<![CDATA[Jezebel: Consumerist]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/jezebel.com.png <![CDATA[Jezebel: Consumerist]]> http://jezebel.com/tag/consumerist http://jezebel.com/tag/consumerist <![CDATA[ Market Meltdown: Do We Really Need The Neiman Christmas Catalog? ]]> All week long, the Dow's been hitting record lows and every talking head on the news is saying "recession." Yet, Tuesday, Neiman Marcus unveiled its annual Christmas Book, reports MSNBC. Inside? A $160,000 BMW, his and hers life-size Lego replicas at $60,000 each; and the usual $18,000 rings and $5,200 bags.

Ginger Reeder, a Neiman vice president, says: "These gifts are not meant to be anything more than something to make you smile, make you go 'Oh my gosh, who would have thought about that?'" Oh, sure, it's all in good fun. But Neiman Marcus reported last month that it lost $35.6 million in the third quarter of the year. Costs were up and sales were down. And that was before the worst of the financial crisis. "We are anticipating the months ahead will be difficult," Chairman and Chief Executive Burt Tansky said, back in early August. What about now?

Reeder says of the Neiman Christmas catalog (which is planned a year in advance), "I think we all need a break." And it can be an escape, to lose yourself in pages of luxury items you can't afford. (hence the appeal of Vogue.) But isn't trying to acquire things you don't have the means to purchase how this country ended up in a credit crisis? There's nothing wrong with dreaming. But perhaps the time for conspicuous consumption and lusting after ridiculously expensive material goods has come to an end? I mean: Looking at this Jimmy Choo bag does not make me feel better about my finances.

Neiman Marcus Catalog Remains Extravagant [MSNBC]

]]>
Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:30:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5061106&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ The Unintentionally Hilarious Language Of Cosmetics Marketing ]]> Very rarely is the New York Times straight-up comedy, but today's story, "Let’s Play Buzzword: Defining Phrases Used in Skin Care Advertising" is so friggin funny. Cosmetics companies sell creams with words like "advanced" "microlift" "nourishing" "bio-stimulating" and "revitalizing," but what do they mean? Does anyone know? Times writer Natasha Singer visited a Manhattan salon and asked some women for their definitions, then compared their translations of the mumbo-jumbo with official explanations from the cosmetics companies.

For instance: Olay Regenerist claims it is "a deep penetrating moisturizer with Aquacurrent Science." Dyan Diaz, 30, says this means: "They are taking stuff out of the ocean like jellyfish and dissecting it and telling us it is good for your skin." Heh. Good guess! Actually, Olay claims, "Aquacurrent Science, the study of water movement in the skin and hair, helps create products with greater moisturization." Disappointing, huh, Dyan? Jellyfish gunk sounds way more effective.

What about Clarins Younger Longer Balm, "with advanced neuro-cosmetic technology and rare concentrated botanicals, skin is revitalized"? Yeah, that's right. Neuro-cosmetic. Soline McLain, a 28-year-old law student, says: "I would think it has to do with the brain. It makes you smarter? I will put it on when I am studying for constitutional law." (Hahahahaha! It actually has to do with nerve endings in the skin.)

As for Estée Lauder Re-Nutriv Ultimate Lifting skin care, "'Virtual immunity' means you’ll see a noticeably more lifted look, a brilliant clarity, a newly refined smoothness." Virtual immunity. Virtual immunity. Carmel Agdeppa, 27, wonders: "Is it better for your skin against any foreign bacteria?" Oh, Carmel! If only. Instead, Estée Lauder explains that if you use their cream, your skin "essentially appears almost as if it has been exempted from the signs of premature aging." Essentially. Almost. As if. Haha! The fact that they expect anyone to believe that is the most hilarious part of all.

Let’s Play Buzzword: Defining Phrases Used in Skin Care Advertising [NY Times]

]]>
Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:00:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5058074&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Fashion Films: Is Anybody Buying What These Brands Are Selling? ]]> In the new film The Science Of Sexy, Dita Von Teese plays a bespectacled scientist who turns into… Dita Von Teese. Her lab coat gives way to lingerie. This movie has already been viewed over 200,000 times, but not in a theater: It's playing on YouTube. The short film is produced by Wonderbra, and, as Oliver Horton writes for the International Herald Tribune, the "fashion film" is having a moment. Prada has released two animated short films, and Louis Vuitton produced one as well. Of course, not matter how fancy they appear to be, these "fashion films" are really just commercials.

But when you're a luxury brand, you're special. You don't want to seem low-rent, like a dishwashing detergent. So you're can't just make a commercial. You've got to make a film, and it's got to be for the interwebs. Marcus Black, the editor of Specialten, a bimonthly magazine on DVD, explains: "Magazines are losing out to computers. What people are sitting in front of is where advertisers want to be."

But here's the question: Does it work? Do people who wouldn't otherwise be interested in Prada see the trippy Trembled Blossoms and buy a Prada bag? How about that existential crisis LV ad? (I was in a movie theater when the Louis Vuitton commercial appeared on screen and people in the audience actually hissed.)

As for Dita, at least her "film" is straightforward: No mythical beasts or sense of ennui. Just a great-looking gal in well-fitting bra. Wouldn't you buy that?

Fashion Film Gets A Life Of Its Own [International Herald Tribune]
Earlier: The New Prada Movie Stars Very Shady Characters
Let's All Take Acid And Watch The New Prada Movie
Another Luxury Brand, Another Existential Film

]]>
Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:30:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5054122&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ 9 Really Weird Christmas Ornaments From Bronner's ]]> Even though Fall doesn't officially begin until next week, the Christmas catalogs have already begun to arrive. While I get that Christmas trees aren't necessarily "Christian" — they can be a fun way to celebrate the otherwise cold and dark winter season with light and color — there are some extremely odd ornaments for sale in the new catalog from Bronner's. Oh, I'm not talking about the usual wacky stuff: Snowmen, moose, birds, dolphins, vintage cars, Santa drinking wine, Betty Boop, frogs getting married, pirate ships, Hello Kitty, unicorns. I'm talking about seriously crazy items that will make even the most traditional among you say, well, Christ. What is this holiday really all about? Gadgets, pop icons, food products and mythic beasts, after the jump.

Whatever happened to teddy bears and toy trains? Cell phones are childs' play now.

Seriously, this is just weird. It's not like a digital camera is an aesthetically pleasing objét, like a Littman.

Just to be clear: The cinnamon roll and the Coke-toting Santa make sense, but the pizza? The peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Are those Christmas-y? The obvious "weird" winner here: The "deli sandwich."

Move over Jesus, there's another King on the tree!

Move over Elvis, there's another King on the tree! Tut, what a nut. And for the love of Horus, isn't there a conflict of interest in having a Pharaoh on a Christian symbol?

A Mayan temple. On the same page as a margarita. With all this mixing of religions, why not just throw in a Menorah????

Okay then.

"Mommy, did the dinosaurs come before or after Adam and Eve?"

Okay, okay, I know that there are plenty of Christians who believe in T. Rex. I'm just wondering about the other ones. Anyway, what's Christmas without a sense of humor, right? Otherwise, this would not exist:

[Bronner's]

]]>
Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:00:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5050583&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Androgynous Robots, Root Beer Vodka & A Fellow In A Frock: Fall's Worst Ads ]]> Advertisements in magazines have many goals: They're supposed to raise brand awareness, maintain brand recognition, stop you from turning the page and pay attention to the message, and, ultimately, sell the damn product. But some ads are so stupid, inane, gross, weird or depressing, they're just bad. Hence: Badvertising! After the jump, some of the worst ads from issues of In Touch, Elle, Marie Claire, Glamour and Lucky.







Okay. The ad in and of itself is not so bad. The product is ridiculous. Why not just put vodka in your root beer, if that's what you want? And who drinks root beer except for kids, anyway? Are you marketing booze to kids? Also, seeing the words "root beer" and "vodka" and "olives" so close to each other makes me want to hurl.

