from target

what message are we sending little girls by putting them in adult clothing?

walk into any girls’ department and you can see miniature versions of WOMEN’S clothing. they are becoming like miniature women, expected to deal with responsibilities, tastes and attitudes. They are learning younger and younger how to be “pretty”, “fashionable” and most distressingly “desirable”.

Little girls are getting eating disorders because of increased cultural pressure on appearance. Adult and teenage women have long dealt with this trend, but at least we were safe until puberty. Not anymore, and it makes me sick.

And this got me thinking about my last post, about women wearing children’s clothes. Is this not sexualizing childhood even more? I get the media sexualizing youth, as in teens, because of the interest in attractiveness and virility, but prepubescences? That’s just wrong.

Sex, and all the issues it brings, is one thing that children should never have to deal with.

-laura lee

It is not because it is the crux of hipster fashion.

It is because of this.

I was disillusioned by American Apparel at an early age because of the high prices and the meaningless culture of the plain tee-shirt that erupted after the company’s inception. My infrequent visits to their stores (both physically and online) have brought me to the conclusion that American Apparel’s minimalistic marketing techniques are hardly void of subliminal messaging; rather, the over-sexualized images of both women and men exploit the emotions of our cynical, overly-sensitive generation into buying “socially progressive” clothing. It is a tired argument against unattainable body imagery made against many clothing companies, however the culture that maintains and generates the company’s success is totally unique to American Apparel.

American Apparel is using a tried and true method of marketing (think of the simplistic Gap commercials of the late 90s; when all you needed to sell a pair of pants was a group of attractive and possibly drugged teenagers singing to Donovan while wearing khakis). I was expecting emaciated, similarly bored-looking teens to be displaying their bodies in gilded spandex, but I was caught off-guard by the slogan on the women’s web page (as of July 12, 2008), “Time to get wet.”

Time to get wet? I would hope that such a disgustingly low-brow slogan keeps potential shoppers at bay, however this is not the case. American Apparel is very aware of the sex appeal of their models in advertisements; many of their ads seem like borderline soft-core porn. Models are not the only ones expected to sell their body image for profit, however. For example, a good friend of mine recently applied to work at an American Apparel store in Kansas City. Along with her standard application and references she had to provide three headshots. Perhaps this is common practice today, but I was under the impression that Equal Opportunity Employment policies frown upon discrimination. Could anybody get a job at an American Apparel shop? Could you?

Yet the sexually-charged ads that American Apparel are known for are of little interest to the “socially aware” consumers. The culture of the simple t-shirt that Dov Charney has created is renowned for its alleged control over each stage of clothing production and promotion of Union-made clothing. It seems to me that with every virtue comes a hidden vice, and that is certainly true for the American Apparel corporation. When one buys an American Apparel t-shirt because of the company’s current disdain for outsourcing (yet economists suggest that this mentality will be short-lived due to the demands of the 650 new American Apparel stores due to open in the upcoming year †) and its apparent promotion of worker’s rights (even though much of the hype created by American Apparel’s radical “Legalize LA” campaign is now coming under fire because the company’s LA-based factory hires many Latin American immigrants ‡ ), one forgets about the image that one is buying – the over-sexualized young woman or man wearing only a nylon sports jacket. Why does this not matter, but buying “clothes with a conscience,” despite the inherent hypocracies of this claim, is of the utmost importance?

Let us rethink what exactly American Apparel is trying to sell.

-ellen elizabeth

†, “American Apparel’s unusual flotation is typical of Dov Charney, its founder,” The Economist, 01.04.2007

‡, “Politics Wrapped in a Clothing Ad,” The New York Times, 01.18.2008

courtesy Vee’s Victorians

we are wearing children’s clothes.

sized up children’s clothes.

granted they are cute.

courtesy baby gadget

when i bought my light green baby doll jacket with short puffy sleeves, both my mother, aunt and grandmother all commented on how “now all that old stuff is in again.” referring of course to kid’s wear but also sleep wear (e.g. traditional ladies wear here)

sure, i know it’s normal for certain things to come in and out of style, but… we’re still wearing big kids clothes.

the high waist line does have one added bonus that i think many women enjoy throughly: the hidden tummy. the falling fabric from above the bust makes the bust appear to be the widest part, hiding all guts and muffin tops alike.

my choice for exemplary baby doll top?

the Fang Lace Babydoll Jacket from nordstrom

be cute and enjoy!

-laura lee

i remember being told as a child that city dwellers (especially in europe) wore black. it was fashionable. and i must say, according to my own experience, i disagree almost entirely.

aside from ulaanbaatar the black rule really doesn’t apply. in the u.s. and europe, i see color usage as a key factor in being fashionable, whether it be pairing brights or more muted colors, or just having basic solid pieces. black will always have its place, but i feel like the western world has its eye on color now, not black and white.

-laura lee