It's not in dispute that the fashion industry is in some dark times right now; what are as-yet unanswered questions is just how bad things are, and what that will mean for future patterns of consumer spending.

On the former point, The Atlantic's Benjamin Schwartz takes a dire view indeed, calling the most recent New York fashion week "a splendid relic" and quoting liberally from F. Scott Fitzgerald's Depression-era essays on the free-spending, free-spirited, bull-market 1920s, and what the period meant. (Whether Schwartz's blithely generic line, "The current collapse, universally labeled within the fashion world a depression," and inclusion of data about the layoffs of just under 2,000 people at Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus are strong enough factual support to bear the weigh of Fitzgerald and his Jazz Age elegies is questionable; if and when we see California close its borders and tens of thousands of hoboes camp out on the Washington Mall, then we'll know for sure if this downturn merits a comparison in absolute terms with the Great D.)

But Schwartz's article gets a lot of things right, too. He's mostly on point with the queasy timeloop of fashion, wherein collections are presented six months ahead of the season for which they are designed, made of fabrics ordered six months earlier, and financed with the proceeds of the collection which had, all the way back then, just left stores. If anyone wondered why last September's collections seemed so deaf to the sudden financial crisis ringing through the land, that was why. Similarly, the glut of unsold product that clogged the department stores last fall — and which caused Saks and others to break the rule about not discounting new stock before it had been in store two months — was all there because buyers had ordered it the previous February, when no-one foresaw the crisis, the ensuing recession, or the cataclysmic correction in consumer spending they would bring. (I don't think that, as a result, this February runway models "halved their catwalk fees" out of the goodness of our hearts, as Schwartz's odd locution implies — and the per-show rate he quotes, $20,000, is typical only of models named Naomi Campbell, anyway — it was more like designers cut rates on the girls they were paying at all, cut payment-in-trade on the girls they never were paying to begin with, and we all ate it. But that's a small misunderstanding of an industry subsection that is itself willfully obscurantist.)

Exactly how bad things are — F. Scott Fitzgerald bad, or survive-and-reorganize bad — aside, what to do about the fall in consumer spending has advertisers and magazines thinking furiously. As W magazine reported, the luxury market reached its peak in 2007; unusually, the luxury-goods sector has been hit harder than retail generally, and was down 23% last month. Counter-intuitively, publisher Nina Lawrence sees this as evidence of a "luxury renaissance." In this view, aspirational consumers are down for the count, leaving the very wealthy to enjoy the perks of membership in what is once more a very exclusive club.

Others, and Schwartz is among them, see a place for the aspirational consumer still — but that new ways of reaching her are being found. Sally Singer, Vogue's fashion news and features director, wore a year-old doubleknit cashmere Halston blazer, a J. Crew sweater, and "very old" Devi Kroell ballet flats to the first day of fashion week, and speaks of "conscientious consumption"; ergo, says Schwartz, "this idea of buying so-called investment pieces resonates more deeply today than it did even six months ago." Julie Gilhart, Barneys' senior vice president and fashion director, says, "If I were a consumer now, I'd really want to buy pieces that count, that last; the customer is in no hurry. She should be choosing these things with great care." Singer reminds us that "things that are very expensive can be very expensive for just the right reasons — because they were made beautifully by someone who really gave a lot of care to the design and by people who were fairly paid along the way to execute something that was rather difficult. Those prices that often seem high are fair prices."

Singer edits the Vogue "Views" section, which this month leads off with an exclusive story about Christopher Kane's new position as creative director of Versus, Versace's relaunched, lower-priced line. The Kane-designed "gladiator heels" in the accompanying photograph cost $3,400.

Karl Lagerfeld would support Singer's view. As he tweeted yesterday: "Guilty feelings about clothes are totally unnecessary. A lot of people earn their living by making clothes, so you should never feel bad."

Chanel is a privately held company, so of course it's impossible for any of us to actually know what else besides honest middle-class livings for garment workers is financed by the cost of a $2,000 purse or a $4,000 dress.

