Yesterday's thrifting trip was quite successful. Maybe that's because I take rule number 2: "have an open mind," of successful thrifting too seriously. I managed to get 11 pieces for $34. This partly because I mostly bought shirts, which are about $3-4 to begin with, but also because all non-green tags were 1/2 off on Family Day. I pleased to report that this is a 100% thrifted/second hand outfit.
I wanted to give my two cents about the style blogosphere's discussion of SATC2 (I know I am late to the game, but it's taken me a while to get my thoughts together). Edit: This is partially inspired by the post over at Fashionable Academics yesterday. Particularly, I was intrigued by the argument put forth by Jackie Ashley in the Guardian. I won't be seeing the movie (but I don't see many movies in the theatre, although I may drag Blokey to see Girl With the Dragon Tatoo). Ms. Ashley's key claim is that the widespread judgments of SATC2 as an example of crash consumerism is likely amplified by sexism. Here are some of the ways she says it better than I could:
"My contention is that there is nothing more intrinsically objectionable in women fantasising about big shopping and the ups and downs of urban sexuality than men fantasising about war, gangs or fast cars."
"Yes, it's true, Sex and the City celebrates a shallow consumerism that it is the purpose of serious journalism, and indeed serious living, to challenge. But it's the same shallow consumerism that, for instance, allows all those techie boys to jump around waving their Ipads outside the Apple store. The working conditions of the Chinese producing Ipads are horrible. These are machines designed to do "cool stuff". They are more complicated than the products of Jimmy Choo or Versace; but they are no more serious, or deserving of inherent respect."
This relates to an awesome post by Sal about whether stylish women were at odds with feminism. A common contention is that anyone interested in clothes and fashion are reproducing patriarchical scripts. I doubt this, because there is evidence that mocking women for their interest in style predates feminism. Many styles and fashions do not cater towards dominant understandings of heterosexual femininity, whether is it the boyish flapper gowns, the tent-like mod scooter dresses, or gender bending Annie Hall suits. The crazy styles of the 1980s often had very little do to with appealing to heterosexual desires. I increasingly believe that there is something misogynistic about the ways in which interest in clothes and style are disregarded as "crass" and "frivolous," while other kinds of focused consumption are not. Why is someone who spends alot of time and resources on the latest, best wine a "connoisseur" but I am a thrift shop-a-holic? Those who spend a lot of time and money (and self esteem) on working out, listening to live music, or theatre are lauded as healthy or patrons of the arts. Additionally, why do I readily share my cooking blog with real life friends but only a few know about this blog?
Yes, liking to shop for clothing/shoes/bags can become self-destructive if a person overspends, but so can liking/collecting single malt whiskey, intense dedications to working out, or buying gadgets. I know plenty of folks who have gotten in to debt for a number of non-girly shopping reasons, but the resulting social judgment is about lack of budgeting skills, not for the person's interest in computers, going out, or musical instruments.*
Do you think that it's possible that anti-SATC2 sentiments are related to long standing sexist
disdain for women's interest in clothing/shopping/style? Do yo think it's fair to reclaim shopping as simply another kind of consumption?
*Blokey told me about this vintage guitar message board he liked to read, in which men gave eachother hints like "When you buy your newest vintage Stratocaster, be sure to put one of the old ones into storage, so your wife won't know that you bought a new one." Smooth move, guitar man.
Blouse, American Rag, thrifted
Skirt: Cynthia Steffe, thrifted
Belt: thrifted
Shoes: Aerosoles, thrifted
I'm so glad you wrote up your own post about this! I was really intrigued by your comment over on LHdM's blog yesterday, and I appreciate that you shared this article.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree that sexism is present in the critique of fashion as frivolous. I really like the point about waving iPads in front of the apple store, because when apple releases a new product, consumption gives one bragging rights. It's cool, for example, to brag that you got the iPad on the day it was released. I'm sure I would not meet the same reaction if I bragged about waiting in line all morning to score a pair of Louboutins.
In the film, Carrie says she "traded fashion for furniture," which also raises this question interestingly (though it's not addressed at length in the film). Adorning one's home seems to be seen as a "legitimate" way to spend your oodles of disposable income, but adorning one's female body is not.
-Liz
I think Jackie Ashley has a good point--well stated. And there's a larger picture in which action movies are celebrated or at least accepted as "summer blockbusters" but "chick flicks" are derided as fluff. I do think gender is at work there.
