Olivia Evanko – Passion Blog

And so it ends. The last post on this blog has come. I really enjoyed writing this blog over the semester. While many of the assignments for my classes felt tedious, this one never did as I really enjoyed the topic that I was writing about.

Although I am interested in fashion and the clothing industry, I learned so much from writing this blog. Whether it was the dangers of fast fashion or shopping addictions, or large fashion scandals, I feel that I have now become a more informed consumer of clothing, and I hope that readers of this blog have as well.

Through writing this, I have learned to do more research on the brands that I support, be aware of my spending, but also that it’s okay to treat yourself to nice clothing, even if it may be more expensive.

Fashion will always be a huge part of life. New trends will come and go, and every morning when choosing what to wear, I hope that at least a thought goes through peoples head of where the clothes came from — who produced the clothes, and what do they stand for?

Growing up in the 2000s, I loved watching TLC shows. Whether it was 19 Kids and Counting, Say Yes to the Dress, or Kate Plus 8, I would spend a lot of my free time watching such shows. One show which my mom and I particularly liked watching was What Not to Wear. We found it particularly funny to make fun of some of the horrendous things that people wear, which was quite entertaining. Thinking back on the show however, I’ve come to realize that there is almost no way that this show would slide now, as it would probably be deemed insensitive.

To refresh my memory on the show, I watched season 6 episode 9, which came out in 2009. The episode followed a woman named Michelle, who was identified as having a “frumpy” style and an obsession with outrageously patterned scarves from the thrift store.

One thing that makes this show particularly degrading is that people are nominated by their friends and family to go on the show. This means that the people closest to an individual think that they have bad style to the extent that they need help. This may be a different story if the individual seeks help themselves, but the fact that its’ at someone else’s discretion seems somewhat hurtful.

Luckily, Michelle was up for the “adventure” as she called it, and was given a $5000 gift card to fund her new wardrobe, while her old one was critiqued and thrown out by the shows’ hosts Stacy London and Clinton Kelly.

Michelle spoke about how she used to have self-esteem issues, so she began to express herself and feel happier through the clothes she wore. By criticizing her outfits, the hosts are in a way telling her that her style that makes her feel good is not beautiful, and she should stop expressing herself in that way. Much of the clothes she had in her closet previously were from the thrift store for $1-5. This is typically seen as good in society as it’s reusing used clothes and saving money. However, she is told that she should spend more money on clothes. The hosts make the point that there isn’t a problem of spending a lot of money on clothes if they are stylish and will last a long time, but this still is not always suitable for everyones budget.

There are various rude and insensitive jokes made throughout the episode. For example when Clinton learns of Michelle’s job as a telemarketer, he says “I would ask to be transferred to someone else if I knew you were on the other end of the phone”. Michelle was also made fun of for never have been on a date, and when she reveals that her type is jocks the comment that “this isn’t really the look to attract a jock” was made. Despite the fact that this is outwardly rude, it also puts the point across to Michelle and viewers that what matters when looking for a spouse is someones looks as opposed to their personality. The hosts also encouraged Michelle to find things that flatter her body. This is fine but making the comment that “when you carry weight in your midsection” while pointing out Michelle’s stomach, is quite rude and inappropriate, and is quickly glazed over in the episode.

The producers do a good job at the end of the episode masking some of these inherent issues. Michelle says that she feels more confident in herself now and that she will still go to the thrift store, but will find things that suit her body type there. Despite this positive feedback at the end of the episode, the show still projects a shocking and inappropriate idea that people need to change the way they dress to conform to the standards of society in order to find mates or just be seen as conventionally attractive. This takes away from the idea that people should be liked for who they are on the inside rather than what they look like. This may have been able to slide in the 2000s, but a show like this would never be successful in modern day society because of the many people who encourage positive body image and loving yourself for you, without changing the way you look for others.

“One size fits all”

This phrasing originated in the fashion industry, but since has expanded to mean a variety of different things in different industries. While most brands seem to cater to a diverse set of body sizes, there are still a few which only sell one size of clothing.