The entire idea of "investment" dressing is actually pretty dubious, writes Lesley M. M. Blume, at The Big Money. It's nothing more than a marketing term designed to separate us from our hard-earned cash, says Dana Thomas, the author of last year's De-Luxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster. "They're just changing the slogans. It used to be, everyone deserves a little luxury and a little splurge. Now that no one can afford the splurge, the business executives are all scratching their heads and saying, how can we repackage this again? So now you're buying 'quality things that last forever.' "

Investments are, after all, supposed to hold or rise in value — but this season's $1,600 purse depreciates as soon as it leaves Bergdorf's, like a new car burning off value as it leaves the lot. Only a few luxury items can actually fetch comparable prices when sold second-hand (as-new Birkin bags can actually rise slightly in resale value, since Hermès controls the $6,000-and-up retail market with extraordinary artificial scarcity, closed three-year waiting lists and all). But when the resale boutique commissions (or eBay and PayPal fees) are taken into account, the "value" of a Birkin — or any fashion item — depreciates, often precipitously. "Investment" is a weasel word in fashion, and it's a disappointment to see The Atlantic repeating an advertising term uncritically.

Whether Singer and Gilhart are sincere in their belief that, as Singer puts it, "the world does not need more things," it's true that both work for companies that make their living by stoking the fires of consumption. (Cathy Horyn nailed Vogue's particular blitheness when she wondered at its "peculiar fascination for the ‘villa in Tuscany' story" this January; you would also do well to remember last September's $64,000 gold-dipped fur coat by Fendi, which is of course designed by Karl Lagerfeld. "Value" indeed.) I'm not saying that these industry figures, and others who share their sympathies, can't and won't lead us into a new, more sustainable era of fashion; I'm just saying I'm wary of anything that, at least for now, still has the feel of a cannily adjusted marketing strategy.

Fashion in Dark Times [The Atlantic]
A Luxury Renaissance Is Upon Us [The Cut]
Luxury As An Investment? [The Big Money]
Karl Lagerfeld's Twitter [Twitter]

Earlier:
When A Fashionista Turns On Fashion
Fashion Week: The Party's Not Over Yet
New York Times Bets Against Anna Wintour, American Vogue

She goes on with drivel about hearing her baby's heartbeat for the first time, and takes the abortion blogger to task for her "disregard and disgust for pregnancy," and adds that the blogger "certainly does the abortion movement no favors." I don't understand the logic of that. Shouldn't a woman who has a "disregard and disgust" for pregnancy, well…not have a baby?? Does this letter-writer expect to shame the blogger into wanting to be a mother? Then the writer goes on to project her life and fantasies onto the blogger:

If I weren’t so consumed with my desire to bitch slap her, I’d feel nothing but pity. I’d like to fast forward 10 years from now to a point where she might be expecting a baby that she desperately wants and is in love with the moment she holds that pregnancy test in her hands. Will she immediately be avoiding Starbucks and suddenly be drawn to organic versions of her favorite foods like I am?

First of all, I'm entertained by the letter writer's complete bourgie myopia! Because to her, being a pregnant woman is about OMGZ avoiding Starbucks and eating organic! Not, you know, frantically fearing that you're pregnant and don't even have the health insurance that a Starbucks employee is guaranteed. I bet this self-centered jerk doesn't give a hoot about the women who, according to ABC News, are taking off-label drugs or attempting to herbally induce abortions because they either can't afford to pay for a doctor-instituted abortion or are immigrants who don't even know that a medical abortion is a possibility.

The woman ends her letter writing, "This little girl is doing herself no favors in documenting her thoughts at this time in her life. They will be there in all their shameful glory forever, and she will most certainly live to regret it." I think the only thing the abortion blogger would regret is having a baby she didn't want and couldn't provide for. I'd like to fast forward to fifteen or twenty years from now, when this letter writer's unborn baby is a teenage girl, who is pregnant and feels she can't talk to her mother about her options. Maybe this teenager will do some creative Googling and find some solace because she's not the only one with ouchy titties.

My Abortion, Ctd. [The Atlantic]
Some Worry Underground Abortions Are Still a Reality [ABC News]

Earlier: Blogging An Abortion: "Precious, Silver-Tongued, Knocked Up 16 Year Olds Where Are You??"