ReplyDeleteStill, what really bothers me about SATC2 (I haven't seen it, just from what I can tell from reviews) is the Orientalism. That just really turns me off and makes me uninterested in seeing it.
As for whether we can "reclaim shopping as simply another kind of consumption"...well, maybe. But I'm not sure (and I think you'd agree!) that we should be trying to reclaim ANY kind of consumption in an uncritical way. What I find interesting about your blog and some others like it is the way you are addressing an interest in clothing/adornment/appearance, while also steering clear of the mainstream conflation of fashion and consumption--by making, remaking, remixing, thrifting, etc.
I think it's possible, but not probable. I've only seen the previews, but it seems like the movie portrays women as mindless consumers while simulataneously romanticizing a consumption mindset that has done a lot of damage.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with her points about "boys toys" being just as frivlous as a new pair of Choos, in spite of their "serious" techie exteriors.
I'd like to see shopping "reclaimed" as an act that balances pleasure and need, as opposed to the "recreational" activity it has become.
Great topic!
Thanks for this post. And I really like what everyone above has said in their comments, so I won't repeat.
ReplyDeleteSATC has always been about style and/or extreme(ly expensive) fashion. But I'm often both surprised and appalled that so many debates about the series (I'm not talking about the movies) neglect the depth and complexity of the characters' relationships just because they shop.
I remain committed to the series - even as its heteronormativity ages it - because of so many excellent 'honest friendship' episodes, especially the one in which the 4 friends decide to think of one another as "soul mates." I have entirely too many straight female friends who've settled for bad romantic/sexual relationships, even bad marriages, because of their intense desire to find "him": the male soul mate. Since that episode aired, I've wondered if they'd been able to think of their female friends as soul mates, would they have settled for such terrible relationships with men.
I agree that men's tech-shopping is on par with women's equally "frivolous" shopping for clothes. The act in question is feel-good consumption, and both types are more or less superficial yet functional in nature. It is about buying stuff we don't really need, but want anyway.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right that women's styles have been criticised way before feminism ever existed, so perhaps judging women's consumerism is an easier target today. It has more solid roots in the history of mankind. It goes back to the idea that women are emotional creatures and men supposedly rational.
As for SATC, it annoyes me that the show celebrates consumerism as if it was a woman's birth right, and something she needs to do in order to belong to the universal women's club of the Western world. We have all felt the pull of a new pair of strappy sandals (or the latest apps for the iPad), but there comes a point when giving in to the pull becomes problematic. When we seem to exist to only buy things, and when everything that happens to us revolves around our stuff, that's when it spirals out of control.
I think fashion is a legitimate hobby, and have no issue with women spending money on clothing to entertain themselves vs. ipods or DVDs or any other entertainment product. There is definitely sexism at play when fashion is critiqued as frivolous.
ReplyDeleteI saw SATC2 over the weekend, and my main complaint was that the movie itself was very superficial. The clothes were great, but the plot was bad and the characters lacked substance.
I think one of the reasons that the series and the movies invite critique about fashion and shopping is because the series courted it with its incessant (in later seasons at least) high-end product placement. I had never heard of Manolo Blahnik or Christian Louboutin before SATC. And I love shoes!
ReplyDeleteRemember the first season of SATC? When it was about sex and how much Carrie loved the city of New York? Remember that first episode when Carrie wanted to have "sex like a man"? I think she wore black a lot--she was stylish but I didn't know "who" she was wearing and I didn't care because the show was focussed on what I thought was a much more interesting premise: women's friendships, women's relationships with men--heteronormative but not judgemental about women with multiple partners--and the city of New York. How great were those documentary-style man-in-the-street style snippets directed at the camera? And Carri'es voiceovers about NYC? It WAS a really interesting show when it began, and honest, I think, about heterosexual relationships and relationships among women.
But how are we supposed to believe that these women, who I think increasingly became caricatures of their former characters (which culminates in the film versions), think of themselves as soul mates when they STILL end up in mostly terrible relationships with men? Does anyone really think that Carrie should have gone out with Mr Big after they first broke up, much less married him after he left her at the altar? And yet at the end of the series her friends, who knew how awful Big was for her, who often told her so (and him), conspired to get him to go to France to bring her back. Really? For me, the show had stopped being about friendship and had become about dating a wealthy, recession-proof (?) banker like that was the "fairy tale" ending. This show did not start out as a fairy tale, which was interesting to me.
