Archive for the ‘Questionable Choices in Clothing’ Category

I alone admit it: the Abercrombie & Fitch CEO ruined my chubby little life.

May 29, 2013
Mike Jeffries, the epitome of cool.

Mike Jeffries, the epitome of all-American cool.

I’m a size 12-14 woman, and Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries has laid waste to my entire life with his comments.

In 2006, Jeffries said to Salon writer Benoit Denizet-Lewis that his preppy “all-American” college-kid clothing brand caters exclusively to slender, “attractive” people.

“A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely,” Denizet-Lewis quotes Jeffries, whose stores pointedly refuse to carry plus-size clothes for women.

Somehow, Jeffries’ comments lay relatively dormant for seven years – only to inflame the blogosphere earlier this month.

As I covered all the mirrors in my apartment, other women boycotted Abercrombie and published feminist screeds to shame Jeffries for his “bullying.”

According to Denizet-Lewis, Jeffries restricts his retail hires to “good-looking people,” because “good-looking people attract other good-looking people, and we want to market to cool, good-looking people.”

In the nine-page article, I knew the three or four sentences that refer to people’s size were the ones I should obsess over. And as soon as I saw Denizet-Lewis’s condescension toward his source dripping off the page, I knew that such blatant journalistic bias could be met only with unswerving belief in the cultural import of the writer’s message.

I do have to admit, while Jeffries’ fear that a girl of my size might someday pollute an Abercrombie store shook me to my blubbery core, his comments did ease some confusion about exactly what he’s selling. For a long time, given the store windows and bags I wistfully glimpsed on my way to Sears, I was under the impression that Abercrombie sold muscular, naked Caucasian male torsos.

It's the PANTS they're selling. Now you know.

It’s the PANTS they’re selling. Now you know.

But as soon as Jeffries’ comments had sunk through my Old Navy jeans, off-brand t-shirt and New Balance sneakers, right into my heart, I called my husband to confess.

Defying all the laws of cool, I managed to get married before Jeffries weighed in.

Defying all the laws of cool, I managed to get married before Jeffries weighed in.

“Honey,” I sobbed, “do you remember that petite, pretty girl I told you about who used to roll her eyes at me in senior year English? Well…what would you say if I told you only one of us was wearing Abercrombie and Fitch?”

The conversation was short, and the divorce lawyer called at about the same time a cryptic e-mail arrived from my publisher.

She said that while I certainly had had a lot of unique ideas to contribute to the magazine, Mike Jeffries had finally given her the courage to say that I did not have the physique that would attract the kind of stories she wanted to tell. But she wishes me the best.

I logged onto Facebook to update my relationship status from married to single, but saw that there was almost no-one left to see: the only people who hadn’t un-friended me were my mom and my former co-worker’s dog, who somehow maintains his own page.

To try to make sense of it all, I went to the Willow Grove Mall and lingered outside the doors of Abercrombie & Fitch in my purple-rimmed spectacles and worn Timberland boots. A pair of size-two girls with long platinum ponytails walked out talking about the party at Stephanie’s after the big game. But they didn’t invite me, so I wiped my tears and slunk into Macy’s.

I had a lot of great experiences despite my terrifying size, but that's all behind me now.

I had a lot of great experiences despite my terrifying size, but that’s all behind me now.

Since Denizet-Lewis reports that in 2004 the retailer paid $40 million to settle a class-action lawsuit from minority applicants who claimed they were denied employment or forced to work in back rooms, I wonder if Abercrombie could at least set up a rack for me – perhaps the large sizes could be around back, in a separate but equal store.

But to be honest, the biggest philosophical question Jeffries raises isn’t whether or not I should throw my well-endowed form off a cliff (or whether he should throw himself off, for forcing me to feel that way), but a classic chicken-or-the-egg conundrum.

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids,” Jeffries told Denizet-Lewis. “Candidly, we go after the cool kids,” which Jeffries defines as the “attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends.”

Given Jeffries’ penchant for luring in “good-looking” shoppers by hiring “good-looking” staffers (to man what looks like a graduation party in Daddy’s wood-paneled study, all under a blasting alt pop soundtrack) I wonder if Abercrombie imparts the cool to its customers, or if it’s the other way around.