MEGAN: Ok, given the absence of news other than the fact that I was right about Edwards' timing issues with his story and the halt to military action in Georgia, perhaps we can dissect The Atlantic's piece on Hillary's campaign based on all the email and memo traffic.

SPENCER: You know, nothing incoming but the reggae drumming. Yeah I did what you should always do after getting the shit kicked out of you at a Rancid show you're too old to be at: read a Tolstoyesque campaign post-mortem at 2 am.

MEGAN: (I hereby highly recommend that everyone take a moment and click through and read that link, by the way, as it's a piece of very excellent writing by Spencer. We'll wait.)
You were much more productive than I. I just came home and went to bed.

SPENCER: When I was I guess 8 I remember skinning my knee really badly and seeing a bunch of goo pus up past my shredded skin. For whatever reason — like a science experiment, I guess — I figured that more goo would emerge if I split the skin further, and sure enough I was right. Now that was fascinating — weird viscosity, unfamiliar color, surprising heat. I've never seen anything like it until I read this Josh Green piece about Hillary.

So point one: Mark Penn. Complex figure after all!

MEGAN: Oh, man, I'm about to just give up and let you right. You obviously beat me to coffee-drinking, not that my stomach can handle it after that mental image.

SPENCER: Red Bull not coffee. Carbona not glue.

MEGAN: Yes, Mark Penn: not the biggest problem! I was amazed.

SPENCER: Anyway Mark Penn. Actually worse than you thought. Get a load of how he assesses Obama's promise to America:

Save it for 2050.

MEGAN: Well, except that he elbowed everyone out of the way and ignored chain of command and basically acted like he was fighting his colleagues.

SPENCER: Holy shit dude! It actually gets worse.

MEGAN: You know what amazed me?

SPENCER: This?

Listening to Brit Hume say that Obama is surging while Hillary failed to do X is almost comical and certainly transparent. The right knows Obama is unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun, and a third party would come in then anyway.

MEGAN: No, but that's pretty stunning, too. My point is far geekier than that:

Though Penn was “chief strategist,” he was a paid contractor, and thus barred from most targeting and budget planning.

Which means, in effect, that Penn spent 90% of his time trying elbow people out of the way that he couldn't even replace unless he gave up or took a leave of absence from his other very lucrative job, which he didn't want to do.

SPENCER: HAHAHAHA I am trying to write about this very issue in an Iraq context. Ray Odierno, who next month will be the U.S. commander in Baghdad, implies that he's going to carry out Petraeus' same population-protection strategy except with... 30,000 fewer troops. YOU CANNOT STRATEGIZE IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND/CONTROL YOUR RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS. You know what you get if you do?

MEGAN: So rather than acknowledge the lesser role that was BY LAW required to play, he let her fill those spots with actual people and then fought and undermined them every step of the way.

SPENCER:

Ickes seemed attuned to the asymmetric risk that accompanies overwhelming front-runner status: the collapse of momentum that would accompany an unexpected loss. He posited that Edwards and Obama could sustain losing Iowa and New Hampshire but worried that Clinton could not; he urged that she spend “substantial” time in Iowa; and he recommended a contingency plan that would haunt the campaign when his own budget team didn’t fulfill it. Noting the difficulty of raising more than $75 million before Iowa, Ickes stressed the need to maintain a $25 million reserve, presumably as insurance against a setback. The campaign wound up raising more than $100 million—but, according to The New York Times, by the time Iowa was lost, $106 million had been spent. The $25 million reserve had vanished, and the campaign was effectively insolvent.

MEGAN: But, it never really hits on who spent that money. That was always my question.Or did I miss it with my sleep-filled eyes?

SPENCER: But this is the thing I wanted to note about Penn: Josh is really good at pointing out that more than anyone else, Penn actually understood Clinton's path to the nomination: women, lower/middle class voters, self-ID'd Democrats.

