Big Question Follow Up: Does She Have A Point?
By PlumcakeHi y’all! Happy Monday! Don’t you hate people who say “Happy Monday”? I do, but I’m all hopped up on painkillers and peanut brittle (peanut brittle is self-explanatory; painkillers because my quads are killing me. Combination of going to three services on Sunday –that’s a lot of kneeling– and dancing on the platforms at Oilcan Harry’s until 2 in the morning. Man, talk about a problem only an Episcopalian would have. “Did I hurt myself with all that prayer, or was it dancing at a gay disco in five-inch heels?”) so I don’t care.
ANYHOODLE
Got a few comments from Concerned Reader Sarah regarding my controversial Novelty Socks Big Question. Now we at the Big Girl blog aren’t afraid of a little dissension among the ranks, and in the almost unfathomably unlikely event of me actually being wrong, I’d be glad to admit it. So I thought I’d give Sarah a chance to vent her considerable spleen, and see if perhaps I’m in the minority here.
“Why do we have to explain ourselves to you?”
You don’t have to. Maybe we should ask the author why she feels it’s necessary to judge a woman by her outside appearance. Shallow much?
I live in a small community and work in the medical field. Please explain to me where “chic” dressing fits in. My big outing to the local Wal-Mart? Give me a break.
It’s been my experience that people compensate on the outside for what they don’t have on the inside.
Being a full-time mother and/or being strapped for cash is a VALID excuse for not dressing up to “expectation.” Fashion is a frivolous thing, a playtime for people with money and extra time on their hands – not for real people who work for a living and are striving to raise families.
“why don’t you want to be and look fabulous?”
Because I don’t want to. End of story. I don’t really care what you think.
Was I way off base? Is this how most of you feel? Let me have it, big girls!
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Reserving my thoughts on the substance of her comments for a later time (since I haven’t sorted through them yet), I have this question: why does she read this blog then? If all you want to do is “live” and raise a family and not ever pay attention to fashion, how did ya get here? The blog is not called “Novelty Socks and Crocs for the Big Girl”!
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
I’m a wife, mom, full-time employee, volunteer, and friend and still manage to look presentable most of the time. And on a budget, might I add. Anyone who uses lack of time or money as an excuse for looking bedraggled is not being honest with his or herself. It’s not too difficult to run a comb through one’s hair, brush a bit of blusher across a cheek, swipe on a bit of lipstick or gloss, throw on dark blue denim jeans and a hip blouse, slip one’s tootsies into a cute pair of shoes and hit the road. I may be fat but I refuse to be a fat slob!
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Honestly, how hard is it to throw on dark denim jeans and a hip blouse, run a comb through one’s hair, brush on some blush, swipe on lipstick or gloss, slide one’s tootsies into a cute pair of shoes and hit the road? It’s infuriating when people blame lack of time and/or money on a slovenly appearance. I’m a wife, mother, full time employee, and part time volunteer but I still manage to look pulled together most of the time. And on a budget, I might add. I may be fat but I refuse to be a fat slob!
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I was going to say something similar to jen209’s comment — this is a fashion blog. It’s right up there at the top of the page: “Fashion, Lifestyle, and Humor.” If Sarah is not interested in fashion and finds it frivolous and trivial, why does she take time out of her busy, busy, no-time-for-fashion day to read this blog?
So, no. I don’t think you were off-base at all, Plumcake. When one chooses to read a fashion blog, one expects posts about fashion, including posts with a certain amount of snark regarding the author’s fashion pet-peeves.
Also, Sarah obviously does care what you think or she would have just gone about her merry way instead of taking the time to chastise you via email.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
This blog, like high fashion itself, is mostly fantasy. The fantasy is as indulgent and uplifting as it is delusional and decadent. That’s fantasy for you. So take it or leave it, but don’t take any of it too seriously.
Good works win the day, novelty socks or not. Brava to Sarah for fighting as a medic against bitter realities and brava to Plumcake for giving us a little escape from it all.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
chic is a frame of mind, an objective thing, no? i am feeling quite chic today in my snazzy ecco flats, black tights from chinatown, grey wool skirt and black scoop neck from winners (a canadian discount store). but i’m feeling very put-together, i have the best haircut that i can afford (and that i can live with), a beautiful pair of crystal earrings and my tina fey spectacles. i’m sure some would consider me cheapish and frumpy while others would consider me overdressed, but the point is, i really do feel fabulous. as long as i can answer YES to two simple questions, i’m good to go:
1. do i love it? it must be yes, i love it, i love it on me, i love the way wearing this (dress, track suit, ankle bracelet) makes me feel. i’ve bought too many clothes in the past that i’m unenthusiastic about because i felt like i NEEDED to have “just a pair of pants for schlepping around in the house in.” then i wind up wearing clothes that i don’t like. why did i do this to myself? attractive, well-made clothes needn’t be uncomfortable or prohibitively expensive, but they do have to fit me, suit me, show me the way i want to be seen.