What a vivid nightmare. The gum is so fruity, if you are a Carmen Miranda-ish Carmen Electra-ish woman who puts fruit on her head, you can put the gum there, too! But a bird may land on your face to try and get some gum, so if you don't keep completely still, your face may get ripped off. Enjoy!

What if you don't want to dress like an androgynous robot whose hair defies gravity? Don't buy Calvin Klein!

What if you don't want to feel sad as the time your dog had to be put to sleep because she was getting old and couldn't really walk and you found out it was cancer in her bones? Don't buy Jil Sander!

Maybe I don't "get" Marc Jacobs. But a tattooed dude lying in the dirt doesn't make me want to buy this dress. Or that admittedly cute purse.

I mean, if the dress fits him like that, how the hell would my boobs get in it? To me, this is not "cool." This is "trying too hard to be different."

People are so sweet. They clearly donated new boots and a new bag to this cold, homeless street urchin.

Earlier: Big Hair Is Sexy, Cigarettes Whiten Teeth, Not Having Cellulite Is Awesome

]]>
Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:40:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5048151&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Baby, I Spiked Your Drink With Sexactivator: Scary Ads From The New <i>Men's Fitness</i> ]]> An observant reader recently directed us to Sexactivator, a deeply disturbing product advertised in the back pages of September's Men's Fitness magazine. According to the ad, "This magical wonder liquid can be taken orally, or put in any drink." Also, "some women say that they love when their man puts a few drops in their favorite drink without them knowing. They say that it turns them on even more." Exciting! The full ad, along with its partner-in-creepiness, Mate Magnet Cologne, after the jump.







Note that Sexactivator is marketed as a product for men to turn on "your woman" — suggesting that a guy slip weird pheromone shit into a stranger's drink is apparently a sleaze-bridge too far. Still, it's hard in a not to assume that some men will use this at bars or parties with women they don't know. Especially when it's touted next to Mate Magnet Cologne. After all, "using pheromones have been proven the most gorgeous women will desire to have you immediately." (Also, using grammar.)

The sad thing about these products in general (and yes, there is a sad thing, among many scary and enraging things) is that they bank on the idea that men need products to artificially induce women to like them. This implies not only that women deserve to have their autonomy subverted by chemical agents, but also that men are not enough on their own. Mate Magnet and Sexactivator are sort of like men's versions of wrinkle creams and fat-burning supplements — the opposite sex does not like you as you are, advertisers shout, but they will love you with this snake oil!

Men's Fitness [Official Site]

]]>
Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:30:00 EDT Anna N. http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5046523&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Neiman Marcus "Just Kidding": Costly Couture For Gossip Girls In Training ]]> Neiman Marcus is known for its expensive merchandise, hence the nickname "Needless Markup." But the stuff in the new "Just Kidding" catalog has to be seen to be believed: A $100 sequined jacket! A $200 dress! A $300 faux-fur coat! For children. $140 Burberry rain boots and a sleigh bed/duvet/pillow ensemble that costs more than your rent, after the jump.









Here are the $108 and $110 sequined jackets. Cute! And that dress with the white lady on it that the black girl is wearing? $238. Props for ethnic diversity, though.

Hahah, OMG, being rich is so fun! The one on the right? Her shirt says, "My dog for President." Drill, baby, drill. That jacket is $328. The jeans are $98. My jeans are 48 bucks but my mom didn't buy them for me.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Juicy Couture is neither juicy nor couture. This little pink dress is $128. The cat is not included.

I did not know that there was Juicy Couture for infants. I thought it was just for pre-teens and the soccer moms who dress like them. You learn something new every day.

This bed belonging to "Emily" features a duvet cover ringing up at $615. A twin dust skirt? $430. Each sham is about $130. The "boudoir" pillow in velour with faux leather pocket and buckle detail costs $210. This sleigh bed, in full size, is $1,159. Emily gets over when the tooth fairy comes, no doubt.

Marc Jacobs! For children! That little red dress is $231; the boots are $312. The dog is all, "WTF?"

Pennies from heaven? How about dollars from Daddy? He makes it rain! Why else would a child need a $385 Burberry raincoat?

Aww, sorry, honey, I think he might be Le Gay.

]]>
Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:00:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5045533&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Feminine Hygiene Commercials Are Rarely Genius ]]> Over on AdAge, there's a commercial for a company called Libra. In the spot, a woman on a rooftop rocks out on guitar as video game shapes fall from the sky. The licks are hot, the chick is cool, and the tagline is: "Play with patterns." The product? Tampons. Because having your period rocks! Actually, the ad's not bad — at least there's not blue mystery liquid being squeezed from an eyedropper or a beaver involved. As AdAge's Charlie Moran points out: "We like rock 'n roll as a source of female empowerment, but doesn't such a contrived packaging gimmick like this play into stereotypes about the frivolity of those same young girls?" Ugh. Why is "feminine hygiene" such a tough product to sell? Women menstruate. They need tampons. So how come tampon commercials rarely hit the mark?

As Tracie wrote in her post about period dramas, blood makes people uncomfortable. TV commercials are gleaming, clean shiny things where no one bleeds or poops (ever see the All-Bran commercial where bricks stand in for crap?) Especially not women. The new Tampax commercials feature "Mother Nature" giving a woman her "monthly gift," which is a red present. Not bloody jelly blobs coming from her uterus, but a neatly wrapped box that might as well have a cashmere sweater inside. I'm not saying that I want to see blood in tampon commercials. I don't know what I want to see. And it seems like the ad execs don't know either. When it comes to period ads, what would you like to see? Have there ever been any ads that you thought were well done?

The Libra commercial:

A Touch of Feminine Hygenius [AdAge]
Earlier: The Importance Of Being Able To Change Your Period Products In "Public"
Leave It To Beaver

]]>
Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:30:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5043454&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ We Love Cheap Stuff, But Fast Fashion Is Hard To Defend ]]> As you may have read, England's House of Lords recently passed judgment on the culture of "Fast Fashion" as epitomized by chains like H&M and Forever21, stating that it fosters a culture of irresponsible waste. While the high-handedness of a group of peers making such a pronouncement has been roundly denounced — and indeed, is in danger of obscuring the message — the truth is that this is a real issue that can stand a little exposure. The current trend towards ever-cheaper and more disposable wardrobes is not merely bad for the environment and the sweatshop workers who turn out that $14 Marni knockoff, but is probably, ultimately, pretty bad for us as a society, too. Melodramatic? Maybe. But valuing things is, paradoxically, a luxury.

First: the facts. There's no free lunch and there's certainly no $20 dresses. Well, not without a lot of people in Bangladesh's garment districts eking out a very meager existence to meet the demand. As The Daily Mail's Liz Jones puts it, "Ever-cheaper fashion... is like cheap food: it means people's lives and the environment are being violated."

Of the 2.5 million Bangladeshi garment workers, 75% are women and children, who earn approximately $5 a week. The environmental toll, which the House of Lords emphasized, is heavy too - we're throwing out literally tons of cheap clothes every year, most of which are made from, ahem, less than earth-friendly materials. The high turnover of the collections at these stores keeps us on the lookout for the new, the fresh, all the time - and this has in turn influenced the high fashion industry, which is producing more frequently in order to satisfy our restless tastes, with similar environmental and human costs.

Perhaps we can justify fast fashion to ourselves because everyone's broke — but given the life span of most of these clothes, it really is true that a slightly more expensive basic pays for itself in wears. And, seriously, are most of us going to Forever21 for our work wardrobes? Maybe a piece here and there, but for the most part you don't want to be in the office in a pencil skirt that changes color under lights. Cheap clothes are, obviously, fun. We all remember the thrill of realizing how awesome Forever21 was and thinking it was an amazing secret that only we were onto, until everyone at the office showed up in the same Marc Jacobs-esque blouse. But the sad truth is, the thrill fades quickly. The clothes fall apart, the styles change — I always justified buying "trendy" shapes at cheap places 'cause I didn't want to spend on something that would date quickly - and because they were easy come, it's a lot easier to part with them when it's time to clean closet. Yeah, you can give them to charity — but I'm guessing that $12 used poly-cotton Go for Target sweater isn't going to be anyone's first pick at the SalvA, either.