If we double perform with WOMEN, LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS VOTERS, then we have about 55% of the voters.
The reason the Invisible Americans is so powerful is that it speaks to exactly how you can be a champion for those in needs [sic]. He may be the JFK in the race [He means Obama — Spencer], but you are the Bobby.

That right there was 100 percent correct. I got the feeling in the piece that Josh was actually sort of convinced that Penn actually did think more strategically than the rest of the team.

MEGAN: Oh, totally, I think the problem was getting them all at the same time. I would give Penn more props if it had been the plan to target women and then swing back around to get the lower- and middle-class men. But it doesn't seem like it was. The strategy that got women to vote for her was one he opposed. Can we say that Mark Penn doesn't "get" women?

SPENCER: Well actually let me amend that: he had the best 30,000-foot-altitude vision, but he — and the rest of the campaign — evinced an absolute blind spot toward the basic facts of how to win a protracted nomination battle (ie, win the most delegates)... I really want to make another Iraq analogy but I will resist temptation!

MEGAN: Oh, yeah, also, I loved the Ickes memo on delegates, from December 22, 2007.

SPENCER: YES PLEASE talk about that. What struck you about Mark Penn thinking about women as an odd and unfamiliar abstraction?

MEGAN: I mean, it seemed to me his entire strategy on women was to gin us all up with the idea that her campaign was breaking barriers!(TM) and then go on to getting men's votes as though women didn't care about issues and whatever. Which, sure, some of us don't and were indeed all ginned up for a barrier-breaking woman President, but not a 2-to-1 margin of us like Penn was expecting. Plus, Penn's actual strategy was not to emphasize her female-ness, but just rely on women to recognize that a woman candidate breaks barriers while he campaigned for the other vote.

1) Start with a base of women.
a. For these women you represent a breaking of barriers
b. The winnowing out of the most competent and qualified in an unfair, male dominated world
c. The infusion of a woman and a mother’s sensibilities into a world of war and neglect

Start with a base of women how exactly?

SPENCER: Like a binding ingredient! Crush pine nuts and Nilla wafers in a food processor, then pour 1/2 a stick of clarified butter to bind; spread over a pie tin and bake at 350...

MEGAN: It isn't until he gets to talking about men that he talks about issues. He strategy of women is that OF COURSE there's some of us that will vote for a woman no matter what and then quietly sexism-bait us and put a pink ribbon on war policy and then turn to the boys and talk about serious issues.

SPENCER: Really, though, her lifetime of work gives her a base of women, doesn't it? I don't really see why that was wrong — but it definitely — and this is a huge irony — indicates that HRC could have... taken women's issues for granted!

You don't think she talked about equal pay and reproductive issues and health care and things that are typically thought of as women's issues, although of course all issues are women's issues and stop glowering at me like that...

MEGAN: But he's talking about getting 3-to-1 margins with women voters. She doesn't have a 3-to-1 margin because of her lifetime of work.

SPENCER: Good point.

MEGAN: Of course, Penn lists health care as an issue to talk to the men about, which fundamentally misunderstands the role that women play as purchasers in the health case system.

SPENCER: And all the more to your point. Let's talk about the Equality/Sexism non-speech!

SPENCER:

In the aftermath of Obama’s historic race speech on March 18, Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas congresswoman, urged Clinton to deliver a speech of her own on gender. Clinton appeared very much to want to do this, and solicited the advice of her staff, which characteristically split. The campaign went back and forth for weeks. Opponents argued that her oratory couldn’t possibly match Obama’s, and proponents countered that she would get credit simply for trying, inspire legions of women to her cause, and highlight an issue that everyone in the campaign fiercely believed was hurting them—sexism. But Clinton never made a decision...

MEGAN: Yes, the non-speech. The one all the women Penn wanted on board wanted her to give but she never gave because she already had their support and didn't have to.

SPENCER: Megan, should she have made the speech? To put this as delicately as I can, playing off the deep deep desires of women for a woman president was a very good strategy for Clinton, except that it had to be combined with an actual ability to overtake the delegate lead Obama amassed, and that never happened.

