Thoughts for Tuesday, v. 15: Fashion's Obsession with Thylane Loubry Blondeau

Yes, I've been slacking off - it's summer and my mind is already in London. Instead of waxing poetic about my hopes and expectations, I've temporarily halted my Thoughts for Tuesday column. While I can't guarantee this post marks its official revival, I can't help the urge to write when disturbed.

Thylane Loubry Blondeau is a French model, with long hair, striking eyes... and she's just ten years old. Even so, child models and actors exist, frequently without controversy ('Toddlers and Tiaras' excluded from "the norm"). She graced the cover of Vogue Enfant, shown frolicking as many children do. Now she's made her way into the pages of Vogue Paris, not without dispute, however.

At ten, she's barely younger than the teenage models seen in the same publications and on fashion runways. As much as the industry is criticized for infantilizing women, it's no stranger to middle-school aged girls dressing in a way many people consider "too mature." Daphne Groeneveld, for instance, was only fifteen when featured on the cover of the same magazine containing an infamous Blondeau editorial (Vogue Paris, January 2011, guest-edited by Tom Ford). Alongside Tom Ford, she conveyed youth, beauty, and luxury.

In Groeneveld's case, it was hardly a satirical move - it's arguably normal. Yet defenders of Thylane's oft-provocative editorials cite satire as a driving force and inspiration. Little girls play dress up in the mothers' and sisters' clothes, right? Yet there's a difference placing a young girl in an adult setting, in "adult" clothing, in "adult" make up, in "adult" poses for an adult industry. It's hardly attempting to sell a product other than controversy itself.

Commenters at Fashionista argue it's perfectly fine if her parents allow it and if she simultaneously enjoys it. Yet is a ten year old capable of consenting to implied nude photos (photos taken sans-shirt, in this case, though her torso is covered by beaded necklaces in a style popularized by hippies). Furthermore, if her parents allow this, does it make it acceptable? While her mother does claim to have her best interests in mind, it is important to remember that parents can be guilty of exploiting their own children - their discretion doesn't automatically make it right.

Other commenters claim if one views the photos as sexual, then there's something wrong with the viewer. The nature of these photographs does not justify any harassment. Period. None of her photographs reach the horrendous level of child pornography, but some claim that these actions, by default, objectify the child.

It isn't a matter of whether the viewer herself (or himself) is aroused by images. It's more of acknowledging the sad truth that there are people who do enjoy it, and knowing this can promote a feeling of discomfort in the viewer.

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.14: Investment Pieces

I've quit Forever 21 for some time now. I don't bother to go in when I'm at any mall, and their website is no longer one of my must-look shops. If I do ever make my way into the store, I usually see a few cute pieces, even classic pieces, but I never bother to try anything on, much less actually buy anything.

Almost nothing at Forever 21 is made to last, and that's a quality that has begun to irk me. Granted, I'm broke, and moving to London in a few months so I really don't have any money to spare on new clothes. However, a few new things have entered my closet recently that possessed price tags higher than I'm accustomed to. True, I've gotten good deals (See by Chloe and Stella McCartney sandals, a beautiful tie-dye dress I have yet to wear...) but the value simply seems better, in the long run.

I've never really been one to buy anything and everything - most of my purchases are well thought out, and impulse buys end up serving me well. I'd just rather a pair of shoes, albeit more expensive, that will last a few seasons opposed to something that falls apart by the end of summer.

I'm not swearing off "cheap" clothing entirely - ASOS and H&M items are still high on a few wishlists. But it seems I'm in a transitioning period, in more than one way. It's occurred to me that I have a month and a half left to do a closet clean-out before I leave the country - including many items I initially anticipated to sell through a blog shop.

My current favorites will remain just that until they've worn out, but my standards for replacements will be higher. My ideal wardrobe will probably take years to build, but I'm in absolutely no hurry.

xox Catherine

PS I know I'm not obliged to apologize, but it's been irritating me that I haven't been posting as much. I've been lazy. Very, very lazy. I need to leave my house more.

Thoughts for Tuesday: Knockoffs: Plagiarism? (on Chictopia)

En lieu of this week's Thought for Tuesday post, check out my latest article on Chictopia's Everybody is Ugly, concerning knockoffs in fashion.

