it’s all about disposable income. If you have the disposable income to have a dietician and a gym membership and liposuction to take the rest off, then you are “deserving” of fashion.

One thing that I could never quite figure out was how the emaciated look continued through the 80s, though. Apart from being poor, one of the reasons that skinny wasn’t considered attractive in the victorian era was because it was a marker for TB. In the 80s, we had another fatal disease that had a distinguished “wasting” look, that was (and to a large degree still is) an instant ticket to pariah-town, and yet the designers were still pushing forward the holocaust survivor look.

I suppose that they really do want the women to bear as much resemblence to a coathanger as possible… but it makes no sense: if your whole purpose in life is to make clothing, shouldn’t you do that? Make clothing? That women can actually wear? And not just tirelessly rehash different expressions of your utter contempt for women?

There is a difference between things like stretch jeans, which are a blend of cotton and Lycra, and Mariah Carey’s jeggings (also, remember: “leggings are not pants!”). Carey is totally in the fashion-victim category with those pants, and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out. Everyone has a bad day, though, so I won’t hold it against her.

We all have certain clothes that works well with our body type (eg, David Mixner shown in a more recent post looks like “a big guy” in that suit, rather than “obese”). The problem is that fashion designers aren’t making clothes that work well for many rather common, normal body types.

I’d say the jeggings are the Least of Carey’s problems in that image, actually. The absurd heels that she can’t properly stand in and the disproportionate jacket seem like much worse Fashion Victim excesses.

if your whole purpose in life is to make clothing, shouldn’t you do that? Make clothing? That women can actually wear? And not just tirelessly rehash different expressions of your utter contempt for women?

But then people would pay attention to those women, and not to Your Genius Clothing and your scandalously mean attitude (think Karl Lagerfeld). Actually, I think Lagerfeld’s purpose in life is not to make clothing, but to be a nasty, sniping shithead and get away with it.

There’s also the fact that western clothes is fitted so it is inevitable that most of it won’t fit lots of people.  If we all wore robes we’d have fewer issues. 

For example people in this thread have complained about it being hard to find boots that fit their calves.  That struck me as amusing because I vividly remember complaining and grumbling with my mom and friend over how all the boots have these huge openings and who in the world are they made for?  I definitely have visible calves but most boots are too big on me, but with enough time I’ve found a pair that fits well.  So YMMV.  Women (and men) come in huge variety of sizes and shapes so it’s impossible for most clothing to fit everyone.

Actually, I think Lagerfeld’s purpose in life is not to make clothing, but to be a nasty, sniping shithead and get away with it.

Purpose achieved.

Purpose achieved.

And how!

Well, there’s one way to help change this: stop giving the fashion industry and magazines money. they’re already on the brink financially - help them wither and die. Stop watching these stupid model shows, unless they’re properly inclusive. When the money stops rolling in, they’ll either be forced to either adapt or die. The big fashion houses - the ones who dictate what size models magazines use by only providing the tiniest sample sizes are mostly already struggling. Their profit does not come from their ready to wear ranges or couture - it comes from their perfume and cosmetics ranges, sold in their millions to the fatties at Christmas and so on. So don’t buy anything from them - clothes OR perfume. Help push them further into the red by eschewing all their products. So don’t buy Ralph Lauren, don’t buy Louboutin’s silly overpriced shoes, don’t buy anything from a house with a misogynist in charge. Don’t buy anything endorsed by a model who bully and shames other women, like Ms. Rachel Hunter, either. Don’t buy anything from anyone who tells you you’re a fat cow who doesn’t deserve to get dressed unless you have concave thighs and a bony flat arse and a BMI of a death camp survivor. Not that most of us can buy half these designers’ clothes anyway. As someone pointed out upthread, even a size 4 is on a sticky wicket in most of those stores. I’ve always found it hilarious how supposed businesspeople deliberately try to sell as few clothes as possible by making them so small that only a few people can fit into them. Do they even realise people over size 4 have money? Do they realise how many people WOULD buy their clothes if they could fit into them? I can’t think of a stupider business decision than to make sure your product is unusuable by the majority of the poplulace.

Amanda:

These jeggings not only don’t forgive having thighs that aren’t concave, but they also punish you for having calves at all.

Huh?  What’s to forgive? 

Why does “punish” mean “not hide”?

You’ve written this from the perspective that people who aren’t built the way they’re supposed to should dress to “minimize their faults.”  That her thighs and calves should be hidden away for her to look good.

Anyone who likes big legs thinks Mariah looks great in that outfit. 

Later you claim she doesn’t look “dignified.”  I guess “dignified” means “she has managed to control her eating or at least has bothered to cover up the crime if she eats.”  Fat, especially jiggly fat, isn’t “dignified” and, while people shouldn’t laugh at it, if they do, it’s your own fault for not covering it up.

I think “dignified” here means clothes that don’t visibly strain to contain your body. That’s a function of the size of the clothes, not the person. Carey would look nice in fitted jeans, fitting being the operative concept.

I second whichever commenter said that the jacket and the boots are much bigger problems than the jeggings for Carey. The boots cut her legs off. Instead of seeing the natural taper of her leg, you just see ass and fringe. The jacket cuts her off at the waist. Not a good look.

I don’t understand the picture of the contestant on the right. Is the suit just really baggy, or is it somehow structured that way?

I’d like to join in on wanting jeans that don’t stretch at all.  They’d stay up that way.  Anyone know a company that makes them at all currently?

In The Second Sex, published in 1949, Simone de Beauvoir praised Americans for sensibly embracing women wearing pants as a normal fashion,

Um, well, tell that to the school administrators who sent my mother home on her first day of first grade because she was wearing pants (something that was perfectly acceptable to dress girls in in Denmark in 1948, but wasn’t acceptable in the U.S.).

I really feel like the push towards boniness is an attempt to pare down the body and make it sexless, or to clean up any hint of self-defined sensuality it could exude to fit into a fairly narrow sexuality defined mainly by the eroticization of feebleness or fragility.

And there’s also the link between an appetite for food and an appetite for sex.  I’m convinced that one reason why fat women are reviled is the Puritanical hatred for a woman who has an appetite.  Not only does it supposedly imply that she can’t control herself, but in our culture, as in many others, people associate food with sex.  Fat woman = harlot.

1948, keshmeshi?  My mom couldn’t wear pants to school till the 1969-1970 school year!

1948, keshmeshi?  My mom couldn’t wear pants to school till the 1969-1970 school year!

Mine either, until (I think) around 1971-72.  She likes to tell stories about how she and a few of her friends in high school decided one winter that they were done with skirts and they all started wearing pants.  The school administrators did not like this, but luckily a few of the parents backed them up and eventually the school policy changed. 

But this was also in rural southern WV, which is generally a bit late in adopting trends anyway.

I don’t understand the picture of the contestant on the right. Is the suit just really baggy, or is it somehow structured that way?

I had too look at it awhile to figure it out too.  I think it’s more like an optical illusion due to lighting, positioning, and the shine of the fabric.  It looks like there is a tighter panty at the bottom of the suit, that you can sort of see in both pictures.  The shadows are where the tight panty stops and where her stomach actually sticks out a little.

Catgirl, Fashion Bug has the same pants lane bryant does, but in misses, too (they’re owned by the same company).  They’re the only place that has pants that fit me.  I hate the clothing industry.

I can’t understand the story behind the women in the gold swimsuits.  The one on the right looks seriously ill.  She looks like she belongs in a hospital and is too confused to know what’s going on, and someone thought it would be funny to get her in a swimsuit and high heels.  But she wins a modeling contract?  wtf?

Fashion Bug has the same pants lane bryant does, but in misses, too (they’re owned by the same company).

Do they also carry the line of jeans that come in different shapes?  They’re labeled by actual geometric shapes, like triangle and circle, and they don’t follow the same sizing method as other pants (size 1 is about 14, size 2 is 16, etc.).  It’s just one particular line within Lane Bryant; not all their pants are done that way.  If Fashion Bug does have the same type, I’ll have to try to find one close by.

some jagoff in the design department decided that an XL woman would still be a B cup.

Sing it, sister!  Now have big boobs but be under 5’3” and short waisted.  Even when I was a skinny young thing, it was hard to find clothes if I didn’t just tent myself under giant sweaters and sweatshirts (which, being the 80s, was the thing to do.)  Now that I am no longer skinny, buying clothes that fit is a nightmare.
———
As for being allowed to wear pants:  in first grade we got to vote on wearing pants during winter, mostly b/c my mom sent me to school in a dress with pants, and it takes forever for a 6 y/o to take off shoes/boots pants and put shoes/boots back on and then reverse it 3 times a day for recess.  After I started it, other mothers sent their girls with ‘outside pants’ which led to the vote.  I was stunned that a couple of girls didn’t want to wear pants.

