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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Ok. So here you are proving that you fully understand why people wear sweatshirts with a designer name on them, and also proving that you just want to emphasize how you know "it's not a flex" whereas they "apparently intended it to be"?

You probably shop at Talbot's and are all "why do people wear GIVENCHY sweatshirts?? I don't get it?? Blah, blah, blah." Go wander off to Chico's, lol.

Gee, I wonder who has designer sweatshirts and baseball caps and is just now figuring out they’re not landing as intended? Defensive much! LOL. If you want to look like a Real Housewife versus those of us who actually know and invest in quality and style, by all means.

PP here. I have zero "designer sweatshirts" and have never worn baseball caps. Not at all defensive. Just calling it. But I knew you were shopping at Talbot's. Hilarious. Go on with your bad self and your "quality and style." We can all picture it, I assure you.

I’m the other poster who doesn’t understand…I can assure you I would never shop at Talbots or Chico’s. I bought my favorite leggings from TEMU, 5 pairs for $20! I still look fine because I have very long legs and a naturally lithe figure, but I rarely wear makeup and have never colored my hair. I would look absurd in a fancy sweatshirt.

I don’t give much thought to my looks. I haven’t worn a real bra since COVID, I only have a few Amazon sports bras to my name. I don’t care what other people do, but I don’t think someone whose hobby is shopping or who cares about that kind of stuff is likely to want to be friends with me. I’m more the boho outdoorsy nerd type.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just comes off as so basic and materialistic. Too each her own, but just not my kind of person.

I just don't get why you're judging someone based on what they are wearing. Aren't we old enough to know not to do that? My friends have varying degrees of styles. Some are no make up shop at Target types and others have a bunch of designer stuff. I can't imagine just immediately deciding someone "wasn't my kind of person" based on how they dressed.

DP but I like people to be themselves. So when I see someone start to dress like someone else because they think that person is cool or whatever, then I’m not going to want to hang out with that person.

There’s a group of moms in my kids’ sport who all dress like this one mom - Golden Goose sneakers, fedoras, specific jewelry, etc. I find it to be so odd. I wear what I wear, some of which is quite expensive, because I like it, not because someone else wears it and I want to look like them. So when I think people are trying to be like someone else, that’s a sign to me that they are not my kind of person.

Now who is being "exclusionary" lol.

But don't worry -- they don't want to hang out with you either. Guarantee it.

Lol so you are upset with PP for not liking this but also need her to know that she doesn't belong anyway.

But that's the whole point. When groups of women all wear a uniform, and especially if that uniform involves expensive items that are intended to convey very specific status, it's de facto exclusionary and unless you are willing to conform to that look, you do not belong. That's why people don't like it. No one wants to be the one woman in a group who looks incorrect. But if everyone else is wearing the exact same thing, then you will stick out unless you conform. Which is some of us see groups like this and decide "nope, not for me." That's not exclusionary -- I'd be 1:1 friends with a woman in that group if she was up for it. But no I'm not going to go out to brunch with 8 women wearing the same clothes and jewelry, carrying the same handbag, who all have the same hair and makeup, when I don't look like that and don't want to. Especially because generally when there is that much conformity in appearance, there's a lot of conformity in everything else. And I don't want to spend my time feeling like the weird one.

Yup, it’s the Big Dumb Hat, oversized scarf and long boots crowd from 2018…we all know the type. In 2007 they were wearing statement necklaces and skinny jeans and Tory Burch flats.

For me it makes me think of college and sororities that enforced strict dress codes or groups of women who would create dress codes for their friend groups for going out or taking pictures. I get why college girls might do this -- you are looking for a friend group, you want to fit in, there is safety in numbers.

But when I see it in women in their 40s, it makes me a little sad. By the time you are this age and married and have kids and have presumable been through some stuff in life, I don't think you should need the safety blanket of being dressed identically to your closest friends at all times. If you do, fine, but I think it's kind of a bummer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

This feels like such a reach to me. I'm not one of them. In fact, I'm one that would be excluded by them. I'm overweight and my hair will never do that perfect wavy curl thing. And I look better as a brunette. But I've never looked at someone like you described and automatically assumed they were a stuck up B trying to fit into some exclusive club. They are just wearing what they want. Sure, sometimes they can be vapid and B-tchy and exclusionary, but I've met people who don't fit "the look" who are also like that. I don't know. It all just seems so weird to me to make all these judgements and assumptions based solely off how someone dresses. I wouldn't want someone doing that to me so why should I do that to someone else?

Good. I mean, the world would be a bad place if we all had the same childhood biases and used the same heuristics to make initial assumptions about people we don’t know.

[Anonymous]

Women just like to hate on other women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women just like to hate on other women.

Yes, it’s competition for limited resources and The Patriarchy.

[Anonymous]

Everyone implicitly understands that humans make choices about their appearance to convey who they are and where they belong, and that other humans notice and form judgements. I don't know why anyone is particularly offended about this on behalf of rich, basic ladies. They're doing fine!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone implicitly understands that humans make choices about their appearance to convey who they are and where they belong, and that other humans notice and form judgements. I don't know why anyone is particularly offended about this on behalf of rich, basic ladies. They're doing fine!