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.13: June 14, World Blood Donor Day

Recently, I've been pondering my beliefs relative to my actions. There's so many issues I do care about, but getting involved and actually doing something has proven a bit more difficult. Case in point: today is World Blood Donor Day, and I've never donated blood. By the time I turned sixteen, I had lost too much weight and wasn't eligible. In accordance with the Red Cross guidelines, I'm still technically not able.

However, that doesn't mean I can't do anything. As with many issues such as these, raising awareness can be incredibly important. I've heard people ask why there's so many walks for breast cancer and other diseases and illness, stating that simply walking does nothing. But it's not just taking a walk. Along with fund raising, events such as these raise awareness.

Nexcare has created a line of colorful, fun bandages with the word "give" boldly written across. Along with being arguably more stylish than your typical bandage, the message is there. However, there's more to it - Nexcare is in its third year of a collaboration with the American Red Cross and Niki Taylor, a model who suffered a nearly-fatal car accident and has since become an advocate for this cause.

Truth be told, I have wanted to donate blood for years, as I've mentioned, but I never fully realized how important it is. Blood centers typically face shortages at this time of year, and on average, someone in the country needs a blood donation every two seconds. Yet only 8% of people eligible to give blood do.

I've set a goal for myself to become more involved with charities and causes I consider important, such as environmental issues, animal cruelty, and yes, blood donation. Even if I can't donate, such as in this scenario, I can still raise my voice.



xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.12: Sincerity in Blogging, and Life

It's not seldom that someone (in real life) calls me rude. I'm a bit introverted, a little awkward, I daydream frequently (thus distracting myself), and my sense of humor heavily relies on sarcasm. I do not believe I am rude - my voice is quiet, often to an inaudible degree, I suppose. Friends, family, and whoever else told me I needed to become more outgoing. Long story short, I accepted that I'm just not a social butterfly and my personality is a little awkward (but endearing). So what?

My real-life demeanor is barely evident on my blog. My writing is indeed personal, but my carefree attitude isn't always displayed to onlookers. I've been told I'm too serious, but once someone gets to know me, he or she would say otherwise. However, amongst people I don't know too well, I'm a different person. Perhaps it's partly due to my natural shyness, but regardless, it can feel a little fake. There's a time and place for certain behavior, and I often feel that my true personality does come off as rude. So I ditch it.

I'll switch the focus to how this relates in blogging, since I've been talking about myself nonstop on here. We can all appreciate niceness, but there's a point at which someone may seem too polite. It doesn't seem sincere. Not always, anyway.

I'm just as guilty. Come on, I think we can all admit to commenting on other blogs just for the sake of commenting and possibly gaining exposure. It's this type, from my observation, that tend to be inauthentic. Granted, one doesn't typically make an effort to comment on something a little lackluster, but telling another her dress is nice and typing all those characters into the word verification box is barely worth it. Unless of course, you're trying to reach out in as few words as possible. Or maybe you're just too tired or lack time. I can't speak for everyone, but it happens.

I suppose I'm one of those people who believes sincerity and being genuine have merit, and that a good personality is truly valuable. Maybe that's bullshit, but why pretend to give a damn when you don't?

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.11: Free Write

Honestly, I'm really stressed out - no apparent reason either other than getting into the habit of my internship and still not being able to figure out whether I'll be studying abroad during fall or spring, if at all. I can't think of a controversial topic or anything thought provoking. No, here's another personal post.

My room is such a mess and I have my artwork piled up everywhere. Though I definitely feel more motivated with creative endeavors, I'm simply too stressed/busy to attempt to go through it and find a place for it all. Seriously, why did I think I'd ever use nearly a hundred mismatched bowls, cups, and other ceramic items?

I have my prom in a little more than a week, and before I go I plan on dying my hair back to its natural color. I'm not even stressed about that, though. One of my best friends is in beauty school, so she can do it for me whenever and it's pretty much just hanging out rather than feeling obligated to make small talk with the hair stylist.

