Two big stereotypes of Generation X (of which I am a proud member) are: we can’t create anything original and we’re all slackers. I don’t know how much I agree with that — most people I know (not a random sample) are all quite ambitious.*
I think our own belief in those two stereotypes, however, have caused us to be curmudgeonly before our time. Here are two articles that I read today that fall into the wasn’t-it-great-when trap that were written by people in Generation X:
Being A Bitch Is Every Smart Woman’s Birthright
But in a society in which most people don’t take the time to pay attention to others to find out anything important (let alone their psychic weak spots), when we’re constantly playing oneups(wo)manship for who can win the most votes in a neverending popularity contest in which being a bitch will only take you so far, of course being The Bitch has fallen out of favor. Being a bitch requires time and effort and a certain utter lack of caring what people think about you or how to be the cool kid that simply isn’t done anymore.
Why Do Americans Insist on Buying Cheap Crap Instead of High Quality Merchandise?
Americans in their 20s and 30s are now at least one generation removed from the era of homemade clothing and hand-crafted wood furniture, Underhill says. “In the 1950s, 90% of homes had sewing machines, which means women knew something about how clothes were put together. They could look at something in the store and tell if was of good construction or crappy construction,” he says. “In my office, I don’t know anyone who has bought a custom suit. They don’t know the difference between off-the-rack and custom.”
* I also don’t know about the not-creating-anything original — I think we’ve got great insight into how things work together and a start on understanding complex systems in a way that previous generations don’t. I think we exploit that, too.
Today, the Sartorialist posted one of the more beautiful pictures I’ve seen lately. (You’ll have to scroll down the page, I’m not sure what’s up with the formatting over there, but it really is worth it.)
Buying shoes for my daughter is Hard. She wants to be all girly, but if she can’t run around and play in the sandbox and climb on things, she’s miserable. So it’s good that Stride Rite makes Toddler Tech (tagline: advanced thinking for busy little feet), but the first time I saw it, I thought it was a special marketing thing for the Valley because everyone around here loves over-engineered everything. Who puts that much thought into shoes for little kids who are going to outgrow them in four months? The thing is, they’ve nailed it: they look good and they stand up to made-up four-year-old games like bopscotch (like hopscotch, but more free-form, and with occasional dancing).
The point of this post: I’m torn between believing that these are really good shoes and being appalled at marketing the technology that goes into a shoe for a little girl. I don’t care about the technology.
I like my curly hair. The rest of the world is screwed up about this whole straight-hair-is-better thing. But Jezebel sums it up pretty well:
Some curly girls (this writer included) occasionally get a blow-out to change things up. The compliments are overwhelmingly positive (“You look amazing!”), but force the curly girl to imagine the unspoken subtext (“You usually look like a sea hag!”) The Times uses words like “unruly,” “thorn bush” and “tumbleweed” to describe pre-Brazilian-ed hair. They don’t come out and say “ugly,” but isn’t it kind of obvious?
Truthfully, I get enough compliments on my hair to not be self-conscious about its curliness. (When it hasn’t been cut for awhile and is extra-frizzy? That’s different.)
My wardrobe has skewed towards mom-clothes: jeans and t-shirts, things I know will fit without much fuss. But I’ve gone back to work, and now I’ve got problems. Things need to look nice (no stains, please and no one’s going to understand wrinkles in a button-down), but this is the internet industry so not too dressy. I can’t just go shopping because there are so many things that are only for people who are younger than me, and the new skinny-pant trend is killer because ever since giving birth, I’m pear-shaped. I can’t wear skinny pants without drawing undue attention to my hips. Not to mention that this is California, and people care a lot more about this kind of thing here than they do in the Midwest or Seattle, or even Atlanta.*
My point: I end up wearing a lot of clothes that I like, but I’m not sure fit the social norms, and there are a lot of women here who dress a hell of a lot better than me, so I feel frumpy a lot.
What this is all leading up to: this NYTimes article about age-appropriate clothes spoke to me. “…many American women can’t find the clothes they want, and have the means to buy.”
In the last three weeks, there’s one Banana Republic dress (that they don’t make anymore) that I’ve practically lived in, and I’ve sworn multiple times that I’m going to start making my own clothes. I might start someday, when I have the time.
Either that or if clothing companies wake up and realize that there’s a seriously underserved market here, I can just start buying again.
* In Atlanta, they care, but if you have a classic look, you’re fine. Not so much here.
- From last week’s Economist, “Put down that Xbox, young man.” Environmental groups are worried that as kids spend less time outside, they’ll care less about nature.
- Apparently, Bay Area schools have something called “Ski Week” in addition to spring break. Schools are closed all next week so families can go skiing. In a month or two, there’ll be the normal week off, too.
- Cute: Order of the Science Scouts of Exemplary Repute and Above Average Physique merit badges. Includes the “Has ‘frozen stuff just to see what happens’ badge (level II). In which the recipient has frozen something in dry ice for the sake of scientific curiosity.”
