Women and men

I was talking to a baby boomer the other day who in the course of our conversation referred to a contemporary of mine as a "woman."  Immediately I sensed the problem with this and felt compelled to fix it, and also to unnecessarily make my boomer friend feel uncomfortable.  So I informed her, faux-offendedly, "Um, we call them girls."

Because it's true: most unmarried/childless urban females under the age of, say, 40 refer to themselves and each other as "girls," and their male equivalents are "guys" or even "boys."  "Woman" sounds like a fat or boring person; "man" sounds like a strange, be-suited fellow.  Both are waaaaaaaay too mature-sounding for the ineffectual, directionless, adult children we feel ourselves to be, and too old-sounding for the sexy, with-it hipsters we hope we are.

And yet right after I issued my official Millennial correction, I realized that I wasn't actually so sure about it.  I'm not so sure I want to be called a "girl" anymore.  Although self-identifying as a "girl" is superficially self-affirming, since it suggests that one is cute and fun, it's starting to seem a little depressing.  After all, does it really feel good if at 26 I fall into the same category as a 5-year-old?  The problem with "girl" no longer has anything to do with feminism (see above, "boy" -- there's no double standard) -- it has to do with the issue of Millennial/Gen-Y maturity.  And as I started thinking here and a bit here even, it's maybe time we started working on that.

I'm a cautious proponent of the "fake it till you make it" strategy, so I'm going to go right ahead and start promoting the trend of females over the age of 18 calling themselves "women" again, in the hopes that this symbolic gesture will make us feel more like adults (in the best sense of the word).  And boys should be men, too.  Doesn't it all sound more exciting?  To be women and men--to know women and men?  I think it does.  It kind of casts everything into a different light, to think of things that way.  It's kind of radical--so I like it.

Is it going to become a thing, actually?  I don't know.  Maybe.  Maybe a different word will become popular.  "Lady" has had a bit of a comeback.  Maybe other slang terms will come back instead.  But I do think I see "girl" on its way out.  It's not right anymore.

I see the girls walk by dressed in their summer clothes

The darkness isn't going to go if you turn your head, though.  More darkness is on the way.  In fact it would be appropriate, if you see a red dress, to paint it black, because black and more black is what we're going to be seeing this summer.

That's right, here it is, my favorite time of year: time to make the New York Downtown Young Ladies' Summer Fashion Trend Report.

It's all about separates, neutrals, minimalism, utilitarianism, lots of skin, and a tough attitude.

All the outfits worn by New York Downtown Young Ladies are a variation on this theme:

• white, black, gray, denim, or khaki short shorts or short skirt, high-waisted
• + white, black, or gray top of some kind
• OR black or white sundress BELTED AT THE WAIST -- NO empire line
• potential vest, layered shirt, or jacket in white, black, or denim -- NO SWEATERS

Guidelines for accessories:

• sandals, esp. gladiators or anything with an ankle strap, leather NOT jelly, espadrille, or other, TRUE sandal NOT FLIP-FLOP -- OR leather or canvas black/white/neutral lace-ups OR boots -- tough boots as motorcycle or winkle-picker, NOT round-toe scrunchy
• NO bag -- OR utilitarian bag - backpack, fanny pack, or as last resort TRUE handbag (no shoulder straps and especially NO HOBOS)
• the best accessories have some sort of significance or symbolism: for instance, political pins, wedding rings, friendship bracelets
• earrings are long and made of feathers or fringe or are hoops or simple studs but are NOT chandelier.  multiple ear piercings are good.
• chokers

Grooming:

• hair: should not be styled -- it should be air-dried and left in its natural state.  If it's frizzy in its natural state, it should be frizzy; if it's flat, it should be flat.  your growing-out bangs should be in your eyes.  don't trim your hair.
• makeup: pretty skin, some mascara.  NO EYELINER.  lip balm.
• no nail polish

Underwear

• I was a little wrong about bras.  it's OK to wear a bra, but it shouldn't be a heavy-duty bra.  It should be a garment and not an undergarment.  it should show -- the straps should show, or the color should show through your shirt.  or you can wear it on its own -- if it's a sports bra.  that could be really cool, actually.

The following are forbidden:

• irony
• color
• notions of "luxury" or "glamour"
• boho

Other notes:

• the right denim is old, thrifted, men's denim -- ideally a little torn.
• don't try to be sexy.  it's an election year, get over yourself
• shoes are going to be getting more and more utilitarian.  sandals this summer will give way to sneakers this fall and hiking boots and flat boots this winter.  notice how the nineties are coming back?
• also in that vein: perhaps instead of long hair, a bit of a sinead/ani moment?
• this winter the black turtleneck will succeed these black winter clothes.