That's another thing: small talk. I'm an introvert. I keep to myself, by nature. I don't share my every though nor do I strike up conversation all the damn time. It's a hassle for me, honestly. I think I've come out of my shell enough where I can talk to people without being crippled by anxiety - or simply text someone to see what's up without getting incredibly nervous - but I'm not the kind of person that talks all the time. I observe, I soak up my surroundings, etc.

With all of that being said, I'd like to take a moment to reflect upon how far I've come in that aspect. You know, my "social life" aka the most important part of high school. I used to sit in all the time wishing I had something to do, despite my comfort being alone sometimes. I think the difference is that I was lonely, not simply alone, y'know? Over this past year and a half I've made quite a few friends... many of whom are merely acquaintances, but I've also gained some solid friends.

Hurrah. I do prefer this feeling over being insatiably bored, but I suppose I'm just trying to explain my absence. I don't think I'm doing a great job though - or perhaps I am, considering how poorly constructed this entire post is. I'm not trying to be critical, but normally I put more thought into writing. Sometimes it's nice to just let the words come to me instead of desperately trying to find them.

Hopefully by next week I'll be back to blogging more frequently. And then the following week I graduate! This is madness. The good kind, of course.

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.10: Male vs. Female Fashion Designers

"Men are often better designers for women than other women... Of course there are many more gay male designers. I think we are more objective. We don't come with the baggage of hating certain parts of our bodies... Sometimes women are trapped by their own views of themselves, but some have built careers around that. Donna Karan was obsessed with her hips and used her own idiosyncrasies to define her brand." - Tom Ford

Despite fashion being something frequently associated with a fancy of women, it is arguable that men dominate the field as designers, photographers, and in some cases, even models.

Some say that men (gay men in particular) are simply better for this industry. If one looks at a list of winners of the Council of Fashion Designers of America awards from years past, it is evident that male designers prevail. This year, the Womenswear Designer of the Year award nominees include Alexander Wang, Jack McCollough and Lazaro Hernandez (the duo at Proenza Schouler), and Marc Jacobs. The Swarovski Award for Womenswear nominates Joseph Altuzarra, Prabal Gurung, but only one female team (Mary-Kate and Ashely Olsen at The Row). Similarly, all menswear nominees are indeed men.

All nominees are talented designers, but it is illustrated that the proportion of prominent designers is not equal among both genders, despite that fashion school students are mostly female (usually 85 to 95 percent). Of course, this could be influenced by a variety of things, from the fact that professional women have only climbed to the top relatively recently, Anna Wintour's alleged preference of male designers, or the camaraderie between men as opposed to the perceived rivalry between women.

But what about highly influential female designers - Coco Chanel? Miuccia Prada? Donna Karan? Kate and Laura Mulleavy at Rodarte? And a personal favorite, Stella McCartney? These women are not just female designers, though. They stand alongside their male peers, equally. It's ridiculous to say that only male designers have achieved success.

Compared to other industries, fashion is accepting of and accessible to women, but there's still a handful more men that get ahead. I have no idea if "things are changing," nor does there seem to be any evidence that there is a disparity (thus no suggestion that the gap is lessening).

What are your thoughts?

For more reading, check out "In Fashion, Who Really Gets Ahead?" by Eric Wilson.

xox Catherine

PS I've become obsessed with Tumblr. You can check mine out here.

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.9: Oh, she deserved it for dressing like that...

I'm in the middle of studying for my psych final, which is actually inspiring my thought process. Yet again, I haven't planned anything to write for this week's post. So this helps.

My blogger friend Alex addressed receiving attention for dressing in a manner that skews from common attire. (You know, flowy skirts and blouses instead of microminis and tank tops.) Such attention can range from stares, to glares, to compliments, snarky remarks or blatant insults. Yeah, it happens, whether from female or male observers.

I choose not to be a victim of this type of negativity. My high school is relatively small, and I firmly believe that the majority of my classmates will not matter to me in the future. If for whatever chance they do, it's not as if what I wear now will have much influence then. Bitter questions about why I'm so dressed up - in a tshirt and skirt, no less? Whatever. So I wear what I damn well please, within the boundaries of what my closet has to offer, of course.