I think the show sold its soul to the marketplace and its insistence on label-dropping means that it is going to have to deal with critiques of this kind, and it should. I don't know if there's a sexism at play in critiques of consumer-spending. I think buying electronic gadgets, home renovation tools, sound systems etc. that are (possibly) associated with male spending habits often come under similar fire and are also derided as "frivolous". But this particular show is not about men and what they buy and SATC didn't used to be about women and what they buy either. And I think that is a shame, and something that would be really interesting to read in a review.
Excellent, intelligent post with some really thoughtful comments. I have been thinking a lot about why I am so bothered by the dismissive attitudes and backlash toward SATC and part of my discomfort stems from a feeling that it is another exemplar of patriarchal response to the cultural texts aimed at girls and women (romance novels, tabloids, girl groups, etc... basically see Susan Douglas's book, Where the Girls Are for a smart breakdown of the midcentury historical legacy of this move).
ReplyDeleteThere are so many valid reasons to critique a popular cultural phenomenon like SATC for its classism, its representational marginalization of ethnic and racial minorities, its reification of heteronormativity, its ideologically post-feminist neoliberal individualism, its championing of the consumer fix (retail therapy will set you free, etc.), and its orientalism in the most recent film. But I also think that critics in their wholesale dismissal of the empire ignore the show's complex ability to narrate so many undernarrated topics that matter and relate to many women's lives. For example, the dynamics of long term female friendships, intimacy and sexual dysfunction, women's health issues, divorce, aging, and the loss of a parent, just to name a few.
It is a shame the show turned into a movie so obsessed with brands, logos, product placement deals, and furthering normative ideas about consumption. But when people critique it, many do betray their underlying sexism. And they make the mistake of trying to toss out the baby with the bathwater.
My response is essentially what The Waves outlined re thinking both types of spending are "on par."
ReplyDeleteI am someone who thinks both the series and the idea of the movies (haven't seen them) is a little insulting although with amusing and sometimes-"valid" moments, coupled with the fact that I've seen many girls I worked with in the finance industry IDOLIZE and IMITATE the vapidness of the characters as if they were real and functional. As if there was nothing "off" about their priorities to marry rich, buy Choos and ignore their financial well-being. Granted, would these women-adrift be picking something equally as stupid to emulate if there was not a SATC? Probably. But right now there's SATC and it floors me how some of these women have CLUNG to it. Thankfully now that I am no longer exposed to commercial real estate or the finance industry employees any longer, I run into it much less but I have to admit it was a huge culture shock that so many women I encountered looked up to that lifestyle.
Maybe it's a little sexist to wish women were sometimes a little more than shopping and wanting to have the emotionally-distant bad-boy with a big wallet.
I also hate the idea of upgrading tech stuff at every turn, which I've also spoken about in the past (although that goes for all genders, really).
I think the reason SATC is so easy to target is because they've made it a huge focal point - there is no "dudes, come to the movies to bond over your new apps" opportunity -- nor will there ever be. Action movies geared towards men don't push consumerism and a way of being the way SATC does.
All brilliant and excellent post. I have such smart bloggy buddies. (And I don't consider to be "readers" since I read all your blogs. It's more a conversation). I think the product placement is really silly, and perhaps that is another reason to be critical of SATC, but I think that only really started with the movies. Lots of other forms of entertainment push products, whether it's Rachel Ray's endorsed EVOO, a certain car or gadget in a "lad's movie" or television shows prominently placing products. Perhaps that is more of a commentary on the way that most movies/TV are funded in the United States. Other countries have publicly funded Film Councils that cover many production costs, or public television (really public television, not something that demands your voluntary donations every 2 months) funded from taxes that allow for more creativity without kowtowing to commercial interests.
ReplyDeleteI do think that women are more than consumption, and we should be critical of any message that tells us to consume, but I am just annoyed that "women's" consumption is so widely disparaged in comparison to "men's" consumption (these terms are obviously gross generalizations). I have the world's oldest, biggest cell phone that my students make fun of. Unlike them, I don't have a LV bag, Coach sneakers,or D&G glasses (I learned about these from Koreans obsessed with Western luxury items, not SATC). But liking to buy thrifted, second hand, and vintage goods is still a kind of consumption, that takes up time. I just don't like how I have to hide that I like clothes from my colleagues (they notice anyway) but the fact I like to cook or play guitar makes me "interesting."
