S/O - Why does DCUM hate this kind of woman so much?

[Anonymous]

^^"It may not say anything bad"

PS: Also, thanks for being kind in your reply above. It's not necessarily going to be that kind of thread, you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mind and I genuinely like some designer pieces, but I confess I don’t understand a lot of label-obvious pieces, like a sweatshirt that says “GIVENCHY,” or a tote that has the two huge Chanel interlocking Cs.

I think that Van Cleef Alhambra earrings are objectively pretty, for example, even though they are obviously from a designer label. Whereas interlocking Chanel C earrings just…aren’t beautiful. I enjoy beauty for beauty’s sake, whether it is a Tiffany silver cuff or a no-name silver cuff.

A lot of times I wonder, why the label and not just something pretty? Who is impressed by a sweatshirt or a baseball cap that has a designer logo?

I think all Alhambra jewelry is next level hideous, almost as bad as David Yurman. Both have bumpy details that aren’t for me. I get that a lot of people must like these designs, but they are in no way “objectively” beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mind and I genuinely like some designer pieces, but I confess I don’t understand a lot of label-obvious pieces, like a sweatshirt that says “GIVENCHY,” or a tote that has the two huge Chanel interlocking Cs.

I think that Van Cleef Alhambra earrings are objectively pretty, for example, even though they are obviously from a designer label. Whereas interlocking Chanel C earrings just…aren’t beautiful. I enjoy beauty for beauty’s sake, whether it is a Tiffany silver cuff or a no-name silver cuff.

A lot of times I wonder, why the label and not just something pretty? Who is impressed by a sweatshirt or a baseball cap that has a designer logo?

I think all Alhambra jewelry is next level hideous, almost as bad as David Yurman. Both have bumpy details that aren’t for me. I get that a lot of people must like these designs, but they are in no way “objectively” beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

PP, It’s not jealousy because I can freely admit that I’d love a platinum Cartier bangle. It’s got the clean lines that appeal to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because DCUM (the people who use it, not the site itself) hates women! It's just a reflection of our society

Dcum is mostly women, maybe with the exception of the political forum. And women are mean to each other. Old news

[Anonymous]

I think DCUM is mostly made up of those women - why do you think this site hates them?

But also, to the extent anyone does, it's a mixture of contempt and envy - envy over having the money to spend on these sorts of conspicuous goods, and contempt over using that money on such basic things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This site is full of hypocrisy OP, I've stopped trying to make sense of it. There are posts after posts about how evil men are and misogyny and yet there are posts after posts of women being vile to each other.

The people who judge someone because of how they dress or what they look like are insecure nitwits. For whatever reason, the stereotypical wealthy soccer mom seems to set people off the most. I mean just look at 1622, it's still a dig at people who wear a tennis bracelet and pp is trying to be all "I'm not like other girls".

I have no dog in this fight. I don't own any of the things mentioned. I just find it ridiculous how grown adult women behave on this site.

I'm the PP above you, and I don't disagree with any of this. I just believe it is understandable.

I'm myself "not like other girls," but that's not a cool thing. I'm socially awkward, probably ASD adjacent, have very niche skills, and built a life for myself around work and specific interests. It's fine. I like it. It works for me, but it's not cool or enviable. It's just the space where I can do best for myself -- I couldn't climb that particular ladder if I dedicated my life to it.

Pp here. It sounds like you're comfortable with who you are and that's great. But do you judge the women who do wear designer things and are outgoing and bubbly and the things that you say you're not? [1] Do you assume they are trying to climb a particular ladder or that they are shallow or vein? [2] Or do you just figure that they, like you , are just being themselves and who they want to be. I'm not talking personality wise, I'm just talking first impressions when you see someone like that in a group setting. I think that's the difference between you who just owns that you're not like them and the pp who is all "lol I don't even KNOW what a tennis bracelet is. I play sports! I'm not like those vapid women!".

