You all know me. You know my affection for Tim Gunn and his advice-giving on Project Runway. And once PR starts back up, I'm all over it.
But after watching one TGGtS episode all the way through, then two more in snippets, I will state flatly that it's over.
...not because on the first episode, as soon as she was all made up, the woman was tossing her hair in that broken-neck, stiff-shoulder, aren't-I-the-best-thing-ever way (a really sweet woman, who looked in her body language all of a sudden like no one should dare touch her, and a real snot, despite her smile)
...not because all of the women can't seem to get over someone looking in their underwear drawers (grow up, geez! It's underwear. Not a breast exam)
...not because the women are suddenly completely devoid of clothes, have a few new ensembles, and then we never find out if they get to actually have more than those few ensembles, particularly their casualwear (NOT "sportswear"), and therefore have to completely restock their closets out of their own pockets with their new "knowledge"
...not because no one seems to be allowed to wear a pair of cozy lounge pants in the sanctity of their homes
The moment of complete rejection came today, as a mother of 2 was being remodeled. She was given a shiny (and I mean shimmery, not simply lustrous) diaper bag/purse (I think it was shiny leather, actually). Personally, I found it odd and not very attractive, but that is a taste thing. But what Veronica said next was unforgivable:
Everything you buy needs to be this level of style, chicness, and quality.
My response to this: CLICK.
I was so disappointed! I mean, as a teacher I will be the first to acknowledge that people, particularly students, wear some pretty ridiculous things to class, and when flip-flops came back as "fashion," not as beachwear, I was mortified. But I categorically reject any notion that all clothing you buy has to be metaphorically or truly shiny, high-maintenance looking, and even expensive-looking. At "this level."
I reflect on a pair of pants I picked up at Victoria's Secret on clearance. They are lounge pants, light yellow with white and grey racing stripes, and even a little rhinestone decal. They were cheap, but decently made. I bought them because they were soft and the color was pretty, and new to me. Now, I think that in the right instances they look stylish and chic, and they're cute on me. They're perfect for running or walking, going to Meijer, or "walking the dog," as was the case in the first episode (the woman got a DRESS for that, which was stupid). But they certainly aren't part of a category that would include that pretentious bag, and the comment I rejected so strongly makes me wonder if Miss Priss would reject my pants. And I just can't be a part of a show that would.
I generally applaud a show that encourages women to think outside their fashion boxes, and get excited about new things that fit them well, and a new understanding of what shapes look nice on their bodies. But I question the practicality of the actual choices made, and also teaching women the one side without giving them the balance of the other side...those moments at home, or when you simply want to go take a walk by the pond, or when you're feeling sad and just want to curl up, these require a different side of fashion, and women need to believe that this is acceptable, too. Women don't need a "sweatsuit alternative." They need to wear things besides sweatsuits, certainly, but every fashion item has a time and a place. Having nice things is great, but a wardrobe devoid of true "puttering around" wear and casual comfort that makes you feel good is not a proper wardrobe at all. Slobification? Fine, but don't let the inverse be true--please don't snobify these women.
I will not start watching this show again unless I hear they miraculously buy a woman an inexpensive and everyday (stylish? fine. but not "this level") set of cozy clothes to go for a walk in. And Veronica buys some, too.
Tim Gunn, I'll see you on PR.