Old Navy Supermodelquins a Comment on Higher Fashion?

When the "modelquin" campaign started I thought it was just a way to not have to pay human actors - and it was just kind of creepy. But, now I can't decide if the current Old Navy campaign is ridiculously clueless or awesomely self-aware.

A modeling competition that requires one to be "plastic" - look perfectly inhuman, devoid of any personality and ignoring biological necessities like blinking. Could it be a critique of the Make-Me-America's-Next-Top-Super-Model format that pretends modeling is about individual personality?

The ruse is loosing any shred of believability it had, and not just because Tyra seems a bit cuckoo now and again. ANTM's Mr. Jay's second job is as a fashion commentator for E! and that now means not only insulting celebrities (or more appropriately, their stylists) behind their backs with the Rivers, but shuttling them into the Glam Cam 360 to make sure we can really pick them apart.

Of course, we can't dissect your fashion if you are an actual living breathing person inside of it, so this year the entire Grammys pre-show consisted of Mr. Jay telling women to pose so as to best show off their dress - not themselves.

A prime example? When Paramore entered the camera the lead singer was stoked to be told they could face in what ever direction they wanted and, of course, to be "fierce," but oh no, Mr. Jay was sure to clarify that while the boys could jump around and have fun, it was her job to show off her outfit:

To quote: the camera works best "when the girls stand and actually rock the fashion and the guys have a lot of fun." Yep, fashion means no activity (and also only dresses, btw), but then again that is nothing new since its pretty damn hard to run and jump in a mini and stilettos.

And if we had any question about whether the fashion industry actually gives a crap about the women wearing the clothes, Paris fashion week recently included this:

Models as clothes hangers? You betcha. (Also, noted without comment: those pants are a 34" waist.)

Hell, maybe Margiela is making a commentary on the inanity of high fashion, too. But in this case, at least Old Navy's is a bit more fun. Afterall, when you lose the contest not only do you have to forfeit your dream of shilling cardigans for the masses, you must "hand in your stand" - the metal stick that is shoved up your butt.

What do you think? Commentary or just another example of fashion dehumanizing models?

Image from Jezebel.

The 90s Are Back

Just in case you haven't been into H&M lately, you may not know that the era of floral prints, awkward-no-quite-mini hemlines, army jackets and (of course) plaid is back. To prove the point, this is what the mother-daughter Moore team wore yesterday:


I sent that image to 90's Woman - the totally awesome blog that, for me, chronicles the terribly formative years of ten to twenty - noting that it made up pretty much my entire wardrobe in 8th through 10th grade, and lo and behold, it got me included in their "90s testimonials." (woo!)

But seriously, the back to school issues of Seventeen and (borrowed copies) of Sassy were my fashion bibles. I think I had this one memorized:


Evidently Rumor found a copy somewhere, don'tcha think?

Only, um, wtf? A young Katherine Heigel shaped my fashion? Sadly, I must admit it was not yet Kathleen Hanna. There goes my cred...

Images via Jezebel and this place.

Halloween Sans Cleavage

The lady blogs have been railing against what seems to be the only option for store-bought women's Halloweeen costumes, "The Sexy [fill-in-the-blank]."

Amanda at The Sexist has kept a running list of all of the truly horrific ones. Forget the old standbys of "Sexy Cop" and "Sexy Pirate," they have been joined by "Sexy Finding Nemo" and "Sexy Clown." (Really? Really.)

When o filthy grandeur! lamented that she and her fiance wanted to go as Batman and Robin, but the only store-bought versions were sexy - and therefore, not practical as crimefighting garb - I couldn't help but share the versions that I made for my husband and I two years ago.


Today she shared them on her blog (note the lack of cleavage and sensible crime-fighting shorts) and I am still really proud of them. Mine was made almost entirely out kids t-shirts, and I made both the shorts and gloves without a pattern (jersey is really handy that way). The only store bought pieces were my husband's mask and gloves since I didn't have time to figure out how to make the bat ears stand up.

I also still can't get over my husband's stoke of genius to make sound effect signs. They made for super cool photos and instant introductions since strangers wanted us to pretend to thwart them.


