babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Fashion smashion
October 23, 2008 - 10:20am
So a rich, overfed and narcissistic "Fashion" guru made an ass of herself. In other news the sky is blue, water is wet and oxygen is good for you. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
The fact that Miller endorses and allows this pageant of gluttony and misogyny to take place on public land is a disgrace.
Fashion Smashion and hosts who are smashed
If you are surprised to encounter meaningless pap in the media, I don't know what to say to you [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Well, all sorts of events are held on city property. it doesn't mean anyone is necessarily endorsing it.
Let's go to the tape...
David Miller
Lots of events are held on city properties. Sometimes the city can make money by renting space or premises.
What have you got against a bit of gluttony? Have you never attended an event sponsored by a firm, organisation or whatever where food and drink flowed freely? Hey, rabble is having a launch this evening and I guarantee people will happily eat and drink.
People say dumb things when they've had too much to drink? That is news?
I'm more opposed to the nutty anorexia promoted by the fashion industry (though I confess I DO love fine fabrics and beautiful clothes) than a bit of healthy gluttony. Prefer gluttony and lust to puritanism any day. Just don't drink and drive, and ... love safely, eh?
cough. sidelong glance.
I used to think like that lagatta, until I realized it was the puritans that put all the fun in gluttony and lust.
For example, while it might be fun to mention that the tightness of that dress around Kay's thighs increases my blood pressure some, it would be even more fun if this was the feminist forum. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
....if I wasn't such a chickenshit.... [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Overfed as a metaphor not an observation. As in Fat Cat. Pick up this months Adbusters.
What decadent diet would that be?
Moreover, IMV, if that were the case then "overfed" would become redundant, as rich and narcissistic would have covered it.
However, I will await cornerstone's explaination of what was meant.
With hundreds of thousands of Canadians loosing their jobs and more living just a paycheque away from penury, this celebration of gaudy gluttony is being held on public land with the city's and Mayor's blessing and fawning praise.
Where is OCAP when you nee them!!!
As an aside, more than a few months ago my ex partner insisted we go to Whole Foods to by some chicken for a dinner party. In this temple of excess I marvelled at $20 Mozzarella that was flown in daily from Italy and a man ahead of us at the check out who bought over $500 worth of "organic" bottled water.
$500 is more than my entire monthly food budget.
So F**k the rich!
[ 23 October 2008: Message edited by: cornerstone ]
[ 23 October 2008: Message edited by: cornerstone ]
Hmm, I object more to mozzarella being flown in from Italy than the cost of fine cheeses. (Organic water is silly). And I'm sure I don't spend $500 a month on food. It is important to get away from factory-crap chemical-laden "foods", and as with all "early adopters", it will take people with a surplus of cash to begin a market for them. I certainly want organic cheeses etc accessible to all.
I do find "overfed" an unfortunate term to use against a woman, when there is so much pressure (in particular in the fashion industry) for us to be rail-thin.
I wouldn't waste my time or money reading Adbusters. Now THAT is one petit-bourgeois rag. Bluidy moralistic, too.
Yep, like Tommy, I must confess I've oberved very similar carryings-on at union and associative events.
I doubt there's all that much gluttony, however. You can't be a glutton and fit into those clothes.
I share you're disdain for conspicous consumption, but I am conflicted by the joy of seeing rich fools separated from their money.
It upsets me when serious media report this kind of intellectual pablum. Like there is not a few other stories that could have been more important.
Others might like to use it to score sociopolitical points. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Gotta go, TMZ is on......
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Moreover, I love beautiful fabrics, designs and clothes. If you look through history books, old photos or those of countries whose cultures interest you, what people are wearing is one of the most arresting things.
There are people in very poor parts of the world who care very much how they look. Like mums in Citй Soleil (Port-au-Prince) who make sure their kids are in immaculate white shirts or dresses. Like ladies in South Asian slums in jewel-coloured saris. And there are many examples closer to home.
That said, the dumbing down and "lifestylisation" of so-called quality newspapers is a distressing phenom, and shows to what extent the much vaunted editorial independence has become an utter sham. Not just in English: there are "vivre" sections in Le Devoir and Le Monde.