MEGAN: I don't think she should've made it in response to Obama's speech. Barring a hook, a specific instance of major sexism to with to tie the speech, I think it would've looked like a tit-for-tat. But I think after New Hampshire, before Obama's race speech, then would've been a good time to speak out AND it might have produced tangible consequences.

SPENCER: Yeah I'm with you on that — imagine if she went right from the crying/NH victory and said fuck this, you know what's not fair about the way women in this country are treated? let me count the ways...

MEGAN: Right, that would've been awesome. But I mean, after March 18th was Pennsylvania at the end of April, which (you'll recall, since we were there) she won anyway. I don't think it would've moved the needle in North Carolina or even in Indiana by much, possibly in Oregon but not in Kentucky.

SPENCER: Whoa look at you, Chuck Todd. I'll leave the whiteboard stuff to you.

MEGAN: Sorry, but that's the truth. For her overall political career, for her legacy, yes, I would've wanted her to give the speech. But after March 18th, and I hate to side with Mark fucking Penn, but he was right on this. It wouldn't've done her any good.

SPENCER: You know what's missing from this piece? Any discussion — aside from a cursory graf — that the reason why she lost was her Iraq vote.

MEGAN: Yeah, it's like that only mattered in Iowa. Um, no. Only, and New Yorkers keep saying this, she might not have won re-election in 2006. I don't necessarily buy that, especially given the way the Republican party self-destructed in that race, but that wasn't foreseeable.

SPENCER: if she voted against the war, Obama would have practically no traction and she would have kicked the shit out of Edwards. And, uh, speaking of kicking the shit out of Edwards, you HAVE to check out this looney-tunes column from Sally Quinn. Just read the first graf (that's all I read).

SPENCER:

I just want to smack him across the puss, as my Savannah-born mother used to say. I want to smack him across that pretty puss, those pretty eyelashes, that pretty hair. I want to shake him and knock his pretty head against the wall.

How many psychological tics can you count? The two "puss" references? The battered-husband fantasy? GODDAMN IT BEN BRADLEE LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO! YOU'RE SO FUCKING STUPID BABY AND I LOVE YOU SO MUCH AND WHEN ARE YOU JUST GOING TO FUCKING LISTEN TO ME.

MEGAN: The blaming the wife? I love how, obviously, Edwards told her the whole truth and nothing but. Because that's when men do, when caught out there, they don't mitigate AT ALL.

SPENCER: Okay, that's all I have to say.

MEGAN: Wait, before we go, we can totally tie that back into Hillary! Because where have we heard this kind of rhetoric before?

SPENCER: Where have we heard it?

MEGAN:

Not only did she allow him to run, exposing herself and her children to the pain and humiliation that would inevitably come, she could have allowed him to destroy the Democratic party in the process. This man was running for the President of the United States on a lie and she knew it. If he had not entered the race it could have changed the outcome of the primary. And what if he had won the primary? Think of the people they betrayed — yes, THEY. They betrayed their devoted staff, the supporters who sent in millions of dollars, the taxpayers who supplied Secret Service protection (I want my money back) , their party and their country. She stood by and let him lie and lie and lie.

Oh, wait, this was the same shit the Right spewed at Hillary.

SPENCER: Really a shame she never made that sexism speech. HRC: It's not too late.

"What Every Woman Knows By Now", from the "Accent On Living" section of the May 1950 issue of the Atlantic.

It is as much a source of amazement as of income to me that readers of the women's magazines have such an insatiable thirst for reading the same information over and over again, despite the fact that any one year's reading must inevitably give enough information about the technique of being a woman to see one through a lifetime. I have, then, no fear of spoiling the market, either for myself or others. Every subject in this symposium, given a snappy title and an angle that appeals to the editor, will still be worth a substantial fee.

ACCESSORIES
The simplest are in the best taste.
Men like women to be in the best taste.

BROKEN HEARTS
Find a new interest
Time cures all.
Men don't like women to ring them up.

CARE OF FACE
Remove old make-up with cream (dry skins), lotion (oily skins), or superfatted soap (if you must).
Then dab face with an astringent lotion.
Then pat in nourishing cream.
Blackheads are frequently due to internal causes. Drink lots of water.
Men are repelled by pimples.