One of such negativity's different facets, however, hits a little harder. There's the common perception that females are catty and malicious, whereas the male population is incredibly perverted. I generally eschew these opinions, but it's shockingly common for my peers of both sexes to justify sexual harassment stemming from clothing.

A girl is wearing a low-cut top, so she must be seeking male attention or conforming to the male gaze? I don't know. I'd like to believe she's dressing in a way that's self-satisfying, but as we know, that's not always the case. Regardless, wearing a certain type of clothing does not warrant sexual harassment. Ever.

No one's body is public property, though society often treats a female's body as exactly that. It's too usual that someone will remark on how a woman should expect to be treated inappropriately if she's dressed revealingly.

Yet it's not limited to skin-tight, skin-showing garments. A few months ago, a guy made a comment about my crew-neck tshirt related to my breasts. So I spoke out within the class, and an ally of the harasser defended him, suggesting I was making it up and that I shouldn't wear such clothes if I don't want to hear such things. (Trust me, I fired back.)

Clearly, misogynistic attitudes hold strong among others. This is going to sound completely cliche, but you can change that. Guilty of calling a girl a slut for wearing a short skirt? Try to stop. Hear someone say "she deserves it"? Speak up.

xox Catherine

PS Due to unforeseen circumstances, I had to cancel the giveaway I previously posted. I'm terribly, terribly sorry for this.

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.8: My Future/My Senior Year Struggles

Originally I decided against doing such a personal Thoughts for Tuesday post, since most of the topics I choose have a wider reach. However, I feel like an enormous weight has been lifted, and I'm looking forward with confidence rather than anxiety and apprehension. So naturally, this has been on my mind.

I didn't visit any colleges until last autumn, though I had done extensive research often until late at night. The idea of college, or more specifically, having to choose a college, was terrifying. So I ignored the idea and carried on as usual.

If you've been reading my blog for a while, you might have noticed several times that I cited my blase attitude toward school, work, and art - which is something I previously did as a means to relax and cope with life. I lacked any motivation, I slept constantly instead of doing anything remotely productive.

This past winter, in the midst of applying to several schools, I was diagnosed with mononucleosis. I felt ruined. I gave up on several applications, refusing to follow through. I slept more and more, even though I wasn't tired. I had fallen into a rut.

The past two months have been spent in a constant state of anxiety. If the mere idea of school crossed my mind, I lost it. It's not the biggest decision I'll ever face, they told me, I can always transfer. But minimizing the stress by looking too far into the future didn't help.

I was lucky - I was accepted at my dream school. Once finances were factored in, however, the prospect of attending grew dimmer and dimmer. After a few expected rejections, I was still stuck on this one school. I lost perspective on what I had wanted besides that particular place. Anything, in comparison, sucked.

This past weekend I made my decision. Though initially a tough one, since I hadn't expressed much interest in either, was easy once I came back to earth. I've always wanted to travel. So spending a semester in London during my freshman year? I'd be foolish to pass that up, considering I've been longing for exactly that for as long as I can remember.

I take this as a lesson to myself that things may not work out as hoped, but settling for something will be just that if one's attitude is equally sour.

So much stress has been lifted off my chest, almost instantly. Within the last couple days, I've painted several times - something I essentially refused to do during these months. I'm really cheesy and entirely naive, but I take this as some sort of symbolism that I'm back, motivation and all.

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.7: The Irony of Anti-Thinspo

Just a note: sorry for the late posting! I'm completely overwhelming myself. It's bad. But anyway...

"I mean, is 'fat' really the worst thing a human being can be? Is 'fat' worse than 'vindictive', 'jealous', 'shallow', 'vain', 'boring' or 'cruel'? Not to me; but then, you might retort, what do I know about the pressure to be skinny? ... Maybe all this seems funny, or trivial, but it's really not. It's about what girls want to be, what they're told they should be, and how they feel about who they are." - J.K.Rowling

Recently on Tumblr, a certain post pertaining to body image came to my attention. I suppose it was intending to spread a positive message (NOTE: I do not know how to reblog GIFs, perfection was crossed out and replaced with "pizza" in an edited version), but it sat a little sourly with me. If you eat, you're might get fat. But they're okay with that! Bring it!

