I just got back from spending a few days in San Francisco...home of Levi's corporate headquarters. The whole city seems to love Levi bluejeans. Their latest line of jeans (which, if you read any of the same magazines as I do, you've probably seen advertised) is "Curve ID." From what I gather off their website (levi.com), the point of the line is that jeans should not only fit you size, but also your shape. The categories are Slight Curve, Demi Curve, and Bold Curve (I added the italics, underline, and bold just for fun...don't mind me). In order to figure out which will fit your body best, there is a quiz you can take. After taking it, I think your "Curve ID" is based on how you're proportioned from waist to thigh. Each of those categories for shape can then be sorted through by selecting you size and style.
To my knowledge, Levi is the first brand to design and market their jeans this way. They're basically saying that three girls could all wear size 29, but since they'd all be built and proportioned differently, one pair of size 29 jeans isn't going to look as flattering on each of them....and they're saying that that's okay.
Two big reasons why I like this campaign:
1.) It tells young women that there isn't one body-type that is better than another. It's sending the message that all shapes should be accommodated by jeans, and no one should have to wear the wrong size in order to fix problems with jeans' shape. No matter what your body looks like you can wear Levi jeans and look good in them...because there is no cookie-cutter shape defines attractive.
2.) It takes the emphasis off of size. Since they're not naming a superior shape, this is a great way for women to stop analyzing the number on the tag of their jeans. There is this terrible phenomenon I've heard countless times in dressing rooms: girl puts jeans on, jeans are too tight, mom tells girl to try a bigger size, girl gets upset that her mom is telling her she's bigger. It's absurd. We all know those girls who wear clothes that are too small (or too big for that matter)...it's because they think that the size they wear is deciding factor on whether or not they look good! This "Curve ID" stuff is a nice way to tell young women to think about what's flattering and comfortable for the way they are built instead of the number they wear.
This is, of course, all in theory. Maybe their jeans suck and the ones they tell me I should wear will look awful. But I like what they're trying to do.
That's all...
Friday
King of Cool: Mr. Lupe Fiasco
One rapper that I've really grown to appreciate is Lupe Fiasco. Please read the lyrics to his song "The Cool" via the following link before you keep reading:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/lupefiasco/thecool.html
Now I don't know the artist personally, so I can't tell you all what the lines of the song mean or what his intentions were with them...but I can tell you the way I interpret them. I think the song is a critical analysis of what it can mean to try to be cool. Getting involved with violence and drugs and the so-called "street life" can eventually lead to your death. He seems to be challenging his fans by asking them if it's worth it. He's asking if being cool is worth it. Fiasco has another song called "Dumb it Down," in which he seems to be fighting against the idea that being smart isn't cool. He's taking the messages that especially young, black men are being sent by their other favorite rappers and trying to dispel them. At least that's what I think. And it just so happens that I think he's cool for doing that. Maybe he could help me write my blog and talk about how the media brainwashes us into thinking that whatever they tell us to be is what we should be but sometimes that's really bad for us. It's good to see people with influence trying to teach their audience to protect their minds from the ideas they're being pounded with.
I guess one criticism would be, though, that he's part of the media. And he's trying to get people to believe his message...it's just a different one. And I guess he could just be saying that stuff to sell records. And maybe I've got his whole message wrong.
Just something to think about.
That's all...
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/lupefiasco/thecool.html
Now I don't know the artist personally, so I can't tell you all what the lines of the song mean or what his intentions were with them...but I can tell you the way I interpret them. I think the song is a critical analysis of what it can mean to try to be cool. Getting involved with violence and drugs and the so-called "street life" can eventually lead to your death. He seems to be challenging his fans by asking them if it's worth it. He's asking if being cool is worth it. Fiasco has another song called "Dumb it Down," in which he seems to be fighting against the idea that being smart isn't cool. He's taking the messages that especially young, black men are being sent by their other favorite rappers and trying to dispel them. At least that's what I think. And it just so happens that I think he's cool for doing that. Maybe he could help me write my blog and talk about how the media brainwashes us into thinking that whatever they tell us to be is what we should be but sometimes that's really bad for us. It's good to see people with influence trying to teach their audience to protect their minds from the ideas they're being pounded with.