Harder to give up, probably, is the pleasure of it, one of the few affordable treats left to us. But in a sense, while it provides a cheap thrill, fast fashion degrades the shopping experience. Just as McDonald's is no substitute for a nice — or healthy — meal, a trip to Forever21 doesn't make you feel especially good. It's loud and chaotic, the sizes are all over the place, employees are often disaffected, you make poor decisions - sometimes just to avoid the hassle of a dressing-room line. Perhaps, as in the case of fast food, fast fashion is yet another degredation of our quality of life. "Cheap fashion, " says Liz Jones, "like cheap, factory-farmed salmon and chicken, has stripped away any notion we had of something being luxurious or in any way special . It has devalued all our lives, making us ever more dissatisfied, always wanting more."

More prosaically, everybody looks the same. Sure, we all have in mind the ideal of the inventive fashionista, effortlessly and creatively mixing high and low fashion into one dazzlingly chic whole. But the reality is that we are far more homogenous in our distinctively-printed designer knockoffs than we would be in simpler basics. The idea of high style comes to us pre-packaged, complete with eclectic jewelry and accessories, and I'm guessing this paradoxical illusion of the unique is at the expense of individual creativity.

Inevitably, this trend is spawning a "slow clothes" movement: locally sourced, small-batch clothing produced according to the highest standards. Equally inevitably, this is still a boutique phenomenon that doesn't come cheap and is likely to be tarred with the same 'twee elitism' brush that first characterized slow food. Realistically, this isn't an option for most of us. And to tell the truth, it'd be a serious wrench to have to give up the small after-work of pleasure of a cheap top. But you know, this is something we've become accustomed to very quickly -—such a thing would have been unheard-of a few generations ago -—and I'm guessing that, together, we can weather the withdrawal. I'm three weeks clean and counting -—one day at a time.

Should We Boycott Throwaway Fashion? [Daily Mail]

]]>
Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:00:00 EDT Sadie http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5040032&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ The Best & Worst Of 'International Male,' Summer 1986 ]]> A few months ago, in an exhaustive feat of research, we found the worst outfit in the International Male catalog. And then, over the weekend: A flea market find! Issues of International Male from Summer 1986. Rayon! Army shorts! Faux eyeglasses! Underwear! The best — meaning worst — of the pages, after the jump.

Did you know that Rayon was the season's most important fabric in the summer of 1986? Did you know that her peculiar, unfortunate shirt was called an "angel top"? Well, now you do. International Male does God's work.

The beefy, blond Aryan type loses his appeal when he's in pseudo-military gear, in my opinion. It takes me back to when, as a wee lass, I found out Rolfe was a Nazi in the Sound Of Music. Sniff.

"It's a natural! Just as natural as what my hand is doing in my pocket right now. It must be natural — it feels so good!"

Which would you rather find out the man in your life wears: The supertrimmer? Or Le Masque? Think carefully.

Oooh, "classics"! Denim short-shorts, camo bikini undies, chest-hair revealing tank tops and "Foreign Legion" brozner. Collect 'em all!

The Key Largo shirt is mildly horrifying. The peach canvas suit is Miami Nice. But let's focus on the Dickens Glasses, shall we? Because it is taking all my power not to make a joke like, "They're called that because you wear them when you want to get a dick in you."

Isn't it funny how all the '80s styles now are on svelte, emaciated hipster boys? These fashions look so different with a little hair and brawn thrown in.

And by "For Her" they mean, "For when he feels like gettin' freaky."

Just because this kind of shock and awe is a little unorthodox doesn't mean it's ineffective.

The swimsuits of 1986 were actually quite tame when compared to what's going on over there now.

Guido Slacks. 'Nuff said.

The soft focus, the sad, subservient, irrelevant female, the women's underwear that looks like men's underwear: Genius.

A new attitude! In unnecessary glasses! And is it me, or is that shoe on the right downright obscene?

Earlier: UnderGear: No Boxers, No Briefs... From The People Who Brought You International Male
Searching For The Worst Outfit In 'International Male'

]]>
Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:00:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5038553&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ <i>Mad Men</i> Is Stimulating Consumerism In The Midst Of A Recession ]]> Each week, Mad Men has been killing me softly with its wardrobe and set design. That era of early to mid-'60s is undeniably attractive, particularly all the Eames-style furnishings and wall art. But it's the waist-cinching, curve hugging dresses that really get me. They only further prove my point that tent dresses are rags from hell. Could you imagine how those frocks would evaporate any and all of the vampy, sexiness Joan Holloway is dripping with? Anyway, I've been well aware since first viewing this show that it makes me want a cigarette in the worst —but most delightful—way. (Which kinda defeats the purpose of the Welbutrin I've been taking.) However, this week's episode really drove home for me how much Mad Men makes me want to spend my money on a whole new wardrobe and decor. The fact that it's a show about advertising makes it so meta. After the jump, stills from the most coveted possessions on this week's episode.



Let's start with my new obsession: Betty's equestrian style. It makes me regret that I have nothing saved from my horseback riding days, because I've spent upwards of 3 hours (that's not an exaggeration) on equestrian clothing sites and realized that building this look will probably cost me about $800. Howevs, I'm totally getting one of her shirts. But I would kill for this bag:

And her winter coat goes so perfectly with all of it:

As do those gloves:

And speaking of gloves, I think it's about time that we bring back opera gloves and costume jewelry.

The accompanying dress was also awesome. Other than New Year's and maybe Halloween, I can't think of an occasion to wear those where I wouldn't look like a total tool, though. Oh, and dresses! Peggy's was adorbz:

And duh, Joan's ruled, too. Now I'm thinking about investing in some serious foundation garments this fall:

Now, on to set design. Obvs this shelf is choice:

I dug this blond wood headboard:

And the matching lamps on the nightstands:

Now I need multiple silk pillows with large buttons:

And for some reason I was really drawn to this stupid framed art of a metal dog:

I also wouldn't mind a globe in my house. I suck at geography, so it would actually serve a dual purpose. I imagine that Betty went all out to make Don's office cozy and official. And smoked the whole time. Christ, I wish I could look that glamorous while chain smoking. Instead, I'm in a muumuu and my hair and face are competing for the Greasiest Surface in Brooklyn award.

Lastly, Roger Sterling's office is all kinds of awesome. I want to have that wall art.

And I wouldn't mind having him, either.

]]>
Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:00:00 EDT Tracie http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5036070&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Anthropologie "Revival": TV-Ready Fall Fashion ]]> A friend writes: "I just got a new Anthropologie catalog and the main model in it is practically almost of a non-anorexic size!" Yes, yes. Indeed. And! She's also a redhead in '60s makeup: Channeling Joan from Mad Men? Oh, and let's talk about the clothes. After several seasons of sloppy crafty handmade-ish crap, Anthro has gone positively sleek and elegant. Soft sweaters, full skirts, jewel tones and poetry-inspiring shoes, after the jump.





I'm just starting to get into Mad Men, but I can tell that this is really quite Joan-esque. Plus! It's wearable. Can't always say that about Anthro.

Grand Central cowlneck, $78; dusk-blue suede belt, $42; ruffled denim skirt, $158

"Sylvie decided that if they wouldn't give her the recipe for their incomparable Madeleines, she'd have to sneak into the kitchen to watch them being made. Little did she know that in precisely one hour, she'd be covered in flour and completely in love…"

Street poet trench, $248

Gah. Foxy.
A haiku for those violet heels:
You are gorgeous; but
You are not affordable
Thus, I sigh deeply.