Since my sarcasm translates poorly through writing, just know, I mean no hard feelings. However, just the mere feeling of guilt that stirs when I simply use the word fat shows how obsessed we are with weight, but more specifically, being thin.

Within the past few years, I've unintentionally lost a significant amount of weight. I was comfortable with myself, but all of a sudden I became surprisingly toothpick-thin. My friends, family, and even acquaintances complimented me on my "new" appearance. Or, at least they believed their words were compliments. "You're so skinny! I wish I looked like that!"

It didn't cease until I finally revealed that I took it as an insult. Ironically, the recent surge of accepting "real" model bodies had something to do with it. Magazine articles embraced curves - the body of a real woman. A feminine shape. Not a boyish twig. And of course, ever so proud of their own opinions, they enforced that real women have curves.

What about the rest of us? The aforementioned Tumblr post included shockingly negative opinions toward skinny girls. "I just don't like extremely thin girls," said one. Another admitted, "I think super skinny girls are kinda scary..." And many have cited the ugliness of protruding bones. Even those who admitted to - gasp - eating and having visible bones stated that thigh gaps are gross. (Yep, mine refuse to touch unless I'm sitting, and my bones commit the horrid crime of sticking out from my skin.)

Yet if anyone said this about a fat girl, it would be mean. It would be hurtful. Telling someone she needs to eat less is a stab at her self esteem, but suggesting a thin girl eat more is just as bad. Obviously, there's a double standard at play here. Naturally, there's still many that bash larger gals, citing unhealthiness and claiming skinny is synonymous with health. But assuming smaller girls are unhealthy and anorexic? No one bats an eyelash.

Everyone deserves to love her (or his) own body. No one should feel shamed by others for mere appearance. I strongly hold the attitude that those who mind don't matter, but in most cases it's easier said than done. Accept yourself and others, thick or thin, short or tall, or any other lovely combination. There's not just one body type that's beautiful, despite whatever anyone may tell you. You are beautiful. You just have to believe it.

EDIT, 4/27/11: Just for clarification, I am not trying to induce sympathy for skinny girls, sound whiny about my own experiences, or say that it's difficult to be thin. I just intended to point out a bit of hypocrisy and suggest that accepting one body type shouldn't come at the expense of another.

xox Catherine

PS If you ever want to discuss any of the topics featured in my Thoughts for Tuesday columns, don't hesitate to email me! I'd love to hear your feedback, and if there's anything I can help with, I'd be more than happy to.

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.6: Is Fashion Art? Or Just Plain Useless?

I recently visited the Roberto Capucci "Art Into Fashion" exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. For those unfamiliar with his work, he came to fame in the 1950's as a brilliant young Italian designer. Over the years, his work became more sculptural. Garments from his recent collections (not shown on a regular basis, just when he has a solid round-up) are hardly even wearable. They're art.

What we see in mass-retail stores is obviously not on par with Capucci or other couturiers' work. Regardless, some consider fashion superficial, or completely consumerist based. Only a self-obsessed, insecure woman would spend $1000 on a pair of structural Balenciaga heels (A/W 2010), right? However, for just as many that blindly follow fashion, there are those women and men that value design and craftsmanship. Yet such aspects of fashion go unnoticed by many, and the fashion world remains impenetrable.

Some cannot justify spending a couple thousand dollars on any single item, nor may they have the funds to do so. (Myself included.) But in this context, fashion is comparable to any functional art. However, as I've mentioned, it's looked down upon. As stated by Oscar Wilde, "fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." Then again, it's constantly evolving, not merely changing. Fashion exists for aesthetic value as well as basic necessity, but it also mirrors the state of society. It can push boundaries or stay within the social norms.

Obviously, contemporary lines are more commercial than ready-to-wear, and ready-to-wear is more commercial than haute couture. In most of these, we see design instead of simple knockoffs. While contemporary and ready-to-wear fashion are marketed to a specific consumer, it is evident that there is thought behind the fabric (especially in the latter). Haute couture, though not for everyday use, is undeniably art in the sense of thought and technique.