So, here is to decidedly non-sexy Halloween costumes! Moreover, here is to practical superhero costumes that do not involve short skirts and high heels. Maybe next year we'll have to finally do the gender bending switcheroo (did you know there was actually a girl Robin named Stephanie?) and I'll be Batman, even if that mask is a bit confining.

And by the way, superhero costumes are also practical in other ways: capes keep you warm and utility belts are all kinds of handy.

Daily Mail: Wear a Girdle and Reject Modern Medicine or You're Gonna Be a Fatty

According to the Daily Mail British women have become fatties in the last 50 years:

We found that hips were an inch-and-a-half bigger, as were busts; then when we got to the waists and found six-and-a-half inches difference, it was: "Wow - everyone, man and woman, has a belly now"

A whole inch-and-a-half! Geez, that is huge! Never mind that British women are also two inches taller. And why are they taller?

It's partly down to nutrition - a better and more plentiful diet, explains Bernard Harris, professor of the history of social policy at Southampton University.

But, more surprisingly, our increased height reflects the lessening demands of the environment. Now, with warmer homes, better medicine and improved sanitation, our energy - significantly in childhood - can be devoted to growth.

There is also the cleanliness of our environment to consider. Antibiotics did not become commonplace until the mid-Fifties.

'In unsanitary conditions, you'll suffer diarrhoea more frequently and therefore retain fewer nutrients in the body. If you suffer repeated infections, you use up energy fighting them off, while you may also feel less like eating.'

I'm sure if British women had known that being healthy enough to gain two inches of height was going to lead to bigger feet and a whole two more inches in the boobs and six in the belly, they probably would have rethought things like fresh vegetables, antibiotics, indoor plumbing and central heat. Oh, but nutrition isn't the only problem:

It's not just a case of what was being eaten: post-war women also expended many more calories through housework and having to walk or cycle everywhere. It's been estimated that Fifties woman burned more than 1,000 calories a day doing her everyday activities (such as housework) compared with 556 today.

Ah, there we go. The reason Britons are lard-asses? Feminism. And technological advances like dishwashers and swiffers.

Frankly, I think the change in waist size that the Daily Mail chronicled is not only because British women are turning into the healthy, non-diarrhea-having, non-valium-popping, fatties the article suggests. They do mention that what we eat has changed, due to companies' tendency to shove as much cornsyrup and saturated fat as they can into our food to make sure it is tasty enough for us to keep buying it. But, considering that the the article is about the results of the UK National Sizing Survey, produced by clothing companies and department stores, it might be worth considering how clothing sizes and undergarments have changed.

My generation's bodies are different from our grandmothers and mothers simply because we don't constrict our waists with belts or girdles. It used to be that when you went to a department store, there was a "Foundations" department. That's because while we may have dropped the corset in the 1920's we very quickly picked up girdles. And that hourglass figure that the Daily Mail misses so much? That was poked and prodded and sculpted and shoved into place by a bunch of elastic and boning.

As the waist-belt and high-waisted pants have come back into fashion, those of us raised in the age of 80's casual, and who came of age in grunge, have realized one side effect of the trend. To put it mildly, those 70's inspired high-waisted pants, make a girl a little gassy. One friend finally got her mom to try on a pair of jeans that sat below her natural waist and her mom thought it was a breakthrough - her digestive system worked better!

Also, we need to say something about the idea that boobs are bigger. Yes, its true, they are a bit bigger, we are bigger everywhere else and we eat a hell of a lot more artificial hormones. And, there is that pesky little friend of women's liberation - the pill. But, since I've never written a study on a direct correlation between these factors and increased bust size (though lets say I've got more than enough anecdotal evidence to prove the point) all one needs to do is watch Mad Men to see that comparing 1950's and 60's bra sizes to today's is like, well, comparing apples to oranges...or maybe apples to missles.

So thanks Daily Mail, but I'll take my antibiotics, birth control, and undergarments that let me take a full breath over a couple of inches any day.

Via Jezebel.