2. is it well-made – a good fabric, well-constructed? and if not, is it a frivolous little thing like a cotton cardigan that i’ll probably only wind up wearing for a season anyway? designer names don’t ring my bell for the recognition value but i can truly appreciate the incredible construction that goes into them. so i look, i take mental notes, and i buy something minus the name but with something of the same love that went into its making.
so – long answer to a short question – it’s not at all offensive, i think, to ask honestly why one wouldn’t want to be chic. but i think it’s fair to acknowledge that chic is a beautifully inclusive umbrella of a term that can cover a whole lotta look.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:21 pm
I dress well and on a super tight budget. Why? Because I don’t have money to waste on clothes that don’t do anything for me but cover my privates! And guess what? Nice clothes don’t cost much (if anything) more!
And what’s this about Walmart? Does she think she’s going to be thrown out if she dresses nicely?
Show yourself a little respect, ladies!
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I have to say both of you have valid points. As the previous commenter said, it’s no secret that you are writing a fashion blog and presumably this offended reader is reading of her own free will…
No matter what one’s circumstance is, a lack of interest in one’s appearance is of concern as it can be a symptom of depression. For some people, taking an interest can mean expensive designer shoes and for others finding a few minutes in their day to brush their hair a hundred times. Anyone can find ten minutes in their day to do something to feel good about yourself and how you present yourself to the world. People do judge each other based on appearance. We all know this and not taking care with one’s appearance is a way of telling people that you don’t care about their good opinion. While what other people think of you isn’t all that matters, as a member of a community, a complete disregard for others’ good opinion is an insult.
However, there also isn’t just one kind of fabulous. I might’ve had my formative years during the early 90s, and may thus have an enduring fondness for clunky stompy boots worn with otherwise tailored, feminine, flattering clothing. Some people might consider me the most pitiful of out of date fashion victims when I go out, but I feel great and attractive and fierce and I think people respond to that. I do think that needs to be respected; one person’s tacky may be another person’s fabulous.
While the original point you made was not tactfully put, I did figure you put it out there to foster discussion. I do think on occasion larger women go out of their way to make themselves non-threatening to the point of infantilizing themselves, which I think is unfortunate. But if wearing a Looney Tunes embroidered denim shirt makes someone genuinely feel attractive and happy, it’s not my place to judge them. Which is not to say I’m always successful in that, but I try.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
There’s not a darn thing wrong for wanting, or not wanting, to dress chic. There’s plenty wrong with judging another’s insides based on her outsides. (Judging one’s outsides for the sake of frivolous fashion critique is just that, and really, who cares if you don’t hurt anyone’s feelings?)
However, the novelty sock question asked why many big girls dressed “friendly,” i.e. unchic. Was it because of a desire to be approached?
The question assumes that big girls are more self-conscious and have less self-esteem than small girls. Yanno, even if you did some super scientific poll and found that to be marginally true, why on earth would we discuss it in a fashion blog that’s all about fabulous?
As for our pissed off hospital worker – I understand why she’s venting. She’s saying she can dress any damn way she wants and it has nothing to do with her self-worth. She’s not sending a fearful, “I’m friendly, come talk to me” message out to the world and she resents anyone who wonders if she is. I’d be a little pissed, too, if someone saw me in a tacky sweater and thought it was because I was trying to get people to approach me.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
of course sarah doesn’t have to dress to impress us. or herself. but saying that those who ARE interested in fashion are shallow, and that a love of adornment is compensation for a lack of soul, is pretty judge-y. (and plenty of brainiac academics have been interested in fashion. as social history, it’s a pretty interesting way to read the world.) a wise person once told me that when something REALLY pushes your buttons — as plumcake’s post clearly pushed sarah’s — it’s useful to examine why. does sarah feel threatened by fashion? left out? defensive that she doesn’t look as attractive as she might? angry at herself for caring? when i’m really irked at something, i often gain self-awareness from trying to figure out what’s irking me.
merely a suggestion.
clothes can be a source of joy, variety, power. they can convey authority, which can be useful even to people in fields where stylishness “doesn’t matter.” your clothes send a message (even if that message is just “i don’t care about clothes”). YES, it’s fine not to care…and it’s fine that others do.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Sorry for the double post earlier. My browser crashed just after sending the 1st so I didn’t think it had transmitted. Obviously it had and now I look like a complete imbecile. My apologies.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Fashion — being put together, perhaps trendy, and looking one’s best — can do things for a person, mood-wise, sense-of-self-wise, etc. And since that’s where this blog is focused, it makes sense that *that* is where the writers here aim.
However, in my closet of fabulous clothes, I also have ducky socks, and a fabulous pair with octopi on them. They generally go on feet that are going to be stuffed into boots, but not always. And they make me smile. And sometimes *that* is the sort of boost that I need, rather than the “fashion boost”.
I have a friend with a particular love of a particular Disney character. And yeah, I wouldn’t choose Disney t-shirt as my personal statement, but it’s clear that wearing them makes her happy in a way that some other things don’t. And I think it would be sort of awful to begrudge her that. At the same time, I don’t expect the Disney-embroidered-denim-shirt-with-matching-socks combo to be gracing your blog anytime soon.