Oops, I meant responses. My post was only meant to be provocative.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny that you mention this:
ReplyDelete***
But liking to buy thrifted, second hand, and vintage goods is still a kind of consumption, that takes up time. I just don't like how I have to hide that I like clothes from my colleagues (they notice anyway) but the fact I like to cook or play guitar makes me "interesting."
***
Because I have to say, I do enjoy blogs that remix or work with "pre-loved" clothes way more than I enjoy blogs that primarily focus on new clothing.
Yeah, most people I know in real life don't know about my blog because it feels like something I should be ashamed of... I don't know why. Most of my stuff is thrifted or sewn by me, and certainly none of it is from Forever 21, H&M, Urban Outfitters, etc... I won't even thrift those brands. I think SATC can be dangerous to younger girls, who admire that lifestyle and make it their goal to have a designer purse and then just buy shittons of crap at F21, because Carrie and the girls never wear the same dress twice and so neither will I! Everyone has their vices and things they like to spend time and money on, unfortunately clothing is fairly obvious to everyone since it's on you and out there every day. I'm with you on the dinosaur cell phone, my friend Joel and I had a contest to see who could keep an old phone the longest (we both had the same one from 1999)... I made it until 2006 before I got a new one!
ReplyDeleteI'm going to start by saying that I've enjoyed reading everyone's comments.
ReplyDeleteI have only watched maybe two (if watching part of one counts) episodes of SATC. And I did not like it. I just could not relate to it. I was just a youngin' when it first aired- and from watching the movie ads it does not seem like it would appeal to me as an adult.
I agree with a lot of what has been said here. A while ago I wrote this post http://iwasthegoldengirl.blogspot.com/2010/03/philosophy-of-style-blogs.html
As to what Rad wrote "But liking to buy thrifted, second hand, and vintage goods is still a kind of consumption, that takes up time. I just don't like how I have to hide that I like clothes from my colleagues (they notice anyway) but the fact I like to cook or play guitar makes me "interesting."
I have to say I am wondering that same thing myself. Why is one of those interests seen as 'negative' - and the others, cooking and playing guitar 'positive'?
You ladies are all so smart, and I'm so happy to be part of this community and conversation!
ReplyDeleteMy biggest critique of the movie was that the ridiculous levels of consumption had no real connection to the plot - because the plot was ... ummm... nonexistent. I loved these fictional women and the friendships that they formed. Fashion was always central to the show - in the second episode they go to fashion shows, talk about how they always go, and discuss men who only date models.
My blog is an open secret. I have a number of colleagues who know about it, and I'm not at all ashamed of the fact that I take interest in clothing. I also like travel, opera, running, yoga, reading Harry Potter in Spanish, and cooking. The only reason that I use a moniker is that I would prefer to be judged in person rather than through a random google search.
I saw this article in the Guardian online and thought the author made some interesting points about judgement of female consumption. To me, it's interesting how many critiques of SATC have focused on how the women serve as poor role models for twentysomethings because of the show's focus on consumption. The typical critique goes that the show has created legions of young women in its own image who will mindlessly buy the latest 'It' bag and go into debt or not be able to pay rent.
ReplyDeleteHowever (and I speak as a longtime SATC fan), the show's pull for me has always been its portrayal of how complicated friendships and relationships can be. While I enjoyed the fashion, it wasn't what kept me watching week after week. I also never took the show's depiction of womanhood as "Manolos and lots of them" literally. Indeed, I remember an episode where Samantha had to cater a party for 13-year olds who dressed and acted like Carrie & co.; it was a satirical wink at young girls who saw SATC as a reality rather than a world viewed through a certain filter. The episode where Carrie figured out she'd spent $40,000 on shoes and couldn't afford her apartment emphasizes the importance of financial responsibility over having the latest designer accessories. The show has by turns glamorized and satirized its own lavish lifestyle. Is it the fault of the writers if their audience isn't perceptive enough to see that the show pokes fun at its own world sometimes?