With that being said, someone can dress herself or himself creatively, no matter where the clothing comes from. Wearing expensive clothes doesn't even guarantee that person will be dressed creatively. As we know, it's completely possible to put together an artistic ensemble using any sort of garments. But I digress.

Let's return to the claims that fashion is materialistic and essentially useless. If that's true, isn't all art materialist? Especially that which serves no purpose to the audience other than aesthetic value? And useless? If you live in the US, chances are, there's a few laws applicable regarding clothing oneself.

There's nothing wrong with not having a favorite designer or simply not giving a damn about the industry itself, as it's not everyone's cup of tea. Following fashion obsessively isn't necessary to appreciate or respect what it is.

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.5: "Boyfriend Stealing" and Name Calling

I apologize that this is being posted rather late! I've been incredibly busy trying to find an internship for school, doing other schoolwork, and enjoying the glorious weather we had.

I've been thrilled to have been part of the ongoing conversation about feminism and miscellaneous issues within a few blogs. Annebeth from The Styling Dutchman brought up something I'm still thinking about: it's very common for women to be mean toward one another. From making a general statement such as "girls are bitches," or being down right vicious and spreading rumors about a so-called friend, I've witnessed it. I've been a victim. Haven't we all?

Today, while flipping through Cosmopolitan , I read an article entitled "I Exposed a Boyfriend Stealer". Perhaps this sounds good, ridding evil amongst female peers, but the photo was captioned "sigh... another skank bites the dust". Apparently, the woman was wrong for being a slut and compulsively stealing boyfriends.

Yeah, I know many of us gals detest or simply shun the opinions of the misogynist magazine, but this happens outside the men-centric pages as well. I'm very reluctant to take the phrase "boyfriend stealing" seriously. As much as women are objectified and sometimes treated poorly in relationships, stealing implies ownership. And women don't own men, just as men don't own women.

I'm firm to believe the males are at wrong in these scenarios - seduction only goes so far. There's a crucial part of this equation that many seem to miss: his consent. I highly doubt that in these situations, the men are being forced against their will. He enabled it. He actively participated, making him just as guilty, if not more.

So why blame the other woman? Yes, a friend should respect the boundaries of a relationship her friend is in. Yes, she might have started it. However, that doesn't make her a slut. I know this happens between guys too. I've witnessed several physical fights over a lady. But you don't hear one calling the other - the alleged culprit - a slut, whore, skank, bitch, etc.

We do that. It's unfortunate. Sometimes women take pride in being a so-called bitch. There's a bit of irony in that, but it's acknowledging and arguably not dispelling this self-hating thing us women have going on. Of course, we're less likely to pride ourselves in being "sluts". But calling a friend a slut or whore as a term of endearment - something I've been guilty of - has the same effect. We're just pushing that it's okay to call each other sluts and whores.

Words are just words, but these are loaded with highly negative connotations. Seems we (collectively) have a way to go in terms of dealing with fellow women on a civil basis. How sad.

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.4: Those Jeffrey Campbell shoes, that Topshop dress...

"Fashion fades, style is eternal." - Yves Saint Laurent

I have to admit, I was pretty stumped for a topic for today's edition of Thoughts for Tuesday. Most of my thoughts have been continuations of previous posts, without much variation, however. This is the first time I've sat down and read blogs since Sunday, and with nearly 200 posts, I thought it would take forever. Not so.

The amount seemed daunting, but paging through takes no time when there's several posts featuring those shoes and a wispy Topshop dress. Okay, perhaps I'm a little bitter - I only buy used leather/new synthetic materials, and no one gives up their JC shoes, so they're out of the question for me. Topshop has a nice selection but prices I cannot justify, thus they too are not very realistic for me to consider.

I get it - both brands produce more thoughtfully designed, contemporary goods than many super-commercial shops. Astronomically high shoes with a chunky wooden heel in a mall department store? Are you nuts? Peter pan collars constructed of real silk... in the woman's section?! Gasp.

Contrary to what the blogosphere may have you believe, not everyone is clad in a pretty Topshop dress nor do they stomp around in sky-high platforms. I do think that most of us bloggers - and blog readers - do this to go against the norm, to form a community with each other, etc. While one may stand out among a sea of Express-wearing-twenty-somethings, when thrown together, it can be difficult to distinguish an individual.

