A Letter to the Columnist
This is so much more than Black and Brown....
Read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/01/AR2006060102048.html
Rant:
Reading your article I was offended by the overused and generic message that you were sending. Why is it that female fashion faux pas' tend to only focus on those with a little extra? Why don't we ever admit that some people are too thin or disproportionately shaped to pull off certain styles?
Never do people suggest a low cut top on a girl with minimal breasts can look rather disgusting...nor do they boo when a skin and bones girl flaunts her ribs in a bikini (and not just Nicole Richie but even Kirsten Dunst recent France swimming episode left something to be desired), or when slit dresses expose legs that may be thin but are scrawny or unshapely (like Kate Moss -- her legs are 'not perfect' - we all know this, but she's not chastised for exposing us to them).
It makes me upset that the media (being you) continually overlook that thin isn't always the best frame for clothing. Do I wear low cut jeans, mini-skirts, shrugs and flip flops? Absolutely. Are some styles more or less flattering on my 5'6, 145 pound frame? Absolutely. Yet the same is true for people of all sizes and shapes, so stop picking on the people with a little more to love just because you can. It's an easy way to write an article without requiring any thought. I hope next time you research the subject a little more before you write down your own discriminatory expertise. I expect better from the Washington Post.
Read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/01/AR2006060102048.html
Rant:
Reading your article I was offended by the overused and generic message that you were sending. Why is it that female fashion faux pas' tend to only focus on those with a little extra? Why don't we ever admit that some people are too thin or disproportionately shaped to pull off certain styles?
Never do people suggest a low cut top on a girl with minimal breasts can look rather disgusting...nor do they boo when a skin and bones girl flaunts her ribs in a bikini (and not just Nicole Richie but even Kirsten Dunst recent France swimming episode left something to be desired), or when slit dresses expose legs that may be thin but are scrawny or unshapely (like Kate Moss -- her legs are 'not perfect' - we all know this, but she's not chastised for exposing us to them).
It makes me upset that the media (being you) continually overlook that thin isn't always the best frame for clothing. Do I wear low cut jeans, mini-skirts, shrugs and flip flops? Absolutely. Are some styles more or less flattering on my 5'6, 145 pound frame? Absolutely. Yet the same is true for people of all sizes and shapes, so stop picking on the people with a little more to love just because you can. It's an easy way to write an article without requiring any thought. I hope next time you research the subject a little more before you write down your own discriminatory expertise. I expect better from the Washington Post.
Labels: Fashion, Literature
posted by Lyla @ 12:57 PM
5 Comments:
At 2:09 PM,
Martyn said…
Being British, therefore sytlish without the need to try I know where you're coming from.
If you're gonna wear a plunging neck-line, make sure you have the tits to do so. But everything in proportion, please.
Then again I do wonder why someone so comfortable in their own body (such a hot body too) feels the need to become rather upset. Bulimia and anorexia are 'conditions' that people bring upon themselves. Even the media-conscience need to be culled. The moral of the story is - don't watch tv or buy Cosmopolitan.
But still, I agree with the point you make. But a little more cynicism won't a go amiss. 8/10. Good effort.
At 2:42 PM,
Kate said…
as one who lives in her flipflops and birkenstock knockoffs all summer, bush is just lucky those lacrosse girls didn't show up in their cutoffs and their favourite tshirt from when they were 5 but refuse to through out (even though it's now seethrough) because it's just so damned comfy.
and as for leggings, i didn't like them the first time around, but i applaud anyone with big enough balls to wear 'em. ah. there's an image for you.
i understand that appearance is important, but isn't there a line, a point at which we as a society decide that maybe.. just maybe.. looks aren't everything?
now, back to my us weekly and weekly scoop.
At 6:44 PM,
Daniela said…
Well said.
I am in complete accord with your analysis. I often feel embarrassed for a anorexically-flat-chested woman with a plunging neck line. Nobody wants to see your sternum, honey. And I too am quite tired of only being told what I can and cannot wear because of my many, many lovely curvas. The problem with the fashion industry is that they want you to look unnaturally natural...god forbid you look like a HUMAN female!
And to the Robin Givhan's question: "Can there be such a thing as too much self-confidence?", I ask: Can there be such a thing as too much self-confidence? Where do you get off telling people that they feel too good about themselves? The real danger with excessive self-confidence is that it results in dribble like this article.
At 6:56 PM,
Daniela said…
By the way, dudes, I just started a fight with the author of the article. I emailed him/her the last paragraph of my earlier post here plus this to cap it off:
In the future, I expect an intelligent discussion of fashion from The Washington Post, not lazy (it's easy to pick on overweigth persons) and sanctimonious rubbish.
Awesome, I hope he/she get's mad and responds. I could have a feud with a columninst!
YAY.
At 4:37 AM,
Martyn said…
Daniela.
You can have too much self-confidence. It's called having no shame.
Post a Comment
<< Home