Letters to the Editor
deering
Published Letters: 1193 Editor's Choice: 20
-
Some thoughts...
[Read the article: On the runway, still needing a sandwich]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]>The skinny-the reason that designers like the skinny models is because they no longer have the tailoring skills to accomodate women with breasts and hips (damn curves) or in the case of men, big shoulders. In other words, the vast majority are talentless hacks.<
As well, the "woman as hanger" fashion standard got set back in the '60's when every other designer decided that the feminine standard should be Twiggy. It's one thing when you have one or two designers promoting that look--but when you have just about all of them... That standard combined with fashion's growing attitude of the day that thin=rich/classy created the perfect storm of fashion-that-excludes we've got today.
>How hard can it possibly be to design something that looks good on a hanger? Design something that looks good with my hips and my stumpy legs. THEN you can call yourself an artist.<
Agreed--g! It's one of media's unfunny ironies that the Golden Age movie stars that are still hailed as gorgeous today were of different body types and looks. Studio designers such as Edith Head made those women look good by tailoring to their bodies and accentuating/minimizing their features, not by insisting those women conform to a certain body type.
>and it's time someone told them that. Until then, they're just a bunch of overpaid hacks.<
Fashion's insistence that only one kind of woman can look good is sheer laziness--as well as hateful class bias. And change is going to have to come from mass buyers themselves--the industry leaders who promote this crap (like Anna Wintour) think they know better than women themselves what women should wear. You would think by now that the losses women's retail fashion has taken over the past few years would have clued someone in--but when you've got that much snobbery and ego on the line...:P
-
I call bullshit...
[Read the article: On the runway, still needing a sandwich]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]>Maybe the issue is not misogynistic male designers. Maybe the issue is that too many women are jealous of sexy women.<
If those women were sexy, why aren't men's magazines featuring them heavily?
>I suspect the issue of clothing design is not incompetent designers. I think it is that women of the same size have different shapes. More tailored clothes that show off curves have to fit right. Nothing looks more dismal than shaped outfit that doesn't really fit the shape of the wearer.<
How do you explain that fashions of the '40s and '50s were tailored to the max--but still fit all sizes of women? As well, designers like Chanel, Claire McCardell, and Liz Claiborne made their fortunes on tailoredclothes that almost every woman could wear. That "mass market doesn't do tailoring" is a copout the fashion industry falls back on so they can continue to pitch to the wealthy--and not have to kill itself being creative or talented.
The ironic thing is that high fashion is a consistent money-loser--it's the mass market that keeps many designers afloat. It's the rare high-fashion house that manages to make a profit (or stay in business) just appealing to the wealthy--how many big designers popular in the '80s for example are still in business today? The reason someone like Issac Mizrahi started selling clothes through Target is partly because he wasn't making a profit doing high fashion (in addition, he has stated it doesn't make sense for fashion to target only one segment of women.)
-
And for a really good novel about fashion industry workings...
[Read the article: On the runway, still needing a sandwich]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...try Olivia Goldsmith's FASHIONABLY LATE, which explains all this in concise, accurate detail.
-
Do the evo-misogynists 'round here _really_ want to fall back on the "well, men are still just animals, so we gotta have sex when we want it" excuse?
[Read the article: Warning men about "gray rape"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...because if so, that's more insulting than anything any feminist could say to them. Are you guys really saying that it's cool that some of you let your "animal instincts" overwhelm your brains/moral sense? If that's true, why do you use your brains at all--why not just go live in the wild? Sheesh...:P
-
Yeah, guys--which is it?
[Read the article: Warning men about "gray rape"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]>Can men control themselves sexually? Or can't they? Because the arguments of men themselves seem to switch between "We're not animals! We have reason and self-control!" to "We're animals! We can't help it!"
Pick one, and stick to it.<
If youse guys' arguements are based on fact and all, answer Anon.'s perfectly logical question. I'll bet good money you can't.
-
God, I love SUPERNANNY . It's not only one of the best forms of birth control ever invented...
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...it's a hilarious smackback to all the "married-with-kids-automatically-makes-you-a-mature-unselfish-wise-superior-human-being" bullshit. I have yet to see a parent on there who hasn't mouthed some "breeder bingo" excuse for having kids, even though it's plain they can't handle children or didn't think enough about having them in the first place. And it never ceases to amaze how many of them can be so high-achieving/well-off and be brain dead when it comes to the simplest details of raising kids.
-
Yes, because every single parent out there automatically knows what they are doing from the moment of conception...
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sheesh.
-
I'm sorry--does SALON know that it has single, childfree readers...
[Read the article: Welcome to the nuthouse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...who might just occasionally want to read about lives like theirs too, pretty please? Because one _sure_ wouldn't think so. Would it be too much trouble for you to assign/accept lifestyle articles written about something else besides babies, kids, or raising teenagers? You are making the same mistake the NEW YORK TIMES does in assuming all your readers are from the same demo group--and want to read only about themselves. That's not doing you or them any favors.
-
And one can only say "Ugh" to this...
[Read the article: Welcome to the nuthouse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here] -
Yikes, let's try that again...
[Read the article: Welcome to the nuthouse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]>Where is the woman who was so tickled when the plus sign appeared on the pregnancy test that she immediately wrapped it in blue tissue paper with a red bow and express-mailed it to her parents?<
Ugh. Sounds like the author bought full-tilt-boogie into the parenting-is-all-Kodak-moments/best-thing-you'll-ever-do myth. This lack of perspective is partly why she's having problems now. I second the posters who suggest that author join a moms' group so she can see she's not alone. (Some post-partum counseling would help, too.) As well, she needs to get a sitter, take a night off every now and then, and remind herself that her entire identity and life shouldn't be wrapped up in being a mother.