So true. And unlike someone who is judged for things about their appearance over which they have no control, the women were talking about have lots of resources and could look different if they wanted. If this is how you want to look, screw the haters. If you'd prefer people not judge you for conforming to this look, it would take one day for you to go get a brunette bob and some different clothes and change it up. Do what you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just comes off as so basic and materialistic. Too each her own, but just not my kind of person.

I just don't get why you're judging someone based on what they are wearing. Aren't we old enough to know not to do that? My friends have varying degrees of styles. Some are no make up shop at Target types and others have a bunch of designer stuff. I can't imagine just immediately deciding someone "wasn't my kind of person" based on how they dressed.

DP but I like people to be themselves. So when I see someone start to dress like someone else because they think that person is cool or whatever, then I’m not going to want to hang out with that person.

There’s a group of moms in my kids’ sport who all dress like this one mom - Golden Goose sneakers, fedoras, specific jewelry, etc. I find it to be so odd. I wear what I wear, some of which is quite expensive, because I like it, not because someone else wears it and I want to look like them. So when I think people are trying to be like someone else, that’s a sign to me that they are not my kind of person.

Now who is being "exclusionary" lol.

But don't worry -- they don't want to hang out with you either. Guarantee it.

Lol so you are upset with PP for not liking this but also need her to know that she doesn't belong anyway.

But that's the whole point. When groups of women all wear a uniform, and especially if that uniform involves expensive items that are intended to convey very specific status, it's de facto exclusionary and unless you are willing to conform to that look, you do not belong. That's why people don't like it. No one wants to be the one woman in a group who looks incorrect. But if everyone else is wearing the exact same thing, then you will stick out unless you conform. Which is some of us see groups like this and decide "nope, not for me." That's not exclusionary -- I'd be 1:1 friends with a woman in that group if she was up for it. But no I'm not going to go out to brunch with 8 women wearing the same clothes and jewelry, carrying the same handbag, who all have the same hair and makeup, when I don't look like that and don't want to. Especially because generally when there is that much conformity in appearance, there's a lot of conformity in everything else. And I don't want to spend my time feeling like the weird one.

So you will go to brunch with “a woman in that group” but not “8” of them. Lol. Ok.

I have never been to brunch with eight women who were all carrying the same exact handbag. This conformity you are getting so worked up about doesn’t really exist. And the fact that you want to hang on it so much says a lot more about you than any women who like Lululemon and get their hair highlighted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Ok. So here you are proving that you fully understand why people wear sweatshirts with a designer name on them, and also proving that you just want to emphasize how you know "it's not a flex" whereas they "apparently intended it to be"?

You probably shop at Talbot's and are all "why do people wear GIVENCHY sweatshirts?? I don't get it?? Blah, blah, blah." Go wander off to Chico's, lol.

Gee, I wonder who has designer sweatshirts and baseball caps and is just now figuring out they’re not landing as intended? Defensive much! LOL. If you want to look like a Real Housewife versus those of us who actually know and invest in quality and style, by all means.

PP here. I have zero "designer sweatshirts" and have never worn baseball caps. Not at all defensive. Just calling it. But I knew you were shopping at Talbot's. Hilarious. Go on with your bad self and your "quality and style." We can all picture it, I assure you.

Oh honey, I’ve never even been inside a Talbot’s, but keep reaching! We see you.

Oh, look, it’s the term-of-endearment poster. Now I’m even more convinced that you are wearing a Talbots sweater right this very minute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Ok. So here you are proving that you fully understand why people wear sweatshirts with a designer name on them, and also proving that you just want to emphasize how you know "it's not a flex" whereas they "apparently intended it to be"?

You probably shop at Talbot's and are all "why do people wear GIVENCHY sweatshirts?? I don't get it?? Blah, blah, blah." Go wander off to Chico's, lol.

Gee, I wonder who has designer sweatshirts and baseball caps and is just now figuring out they’re not landing as intended? Defensive much! LOL. If you want to look like a Real Housewife versus those of us who actually know and invest in quality and style, by all means.

PP here. I have zero "designer sweatshirts" and have never worn baseball caps. Not at all defensive. Just calling it. But I knew you were shopping at Talbot's. Hilarious. Go on with your bad self and your "quality and style." We can all picture it, I assure you.

I’m the other poster who doesn’t understand…I can assure you I would never shop at Talbots or Chico’s. I bought my favorite leggings from TEMU, 5 pairs for $20! I still look fine because I have very long legs and a naturally lithe figure, but I rarely wear makeup and have never colored my hair. I would look absurd in a fancy sweatshirt.

I don’t give much thought to my looks. I haven’t worn a real bra since COVID, I only have a few Amazon sports bras to my name. I don’t care what other people do, but I don’t think someone whose hobby is shopping or who cares about that kind of stuff is likely to want to be friends with me. I’m more the boho outdoorsy nerd type.