So I’m coming down on the side of balance… I think it’s true that there are women of all sizes who dress to be invisible, or take up less space, or infantilize themselves. I don’t think you can go the other way around, though, and contend that my day in ducky socks contains deep insight into my personhood. On the third hand, Plumcake is entirely entitled to her deep-seated hatred for novelty socks, and I’ll do *my* best not to hold that against her as a person. ;^)
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:53 pm
I think that what ruffled a few feathers (or novelty socks) was the implication that a certain style of dressing is indicative of deep-seated emotional issues.
Some people wear all black because they want to look thin, or because they’re morose. Others just really like black. Some people wear cartoonish clothing because they want to appear friendly and non-threatening. Others just really have a thing for cartoons. Some people carry an expensive bag because they’re insecure and are seeking approval and status. Other people just really like fancy handbags.
In other words, tread carefully when performing pop psychology on people based on what they’re wearing: if I know anything about people, it’s that they HATE being lumped into categories, especially based on superficial factors.
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Surely I am not alone in noticing that when you are nicely put together, the world treats you differently than it does when you are not. It treats you better.
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
It’s a little like introversion vs extroversion (though it doesn’t map, I don’t think.) If you have a super busy stressful life, taking trouble on wardrobe can give you a great lift and a feeling of being in control, which is good. It can also mean letting yourself in for one trillion headaches around fit and construction, which is bad.
The bigger the woman the greater the potential variation in shape and the less easy to create a “size N” that matches any one woman’s shape. That means that good, cleverly structured clothes that haven’t been personally tailored for you are liable to not quite fit.
There is a reason that many women with racks are drawn to tops in knit fabrics: it’s a huge bitch to get a crisp woven shirt or a blazer tailored for a big chest and comparatively small waist. Trousers — I’m told that for some bigger women the same waistband that fits perfectly, standing, won’t always work as well, sitting. What fits at the waist is tight at the hip, what’s manageable at both waist and hip constricts you round the thigh or else billows wildly all the way down the leg, etc, etc. (Insofar as they don’t quite fit, structured clothes are liable to *hurt*.) It isn’t nice going about your super busy and stressful day with odd bits kinda binding you in various places. It’s fucking uncomfortable. So you slip in a stretch knit item here and a loose knit item there and your shoes get more sensible and one day you wake up going, holy shit, I has crossed the frump line. And you have to figure out whether you care enough to go through the hunting and altering and struggling to get yourself sorted. And frankly, you don’t always.
I *must* have a few outfits I can clean up well in or I get depressed, but I’m prepared to cut myself a little slack in the off time. I mean, I like to think I avoid looking like total hell, I take some care, but there are hills on which I won’t die every day.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
I have to agree with La Petite. I think chic is more a sense of being pulled together and liking how you look than making sure those pieces you pulled together are a certain brand name. I do love looking at the clothes and shoes here. I myself can’t afford 99% of them. But I like reading other people’s opinions of what’s fashionable. I then may or may not attempt to convert that into something similar that I can afford. But there are days where my mental pick-me-up is wearing some effingly bright colored tights from welovecolors with my black clunky loafers. But yes, I think she was taking issue with the assumption, or implied assumption, that not wearing manolo and igigi means a pathological need to be liked. Fortunately, I’ve gotten to the point in my life where whether I’m wearing my crocs and jeans and band t-shirt to the beach, my bright tights and long skirts and sweaters to work, or my yoga pants with a sweatshirt and my bad hair day skull bandana, I’m rather past caring what people think of what I wear. The only time external pressure comes into play is either my dress code policy at work or the appropriate attire for a situation like the Symphony.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:23 pm
I think La Petite Acadienne has nailed it best so far.
My additional thought – if ‘chic’ must (as asserted in the previous post) convey a certain unfriendliness, then there are surely many people, of both sexes and all sizes, whose self-image is friendly, warm and inviting. These are not exactly negative qualities, after all. These people would not want to present themselves in a way that conveys a sense of aloofness or unfriendliness, because that’s not what they want their clothes to say about themselves. Could it be a defense mechanism? Sure. But it could be a personal style issue as well. (And I think ‘chic’ and ’stylish’ are not synonyms; chic is one kind of style.)
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:27 pm
This is a topic near and dear to my heart. Our office has enacted a “casual” dress code policy, which most of the employees have interpreted as a “wear your old clothes to work” policy. Now, I know that we are living in hard economic times and by the grace of the almighty and my own elbow grease, I have, for the most part, been spared the worst effects of the down turn. However, there was a time in the life of the Gemdiva when for many years she was very strapped for cash and living a very frugal existance (we’re talking repo the car, foreclose on the house and hock your wedding ring, rock bottom broke here). Anyway, back in the day, you had no choice but to show up at your job well groomed and dressed appropriately. Those that weren’t were sent home, sometimes permanently. So I am just not buying the “I’m too poor to dress nicely” routine. Anybody can look good with a little effort. I’m thinking washing and ironing (a seemingly lost art) would be a good start. Shopping sales and consignment or thrift stores and maybe learning to sew are other good ideas . Believe me, looking your best in the worst of times isn’t all that hard and it does wonders for your self respect.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:36 pm
who would have thought? :p Added to my feed. Safely bookmarked.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:39 pm
You are NOT off base! Why not look fabulous instead of frumpy???? After all, you need to take SOME time to put shirt, pants and shoes on, so they might as well be clothes that fit well, look great on you and that you love. And they don’t even have to cost a fortune. Ross, TJ Maxx, etc. offer some great clothing at reasonable prices. I’m sure it takes the same amount of time to put on the fabulous shirt, pants and shoes as it does to put on the stained, big t-shirt, wrinkled jeans and dirty sneakers.
