As I was browsing Jezebel yesterday, I came across this post, which links to a weird article in Britain’s Sunday Times called “What is your fashion sex?” Intrigued, I clicked on the link and was immediately transported to a strange world where phrases like “aggro frog move” and “bodycon dresses” apparently mean something.

But the article’s vocabulary isn’t the only baffling thing about it. In the piece, author Shane Watson proposes that all women have a “fashion sex,” a sort of gendered style that comes naturally to them.

Confused? So was I. Watson tries to explain herself by pinpointing the “fashion sexes” of some celebrities: “Anyone can see that Scarlett Johansson is a Girl, who should stick to asset-flaunting bodycon dresses” (whatever those are), she writes, while Kristen Stewart is “a tomboy through and through” whose outfits should never clash with her “natural urge to look a bit rough, undone, cool and … boyish.” Madonna is another celeb who Watson classifies as boyish: her “DNA is probably 12% bloke — in a good way. It’s the reason she looks like a man in drag in a pussy-bow blouse, but fabulously hot in a pair of chaps,” Watson writes.

I guess what this really means is that, according to Watson, women are innately either traditionally feminine, a little more hard-edged (read: manly), or androgynous. These traits are “non-negotiable,” she says, meaning that an inherently girly girl should never wear “the leather trousers, jacket and peaked-cap look” that serves Catherine Zeta-Jones so ill in the picture that accompanies the article. Read More »

So I was reading the news the other day–you know, the usual depressing stuff about the economy and my freakshow state government–when I came across an item that made me literally spit out my iced chai in bewildered shock.  According to this blog post on the New York Times, there is a set of parents in Sweden who are choosing to raise their child without a gender. For real.

The parents have not revealed their two-year-old child’s gender to anyone, save for a few close relatives who have changed its diaper. Their goal is to enable the child, called “Pop” in the media, to be raised in a liberal environment devoid of the limits of the social construct known as gender identity.  No “pretty girl” or “big boy” here – Pop is only referred to by its name, and has never learned gender pronouns like “his” or “hers.”

But it gets even more bizarre. You’d think the parents would be hell-bent on raising the kid to be androgynous, since wearing pretty dresses and big boy overalls are felonious acts in the crime family of gender stereotyping.  Instead, the parents choose to give Pop “girl” hair cuts and clothing on occasion, and other times Pop will wear “boy ” hair cuts and clothing.

To me, this action in particular corrupts their whole plan. I can support parents who want their child to be raised with the freedom to become whomever he or she wants to be, but if you’re going to dress the child in boy and girl clothing, you’re only going to confuse the kid. Strangers will remark to the parents on the street, “What a beautiful daughter! How old is she?” or “What a handsome young man!” causing Pop to stress about the concept of gender that his/her parents are working so hard to minimize.

Also, what happens when the kid goes to school?  What bathroom does Pop use? Pop will eventually have to get a driver’s license or some form of government ID, or, I don’t know, look down and see his/her genitalia. Will the parents stage a protest? Put that kid on pant-removal lockdown?

Somehow I think Pop may not turn out quite as well as his/her parents are hoping. What do you think? At what point does an experiment like this go too far?

I’ve heard the woes from people with cup sizes that are hard to manage. I understand; nobody wants the back pain or the difficulty finding clothes that fit. I, on the other hand, am on the other end of the spectrum. I hit puberty early, was a head taller than everyone in my class for a while, but never got to enjoy the other benefits of those raging hormones. You know…like, breasts.

My mother continually assures me that I’m lucky. “Dresses fit you so well,” she tells me. That’s easy for her to say; I imagine most mothers, deep down, want to dress their daughters in conservative dresses that leave a lot to the imagination, but leave me looking like I’m wearing a sack on top.

Forget showing off cleavage; it’s pretty hard when you barely have cleavage. I don’t mind looking nice in the occasional baggy shirt for a job interview, but how is a flat-chested girl supposed to look Hott? Read More »

As I study some pictures from various other media outlets of the up and coming new-aged model Agyness Deyn — the woman dubbed, “the fashion industry’s next supermodel” — I can’t help but think that I must’ve missed the fashion boat on this one.

The short bob, the platinum – almost white – hair, is too much like the twiggy era for me to think Ms. Deyn is breaking a new fashion mold, when really, she’s just playing copy cat to some of fashions oldest trendsetters. If it wasn’t for Henry Holland who discovered Ms. Deyn, this wanna-be may not have been the face of Armani in ’07 or won the 2007 British model of the year award.

I used to love the way models looked; tall, slender (note I said slender, not emaciated or malnourished) and elegant, gliding down the runway with confidence I wished to exude, but never could master. Now, when I watch fashion shows, look at magazine spreads or stare up at billboards, I can’t help but feel the Agyness Deyn’s of this era are seriously lacking in the sheek-ness that once was what fashion stood for.

Their frail frames, gaunt cheek bones, androgynous look and blank, lifeless stares pale in comparison to the Cindy Crawford’s or Christy Brinkley’s of an older generation. My only fear is that if Agyness Deyn is blowing up on PerezHilton.com as a fierce competitor in the model industry, what does this mean for the future of America’s fashion image?

How do you feel about Ms. Deyn?