Once we got them, we wore them year round.  That was 1973-74 in a Catholic school in Indianapolis.  Yep, no uniforms even.  That’s a fetish that resurfaced in the 80s.

———-
@marle She won the contract even though she lost the contest.  The voters overwhelmingly rejected the judges votes to the point that the judges were overruled.  They STILL gave stick figure a contract b/c the modelling company didn’t want the ‘fat’ model.

This thread, like all fashion discussions, makes me want to switch to overalls and men’s shirts for the rest of my life.

My maternal grandmother employed that solution.

Do they realise how many people WOULD buy their clothes if they could fit into them? I can’t think of a stupider business decision than to make sure your product is unusuable by the majority of the poplulace.

Aha! You have hit upon the central tenet of couture and luxury retail.

No garment or product is desirable unless it is totally exclusive. That means, literally, the fewer people than can acquire your goods, the better they are percieved to be. People who can actually buy your goods want to be assured that nobody else can afford/fit into your goods, so you’d better make that happen.

It’s all about social marking. And caché is better than anything, including increasing the number of units sold.

Lotta people here seem to be lamenting the passing of grunge.

For the folks who make their own clothes, what material do you use?

I quilt for fun, but I wouldn’t use quilt calico as material for clothing. “Clothing” material of the variety that you might find in T-shirts (comfy and stretchy), dress shirts (crisp and smooth), or casual shirts (soft, shiny, flowing, etc.) just…isn’t really carried in any meaningful quantities/varieties at the nearest Hobby Lobby - they seem to largely carry what I’m calling “quilt calico”, and which I would not associate with clothing.

I was stunned that a couple of girls didn’t want to wear pants.

It’s not just they didn’t want to wear pants, but that they wanted to forbid other girls from wearing them too.  Am I understanding this vote correctly?  The vote to allow pants would have also allowed girls to continue wearing skirts, right?

Lotta people here seem to be lamenting the passing of grunge.

Where I grew up, grunge was never a fad or fashion statement.  It was a working uniform for working class types in the Northwest.

When I was in first grade, my mom sent me to school in pants.  I had to walk a half mile, and it could get as cold as -30 or -40 as we lived in the mountains at the time.  I got sent home once, and she sent me right back and had an argument with the principal. 

Anyway, we were allowed to wear pants not too long after that, and our teachers started wearing them too.  Seems the school district decided that because the energy crisis meant that they needed to turn down the thermostats, which means that females can’t have bare legs!

ack, grammar scramble ... sorry.

My mom couldn’t wear pants to school till the 1969-1970 school year!

Not only that, but at my mother’s school the principle would make the girls get down on their knees to see if their dresses were regulation length. If, while kneeling, the dress did not touch the floor, it was too short.

Paul in #44 gets nails it:To sell stuff to people, you’ve got to convince them that (in one way or another) they suck as they are. There’s a much smaller niche for “your life is great, but this product would make it even better”.

The fashion industry is industry first and fashion a distant second.  They’ll do what they have to in order to make money, be it using sweatshop child labor or setting absurd beauty standards that can only be achieved through abusing one’s body.

“cankles”

Whoever invented this word wasn’t dropped on his head enough as a child. That is all.

Not only that, but at my mother’s school the principle would make the girls get down on their knees to see if their dresses were regulation length. If, while kneeling, the dress did not touch the floor, it was too short.

That too, of course.  And this, a downstate NY public school!

I LOVE Faludi’s takedown of Lacroix in Backlash! too true!

As a long time reader that’s never posted before, but works in the Fashion Industry I felt the need to chime in.

There really are three markets when thinking of fashion – Mass (Think Old Navy, Talbots, Lane Bryant) ; Mid Tier (Think from J. Crew up to Marc by Marc Jacobs); Luxury (Think Dior, Chanel). Each of these markets employ different sizing and design strategies. In this discussion there seems to be a lot of trying to blend the markets to pull out why they don’t suit “real women”, when in reality like with any business the goal is to sell the product.

With Luxury as benvolio pointed out the value is in the exclusivity of the item. The designers view themselves as creating art and as such want models that do not over shadow their work, to them a model that people find attractive would be like hanging the Mona Lisa on a paisley printed wall, they want a plain white wall one that can be padded or left bear as needed. Does this make it ok to push the super thin not really, but that is the motive. With that artistic model it is left up to the Sales people and Buyers to find looks that will fit a “normal” person and also sell. It is also important to note that while the bread and butter of these companies are Fragrances and Handbags, the Asian market accounts for the most of the clothing sales and that market tends to have a more petite build. As the Asian market grows and the Western market shrinks you will find smaller sizes continuing to dominate.

In the Mid-tier market you have some creative design but a lot of it is figuring out how to rework the Luxury Market to fit a smaller price tag and more people. As such they use common sizes, and work with saleable averages. The Mass market does then on an even larger scale. Both of these groups are only concerned with sales.

Sales are the main reason that you don’t see more plus size clothing, from a retail perspective they just do not sell that well. Most plus size clothing does not sell at full price it only sells when discounted and as a retailer that hurts your bottom line. Smaller sizes tend to sell at full price and that’s why you see more of them in stores. I’ve seen line expanded many times to include the plus size market that is “dying to get better clothes” only to see it discontinued several months later due to poor sales.

Comment #2: Triplanetary on 01/14 at 09:32 AM

The media’s idea of an attractive woman is very far detached from what genuine men (men who haven’t themselves internalized that ideal, which many of them do) find physically attractive. Understanding that would help a lot of the women who worry unnecessarily about their weight.

I’ve had conversations with women about weight and body image (ok, more like mutual monologues), and the way they tend to go is that no matter how much I reassure them that I find them attractive, it usually just does no good.  Usually the ones who believe me still continue to worry as much about their body image, because what they’re really concerned about is what other women will think of them.

The way I see it, while the ostensive goal of “looking attractive to men” is the overarching cultural narrative (and more generally, the idea that women are objects for the male gaze), the grunt work of making women comply with that narrative is done by women talking to women about how other women fail to live up to it.  And the way the game gets played in practice, attracting men is only an ostensive goal; the real goal often seems to be to convince other women that one is “attractive” with scare quotes.

This is what I think is going on with this whole issue of models that are so thin that men find them unattractive.  However much they may rationalize their bodies by talking about “attractiveness,” it’s primarily about making other women think they’re attractive, and only secondarily about attracting men.

Not only that, but at my mother’s school the principle would make the girls get down on their knees to see if their dresses were regulation length. If, while kneeling, the dress did not touch the floor, it was too short.

Because there’s nothing disturbing at all about an authority figure making teenage girls kneel to see if they meet his approval, no, nothing worrisome at all.

Nope.  Not at all evocative of the pedophilic flagellation freaks who gravitated to work in English public schools during the days when the cane ruled supreme.  Nothing to see here, move on, they’re the moral ones, and if you want to wear pants you’re the freak and slut and aberration from the norm.

Essie,
Try actual fabric stores.  JOANN’s seems to be around a lot of the country and carries everything from fleece to cotton knit to lame to tweed (sometimes).

Also, what Ms. Kate said about grunge - except inland WA, parts of coastal Texas and Idaho - when I was growing up and on through today.  My daughter sometimes has to do material sampling in a warehouse.  When she does, and sometimes even when she does office work, she wears overalls.  She’s a quality assurance test specialist for raw materials, a professional with a biology degree.  Nobody cares all that much what you are wearing under the clean room gear (bunny suit).

Smaller sizes tend to sell at full price and that’s why you see more of them in stores.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Either they sell at full price because the supply matches demand, or because they do not make enough of them (which would NOT be the case if you see more in stores ...). If the average size woman is a size 12, one would think that people would stock according to the proportion of women in that size range or who buy those sizes - yet I see racks full of sizes 0-4 on mark down and not a 14 to be found!

It also makes no sense if you look at the clearance racks at H&M;and Target.  These tend to be packed with the low sizes, and missing in the M, L, and XL.

