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.