I was annoyed with the Style writer's Robin Givan'sarticle in the Post today. The article about swimwear for women who would prefer to cover up and apparently that can't be tolerated. To be fair to Ms. Givhan she does mention that the makers of WholesomeWear aren't forcing their suits on anyone. But she does go on about women's body image (um no thanks to the fashion industry and their anorexic models) and how women need to get over it.
I feel she was picking on WholesomeWear, which I admit isn't the most appealing of the modest wear suppliers. There are several Islamic athletic and swimwear suppliers (I have yet to find orthodox Jewish swimwear providers) whose clothes make a strong effort to be 'pretty'. WholesomeWear suffers from the Western Christian problem of being kinda ugly. When I am looking for modest and pretty, I gotta go with the Jews and the Muslims. Maybe in years to come Western Christian modest clothing providers can catch up and make more of an effort not to look horrid.
Update: Okay what annoyed me was the writer finding a bit of offense that there is a market out there for woman who want to cover up. A second reading, I noticed that she stated there is the option of the one-piece and wrap skirt for those who want to cover up. However, despite that option, some women chose to opt to cover up even more and it seems that Ms. Givhan doesn't comprehend it. How is it liberating if you don't have the choice to decide what you want to wear because someone else wouldn't want to wear it (you don't have to). You want to freak out people in the West, be it America or UK or France, wear a head covering. Well maybe not France, they might riot and write laws prohibiting you from wearing it.
I was once stepping on a bus and was annoyed by the Metro driver who commented (I guess trying to be flirty and light) asking why was I hiding my legs. I tend to wear long skirts and it was none of his business. I like long skirts, particularly flared ones as they are dramatic when dancing and some dance around my ankles when descending the stairs. But you know, they are my legs and I'll hide them if I want to. Hiding them gives me a certain freedom. I discovered with long skirts, I don't have to sit with my knees together. They can be a good foot apart and I'm still modest. I am free from regular shaving. Yes, I could be one of those women who go about with hair legs and armpits for the world to see, but I'd prefer not. Long skirts allow me to let the leg hair grow as there is no leg to see stubble on. Ditto for the sleeved shirts.
Anyway, back to Ms. Givhan. If she truly wanted to liberate women how about more articles on clothes that make the regular woman, with the spare tire and the short legs, and the cottage cheese thighs look beautiful, confident and smart. Truly beautiful, not that patronizing feel good stuff about a two piece "underscoring her [the older woman] strength." 'Cause if it did, why don't I see that on a runway? We are not all supermodels and clothes that look great on a highly paid toothpick are an eyesore on your average American woman.
Ugh, the WashingtonPost is such a liberal rag. And that writer should have included photos and links if the suits are that fuglishly newsworthy. That lady seems to have some issues of her own, and it seems like a lot of people agreed:
I wear bikinis (more due to the fact it's impossible to find a 1-peice suit for a smaller woman!) but really, that's my prerogative. Nobody else forces their fashion choices on me and vice versa.
Post a Comment