Within fashion, it's difficult to do something truly original. However, wearing a subtle mix of trendy wares barely constitutes anything groundbreaking, let alone style. Perhaps I'm guilty of this too - no, I know I am - but lusting over the same items and proceeding to purchase them produces monotony.

I can't say much about how personal style blogging used to be, or when exactly these brands stole the hearts of girls wishing to dress differently than their peers. I suppose some similarity is inevitable, but I'd hope to believe that bloggers would want to take pride in putting together unique outfits. But it seems that a fancy camera, a thrifted floral-print item, those shoes, and that bag form a stylish blogger.

I don't have a problem with any of the brands I mentioned in this post - as I said, I do admire quite a few of the designs they create. But there's only so much variation, so much remixing that one person - or a bundle of ladies with the same item - can handle with these brands alone.

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.3: The Irony of Midi Skirts

We've seen it all over the runways these past few seasons - the mid-length skirt. Rebellious, isn't it? After all, it's a sure departure from the mini skirts my age group favors. On a recent post showcasing my favorite outfits from other bloggers, a reader commented stating she wished she could pull off long skirts.

In my head, I said the same thing. I'm considerably short, and many "experts" advise petite girls against wearing longer lengths. Midi skirts may come to an awkward, unflattering length; while maxi skirts may drag on the ground and make one seem a tiny but frumpy cat lady. Or so we're told.

I've worn both - a pleated white skirt with a bubble hem, and a simple, body-hugging maxi dress. I've received compliments on both, and I didn't fidget throughout the day or feel the need to wear shorts underneath to prevent exposure. It was comfortable. However, nearly every compliment was accompanied with an "...oh, but I could never pull that off". And then there's the "what is she wearing?!" glares from my peers. Yeah, you know the ones.

So enters the irony of the midi skirt. Perhaps not as trendy or beach-friendly as its longer counterpart, it offers a middle ground, as the name implies. No one would dare call a girl wearing a calve-grazing skirt a whore (nothing I condone, for the record), though one wearing a super-short skirt may be subjected to such. Instead, it's cute in a womanly sort of way, and comparatively modest.

In theory, it's safe. When mini skirts came about, they were rebellious, daring, etc. But I think we can agree upon the monotony produced by tons and tons of denim mini skirts from mall favorites, no? With this being said, and for the sake of my argument, midi-skirts are more daring among a younger set. And as we know, any young person going against the grain puts herself (or himself) at a supposed target for insecure peers.

We can accept or reject comments from peers, but many times, such acknowledgments can result in self-consciousness. I've long told myself that anyone who cares about what I wear isn't worth my time, but still, there's that voice suggesting I can't pull it off even though I have and I most certainly can again.

Going against the grain just gets one noticed - positively or negatively - even if the object isn't too far from the original norm.

xox Catherine

PS Please excuse any spelling or grammatical errors. I'm tired and my attention is scattered in a million different places. On a positive note, I took the plunge and bought a D3000. Expect outfit post tomorrow if I decide against taking my frustrations out on clay, or if I miraculously don't end up covered.

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.2: My Issue With Seventeen Magazine

During my last week that I can call myself seventeen, not much has come up in terms of change. Why would anything? Essentially, I'll be exactly the same. But I guess this means criticizing the magazine aimed at me, by title, is only relevant until Saturday. Truthfully, it's geared toward younger teens trying to appear older, so I outgrew it years back. Since then, I've been under the umbrella of a few fashion magazines, their younger counterparts, publications that provide "useful" news, and anything else.

There's not much on the newsstands for teens that care more about music than impressing boys. Maybe my age group just doesn't like reading, but as a seventeen year old girl with entire bookcases full of past issues from various periodicals, I beg to differ.

I alluded to a distaste of a certain magazine last week, and I see Seventeen as its predecessor. Instead of ubiquitous sex tips, there's headlines promoting ridiculous kissing techniques guaranteed to make anyone cringe - including something such as letting an ice cube loose in one's mouth. There's a "body peace" column on the opposing side of the diet and exercise centerfold. You know, just to ensure that readers don't go overboard with the suggestions to get a great ass by spring break.