Maximizing the contradictions

I've already complained about how, in this twilight of the Late Modern collage aesthetic, consumers are required to put a lot of time and effort into expressing themselves through creative consumption. So now I'd like to propose a better, newer, more advanced transitional aesthetic -- a tide-over until the recession-delayed New Sportswear.

I mentioned it in my post about Unhairdos. My idea is called Beautiful Ugliness and would consist of ensembles, in various mediums including but not limited to fashion, in which disparate elements are combined without regard to aesthetic harmony and in fact with the goal of creating dissonance.

I think Beautiful Ugliness is a good next aesthetic step because it's a clear way to acknowledge a problem that I think we as a culture are avoiding: that our current mash-up culture is a temporary, uneasy compromise at best and is not helping to move us forward. Because, I think, we are so afraid of facing the huge difficulty of collectively fabricating more original cultural forms to meet our modern human needs, we're procrastinating by obsessively trying to make mash-up culture "work." And of course it feeds into consumerism, too. If everything is original and different but everything has to "match" and "balance," etc., you have to spend a lot of time shopping for the right-color, right-style, right-"wrong," in a way, products. Magazines and TV shows are full of advice on how to make all the crap work together. Obviously it's a big strain on everyone. Why not put a stop to it with something a little more "real" and honest?

Instead of "right-wrong," I propose "wrong-right." This means, instead of trying to sublimate the apparent "wrong"-ness of our mismatched culture into the "right"ness of matchy-matchyness, let's put it out there, create obviously "wrong" mash-ups, and decide to accept these as the new "right."

Think about it: when you look around as you walk down the street, does everything match? It absolutely doesn't. When you walk around in nature, in a forest, say, everything matches to some degree. But in artificial human environments, aesthetic continuity exists within individual, self-contained environments such as stores, sure -- but not (except in the strip-mall environments that almost everyone agrees are heinous) in larger blocks of what actually constitute our living environments. If you look at a whole block, a whole street, together -- everything clashes. Everything is a jumble. Because it wasn't masterminded; it's the result of evolution, not intelligent design. And lots of city planners would tell you that that's precisely what makes good neighborhoods good. So why don't we expand this aesthetic, which is so expressive of what's good about melting-pot culture, and apply it more deliberately?

I love what Andy Warhol wrote in THE Philosophy of Andy Warhol about his own version of Beautiful Ugliness:

I really look awful, and I never bother to primp up or try to be appealing because I just don't want anyone to get involved with me. And that's the truth I play down my good features and play up the bad ones. So I look awful and I wear the wrong pants and the wrong shoes and I come at the wrong time with the wrong friends, and I say the wrong things and I talk to the wrong person, and then still sometimes somebody gets interested and I freak out and I wonder, "What did I do wrong?" So then I go home and try to figure it out. "Well I must be wearing something that somebody thinks is attractive. I'd better change it. Before things get too far...So I think, "How weird. I know I look bad. I made myself look especially bad--especially wrong--because I knew a lot of the right people would be there, and still someone somehow got interested..."

Of course this, like a lot of what Warhol wrote, is intentionally facetious/misleading, as what he called looking "awful" and "wrong" was a large part of the cult of personality he deliberately fostered in order to get the attention he claims he was avoiding. This ironically-ironic ambivalence towards the positive-attention-getting potential of "ugly" aesthetics would be one of Beautiful Ugliness's contrbutions to the cleansing transition out of irony into Post-Postmodernism.

Arguably some hipsters dress Beautifully Ugly, but most try to make stuff match and "look good." I just think it would be so cool if more people tried to "look bad." And wouldn't it be amazing if "bad" became the new "good"? Maybe that extreme of topsy-turviness would be enough to "reset" us aesthetically so we could come up with some good new stuff.

Japanese haircuts

Japanese people have really, really cool haircuts.  The stylish ones are way more sophisticated than what most Americans get.  And they are just totally different in the way they're layered.  For example, try looking at this link: and specifically click on the woman in the thumbnail third from the right, and mouse over the back view of her head.  See how extreme the layering is, with that very top-heavy design?  That is so cool!  Why don't Americans get that?  I have a Japanese hairstylist and have been wanting to ask her to do something similar for a long time but my hair is only now long enough to try it.  I'm thinking of doing it soon and am hoping my hair will be the right texture, and that she's into giving that kind of haircut (hopefully she doesn't hate the Japanese style and that's why she moved here in the first place).  Anyway, that site has a bunch more amazing hairstyles, I get obsessed with it, so I hope you have fun too.  The "gel nail" section is also incredible.