Printing press sheath, $268

A ruffled cardigan is good in theory but would look absurd on some people, including yours truly.

City dweller cardigan, $118; Studio space skirt, $148

Cocktails at seven, dinner at eight. Don't have plans? Make some.

Sunless skies shift, $178

The restaurant in the background is Schiller's. I just blogged from there like 2 weeks ago. As for the mixy-matchy coat and skirt, though I'm not sure I could pull it off, I look forward to seeing people try. Black seems boring suddenly.

Diamondplate coat, $398

While I appreciate the elegant, luxurious and easy ensemble, I worry about this posture. I prefer strength to weakness as a rule.

Castellum top, $148; chalkstripe trousers, $148

That whimpering sound you hear is me, realizing this probably won't fit me. Sniffle.

High city dress, $258

Post-recession, post-modern, post-apocalyptic, post-post. But why would you trail wide-legged trousers in the detritus of humanity? What are your dry cleaning bills like?

Armarna jasmine cardigan, $128; Via Appaia trousers, $148

[Anthropologie]

Anthropologie "Giving": We Love To Hate & Hate To Love It

]]>
Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:30:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5035565&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ The Jewels In September's <i>Elle</i> Come At An Extremely High Price ]]> Who do you contact when you feel like your head is going to explode from disgust and horror? Get that person on the line: This page, from the September issue of Elle, features diamond pendants made in the shape of African masks. Responsible for this jewelry? De Beers, the company founded by Cecil Rhodes, the guy with the scholarship named after him who was sort of a white supremacist. He wanted the British Empire to rule every country and once wrote: "I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race."

De Beers plead guilty to the crime of price-fixing a few years ago; the reason the company wants you to believe that a diamond is forever is so that you'll never try to sell the ones you have! Additionally, the minute you buy a diamond its value decreases substantially; dealers will do buy backs for a fraction of the cost paid. Plus, there are reportedly tons of diamonds unearthed every year but held back from the market to keep prices high. (De Beers points out that "An estimated 5 million people have access to appropriate healthcare globally thanks to revenues from diamonds." ) But De Beers (which controls about 40% of the world diamond market) built its company on the backs of "poorly-paid, abominably treated native African workers," and is often accused of human rights violations and illegal mining operations. Though the company (often referred to as a "cartel" or a "monopoly") now claims to comply with the Kimberley Process and offer "clean" diamonds, there are numerous reports of corruption in certain African countries due to De Beers paying off the cops and government. And the abuse rumors have not gone away. One African blogger wrote: "I believe De Beers are so neck deep in this they are even editing stories in Wikipedia." Knowing all of this, doesn't selling "tribal-inspired" jewelry seem rather déclassé? But! As a De Beers spokesman, Andy Lamont, once said: "Diamonds don't kill people. People kill people."

De Beers Pleads Guilty In Price Fixing Case [MSNBC]
History Of Single LIfe: Diamond Engagement Rings [Nerve]
Namibia: Exposing The Corrupt Practices Of The De Beers Diamond Cartel [ZNet]
Why De Beers Wants You 'Blood Diamond'-Savvy [Time]
10 Reasons Not To Buy Diamonds [Field Guide To The US Economy]
Blood Diamonds - De Beers Conspiracy [Africa, The Next Generation]

Related: Combating Conflict Diamonds [Global Witness]
De Beers Diamond Policy [De Beers]
DiamondFacts.Org
Real Diamond Facts.Org

]]>
Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:00:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5032002&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ The Top 10 Female Product Advertising Icons & The Actresses Who Could Replace Them ]]> From Tony The Tiger to the Michelin Man, every pop culture kid is exposed to product advertising mascots and icons. Most of these critters are male, but sometimes — especially with baking and food products — the icons are female. Or were female. An image of "Betty Crocker" used to be on boxes of cake mix; now her face has been replaced by a spoon. And most advertisers would prefer to use celebrities to shill their products these days. But have you ever thought about what would happen if some of the best-loved advertising characters were replaced by Hollywood stars? We have. The top ten female product advertising icons and the actresses the casting agents could choose to replace them, after the jump.

1. Land O Lakes Indian Maiden
The company explains: "Because the regions of Minnesota and Wisconsin were the legendary land of Hiawatha and Minnehaha, the idea of an Indian maiden took form." This is a whitewashed way of describing how they hijacked the image of indigenous people to sell dairy products, but whatever. The first painting was done in 1928; it was "modernized" in 1939 to look the way it does now. As a kid, I honestly thought that this was my mom until I realized it was Cher.

Hollywood Casting: Q'orianka Kilcher






2. Mrs. Butterworth
This woman was not always made of plastic. She used to be real glass. She had a bun and she was heavy and sweet and you respected her, because she didn't need (the noticeably absent) Mr. Butterworth to get the job done.

Hollywood Casting: Queen Latifah

3. SunMaid
The young woman on the raisin box has evolved since 1916. She's lost about 20 lbs., but she still has the red bonnet and the basket of grapes. And she still smiles.

Hollywood Casting: Minnie Driver


4. Aunt Jemima

Advertising gimmicks are not always politically correct. The pancake icon was based on a blackface "mammy" character; but R.T. Davis Milling Company hired a woman named Nancy Green to play Aunt Jemima from 1890 to 1923. She was paid, but the ads were disgustingly racist. (Try finding a syrup that is not oppressive! Even Log Cabin gives me pause.) In 1989, Aunt Jemima lost her kerchief, got a relaxer, some pearl earrings and a slimmer look. She kind of resembles Roxie Roker now. But who is woman enough to take on the challenge of playing a controversial character?

Hollywood Casting: Angela Bassett


5. Utz Girl


The rosy-cheeked chick has
been around since 1921, though she's had some anti-aging procedure and now seems much younger now. Her huge eyes and happy smile let you know her potato chips are damn good.

Hollywood Casting: Christina Ricci


6. Little Miss Sunbeam
This blond-haired blue-eyed little girl was on the table before wheat and oats crept into our sandwich bread. Little Miss Sunbeam was born in the 1940s, and she seems part Shirley Temple, part Doris Day and part Buffy and Jody from Family Affair. Or Cindy Brady. An "American Girl" full of "sunshine"…

Hollywood Casting: Abigail Breslin


7. Morton Salt Girl
When it rains it pours, whatever that means. The first umbrella girl appeared in 1914, looking like a toddler; she's grown up some since then. The angled haircut and the umbrella make for an inspired celebrity choice…

Hollywood Casting: Rihanna

8. Coppertone Girl

Introduced in 1959, the impish child whose blue swimsuit bottoms get pulled down by a cocker spaniel was played by a three-year-old Jodie Foster in 1965. Did you know that they changed the logo later because some thought her bare buttocks encouraged pedophilia? Now that the company makes sunscreen instead of tanning oils, the "paleface" message is no longer appropriate and she's been phased out.

Hollywood Casting: Dakota Fanning

9. Tropic-AnaThe Polynesian pretty who used to be topless has since been replaced with an orange and straw. It would be fun if they brought back a female icon who loves exhibitionism, wouldn't it?

Hollywood Casting: Bai Ling

10. Chiquita Banana
Born in 1944, Miss Chiquita was sometimes a lady, sometimes an actual fruit, as seen in this Disney commercial. Her jingle is awesome, even if she was pretty much just a Carmen Miranda rip off.

Hollywood Casting: Salma Hayek?

Don't like these choices? Have some of your own? Suggestions welcome.

[Celebrity images via Getty. Tropic-Ana photo by Michael Poulin via Flickr.]

