The average dame will, apparently, spend a ton of time deciding what to wear for a "night on the town," devote hours to packing for a trip, and try on two getups in the morning before work. Says a study spokesguy, "Whatever the occasion your clothes portray an image and we understand this is fundamentally important to women." Thank you for understanding. And may we presume this study is restricted firmly to the First World? The burden of choice hangs heavy.

In fact, that quote seems to me like an oversimplification. I'd guess that most of this deliberation is rooted, not in insecurity, as that statement suggests, but in practicalities and, conversely, fantasy. There are the tights that turn out to have a run, the blouse that turns out to have a stain, the scarf that doesn't quite cover the stain, the skirt that actually didn't "steam out" in the shower, the perfect belt that's gone missing under a pile of dirty laundry. This adds up over a lifetime.

And then there's the dress-up element. "Portraying an image?" Well, yeah, but this can mean a lot of things. It's often a far less conscious and more emotional process than this, and a more pleasurable one. The point of clothes, I think, is not being seen - it's those moments of decision before you step out the door, when each piece is loaded with possibility and potential. Dressing in a vacuum, at the end of the day, can be the most rewarding kind. Think of it as time with yourself: in those Pollyanna terms, it's a year well spent. And, yes, a luxury.

Women spend nearly one year deciding what to wear [Telegraph]

Not content with merely inflicting her tiny woman, huge dress fashion sense on all of us via her own reality show, red carpet bons mots, and the public appearances of her celebrity clients, such as Anne Hathaway, Kate Hudson, and Jennifer Garner, Hollywood's famous/notorious stylist set her itchy pulling fingers to shaping an ideal summer wardrobe for the stylish American woman. Maybe this is the kind of thing we can expect from her own — allegedly affordable — future clothing line. And gosh, what a lot of stuff there is!

1. Blazer and t-shirt: Phillip Lim, jeans: Bird by Juicy Couture.
The 3.1 Phillip Lim tuxedo jacket is from the unreleased Fall 2009 collection, so it's not priced yet. A very similar jacket by Lim from Spring 2009 retailed for $630. The Bird by Juicy Couture jeans, also not available in stores until fall, are $248.

2. Metallic jacket: Bally
This Bally leather jacket won't hit stores until this fall, but the brand's leather jackets usually run around 2,000 Euros.

3. Leather Leggings: Bird by Juicy Couture
Bird is Juicy Couture's new line, and it's being introduced this fall. Its price point will be higher than regular Juicy, but lower than Couture Couture, which the company was recently forced to close. Pricing information for all the pieces isn't yet available, but the collection as a whole tops out at $600. Given the expense of leather, we wager these pants are near the higher end of the scale, so let's estimate the leggings at $500.

4. Dress: Kate Moss for Topshop
This sequined baby costs $270.

5. Gold sequin skirt and coat: Phillip Lim
Phillip Lim sheepskin coat and sequined skirt are both Fall 2009, and haven't been priced yet. Zoe is pushing Lim so hard she's not only promoting sheepskin as a summer staple — she's wearing it herself in EW's photo shoot. Zoe's clients also regularly wear 3.1 Phillip Lim. For example, Kate Hudson, pictured.

6. Black sequin tunic: Gucci
This is another piece from Fall 2009 — the Gucci collection that earned comparisons to Bebe. The fact that she of the prominent clavicle would recommend so much fall clothing for a summer must-have list betrays a touching innocence of the realities of fashion-loving non-celebrity women, for whom shopping options are limited to what's actually in stores. (No phonecall to a designer friend's showroom to pull a special piece for us.) Which begs the question, why have someone of Zoe's limited perspective even bother with a "must-have" list for a mass audience?

7. Wrap dress: Kate Moss for Topshop, $250
Oh, right: so she can plug her friend Kate Moss's overpriced Topshop line, which in this array starts to look almost affordable.

8. Silk tunic: Matthew Williamson for H&M
The multi-colored chiffon tunic Zoe chose to highlight is, like the rest of Williamson's collection for the chain, sold out. But you might find one on eBay for around $100.

9. Gold peep-toe shoes: Christian Louboutin
$795

10. Purse: Chanel/Resurrection Vintage
Resurrection Vintage is a shop Rachel Zoe often pulls from. A helpful woman at the shop informed us that this patent-leather Chanel XL Jumbo bag is $3,500.

11. Essie nail polish, OPI nail polish, Givenchy Phenomen'eyes mascara, Leica C-Lux 3 camera
Nail polish $8, $8.50, Leica camera $599, mascara, $28.

