You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Fashion’ tag.
As I’ve written previously, The Fashion and I don’t get along. The last time I focused on how The Fashion aims primarily to destroy your self-image in order to then save it in exchange for your money. Today let’s look at one of the many ways The Fashion is willing to sacrifice your health to line it’s pockets. The insidious high heeled shoe.
I’ve never liked high heels. On anyone. That is not to say that my objection to high heels, nor this post, is born out of some subjective style preference of mine. You could dress in a fuchsia burlap sack with eye holes for all I care and I’d never write about it. No, the problem with heels is far beyond mere opinion or particular taste. They are inherently evil and should be discarded by all. The elimination of the high heel will bring about a happier healthier world.
Lets talk practicality. No, it’s more basic than that. Let’s talk purpose and meaning. Why do we have shoes at all? Walking barefoot out in the world comes with many hazards. There are sharp pokey bits everywhere. There are unpleasantly cold and wet environments. There is dirt and filth and all manor of disgusting grossness that will instantly defile any bare skin it comes in contact with. Footwear’s primary purpose is to protect our feet from a world of dangers. Further, a good pair of shoes allow us to accomplish more foot based activity than we could do otherwise. They support ankles and arches, pad the foot, and ease the stress of each step. Proper footwear allows us to run faster, to walk farther, to fully realize the potential offered to us by bipedalism. Thus, the quality of a shoe can be determined by how well it protects our foot and how much it empowers our foot-based locomotion. On both these criteria, the high heel fails in spectacular fashion.
Do you know why it is so easy to spot someone who isn’t used to the heels they are wearing? Because heels get a negative score on the ‘making-walking-easier’ metric. They make walking harder, the complete opposite of what shoes are supposed to do. Wherever there is a dance floor, there are people ditching their oh so “fashionable” heels. They risk finding a shard of broken glass with their foot or having their toes accidentally stomped on. Why? Because the possibility of a mangled and injured foot is a small price compared to the certain pain of trying to dance in heels. And there is simply nothing to be done if you suddenly need to run. No matter how you try to use them, high heels are anti-shoes.
And protection? Sure, heels will still allow you to walk across sharp objects without slicing your foot, but they subject the wearer to so many other health risks, you may as well use a rusty chainsaw as a back scratcher. Yeah, the itch is gone, but at what cost?
I’ll admit it up front, I tend to dress like an unfashionable frump of at least 20 years beyond my chronological age. But I actually really love clothes! Which is how I got hooked on Zulily. More pretty clothes to look at every day? Steeply discounted? Sign me right up!
While I do find things there that I love and neeeeeed, it appears I simply lack the constitution for the world of cutting-edge fashion. There is probably a feminist statement to be made somewhere, about how runway fashion for men is weird too but the real monstrosities don’t turn up in mid-priced ready-to-wear, because men’s inherent dignity. Or something.
Or you could just laugh. Each of these gems was available – in my size – from Zulily, today!
more horror after the break Read the rest of this entry »
“The Problem with Birkenstocks” by Annie Kreighbaum illustrates so perfectly the fantastical through-the-looking-glass distortions of reality that we collectively we know as “Fashion“. Unpacking this article was kind of fun in the “Wow..really??” sort of way. What wasn’t so fun is that amount of shaming that is going on and the expectations of self-policing and in general the absolute necessity of being hyper-aware of you looks and how others perceive you.
“Birkenstocks are the Chipotle of footwear. Like opting for a burrito bowl and a side order of guac at the end of a long workday, you wear them when you’re in no mood to try. And you don’t feel too bad about it either, because they reek of integrity and liberalism and therefore don’t invite the same harsh criticism as things like foam flip-flops or Arby’s. But still, too much Chipotle is never a good thing.”
Just so we are clear where the biases are, as a person who wears Birkenstocks all the time, the idea that they are somehow the Chipotle of footwear just leaves me scratching my head. That somehow they are a last resort when you are “in no mood to try” – well that grinds against my feminist fancy in an entirely different way and is definitely the topic of another post.
“Your foot might splay a little bit,” said NYC podiatrist Dr. Hillary Brenner in response to a rumor my coworker’s friend, this girl Alison, heard from her shoe sales guy at Jeffrey that all the Birkenstocks and locker room slides women are wearing nowadays are making their feet bigger—thus forcing them to size up on their Fall ’14 footwear purchases. 38? Guess again, now you’re probably a 38.5.”
