What do you think of women dripping in designer items?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would just think it’s kind of gross b/c I am not into material consumption. And I don’t just mean designer stuff. I would feel similarly if someone showed up drowning in Walmart jewelry.

We as humans grossly overestimate the amount of goods we need and are killing the environment. I guess at least the designer stuff with hopefully last longer and be handed down unlike the cheap made in China crap so it’s somewhat better. But I also think rich people buying all this crap trickles down to people with less money trying to emulate it. I just sort of hate it all. I wish we valued other things.

But she is just one person so I wouldn’t lay the entire societal consumerism issue on her. She is a product of this society.

Lmao this is so weird. What do you consider “drowning” in jewelry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main thing I notice about the “designer” clothing conversation is that people have are vicious in their judgment but I don’t think we really have a leg to stand on. It seems like we assign moral failing to brands above some spending level but I think it’s arbitrary and based in some deep dcum tribalism. People are substituting an upper middle class economic band for morality.

Like women on this site will be so mad about $900 Gucci sneakers but will have no problem with $150 Veja sneakers. But you can probably buy the same sneaker, from a utilitarian perspective, for $10 all over the world. And we can’t know how many sneakers people are buying. So why are we outraged at the $900 sneakers but not the $100 sneakers? It feels arbitrary.

I think it’s because considering the morality of our daily consumer habits would be overwhelming and exhausting. So it’s much easier to just consider anything within a band of our peer group to be morally acceptable but anything outside it to be frivolous or shallow. Harshly judging and gossiping about anything outside the band of “reasonable” reinforces the system. And it’s easy to focus on small, visible categories like clothing even though the differences are dwarfed by stuff like housing, where one person can spend $500k more than a neighbor/peer for a similar house and no one bats an eye.

But if we give it a little thought, I think we’re all being super lazy in our thinking.

You are 10000% right and it's one of the things that drives me nuts on DCUM (and, yes, I know it's on me that I am here enough to be driven nuts by anything). People attach such high moral value to THEIR preferred types of consumption and attach so much negative moral value to other people's preferred type of consumption. I feel like the "is it trashy to like horses?" types of threads really bring that out - and this is one of those types of threads.

You are not better than anyone else because you don't wear a recognizable bag or piece of jewelry. You just have different spending habits and taste. Your taste is not morally superior.

Except for mine, of course, because I mostly buy secondhand.

Right? And people hate on horses but they don’t realize it’s actually one of the best ways to become poor lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main thing I notice about the “designer” clothing conversation is that people have are vicious in their judgment but I don’t think we really have a leg to stand on. It seems like we assign moral failing to brands above some spending level but I think it’s arbitrary and based in some deep dcum tribalism. People are substituting an upper middle class economic band for morality.

Like women on this site will be so mad about $900 Gucci sneakers but will have no problem with $150 Veja sneakers. But you can probably buy the same sneaker, from a utilitarian perspective, for $10 all over the world. And we can’t know how many sneakers people are buying. So why are we outraged at the $900 sneakers but not the $100 sneakers? It feels arbitrary.

I think it’s because considering the morality of our daily consumer habits would be overwhelming and exhausting. So it’s much easier to just consider anything within a band of our peer group to be morally acceptable but anything outside it to be frivolous or shallow. Harshly judging and gossiping about anything outside the band of “reasonable” reinforces the system. And it’s easy to focus on small, visible categories like clothing even though the differences are dwarfed by stuff like housing, where one person can spend $500k more than a neighbor/peer for a similar house and no one bats an eye.

But if we give it a little thought, I think we’re all being super lazy in our thinking.

You are 10000% right and it's one of the things that drives me nuts on DCUM (and, yes, I know it's on me that I am here enough to be driven nuts by anything). People attach such high moral value to THEIR preferred types of consumption and attach so much negative moral value to other people's preferred type of consumption. I feel like the "is it trashy to like horses?" types of threads really bring that out - and this is one of those types of threads.

You are not better than anyone else because you don't wear a recognizable bag or piece of jewelry. You just have different spending habits and taste. Your taste is not morally superior.

Except for mine, of course, because I mostly buy secondhand.

Right? And people hate on horses but they don’t realize it’s actually one of the best ways to become poor lol.

Oh horse people never become poor because they just rattle around in their granddad's ancient Land Rover and that one pair of jeans they've had since they were 14. jkjk but seriously all this WASP fantasy stuff is hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main thing I notice about the “designer” clothing conversation is that people have are vicious in their judgment but I don’t think we really have a leg to stand on. It seems like we assign moral failing to brands above some spending level but I think it’s arbitrary and based in some deep dcum tribalism. People are substituting an upper middle class economic band for morality.

Like women on this site will be so mad about $900 Gucci sneakers but will have no problem with $150 Veja sneakers. But you can probably buy the same sneaker, from a utilitarian perspective, for $10 all over the world. And we can’t know how many sneakers people are buying. So why are we outraged at the $900 sneakers but not the $100 sneakers? It feels arbitrary.

I think it’s because considering the morality of our daily consumer habits would be overwhelming and exhausting. So it’s much easier to just consider anything within a band of our peer group to be morally acceptable but anything outside it to be frivolous or shallow. Harshly judging and gossiping about anything outside the band of “reasonable” reinforces the system. And it’s easy to focus on small, visible categories like clothing even though the differences are dwarfed by stuff like housing, where one person can spend $500k more than a neighbor/peer for a similar house and no one bats an eye.

But if we give it a little thought, I think we’re all being super lazy in our thinking.

You are 10000% right and it's one of the things that drives me nuts on DCUM (and, yes, I know it's on me that I am here enough to be driven nuts by anything). People attach such high moral value to THEIR preferred types of consumption and attach so much negative moral value to other people's preferred type of consumption. I feel like the "is it trashy to like horses?" types of threads really bring that out - and this is one of those types of threads.

You are not better than anyone else because you don't wear a recognizable bag or piece of jewelry. You just have different spending habits and taste. Your taste is not morally superior.

Except for mine, of course, because I mostly buy secondhand.

+1,000,000.

DCUM is great about a lot of things, but I swear the faux moral high ground on consumption/designer goods really drives me up the wall. I like PP's mental exhaustion hypothesis, but I also think it's all a deeper sign of class/economic anxiety. People are worried about actually maintaining their actual economic standing as well as how others externally perceive them. It creates this odd need to defer to what the WASPs/old money do, under some delusion that there is just one, correct way to be rich. The wealthy are not a monolith.

For example, every time I stay at a 5-star hotel, I notice the women wearing Love bracelets, Alhambra motifs, etc. In fact, they're often wearing diamond-pave versions of them. So, despite DCUM's hopes and dreams, it seems like these items are getting more, not less popular.

Let people just enjoy what they enjoy without insecurity masked as moral superiority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main thing I notice about the “designer” clothing conversation is that people have are vicious in their judgment but I don’t think we really have a leg to stand on. It seems like we assign moral failing to brands above some spending level but I think it’s arbitrary and based in some deep dcum tribalism. People are substituting an upper middle class economic band for morality.

Like women on this site will be so mad about $900 Gucci sneakers but will have no problem with $150 Veja sneakers. But you can probably buy the same sneaker, from a utilitarian perspective, for $10 all over the world. And we can’t know how many sneakers people are buying. So why are we outraged at the $900 sneakers but not the $100 sneakers? It feels arbitrary.

I think it’s because considering the morality of our daily consumer habits would be overwhelming and exhausting. So it’s much easier to just consider anything within a band of our peer group to be morally acceptable but anything outside it to be frivolous or shallow. Harshly judging and gossiping about anything outside the band of “reasonable” reinforces the system. And it’s easy to focus on small, visible categories like clothing even though the differences are dwarfed by stuff like housing, where one person can spend $500k more than a neighbor/peer for a similar house and no one bats an eye.

But if we give it a little thought, I think we’re all being super lazy in our thinking.

You are 10000% right and it's one of the things that drives me nuts on DCUM (and, yes, I know it's on me that I am here enough to be driven nuts by anything). People attach such high moral value to THEIR preferred types of consumption and attach so much negative moral value to other people's preferred type of consumption. I feel like the "is it trashy to like horses?" types of threads really bring that out - and this is one of those types of threads.

You are not better than anyone else because you don't wear a recognizable bag or piece of jewelry. You just have different spending habits and taste. Your taste is not morally superior.

Except for mine, of course, because I mostly buy secondhand.

+1,000,000.

DCUM is great about a lot of things, but I swear the faux moral high ground on consumption/designer goods really drives me up the wall. I like PP's mental exhaustion hypothesis, but I also think it's all a deeper sign of class/economic anxiety. People are worried about actually maintaining their actual economic standing as well as how others externally perceive them. It creates this odd need to defer to what the WASPs/old money do, under some delusion that there is just one, correct way to be rich. The wealthy are not a monolith.

For example, every time I stay at a 5-star hotel, I notice the women wearing Love bracelets, Alhambra motifs, etc. In fact, they're often wearing diamond-pave versions of them. So, despite DCUM's hopes and dreams, it seems like these items are getting more, not less popular.

Let people just enjoy what they enjoy without insecurity masked as moral superiority.

I am the PP and it is absolutely part of an overall economic/status anxiety that so deeply pervades this board.

And it's not like I am immune! I, too, want to be thought of as classy and good and worthy and all those things. But the obsession with the small details of what the virtuously wealthy life looks like - I guess it's fascinating. We don't still read Jane Austin for nothing.

[Anonymous]

I think they're compensating for something. And desperate for validation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I don’t think twice about this. I’m not jealous of anything but people who have better horses. I just don’t care about clothes or jewelry or cars. But I am super jealous of horse stuff. So, maybe this is just your particular trigger.

Oh I guess I also get jealous of home decorating and to a lesser extent, real estate.

But yeah, not jewelry or any fashion designer athff. It doesn’t poke me that way.

Girl, don’t be jealous of the better horses. Surest way to have yours go lame….

