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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

This. It was also the girls like this, who had moms like this, who were unkind to me when I was young specifically because I did not have the "right" clothes and accessories. Because this is all about a uniform that conveys a specific income level and social status. And my family didn't have that when I was a kid and these girls made sure I knew.

Now I can afford that stuff and I do not want it because I view it as a sign of forced conformity and way to communicate to a very specific kind of person that you are the "right" kind of person because you have the "right" clothes and accessories. And I reject that whole dynamic.

I don't hate women like this on sight and actually have friends who dress like this and I don't care as long as they also don't care that I don't. But I don't think this look is stylish or something to be admired. It's about checking boxes and ensuring you are accepted in certain circles that exclude people who are different. No thank you.

OP. I definitely empathize with the childhood trauma. But don't you think this is a bit of a leap? The random woman in Starbucks isn't the girl you grew up with and has done you no harm. (And in fact, she may have been someone who blossomed in adulthood.) Why do you assume she excludes people? It's that unfair to her to make that assumption?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ETA - I posted this in Relationships because I would also love to get a male perspective.

Male here, since you asked. Cartier bangles and van clef necklace, WTF is that ? I don’t even look at hair, it’s all about T&A. That’s all any hetro man is thinking about. And if your wearing LuLu, better not be fat.

T, A and narrow, flat waist.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

This. It was also the girls like this, who had moms like this, who were unkind to me when I was young specifically because I did not have the "right" clothes and accessories. Because this is all about a uniform that conveys a specific income level and social status. And my family didn't have that when I was a kid and these girls made sure I knew.

Now I can afford that stuff and I do not want it because I view it as a sign of forced conformity and way to communicate to a very specific kind of person that you are the "right" kind of person because you have the "right" clothes and accessories. And I reject that whole dynamic.

I don't hate women like this on sight and actually have friends who dress like this and I don't care as long as they also don't care that I don't. But I don't think this look is stylish or something to be admired. It's about checking boxes and ensuring you are accepted in certain circles that exclude people who are different. No thank you.

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.

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.