- News Break! The books people actually read aren’t the ones with magical realism or talking dogs. People read books about “life, and it is exactly as we know it.” The two SLIS classes I took at UW hammered that point home: the books people want in libraries aren’t elite in any way shape or form. Most people read for entertainment. I can tell you from personal observation that the new Pynchon
has been lingering, unchecked out on my library’s New Books display.
- The Manolo quotes Cary Grant on shoes.
Sorry things have been so quiet over here; it’s been a busy week. In lieu of a more substantial post, I’m confessing something. Every time I see Stephen Colbert on TV, even if it’s just the toss-over at the end of The Daily Show, I check to see if he’s wearing French cuffs. He doesn’t do it all the time, but on big nights: the first week of shows, the election special last November, and last night’s show with Bill O’Reilly. I like seeing it, and it’s not often you do. I hope he keeps it up.
This article makes a really good point: men can’t wear shorts to work when it’s really hot out. My husband did it once, on a Friday, during our insane heat wave a couple of weeks ago, but he was really uncomfortable doing it. On the other hand, he was also walking home from the train station, so he made the appropriate choice between heat exhaustion and social acceptability.
I haven’t had much time or inclination to pay attention to fashion lately. Except, of course, for the daily Go Fug Yourself visit. (I’ve let my Vogue subscription lapse because looking through it got to be such a chore because everything in it was so far removed from reality.)
The GFY girls covered the Met Costume Gala, and did such a wonderful job that I went and tracked down pictures on Style.com. And then I saw this lovely picture of Drew Barrymore that you see to the left. I couldn’t help but share, because she looks wonderful and well put together, and so often when she’s all dressed up, that’s just not the case.
I still kind of can’t believe that’s her. But, four stars.
This was a fun, rather fast read about the business of fashion. Overall, I liked the book. I learned more detail about labor conditions, the lives of mink farmers and how fashion relates to Hollywood. And why I’m getting sick of seeing celebrities on Vogue covers and in Vogue instead of the clothes. I get Vogue for the clothes, not the celebrities. If you’re wondering, Vogue puts the celebrities in so they’ll wear the fashions; in exchange the celebrities get publicity for their latest project. I will admit to enjoying it when they feature non-movie stars — the feature on Joan Didion last year was wonderful. But again, I’m expecting to find clothes, thier designs featured, and not gossip.
My main problem witht he book was that it relied on anecdotes rather than data. Proof by example isn’t valid. I understand that anecdotes tell a better story than strings of numbers. However, it was useful to know that a sewing machine operator in El Salvador earns $0.59 per hour and that the living wage in El Salvador is $1.18 per hour. That tells me that labor conditions still suck. Just knowing fifty-nine cents number leaves me in a vaccuum. And really, just that data about El Salvador is also a problem. Since that is the only country she gives both pieces of data for, how do I know that it’s not the only country where workers aren’t getting paid enough?
I’m really making this sound worse than it is. I was frustrated by the labor chapter because I was interested in learning more about how the various clothing companies treat their workers and how bad the situation is; more data would have helped. As it was, I did learn a number of very interesting things.
Fashion Victim: Recommended
Originally published on degelau.com.
I was just looking at some Oscar photos on NYTimes.com (pop-up window, so I can’t link to it…) and Maggie Gyllenhaal’s gown has pockets. How freakin’ convenient. It’s not like pockets are going to ruin the lines of a gown with a skirt that big.
theCultFigurine has a post about human trafficking, and she suggests:
…we should be raising awareness about our role in the demand side of the economic machine that encourages these monstrous abuses….We must do the hard work of examining consumerism and our demands for ever-cheaper goods, which may have been made by children who’ve been kidnapped and taken to countries where they don’t speak the language.
And I agree. (Duh.)
Fashion Victim talks a bit about sweatshops and mass-producing clothes. It’s not that sweatshops automatically use slave labor, but they certainly create the conditions for it to flourish. The problem, from what I remember, is that the way modern clothing companies are set up — they’re largely just marketing firms that contract out the making of the actual clothes. Some of those functions are then further sub-contracted out, and it turns out that most companies can’t actually figure out where or under what condictions their clothes were made.
(It’s worth noting that Gap, and therefore Old Navy and Banana Republic, has a social responsibility program to help combat that.)
Between what I learned in Fashion Victim and The End of Fashion, it seems to me that the fewer players in designing, sewing, and selling clothes, the less likely it is that sweatshops will be used. Of course, that also (usually) means that they’ll be more expensive, which means buying fewer pieces of clothing.
And I’m ok with that.
I needed to see Prada’s Fall 2005 collection after reading this paragraph about it in the New York Times:
The astonishing thing about Miuccia Prada’s fall collection is just how much it has in common with the rhythm of modern language, whether the verse of Ezra Pound or the chilling clarity of Elfriede Jelinek, the winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2004, whose novel “Women as Lovers” presents marriage as the end of youth and the beginning for women of a death throe that will last through years of looking after men.
It’s tailored and neat, like many of the spring collections, but I wouldn’t describe any of the clothes as pretty or particularly feminine. It won’t do well in Atlanta. On the other hand, I love it.
And yes, I’m having a bad day. How on earth could you tell?