As a thick-legged woman who spent most of the 80s being tormented by tapered jeans I was enormously grateful when flares and bootlegs came back in the 90s.  And I’ve noticed that despite how hard the fashion industry is trying to push skinny jeans back on us, here we are in 2010 and still I see a lot more bootleg and wider styles on the street though YMMV depending where you live.  Some friends and I were talking about fashion recently and we all observed that there’s much less official demarcation of what’s stylish these days, such that most of us were still wearing clothes we had for 10 years or more and they looked perfectly okay.  It’s like we’re in the post-fashion era or something, where women are more apt to wear what they like and look good in rather than trying to adhere to whatever the latest rage is. 

And it’s funny about legs.  Like I said, I have thick sturdy legs that respond well to training.  A few years ago when I was really in shape I got many compliments on my legs, especially from men.  It was the time in my life when I felt the best about my body.  That is, with the exception of when I’d try on something like capri pants with narrow openings.  Then I’d go right back to hating myself for having the “wrong” kind of calves.  OTOH, I have big boobs and have never berated myself for a shirt not buttoning or being too tight across my chest.  I simply select another size or style and move on.  I sometimes envy women who can wear halter tops or go braless but not to the extent that I’ve always felt inferior to women with skinny legs.  I guess the fashion and entertainment industries convinced me there was one acceptable shape for legs but that a little more variety in breast size is permitted.

Stores have to buy in set lots of sizes or pay a big extra fee (like when grocery stores break a case).  This tends to make what sells in an area be gone and what doesn’t languish.
Those plus sizes that just don’t sell usually don’t sell because they are unflatering junk, not because plus-sized women don’t want nice looking, comfortable clothes.

Didn’t the model on the right die?

No, I think her sister (also a model) died.

Jeggings are essentially stretch pants.  Ten years ago stretch pants were a staple of plus size clothing because the industry was to bored and lazy to tailor things to bigger women.  Now that skinny chicks are wearing them again people are convinced that larger people can’t.

That’s pretty much what I thought.  I’ve never been skinny, and leggings/stretch pants were a staple of my college days. They worked as tights with a skirt, but more durable.  They were thin enough to wear under jeans for an extra layer of warmth (important in the frozen tundra of Potsdam, NY) and covering enough that when you got into the overheated dorm, you could just pull of your jeans and sweatshirt and be set for indoor activities in a tee-shirt and leggings.  They were comfortable and flexible,

The idea that Mariah Carey looks “ridiculous” in her pants is strange.  The word “jeggings” is ridiculous, but that lends equal ridiculousness to anyone who feels the need for renaming perfectly good garments in a nonsense way. 

I parsed her outfit - all three of the “jeggings” pictures, actually, as “a quick run outside in the winter, put on coat but not an extra layer of jeans.” 

And I don’t understand the claim that they’re made “for the bodies of women that have absolutely no flesh on their bones” at all.  Stretch material is forgiving, and if the style is for close-fitting clothes then using a stretch material makes the style i>more</i> accessible to people of all sizes, since a garment will stretch to fit rather than only fitting people who are an exact match for the pattern. 

Tight, non-stretchy jeans might be “made for the bodies of women that have absolutely no flesh on their bones”, but switching to a stretch material corrects that problem.

According to the article and Wikipedia, the model on the right in the pictures is Swedish model Marianne Berglund.  There were actually two models, sisters who died of malnutrition: Luisel Ramos (an Uruguayan model), her sister, Eliana Ramos.  Add to them Ana Carolina Reston, a 21-year-old Brazilian model who died of anorexia.

sacundim, while women certainly do act as enforcers of beauty standards on other women, men are not off the hook for the large role they play in making women women feel insecure about how they look.  Average men may find a large variety of women sexually attractive but prominent men are nearly always seen with conventionally pretty (at least) and slender women.  If I say the phrase “trophy wife” I can guarantee most people will imagine a very skinny woman, with maybe big boobs but not big anywhere else.

And actions speak louder than words.  When a guy assures me that he prefers women with a little meat on their bones but his head snaps around at every leggy size 2 that walks by, it really undercuts his argument.  I think some guys mean well when they try to reassure women but their efforts often add insult to injury.

I think Mariah looks hot, btw. She looks athletic and womanly, with a good, healthy muscle mass, something that many women lack and pathetically, gyms and trainers still discourage women from building up. I am totally not seeing the lack of dignity there. The pants are simply form-fitting and she has a VERY nice form to fit. The heels are the only thing there I can see leading to a (possibly injurous) loss of dignity at some point.

Semi-random off topic sort of personal question:

So, I’ve gained a lot of weight in the past 7 or 8 years, and now a lot of my old clothing does not fit me anymore.  Anyone have any tips on books/websites that will teach me to dress my new shape flatteringly?

syfr, you just have to take an honest friend shopping with you and try on a lot of different styles of things until you get a sense of what looks good on you.

Your “new shape” is probably different from the shape of other persons of simialr size - just like it would be no matter what your weight.  My aunt is 2” shorter than me and about 5 lbs lighter - yet things that look good on her look weird on me and vica versa. She is smaller in the shoulders and thicker in the middle and wears a B cup to my DD, etc.  My aunt rocks a sleeveless surplice dress or shirt, and I won’t touch it to save my life.  My favored style of jeans are just not her.

The key to flattering appearance at any size is fit.  Too large and you look like a kid with a bedsheet ghost costume - even if you are a size 28.  Too small anywhere on you will look either strange or sleazy, depending, and will likely be uncomfortable, too.  You have to know how much skin you like to show and where, too, and what sorts of situations you plan to dress for (office, around town, etc.).  The basic principles work at any size.

Yes, I can attest all through the ‘50s and ‘60s girls were forced to wear (no higher than knee-lenght dresses) to school. We had to fight my “tomboy” sister (now lesbian) into a dress for the first day of kindergarten.

And get this—female students were only allowed to wear non-jean pants to class in my first year of state college (1968-1969!) and I remember an older professor tut-tuting about that.

After that, all bets were off, for jeans and slacks, at least.

However, manufactured clothes were not even in 1950s made to fit all women, my mother was under 5’ tall and before petite sizes she was forced to have her clothes made by a local dressmaker.

YES, fashion needs to start making clothes that suit all bodies, not just waifs.
YES, the standard for models is too thin, and it’s unhealthy for many/most of them, and unhealthy for those that try to emulate them.
BUT for once, can a thread about fashion not immediately devolve into skinny-shaming?  It happens every fucking time - the comments about “real” women, the oh-so-helpful opinions about how the skinny woman in question looks like shit/looks like a concentration camp victim and, of course, the endless discussion about what straight men find attractive - which is relevent to what exactly??

Looking at the Dior new look dresses, we should be reminded that EVERY unattainable beauty standard is oppressive.  It sucks to be told you have to be skinny to be attractive.  It sucks to be told you have to have huge breasts too, or an hourglass figure. 

And always some helpful man chimes in about how HE loves curvy women and finds those stick-figures disgusting. 
Dudez, no one cares what YOU find attractive, okay?
And speaking as a skinny women, we’re all very much aware that you go for full hips and breasts, it’s not exactly a secret. 
I’m tall, skinny and a former (small time)model, and yet my short, curvy friends get hit on WAY more than I do.  I’m not saying this to complain, only to let y’all know that the fact that men (in general) like curvy women is not a big secret, and skinny women aren’t all starving themselves in a woefully misguided attempt to be sexy to men.

Oh, and I’m thrilled that skinny jeans are in and I hope they never go out of style.  Stick legs haven’t always been fashionable (open a fashion magazine from the eighties or early nineties sometime), and I’ve taken a lot of flak for mine, so I’m going to enjoy this while it lasts.

I stay the fuck away from any popular fashion or women’s magazines and try to embrace my own body type, but clothes shopping is always tough. It’s so difficult for me to find clothing that fits me. I have a large chest, smallish waist, and medium sized hips, and I’m 5’4”. It seems like all the clothes I find are either way too skin tight and look horrible with my chest, or have that empire/square waist and make my stomach look too big. I find that T-shirts look the best on me, but it’s a lot more difficult to find dressy clothes that I like. Blouses with buttons don’t work for me because of my chest. And I refuse to go anywhere near skinny jeans. And as for swimsuits, all I ever seem to find are bikinis made for women with small breasts.

I think fashion is influenced by a mix of sexism and consumerism: basically it’s the hope that people will buy more in order to fit into an ideal of attractiveness. For women, it’s now to be very skinny, and for men, it’s to have a huge amount of muscle.

I wasn’t. I was pointing out that a dude whose idea of “looks good” is basically based on how much of your body is shown off is using a standard that is very narrow.