So, prediction I guess?  Eventually people in the U.S. will catch on to how awesome Japanese hair is and try to get it themselves?  There's no doubt we're influenced by that style, but no one's really going for it.

Homespun chic

The cheapest clothes are often the coolest. Subcultures tend to discover cheap ways of dressing (Edie Sedgwick's girls' skirts from the LES; hipsters' thrift store clothes; grunge rockers' work clothes), which then get knocked off mass-market style. You can still go out and try to buy "the real thing" for cheap once that happens, but the price of the original often goes up, and wearing the original is never quite the same again once everyone's wearing a copy from Urban Outfitters. There's one type of cheap clothing that can never be knocked off by mass merchants, however, and that's homemade clothing. I'm predicting that homemade clothes are going to be the next subculture fashion trend.

People are clearly interested in this. Teen Vogue has had a "DIY" section almost since it launched, I think, in which they show you how to turn an existing piece of clothing into a clone of some designer garment. Built by Wendy sells a book called Sew U, which teaches the basics of home sewing, as well as patterns. Project Runway obviously has people interested in making their own clothes, too.

I think a potential home-sewing trend would take a slightly different direction than the above examples, however. The reason more people don't make their own clothes is that sewing is so difficult and time-consuming. If more people are going to make their own clothing, it has to be easier and faster to make than conventional tailored garments. So, I think that body con will combine with the classicism of New Humanism to create an aesthetic of simple, easy-to-make knit clothing in a Nouveau-Ancient-Greek style (which has also been popular lately, with all the Greek drapery styles and the relaunch of Vionnet).

I'm wearing a dress today that I made in thirty minutes for $21. I learned how to make it by doing a little research online about how Greek chitons were made, got some fabric at Mood, and used my sewing machine (the pricey initial investment for doing this). I'll try to write up some instructions on how I did it, hopefully with a photo, sometime soon. It took me a few tries to figure out a pattern that didn't look like I was in costume, but what I ended up with actually looks pretty modern and vaguely Calvin Klein-minimalist.

All-black is whack

The all-black look is overdone: most people agree with that. But lots of people love black and want to wear as much of it as possible. What's the best way to pull it off?

Lots of people compromise with almost-all-black, adding color in just one place like in a top or accessory. That's a little more interesting than all-black, but it doesn't have much personality, unless you're really good with the details. It's also hard to make it look balanced since the one spot of color draws the eye like a magnet, making you look poorly-proportioned.

It's best to flip the ratio of black-to-color so that black makes up the minority of your outfit. Just a dash of black, in an accessory or a single item of clothing, is enough to make an outfit pop. It also makes you look cool, because a restrained use of black shows you're not trying too hard.

The most modern colors to combine with black are neutrals. I've been seeing lots of people on the street combining black with natural-colored leather shoes, bags, and belts. This is a great look because of the strong contrast between the ascetic modernism of black and the earthy classicism of the neutral. It is also very easy to put together.

To make a black + neutral outfit even better, it's good to add some color in the form of a print. Once you've got one print in there, it's O.K. to add a solid color. But an outfit looks best with at least one print to play off against the solids.

I'm not saying no one can ever wear all-black. But very few people can pull it off. You have to be extremely intense to make it work. And you have to be a wizard at combining different textures and fabrics, because that's what makes an all-black outfit work. And you have to either be very good-looking or have very deep, cool, or clear coloring -- ideally both.

Naive makeup

Instead of trying to make your makeup look perfect, why not make it look imperfect -- even naive?

Women are still stuck trying to look like celebrities, with their makeup as well as their clothes.  This is not only boring (and vulgar), but impossible!  It takes lots of skill, time, know-how, and expensive products to replicate the look professional makeup artists achieve -- and, even then, it rarely looks right or even good.

Instead, I'd like to see women applying makeup in a way that's honest about their skill level.  Lots of young women don't wear any makeup at all because they're afraid they'll get it wrong.  I say, stop worrying about getting it wrong, and just do it (wrong)!  I think adult women should go back to applying makeup like they did when they were little girls playing with their mothers' lipstick.  That was fun!