1. I don't think so. I *do* very vividly remember (and with much affection) the beautiful former cheerleader I spent a month of call shifts with in the ER as medical students. She was hilarious, and kind, and sharp as a tack. I wasn't as secure in myself back then and assumed she wouldn't vibe with me, but we got on like a house afire. Since then, I think I make a lot fewer assumptions.

2. Here is where we may part. If you do this look well, it really is work (as another PP said). It's commitment. I think that has to say you value knowing and abiding by the (mostly unspoken) rules if you do it well, and I'm not sure that doesn't say something about you. It may not say anything bd, but it does speak to what you value, and what you are willing to give up for it. That doesn't mean we can't be friends, but I'm pretty sure the odds are lower.

But no, I'm not going to go with shallow or vain necessarily -- I've known plenty of women who felt they had to do these things very well in order not to be judged and to fit in. Frankly, I'm not likely the friend you want if you want to fit into that schema enough to try that hard -- I would not be an asset. And that's okay. We are doing different things. But that sort of judgment? yes, it is there for me, for what it's worth.

This is all well said.

[Anonymous]

This particular look is built on exclusion. It takes a level of time, money, and effort that puts it past most women just by definition. I do wonder why someone would be that dedicated to a lifestyle which is valued because it is exclusionary, and why other things (and really, other people) don't mean as much as it does to you.

I'm not talking about women who get their hair done, or who enjoy some nice pieces or jewelry, or who put an effort into being groomed. I'm talking about the women who make sure to hit The Look we are referencing, point by point, with a sharp eye to every detail (the exact length of the Lululemon pant, the right shade of blond, the acceptable places to go, all of it).

It doesn't mean you necessarily are a bad person. it does mean you value a structure that is itself valued because it excludes most people. Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me it’s a childhood thing. This is the kind of girl and woman that my mom always wanted me to be, and I could never really pull it off.
People act like this is easy, but it’s kind of hard to pull off. Your hair has to be expensively, tastefully, and recently highlighted, and your lulu pants have to hit at the right place on your ankle over the right kind of shoes. If you don’t do it right, you look like a cheap knock-off.

I don’t know that it’s jealousy, although it definitely was when I was a teenager. It’s more like I spent a lot of formative years consciously deciding that this isn’t someone that I really want to be, and it’s hard to reevaluate as an adult.

I think you are touching on something here, but then pulling back from it.

OP's question was why do y'all hate this women. I think it's because women "spent a lot of formative years consciously deciding that this isn't someone" I CAN be. Not necessarily "this isn't someone that I really want to be." Women tell themselves the latter, and then the jealousy comes boiling out and to save their own ego they have to twist themselves up like this and say things like "I don't know that it's jealousy" ... when deep down they know it is.

I'm pretty sure you want it to be jealousy, PP.

Either way -- it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me it’s a childhood thing. This is the kind of girl and woman that my mom always wanted me to be, and I could never really pull it off.
People act like this is easy, but it’s kind of hard to pull off. Your hair has to be expensively, tastefully, and recently highlighted, and your lulu pants have to hit at the right place on your ankle over the right kind of shoes. If you don’t do it right, you look like a cheap knock-off.

I don’t know that it’s jealousy, although it definitely was when I was a teenager. It’s more like I spent a lot of formative years consciously deciding that this isn’t someone that I really want to be, and it’s hard to reevaluate as an adult.

I think you are touching on something here, but then pulling back from it.

OP's question was why do y'all hate this women. I think it's because women "spent a lot of formative years consciously deciding that this isn't someone" I CAN be. Not necessarily "this isn't someone that I really want to be." Women tell themselves the latter, and then the jealousy comes boiling out and to save their own ego they have to twist themselves up like this and say things like "I don't know that it's jealousy" ... when deep down they know it is.

I'm pretty sure you want it to be jealousy, PP.

Either way -- it is.

Does dislike always look like jealousy to you? Sometimes people dislike something and are jealous as well, but sometimes they just don't like it. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me it’s a childhood thing. This is the kind of girl and woman that my mom always wanted me to be, and I could never really pull it off.
People act like this is easy, but it’s kind of hard to pull off. Your hair has to be expensively, tastefully, and recently highlighted, and your lulu pants have to hit at the right place on your ankle over the right kind of shoes. If you don’t do it right, you look like a cheap knock-off.

