Ladies With An Attitude*

Well, I know that I, for one, cannot do the ladylike thing. It's just not in me. I can pull up and act prim for a little while, and I can behave respectably when it is strictly necessary, but on a daily basis? Not so much.

I'm too much a tomboy at heart. Cycling to and from work, getting sweaty. Doing home improvements, tearing up my hands, getting paint in my hair, wearing horrible grubby clothes. I cuss, I walk fast, I bite my nails, I don't diet, I bundle my hair up in a lumpy ponytail with a plain hair elastic. I wear eccentric costume jewelry. Sometimes my shoes need a polish. I can tune a carburetor, snake a drain, and pill a cat.

Ladylike is too high maintainence, and it feels like sham on me anyway, since I am not your typical lady. Woman, yes; lady, hardly. From the descriptions, it sounds like the McCartney and Philo stuff would be more to my tastes.

While I love elegant clothing, I love it best on other people!

 

I think its all a reaction to money, when tehre is less moeny people dount want to experiment, they whant 'classic"

 

I read this whole thing yesterday and it really spoke to me. I have always had a sense that other women were better "put together" than I was- I'm never all done- I always have some part of me (hair- usually) that is a total mess. It remains some kind of odd rebelion.

Yet, I can look far more "ladylike" than most my age - for reasons which escape me... Probably because I don't do trends or the awful version of a 'grown up look' shown in NY for A/W which seemed to be retro, kitsch and everything in between...

About Anna Wintour not carrying a bag- I wish she would sometimes- I'd be curious as to what she would choose!

ETA: About manicured nails- after some of the awful nails seen in NY during the 90s I have a huge fear of manicures. I've seen 'done' nails look more trashy than un-laquered ones!

 

i just don't agree with what she's saying...i don't agree with her assessment about some of the shows...i DEFINITELY don't think dries fits in with the rest...celine-yes, but that's not really new...michael always does that, so i wouldn't call it a trend exactly...and i also don't think ysl fits the ladylike label-dragon lady, maybe...and how can stella possibly be considered ladylike?..hermes-leather bustiers and riding crops?...HA...i'd like to see anna wintour in that!! and she left out rochas which i consider the most prim and proper collection of the season...

it just goes to show, you can't believe everything you read and have got to educate yourself so you can make an informed opinion...i find it dangerous to read these kinds of things before i've had a chance to see the actual clothes because it can influence me...writers have got to find something to write about and half the time they just make stuff up to fit in with the theme they've chosen... B)

i will say that i never can sit still long enough to get my nails done, but i feel tremendous pressure to do these sorts of grooming things...high-maintenance if you ask me...annoying and tedious and vain...but it's part of looking polished and professional, i guess...i know some women relish their time in a salon...but i don't even go to a salon for a haircut... my friend does it at his apt...

 

I agree with what Space said earlier.

On the article, I so do not agree with her.

 

I do not agree with her at all. I think the shows were about wearing the "ladylike" clothes without having to play by the rules involved in being "proper".

 

Cripes, I'm so tired of everybody rushing to follow Marc Jacobs. That's what the past three seasons have felt like and damn it, it stinks. Pfft on "ladylike" and nostalgia/retro, let's see some forward movement and innovation.

 

the article is bullshitting the readers! All lame critics and shallow generalizations!

 

In my opinion the best fashion writers and commentators are always aware of certain grounding that they are talking about clothes. As lofty as their flights of fancy adjectives are, they know that people in fashion are--to quote Michael Kors--"in their own ozone."

The author of this piece has her opinions, which--just as if they were posted here on tFS--I respect. She just got it all wrong and even worse wrote about it in a way that underscores her unfamiliarity with the topic.

Phoebe and Stella using the same song illustrates their symbiotic relationship? Heck, half of the free world used Beyonce's "Crazy In Love." Does that mean everyone is one and the same? I think not.

Me too but I think she's being smart because she knows she won't be able to out-accessorize André! B)

 

sorry about this rant: that's just what i found lacking in the shows however. for those women of a certain age, they remember those clothes and are glad to keep them in the attics where they belong, however for the generations that have grown up with a feminist vocabulary, i think that these clothes are a step backward simply because a young twenty something buys into this trend without understanding what women of that era were actually like. it's not authentic. i am all about the little girl donning her grandmother's pearls and her mother's chanel bag, but i think this trend is very dangerous in a way. it completely denies and discounts a woman's right to her strength and her sexiness.

i think some shows got it right...they did lady-like in a totally ironical way, but for the most part, it seemed to be a longing for those times (i recall a vogue article telling its readers that completely pale white skin is back in style...i mean that statement is just wrong in so many ways)

 

Me too but I think she's being smart because she knows she won't be able to out-accessorize André! B) [/b][/quote]
and there you have it folks...atelier puts everything into perspective for us all...

 

First to say that sometimes it's not completely out of place for a magazine to say that 'completely pale white skin' is back in fashion.
They are more often than not, informing us that we need this bronzed/tanned/awaiting-skin-cancer look, and for some of us that is as impossible as the opposite. I've accepted that I could never naturally look like anything but a sheet or a tomato (really try to give that one a miss), but there are some out there who insist on mimicing what the mags preach, despite what nature gave them, and seeing a comment like the one above could be the detterent tangerine skin doesn't seem to be.

But back to the topic, I love ladylike, and it makes sense if you're a lady... like. At least it does to me, and it speaks to me because Hollywood today does nothing for my senses and this memory lane, even if it is a pre-feminist lane does, then that's the one I'll visit. I being a girl and where better to show it than in my dress

 

Part of my personal problem with the ladylike trend is that it seems to be for very svelte twentysomethings and/or fashion editors who have not much else to do but pose for pictures. A very large percentage of the clothes that have come down the runways in the last few seasons have been what I consider to be frustratingly unwearable. They're lovely to look at, but I can't seem to figure out how to wear them without feeling like a poseur or a museum piece.

 

and there you have it folks...atelier puts everything into perspective for us all... [/b][/quote]
Ehr- just because André can carry more fur...

I don't think we're seeing ladylike overall- we're seeing imitation of.... at least that is how it looked to me (mostly in NY).

 

I looooooove the ladylike trend. However making it work is not so easy, as it can degenerate into "boring". Therefore, I opt for "ladylike with a twist": an accent of colour, a belt, a ribbon, anything that can add a little spice.