12. Straw tote: H&M, $40, white tunic: H&M, $35

13. Towels: Missoni Home, Bikini: Missoni
Missoni Home towels, Zoe says, are "a great way of mixing fashion and function." The largest bath towel size from Missoni Home costs $134. Missoni Bikinis from Net-A-Porter start at $365.

14. Brown sandals: Dior
$740

15. Hair products: Byron Williams
The three items pictured are $18, $18.50, and $18.

16. Bib necklace: Louis Vuitton
Not yet available to the public, and not yet priced. Says Zoe: "That's going to be on my neck four out of seven days a week for the next few months." Then it will be thrown down the memory hole and replaced with something shinier and more expensive! That's fashion, darlings.

17. Bracelets: Genevieve Jones
Genevieve Jones' snake bracelets cost $1,050 apiece. Zoe included three of them.

18. Lucite jewelry: Alexis Bittar
The pieces included are: a $395 pair of earrings, a $225 ring, a $250 ring, a $125 ring, an $85 bangle, a $225 bangle, and a $425 bangle.

19. Bracelets and ring: Kathy Rose
The ring is $4,900, the bracelets are $3,600 and $4,200.

20. Deco cuff: Chanel
Regular plastic Chanel cuffs sell for around $150, but fancier ones like this can cost $950, which is what we'll estimate this unreleased bauble to fetch.

21. Gold bracelets and necklace: Chanel/Resurrection Vintage
These trinkets are $1,100 (bracelet) and $795 (necklace). The necklace is 20% off.

22. Sunglasses: Tom Ford "Claudio" and "Scarlett" styles
These are $400 each, and Zoe must have three of them.

23. Teal jeans: Matthew Williamson for H&M
This wildly popular collection is already sold out, but keeping a watchful eye on eBay might snag you a pair for $100.

24. Dark jeans: 7 For All Mankind "Ginger" style
Zoe remembered to price these herself, at $155.

25. Clutches: Louis Vuitton
The "African Queen" clutch is $2,580 on Louis Vuitton's website, and it's so "perfect" Zoe needs two of them.

26. Cardigan and jeans: Kate Moss for Topshop
These cost $180 and $100, respectively.

27. Sneakers: Adidas by Stella McCartney, $110
Says the Zoe herself: "I don't own sneakers, but if you're going to do it, add a fashion splash."

28. T-shirts: American Apparel, $19
With six rolled up, that's a total cost of $114.

29. Metallic burgundy shoes: Brian Atwood
Brian Atwood metallic burgundy shoes strappy high heels platform are from the designer's upcoming Fall collection, but a very similar pair of sandals from this summer are $725.

30. Gold and black shoes: Louis Vuitton
These shoes, with their distinctive architectural platform/heel combination, are from Fall 08, and they retailed for around $1,300. Lily Allen wore them once, and the Fug Girls compared the look of the wedge-heel combination to Anne Boleyn's rumored sixth finger. Zoe, who claims to wear the shoes "every day," has them in three colors.

31. Domaine Ott Rosé
This popular summer plonk costs around $30.

32. Fedora: YSL/Resurrection Vintage
Of this hat, Zoe says, "I think it sets the bar for fedoras." Which is probably why it's already sold.

33. Sandals: Vicini
$379.

34. Silver shoes: Guiseppe Zanotti
These strappy platform shoes will set you back a whopping $1,049.

Also pictured above, but not enumerated in the list, are two pieces of Louis Vuitton luggage ($2,950 for the rolling carry-on and $2,330 for the suitcase) one pair of Louis Vuitton shoes from the brand's "Tribal"-themed current collection. Those cost $2,289.

So how much would turning yourself into a Zoebot for summer cost you, not even counting the five designer items we had to list as Price on Application? $49,701

I think I just died.

Rachel Zoe: Our 2009 Tastemaker Shares 34 Of Her Favorite Things

Writing on her website, Sheena Matheiken explains

Starting May 2009, I have pledged to wear one dress for one year as an exercise in sustainable fashion. Here's how it works: There are 7 identical dresses, one for each day of the week. Every day I will reinvent the dress with layers, accessories and all kinds of accouterments, the majority of which will be vintage, hand-made, or hand-me-down goodies. Think of it as wearing a daily uniform with enough creative license to make it look like I just crawled out of the Marquis de Sade's boudoir...The Uniform Project is also a year-long fundraiser for the Akanksha Foundation, a grassroots movement that is revolutionizing education in India. At the end of the year, all contributions will go toward Akanksha's School Project to fund uniforms and other educational expenses for slum children in India.