I don’t know that it’s jealousy, although it definitely was when I was a teenager. It’s more like I spent a lot of formative years consciously deciding that this isn’t someone that I really want to be, and it’s hard to reevaluate as an adult.

I think you are touching on something here, but then pulling back from it.

OP's question was why do y'all hate this women. I think it's because women "spent a lot of formative years consciously deciding that this isn't someone" I CAN be. Not necessarily "this isn't someone that I really want to be." Women tell themselves the latter, and then the jealousy comes boiling out and to save their own ego they have to twist themselves up like this and say things like "I don't know that it's jealousy" ... when deep down they know it is.

I'm pretty sure you want it to be jealousy, PP.

Either way -- it is.

Apparently, opinions vary.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I notice that on certain threads there's a mob effect. Some posters have pointed out that occasionally, there's a concurrent thread with the opposite mob mentality!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For me it’s a childhood thing. This is the kind of girl and woman that my mom always wanted me to be, and I could never really pull it off.
People act like this is easy, but it’s kind of hard to pull off. Your hair has to be expensively, tastefully, and recently highlighted, and your lulu pants have to hit at the right place on your ankle over the right kind of shoes. If you don’t do it right, you look like a cheap knock-off.

I don’t know that it’s jealousy, although it definitely was when I was a teenager. It’s more like I spent a lot of formative years consciously deciding that this isn’t someone that I really want to be, and it’s hard to reevaluate as an adult.

Sounds high maintenance. Kind of Kardashians like and who wants to look like that?

[Anonymous]

Two things to do if I were that OP:
1. Mind my own business
2. Focus on career advancement so I can afford fancy things myself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mind and I genuinely like some designer pieces, but I confess I don’t understand a lot of label-obvious pieces, like a sweatshirt that says “GIVENCHY,” or a tote that has the two huge Chanel interlocking Cs.

I think that Van Cleef Alhambra earrings are objectively pretty, for example, even though they are obviously from a designer label. Whereas interlocking Chanel C earrings just…aren’t beautiful. I enjoy beauty for beauty’s sake, whether it is a Tiffany silver cuff or a no-name silver cuff.

A lot of times I wonder, why the label and not just something pretty? Who is impressed by a sweatshirt or a baseball cap that has a designer logo?

You "don't understand"? Or you are contemptuous of it? I doubt you truly "don't understand" the appeal of a Givenchy sweatshirt. You just feel the need to put yourself above it.

I truly…don’t understand why people think a GIVENCHY sweatshirt is a flex. I get why a Birkin is a flex. I get that a luxury car is a flex. I truly don’t understand a designer sweatshirt. Because it’s not a flex even though it is apparently intended to be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mind and I genuinely like some designer pieces, but I confess I don’t understand a lot of label-obvious pieces, like a sweatshirt that says “GIVENCHY,” or a tote that has the two huge Chanel interlocking Cs.

I think that Van Cleef Alhambra earrings are objectively pretty, for example, even though they are obviously from a designer label. Whereas interlocking Chanel C earrings just…aren’t beautiful. I enjoy beauty for beauty’s sake, whether it is a Tiffany silver cuff or a no-name silver cuff.

A lot of times I wonder, why the label and not just something pretty? Who is impressed by a sweatshirt or a baseball cap that has a designer logo?

I think all Alhambra jewelry is next level hideous, almost as bad as David Yurman. Both have bumpy details that aren’t for me. I get that a lot of people must like these designs, but they are in no way “objectively” beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

…which is why I said “I THINK that Van Cleef Alhambra earrings are objectively pretty,” I didn’t say “IT IS A FACT THAT…,” genius. I’m saying objectively pretty as in I would find them appealing whether they were hanging on a rack a Target, on display at Macy’s or in the window on Rodeo Drive.