Instead of putting on all the correct layers in their correct order, why not just smear on one coat of bright lipstick -- without moisturizer, primer, lipliner, gloss, or powder -- and otherwise have a completely bare face?  Or, why not wear several coats of mascara and nothing else?  Or foundation without any other makeup?

Over-applied blush was trendy within recent memory (popularized by Anna on The O.C. -- remember??) and looks hideous BUT is also kind of cool.  Poorly-done or flaking-off manicures have been cool for teenagers recently and are reminiscent of that Tinkerbell plastic peel-off nail polish I remember using as a 6-year-old in the '80s.

It's interesting to note that naive makeup not only is a technique and look in itself, but also makes possible lots of additional new looks.  Lipstick-only creates a Lolita look; mascara-only makes a gamine look; and foundation-only makes an androgynous look.  Overdone blush results in a prostitute look and peeling-off polish in a grunge look.

I think it's funny that hipsters who take risks with their clothes are so safe with their makeup.  Why were girls wearing Goodwill outfits with full-on M.A.C. makeup at Misshapes?  I guess it's because they, like their idols, were getting photographed a lot and cared more about looking good than completing their fashion statement.  And that's kind of...lame, actually.

Although the application style of naive makeup is "naive," the total effect and meaning are not -- at least not in the more negative sense of the word.  Naive makeup is naive in the "natural and unaffected" sense.  It's very honest, empowered, and knowing, and projects a strong and sophisticated image.

It is possible to take this idea to too far an extreme: I saw a girl on the J train a couple of weeks ago who had drawn war stripes on her cheeks with hot pink lipstick.  She may have been insane.  So, I guess, don't go too far, or people on the subway will think you're crazy.

I don't think this will be a trend.  Although it could actually get lots more women wearing makeup, the loss in revenue from the women who already wore full-on makeup and started wearing less would make it unprofitable.  Also, since this look is best achieved using the very cheapest drugstore brands (Wet 'n' Wild, N.Y.C), high-end and medium-level brands would not benefit.

Big sweaters

Just an idea for something to try: oversized sweaters on women.

Similar to the popular belief that it's uncool to wear shirts tucked in is the general consensus that it's uncool to wear a sweater that doesn't tightly hug one's every curve. Baggy sweaters are associated with nerdy middle-school girls who are self-conscious about "developing."

I think this notion is passé. A baggy sweater looks refreshing and chic and makes its wearer seem relaxed, down-to-earth, confident, fun, and comfortable in her skin.

It's important that an oversized sweater have some kind of banding at the bottom so that it hugs the body there instead of flopping all around. And I think it's best to keep it simple. A men's small classic crewneck sweater in a solid color should work. But please none of those terrible thick waffle-knit sweaters that are trendy right now.

Tuck it in

There's this consensus that tucked-in shirts on girls look ugly, nerdy, and wrong. Almost no young women wear their shirts tucked in unless they have to as part of the dress code for their jobs. For as long as I can remember (since the mid-eighties), tucked-in shirts have been extremely uncool as part of casual wear. Why is this?

I think it's because it's so hard to make a tucked-in shirt look flattering on a woman's body. First of all, it draws attention to the waist, which can be bad if the waist is too wide, too high, or too low. It also makes the hips look wider by making the waist look smaller. And tucking in can make you look heavier than you are: if you're overweight, it draws attention to your tummy, and if you're thin, the blousing effect can hide your flat stomach. I'm guessing that untucked shirts became mainstream because women realized that it was easier to look good in them. The women who contined to tuck in their tops were either very conservative dressers or not very fashion-conscious ones. Tucking in became associated with conformity and nerdiness, and therefore came to be considered not only unflattering, but uncool as well.
Of course, the uncoolness of tucking in makes it ripe for coolness. Now that 70s and 80s styles are so mainstream, I think authentic 70s and 80s styling should come back, too. Plus, as I discovered just now while looking for images of nerdy tucked-in shirts, even L.L.Bean now shows its shirts worn untucked on models on its website. If L.L.Bean has decided tucking in is too uncool for its customers, then it is definitely time for it to become cool for trendy people. (L.L.Bean is a great barometer; they also started producing bootcut pants just as those were about to become unfashionable.)

It's all in the execution, of course. For knit tops, I think it's best to go small and simple: a form-fitting (but not skintight) T-shirt or tank tucked into jeans (the high-waisted ones are perfect). For blouses, form-fitting is a bad idea; tops with very shaped waists that slip perfectly into pants or skirts will give the bad, conservative look. It's better to choose a looser-fitting top, accept that the blousing is going to happen, and embrace it.