She adds that, growing up wearing school uniforms in India, she was always struck by the extent to which people were able to personalize their looks, and sees the project not just as "an exercise in sustainable fashion" but as an example of the creativity that can satisfy our acquired taste for constant novelty. Of course, it should be said that she actually has seven identical frocks (for hygiene's sake, one imagines), custom-made for maximum versatility by Eliza Starbuck. Accordingly, the dress can be worn backwards and forwards, as well as as "an open tunic." Clearly, too, Matheiken has a closet full of rad accessories that amounts almost to a wardrobe in itself - and is the sort of woman to make anything look cool - so while it's a great example, I wouldn't expect many people to try this at home.

Looks range from work-conservative to wedding-fancy. (As well as, I guess, the aforementioned boudoir-crawling, if that's your thing.) A few favorites include June 18th's "summerless newyork," and today's "Catholic academy," in which the dress is embellished with a doily collar and accessorized with a vintage beret. So maybe the feather necklace wasn't great; a year's a long time. Sometimes, it must be said, the actual dress seems tangential to the overall look - i.e., when she sports it over a vintage dress - but so far, so impressive. Rather than, say, the classic French aesthetic in which it wouldn't be considered problematic to actually wear the same basics day in and day out, the Uniform Project seeks to address our need for constant innovation and novelty with minimal environmental impact - and that's no easy task.

Some of you may remember that Alex Martin did something similar: wearing a brown dress for a year. Then, the emphasis was more on the cause of "rejecting the economic system" than on the concept's fashion potential, but she did show it could be done. Of course, while simply "cutting down on consumption" is a more fraught and complex idea than it might seem at first glance - we've talked a lot about the real-life consequences of simply opting out of the market - it's also true that this is a time when we're uniquely receptive to ingenuity, creativity, and, just maybe, a change of habits. Matheiken's project is about adventure rather than compromise, which is a wholesome ethos indeed. Now, one can always question any charitable enterprise that puts one face, or model, front and center, but in this case it feels both justifiable and practical. And should the project result in a book? Hell, we'll buy it.
The Uniform Project
The Uniform Project - One Girl, One Dress, One Year [Styleist]

Eco-Friednly Fashion Like You've Never Seen It [BlackBook]

Little Brown Dress

When it comes to their mother's appearance, all daughters have views, ranging in ferocity from mildly scathing to fathomless reservoirs of scorn. That surely is the point of them. When they're not mewling, wingeing or bitching (depending what point of the evolutionary trajectory they're on), isn't their main function to set their mothers straight sartorially?

So, in the pursuit of cuteness, a few fashionistas lets their daughters dress them for an arbitrary amount of time. What follows is a run-down of "kids say the darndest things" slams of mom's trendy clothes or tired looks. Five year olds deck them out in gowns and clashing hues; one tells her mother to grow her hair and wear more pink. The author ultimately decides that, for all their lack of sophistication, "children can be remarkably perceptive about appearances and fearless, if not entirely precise, when it comes to expressing their reservations."

Then we see the flip side of the dynamic, when Armstrong "bonds" with her teenage daughters over clothes.

I often ask - and sometimes take - their counsel and try not to proffer my advice unless asked for, except when they insist on flashing dazzling amounts of cleavage, which they all seem to, or going out into a snowdrift without coats. Terrified of shunting them into an eating disorder, I initially banned myself from saying "Have you seen the size of your bottom in that?" but I have become more forthright recently, particularly with the trend for metallic neon leggings and the not entirely felicitous effect they have on the family's legs unless worn with long tops.

Um, ugh. Just reading that gave me sympathy chills, reminding me of an age when a mother's criticism was capable of filling me with a rage and hurt and confusion far disproportionate to its intent. Of wanting to please but resenting any suggestion; of knowing my own mother was not someone a teenage girl should be taking style tips from, but unable to not care what she thought. This piece, for all its surface levity, is a good illustration of the complicated evolution of the mother-daughter dynamic. What's cute and straightforward with an artless little girl becomes fraught and nasty when ten years are added to the mix. Suddenly it's "the family's legs" - oddly, as the daughters move away from her sphere of influence, she identifies with them more explicitly. Because, as we all know, it's not just clothes: when she criticizes her teenagers she's implicitly commenting on their generation, their tastes, their judgment, just as a daughter's asserting autonomy and guard-changing in all the approved ways. And let's face it: this isn't just any mom, but rather one whose business is at least partially fashion and who defines herself by what she wears. The subtexts are uncomfy, to say the least.
Should mums take style tips from their daughters? [London Times]

Says DVF, "It has been a unique phenomenon...What was new about my wrap dress was that I did it in jersey and therefore it molded the body and it was very flattering to the body." She told the Huffington Post in January,

The wrap dress is the most traditional form of dressing: It's like a robe, it's like a kimono, it's like a toga. It doesn't have buttons or zippers. What made it different was that it was jersey; therefore, it was close to the body and it was a print. And the first one was animal print so it made every woman look like a feline.