[Alarm Klaxon] Whoop whoop whoop! Ladies it is with considerable regret that I have to inform you that your feet are getting….*whispers* bigger. You thought Cinderella was just a story! Oh no no no, Double XXers – you have to live by this shit because the grotesquery of moving from a 38 to 38.5 must be considered a horror that should not be named.
Unless of course you’re a bland, humourless, feminist killjoy like myself who lives for blaming on this sort normative buncombe.
“Splay” is a great word, and by that Dr. Brenner simply means that the muscles and bones inside of your feet are getting a nice little stretch and they don’t want that feeling to end. So it’s not like they’re gaining weight—they’re just not as toned.”
Gaining Weight!?! Gaining Weight?!? Good Lard! Anything but that… Is there no hope? Also, how do feet that are squished inside shoes that don’t fit = toned?
“Your foot gets comfortable in these types of shoes and only certain muscles are working. Then when you go into a high heel that’s more narrow and stiff, your foot can’t splay as much. Different pressure points are being loaded, and you’re having to use muscles you haven’t used in a while.”
Wait, what? It sounds like you’re making an argument that it’s just ‘different muscles’ being used when you go from ergonomic brikenstocks to the damaging instruments of torture known as high heels. You’re not actually making that argument against healthy feet and promoting the damage high heels are responsible for?
“But there are abs somewhere under the mushy softness of your lazy Birkenstock feet, and they can be un-splayed and ready for the heel-loving city life.”
Holy hell, you are toe-tally going there. Because having footwear that fits is completely the equivalent of “mushy softness”. Did you feel the lip curl of disgust there? The comparison between flabby abs and now your damn flabby feet? Can we get a little more hate and shame on for female bodies?
What, exactly the fuck, is heel-loving city life? Who loves manoeuvring around in the frigidly winter-dark icy streets in high heels? I want Dr.Brenner to try the icy-fun-dance in high heels – the pain of his twisted ligaments would bring me a great deal pleasure (keeping with the theme of the post, would that be shodden-freude ?).
‘Dr. Brenner suggests training your feet back into a pair of your old heels rather than buying new ones, “You still have the same foot as you’ve always had, it’s not growing wider, it’s just getting put into a different device.”
“Oh,” says the doctor who, in theory. has sworn to do no harm – you ladies just need to acclimatize to having your toes squished and your tendons abnormally stretched. It is like taking a round with the thumbscrews before heading to the rack…you just need to warm up!
“You’ll feel it at first, in the same way that your body will feel sore after the first time of doing a workout tape. But after a while your body gets used to that workout and new muscles are being stimulated. Eventually you won’t feel as sore. It’s a good idea to wear a variety of shoes overall, so that your entire foot is being worked on a regular basis.”
All you need is time to get used to wearing damaging footwear. Awesome.
“So, and correct me if I’m wrong, the takeaway here is that you can eat as many burritos as you like, just do it while wearing heels?”
No. The take away is that you’re advocating against women wearing shoes that properly fit and you’re attempting to shame them into wearing shoes that can potentially damage their bodies.
Did you catch the “subtle” sexist trope?
All Hail the Double Face Palm of Fashion!
Oh the consternation! Oh the anguish! What are people to do when presented with such a horrible choicewhen their very societal presence and standing threatened by a humble German sandal.
Dear Fashion World and associated flaky devotees – you amuse the fuck out of me. Someone ‘famous’ does something different and then whether it is a good thing or not, you ravenous lemmings go whole-hog-wild and make it a trend.