The fact that I said she “looked good” in those jeans doesn’t mean that my standard for looking good is based on how much of a woman’s body is shown off. How can you glean what my general preferences are from that comment? You can’t. Mariah Carey is not really my idea of what looks good generally, nor is her outfit my preference. But I don’t think she looks “fucking ridiculous.” I think she looks healthy and unashamed of her body (I thought that was a good thing).

That’s why I think she looks good in that picture, although she’s not my type.

Also, just adding to the comments saying every woman is a “real woman.” Whatever the body type, muscle mass, clothing and hairstyle preferences, a woman is a real woman if she identifies that way…. I’ve heard comments on lesbian message boards that femme women are more “real woman” than butch women. It’s not helpful to the discussion at hand. As a woman, I dress to make myself feel good. I don’t care if others find me attractive. The important thing is to embrace one’s body type and just seek to be healthy and/or comfortable, not conform to beauty ideals. So I’m just seconding nico @ #140 here.

When I was a kid I had these fashion plate coloring kits. There were a bunch of hard plastic plates, and you would pick a top, pants, and shoes and do a crayon rubbing of the combination before you colored your creation. The problem with the Mariah Carey picture is that she combined everything wrong. The ‘jeggings” would look fine with a cute tunic top, or even sexed up with a corset or whatever you wear when you’re Mariah Carey. The coat would look fine with sweats or regular jeans and sneakers or even UGG style boots. The boots, well, those boots wouldn’t look good with anything, although my seventh grade science teacher had an outfit featuring a glittery sweater and a vinyl miniskirt that might work with those boots.

So what I’m saying is Mariah doesn’t need looser pants, she needs taste, or a stylist.

jessilikewhoa, I had the exact same thing, but it was called “Little Van Goes” and it was the custom vans so popular in the 70s.

Have we lost sight of the fact that what looks good or ridiculous and what constitutes “taste” are entirely subjective?

That’s why I made sure to say that I thought she looked good instead of making a sweeping pronouncement that she “looks fucking ridiculous” or “she has no taste.”

Those are not objective facts, they are simply personal opinions.

Fine, I think she has no taste. I also think the lady on the left in the white coat looks like she skinned a muppet.

Hahaha ... I tend to agree.

FWIW, I think Mariah looks better than both of those other women, but that’s not really the point of this thread.

I’ve been unable to find clothes that fit properly since I hit puberty and left children’s sizes behind. That was 20 or so years ago. I just can’t get worked up about it anymore. Standard sized clothing is cut using a tall thin fit model and then the sizes are just stretched as they get larger but the shape doesn’t change. Plus sized clothing is cut for an hourglass shape. I’ve got a gut, a flat ass, a huge barrel chest, large breasts, a short torso, and skinny twig legs. And I’m short.

I don’t think there is much mass retailers can do to accommodate all the varied body sizes. Clothing of the past fit better because much of it was homemade if you were poor or custom tailored if you had money. It was actually made to fit your individual body. The nature of mass market clothing means it has to be standardized. While the plus size industry is still small there are far more options than there used to be. Unfortunately their clothes is all mass market too so it fits funny even when it is the “correct” size.

Yes, the industry is complicit is pushing too thin standards and presenting an unrealistic idea of what most women’s bodies look like. That mass market clothing is ill fitting isn’t really the same problem.

I probably over focused on the critique of Mariah in the jeggings, but as a fat girl who loves her skinny jeans I got defensive. It isn’t that she’s too big for jeggings, it’s that she didn’t dress in a flattering way, imo anyway.

Yeah, the woman on the left (in the gold swimsuit pictures) looks much better. Mmm, curves.

*cringe* STFU

Talk to any woman with curves and one of the things that you constantly hear about in their struggle to find clothing that fits is the endless battle with things that just don’t fit around the curves.  It’s almost as if the clothes are demanding conformity with the norm, like a uniform, determined to suppress any individuality found in the specific curves of individual women.

indeed. until a few years back (i.e. before I grew a gut to match my butt and thighs), every single pair of pants I bought had to be altered, because they were all forming a gaping hole at the back. That’s when I started to wear hip-huggers, because they needed less drastic alterations. Still, there was no way I could have found a pair of pants that fit my waist/hips that I could have gotten my thighs and butt into.

It always boggles my mind how, on every discussion about women and the fashion industry EVER, some guy manages to uncover the deep dark hidden cabalistic Sekrit that most women do not, in fact, consciously think to themselves, every single time they put on an article of clothing or brush their hair, “Will this make me attractive to random male strangers?”

I’m sure some women do, and I’m sure most women attempt to dress for men sometimes, like on a date, but seriously, ideology doesn’t function so well when it’s THAT goddamn unsubtle. The “overarching cultural narrative” that women are deliberately attempting to get male attention with every little thing we do is the cultural narrative fed to men. Women hear it, too, but it’s not the whole story. More women would reject it if it were the whole story. If that were the whole story, then not every woman I’ve ever met would have at least some story of getting hit on when they didn’t want to, because any time they didn’t want to get hit on, they’d just not shower and not wear makeup and wear torn jeans ten sizes too big for them and pitted-out t-shirts and really fugly shoes, and possibly not brush their hair. But quite frequently, we don’t. This is because we feel gross and bad about ourselves when we feel like we look shlubby. Just in general.

Now, I, and probably quite a lot of other women, grew up with the “overarching cultural narrative” (which is apparently a hidden mystical feminine secret handed down through the ages and only discussed in menstrual huts? or something?) including that dressing up is fun, that clothing can “communicate” something other than sexual availability/interest or lack thereof, that one feels good when one feels one looks good, and that since men don’t know shit about women’s clothing (including, apparently, why we wear it), other women are somewhat more reliable sources of feedback for whether or not you should be taking pride and confidence in your appearance at any given moment. I mean, seriously, I thought EVERYONE knew the “women dress for themselves and other women” meme. It shows up at least once in nearly every bit of media in which there are female characters who are actually characters and not set pieces.

Self-adornment is an old, and very basic method of human self-expression. Jewelry and makeup and fashion have existed in all cultures, frequently for both genders, and not always just as a way to not be cold. That our particular culture seems to try and repress this tendency in our men nearly as violently as we try to crush the drive to, say, eat in our women is unfortunate. But it’s necessary, in order for self-adornment to then get tagged as “feminine”, and subjugated to become what the “feminine” pretty much always is: performance of sex-class status. And it’s not about providing individual males with individual desirable females. It’s about keeping women busy, keeping them crippled, keeping them spending, and keeping them objectified and sexually available as a class. Which sucks. But the ideology propagates, like all successful lies, by keeping the bit of truth at its center. We are encouraged to perform femininity for ourselves, to make ourselves feel better when we look better. This is why we keep performing it at all. This is why there is so much money poured into making sure that we can’t hang on to that feeling for very long, so we can pour even more money back into the industry trying to get that feeling back.

The notion that it’s just a chore for pleasing men, and that we all do that anyway, with the single and knowing goal of seeking male approval, is the propaganda given to men to make them feel like it’s all about them.

Which is how it becomes all about them. Systemically. But on an individual level? Give me a break. WHY are there still men for whom it is a GREAT REVELATION OMG STOP THE PRESSES that it’s not explicitly and consciously about the men at all times? I know women’s voices are frequently silenced and dismissed in the media, but seriously. That’s just absurd.

So, when there’s occasionally some sort of gap between what the women believe they are doing for themselves to feel better about themselves, and what the men want them to do? It’s because the women are doing what they believe will make them more attractive to themselves. What these beliefs are is indeed quite heavily influenced by how the male gaze is constructed in our current society (otherwise we’d still just be face-painting stars and unicorns onto our faces, all through adulthood), but when you’re giving each gender totally different narratives about why women are doing what they’re doing, sometimes plot holes show up.

indeed. until a few years back (i.e. before I grew a gut to match my butt and thighs), every single pair of pants I bought had to be altered, because they were all forming a gaping hole at the back. That’s when I started to wear hip-huggers, because they needed less drastic alterations. Still, there was no way I could have found a pair of pants that fit my waist/hips that I could have gotten my thighs and butt into.

I wonder how much of that is cheap or lazy tailoring, coming from the trend of endlessly cheaper clothing produced in sweatshops?

There are plenty of tricks to sewing pants (or a skirt) that will fit at the waist and also fit over the hips/thighs, even when someone has a small waist and wider hips. 