In other words, could I have changed the course of my life, finding love, friends and career, if I had marched into Abercrombie & Fitch a decade ago, as if I belonged there, and worn those talismans of cool to campus? Or would the fat-girl alarms have begun to wail as soon as I crossed the threshold, confirming that no brand of clothing will ever render me stylish?

This blogger's high school graduation dance (in purple). Should I have gone to to Abercrombie then? Or was I already too large?

This blogger’s high school graduation dance (in purple). Should I have gone to Abercrombie then? Or was I already too large? Do you think I’m sufficiently all-American?

To find out, I pulled on my burlap sack and knocked on the doors of the people who, eleven years ago, in their Abercrombie tees, would not have given me the time of day in the halls. But, as nurses, lawyers, baristas, administrative assistants, ministers, musicians, government workers or all-American wives with stellar Republican credentials and toddlers, they were all too busy to talk to me about it.

As the old saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. While sensitive Americans affirm their cool by boycotting Abercrombie & Fitch, my non-relationship with the brand has finally, albeit accidentally, resulted in my being in on a fashion trend.

So, in the midst of the storm, infer what you like about my lack of Abercrombie logos. Disregard the tears on my plump cheeks over the cruelty of a man in his late 60’s wearing distressed jeans and dyed-blond hair, whose face looks as if it was just blown up with a bicycle pump.  Because despite everything else CEO Mike Jeffries has stolen from me, he can’t take away the habit I have had since the 9th grade: walking right past his stores.

The Light At the End of the Laundry Room

August 29, 2011

In my family, socks are not the obligatory ok-thanks-now-let’s-get-to-the-real-gifts stocking stuffer. On Christmas morning, all family members look up from their sticky buns to admire the new socks. Choosing gift socks is a vital, year-round ritual that strikes as powerfully in an Alaskan gift shop in July as it does at a local mall kiosk on the 20th of December.

Socks with fish, socks with owls. Socks in every color of the rainbow. Floral socks and socks with moose, palm trees, Santa or lobsters. Socks emblazoned with the breed of a deceased, beloved dog. Socks with hearts for Valentine’s Day, socks with Easter eggs when my mother visits in the spring, and orange-and-black spider web socks for October. I wear all of these socks with no regard for season. When my grandmother died, Mom saved a pair of her socks for me. At first I put them away as mementos. But then it occurred to me that Granny could never bear it if something was not used up properly. So I wore those socks too.

I wonder if socks are couples. Sometimes I wear mismatched socks – do they find it awkward to work together? Do they have to explain that it was just work, that’s all, when they’re reunited with their natural partner on laundry day? Some people buy whole sets of identical generic ones, so that they never have to worry about mismatched socks. But I worry that these socks, in their faceless utility, spend their whole sock-lives folded with any old sock while they yearn for the true partner they were packaged with.  I prefer socks with more visible character. Matching them up from the basket of clean clothes is the most satisfying part of doing the laundry. When one sock gets lost, does the remaining sock grieve? I keep the forlorn singles together in the drawer, just in case.

In fact, it is inevitable that one sock – only one – of my favorite pair will go missing. Every week, when the laundry is finished, someone has disappeared. Sometimes it returns in a few weeks. Sometimes not.

If there is indeed another dimension – a paranormal portal in otherwise ordinary apartments – my socks have seen it. If my socks could talk, who knows what they could tell me about the Great Beyond?

When a sock that definitely went into the basket with everything else has disappeared by the time you fold the laundry – and you search the washer, dryer, laundry room, basement stairs, under the bedspread and under the couch, to no avail – there is simply no other explanation. For reasons unknown, and by an unknown mechanism, the socks – perhaps forever, perhaps temporarily – are sojourning in a separate reality.

Last year at Christmas, Mom gave me a pack of little white socks with colored tops. My favorite pair was the blue-banded ones. But of course, one of the blue-banded socks has proven to be the Dr. Who of clothing.

Its first unheralded disappearance lasted for most of the winter – until one day, suddenly, it was lying at the top of the apartment-complex laundry room’s lost and found pile. How I wished I could question all of the socks in there about what lies beyond our world.  But all I could do was take mine home again.

I got another taste of its shenanigans when I was doing the laundry a few weeks later, loading my wash into the machine while chatting to another resident who was lifting his wash out of another machine. As I shut the washer’s lid and punched my quarters home, my neighbor paused over his clean load.

“Where did this come from?” he said, gingerly lifting the blue-banded sock.

“My goodness, that’s mine!” I said. “I wonder how it got in there!” But deep down, I knew.