Adds a fan, "They make me feel not only sexy, but successful, sophisticated and timeless."

Well, that's great. And I know that's certainly the party line on the wrap, but while I've been dutifully adhering to the doctrine for years — primarily in knockoff form, but in a few second-hand cases, for reals — I'm not sure how true it is. While the wrap is certainly good for traveling — it's compact and doesn't wrinkle —- more often than not when I wear one I'm left feeling lumpy and exposed, and rather than striding around with liberating 1970s confidence, I find myself self-consciously tugging and adjusting the low neckline and skimpy skirt, and find that sitting down is an ordeal. Where, yes, a wrap works with curves, it also slides between breasts in a conspicuous fashion and the belt can cut in a way that's less than flattering to anyone with any flesh at all. What's more, a cami can spoil the line — not to mention show under the unforgiving jersey — and I've often been at the mercy of fashion tape, safety pins and even last-minute tacking. Theoretically wraps are adjustable and the jersey stretchy, but I find the typical dress dilemma —- if it fits in one place it's too small on top, or vice versa — to only be magnified in a wrap, where I've experienced both dangerously loose bodices and frumpily bagging skirts, both of which kind of defeat the alleged "easy sexiness" of the design.

The thing is, I love the cut of DVF's clothes (well, in dressing rooms, anyway) and her colorful textiles and she looks absolutely stunning in her creation. In theory, I still love it, and I've tried for years. But easy and flattering? Not in my experience. A-lines are easy. Structure is flattering. Wrap dresses, save for a lucky few, are an optimistic myth that we all love too much to give up, not least cause we've been told for so long that it was The Answer. What say you?

*Update: Someone v fashionable just sent me this possibly-invaluable tip: "The girls at DVF told me to wear it backwards - so you have a boatneck in front and a plunging v in the back. Way sexy and great for girls with boobs."

Dear DVF fans: What is it about that dress? [CNN]
Diane von Furstenberg On Wrap Dresses And The Joys Of Aging Gracefully [Huffington Post]

[Image via Huffington Post]

Whereas, Czyzselska says, there are an increasing number of openly gay male role models in various walks of life, the comparable women can be listed on one hand — and a few of those are probably assumed to be gay, but haven't actually come out publicly. As a result, she says, lesbians face a very different set of prejudices and a more difficult coming-out process. As she says, "an established community of other gay men at work helps gay men to come out, because there's often a formal or informal club for them to join." Well, I'm sure plenty of young gay men would be delighted by this blithe assessment of their circumstances! But no one can argue that the challenges for a lesbian coming out at work aren't unique: "Think about it — as a woman, you've already got one strike against you in terms of a diversity box to check. As a lesbian there's the second one as well." She points out the hidden minefields of discussing one's personal life, the elaborate deceptions that can fill a workday with a hundred small stresses and undermine the trust of a work dynamic.

What she says next seems in some ways to confuse her argument:

Happily, those who were confident about their sexual orientation generally felt being a gay woman gave them a distinct advantage in the workplace. Some participants who had been open about being gay found the experience empowering, because it had raised their profile, facilitated networking opportunities and helped them to feel more equal with men in their place of work.

While these results are certainly encouraging, this does feel in some wise reductive; doesn't it stand to reason that those women so "confident about their sexual orientation" are already more prone to healthy work relationships — or that perhaps they're already in more supportive work environments? "People can't be confident enough to come out in this environment but if they come out they'll be confident which will improve the environment" for others, this seems to say — and glosses over a lot of potentially painful variables. That said, at the end of the day, change probably does need to come on the heels of just such simplistic change — a giant step for woman, a small step for womankind. Sometimes we need someone to coin the cliches for us before we can use them.

The Invisible Women [The Guardian]

How do you like your coverage? We've got everything from the straight to the analytical to the gleeful to the disgusted to predictably defensive statements by the McCain campaign. We've got commentary from other women in the public eye, stylists and prize-winning fashion writers.

And then of course there are all the servicey pieces! From high end — replicating Palin's spree at Saks and Neiman's (several times), attempting to spend $150k, to low end — creating her looks at Loehmann's and Wal-Mart! HuffPo helpfully puts the expenditures in terms of the average plumber's salary, ratio of clothes to Edwards-haircuts, typical American clothing budgets and "the cost of health care for 15 or so people." There are also polls and analyses of how much this would undercut her image, and photo essays of her ensembles.