In the past few years, new body types have been introduced aside from tall and thin, which is indeed helpful for some. But the covers of the past two issues? Barely distinctive. It's graced by an actress with flowing brown hair, glossy lips parting a white smile and mascara-coated eyelashes. "They're average!", Seventeen tells us - they have boy problems, they get pimples, and they like eating food too. Yet they're put on a pedestal (as are many characters within the public eye, but that's a different discussion) - and we're expected to accept it.

I'm told it's unfortunate that I grew up post-Sassy, but I experienced the demise of several other teen magazines - Elle Girl, YM, and CosmoGirl to name a few. And now options for my peers are limited. There's Teen Vogue (which I am not ashamed to say I read!), a few mini-tabloids following the lives of Justin Bieber and whichever girlfriend of his, and our main subject, Seventeen. For years, I've been flipping through the glossy pages of heavier magazines. Elle replaced Elle Girl. Simple. Glamour - ironically, not Cosmopolitan - replaced Cosmogirl.

I believe Elle, Glamour, and similar publications realize I'm being hit in their aim to capture readership, but they're not targeting me. I'm not sure that any major magazines do understand me and my type - teenage girls that like their appearances as-is, would prefer listening to music on the street to most conventional pop, and that don't give a damn whether boys swoon over them or not.

Of course, I've found other magazines to satisfy my addiction - Bust, Lula, Factory, Glamour and the occasional issue of Lucky - but I feel as a whole, there's a huge void in teen magazines. We shouldn't be directed as consumers-in-training or future trophy wives. Speak to us.

xox Catherine

PS For more criticism of Seventeen from actual teenagers, visit The Seventeen Magazine Project or check out Tavi's well-written open letter to the publication.

PPS What are your thoughts on this magazine?

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.1: Femininity in Fashion

"A lot of people in fashion don't love women. They impose their own ego upon women, whether they're men or self-hating women." - Zac Posen

While perusing through Cosmopolitan, I came across an article about nightgowns. I'm willing to believe most young people wear t-shirts and sweatpants to sleep nowadays, but I read on. Strangely enough, the article wasn't instructing me to purchase anything to make my man go crazy (I don't even have a man, for that matter), but rather what I should burn to please him. Apparently, men don't like women who wear frumpy nightgowns.

I'm a feminist, which has earned me personal criticism, as well as impersonal criticism from nonbelievers who just associate feminism with hairy legs and such. Cosmo is akin to the woman/girl who I almost feel bad for because she seems to hate herself so much, but what right does anyone have to tell another that it's unacceptable to wear whatever she or he pleases?

A nightgown is immensely different from a dress designated for public wear, but the message struck a chord. Why is it assumed readers will listen to this advice? A possible theory: in some cases, fashion is misogynistic. Yes, yes, this may sound extreme, and indeed it feels a little ludicrous to make such a claim. But let's explore this argument.

High heels and tight dresses may be restricting and flashy, so in order to demand respect, a woman might opt for a pants suit and more sensible shoes. This esteemed look is derived from typical menswear, suggesting that feminine shapes are incapable of earning respect. Of course, many women enjoy menswear-inspired styles - to each her own. But to make oneself seem competent, capable? It's unnecessary.

Of course, things are changing, and this may no longer be the case. I'll admit that I'm not really in the market for career-wear, so maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about. However, any spectator can agree with my next point: most runway models have boyish shapes. I wholeheartedly support embracing whatever size or shape one is, but someone is making a decision to employ these models as opposed to women who resemble the designer's clientele.

I don't know that designers are always attempting to capture femininity. What does that mean, anyway? Women can be masculine, and men can be feminine. (Neither of these should have a negative connotation, in any context.) But during a fashion show - in an industry which has received fire for implying that thin is the only beautiful - displaying pure masculinity directed at women seems insulting.

It's important to take any message sent to us with a grain of salt. If a woman wants to wear a smart blazer with tailored pants, that's just as well as a woman wearing a cardigan a silk dress in a New Look silhouette. Or anything else. We can accept or reject advice at our own discretion, but associating one particular style with power is just bullshit.

xox Catherine