]]>
Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:00:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5026093&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Alloy: The Secret Weapon Of The Broke & Plus-Sized ]]> People, I don't really like discussing certain aspects of my life on the interwebs but there's something you should know: I'm not thin. I'm not use-a-crane-to-remove- her-from-her-house obese, but I can't fit into 75% the stuff I want. Zara is off-limits; Club Monaco is a joke, Benetton makes me weep. But! The teen brands rarely ever let me down. Alloy, I am talking to you: Low prices, larger sizes and the ability to try stuff on in the refuge of my own home. Is it hit and miss? Sure! Is it worth it? Yes. The new catalog has lots of goodies, whether you're a 6 or a 16. Shop with me, after the jump.

Most items mentioned are available in sizes XS-XXXL.

This stuff is not just for teenagers! Wear the dress to work with a cardigan; the trench with trousers. Pretend you didn't see those pre-torn jeans.

These are the jeans that you should wear with the previous trench. Plus: The Karmann-Ghia is my dream car!

Cotton blouse with lace inset! Under $32! Actually, everything on this page — except for the pre-torn jeans — is pretty great. And that includes the vintage luggage, which, sadly, is not for sale.

While all of these are cute, your best bet is the Sackrace dress. Cotton. In white or black. Up to XXXL. Forty bucks.

I have this dress. I get so many compliments on it. It's so crisp and easy and looks cool with silver bangles and gladiator sandals. Highly recommended; now on sale.

Skinny jeans! I know they are much-debated. I think they can be slimming. You may disagree. But check this out:

Wide leg, trouser cut and boot cut. From sizes 1-25. Awesome fall colors. All under $40.

More dresses! I've already ordered that drop-waist one on the left. I'll let you know how it goes.

The top and the dress are pretty great. Ixnay on the eansjay and the ootsbay.

I also ordered this blouse. Cotton! 35 bucks! I'll pair it with a pencil skirt and the kooky oxford heels I got at Payless.

[Alloy]

]]>
Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:00:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5023917&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Label Whores: Selling Fake Fashion? Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad ]]> Ever wonder if your H&M dress could pass for its designer original? We do, and that's why we are bringing back Label Whores, in which we sew designer labels on cheap chic clothing and attempt to fake out some of the snobbiest sartorialists out there: big city consignment store buyers. In today's installment, we travel to the "hippest" neighborhoods in New York (East Village, Williamsburg) with four H&M items masquerading as Calvin Klein, Donna Karan, Gucci, and Pamela Barish. The results, after the jump.

All of the items are from H&M.

First item: Sleeve-less mid-thigh length dress made from 100% silk (I know!) and retailing for $69.90. The simple design made me think it would do best as a Calvin Klein item.

Second item: High-waisted and below-the-knee skirt made from polyester and retailing for $49.90. I took a look at Anna's grab-bag of mid-90s designer labels and decided that this item could be pulled off as a Donna Karan piece.

Third item: Knit tank-top made from polyester and silk and retailing for $34.90. I could just imagine a wealthy northern Italian woman lounging around in this top, so Gucci for this one.

Fourth item: Sleeve-less polyester top with tie around the waist retailing for $29.90. This top seemed very much like something you would find in the window of some girly boutique that is featured in Lucky, thus Pamela Barish seemed like a good fit.

First stop: Tokio 7:
After mulling around for a few minutes, trying to get the attention of the staff while knee-deep in the most horrendous/fabulous collection of mid-90s designer items, I finally get someone to look at my offerings. The buyer, a Japanese man in his forties, runs down the consignment policy about 50 times which I pretty much ignore because, obviously, I'm not actually trying to sell this stuff. The "Pamela Barish" top is up first: he asks me who the designer is and then gets into a lengthy conversation with another saleswoman in Japanese. I start to sweat bullets, thinking that the jig is up, but he announces that he would sell the top for $60, the "Donna Karan" skirt for $180, and the "Gucci" top for $80. His eyebrows raise a couple times when looking at the "Calvin Klein" dress but he ultimately he gives me a number of $250. Wow!

Second stop: Cadillac's Castle:
Feeling confident that my items passed the taste test at Tokio 7, I head over to Cadillac's Castle with a spring in my step. There, my attention is drawn to a Proenza Schouler for Target dress on a rack selling for $45. (It retailed for $35). I also notice a few dusty Century 21 items (red dot on the tag!) selling for a couple hundred dollars. A salesclerk directs me to the buyer, a forties-ish woman with blue eyeliner and that I-used-to-party-with-Andy-Warhol-but-now-I-take-Pilates-classes-in-the-Village kind of look who smirks in self-satisfaction as she pulls the corners of the tags on all my items off with almost no effort — and those things took me 8 hours to sew on! — and tosses them back to me. The salesclerk looks on with a mixture of anger and horror. (Perhaps they learned their lesson after the last time we made a visit?) As I walk out of the store I hear the woman say loudly, "I mean come on, right?" I feel a bit shaken and defeated, but whatever. Onward and eastward!

Third Stop: Beacon's Closet:: Okay, so this Williamsburg store isn't exactly a "high-end consignment store," but they have a pretty large collection of designer items, so, when I heard my friend would be making an appearance with some goodies of her own to sell, I threw in my items with hers and tagged along. The rail-thin hipster girls that looked through our items toss out a majority of my friend's items, giving monotone excuses like "we already have too many tops in this size," but they take a majority of my friend's H&M and Forever 21 castoffs. Finally my items appear. One of the girls carefully inspects the back of the dress and skirt (checking for period stains, perhaps?) and then says she would sell the "Calvin Klein" for $39.95 and the "Donna Karan" for $18.95. After engaging in a small tug-o-war with the buyer when I try to retrieve the goods, she tells me she could sell the "Gucci" top for $19.95 and the "Pamela Barish" top for $12.95. Interestingly, even though Beacon's Closet's buyers are known for being snobby and a bit off-putting, they seem a lot more interested in the actual items than the labels. In fact, they offer more for one of my friend's H&M summer jackets than any of my "designer" pieces. Hrmph!)

The Final Tally:
• H&M dress (original price, $69.90) masquerading as Calvin Klein: 2 for 3 with a top price of $250.
• H&M knit tank top (original price, $34.90) masquerading as Gucci: 2 for 3 with a top price of $80.
• H&M blouse (original price $29.90) masquerading as Pamela Barish: 2 for 3 with a top price of $60.
• H&M skirt (original price $49.90) masquerading as Donna Karan: 2 for 3 with the a top price of $180.

Earlier: Label Whores Head To Tampa
Label Whores Hit The East Village

]]>
Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:00:00 EDT Maria http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5022527&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Woman To Woman: How To Get The Money You Want And Deserve ]]> The world is not a fair place, I think we all know that. And in this not-fair world, on the average, American women earn 80 percent of what American men earn. When UK Equality Minister Harriet Harman recently called for employers to disclose wage disparities, plenty of people were willing to say that women choose to make less then men in order to spend more time with their kids or to seek less professional, more personal fulfillments. But even beyond the issue of supposed choice, studies by and large show that women don't negotiate on salary as successfully as men for a variety of reasons, which might also contribute to the wage gap. Wondering how to take that particular bull by the horns? As someone who always got hired to break heads instead of be diplomatic, I have some tips.

By and large, the first thing you have to understand about getting a job or a raise or the salary that you deserve is that no one is going to give it to you. Like everything else in life, unless you're already filthy rich or well-connected, if you want something badly, you can't just wait or ask nicely, you have to take it. All that shit you learned in grade school about sharing and waiting your turn? Fuck that shit. Your turn is now, and that is your job and they need to give you your money.

