Parentheses were instrumental in the construction of this post. (Truly.)

February 23, 2010

I love fashion. I don’t love it abstractly, as art (though I enjoy a good runway show) or ambitiously, on celebrities (though it must be lovely to be able to afford anydamnthing you want to wear) — no, I love it personally. For me. On my body, making me look thinner and prettier and happier and in my price range, not emptying my bank account.

So you can imagine that I find it a little annoying when the magazines I pay a good $5 for, which are the “Spring Fashion Blowout!” and purported to contain “97 Pages of Affordable Shoes!” or “274 Bargains!” seem to be helmed by people who consider $500 dollar shoes to be a steal. It’s ridiculous. A page spread of floral-themed watches contains exactly one (1) watch for less than $10,000.  (Sidenote: I always want to write it–in fact often do write it–10,000$ because that’s how we say it, right?) Now, MagazineInQuestion, how many of your readers can afford a watch that costs thousands of dollars? Hmmm? (The one I personally liked cost $18,000.)  I’m going to guess maybe 1 to 5% — so how about you feature things that we, the other 99-95%, could actually freaking BUY if we wanted to look pretty on our date tomorrow night! I understand that your fashion spreads are artistic and therefore you choose to outfit your models in Louboutins and Chanel (I really, really do understand this. Again, while I don’t LOVE fashion for its artistic merit I do enjoy it.) but how about when you feature affordable items you actually choose something that isn’t half my monthly salary?  I don’t care what Ashton Kutcher and Jessica Alba think is affordable–they have more money than God. The rest of us working women who have to justify spending $5 on your magazine with the whole “Oh, look, they’re going to show me deals on shoes! I’ll actually SAVE money!” and then to be disappointed again because right after that massive article on scaling back due to the recession, a $450 pair of red Jimmy Choo pumps was called an “unbelievable bang for your buck” — sure, if I wear them every day for three years. Then they’re an AMAZING deal according to CPW. (Cost per wear.) Otherwise? Not so much. Not to mention how many lattes I would have to skip to afford a pair of RED shoes in the first place…

God. Give a girl a break.


2 Responses to “Parentheses were instrumental in the construction of this post. (Truly.)”

  1. Lanky said

    Most I’ve ever spent on fashion was a set of basketball shoes that cost $250. I only ever wore them at the game, I actually changed into them at the game. After a few years of that I stopped playing as much and started wearing them outside. I got about 5 years worth of use out of them. So it was $50 per year.

    I refuse to pay anything more than $80 for a single item of clothing, the only exception there was the suit I got married in.

  2. Jackie Joy said

    Those are utilitarian, though…most of what I buy is not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: