My Chocolate “Addiction” is not my fault…

“Breeding a Nation of Chocoholics: As Sales Rise, Marketers Try To Make Chocolate an Everyday Snack” a recent WSJ article is just the support I need to abdicate my feelings of guilt about my chocolate addiction. My addiction is not a weakness nor a lack of discipline, but rather the result of intense marketing efforts by chocolate companies.

Now I’m sure chocolate marketers in this article didn’t mean to single out any race, color, creed or religion when it comes to those who habitually eat chocolate, however they did just that, “Godiva marketers wondered, how can we take chocolate from nibble to nosh?” I inferred from the “nosh” comment that chocolate eating is a Jewish habit. Personally, I do think chocolate IS a Jewish habit (sounds nicer than addiction), particularly a Jewish woman’s habit, as in habitual chocolate eating is for JAPS not for Shikses. I am fairly certain an empirical study would prove this theory, however it remains my theory for now based wholly on subjective evidence.

(*See my theory on what is/isn’t for Shikses and JAPS – for example kitten heels and slingbacks are for Shiksas, wedge heels are for JAPS, something about the weight distribution of Shikses (maybe the lack of hips) that allows them to wear kitten heels and slingbacks with greater confidence, authority and flair than JAPS who have wider hips. )

Back to me as the victim! The gist of the article is how chocolate makers want to put chocolate everywhere you are or as I read it, everywhere I AM! Instead of deliberate chocolate eating, they want to come up with new forms of chocolate for consumers to munch mindlessly, and new places to buy them. As if pretzel, peanut butter and dark chocolate M&Ms or Ghiardelli’s dark chocolate with sea salt and roasted almonds isn’t enough? And the fact that those items are sold in Bed Bath and Beyond as you shop for sheets and towels, Barnes & Nobles as you browse the stacks for the best book on leading an addiction free-life or Michael’s craft store where you can buy extra buttons to have sewn back onto the pants into which you no longer fit because you ate too much chocolate. I imagine they will soon stock Jacques Torres’ chocolate covered corn flakes at your nearest hardware store – because nothing says shopping for a nail and hammer like chocolate?

The article then lists the many ways to satisfy a sweet tooth, the most notable to me was the individually wrapped chocolates from Lindt, Ghiardelli and Godiva for a reception desk display or to stash in a drawer. Yes, for those of you reading this who know me just a little bit, you know darn well I ALWAYS have a stash of chocolate, whether its in a drawer, in a candy bowl on my desk or in my handbag. Not my fault, it was caused by excessive exposure to chocolate marketing. Are you following my “I am a victim of sabotage” theme yet?

The focus of chocolate makers is for consumers to purchase chocolate “in addition to not instead of “ so for those of you who are not the deliberate purchasers of chocolate like I am, you will be subliminally induced into buying fruit AND chocolate rather than more fruit or healthy snacks INSTEAD of chocolate. Forewarned is forearmed!

Lastly, as cited in this article Godiva is phasing out solid wrapped squares of chocolate because it didn’t have enough “sex appeal”. “Sex appeal” and “sexy” shouldn’t be used to describe chocolate. Frankly, those words are overused and have lost all meaning thanks to overzealous and uncreative marketers. Just so you know I don’t have an ax to grind with chocolate marketers even though they are wreaking havoc in my chocolate addicted world, I am not solely blaming them for the inappropriate and over use of “sex appeal” or “sexy”. I recently heard someone describe a volunteer opportunity in New Orleans as “sexy”. As you can imagine, I almost spit out my mouthful of chocolate!

Fashion Confusion!

My head is spinning around this week’s fashion roundup. On the one hand we have Victoria’s Secrets 16^th Annual Fashion Show complete with the angels strutting the catwalk in superhero inspired “lingerie” and thigh high vinyl boots and then we have today’s WSJ article about how the most startling thing about women’s fashion right now is how unstartling it is – long skirts, coy necklines and ladylike heels. So which is it for women, are we wonderwomen in lycra body suits and unitards or are we June effin Cleaver? I know we talked about the wasp waist before however it is again being mentioned for spring. Is there such thing as a non-wasp waisted dress? Or maybe a wasp waist alternative? But I digress – so which should I really covet: a strand of pearls or the fantasy treasure bra (worth $2.5 million) and comprised of 3400 gems? And by the way is there a Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show equivalent for women? What would that look like…Hugh Jackman on Broadway?

It seems to me more and more that fashion is mimicking the schizophrenia in the capital markets and I was trying to escape the financial meltdown by leaving Wall Street and becoming a Fashionista…HELP!

Sign of the Times or Mistake?

Many have drawn a parallel between the economic climate and fashion trends, oftentimes, fashion critics describe collections as a reflection of the economy – e.g. short hemlines reflect boom times, longer hemlines mirror the opposite.

However, I am completely baffled by Jimmy Choos’ latest sandal pictured here – the heel in particular is distressing at best – wide and low? Really? More Easy Spirit than the iconic “I am woman hear me roar, watch me teeter on my Choos and desire me”. I don’t think this sandal is a reflection of the times but rather a mistake, plain and simple and I would like to hear Jimmy Choo utter an apology.

I understand that times are tough everywhere. Even the Duchess of Cambridge, in an effort to be sympathetic to the harsh economic climate facing many people around the globe, has vowed to be frugal by re-wearing outfits rather than spending lavishly on new clothes. This still doesn’t make sense -- why would Jimmy Choo design a shoe so dramatically different from his brand ( and frankly, unsexy). That low wide heel will still set you back $495. If Kate Middleton is re-wearing outfits, then I am not convinced many women will spend the $495 on a low, wide heeled Jimmy Choo sandal that won’t make you roar but rather prompt an insignificant squeak.

Furthering my mistake theory is the fact that Vogue and Vanity Fair are both picking beloved bad girls to grace their September issues – Vogue has booked Kate Moss' in her July wedding as its cover story, while Vanity Fair has shot under-house-arrest Lindsay Lohan to be its cover siren. Bad girls mean party time and party time would reflect good economic times and sexy high heels, no? I submit to you once again that this Jimmy Choo sandal is not a sign of the times but a mistake.

Did you know that Aretha Franklin recently fractured her toe by falling over a pile of shoes and stepping atop the spiked heel of a Jimmy Choo sandal? Had Aretha fallen on the sandal in this picture she might have hummed a refrain of “Chain of Fools”! I am not fooled by this Jimmy Choo imposter sandal, are you?

Me and Liza

So according to page 6, Liza Minelli had a yard sale which included lampshades, wine glasses, worn dance shoes amongst other things. Evidently she signed those items as she sold them off. I am not sure that I have enough in common with Liza (discuss amongst yourselves) however I am taking a cue from her and will be signing all of my "giveaways/hand me downs" from now on. From children's clothing to housewares to all of those horrendous ill-fitting outfits I pass along will now come with my very own John Hancock.

On that note, I am just back from a trip to Banana Republic - did some impulse shopping as I have a meeting with a recruiter tomorrow and not a thing to wear. I succumbed to some ruffled puffy blouses (these can't look good on ANYONE!) and a hot pink sweater. I may don one of the ruffled blouses with the ever famous Mandee black pants. The intent of that outfit will be to psych out the recruiter so he will actually look directly into my eyes because the outfit, both top and bottom, will be like a car wreck with mangled bodies and he will have to look away from that.

Didn't Liza wear ruffle-d blouses? Maybe I have more in common with her than I thought.

Liza said the following and I feel that it is very true for me:

"I feel like I haven't done my best work yet."

You Have Been Warned

I wandered into Banana Republic yesterday and you can consider yourselves forewarned: “putty” is the color of the spring season (at least where they are concerned). It’s so drab and awful, I left the store feeling angry. After mulling over that color for a few minutes, I realized that I was angry not because of that color, however it was due to the indiscriminant use of ruffles on their clothes. I mean there are ruffles on everything, sweaters, t-shirts, jackets. Don’t get me wrong, I am not opposed to ruffles in theory, a wisely worn ruffle IS quite lovely and feminine. What I AM opposed to is the indiscriminant use of those ruffles as Banana Republic has done – it’s as if they threw ruffles on like the paint on a Jackson Pollock canvas. There is a law, (unspoken of course) that ruffles should be placed ABOVE the naval. There should never be a ruffle that is placed or dangles below the naval on women’s clothing as women have hips and oftentimes a derriere (AKA a junk trunk). Newsflash – a ruffle will accent the lower half of the women’s silhouette and unless you are JLo or living in a country where hips and derrieres are prized, most women in the US want to minimize that portion of their body. Living here in the US we are subject to the adoration of the J Crew silhouette. Shame!

WSJ Personal Journal - Stop the Insanity

Is anyone else insulted by the recent article “To Dress Well, a Woman Should Shop Like a Man” in the Personal Journal section of the WSJ? The article states that women have a lot to learn from the way men shop. I stand firm on the fact that women know shopping better than any man and I wish the WSJ would stick to it’s knitting and report on the financial industry, not on subjects about which they are uninformed.

The author begins her story about how women could learn a lot from men’s shopping habits by explaining that she first sensed this was true when a menswear designer told her that he couldn’t use a fabric unless it felt “good to the hand” because men won’t buy uncomfortable clothes. Whoa, that’s NOT a revelation to any woman. I know many well heeled women who will cross continents for certain cotton t-shirts because they are the softest most comfortable ever. The author goes on to say that this menswear designer/male friend shopper before trying a pair of pants felt the wool with his hand to ascertain it’s softness. And the point of that is…? Women on the other hand would rub the pants against their cheek, a much better and more accurate test of how soft the material is –plenty of women go to the extreme and lick the fabric to see if the fabric sticks to their taste buds to get a sense of the texture of a fabric! Now that’s the best way to shop for a comfortable fabric - all you men reading this, take note!

The author goes on to state authoritatively that tailoring “should matter”. No kidding but has this author been shopping recently? In my most recent shopping excursion for work clothes I was insulted with career wear dressed up as skinny pants, cropped pants and shirts cut down to your navel. Unless you are a teacher, a whore, or 6 feet by 99 pounds, who is buying this crap? Where on earth do real women with office jobs shop for clothes if they can’t spend $1000 on a blazer or pants? I have been reduced to buying disposable work clothes at Mandees. I recently bought a pair of black pants and wore them to work hoping no one would notice the sheen. Clearly for the $28 I paid, they are disposable – tailoring is not an issue. They are too big in the waist and too tight in the derriere , however they are a nice stretchy material so they are very forgiving. Women do care about tailoring, however, if you do not have a large disposable income, we are hostage to the crappy tailoring available. Men’s affordable clothing has decent tailoring – where is the justice in that?!

The author waxes on about this male shopper who squatted in the dressing room to be sure the pants he was trying on fit comfortably. Squatting, that’s all he did? Cmon, women invented the try on pant dance routine – it goes something like this – squat one, two, three, stand then kick your leg up over your head like a rockette one, two, three, then mountain climbers one, two, three. If you can do all those moves, then it’s a buy. If you can do 1 of the 3 moves, it’s still a buy though you should consider going on a diet or buying a tunic to cover the ill fitting pants.

Then the author enlightens us with the “a good jacket starts with a shoulder that permits comfortable movement and isn’t so stuffed with foam padding that it looks awkward with the arm raised. Obviously, the author is discussing a blazer or suit jacket. I am confident that the reader of the WSJ is well aware of the fact that those large 80’s shoulder pads went out with ‘80s and frankly, I am curious about what type of office job requires you to wear a blazer or suit jacket and raise both arms above your head like you are calling a touchdown?

Stop the insanity! Someone needs to tell the WSJ to get back to it’s core expertise - before we know it, someone at Instyle magazine might decide to start writing about free cash flow yields and sovereign debt.

Ageless Diva Reaches a Certain Age…

No, this is not a reference to me but rather an article in the NY Times about Cher. It’s curious that this article about Cher came out the same week the FT put out a special magazine “Women at the Top – The Top 50 Women in World Business”. That women reach the CEO suite is notable, maybe that women get to the top in show business is not so newsworthy although enduring as Cher has is certainly worthy of comment.

Both the Cher article and the women in the FT magazine offered some valuable tips – stuff we know but always nice as a refresher. Maybe you can guess which came from Cher and which came from FT?

- Know your own limits.

- Women succeed better in a positive ecosystem rather than an ego-system.

- Some crimes are cool and some crimes are uncool – it’s better to be a heroin addict, go away to rehab than to be caught for shoplifting.

- What you don’t know is so much more important than what you do know

- You learn more from bad than good experiences

- Where you are is not who you are

Whether it is Cher , Andrea Jung, Irene Rosenfeld or Ursula Burns , they are inspiring ,as are all of you women who are a success in your own right.