  1. Never name a number When you're looking for a job, most employers will ask you really early in the process how much money you want. This number gives them several pieces of information, including where you sit in regards to other candidates' salary expectations, whether your current salary fits their idea of experience, and how little they can offer you. However, the number gives you nothing. Never be the first one to mention salary. If they ask for it in a cover letter, say "I consider my salary fully negotiable based on the requirements of the position and the other benefits available." If they ask you to fill out an application and it includes a box in which to delineate your salary history, conveniently forget to add that in. If they ask you outright in the interview to give a number, smile politely and repeat that you consider it negotiable based on the other benefits and how much were they thinking to start. Do not give in. Be inflexible.
  2. Always have a back-up plan Yes, it's ironic given my recent job history that I say this, but do not rely on one job. Have your résumé ready if you have a job, and don't stop applying for jobs (or going to interviews) until a contract is signed and you have filled out your health insurance and emergency contact paperwork. Always be looking. Knowing what else is out there — and how much those jobs are paying — will put you in a better negotiating position. You might not get what you want at first, but at least if you've got more than one ball in the air you're not constantly re-starting
  3. Always know more than your opponent In a negotiation, you preferably want to know more than the other person about what you need salary-wise, your market value, what they can afford to pay you and why they should pay you more. Know these things, or figure them out before the person on the other side of the table does. This is not a conversation between equals or a time for you to wheedle because you want the job, this is a competition and you have to treat it as such.
  4. Be completely willing to walk away In this day and age, few companies are going to be loyal to you, but they will try to indoctrinate you with loyalty to them. Resist. Don't take less that you deserve out of loyalty because 99% of the time in the business world that loyalty is misplaced. If you've been applying for other jobs, going to other interviews, looking at the job market, you know what is out there and what else you can get. If you know going in that you'll walk away if you don't get what you want, it shows in your face. The one salary negotiation (for a raise) that I ever lost was because it was done through a third person and the boss didn't see the whites of my eyes, so he didn't know I'd been interviewing for months and would be gone in 2 if he didn't capitulate. I was. I made 45% more in the new job than they were paying me when I left and 40% more than I'd even been asking to stay.
  5. Make them understand why you are worth it When it comes to asking for a raise, build a case. Don't just ask for more money because you're cool. Take the position description you started with and show how you've excelled at that, built the position into something bigger than asked for, taken on more responsibilities, etc. Write it down. If you can't do that — if you can't even bullshit it — seriously question the wisdom of asking for a significant raise. Go in with facts at your disposal, take your performance evaluations and present it in a short (2 pages or less) memo form. In most cases, your boss (assuming you're persuasive) is going to have to advocate with his or her boss as to why you should get more money and to why s/he'll be screwed if you don't. Make that case before s/he has to.

This all sounds really easy and obvious and, for some people, it probably is. Those people, sadly, are mostly men. Negotiating is about being assertive to the point of being aggressive, it's about confrontation and competition, it's about blatant self-promotion and narcissism run amok and many people aren't good at that. But if you are trying to squeeze blood from a stone, you can't worry about getting your hands dirty.

Median Weekly Earnings Of Full-Time Wage And Salary Workers By Detailed Occupation And Sex [Bureau of Labor Statistics]
Interesting Statistics [Women Don't Ask]

]]>
Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:00:00 EDT Megan http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5020289&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Five New Job Titles That Are Corporate Code For "Hot Girl" ]]> This will shock you, but apparently some women get jobs at hedge funds solely on the basis that they are hot. “You meet these bimbos and they say, ‘Oh, I work at a hedge fund,’ and you think, What?!?” one "head of an investment bank who pals around with high net worth investors" tells W Magazine. “And then you realize, Oh, this is, like, the PR girl. And it's a wildly successful strategy." Yeah, sure, until the only women working on Wall Street are brainless bimbos because all the smart women have been driven away by the financial sector's overpowering, self-destructive atmosphere of misogyny…oh wait. Anyway, the story — while it's annoyingly absent of internal memos detailing illegal hiring practices or, for that matter, pictures of any of these hedge fund hos — reminded me how, no matter which way the economy blows, the American workforce, since the days of flight attendants in hot pants, has always found a place — and a visa! — for a sufficiently hot girl. In fact, as those hedge fund gurus are well-aware, opportunities have never been brighter!

1. Television News Anchor. Okay, so this is obvious, but topical, because surely you've found yourself in recent weeks thinking, "What would Tim Russert's female equivalent look like?" And is there a single woman of prominence who looks anything remotely like her? No.
2. Pharmaceutical sales representative. (Or really, most jobs ending in "representative" now that our call centers have all been relocated in India.) Commonly recruited from college cheerleading teams, the practice of hiring hot drug reps probably originated around the time Big Pharma realized it could sell a lot of mood-enhancing pills to people who didn't need them if they took doctors out to dinner here and there. There's been some cutbacks in this industry since the major pharmaceutical companies got so focused on building their sales forces they forgot to develop any new drugs, but I bet being a babe doesn't hurt.
3. Any kind of "Director" that is not "Managing" This is obviously a gross generalization but my sense is that, from publishing to fashion to design to advertising to basically any sector besides film or traffic, "directing" is one of those things that can be done by people with minimal actual skill and therefore they probably got hired because their boss liked looking at them. I'm pretty sure "director" was a popular title at American Apparel, though in that case I might amend that last sentence to just finish reading "naked."
4. Intern When did all female magazine interns start looking like they'd been cast for a reality show? Seriously, when?
5. Italian cabinet member. In a scene in the latest British Esquire, Silvio Berlusconi is giving a town hall meeting and a woman rises from the audience to ask a question about the economy and her career prospects. "Don't worry," he tells her. "I'm sure a woman as beautiful as you can easily find a rich man to settle down with." But wait, it's not so bleak as all that! If she's really so insistent on working, I'm sure there's a spot for her in his cabinet.

Money Honeys [W Magazine]

]]>
Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:40:00 EDT Moe http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5019327&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Why Do Women Insist On Buying Houses? ]]> "The scariest money mistake women can make (Hint: It's not shoes!)" sure sooounds like your average "Hey, it's O.K.…" Glamour enablement missive. (This month: Hey, it's O.K… to think about your eBay bid during sex!) But actually, "Welcome To My Mortgage Hell", penned by Meghan Daum, who knows a little bit about money mistakes, is interesting/depressing/important. Women, particularly single women, are addicted to acquiring real estate. "You use your home as a way to express who you are," says one lawyer and expert. Like shoes! But this is a newer development: until the 1970s single women were rarely allowed to buy homes without somehow proving the veracity of their intention to never have kids; today the rate of homeownership (or, you know, "ownership") among single women — single women who've been taking on half-million dollar double adjustable-rate crackpot mortgages with no down payment and that sort of thing — is twice that of single dudes. But why?

According to the expert lady, "Women view a house as the ultimate self-improvement, lifestyle-transformation design project." So yeah, really like shoes. But I think there's a lot more commitment vs. fear-of-commitment crap that goes into this decision. Dudes like liquidity in their investments and the rush of playing the market etc. etc. Women like to invest in crap that seems solid and reliable. (In lieu of anything else that is solid and reliable.) As a homeowning friend of mine put it, "I broke up with my BF and was just like, 'Fuck it, I don't need a man to do this.'" But oyyyyy, when you're paying $4000 a month to "own" a place you could rent for $1250, why do you need to do it? It's like "settling" for a bartender high school dropout with pubic lice and pledging to have anal sex with him every night for the next twenty years, and giving him the option to renegotiate for additional blowjobs if women still find him attractive in three years. Like, you know? I know it's a long shot, but you actually might have better luck in a few years if you just spend the money on drinking and index funds.

"Welcome To My Mortgage Hell" [Glamour]

]]>
Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:00:00 EDT Moe http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5015601&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Do You Own Your Stuff Or Does Your Stuff Own You? ]]> Laura Miller has a piece on Salon today titled "We Are What We Buy." Miller talks to Rob Walker, who has a new book, Buying In: The Secret Dialogue Between What We Buy and Who We Are and we find out that 77% of Americans think that they are perceptive when it comes to marketing pitches. Walker himself was one of them, until Nike bought Converse. "His cherished hipster/underground brand had been swallowed by the Nike swoosh, 'a symbol for suckers who take its 'Just Do It' bullying at face value.'" Miller writes. He'd bought into the notion that Converse was about a certain non-conformist individuality. And don't we all? There are subtle signals emanating from the things we buy. It's tough not to judge someone by their Crocs, Juicy Couture or Abercrombie. Some products don't technically advertise with huge campaigns — they sponsor events or associate themselves with certain groups instead — still are thought of in a certain light, something Walker calls "murketing."