Most simply, you use enough fabric in to fit over the hips/thighs, then bring the fabric together at the waist using pleats or gathers.  Using elastic for some or all of the waistband also helps, as it gives some variation in the waist-size, letting you choose pants to fit your hips/thighs with enough flexibility in the waist size to make the pants work for women with different figures.

But sewing pants this way takes longer, and more skill, then just cutting them straight.  You need more fabric for pants with the same size waistline - enough to account for the pleats/gathers and the extra fabric for the hips/thighs.  So the bean-counters at the clothing companies choose styles that can be made cheaply, even if they’ll be harder for the customer to wear.

In general, I’ve noticed that clothing quality keeps getting worse, and details that can really only be attributed to shoddy manufacturing get justified as “stylish.” 

Fabric that is worn or snagged, holes for the drawstring of a hood on a sweatshirt that are raw cut edges rather than finished with buttonholing or reinforcements, buttons that are half-sewn on and have to be re-sewn if you don’t want to loose them the first time you wear the garment, seams that are serged instead of folded and sewn straight, etc. 

And rather than being outraged that poor quality garments are sold, and that the poor quality is part of a larger trend toward cheap manufacture at the expense of both consumer and worker, we see rants about the look ignoring how the look is the result of the double-sided exploitation. 

Complaining about the look, instead of how the look is a symptom of a toxic manufacturing and retailing system, plays into the hands of the people who rely on selling more cheap clothes rather than fewer quality ones.  They make clothing poorly and call it stylish, and then when it wears out quickly due to the poor quality the customer must buy new clothes in the new styles, speeding the fashion cycle and pressuring those who still have older clothes in good condition to abandon them due to style changes.

“I think some guys mean well when they try to reassure women but their efforts often add insult to injury.”

This.

I have a brother who considers himself to be very supportive of women not being hard on themselves and loving their bodies as they are and hates it when even shows like “What Not to Wear” (which I have to give props for at least recognizing that there are different body shapes) try to tell women how to dress.

But he’s not only very vocally judgemental of what certain women wear sometimes, he seems to the think that everyone desires his opinion on everything - including women’s fashion.  If he hates something (such as the flapper style) he won’t forget to remind you if the topic comes up even in passing (such as featured in a commerical).  Even if you most definitely already know.

And comments such as “oh, well, my friend dressed up in a flapper outfit for Halloween one time and it is was really fun and cute.”  He will only repeat his opinion emphatically as if to say “so? I care that there are opinions other than mine, why?”  Or worse, repeat his reasons as if it’s an argument of logic and not opinion.

And women’s fashions (or really anything marketed towards girls or women) are actually one of the things he is most opiniated about and refused to listen to differing views about via hiding behind a false sense of being progrsssive.

Not really very helpful in the end.

It always boggles my mind how, on every discussion about women and the fashion industry EVER, some guy manages to uncover the deep dark hidden cabalistic Sekrit that most women do not, in fact, consciously think to themselves, every single time they put on an article of clothing or brush their hair, “Will this make me attractive to random male strangers?”

You know, I actually came to the relevation a couple of years ago that - as an introvert with large breasts who developed early and likes wearing girlier clothes sometimes - I am exponentially more likely to look in the mirror and think “will this cause me to be noticed in ways that will make me uncomfortable?”  than I am to think anything else.  (except, of course all the body hating thoughts that always run through my head when I look in a mirror)

So, when I do decide wear stuff that might make me attractive to random male strangers, it’s almost always in spite of the fact that it might rather than because it might.  I am so much more fashion conscious now that I feel more capable of dealing with such idiocy (and less likely to be subjected to it) than I ever was as a teen or young twenty-something.

Which has made me especially growly at “well she asked for it (via fashion choices)” type rape apology arguments.  “Um, No.  Really.  To the extent that I thought about you while I was dressing today, it was to ask myself if wearing something that made me feel pretty and happy might also make me a target.  And if I should say “fuck that” and still wear it anyway.  I most definitely did not choose this clothing because it might make me a target.”

Jennygadget: Yes. That too. Unfortunately.

In general, I’ve noticed that clothing quality keeps getting worse, and details that can really only be attributed to shoddy manufacturing get justified as “stylish.”

Fabric that is worn or snagged, holes for the drawstring of a hood on a sweatshirt that are raw cut edges rather than finished with buttonholing or reinforcements, buttons that are half-sewn on and have to be re-sewn if you don’t want to loose them the first time you wear the garment, seams that are serged instead of folded and sewn straight, etc.

And rather than being outraged that poor quality garments are sold, and that the poor quality is part of a larger trend toward cheap manufacture at the expense of both consumer and worker, we see rants about the look ignoring how the look is the result of the double-sided exploitation.

Complaining about the look, instead of how the look is a symptom of a toxic manufacturing and retailing system, plays into the hands of the people who rely on selling more cheap clothes rather than fewer quality ones.  They make clothing poorly and call it stylish, and then when it wears out quickly due to the poor quality the customer must buy new clothes in the new styles, speeding the fashion cycle and pressuring those who still have older clothes in good condition to abandon them due to style changes.

you’re right. going back to everybody having a handful of well-made outfits that fit and weren’t produced by what’s basically slave-labor would be a thousand times better for everyone (except multinational companies, or course) than the current trend of people having dozens, if not hundreds, of shoddily made clothing that will wear out in no time.

You’ve been brainwashed slightly. The woman who looks best in those jeggings is the one on the right, with all her curves.
Just as in the swimsuit models, the one whose bones don’t jut against the fabric looks better.

I was once asked to try out for a runway show.  The designer was “edgy” and wanted equally “edgy” models to complement the look of the pieces in the collection.  He wanted to break ground by having a new look in models.  What was asked for was the same very tall very slender models, but with perhaps a piercing, a visible tattoo, or dyed hair.  Those of us an inch below the required height, or a couple of pounds above the specified weight, were told that the designer would not be allowed to participate in the fashion week if he had models whose measurements were outside those set by the major agencies, regardless of whether or not the clothes fit us. 

I don’t want to comment on whether or not one woman looks better than the other in the gold swimsuits, mostly because it doesn’t matter.  The girl with the large bust is jsut as unattainable to me as the very thin girl is to other people (I understand it isn’t all that large, but still much larger than mine).  Setting forth one uniform ideal of beauty is necessarily going to be destructive to someone.  But damn, I do hate those stupid modeling shows.  Such treacly dispensing of incredible unhealthy and terrible advice all throughout them.

btw, I’ve known naturally underweight women, and I believe there are subtle but visible ‘tells’ that say natural-underweight vs anorexic. I don’t think the model in the swimsuit is naturally that thin, and I don’t think it’s thin-shaming to say I’m scared for her health.
I actually think the naturally thin have a wonderful “elfin” look.

Part of the problem with ready-made clothing is that most of it is not friendly for people trying to do alterations.  Seams are as narrow as machines can make, zippers are snipped, etc.  Where it is well made, it’s sometimes even more of a nightmare to alter, because it’s made to stay, and heaven help the amateur seamstress who wants to fix one seam without opening up three others.  Men’s clothing often shows less of this, because there are still a lot of stores that sell things with the expectation they will need some work (ex. men’s dress trousers are often sold by waist size, in a standard leg that will then be hemmed to the customer’s measurements).

Skill with sewing takes time to learn, but it gives any woman buying clothes a touch more leeway in what she can buy.  Not a lot, but a little.  Hems and some basic shaping can be done by hand in a pinch (sewing machines are great, but not for everyone), but working with fabric is a craft, and it takes an investment in time and energy to learn it.  For some people, it’s worth it, but not everyone.

Also, to those thinking of getting into sewing/altering more of their own clothes: even quilting fabrics can be used (I have some super-comfy summer-weight things made in bright quilting cotton prints), but if you’re unsure, ask someone from the store the two major questions: will the dye run/fade, and will it breathe?  If the dye isn’t up to repeated washings, you’ll have trouble, and if it won’t breathe, the garment will not be naturally comfortable.  Other than that, it’s a matter of finding what you like, and not paying too much attention to conventionality.

Then again, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEiKwxPAJlk is the kind of thing I’d do, if I liked wearing suits that much.  And went to tailors.

“Get men to think I’m hot” is definitely not on my mental checklist when I’m getting dressed. Not to gender-essentialize, or anything, but as a woman “look decent enough that a man somewhere would be willing to fuck you” is a REALLY low bar. :p And even if I did want to attract male attention, dressing up is just as likely to get blank stares from the guys I know as any kind of sexual interest.