I agree with others that said sarah probably shouldn’t be reading this blog since the idea of dressing chic offends her so.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Gemdiva, you’re on it. A scary portion of my clothes – especially of the office variety – come from that famous department store, Goodwill. I also sew, and have become an expert at finding amazing deals on eBay (but those are a treat, or when I need something specific like a coat). Yes, I’m one of those Rennie women that Plumcake loathes, but I also look damn good in the pegged skirts and tailored jackets that I wear to the office (and I am the queen of the fabulous headscarf). On my time off it takes no effort to leave the house NOT looking like I’m getting ready to clean the grease trap at McDonald’s, yet still be comfortable and very casual. I just don’t get the total slob mentality (well, ok, I’ve made Home Depot runs covered in sawdust and paint, but those are the exceptions).
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
jen209 said it first, and said it well: if you’re not interested in looking your most fabulous, why do you even read this blog?
Low self-esteem manifests in many ways, having been there myself, I have said many of the same things about it as the respondent in question. But it all boiled down to feeling undeserving of looking as good, for whatever reason. And low self-esteem is not the exclusive province of the Big Girl; you just have to watch What Not To Wear to see that it comes in every shape and size.
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Is it wrong for someone to not dress “chic”? No, of course not. Fashion is essentially a classist invention meant to control and order society. No one has to opt into the system.
Is it wrong, then, to dress “chic”? No, of course not! Fashion is fun! When I put on a pretty dress and cute shoes, I feel happy and confident. It puts an extra spring in my step.
Is it wrong to judge people on how fashionable they’re dressed? Of course. Some people can’t afford to dress in the newest fashions. Some people have physical reasons why they can’t (like a job that requires getting dirty or standing around all day). Some people just can’t be arsed. That’s their prerogative.
So, basically, you’re both right.
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar – as noted by la petite – stretching this statement to make assertions about someone’s motivation (or lack there of) or emotional state based simply on what they wear is probably going a bit too far.
This was a chance for introspection – so whatever your answer to the question, you know your reasons, limits, aspirations better than us.
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:20 pm
There should be a rule that every pair of theme socks be rocked with mom jeans and a pooh shirt.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 pm
From Matthew 6:15 “When you fast, do no look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting…. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting….”
Reading this post made me think of the above verse, and I’m not one to be quoting (okay searching to quote) scriptures. I am a full-time mom striving to raise my family and I work a job that doesn’t afford me to spend lots of money on clothes or even to be up-to-the-moment fashionable. But I don’t walk around with the “woe is me attitude” or the stuck up “fashion is for the silly and shallow” attitude. I try my best to look good even if I am wearing 5-year-old Target jeans, Payless shoes bought during a BOGO sale, and a blouse I got from the local $10 store. I like to look nice because it makes me feel good even when I am taking care of my kids full time or working. It pleases my daughters when Mommy “looks pretty.” It also pleases my husband when I put more effort in my dress than to wear leggings, one of his over sized button -up shirts or some shapeless maternity clothes I may still have hanging around.
I do look at a lot people’s outfits, and sometimes I do judge them but I’m an equal opportunity snarker from the tee-shirts with the cartoon characters to women who wear 4-inch heels with no hose in rainy weather. How one dresses is her prerogative, and shouldn’t be subject to other people’s judgments but that is the world we live in. If I want throw on scarf or a swipe of 99-cent red lipstick so I can feel stylish that doesn’t make me any less serious-minded then the person who dresses in scrubs to eschew conventional fashion.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:06 pm
I think the rise Plumcake got out of the commenters was the (shockingly unfounded) assumption that a big girl who isn’t into fashion MUST be taking that position due to some kind of self-esteem issue. You know, some of us just sit in a cube all day and don’t feel like clogging up our pores with makeup and wrinkling our fancy clothes just to impress our computer screens.
A nice pair of jeans and a cashmere sweater DO make me feel better. But I don’t get to wear jeans to work, and professional clothes just make me feel stuffy and uncomfortable. Makeup just makes me feel like I’ve got stuff on my face. My hair is thick and takes 45 minutes to blow-dry. Thanks, I need the sleep more than I need to look good for my monitor.
And it’s sort of disingenuous to ask the question about why it is that some big girls do not put a lot of effort into “chic,” only to dismiss every answer as an “excuse.” If you’re going to blow off every answer, why bother asking the question?
There are many definitions of “fabulous,” and since we’ve already taken the step of embracing the “all different shapes can be fabulous,” maybe we can take the next logical step and say, “all different kinds of personal priorities can be fabulous,” no?
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:00 am
Starting at the top:
Jen: “The blog is not called “Novelty Socks and Crocs for the Big Girl”!”
Cat: “this is a fashion blog. It’s right up there at the top of the page: “Fashion, Lifestyle, and Humor.””