Red Bull, for instance, is "an extreme-sports beverage, a bar mixer, a midday pick-me-up, a workout booster, depending on whom you ask," says Miller. But where things get sticky — take note, ladies of Sex And The City — is not when you express yourself through your possessions. But when you let your possessions speak for you. Miller writes:

It's all too easy for people, under the influence of the siren songs of marketing (or murketing), to drift into a situation in which they use commodities "not to reflect who they are, but to construct who they are. Not to reflect a self, but to build a self."

I'll admit that this part touched a nerve. I am a collector and a maximalist, or what my mother prefers to call a "pack rat" and someone who "loves junk." (That's a portion of my bookcase, above.) I adore bags. I used to collect typewriters and lunchboxes. Sometimes I scrapbook. I save magazines, I have a stormtrooper helmet and a Bruce Lee action figure. I like street signs and Hello Kitty boomboxes; platform shoes and weird cameras. I have lots of stationery, rubber stamps, books, postcards, CDs, DVDs, costume jewelry and I find it really really really hard to throw away old t-shirts, especially if they are or were well-loved.

Do I need all this stuff? Is this stuff me? That's debatable. I have each item because I enjoy it. It's funny, meaningful, cool or associated with a memory. Would I be the same girl if I lived in an uncluttered, streamlined, minimalist apartment? Is my "stuff" actually a sign of an emotional problem? A new study by Blair Kidwell, David M. Hardesty and Terry L. Childers from the University of Kentucky says: "People with highly developed emotional sensibilities are better at making product choices." For instance: "A person can know a lot about nutrition and know what foods are not healthy, but can still make poor decisions when unable to recognize, reason, and solve problems based on emotional patterns." But when I think about my "stuff" I just think that yeah, it's cluttered, but I like it. A blank wall is boring and makes me a wee anxious. But I do wonder: Do interesting people have interesting things? Or does having interesting things make you interesting? And if not — surely there are interesting monks, for instance — why do we think possessions make a personality?

We Are What We Buy [Salon]
Emotional Intelligence Helps Make Better Product Choices [Science Daily]

Earlier: Does The Average Woman Really Have 21 Handbags?

]]>
Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:00:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5012663&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ American Apparel CEO Orders Subordinate To Pleasure Herself; She Services Him With Lawsuit ]]> Perhaps you've heard enough out of American Apparel Chief Executive Onanist Dov Charney. He masturbated in front of a reporter, sleeps with his employees, promotes hot 17-year-olds to replace veterans, took himself public in one of the shadiest entries to the public markets in the history of financial engineering, told the Wall Street Journal the CFO hired to straighten up his finances was a "loser," and generally perpetuates the kind of working environment I'd vilify as the Worst Thing Ever if I didn't kind of respect that he owns the largest remaining clothing factory in the country. Okay, so…he got sued again, this time by three year company veteran Jeneleen Floyd, after going completely batshit in a Perry Edward Smith-esque fit of preordained craziness one day. An eyewitnesses says the catalyst for the outburst appeared to be a combination of anxiety that his L.A. factory would be the target of an immigration raid, and fury over his Wikipedia page, which has since endured quite a few revisions, including a few at the hands of his right-hand woman Iris Alonso. How not to manage people, in a few simple clauses, after the jump. (And yeah, there's sex.)

10. On March 13, Plaintiff was working in her office which she shares with other American Apparel employees. Defendant Charney barged into the office screaming and yelling Plaintiff's name in a loud voice. After he entered the office, Defendant Charney continued to rant and rage at Plaintiff, while wildly waving his arms in a threatening manner. Defendant Charney placed his face in extremely close proximity to Plaintiff's face, to the point that Defendant Charney's spit struck Plainfiff's face, while he continued to repeatedly threaten that he was going to "kick your ass."

11. Defendant Charney repeatedly shouted to Plaintiff that she should be f**king scared" and that if she did not do what he asked, plaintiff needed to resign. Defendant Charney made several references to an interview he had conducted with Jane magazine wherein he had received oral sex from an employee during the course of the interview and the reporter had engaged in masturbation. Defendant Charney sat down and ordered Plaintiff to "pretend to masturbate."

12. Plaintiff continued in a state of shock and terror and refused to respond in any manner to Defendant's demands. In addition Plaintiff was extremely embarrassed and humiliated at being sexually objectified in the presence of her co-workers, including her immediate supervisor, Matthew Swenson.

13. After an extended pause waiting for Plaintiff to respond to his command, and realizing that she had no intentions of complying, Defendant Charney then ordered Mr. Swenson to "pretend to masturbate." As Mr. Swenson complied with his Defendant Charney's instruction, Defendant Charney moved next to him and simulated an oral sex act with him.

14. Shortly after arriving home that evening, Plaintiff received a phone call from her supervisor, Mr. Swenson, who informed her that Defendant Charney had just called him screaming at him and demanding that he call her and instruct her to immediately call Defendant Charney. Plaintiff called Defendant Charney as instructed. Defendant Charney proceeded to launch another verbal tirade at Plaintiff, indlucing such statements as, "I don't give a f**k about you, your dinner or your f**king life, I have thousands of employees. I don't need to waste my time on you." Defendant Charney demanded that Plaintiff immediately work on a project relating to his public profile. Plaintiff complied with his demands which required her to work until almost midnight.

American Apparel Employee: My Boss Is A Jerkoff [TMZ]

Related: Change At American Apparel [WSJ] Woody Allen Dressed Down by American Apparel In Response To Lawsuit [NYDN]

Earlier: Working At American Apparel All It's Coked Up To Be Everything I Needed To Know About The American Economy I Learned At American Apparel

]]>
Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:00:00 EDT Moe http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5012440&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Translating The J. Peterman Catalog ]]> In all honesty, I thought the J. Peterman catalog was dead. I remember it as something I used to read on the toilet in high school, and later heard the people on Seinfeld joking about. So when I went over to my mom's house and saw it on the table, my jaw dropped. It is the same as ever: A noble attempt to inject romance into getting dressed. Telegrams, full skirts, Lady Margaret, Paris anitique stores, sunny India — no dream is too far-flung to sell a dress. In fact, it's easy to forget what is actually being shilled. We parse Peterman's pitches on a few choice items, after the jump.














The pitch: "'A foolish consistency is the hobgolbin of little minds," observed Mr. Emerson. He might have been talking about polka dots… After much searching, we're pleased to offer these individualistic beauties from Eastern Bali… Espresso brown on a warm cream."
What it is: A white dress with brown dots.

The pitch: "One minute you're baking a batch of your signature parmesan crisps. The next, you're the empress Noor Jahan, presiding over the upper zezana terrace of a Mughal Garden of Paradise… Melting snows flow down from the mountains into long canals that crisscross acres of jasmine, marigolds, and orchids, sweet melons, groves of pistachios, all punctuated by splashing fountains."
What it is: A caftan.

The pitch: "Time to get back to the summer place. Set the clocks ahead an hour (and don't forget the VCR). Chase the mice out of the water pipes, repaint the maypole, vaccum the canoe…"
What it is: A sleeveless seersucker dress.

The pitch: "Anything was possible then. She took him hunting for blue crabs along Chesapeake Bay… They shook hands with Elektro The Mechanical Man. They gasped at the television-telephone in the Drug Store of Tomorrow…"
What it is: A short-sleeved linen shirt.

The pitch: "The invitation arrives by telegram… Mr. Porter waves you over from the piano bench; he shoos the cats ("Anything" and "Goes") onto the zebra-skin rug, pats for you to sit down…"
What it is: A rayon blouse and sateen skirt.