CHARM
Charm is an indefinable quality.
Men like it.

CLOTHES
Choose the clothes that suit you.
You can be perfectly dressed at every income level.
Little touches of white must be immaculate.
Diagonal stripes are slimming.
Invest your all in one good little black dress (or tweed suit).
Don't go in for clutter but have lots of bits and pieces that will make one outfit do the work of ten.
Men like black satin, well-cut tweeds, floating tulle, utter simplicity, and don't notice what you wear anyway.

CULTURE
Read good books sometimes.
Men don't like cultured women much.

FIGURE
Figure deficiencies are frequently glandular. Consult your doctor.
A good corset can correct many figure faults. Have it fitted by an expert.
Good exercises can correct bad figures. Here are some.
Men like good figures.

FURS
If you can't afford good furs don't have any, but there are some awfully cheap ones in the shops.
Men are impressed by mink — but then, so are you.

HAIR ON THE HEAD
The condition of the hair reflects the general health.
Massage with the finger tips stimulates the scalp.
Brush fifty times a day and wash at least every fortnight.
Choose the hair style that suits you and don't get into a rut.
No moral opprobrium is attached to dye.
Men love those gleaming tresses.

HAIR, SUPERFULOUS
In the armpits remove by depilatory.
On the legs remove by depilatory, wax, sandpaper, or razor; the last will coarsen the new growth.
On the face remove by wax (will weaken growth) or by electrolysis (will kill it).
If the growth is slight, bleach with peroxide-and-ammonia.
Men notice superfluous hair.

HANDS
Before doing rough work smooth a protective cream over your hands.
After washing, smooth a creamy lotion over your hands.
Make your hands flexible by shaking in one way or another.
File your nails to the shape that suits you.
Press back your cuticles after you've had a bath.
Chipped polish looks slovenly.
Men abhor scarlet talons.

JEWELRY
One big good piece is better than a lot of little cheap trinkets.
One big cheap piece is better than a lot of little good ones.
In fact, One Big Piece is Best.
Men are better if they like jewelry.

MAKE-UP
Smooth on foundation cream or lotion, not forgetting neck.
Add rouge where it improves the natural shape of your face.
Add discreet eye-shadow and mascara on the upper lids only.
Paint outline of lips with a brush, fill in with lipstick, blot on a tissue, powder, and add more lipstick.
Press in powder over face and neck; remove surplus.
Men don't like women to be obviously made up.

MANNERS
Be sweet to old people.
Be kind to his mother.
Be nice to other girls — they have brothers.
Don't comb your hair or clean your nails in public.
Don't order direct from the waiter.
Don't swear or drink too much.
Men hate red marks on coffee cups.

MARRIAGE
Enter it joyously and proudly.
Remember you've got to take as well as give.
There are all sorts of compensations.
Men should be encouraged to wash up.

PERFUME
Choose the perfume that suits you.
Spray it onto your body but never onto your clothes.
Test new perfume by trying a drop on the back of your hand.
Have different perfumes for different moods or make one perfume distinctively YOU.
Men are enraptured by perfume.

SHOPPING
Either go with an open mind or with a rigidly-to-be-adhered-to list.
Either enlist the help of the shop assistant or don't let her make up your mind for you.
Either men like shopping or — more usually — they don't.

SHYNESS
Prepare a few conversational remarks to break the ice.
Try to put the other person at his ease.
Instruct yourself in current affairs.
Join a club.
Men like a woman to be a good listener.

SPECIAL OCCASIONS
Cream hands thickly and sleep in gloves the night before.
Try to fit in a facial and a hair-do.
Rest for an hour with your feet up and pads over your eyes.
Make up extra specially carefully.
Oh, men, men, men.

TOP SECRET
Consult your doctor.
Send us a stamped addressed envelope.
Men are beasts.

What Every Woman Knows By Now [The Atlantic, fee required]
Women's Magazines...So Little Changes In 50 Years [Faking Good Breeding]
Marghanita Laski [Wikipedia]

Earlier: The Five Great Lies Of Women's Magazines

[Image via Exploding Dog.]