Case in point – Australian bedroom slippers:
“Generally worn for warmth and comfort, Australian ugg boots had never been considered fashionable in their country of origin.[27] But the Deckers UGG brand emerged as a fashion trend in the US through Deckers’ actions to promote it as a high fashion brand. Deckers solicited endorsements from celebrities such as Kate Hudson, Sarah Jessica Parker,[29][35] Cameron Diaz, Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lopez,[36] and product placements in television series such as Sex and the City, and films such as Raising Helen.[27][37] This marketing campaign “led to an exponential growth in the brand’s popularity and recognizability.”[38] Oprah Winfrey received a free pair when her endorsement was sought by Deckers; she then bought 350 pairs for her entire production staff, and eventually featured UGG brand boots as one of her “Favorite Things” on her TV talk show in 2000.[39] Other actresses who discovered UGG brand boots through surf shops began wearing them.[32] The company reported US$689 million in UGG sales in 2008,[40] almost a 50-fold increase from 1995;[41] By 2012, worldwide sales of Deckers UGG boots were over US$630 million a year, with 95% of world market share. By way of contrast, ugg boots in Australia were worn predominantly as slippers and associated with “daggy fashion sense, bogan behaviour” and the “outer suburbs” when worn in public.[42][43][44][45][2] According to Australian fashion stylist Justin Craig: “The only people who get away with wearing them are models, who give out the message: ‘I’m so beautiful, I can look good in any crap.‘“[29]
Yeah and now these slippers are nearly ubiquitous – why? – because the people on TV said they were cool. *facepalm*
Now, you people doing the same thing with Birkenstocks. Someone who, arbitrarily appointed as famous, wears a pair of birkenstocks, and an article of footwear once considered “untouchable” is now hotter and more of a “must-have” than the preserved tears of baby-jebus. It is a load of foolish bandwagoneering that illustrates how ingrained the herd mentality is and how pliable the term ‘fashionable’ is.
“Why Arb,?” my gentle readers must be asking. “Where is this all this bitter animus coming from?” Well dear readers it comes from my adoption of Birkenstocks as footwear of choice based on the utilitarian needs these shoes satisfy for me. From my shiny patent leather dress shoes, to my winter/teaching clogs, to my summer sandals, Birkenstocks have meant I can work and play in comfort and not have to worry about unergonomic footwear slowing me down or ruining my posture. Birkenstocks are well made, high quality, highly – utilitarian products – that when associated with the frivolity of the fashion world, irks me to no end.
Oh, and I have not forgotten about Tom’s either with their insipid ‘feel-good’ marketing bullcookery.
I learned very early on that following The Fashion just wasn’t worth the hassle and that it just didn’t deliver what it promised. When I was three years old, I thought it would be super cool to have spiky hair. And for the first little while, it was cool. But every day, I had sit still for 5 whole minutes (a very long time for a young boy) while my mom applied the required gel to my hair to get it to stay in place. Those 5 minutes seemed to get longer and longer, until they stretched out into eternity. And was I rewarded with a new, more exciting life? Were my latent super powers suddenly unleashed due to my fantastically awesome hair? No. All I got for my unfathomable patience was a few seconds of a visual in the mirror only to go the rest of my day without looking at myself, not really caring what was on top of my head.
I very quickly dropped the ‘cool’ hair style and adopted the one I still wear today. I call it ‘short’. It looks the same every single morning, no matter how I sleep. It looks the same throughout the day, no matter how much wind there is. If you wake up a mere 5 minutes earlier each day to fix your hair, each year I get to sleep in a full 30 hours more than you. No muss, fuss, money-gobbling-products, worry, or stress. It is low maintenance and efficiency at its peak.
I apply this early lesson any time I encounter The Fashion. What would I gain? What would it cost? What are the odds this will deliver anything close to what The Fashion is promising? As anyone with a hint of practicality might imagine, The Fashion does not win out on very many of these cost/benefit analyses.
Of course, applying critical thought to The Fashion is quite unfashionable. Dressing according to utility will rarely earn you compliments and even sometimes elicit scorn. The Fashion is a greedy, non-sensical, evil, duplicitous, money-grab run by people who don’t care about you, your health, or your looks.
“What, what? When I listen to The Fashion, I look and feel good. So do millions of others. Back up your claim, you nay-sayer you!”
Glad you asked.
There are countless examples of The Fashion being a superficial waste of materials. I mean, who came up with ties? They don’t cover anything, and they certainly don’t keep you warm. But the example I want to look at makes it blatantly obvious that the rules of fashion are not only indifferent towards utility, but also contrived primarily to conjure up an imaginary need just so they can sell you useless crap. Here it is:
In N.America, The Fashion has a lot to say about skin tone. Tan is healthy. Tan is beautiful. Tan is sexy. Pale is sickly! Look at all of our starlets in movies with tans. Models in our ads have tans. We have tanning beds, tanning oils, tanning salons, tanning magazines, tan tan tan tan tan tan!
In Asia, The Fashion also has a lot to say about skin tone. Pale is healthy. Pale is beautiful. Pale is sexy. Tan is dirty! Look at all of their starlets in movies with pale skin. Models in their ads have pale skin. They have skin-whitening ointments, skin-whitening moisturizers, skin-whitening make-up, pale pale pale pale pale!
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…