When I read jen’s comment, I thought I must have been misreading the header all this time. But Cat’s quite right. It *does* say “Lifestyle and Humor” after “Fashion.” If it was a purely Fashion blog, I wouldn’t be reading it. I suspect that quite a few of your regulars wouldn’t be.
La Petite Acadienne: Everything she said. The original post did feel like an attack; the question was, in so many words, “What are you afraid of?” That’s an insulting question coming from someone who knows nothing about most of the people she’s asking it of. Plumcake, how would you react if someone you don’t know personally demanded that you tell her what you were compensating for with your expensive shoes? Wouldn’t your hackles rise at least a little bit?
Tiff: Everything she said as well. I dress to suit my life, which does not include an office job, and does include round-the-clock care for my ailing husband. Just today I had to physically lift him into the car. There’s melting snow on the ground. I’d be a fool to try that in heels and a skirt — sneakers and jeans are it for me. They’re nice sneaker, and nice jeans, and that’s it.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:14 am
Maybe if your biggest social outting of the week is going to Walmart there are bigger problems than clothing.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 am
You’re not off base…it’s not how I feel.
I like your style. I like your attitude.
Keep it up, girl.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:50 am
I like novelty socks. I think that there is a way certain types of novelty sock and stocking to be worn fashionably. Fashion means something different to everyone, although I thought the original post was hilarious, not offensive.
I’m a jeans, tshirt and sweats gal myself on most days, but I do believe that a person should try to look their best at all times. The way we look and present ourselves is connected to how we see ourselves, how we want to be seen. Plumcake wants to be seen as fierce. I want to be seen as cute, but casual, so I wear cute jeans, cute tees, cute accessories. I would, for example, next to never wear sweatpants in public. But, I used to have a filthy job cleaning animal cages and no car, and on any given day could be seen riding the bus, sweaty and makeupless, sometimes in sweats, always without my hair done and so on. If I had to go somewhere afterwards and couldn’t get home to change, I would change at work. Sometimes I went out afterwards still looking and feeling like a mess. I wasn’t ashamed because I had nothing to be ashamed of, but I knew that I wasn’t at my best. No one has to be at their best all the time, but wouldn’t you feel better if you strove towards that?
My point is, looking sloppy isn’t a crime, but if you’re so attached to a sloppy dressed down look that you feel the need to defend it, maybe you should think about why it is that you feel defensive about it. I mean, this is a blog where fashion is the first word of the title and high heels and boots are a regular feature. So if you read this blog you probably have some inclination towards fashion, because if you didn’t most of the posts would bore you. If you’re not dressing the way you’d like to that’s your problem, not Plumcake’s.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:29 am
I think this is getting blown way out of proportion in relation to what Plumcake actually wrote. It made me giggle, and I’ve been known to wear a silly tshirt every now and then. Lighten up people.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:43 am
I can’t for the life of me figure out why you wouldn’t want to look nicely dressed every time you leave the house. I’m not talking full makeup and haute couture clothing, but if you can put on your husbands tshirt and a pair of sweats and crocs, you can just as easil pull on a sweater, jeans, and nice boots. It doesn’t take any more effort!
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:18 am
What Jen 2.0 says- and if you add a silk scarf and a nice pair of earrings to her outfit (and maybe, gulp, a touch of lipstick), chances are you’ll go from nicely presentable to completely fabulous.
Maybe I’m hopelessly old-fashioned, but I remember when going out to dinner, even if it was the neighborhood grill, meant dressing up in nice, grownup clothing (of which novelty socks, logo Tshirts, or those godawful “jogging” suits do not constitute). 5, may 10 minutes extra is all it takes! It doesn’t have to be designer, expensive or even purchased this decade. But it does need to be well-tailored, clean and not frayed or rumpled.
Ah, I can hear some people complaining already about how superficial and judgmental I am, that such outfits aren’t as comfortable, and why should they conform to society’s shallow standards, yadda yadda. Sigh. Well, for what it’s worth, the slobification of America has hit people of all shapes and sizes.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:10 am
Why the assumption that there’s nothing between “chic” and “a slob”? Can someone answer that, please? I’m genuinely puzzled.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:47 am
i think Tiff said it best…
what i found to be most disagreeable with Plumcake’s post was the assumption that those who arent chic or fabulous must have deeper issues.
honestly, one can say in the reverse that those who go out of their way could be compensating for their size or some other issue they have with themselves. this assumption would be just as wrong as the one Plumcake made.
some women, thin or no, just arent into fashion. you’ve got a myriad of reasons why this might be so. we all have different priorities, and just because chicness isnt high up on that list doesnt mean they have deeper psychological issues.
i think it was kinda wrong of Plumcake and others to assume that women who would rather be in jeans and a Pooh Bear t-shirt are somehow basketcases. sometimes a person just wants to be comfortable in their own skin. damn what anyone else may think.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 am
Fashion writing stops being fun the second the writer starts issuing edits and judgments. Women are under insane pressure to look a certain way and penalized for any small failure to do so – see the Jessica Simpson weight “controversy”. Why would anyone want to be a part of this cruelty? It is nobody’s duty to be fabulous, or chic, or anything else related to looks, so why try to bully people into thinking otherwise?