I guess one criticism would be, though, that he's part of the media. And he's trying to get people to believe his message...it's just a different one. And I guess he could just be saying that stuff to sell records. And maybe I've got his whole message wrong.
Just something to think about.
That's all...
Which pair fixes you?
I am known amongst my friends to be the one who is always going on and on about how the media perpetuates the poor body image of perfectly healthy young women. It's possibly my favorite thing to talk about; it makes me mad. This year's October issue of Glamour Magazine got me started on exactly one of those rants. It features an article on finding pants that are flattering for your body shape. It claims to gives pants-buying advice for everyone (female, at least).
Here is the online version of the article - http://www.glamour.com/fashion/2010/09/how-to-find-the-best-pants-for-your-body-shape#slide=1
I have two problems with this article:
1.) As you click through the slides you will notice that the body shapes included are: plus-size, boy-shaped, tall, and petite. That's it. Apparently there are no other body shapes...only four. Now, I understand that it would be next to impossible to come up with an exhaustive list of all the body shapes in the world. Not only that, but imagine all the space in the magazine that would take up. Still, something about the format needs to change. For starters, I wouldn't describe myself as any of those four. I'm not plus size; I'm not tall; I'm too curvy to be considered boy-shaped or petite. So how do I know which pants will flatter me? In the section on pants for boy-shaped women (which is, by the way, a use of terminology which could have me ranting for days) it's recommended that you get pants which are narrower at the waist than in the leg. In the section on pants for petite women it's recommended that you wear super-skinny styles. So what is a petite, boy-shaped (wow I hate that term) woman supposed to do? What about women who are pear-shaped, etc.? I'm not mad at the magazine...I feel like they're trying to be inclusive and acknowledge that a lot of variety exists in the bodies of women. I just don't think the possible consequences are being considered.
Not every girl who doesn't fit into one of these categories is going to get all ranty (new word?) and mad. Some of them are going to take that to heart. What if I decided that there was something wrong with my body because it doesn't look like any of the options listed? One thing Glamour could possibly consider would be changing the article to being about the pants instead of the bodies. Tell me what wide-leg pants do to the line of my figure, and I'll decide if I want that to happen. Tell me that dark jeans are slimming and I'll decide if I want to be slimmed. This way they could avoid categorizing women altogether.
2.) Here's the main reason I have a problem with these kinds of articles, though. They're implying that there is something wrong with some of these body types. They're offering ways to "fix" the way women are...when in reality all body types can be beautiful and there's no such thing as one definition of beauty. In the section on pants for plus-size women, the pants are supposed to "slim" and make you look "long and lean" and "sleek." Well what if not everyone wants to look long and lean? Why should a petite girl be trying to "lend the illusion of more height?" What's wrong with being short? Is it ugly to be short? No. It's not. They're sending the message that your goal in getting dressed should be to try to look different than you do. Silly.
There are definitely women out there who want to look taller, thinner, curvier, etc. But maybe it's articles like this that make them think that way. Maybe if they hadn't already read a million times how to look thinner, they wouldn't feel so much pressure to do so. These articles are perpetuating this idea that there is one best way to look. But that's not up to Glamour to dictate.
Absolutely no one can decide for you what you want to be; the media should stop trying.
That's all...
Here is the online version of the article - http://www.glamour.com/fashion/2010/09/how-to-find-the-best-pants-for-your-body-shape#slide=1
I have two problems with this article:
1.) As you click through the slides you will notice that the body shapes included are: plus-size, boy-shaped, tall, and petite. That's it. Apparently there are no other body shapes...only four. Now, I understand that it would be next to impossible to come up with an exhaustive list of all the body shapes in the world. Not only that, but imagine all the space in the magazine that would take up. Still, something about the format needs to change. For starters, I wouldn't describe myself as any of those four. I'm not plus size; I'm not tall; I'm too curvy to be considered boy-shaped or petite. So how do I know which pants will flatter me? In the section on pants for boy-shaped women (which is, by the way, a use of terminology which could have me ranting for days) it's recommended that you get pants which are narrower at the waist than in the leg. In the section on pants for petite women it's recommended that you wear super-skinny styles. So what is a petite, boy-shaped (wow I hate that term) woman supposed to do? What about women who are pear-shaped, etc.? I'm not mad at the magazine...I feel like they're trying to be inclusive and acknowledge that a lot of variety exists in the bodies of women. I just don't think the possible consequences are being considered.
