Archive for media

Fashion shocker: Woman ignores dress code; is turned away

Posted in Fashion News with tags , , , on January 25, 2012 by DbyDC

It has come to DbyDC’s attention that this woman was barred from entering three nightclubs on account of her attire failing to meet the specifications of their dress code.

 

Now, ‘smart casual’ can be interpreted fairly broadly but even I have to admit it probably doesn’t extend to PVC and chains.

The doormen who told 28-year-old Lisa Woodman she was “too old” to wear the ensemble were definitely being a bit idiotic. And of course they aren’t allowed to discriminate against her on grounds of age but on outfit… yeah, I’m afraid they are. This isn’t a matter of what you can or can’t squeeze your body into, it’s a matter of style and – ultimately – taste. If a venue has a dress code, you have to adhere to it and yes, I’m afraid they get to decide where the boundaries are drawn.

By the way, it’s probably worth pointing out at this stage that ‘death by dress code’ refers to the cultural narrative of dress imposed upon us by our Anglo-American capitalist society, not actual dress codes. Actual dress codes are quite useful; they help us decide what to wear. Also, to my knowledge, no one has ever actually died as the result of one [note to self: maybe check this?].

Anyway, the tabloids have ostensibly tried to spin this into some sort of feminist issue in their usual back-handed way but it’s not really washing. Yes a woman (hell, a person) has the right to look like a cartoon porn star if she wants to but don’t be surprised if there are limited occasions in which this is deemed ‘in keeping’.

Now, DbyDC is all for self-expression through the medium of fashion but what is this woman trying to express? That’s not even a rhetorical question, I really want to know. She says she likes to dress sexily and that’s fine but maybe save the wipe-clean fabrics for Torture Garden, eh?

I hate to say it but she looks like a prostitute. And not one like Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman. That, my friends, is ‘hooker chic’ and far more stylish than anything Ms Woodman owns.

So what is it? A protest? The newspapers seem to think that Lisa Woodman has been humiliated by not being allowed in to her local club, that women should be allowed to wear whatever they like and not have to suffer such open disapproval. I mean, that’s what the slutwalks were for, right?

Hmm. Not quite. The slutwalks were about women being able to wear whatever they liked without being abused. They were not about getting into clubs. People like Lisa should be allowed to strut their stuff in any manner of getup without becoming victims to verbal or physical assault.

But at no point did anyone suggest we have to share their fashion tastes.

Advertisements

Strike a pose! The perils of applying fashion rules to real life

Posted in Style Tips with tags , on August 24, 2011 by DbyDC

How not to wear your clothes: A very special look at what happens when normal women try to copy fashion models.

In public.

I should Coco. Why Chanel is the brand that must not be named.

Posted in Fashion News with tags , , on September 21, 2010 by DbyDC

Looks like I’m not the only one feeling totally Chanel-ed out. The multi-national company were Chanel-ling a bit of the old Mademoiselle this week as they put out a tight little reminder in Women’s Wear Daily that, darlings, there is only one Chanel.

Apparently fashion journos are now so universally braindead that they have forgotten where their Shift->F7 buttons are and taken to simply adding the word ‘Chanel’ onto a variety suffixes in order to describe everything since… well, Chanel.

This worrying bout of Chanel-ism has prompted the company to issue the following:

“A note of information and entreaty to fashion editors, advertisers, copywriters and other well-intentioned mis-users of our Chanel name: Chanel was a designer, an extraordinary woman who made a timeless contribution to fashion. Chanel is a perfume. Chanel is modern elegance in couture, ready-to-wear, accessories, watches and fine jewelry. Chanel is our registered trademark for fragrance, cosmetics, clothing, accessories and other lovely things. Although our style is justly famous, a jacket is not ‘a Chanel jacket’ unless it is ours, and somebody else’s cardigans are not ‘Chanel for now.’ And even if we are flattered by such tributes to our fame as ‘Chanel-issime,  Chanel-ed, Chanels, and Chanel-ized’, PLEASE DON’T. Our lawyers positively detest them. We take our trademark seriously. 

Merci,

 Chanel, Inc.”

Yikes. In the meantime, if you’ve spotted any Chanel-o-grams, be sure to send ‘em our way…