I certainly am more ashamed of my, shall we say, hoarding tendencies when it comes to clothing than I would be if I spent all my money on Persian rugs. But I'm not sure it's just fashionistas who get tagged as frivolous. I feel like I get the same kind of "oh, well that's shallow" vibe from some people because I like to go out and eat some really good mussels at my favorite restaurant or because I want to hunt down and try the newest Korean restaurant in town. I have certainly gotten the same kind of "you're a privileged wastrel" feedback for spending money on private ballroom dance lessons, as well. I almost think there's something political about it -- if you're interested in culture or fashion that's above the extremely blue-collar-casual tone that seems to characterize so-called "Real America", then you're some kind of freak.
ReplyDeletethis is really interesting. i don't have much to add that's on topic. but off topic, this last movie was really bloody racist. i was embarrassed to watch it. (i loved the series and i even really enjoyed the last movie, even though it was stupid.)
ReplyDeletethis is really interesting. i don't have much to add that's on topic. but off topic, this last movie was really bloody racist. i was embarrassed to watch it. (i loved the series and i even really enjoyed the last movie, even though it was stupid.)
ReplyDeleteI saw this article in the Guardian online and thought the author made some interesting points about judgement of female consumption. To me, it's interesting how many critiques of SATC have focused on how the women serve as poor role models for twentysomethings because of the show's focus on consumption. The typical critique goes that the show has created legions of young women in its own image who will mindlessly buy the latest 'It' bag and go into debt or not be able to pay rent.
ReplyDeleteHowever (and I speak as a longtime SATC fan), the show's pull for me has always been its portrayal of how complicated friendships and relationships can be. While I enjoyed the fashion, it wasn't what kept me watching week after week. I also never took the show's depiction of womanhood as "Manolos and lots of them" literally. Indeed, I remember an episode where Samantha had to cater a party for 13-year olds who dressed and acted like Carrie & co.; it was a satirical wink at young girls who saw SATC as a reality rather than a world viewed through a certain filter. The episode where Carrie figured out she'd spent $40,000 on shoes and couldn't afford her apartment emphasizes the importance of financial responsibility over having the latest designer accessories. The show has by turns glamorized and satirized its own lavish lifestyle. Is it the fault of the writers if their audience isn't perceptive enough to see that the show pokes fun at its own world sometimes?
You ladies are all so smart, and I'm so happy to be part of this community and conversation!
ReplyDeleteMy biggest critique of the movie was that the ridiculous levels of consumption had no real connection to the plot - because the plot was ... ummm... nonexistent. I loved these fictional women and the friendships that they formed. Fashion was always central to the show - in the second episode they go to fashion shows, talk about how they always go, and discuss men who only date models.
My blog is an open secret. I have a number of colleagues who know about it, and I'm not at all ashamed of the fact that I take interest in clothing. I also like travel, opera, running, yoga, reading Harry Potter in Spanish, and cooking. The only reason that I use a moniker is that I would prefer to be judged in person rather than through a random google search.
Oops, I meant responses. My post was only meant to be provocative.
ReplyDeleteMy response is essentially what The Waves outlined re thinking both types of spending are "on par."
ReplyDeleteI am someone who thinks both the series and the idea of the movies (haven't seen them) is a little insulting although with amusing and sometimes-"valid" moments, coupled with the fact that I've seen many girls I worked with in the finance industry IDOLIZE and IMITATE the vapidness of the characters as if they were real and functional. As if there was nothing "off" about their priorities to marry rich, buy Choos and ignore their financial well-being. Granted, would these women-adrift be picking something equally as stupid to emulate if there was not a SATC? Probably. But right now there's SATC and it floors me how some of these women have CLUNG to it. Thankfully now that I am no longer exposed to commercial real estate or the finance industry employees any longer, I run into it much less but I have to admit it was a huge culture shock that so many women I encountered looked up to that lifestyle.
Maybe it's a little sexist to wish women were sometimes a little more than shopping and wanting to have the emotionally-distant bad-boy with a big wallet.
I also hate the idea of upgrading tech stuff at every turn, which I've also spoken about in the past (although that goes for all genders, really).
I think the reason SATC is so easy to target is because they've made it a huge focal point - there is no "dudes, come to the movies to bond over your new apps" opportunity -- nor will there ever be. Action movies geared towards men don't push consumerism and a way of being the way SATC does.