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 am
SusanC – I am an American living in Germany, and you can always, always spot the Americas. They are the ones wandering around town in sweats. Like you, I believe that you should be presentable when you’re out in public. Sweats are for the gym.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
rabrab, i’m so sorry about your husband. mine had cancer 2 yrs ago (much better now) and i’m thinking lots of good thoughts for you.
i liked the comment upthread about knits being a plus-size girl’s friend. my basic uniform is cute knit dresses with leggings and boots or ballet flats and fetching vintage jewelry. i work at home but feel better when i’m put together. when i was skinnier i wore a lot of (affordable) vintage but that’s harder to find in plus sizes; now some of my dresses are old navy and target; i buy and adore boden on sale (their biggest size, british 20, fits me). for me, stretchy dresses are as comfy as sweats, but i personally feel better in ‘em. and i’m also on a very, very tight budget.
i don’t think plumcake implied that anyone who doesn’t care about clothes is a basket case. her general tone, for me, allows for dissent, b/c it’s funny and over the top. (i had actually BOUGHT a dress she later pointed out as hideous — the famous “frog water” dress — and wear it all the time and adore it, so nyah. i wasn’t offended that she found it puke-inducing. that’s what makes horse races.)
and i still maintain that if something makes you furious, it behooves you to examine why, at its deepest level, and not just take the knee-jerk “i was just INSULTED” route.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
I’m here, like everybody else here, I like clothes and shoes and putting them together in fun ways. But I agree with the person above who talked about edicts and judgments (I’m really tired of the Project Rungay blog, for example, now that it has become all about passing judgment anc calling everyone “bitches” as if that’s okay). And I don’t always agree with the judgments passed here. My taste, too, is for the long pencil skirt and chunky shoes or boots–not so much what you guys like. I haven’t felt mad when you’ve evaluated things I like negatively, but I understand why someone could feel that way. And I think deciding that someone’s taste isn’t taste or choice or about prioritizing other things in their life but a pscyhological maladjustment to a body type isn’t you being your best self.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
When you get dressed in the morning, it takes the same amount of work/effort to put on a sweatshirt as it does a sweater. It’s just as easy to put on a skirt as it is to put on sweatpants. And to top it off, it’s much faster to stick your foot in a pair of ballet flats than it is to put on sneakers.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Heh. I live in the sticks, and the only businesses here are the local hardware store, the convenience store, and a burger joint. And let me tell you, if we’re going out to the burger joint, I’ve been known to put on nice jeans and heels, a pretty blouse, the lipstick, and the blown-out hair. You take your social outings where you can get them, I guess. : ) Now if we make the 45 minute trip into town to the WalMart, then I REALLY go all-out!
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Maybe it’s a matter of practice, but I find that actually, wearing a skirt is way more effort than slacks. There’s the pantyhose, for one thing. Going to the restroom is more complicated – up with that, down with that carefully lest it snag, balance in those heels, okay now back up and tug everything into position, and back down and hope it didn’t wrinkle too much. And oh, make sure the lining or slip isn’t wrinkled/caught up/turned around.
Not that there aren’t times when the extra effort is worth it, but I am more vexed all day long if I have to wear a skirt rather than slacks.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
I’ve been following this and I read it a bit differently. Is there a difference between looking nice and being chic? I make the effort to look nice when I get dressed for work – my clothes match, they’re clean and ironed, they fit, and I pick accessories that I think pick them up. But chic? that’s kind of beyond me – chic to me implies a level of fashionable dressing that requires time, effort, and money I just don’t have. (And I wear novelty socks on occasion – the ones with the skiing penguins geet worn under my snow boots.)
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
marjorie says: “for me, stretchy dresses are as comfy as sweats, but i personally feel better in ‘em.”
Yes! I am a big fan of dresses. One piece – you put it on, you slip on some shoes and a little jewelry, you’re done. I often get asked why I dress up so much on “casual Fridays.” My answer is always that a dress is more comfortable for me than jeans and a top, as well as being quicker and easier to put on.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
All this debate is sucking out the fun out of fashion.
Stop being mean girls!
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
One can argue that clothes have no intrinsic value beyond covering the body. Should what you wear matter? Is a woman any different if you dressed her up in dowdy, ill-fitting clothes than if you have her in the most chic, well-tailored outfit?
Objectively, no. It doesn’t matter.
The trouble is we aren’t objective. We are subjective. Who we are as people and how we feel about ourselves is complex. It seems like a simple question to ask someone “Why do you dress that way?” but surely the answer isn’t always known.
Personally, I think it would be great if everyone could afford to dress in a comfortable manner that is also chic (not to be confused with fashionable). I’m sure all of us struggle to find inexpensive, yet stylish, clothes that fit our bodies properly.
For the people who say they don’t care what they wear and shouldn’t be judged based on it. I agree, you should not be judged by your appearance. You undoubtedly are, we all are, but you shouldn’t be. And I think you do care what you wear. It does matter. The effort you put into your look and how you feel about it when you walk out your door and face the world absolutely affects you. When you feel good about how you look, you feel better about yourself overall.