Mostly I just want something that doesn’t make me look about 3 feet tall or wildly unprofessional, that’s warmish and has sleeves that can be rolled up, and that can keep my asscrack contained when I’m moving around the lab and bending down to pick stuff up. It’s a surprisingly (depressingly) difficult task (curse you, gap-in-the-back jeans and too-short women’s tops!)

I have to say that as a guy with some objectification issues, I probably shouldn’t chip my two cents in, but here goes anyway:

Someone upthread mentioned Christian Dior’s role in trying to, how might I say it, “re-domesticate” women’s fashions in the late 40s. It reminded me of something the head of Victoria’s Secret (or maybe parent company Limited) said a few years back about trying to pull back from the sexy and become more feminine. I guess I should have been thinking in terms of dog whistles when I tried to parse that, because, uh, how can increased display of female characteristics *not* be feminine? The way the guy phrased it, it almost made it sound like they’d been dressing their models in tank tops and stained jockey shorts before.

But there you go—that’s marketing logic.

It always boggles my mind how, on every discussion about women and the fashion industry EVER, some guy manages to uncover the deep dark hidden cabalistic Sekrit that most women do not, in fact, consciously think to themselves, every single time they put on an article of clothing or brush their hair, “Will this make me attractive to random male strangers?”

It think it might be based on a misunderstanding of human ornamentation popularized by people who misread Desmond Morris’ The Naked Ape.

Morris’ point was yours (mostly): that we ornament ourselves both to disguise primary sexual characteristics (indicating we are not available for a how’s-your-father at any time, thank you very much) and enhance secondary ones (indicating that we are, at least, sexually mature, and available if we decide to be so), as well as enhancing other characteristics according to cultural dictates (indicating status and position)

People seem to forget the first and third reason and focus too much on the second when they talk about the impulses behind women getting dressed, probably because it’s the most titillating of the three.

but prominent men are nearly always seen with conventionally pretty (at least) and slender women.  If I say the phrase “trophy wife” I can guarantee most people will imagine a very skinny woman, with maybe big boobs but not big anywhere else.

Presumably that’s the same class thing that applies to this whole fashion discussion, though, no?  Dating such a woman is a really ostentatious way to let everyone know you’re wealthy/powerful. 

And for what it’s worth (probably very little), I do react the same way a lot of the guys here are getting chewed out for, and I don’t think the point is that women should or shouldn’t want to conform to what I find attractive in women (well, everyone should react to be confronted with a vector space by asking what it’s orthonormal basis is, but I digress ... ), but that I want to disown the narrative of being a man that’s being assigned by some of the women here, and be all “Hey, that’s not me, that’s not what I want, et cetera.”  So the impulse to be all “Hey, now, I like women who’re wide in the bum.” isn’t driven by the hope that someone’ll go “Hey, I’m wide in the bum.  He approves!  My life is validated, and I guess I can step away from the edge of this volcano.  Phew!”, but just that being the obvious counter to “Your insatiable boner for anorexia is hurtful.”  (Although certainly compared to most discussions on fashion/body image/whatnot, that isn’t that strongly present.)

Beyond that, it should be pretty easy for most people to agree that the body image issues/pressure/whatnot given from society to girls/women are a bad thing, and need to be addressed, without the sort of compare to a completely baseless standard of how men are regarded like #49, say.  But that I’ve been conditioned to accept that my body is gross rather than to try to correct it doesn’t necessarily mean the pain of bad body image is any worse.  By all means, let’s have a discussion about women and not men, but if that’s that, then let’s have a discussion about women and not men.

“Don’t buy from designers who pull this shit.” seems like good advice, but not very practical to those of us who already mostly get clothes as gifts, and augment that with some store brand clearance stuff from Zeller’s and the like.  What else would actually be a practical use of time/effort/whatnot, though?

Someone mentions that on every thread ever, Doug.  I don’t have the patience to argue about it, but for god’s sake stop acting like it’s some brilliant new insight.  Also I really, really liked comment #153.  I mean, have men never looked at even the covers of women’s magazines?  Women are not only told to look pretty for themselves, they’re also told that if they don’t feel like shellacking their nails, painting their face, and ironing their hair shiny today, it necessarily means they hate themselves.

btw, I’ve known naturally underweight women, and I believe there are subtle but visible ‘tells’ that say natural-underweight vs anorexic. I don’t think the model in the swimsuit is naturally that thin, and I don’t think it’s thin-shaming to say I’m scared for her health.
I actually think the naturally thin have a wonderful “elfin” look.

What I find scariest of all isn’t her thinness, but the glorification of a completely drugged out, starved, and imprisoned/beat down look as being attractive in any way.

I don’t have time to track down Heidi Klum’s remarks on that degraded sort of look popularized by Kate Moss ... but google for them.  They are completely precious.  Seems that she was once considered to look far too healthy for high fashion!

So, when I do decide wear stuff that might make me attractive to random male strangers, it’s almost always in spite of the fact that it might rather than because it might. 

Not just random male strangers, but sometimes friends and coworkers.  Just like I can’t always help but notice a nicely tailored pair of pants that show off the rear or legs on men I work with and am friends with, they will be respectful but still distracted by my cleavage if I have to lean over the conference table.  I look, they look ... but we keep it professional.

Designers generally don´t bother with anything that´s far from the average, it simply costs too much to accomodate all the body types. Though a bit more specialisation wouldn´t hurt anyone: I´m much taller than average, and I know which brands cut long enough clothes, and always buy there. And which cut for a biggish bust, so I can happily shop without altering anything. If manufacturers specialised more people would probably go back to the brands that suited them. The farther you are from average, the more loyal a customer you´d be.

But being too image conscious (or genetically lucky) may be a problem as well. I have a few extremely fit, middle aged friends (specially men), who have trouble finding adult clothes that fit them, because most of the men who buy suits have at least a bit of a gut. And manufacturers (maybe aside from top end ones), don´t bother with the extreme customers, even if their problem is they look too thin for their age. So they either dress like teenagers or have their clothes altered.

Anyway, what bothers me is that bodies at one extreme (skinny) are defended by the fashion industry, and at the other they are reviled (obese) when I think one is as healthy as the other (That is, there is a chance that someone is that natural shape, or cannot help being that shape, but many times indicates something is wrong with your habits and/or your health).
If I had a friend or relative either as skinny as the model on the right or morbidly obese I would worry as much for her health (Then, if I saw her happy, active, and eating reasonably well I´d probably get over it very soon).

semi_factual: Ten years ago stretch pants were a staple of plus size clothing because the industry was to bored and lazy to tailor things to bigger women.  Now that skinny chicks are wearing them again people are convinced that larger people can’t.

And I hate these things with a burning passion. On curvy women they are “yeah, curves, deal”, on thin women they are “look what I ain’t got”, but on my they are just “have you gained weight recently?” Fortunately, I can wear men’s sizes when it comes to jeans, and those still come in non-spandex.

Mighty Ponygirl: if your whole purpose in life is to make clothing, shouldn’t you do that? Make clothing? That women can actually wear?

I don’t think they are making clothing. I think they are making art. Or, if you go by the measure that kitsch is a mismatch between form and content, they are making kitsch.

If everyone stopped looking, we’d probably all be dead.  The real point is to look, but discretely.  A leer is almost never acceptable, and certainly not in a professional situation.  Or in other words, what Ms. Kate just said has been my experience at times.  And I have never dressed to fashion.  As I almost never buy anything without pockets, the chance I will ever do so are pretty slim.

On the economics of curvy vs flat clothes: gosh, companies tried this for a whole few months, and mostly without a big advertising splash? Yes, it must be entirely that women are lying about wanting clothes that fit them.

Women I’ve known who had conventionally skinny shapes were also women who shopped a lot, because they could drop into HMV or whoever and pick up a few cute new things that would look great on them. So they could go out on dates or clubbing or whatever and be seen looking great. Women who didn’t, shopped less often and found stuff that worked for them that they could wear repeatedly. The idea of just picking something up (unless it was on sale) would make them laugh. Way too likely to be an expensive mistake.

When companies have been telling normal-shaped women “Don’t come into our stores, you spoil the surroundings” for decades on end, it’s going to take at least that kind of timescale (and that kind of money spent on promotion) to change the economics.

