.jpg)
Out for the holidays, so I wish you all an inappropriately dressed Christmas.
Chronicles of a Love / Loathe Relationship with Fashion
You have to hand it to the British. They can take something as harmless as a woman’s shoe and make it into a big, fat problem. The Trade Union Congress has decided to take issue with a woman’s right to choose …her footwear. The mostly male institution has decided that the heel is a very dangerous weapon in their country’s workplace, as it hinders women’s self-esteem on the job, and is vewhy, vewhy badsie for their poor, little tootsies.
This is fascinating on so many levels; perhaps the most perplexing, and obvious, being that men have come to this conclusion. And correct me if I’m wrong, but there aren’t a whole lot of Henrys, Edwards, and Colins wearing stilettos to the office, and therefore, don’t have the right to make a judgment on another gender’s body part.
Hmm, this sounds awfully familiar to another issue. What is it again? Starts with an A, rhymes with smabortion..
She’s usually so on par. I just can’t figure out what happened. Sasha’s getting on her last nerve? (It is almost back to school time.) Whatever the impetus, Michelle Obama suffered from a severe lapse in judgment last week when she exited Air Force One en route to a Grand Canyon vacation wearing nothing but a cheek-baring mini-skirt, Axl Rose shredded mid-riff, and no underwear. The country is up in arms. As it should be.
Oh. wait.
She was wearing underwear. And the mid-driff was a button-down and cami combo. And the mini was actually a pair of conservative shorts.
Yes, the country is basically having a cow that our First Lady decided to don a pair of shorts in 100+ degree weather on her family vacay. With all the criticism pouring in, she would have been better off borrowing garments and a full-length apron from one of the Colorady City Mormon wives.
Those offended may argue that her sartorial decision was inappropriate because it was too casual and not official First Lady attire. I don’t buy it. Their true beef is that Michelle opted to show some skin.
This incident is no different than the hoopla that ensued when Mrs. Obama started wearing sleeveless dresses. For some cryptic reason, the country has a problem with the poor woman’s appendages. Should we reserve a burqa for her next public outing?
I am not going to enter into racial issue territory (although there is probably something to be said of that); this is primarily a female thing. She’s breaking boundaries, and using her femininity, sexuality, independence, and common sense (hello, Arizona heat?) to do so. Whether she realizes or not.
Or cares.
I have yet to go on a dating site (not that there’s anything wrong with them - except eHarmony), but have many times contemplated it. Usually what trips me up is the witty/come hither/non-chalant one-liner I have to create to bait my soulmate. And then it totally dawned on me:
Pleated pants need not apply.
A man’s pleated pant symbolizes many deep, emotional issues that I refuse to deal with. If you choose pleats over flat-front, then:
a. You’re a textbook momma’s boy. Your mother bought you pleated pants when you were nine to wear to church, or funerals, or middle school recitals.
b. You have body issues. I have interrogated several male friends who wear pleated pants to scoop out the reasoning behind their sartorial choice. The answer more times than not is that they believe the pants make them look thinner. This is wrong. Pleats do not create any positive illusion. And I don’t really want to hear this from a guy; it’s just a step away from you asking to borrow my Spanx.
c. You don’t know anything about fashion. This is not really a problem, since you don’t have to know a lick about what Cathy Horyn’s writing about, but you do have to pay some attention to what pants are being displayed in the windows of J. Crew. Because then at least I know you shop in normal dude stores that cater towards a customer with a median age younger than 65.
My goal in life is to make it on Vanity Fair’s International Best-Dressed List. And with the big reveal of VF’s 2009 line-up, I am once again reminded of the sole thing I must labor arduously towards.
Unfortunately, seeing as how I am not a First Lady, head of an Italian fashion empire, or “rumpled artist”, I may have to come to grips with the possibility that a spot on the roster could very well never happen.
So, logically, the next best thing is to make fun of the current choices I disagree with.
1. Kelly Ripa. Forget how Ripa dresses. The mere inclusion of her compromises the intregrity of my lovely list. She does commercials for appliances where she throws food. At kids.
2. Renee Zellweger. She wears Carolina Herrera. That’s it. Looking good in Carolina Herrera when you are the size of a celiac adolescent boy is not a feat to be applauded.
3. Brad Pitt. Am I the only one that thinks Brangelina always looks a little bit off in their (its?) sartorial choices? I can’t put my finger on it, but something’s just not quite right. Like the faux distress of Brad’s shoes, maybe. Or the faux Europeanness of him as a person.
And I must give a shout out to my fave this year:
H.H. Sheikha Mozah of Qatar. My mother made her bridesmaids wear jade turbans. This woman is the only person on Earth who would have looked good in that wedding album.