My recovery of the blue-banded sock was temporary, as we both knew it would be. Currently, it is missing again. Its partner waits in the drawer – perhaps they don’t have a very good relationship. If I didn’t worry about my standing with my fellow apartment-dwellers, you could find me with my head in the open dryer, saying, “don’t go into the light!” in case the blue-banded sock, like Carol Anne, can hear me.

Maybe, somewhere, Granny is wearing it.  I have plenty of socks in the meantime.

ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO WEAR THAT?

August 27, 2009

I’m not holding myself up as an example of high fashion. I have a bulky gray t-shirt which reads “eschew obfuscation”. In other words, I am both dowdy and pretentious. I also admit to having a yellow t-shirt which reads, “If I wanted to hear the pitter-patter of little feet, I’d put shoes on the dogs.” Extenuating factors: I only wear it on laundry days, and it was a gift (sorry, Mom). My favorite new t-shirt reads “Vie’s Snack Shack: World Famous Conch Fritters and Garlic Chicken” (thanks, Mom!)

But here’s the point. Do you not know that the world is full of atrocious choices in clothing? I am a minor offender by comparison. Working at a major tourist destination gives me ample opportunity to observe. The questionable slogans on my shirts are clever and inviting compared to the t-shirts I’ve seen recently. “How may I ignore you today?” Or the more enigmatic “Manny loves Big Papi’s Little Pee-Pees”. Or, more direct, “F*ck You.” Where’s your mother, asshole?

Bad clothing is not always a matter of a written message. I’ve seen an entire family with matching ecru Crocs. American men have succumbed to the Crocs craze, as evinced by the vacationing gentleman I saw this week. He wore a goldenrod-colored polo shirt and large lemon-yellow Crocs. But the topper was the khaki fisherman’s vest, pockets bulging and zippers dangling. The largest pocket, on the lower right-hand side, was unzipped to hold his wallet and traveling brochures: the touring sportsman’s purse.

What about the skin-tight, knee-length brown-and-gray plaid pants under a baggy neon green shirt? Or the teenage girl from France: a strip of tight black elastic at the hips and a strip around each thigh. Between the top-and-bottom elastic: plaid bloomers. Forget the Swine Flu. We can only hope that the short plaid bloomers don’t spread across the Atlantic. And a word to the many healthy-sized adult women in relatively small and flimsy cotton shorts: the back of your pants is feeding in between your upper thighs as steadily as a sewing machine gathers fabric beneath its needle. In fact, one side of your shorts has ridden up so far that it’s threatening to disappear, while the other side dangles relatively free.

Do I need to mention the Goths? Of course I do. It could be a tent-like black velour skirt with an assortment of strappy black garments on top. Obese female Goths still manage to lace themselves into bulging black polyester bodices. Their slimmer Goth sister wears a black skirt smaller than the wrapper on my breakfast sandwich. Her needle-thin boyfriend is shrink-wrapped in black jeans. Lacquered black fingernails vie with eyeliner that looks like it evolved on the arctic tundra to safely absorb snowy rays of sun. The Goth couple has the same hair: apparently they poured a gallon of maroon paint into a small pond, dunked their heads thoroughly, and went immediately to bed. They clump along in knee-high black lace-up boots with two-inch rubber soles, graceful as plungers. Everything about their ensembles, from the spiky dog-chain choker to the elaborately ripped fishnet stockings, proclaims, “I scorn your standard of beauty. I am the dour, dangerous anti-handsome.” And yet, something deeper cries out at me from these figures – something akin to what I call the Infant Pigeon (or the Baby Orangutan) Phenomenon. Some things are just so ugly that they’re cute. I believe that at heart, the Goth costume is donned with secret faith in a similar tacit principle: that they’re so hellishly unsexy that they’re…sexy.

It gets worse – worse on every level, as I witnessed last week. Her thin dyed-black hair was pulled into two pigtail braids, and her pale scalp seemed to well up through the part of her hair. Now, I’m not going to criticize this woman for having the body of the Michelin Tire Man – I am no paragon of slenderness myself. But in this case, deep blue elastic jeans skin-tight through the ankles only serve to emphasize a laborious friction from crotch to knee, with a little space gained between the pillowy calves.

My uncharitable musings on this young woman are justified: her arms dangled from a voluminous black t-shirt which read, “I don’t have a f*cking attitude, you stupid motherf*cker”. Well, neither do I, lady, until someone with your wardrobe comes along.