Not every girl who doesn't fit into one of these categories is going to get all ranty (new word?) and mad. Some of them are going to take that to heart. What if I decided that there was something wrong with my body because it doesn't look like any of the options listed? One thing Glamour could possibly consider would be changing the article to being about the pants instead of the bodies. Tell me what wide-leg pants do to the line of my figure, and I'll decide if I want that to happen. Tell me that dark jeans are slimming and I'll decide if I want to be slimmed. This way they could avoid categorizing women altogether.
2.) Here's the main reason I have a problem with these kinds of articles, though. They're implying that there is something wrong with some of these body types. They're offering ways to "fix" the way women are...when in reality all body types can be beautiful and there's no such thing as one definition of beauty. In the section on pants for plus-size women, the pants are supposed to "slim" and make you look "long and lean" and "sleek." Well what if not everyone wants to look long and lean? Why should a petite girl be trying to "lend the illusion of more height?" What's wrong with being short? Is it ugly to be short? No. It's not. They're sending the message that your goal in getting dressed should be to try to look different than you do. Silly.
There are definitely women out there who want to look taller, thinner, curvier, etc. But maybe it's articles like this that make them think that way. Maybe if they hadn't already read a million times how to look thinner, they wouldn't feel so much pressure to do so. These articles are perpetuating this idea that there is one best way to look. But that's not up to Glamour to dictate.
Absolutely no one can decide for you what you want to be; the media should stop trying.
That's all...
Sunday
From Giggles to Tears: "What's wrong with MY body?"
Maxim Magazine’s Hot 100 (2010) was all the buzz in my house this week. I came home from work one evening to find my roommates nearly yelling with (not at) each other about how wrong all the men in the world are about what a “hot” woman looks like. It’s basically a list of the 100 most beautiful women in the media… according to Maxim. My roommates and I proceeded to pull up the list online and spend a good hour looking at all the woman, from number 100 through number 27, and deciding if we understood why she made it. Lots of giggling, yelling, and junk food were involved.
It was at number 27, though, that the fun stopped and one of my roommates ended up in tears. “Is that Hillary Duff!?” she asked. We told her it was and she instantly started to cry. She went on to explain how she didn’t understand why Duff was “so skinny now.” We tried explaining that it’s probably just because she’s all grown up and out of her baby fat. My roommate was not happy with this answer. “Does she want all her young fans to think that they have to get skinny to be beautiful?” “Do I really have to look like that for guys to want me?” “What’s wrong with my body?” “Why don’t any of these women have curves?” “Aren’t curves supposed to be a good thing?” The questions and tears seemed like they’d never end.
This was, first and foremost, a very sad thing to see. Aside from feeling terrible for my roommate, though, it was fascinating. This girl completely lost control over her emotions and good sense because of one (probably photo-edited) picture. Granted, there is likely some insecurity already at play here, but still that picture clearly holds a lot of power. It’s shocking how much time we spent talking about and looking at that list. Obviously one magazine can’t speak for every man. Is it reader voted? Does a panel of judges decide? Maybe some celebrities pay Maxim to appear higher on the list. Who knows? Did any of us take the time to find out? No. Would finding out the way in which the list was generated have an impact on our reaction to it? I don’t know…but I would imagine it might. Maybe we give these messages (like the ones perceived to have been sent by this list) power by ignoring the fact that the sender doesn’t have to have the final say. Maybe if we would more often acknowledge that they are sending messages and not facts, we would each of us have more power in deciding which ones we want to go along with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)