Anyway, three ladies at my barn have six figure horses they can’t ride at all, so there’s that. I’ll take my fellow, he isn’t the fanciest but we are going up the levels and all the money in the world can’t buy that without putting in the work too.

[Anonymous]

A status person recently complimented a ring I was wearing and asked where I got it. I feigned ignorance and claimed heirloom. , it’s a TEMU knockoff of an antique and I paid 99 cents. Lolololol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I don’t think twice about this. I’m not jealous of anything but people who have better horses. I just don’t care about clothes or jewelry or cars. But I am super jealous of horse stuff. So, maybe this is just your particular trigger.

Oh I guess I also get jealous of home decorating and to a lesser extent, real estate.

But yeah, not jewelry or any fashion designer athff. It doesn’t poke me that way.

Girl, don’t be jealous of the better horses. Surest way to have yours go lame….

Anyway, three ladies at my barn have six figure horses they can’t ride at all, so there’s that. I’ll take my fellow, he isn’t the fanciest but we are going up the levels and all the money in the world can’t buy that without putting in the work too.

Mine will definitely go lame if I am jealous but also if I am not jealous or if I attain nirvana or just breathe on him wrong. Or, obviously, wear a flashy necklace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main thing I notice about the “designer” clothing conversation is that people have are vicious in their judgment but I don’t think we really have a leg to stand on. It seems like we assign moral failing to brands above some spending level but I think it’s arbitrary and based in some deep dcum tribalism. People are substituting an upper middle class economic band for morality.

Like women on this site will be so mad about $900 Gucci sneakers but will have no problem with $150 Veja sneakers. But you can probably buy the same sneaker, from a utilitarian perspective, for $10 all over the world. And we can’t know how many sneakers people are buying. So why are we outraged at the $900 sneakers but not the $100 sneakers? It feels arbitrary.

I think it’s because considering the morality of our daily consumer habits would be overwhelming and exhausting. So it’s much easier to just consider anything within a band of our peer group to be morally acceptable but anything outside it to be frivolous or shallow. Harshly judging and gossiping about anything outside the band of “reasonable” reinforces the system. And it’s easy to focus on small, visible categories like clothing even though the differences are dwarfed by stuff like housing, where one person can spend $500k more than a neighbor/peer for a similar house and no one bats an eye.

But if we give it a little thought, I think we’re all being super lazy in our thinking.

You are 10000% right and it's one of the things that drives me nuts on DCUM (and, yes, I know it's on me that I am here enough to be driven nuts by anything). People attach such high moral value to THEIR preferred types of consumption and attach so much negative moral value to other people's preferred type of consumption. I feel like the "is it trashy to like horses?" types of threads really bring that out - and this is one of those types of threads.

You are not better than anyone else because you don't wear a recognizable bag or piece of jewelry. You just have different spending habits and taste. Your taste is not morally superior.

Except for mine, of course, because I mostly buy secondhand.

Right? And people hate on horses but they don’t realize it’s actually one of the best ways to become poor lol.

Oh horse people never become poor because they just rattle around in their granddad's ancient Land Rover and that one pair of jeans they've had since they were 14. jkjk but seriously all this WASP fantasy stuff is hilarious.

No see, what you’re missing is that we literally spent all the money on the horses and that’s why we have the old jeans and the crappy car. It’s not an aesthetic, it’s the cost of board and decent hay these if you can even find it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I don’t think twice about this. I’m not jealous of anything but people who have better horses. I just don’t care about clothes or jewelry or cars. But I am super jealous of horse stuff. So, maybe this is just your particular trigger.

Oh I guess I also get jealous of home decorating and to a lesser extent, real estate.

But yeah, not jewelry or any fashion designer athff. It doesn’t poke me that way.

Girl, don’t be jealous of the better horses. Surest way to have yours go lame….

Anyway, three ladies at my barn have six figure horses they can’t ride at all, so there’s that. I’ll take my fellow, he isn’t the fanciest but we are going up the levels and all the money in the world can’t buy that without putting in the work too.

In fairness to them, six figure horses ain’t what they used to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A status person recently complimented a ring I was wearing and asked where I got it. I feigned ignorance and claimed heirloom. , it’s a TEMU knockoff of an antique and I paid 99 cents. Lolololol

A customer @ the Hermes store, asked me if I owned a Birkin. I was delivering a gift to a mate who worked there.

[Anonymous]

Try-hard new money.

I married into wealth and one thing I quickly learned that anything with a designer label is gauche.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Try-hard new money.

I married into wealth and one thing I quickly learned that anything with a designer label is gauche.

^ Exhibit A to the class/economic anxiety arguments above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try-hard new money.

I married into wealth and one thing I quickly learned that anything with a designer label is gauche.

^ Exhibit A to the class/economic anxiety arguments above.

Haha exactly. PPP is so afraid of looking like she doesn't belong she has to defensively take on what she perceives to be someone else's taste. If she had any confidence - or any history - she'd just wear what she likes.

We all do it! Code switching our clothes. Unless we're just that confident and secure about ourselves and our place in the world.