And for what it’s worth (probably very little), I do react the same way a lot of the guys here are getting chewed out for, and I don’t think the point is that women should or shouldn’t want to conform to what I find attractive in women (well, everyone should react to be confronted with a vector space by asking what it’s orthonormal basis is, but I digress ... ), but that I want to disown the narrative of being a man that’s being assigned by some of the women here, and be all “Hey, that’s not me, that’s not what I want, et cetera.” So the impulse to be all “Hey, now, I like women who’re wide in the bum.” isn’t driven by the hope that someone’ll go “Hey, I’m wide in the bum.  He approves!  My life is validated, and I guess I can step away from the edge of this volcano.  Phew!”, but just that being the obvious counter to “Your insatiable boner for anorexia is hurtful.” (Although certainly compared to most discussions on fashion/body image/whatnot, that isn’t that strongly present.)

It’s still focusing on what you want.  That’s the problem.

There’s a difference between saying “in real life, men who like women like them in all different sizes and shapes,” and “I personally love a big ass.”  The first is general and inclusive.  The second is personal and specific, and it often precedes “and those skinny bitches are gross,” which is most definitely exclusive.

I once saw one guy’s website that claims that the reason that fashion models look the way they do is because high fashion design is dominated by gay men and stick-thin models look like pretty boys.

Yawn.  This isn’t a new argument, but it is an illogical one.  How many pretty boys have you seen that look like female fashion models?  As a straight female, I can assure that if I met a boy who looked anything like most female models, I would not think he’s “pretty” or be attracted to him in any way.  And this is coming from a woman who prefers “pretty boys” in general.  I can’t speak for all women and certainly not for gay men, but I don’t think that the majority of female models resemble boys that most people would find attractive.

Amen on the jeggings.
I’m bootcut jeans (and NO leggings) all the way.
I have lots of tights and knee/thigh high socks, but those are for wearing under skirts and dresses.
Leggings should be left in the 80s where they belong. Along with non-black or brown mascara.

I miss being able to look at women in a magazine and not being able to see obvious airbrushing or lopping off whole parts of their body.
It’s just depressing.

Leggings should be left in the 80s where they belong. Along with non-black or brown mascara.

Whoa, let’s not get hasty, here.  I love my colored mascara.  And I agree with Paul - I hate shopping because nothing fits right, and therefore I don’t do a lot of shopping and as I make more money, have been gravitating towards getting serious pieces tailored by people on etsy, who rarely need more than some measurements to do a pretty damn good job.  A store could have “curvy” clothes for months and I wouldn’t know, because I wasn’t there in the first place.

This is funny because I know a lot of foreign women who are always telling me “there’s pretty clothes all over America, why are none of you wearing them?” and “You’d be so pretty if you dressed nicer, why don’t you do it?”  And the answer is, those clothes aren’t for me, and shopping makes me tired and cranky.  Women who care can actually pull something out of a mall - my nicest clothes are generally gifts, and they’re all to large because people always remember me as fatter than I actually am.

Leggings should be left in the 80s where they belong.

That attitude is half the problem.

Going back to the original post, Amanda points out the more practical fashions of the 1940s, versus less practical ones of the 1950s.  How many women who would have preferred the more practical style avoided it because they’d be attacked by other women for wearing something that “should have been left in the 40s”?  How many women with a closet full of serviceable clothes feel pressured to buy new, not because of need, but because they’re sick of dealing with people judging them as wearing something that “should” be abandoned for no reason except that it goes against the judge’s taste?

If one person likes to wear leggings, or uggs, or crocs, or whatever else, what business is it of yours?  Why are you telling them, us to abandon clothes that work for us?  That our clothes should be “left in the 80s” when they fit and are in serviceable condition today, and we’d rather replace them as they wear out with clothes of similar style, fit and durability that we know will work for us, rather than an untried trend?

If you don’t like a style of garment, then buy a different style as the old garment wears out and needs replacing.  No big deal. 

But don’t judge people for wearing clothes they have, or for choosing clothes that work for them but don’t make you happy to look at.

“And the main point of all this is that these pants and pant-like items are made for the bodies of women that have absolutely no flesh on their bones.  Everyone else, no matter how svelte in actuality, looks like a sausage stuffed into casing.”

Bull fucking shit.  Just because you don’t like a trend doesn’t mean it’s THAT evil.  I happen to have flesh on my bones and look great in skinny jeans.  I know that’s not the point, it’s not all about me, boo fucking hoo, but this is just like that idiotic post you wrote about uggs, Amanda.  You don’t like them and have no use for them.  Some people do.  Wear a different pair of fucking pants.

Amanda, it is very strange that you start a post comparing practical clothes that went out of fashion to impractical ones that came into fashion, and see that as a logical tie-in to griping about a fashion you don’t like, based on how it looks.

The point of your first comparison, I’d think, would be that clothes are best judged by how they feel on the person wearing them.

The point of the second half of the original post is that you don’t like how the clothes look, without wearing them yourself or talking to anyone who has tried them and chosen to wear them.

killerrobot: I’ve always found it hilarious how supposed businesspeople deliberately try to sell as few clothes as possible by making them so small that only a few people can fit into them. Do they even realise people over size 4 have money? Do they realise how many people WOULD buy their clothes if they could fit into them?

I’ve got a theory: If it’s actually cosmetics which make them money, making a loss on producing clothes that hardly anyone can wear might be covered by the advertising budget. Luxury brands are marketed as “stuff only a few can have”, but when you are actually selling only to a few, you better build items that sell for a million or more. But creating the “only a few” on the clothes part of the brand and then using the luxury association to sell overpriced cosmetics… might make some kind of sense if you tilt your head and squint.

Caren #109: Of all the 80s, I miss New Wave and the giant sweatshirts.

On wearing pants: My mother got into trouble for wearing pants to school in the early 60s in small town Germany. I got told that as an anecdote about the bad old times. I occasionally wore skirts when I was a kid, but after age 8 or 9 it was not worth the fights it got me in (because wearing a skirt was just an invitation to get harrassed and the approved response was beating up the offender), and from age 13 on, if I had to wear skirts I went for floor-length and wore pants under them. (Not leggins. Pants). Because doing otherwise would have felt like being out on the street in my underwear.

FashionableEcon #123: Most plus size clothing does not sell at full price it only sells when discounted and as a retailer that hurts your bottom line.

Any idea why? I could think that bigger women hate shopping and do less of it, or plus size clothing being priced higher from the beginning—where I usually buy my clothes, I pay about 20 per cent more for (if I get the conversion right) size 20 than I’d pay for size 6.

Ursula L.: If one person likes to wear leggings, or uggs, or crocs, or whatever else, what business is it of yours?

Theory time again: Because we see ourselves in others who share our traits. When we see someone similar to us behaving or appearing like a member of a class or culture we do not want to be associated with (of feel we should not attempt to emulate), that person’s choices feel personal, because they reflect on the group we ourselves belong to.

Typical cases, one sees a female co-worker dress unprofessionally and fears that oneself will be perceived as less professional by association. Or sees members of one’s age cohort trying to ape the style of their children and feels that everyone must believe people of one’s age to be silly.

Does not have to be true, even if the theory is correct—it can be completely neurotic, because no stranger will ever think as much about you as you think about yourself.

How many pretty boys have you seen that look like female fashion models?
Real or fictional? Because virtually every “pretty boy” in anime/manga looks like a flat-chested girl…

Does not have to be true, even if the theory is correct—it can be completely neurotic, because no stranger will ever think as much about you as you think about yourself.

I don’t know.  Amanda has given more thought to what the three women in the “jegging” pictures are wearing than I ever would on my own.  She’s given more thought to what they’re wearing than I ever give to my own clothing.

For my own clothing, I as “am I warm enough?” and “is it comfortable?”  If the answer to both is “yes,” I’m satisfied. 

But too often, I then have to add another layer of analysis - how will other people react to this clothing?  The “will it draw trouble from creeps” that women have to deal with is bad enough.  Likewise “will it draw trouble from sexist fools.”  Adding the question “will it draw trouble from feminists who think their fashion sense defines oppression” is a bit much.

I have to say the whole sweater-and-leggings thing doesn’t bother me in the least, but that’s probably because it reminds me of college in the 1990s, when it was pretty much the ultimate comfort outfit for women shy of going to class in pajamas. (Which frankly wasn’t that unusual either.) As best as I can determine as a guy who never dressed that way, it appears to be both attractive and practical, so more power to anyone who wants to dress that way. Or something.