Well, obviously, it goes without saying that every visible thing about a person affects my "snap judgement" but I still think it's a frivolous, trivial industry utterly without merit. Women wearing high heels is ludicrous, to throw out one example. I'm as impressed by somebody's clothes as I am by the make of car he/she drives, which is to say, not at all.
Cosign. And those snap visual judgements aren't very judicial by me. Those that overdo their appearance, underdo their character.
The fashion industry would fall under the gamut of arts and culture that most progressive people were claiming to support just a couple of weeks ago, no?
lagatta, I agree society is so intertwined to fashion and appearance. Since you're closer to it, are there explanations why? I know it should be obvious but I hate it and refuse to acknowledge it sometimes.
Alot of competition to look better than the next person.
Bah! If it were only so easy.
[ 23 October 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]
Yes they would.
Your point is?
We're supposed to be on a leash like Harperites?
Want to make it clear that I'm not defending the fashion industry or any other capitalist industry. It does fulfil needs (we can't walk around nekked in these parts, and human beings have decorated their bodies and clothes ever since they have been human beings). But, like the auto industry or the fast food industry, it fulfils these needs - whether practical or aesthetic, in a twisted way, seeking greatest profit and also perpetrating and creating ruling ideologies. Why else would it be so difficult for the average person, especially the average woman of over 35 or so to find attractive, comfortable clothing that fits?
Contrast that with the tradition of (men's, usually) tailoring, which starts out from our "vile bodies" and cleverly disguises crookedness, a little pot, and all manner of other sins.
Likewise, we need food, shelter, transport etc.
But at its best, style can contribute to the charm of a persona, and detract the eye from the imperfections of all bodies and the inevitable ravages of time.
I doubt very much most people, if they could afford it, would prefer a plastic suit from WalMarde to something carefully cut to suit their bodies, in an attractive and comfortable fabric with a good "feel", and beautiful colours.
I work outside and usually wear wool socks, jeans, cotton and polar fleece shirts, a down vest and Gore-Tex raincoat. These are all fabulously comfortable and suited to the work. And I consciously pick out colourful combinations that are fun for me to wear, so I'm not immune to the joy in putting outfits together. I just resent the ridiculousness of it at some levels. I see a lot of people wearing expensive and obviously uncomfortable clothes and they look absurd.
Food is an okay analogy. Cooking and presenting food well is an art form and a valuable skill. But I still detest restaurants that serve food that says "Hey, look at me," rather than stimulate appetite.
I guess the common theme that rankles is the emphasis on how we look to other people. I just think there's more meaningful ways to have an impact on the world.
And I do, hypocritically, make exceptions. The owner of the fabulous East Indian restaurant that I used to go to when I lived in that part of town wore absolutely gorgeous silk saris with complicated and intricate patterns woven into the cloth. Now that was art. The latest from Prada is most definitely not.
Actually, I have to admit to absolutely loving Whole Foods as well as Trader Joe's, which I'm not sure exists in Canada. It's not jsut about "rich" people indulging in gluttony. It's about eating food that actually is real food not loaded with chemicals, hormones and who the hell knows what else. I don't like the idea of flying in cheeses from Italy and the attached carbon footprint and especially when good cheeses are so often available locally. But I'd still much rather pay more money to eat good, delicious and healthy foods, whether cheese or fruits/vegetables/meat, etc. and have that money go to independent farmers than to go to some chain grocery store and buy overly processed bullshit manufactured by huge corporations.
I can't afford that (and the carbon footprint is dreadful) but I can't eat cow milk mozzarella either, so I'm glad alternatives are available now (for me, goat's milk mozzarella). Some of us simply have to spend more on food due to allergies and other concerns - and my income is very modest indeed.
I was going to comment to Tommy that unfortunately, conspicuous food consumption rarely trickles down the way say, clothing consumption does. Just back from a bazaar at an upscale parish... Lots of savvy buyers picking up beautiful clothese for a song. Almost unworn of course.