You go, girl! You rock those leggings that were made by enslaved children!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just comes off as so basic and materialistic. Too each her own, but just not my kind of person.

I just don't get why you're judging someone based on what they are wearing. Aren't we old enough to know not to do that? My friends have varying degrees of styles. Some are no make up shop at Target types and others have a bunch of designer stuff. I can't imagine just immediately deciding someone "wasn't my kind of person" based on how they dressed.

DP but I like people to be themselves. So when I see someone start to dress like someone else because they think that person is cool or whatever, then I’m not going to want to hang out with that person.

There’s a group of moms in my kids’ sport who all dress like this one mom - Golden Goose sneakers, fedoras, specific jewelry, etc. I find it to be so odd. I wear what I wear, some of which is quite expensive, because I like it, not because someone else wears it and I want to look like them. So when I think people are trying to be like someone else, that’s a sign to me that they are not my kind of person.

Now who is being "exclusionary" lol.

But don't worry -- they don't want to hang out with you either. Guarantee it.

Lol so you are upset with PP for not liking this but also need her to know that she doesn't belong anyway.

But that's the whole point. When groups of women all wear a uniform, and especially if that uniform involves expensive items that are intended to convey very specific status, it's de facto exclusionary and unless you are willing to conform to that look, you do not belong. That's why people don't like it. No one wants to be the one woman in a group who looks incorrect. But if everyone else is wearing the exact same thing, then you will stick out unless you conform. Which is some of us see groups like this and decide "nope, not for me." That's not exclusionary -- I'd be 1:1 friends with a woman in that group if she was up for it. But no I'm not going to go out to brunch with 8 women wearing the same clothes and jewelry, carrying the same handbag, who all have the same hair and makeup, when I don't look like that and don't want to. Especially because generally when there is that much conformity in appearance, there's a lot of conformity in everything else. And I don't want to spend my time feeling like the weird one.

So you will go to brunch with “a woman in that group” but not “8” of them. Lol. Ok.

I have never been to brunch with eight women who were all carrying the same exact handbag. This conformity you are getting so worked up about doesn’t really exist. And the fact that you want to hang on it so much says a lot more about you than any women who like Lululemon and get their hair highlighted.

I mean isn't this whole thread about women who have a very specific look? So yes when they travel in packs they all dress alike. They might not carry the exact same handbag but they will all carry one of a handful of acceptable bags and wear similar clothes and have similar hair and similar jewelry and shoes. It would be weird to be the one woman in that bunch who looked different.

It's weird to argue this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Ok. So here you are proving that you fully understand why people wear sweatshirts with a designer name on them, and also proving that you just want to emphasize how you know "it's not a flex" whereas they "apparently intended it to be"?

You probably shop at Talbot's and are all "why do people wear GIVENCHY sweatshirts?? I don't get it?? Blah, blah, blah." Go wander off to Chico's, lol.

Gee, I wonder who has designer sweatshirts and baseball caps and is just now figuring out they’re not landing as intended? Defensive much! LOL. If you want to look like a Real Housewife versus those of us who actually know and invest in quality and style, by all means.

PP here. I have zero "designer sweatshirts" and have never worn baseball caps. Not at all defensive. Just calling it. But I knew you were shopping at Talbot's. Hilarious. Go on with your bad self and your "quality and style." We can all picture it, I assure you.

Oh honey, I’ve never even been inside a Talbot’s, but keep reaching! We see you.

OMG
Not Talbots .. 😩

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. I was with you until this point - as a PP said, it's sort of like you say something and then pull back. What do you mean by this? That she values, for example, nicely highlighted hair and is willing to spend the time and money to achieve it? Very curious. Why is that a negative?

I think you are reacting to something I did not say, and that may well reveal something you are bringing to this.

In my posts, I've been clear to reiterate that this judgment that *I* am making is not about someone with one thing, or a few things -- but rather, the full panoply of very rigid expectations in a series of choices, each of which requires time, effort, and money to hit the right note. That's not just "nicely highlighted hair," and I don't think that's been unclear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

This feels like such a reach to me. I'm not one of them. In fact, I'm one that would be excluded by them. I'm overweight and my hair will never do that perfect wavy curl thing. And I look better as a brunette. But I've never looked at someone like you described and automatically assumed they were a stuck up B trying to fit into some exclusive club. They are just wearing what they want. Sure, sometimes they can be vapid and B-tchy and exclusionary, but I've met people who don't fit "the look" who are also like that. I don't know. It all just seems so weird to me to make all these judgements and assumptions based solely off how someone dresses. I wouldn't want someone doing that to me so why should I do that to someone else?

This would be interesting if anyone actually said this, but they didn't.

It's almost a truism that someone who conforms very rigorously to a complete package that cannot be achieved by most others is making the choice to conform to something exclusionary. That's ... what that is. But you could be making that choice for any number of reasons, and many have nothing to do with being "stuck up" or "a B."

But somehow that's what you heard, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It just comes off as so basic and materialistic. Too each her own, but just not my kind of person.

+1 NP