Has no one watched “What Not to Wear?” Time after time, poor-dressers who were resistant to change in the beginning end up embracing a new way of looking at clothes and sometimes cry because of the profound difference it makes in how the feel about themselves.
Here is a great commentary by Antony Hegarty about dressing for yourself. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/apr/13/women.fashion1
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Late to the party but crashing anyway:
I agree with Plumcake’s distinction between that which is “chic” and that which is “fashionable” or “stylish.” As amply discussed in the comments, there are many ways to be stylish and super-fantastic, but I don’t think all are “chic,” and there is something haughty or perhaps “unfriendly” about true “chic.” This occurred to me while watching “Sleeping Beauty” for the 50th time. Sleeping Beauty is lovely, innocent,naive, etc and beautifully, stylishly dressed but she is NOT chic. Chic is not naive. Chic does not go barefoot through the forest. Maleficient, the wicked witch, is wickedly chic, with long black robes highlighted with purple and crimson, a funky headdress, large clunky jewelry, long, scarlet nails and dark red lipstick. Her “chic-”ness emphasizes her maturity and her haughtiness. Same thing in “The Little Mermaid,” in which Ariel is lovely and innocent and romantically dressed and Ursula is wickedly chic.
So I disagree with the commenters who define “chic”ness as any personal style, or being stylish in general–I think “chic” is a particular kind of style, which is modern, mature, sleek, and more likely to be found in cities than in rural or suburban areas. It is not naive, it is not young, it is not frilly and romantic. I do recognize that people can define “chic” in many ways, and I’m not “judging” anyone who defines “chic” differently, but is easier to continue with a clear definition of “chic.”
I do not usually dress in a chic manner for precisely the reason Plumcake pointed out–it seems a little unfriendly and a little “haughty” to me. Also, I’ve never had the confidence/attitude to carry it off on a regular basis. Also, I prefer a more flowy, romantic style. My favorite skirts are full and ankle-length (not very chic).
And I don’t think Plumcake was off-base with her question–it is a fashion blog, after all, and her job is to generate discussion/blog-traffic. Which she did.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
“Why the assumption that there’s nothing between “chic” and “a slob”? Can someone answer that, please? I’m genuinely puzzled.”
See, that’s the problem, right there. There’s never a middle. Why can’t there be a middle?
I like Marvel’s comment also. There is something of a sharp edge to chic. It’s not even that everything is always sleek and modern and minimalist. Even when something on the runway is relatively flowy and reads as “romantic,” it’s still kind of fierce. All of which is FINE. Great. You can ride that sharp edge to some mightily excellent places. I’m just not in that mood 24/7/365. Also I grew up in a post-hippie mecca and yeah, occasionally my inner hippie wants a great big long full tiered boho summer skirt and to hell with it. I am not sure you can be chic, as such, in such a skirt, at least not in 2009 (they did have a quick moment a couple of years ago), but you can definitely choose to work a certain style in one as opposed to just flinging it on with whatever.
And that’s true of a wide range of the “invisible middle” in clothes. I don’t think Plumcake is suggesting it’s impossible to look chic in jeans and a sweater. It’s eminently doable. And I do think there’s an inherent value to having a sense of the aesthetic dimension in your dressing all the time, no matter how comfortably dressed down you happen to be on a particular day. Even the dreaded yoga pants can look decent or crappy (do they fit? a good length? a substantial enough fabric? what color?)
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I think it is true that frumpy dressers often have self esteem issues, particuarly when they are plus size. Countless friends have announced that “nothing in their closet fits, except for one pair of pants” and that they “don’t want to buy anything nice until they lose weight.” With that attitude, they end up with a wardrobe of cheap, comfy, dated and unattractive. They are not making a stand, but giving up.
Now, if someone dresses comfy or unfashionable to say to hell with consumerism or to simply dress comfy, that’s a different story.
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
What bothered me most about the original thread/question is what bothers me a great deal about this one: the utter arrogance of the statement “well, if *I* can do it, you can too!”. The posters do not know the limitations of others’ lives, and to assume that one can generalize from one’s own circumstances to those of everyone else is presumption of the worst kind.
I come to this blog to get ideas, to see what’s out there, to check the discount codes, and to laugh a little. I do not come here to be judged and convicted without a trial because I do not follow every last piece of advice given. As a previous commenter mentioned earlier, if you’re going to dismiss every reason as an “excuse”, why bother to ask the question at all? Just say “You’re all weak…now drop and give me 20″ and move on.
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Hmmm, reading the comments, I’m now more on Concerned Reader Sarah’s side. I feel like a lot of these comments are really nasty and judgmental–how dare she not dress fashionably? It’s so easy! There is no excuse to not look just like me!
Maybe Concerned Reader Sarah doesn’t want to dress fashionably. Maybe she likes her sweats and cartoon shirts. There’s no use in psychanalyzing why, and unless you know her and have a degree in psychology, it is insulting to do so.
Looking a certain way is not a moral imperative. If you want to, fine. But I find the pseudo-outraged tone that many of these posts are taking about people not dressing the way you want to to be incredibly sexist and classist. And that makes me sad.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Did I miss something? Is this not the blog titled “Manolo for the Bog Girl”? If you don’t want to get great tips on looking and feeling chic, check out. It just doesn’t make sense to me that she would react in the way she did. Why read if you don’t embrace the blog’s message?