The pitch: "Breeding will show… Yours to wear without having to endure those tedious state dinners and prying photographers, although you must expect a certain amount of favorable attention."
What it is: A linen skirt.

The pitch: "Miss Karamanji spreads the fabric out on the counter of her brilliant little sari shop in Jaisalmer, smelling of roses and cardamom…"
What it is: Another caftan.

The pitch: "With dangling earrings and many bangles, you are Daciana, the sultry Bohemian rebel… With a long, full skirt, you are Nadia, the gypsy dancer… With lost of eye makeup and a penetrating stare, you are Madam Obolensky, the fortune teller…"
What it is: An embroidered blouse.

The pitch: "Let's start over at reel one. Brigid O'Shaughnessy walks into Sam Spade's office again, but this time she's not wearing a boxy suit. Shes wearing this knockout."
What it is: A different polka dot dress.

The pitch: "The ad team from the big London agency arrives at Little Whipping to discuss marketing plans fro Lady Margaret's homemade jellies…"
What it is: A cotton floral shirtdress.

]]>
Wed, 28 May 2008 15:00:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5011410&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Make Memorial Day Memorable With Tacky Crap From Fingerhut ]]> Bad news, you guys. This could be my FINAL CATALOG! Then where will I turn for the sheer tastelessness that only Fingerhut can offer? The long weekend approaches and the catalog has some key items to make your Memorial Day and awesome day. Or at least: A day. Lawn ornaments, cubic zirconia and grills (the kind you cook with), after the jump.













A digital video camera! In exciting colors! And the company is called DGXUSA so it must be made in Amurrica. What do you mean it's made in China? That's crazy talk.

An eco-friendly lawn mower, perfect for punishing teenagers. Better get two.

It's not an American holiday unless you cook meat over fire. The Nu-Wave oven ought to be black and come with a smiley face T-shirt. Oh, wait, that's Nu Rave. Make that a Cure T-shirt, then. As for the year-round grill, I'd think there was a problem with it if my mind were not addled due to carbon monoxide poisoning.

It's not Memorial Day without a flag!

Oh, dear. Nothing classes up a lawn like some PVC critters.

A hammock is key for day-off lounging, but let's discuss the well. Because a well in the yard means Precious Moments™ in the house. Am I right?

Jewelry makes any holiday memorable! Get an eagle pendant to prove your patriotism. Or some CZ earrings. I love how they have a black dude for illustrative purposes, like, "Hey, it's okay for men to wear Diamonique studs. See? This black guy does it. So it must be cool."

If anyone tries to critique your grilling technique, bust a cap in 'em. Kidding! Violence is never the answer. But the threat of injury can often be effective. Just tuck the semi-automatic on the lower right into your apron or the back of your jeans. They'll get the message.

[Fingerhut]

Earlier: Christmas Shopping With Fingerhut: The Fun, The Funny & The Fugly

]]>
Thu, 22 May 2008 14:00:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5010496&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Summer At 'Free People': Crafty Crocheted Crap, At Twice The Price Of Thrift Stores! ]]> The May Free People catalog has arrived, and its "global" aesthetic has gone all '70s California girl. But the prices the company is charging for some of this retro boho? Enough to make your ironed hair curl. Oh, and here's a question: Is it okay to have a "Tibetan Festival dress" in a catalog called "Free People"? Overpriced pseudo-homespun "worldly" wares, after the jump.









Pretty sure my mom had this entire outfit in the '70s. Except at a much lower price point. The tank is $38, the jeans are $198 and one of those necklaces is $268. These days, to dress like a hippie you need to be a yuppie.

I once made a "scarf" like this. I was five, and we wore working in tempera paint. I threw it away after I was done with my real artwork.

This "Tibetan Festival Dress" was "imported." I looked on the website but it wouldn't tell me what I really want to know: Was it made in China?

Dammit. I love the feathers in her hair.

These "beach totes" are $98 dollars here, or free if you go rifling through your great Aunt who dresses like Mrs. Roper's closet.

Some of the styling in this catalog is straightup crazytown. Over on the top left? Those maybe-I'm-pregnant-maybe-I'm-not layers? Thanks, but no thanks.

Everything looks good on the beach. Try wearing this on a busy city street. I mean, a $168 dress that is so bare it basically requires a cami underneath? And, frankly, she could use some pants. Shorts, at least.

The choker on the left is $398. No, I don't know why.

Maybe I don't "get it." But she looks awkward and thick and she's a model for chrissakes. Also, this outfit looks like laundry-day desperation. But between the two $48 tunics, the $128 skirt and the $354 worth of necklaces she is wearing, clearly she pays someone else to wash her clothes.

[Free People]

Urban Outfitters, Free People & Anthropologie: What's The Difference?
Free People: Someone Watched The Darjeeling Limited Before Booking This Photo Shoot

]]>
Tue, 20 May 2008 15:00:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5009974&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Every Time You Eat A Doughnut, An Orangutan Dies ]]> The adorable apes you see at left may be homeless because of your junk food habit or your hair conditioner. The problem? Palm oil. As Glenn Hurowitz explains in the Los Angeles Times, palm oil "comes from the disappearing, ultra-carbon-rich rain forests of Indonesia and Malaysia, of which a whopping 25,000 square miles have been cleared and burned to make way for palm oil plantations. The burning releases enough carbon dioxide into the air to rank Indonesia as the No. 3 such polluter in the world. It also destroys the last remaining habitat for orangutans." We've previously posted about palm oil in Oreos (dammit!) and Girl Scout cookies (crap!), but, Hurowitz reports, it can also be found in many other foods: Entenmann's chocolate-covered doughnuts, Chewy Chips Ahoy!, Orville Redenbacher's popcorn, Hershey's Kisses "Hugs," and Twix. Oh, well, that stuff isn't healthy anyway, right?

Well there's also palm oil in Kashi breakfast bars and Whole Foods water crackers. Not to mention cosmetics like Burt's Bees soap and Clairol Herbal Essences Rainforest Flowers. So like, when you think you're buying some kind of natural, earthy hair stuff, you're actually killing the earth?

I went on a treasure hunt around my apartment to see if I had any killer products containing palm oil. No dice, maybe because my fridge is empty. And my conditioner is full of chemicals with no "natural" ingredients. Yay! Also, apparently Lever 2000 soap is palm-oil free. But then I started thinking: I eat meat and wear leather and sometimes I let people at the deli give me a plastic bag. I don't know what the solution is but I already know I'm part of the problem. But if Glenn Hurowitz, an environmental journalist, didn't realize his (wife's) conditioner had palm oil, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Clean Hair Or Clean Air? [LA Times]

Earlier: Scout's Honor
Eat It

]]>
Mon, 19 May 2008 15:20:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5009703&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Can Foundation Really Be Waterproof? (And Other Details About The Next Generation Of Expensive Beauty Products) ]]> sephora-spy.jpgSephora Spy is back! Fresh from "SOS" training — it's the OT-8 of Sephoraologists! — our undercover Sephora operative Jasmine takes a turn for the scarily-technical this time around. Waterproof foundation! Hyaluronic acid! Uniforms like something out of the Starship Enterprise! Dimethicone-based foundation primers! And so much more. Estee Lauder and Revlon are just two fading giants in a Brave New increasingly multi-polar world of secretive $65-tinted moisturizer-peddling prophets like Perricone and rising giants exhausting the world's mineral supplies. Your questions answered, after the jump.

Q: Hi, I have a skincare question. I get spring allergies — really strong ones to tree pollen. As a result, I get itchy, watery eyes, a runny nose, and asthma. Pretty lame. And though my skin isn't directly affected, the watering of my eyes and the constant use of tissues on my face cause the areas around my eyes and nose to chap. Like your lips chap. The skin gets rough, and very irritated; after a while, toward the end of my allergies, it'll peel like really mild sunburn. In the past I've just desperately stepped up my normal routine — moisturize twice a day, with more moisturizer. I use Clinique and always have — I adore it. When