For all this, the funny part is that there's really not that much to say. Here's the gist. Palin spent a ton on clothes, more than anyone can justify, even given arguments for the increased scrutiny on female politicians. She seems to have done so at a deliberate moment post-convention, once her Real American credentials had been established. She looks pretty good. But the timing could not be worse (global economic crisis, anyone?) and it flies directly in the face of her average Joe Six pack, hockey mom appeal just when the McCain campaign was trying to push a common touch agenda. Consensus? Republicans are pissed at the stupidity, McCain is pissed at having to talk about it, and whatever the eventual fallout, it's not good for them.

So, was it worth it? No. Obviously not. She doesn't look that different, she's undercut her sole selling point, and made herself look even more ridiculous. What was the RNC thinking? Having beaten the $400 haircut drum and played the elitism card with such enthusiasm, who could possibly have green-lighted this kind of excess, even were the economy not in free fall? Were they trying to make the most of her looks? Sure. Were they hoping to make her look like a politician? Probably. Was this shopping spree some kind of grotesque hail mary, a kind of attempt to bolster a crappy show with lavish sets and costumes? (And yes I know that's like five metaphors.) What's ironic about this is that in the past, Republicans have successfully marketed rich men of privilege like Reagan and George W. Bush as simple men of the people. And yet, they've taken a Sarah Palin and dressed her like a rich person!

I keep thinking about Stylista, the new show where magazine sophisticates whip kids into stylish shape. "Wearing the right label doesn't make something right," they say at one point to the designated villain. Meanwhile, the girl showing too much cleavage wails that she "loves her clothes" and "loves the way she looks in them," while the others pressure her into wearing something more tasteful and appropriate. They send the contestants to H&M and have them put looks together to show they have real style. Obviously the RNC didn't have that kind of confidence in their VP nominee. And sure enough, they'll pay through the nose.

Sarah Palin's $150,000 Makeover [BBC]
Sarah Palin's RNC-Funded Makeover: A Fashion Do Or Don't? [LA Times]
Palin's Fashion-Gate [WWD]
Republicans Disgusted By RNC Spending On Palin [Marc Ambinder]
For Women In The Public Eye, Looks Matter [CNN]
Stylist: Palin Fashion Buys Worth It [Politico]
After A $150,000 Makeover, Sarah Palin Has An Image Problem [Washington Post]
How To Spend $150,000 At Saks And Neiman Marcus [NY Mag]
The Saks Girls On Sarah Palin [Newsweek]
How To Spend $150,000 Just Like Sarah Palin [Slate]
If Sarah Palin Shopped For Her Campaign Clothes At Walmart… [The Frisky]

Palin Clothes Spending Has Dems Salivating, Republicans Disgusted [HuffPo]
Poll: Is Sarah Palin Elitist? [Guardian]
Look Is The Same; The Labels Have Changed [NY Times]
Sarah Palin's RNC-Funded Makeover: A Fashion Do Or Don't? [LA Times]
McCain Responds To Palin Shopping Bill [Time]

All this comes at a time when Vogue editor Anna Wintour is railing on Senator Clinton for being mannish (Hillary also gets accused of imitating men in order to get ahead instead of embracing her natural femininity.) But would Hillary have come so far had she been clad in flippy Nanette Lepore skirts instead of St. John trousers?

Huff Po blogger Lesley Blume thinks no. She relays an anecdote about her time in a Washington D.C. newsroom in late 2006 when a Vogue profile of Condi Rice came out, describing the Secretary of State as a "cabinet member with style." "God Almighty - the ridicule that many of my colleagues throughout the city heaped on that woman," Blume writes. "They called the feature vain, preposterous, credibility-killing, ill-advised; they hooted for weeks."

Perhaps if there were an "Old Girl Network" of women in power, as Time blogger Lisa Takeuchi Cullen fantasizes, the scrutiny of women's sartorial choices would be less stringent and damning. But maybe with all the girl-on-girl aggression out there, corporate wardrobe catch-22s would be even more of a problem. (By the way, what do you think of Hillary's kicky yellow suit jacket? Fug? Or fab?!?)

Women in Power: Finding Balance In the Wardrobe[Wall Street Journal]
Why Hillary Won't Vogue for Vogue [Huffington Post]
Where's My Old Girl's Network? [Time]

Earlier: Anna Wintour Calls Hillary Clinton A "Mannish" Coward
Sexpert Shere Hite Tackles Girl-On-Girl Aggresion