NOW FIND ALAINA MABASO’S BLOG ON FACEBOOK!

A Necessary Double Standard for Men and Women

July 4, 2009

I know it’s not politically correct, but I believe in a firm double standard for men and women. True, it has taken a long time for the sexes to gain equal footing, and there are still many cases where both men and women would benefit from a walk in the other’s shoes. However, there remains one arena of life where men and women should celebrate a vital and notable distinction.

The footwear appropriate for women is, in most cases, not appropriate for men. The human form boasts many lovely parts, but it cannot be argued that this aesthetic extends to the male human’s foot. It must be noted that the female foot, as far as feet go, is vastly more attractive than that of the male: smaller, smoother, often cunningly pedicured, and sometimes sporting tiny rings or endearing, evocative little tattoos (matching ones for best friends). These are all reasons that sandals are appropriate, even attractive, on women. This, sadly, is not the case for the male of the species.

As an employee of an outdoor historic site which attracts thousands of vacationing dads each summer, I must take a stand. However, this doesn’t mean that I am unreasonable. I recognize that men’s sandals (or “smandals”), just like other forms of vice, come in various degrees of badness.

I am well prepared to tolerate, for example, knee-length athletic shorts paired with slides or sturdy flip-flops. Even a pair of khaki cargo shorts with a t-shirt and leather-soled flip flops can be acceptable in some circumstances. I must object, however, to full-length jeans (or, even worse, dress pants) paired with a button-down linen shirt and (no, please no!) sandals, even if the flip flops look like they cost $40 at Abercrombie and Fitch. The last thing I want is to see the hem of the man’s pants resting on his hairy toes, like a cowl that sits above a wizened monk’s face. Gentlemen: if you have chosen to wear long pants to a summertime function, you have already selected style over comfort.  Put on a pair of shoes.

Last week I saw a very old man with a cane, long sky-blue trousers, a plaid button-down shirt, and Teva sandals. His toes were like the specially adapted fingers of the rare Madagascar Aye-Aye lemur, which uses its fingers to scrape grubs out of deep, narrow holes in trees. The man’s toes were the color of the grubs. With each step, the toes rose laboriously into a united skyward salute, then sank exhausted to press the sandal’s sole. In that moment, all I wanted in the world was for someone to get that old man some shoes.

A thing I call the hiking sandal falls more moderately among the offending varieties of male footwear. In reality, since little of the man’s actual foot is visible between the hearty straps, thick rubber soles and various toggles, I can’t claim the usual issue with this shoe. However, I do have to question a shoe so clearly unsure of its function. Is it a sandal? Is it a boot? Since when do men make this kind of compromise?

Far worse than the hiking sandal, and yet still worse than the pants and flip flops, is the utterly misguided compromise of sandals plus socks. It is almost too much to believe that a man would demean himself by wearing unattractive sandals, and then completely defeat the purpose of said sandals in one fell swoop.

Last week I also saw a leathery, 50-ish gentleman, well-tanned from the golf course and well-rounded from the ensuing beers. In what was perhaps the worst smandal offense of the month, his legs had a comfortable deep russet tan exactly to mid-calf, but his sandals were strapped on large, moist feet as white as snow. But perhaps I shouldn’t be so quick to judge this man. As his tan-line clearly showed, he usually chooses shoes and socks over sandals.

I know what you may be wondering. Is there a middle ground? Or must vacationing men lace up those sneakers and hike up their socks? What about the gentleman I saw who wore white sneakers with ribbed gray woolen socks pulled up past his calves on 4th of July weekend? Do I advocate his choice over the old man in trousers and Tevas? It’s a tough call. These are the opposite extremes in the spectrum of poorly chosen male footwear. (Sock-tan smandal man is clearly a rare student of both all-or-nothing schools of footwear: high socks and shoes as well as sandals.) The answer, of course, lies in the middle. Trim, sporty sneakers – a breathable mesh top is fine – with low white socks to the ankle. Or sockless casual loafers, nautical-style.

But it’s discriminatory, you say! All those ladies flip-flop around, feet breezy and free beneath jeans or miniskirts, while the men suffer in shoes.  But as long as I shiver into winter functions in a skirt, stockings and heels, the men can take the summer heat. Despite the double standard, it all evens out in the end.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 868 other followers