And for the record, I am juicy, on a budget, and still manage to look fab when I have to hit up the WalMarts. All it takes is a hairbrush, a little mascara, and clothes that fit properly and showcase my good points.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I think those who have deconstructed “chic” a bit are on the right track here. I took Plumcake’s original post, which in my opinion was more confusing than offensive, to be asking why readers might have a love/hate (embrace/fear?) relationship with the particular look that we consider “chic,” which for Plumcake is the penultimate style. In other words, if in your deepest heart of hearts you really aspire to be Audrey Hepburn or Marlene Dietrich or whoever embodies that style for you, why are you running around in the antithesis of that style? By my logic, the question is more about holding oneself back than demanding we all adhere to one uniform definition of style. Maybe I’m just interpreting Plumcake too liberally, but that’s my personal take on it.
So, to extend that, if your dream is to be the most fashionable Renn girl, SAHM, nurse, impoverished student, etc. on the block, then why are you resisting that? Is it because you think that if you really were that fashionable, put together, or whatever, that you wouldn’t be as accessible?
It’s a valid question, particularly when you throw in value judgments that can be made when dressing down is a sign of status or authenticity, as other commenters have mentioned. I’m an academic, and I’ve definitely heard professors criticized for looking too fashionable because fashion is supposed to be “below” intellectuals (which is of course bullcrap). Likewise, if you’re a busy working mother, will your fellow busy working mothers think you’re uppity or shallow or intimidating if they perceive you as worrying more about your earrings than your kids?
February 5th, 2009 at 4:36 am
I think fashion is technically frivolous. However, much like art is has the power to uplift you. I think women all have some critical self-esteem issues, and fashion is an incredibly powerful way to turn around someone’s severe-self image issues.
Just watch a few episodes of say, BBC’s What Not to Wear, and you can very easily see a huge batch of women who go from wanting NOT to be fashionable, to blend, for whatever reason, and turn out to finding themselves beautiful, and even better, valuable again.
The desire not to join life and value yourself is a choice. I don’t mean to pass judgment, but not dressing yourself with at least the respect of a personal style that makes you feel good is like not keeping your house tidy enough for guests. Its your choice, and I’ll respect it, but don’t expect me to visit much.
February 7th, 2009 at 3:08 am
I had joined this blog on a recommendation from a fellow blogger that you all were funny here. I was interested. However, when I read the post mentioned here I stopped reading this blog. I was just going to leave it at that, and speak my discontent by not being a reader. Fashion isn’t really my thing anyway, but I like to support women, especially fat women, doing their thang. However, I’ve found that the post keeps coming up in my mind when I’m thinking about things, so I’m back to respond. It is an emotional response, because my logical side isn’t able to function concerning this topic.
I just want to say I think you should be ashamed of yourselves. How dare you, and your readers, pass judgment on someone based solely on what they do or do not choose to wear? If you’re tired of women claiming time restraints to looking good, then perhaps they are tired of the pandemonium related to it. If a woman wants to dress up and look good for themselves, then I say they should rock on, but to do it just to get everyone else’s approval is bullshit. As women, we are constantly taught to fit into the rules of society. Be a lady and don’t curse, have sex for pleasure, be alone with a man, have an opinion, speak unless spoke to, blah, blah, blah. We’re told to take up as little space as possible, to have our hair done a certain way, to wear make-up even when we exercise, and most importantly to not stand out from the crowd. This sort of conformity has lead to countless females having eating disorders, and low self-esteem. Women are trapped in abusive relationship because they are told no one would want them the way they are, and they find it difficult to near impossible to adhere to the rules of our society for women.
As a fat woman, we have to walk out the door every day and be ready for a fight. We have to fight our doctors and family members, and our closest friends, to prove there is nothing wrong with us. We are not abnormal or hideous or broken. We do not have to camouflage ourselves with make-up and fancy clothes in order to quell the rioters at our door. Our desire to not play by society rule’s of dress is not unethical or immoral, nor does it mean we do not have pride in ourselves, our bodies or our life. And I think it is horrific that instead of bonding together and creating a united front, accepting each other for our differences and embracing the fact that not all of us has to fancy fashion or go to the salon or wear cute shoes to be beautiful, smart, wonderful women, that there are so many on this site looking down their noses at other women.
Whether or not a woman “looks good” when leaving her house has no bearings on her character.
February 7th, 2009 at 3:26 am
[...] me to get upset and even more offended. So I returned, and saw that Plumcake had received an outraged response to the post and then asked her readers what they thought. Again, more comments about how shameful [...]
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
At one time in my life I went from working in management to working in a bagel store (both baking product and serving customers), yet somehow I managed to show up daily wearing a clean, unwrinkled tee shirt and slacks and clean white “trainers”. My long hair was styled in a french braid and a sweat band to keep from looking grimey. ( I even wore lip gloss and Corn Silk). Compared to the rest of the emloyees , who used the hard work as an excuse to be slobs, I stuck out like a sore thumb and you know what?- I didn’t care.