Ursula @179:

I’d say fashion is one of those things reasonable people can disagree on—I pretty much live in sweats, so I have to take your side by default—but I think it’s pretty clear that there are certain items clothing that are as close to objectively ugly as such a concept is possible. Personally, I believe no one should wear Crocs who isn’t either unable to wear regular shoes (due to a foot injury, perhaps) or has to hose their shoes out on a regular basis (i.e. medical personnel, particularly in hospitals). But Uggs on the other hand—clunky, ridiculous-looking, and apparently very practical because I don’t see them going out of fashion any time soon. If it works, you may as well give the look a pass. Doc Martens have long been popular for pretty much the same reason.

But that doesn’t mean Amanda doesn’t have a right to her opinion as well. Fashion is, after all, an art like any other, and its virtues are almost always inherently subjective.

But that doesn’t mean Amanda doesn’t have a right to her opinion as well. Fashion is, after all, an art like any other, and its virtues are almost always inherently subjective.
Comment #185: BrianX on 01/16 at 12:21 AM

But she didn’t present it as “this is not beautiful to me,” but instead, “this makes most women look ugly, therefore it’s part of a misogynist conspiracy.”  It identifies one half of the problem (clothing styles that make your legs look big) but not the other half (big legs are defined as ugly).  The syllogism is only true if you accept both.

You can dress to draw attention away from a feature, or hide it, but that isn’t the same as accepting it.  You’re still acceding to the judgment that big legs (or a flat chest or a round belly or muscular arms) are intrinsically bad somehow.  Dressing to compensate for your faults isn’t overcoming that oppression—it’s compromising with it.

If we simply said, so what, you can see she has big legs, what’s wrong with that, then the patriarchy wouldn’t have the shaming power it does over our bodies.

On pants: we had to wear dresses in Northern Minnesota. My principal was a nice guy so he let us wear pants under the dresses—-but we had to take them off for class. I must have been about seven, but by third grade it was all flares and all that stuff.

  I did learn how to sew and I’m trying to rediscover that, courtesy of Grandma’s treadle, no electricity sewing machine. It’s not fancy but there’s something satsifying about it.

  I hate the fashion indusrtry. I hate that it’s so elitest and it can’t go down the tubes soon enough. I’ve been so much happier since I stopped reading fashion magazines. Gives me more time for reading stuf like National Geographic, Traveler, Mother Earth News, Smithsonian and so forth.

And I like leggings. Pair them with the right boots and you’ve got a graceful kicky look. I love scrunchy boots with the buckles on the side and I ain’t givin’ ‘em up.

Learning to sew is a good skill for anybody, really. I’m always astonished by friends who can’t do it, barring illness. AT the least you can sew on buttons, fix hems, patch stuf, and so forth. It doesn’t take long and it makes me, at least, feel quite competent.

TheCynicalRomantic @ 153, I actually don’t care how I look, so long as I’m not wearing say, a swastika or a T-shirt saying “Go BNP” I’m really not concerned with my appearance, I like wearing bright patterned socks (neon, little pictures of sheep, glittery, that sort of thing), but that’s not because I think they make me look good but because I like looking at the patterns on them.  And I hate jewellery, it’s so utterly impractical, however fun plaiting friendship bracelets may be.  I brush my hair just because it doesn’t feel comfortable when it’s tangled, there isn’t really another reason.

As for showering, that’s about hygiene, not appearance, and generally when it’s gotten to the point where I smell unpleasant to others I smell unpleasant to myself as well and thus feel compelled to wash, I try to shower at least 2 out of every three days (honestly if I don’t smell and particularly if I’m having a lazy day I sometimes can’t be bothered) and I brush my teeth everyday mostly for hygiene and to a lesser extent so I can substantially increase my chances of making out with someone and just generally not subject others to smelly breath, pretty much the only thing I do for the benefit of others in any real way, grooming wise.

Can there please be some acknowledgement that some of us don’t care how we look?  I want an end to beauty standards because they are shallow and lead to (among other things) labiaplasty, anorexia and heaps of insecurity for all, not because the ones we have don’t mesh with my personal set of aesthetics.

A little late to the game and only sort of on topic:

The Boston Phoenix owns a lifestyle magazine called Stuff (not to be confused with the former Maxim companion mag) that specializes in things relating to night life, and every year they’ve had a Bodies By Boston issue, which has been since its inception a rundown of local hardbodies and how they got that way. They did something a little different this year, and it was awesome:

http://stuffboston.com/stuffboston/archive/2010/01/11/bodies-by-boston-2010.aspx

Ursula L.: I don’t know.  Amanda has given more thought to what the three women in the “jegging” pictures are wearing than I ever would on my own.

Goodness, I try to tell myself here that it *is* neurotic and, really, no one apart from hobbyists cares.

RadFemHedonist: Can there please be some acknowledgement that some of us don’t care how we look?

Yes, and I’m seriously thankful to those who have gone before and have made it possible to go to class in ripped jeans, an army coat and a gugel, walk through town in a kilt or sarong (regardless of gender), and come to office in bicyle shorts, a heavy metal T-shirt and hiking sandals. There seems to be some roll back, though (some people are starting to talk about *school uniforms*, FFS), or is is just me getting older?

Wanted to give a round of applause to #153.

@RadFemHedonist—I’m sorry for the omission (character count limit cut me off)—I certainly didn’t mean to say that *all* women care about how they look. I just wanted to take on the misconceptions about why the women who do care, care.

Probably a dead thread, but…

they will be respectful but still distracted by my cleavage if I have to lean over the conference table.  I look, they look ... but we keep it professional.

But, honestly, is wearing something like that even professional in the first place?  Even in casual wear I make damn sure that my colleagues can’t see down my shirt: I don’t provide a visual entree to my hairy chest not because my colleagues might find it too oh-so-1963-Connery-attractive or or utterly scary revolting or irritatingly distracting, but simply because it ain’t professional.  I never wear anything that goes more than a half inch or so below my suprasternal notch when I’m in any kind of business environment. 

“Don’t look” is professional.  So is “don’t show”.

I don’t provide a visual entree to my hairy chest not because my colleagues might find it too oh-so-1963-Connery-attractive or or utterly scary revolting or irritatingly distracting, but simply because it ain’t professional.  I never wear anything that goes more than a half inch or so below my suprasternal notch when I’m in any kind of business environment. 

“Don’t look” is professional.  So is “don’t show”.
Comment #193: seeker6079 on 01/17 at 10:12 PM

The range of acceptable female clothing that is both modest and not-dowdy is limited.  That range diminishes appreciably the more boobage one has.  Sure, I could wear only turtlenecks, but I still have those boobies poking out, being unprofessional. 

All that flesh!  All that womanly jiggling!  It’s so undignified, so unprofessional.  Not like men with their big round bellies and neck wattles.

And what about men’s typically thin suit pants with an obvious bump on one side where they keep their PENIS AND TESTICLES?  Shouldn’t they be required to wear some kind of really tight underwear so we can’t actually see the bump?  I don’t care if it’s uncomfortable, you can swing your choad around in your own free time.

“Don’t look” is professional.  So is “don’t show”.

I am 5’1” and wear a size F bra.

Please do mansplain to me, the person who actually lives in this body and has to spend the last decade of her life trying to find clothes for this body that make me neither skanky nor stupid nor lazy, how it is that I am supposed to look professional and hygenic and approachable while also not showing my boobies.  Because apparently I’m stupid and finding such clothes, rather than being one of the things any woman my size would struggle with constantly, is easy as pie.

Yeah, seeker6079, why don’t women with cleavage just wear button-down shirts, like you do? Who could possibly object to seeing my tits through the stretched-out gaps in between all the buttons, as long as the top of my sternum’s covered?

Think about this really hard: your businesslike button-down shirt doesn’t show any of your chest as long as you button it all the way up. That’s because you DON’T HAVE BIG TITS. Chest hair doesn’t stretch out your shirt. Chest hair doesn’t make buttons (on, yes, shirts that fit) come unbuttoned. You fucking cretin.

how it is that I am supposed to look professional and hygenic and approachable while also not showing my boobies.

Oh, that’s easy! Buy a new wardrobe of shirts three sizes too big for you to fit your breasts, and then pay anywhere from $15 to $60 PER SHIRT to have them taken up at the waist and taken up at the wrists and taken in at the waist. Oh yeah, and the shoulders will still be halfway down to your elbows, so you’ll want to pay to have that fixed as well, as you wouldn’t want to appear unprofessional.

It’s just the woman tax, right? Dudes don’t complain about it, so why should we?