What first comes to mind for me is the brand Brandy Melville. Brandy has been a very popular brand for my demographic for the past 5-10 years. Almost constantly the styles that Brandy puts out are all over social media, seen as a trendy style. As I’ve discussed in previous posts, when a style is trending on social media, it is very desirable, and many people want to buy it so that they can fit in with the trend. The unfortunate part of this is, even if people have a desire to purchase these clothes, girls may not even be able to purchase clothing from the company due to their one size fits all movement, which restricts a majority from purchasing their clothes.

By only making one size of clothing, brands advocate that this is the standard of beauty, and that if you don’t fit into this one size, then you don’t deserve to wear the clothing from this brand. When you don’t fit into what “all” people should be able to wear, your self-confidence is likely to decrease and you may feel like you need to change the way you look to be accepted by society, when in reality this is not the case.

The typical model of Brandy’s clothing is a skinny, white conventionally pretty woman. When you are buying their products, you are essentially buying into the image that they display.

In addition, the employees at Brandy stores are notoriously rude to those who do not fit into this general stereotype. This has been a joke on social media where people are made fun of by the employees when shopping, not being the typical polite that they would to other customers, and in general not being inclusive to all sizes and types of people.

Unfortunately, by buying Brandy Melville’s products (no matter how cute or trendy they are) is supporting their idea that one size fits all means that they “normal” body type is a size small. The media’s treatment of the brand further showcases the commonplace that the brand is exclusive to bigger body types.

When I was researching topics to write about regarding fashion, one controversy from 2019 caught my eye. Most of us know of the brand Gucci for offering expensive, high-end products. If you are seen with the iconic G anywhere on your outfit or accessories, you would probably be perceived as wealthy and to some maybe even snobby.

The brand Gucci is associated with wealth, as can be seen in their iconic designs that are easily recognizable. However, the brand is also trying to branch out from this idea and step outside of the box of normal fashion, often to make a societal point.

This occurs more often at runway shows, which are typically to showcase the brands creativity, designers, and models, but not really to market the clothes that these models are wearing. This specific runway was a part of the Milan Fashion Week. Gucci decided to begin the show with models wearing white straitjackets. This specific style of straitjacket was what those living in mental institutions prior to the time mental health was really well understood wore. During this time patients in asylums were subject to cruel treatment because it wasn’t considered a health problem, and there was not much in terms of research to help those with mental health issues. Instead, they were treated almost as if they were animals, locked in cages and abused. The fact that Gucci used these outfits in their show was insensitive. This part of the show also featured the models coming out on a conveyor belt, which was also a poor touch by the designers.

One model, Ayesha Tan-Jones made a statement in protest of the show. When walking out onto the runway, they held up their palms, which read “Mental health is not fashion”. In an interview, they described how this hurt them because of their own struggles with mental health and those in their family and that “it is hurtful and insensitive for a major fashion house such as Gucci to use this imagery as a concept for a fleeting fashion moment” (Garrand).

The defense that Gucci had was that this was a statement on a societal issue and that the straitjacket style was included “as the most extreme version of a uniform dictated by society and those who control it” (Garrand). They also stated that since this was the opening part of the show and more vibrant styles followed they were trying to convey “fashion as a way to allow people to walk through fields of possibilities, cultivate beauty, make diversity sacrosanct and celebrate the self in expression and identity” (Garrand).

It’s understandable that brands are trying to make a societal point; we see this all the time in ads and other mediums. However, there must be a line that should not be crossed. Sometimes brands go too far and what may have originally been a harmless jab at institutions in society may turn into something harmful that hurts an already marginalized group of people. This is when fashion and other brands need to realize that getting involved in societies woes may just dig them into a much deeper hole.

Source

 

A great compromise – style or sustainability

I really enjoy fashion and keeping up with current clothing trends. In a society when these are constantly changing, it is difficult to stay in the loop at times. It seems like trends are in and out of popularity like a flip of a switch. I often do find these trends cute, such as wearing a certain fit of jeans, wearing a puka shell necklace, or parachute pants. I want to wear these outfits and keep up with the trends, but it is difficult when these pieces are so expensive. Especially as a broke college student, I’m not really interested in spending $150 on a pair of pants. Hence why fast fashion websites like Shein, H&M, and Zara are so appealing to me and to other people in my same demographic. When I need an outfit for one occasion, for example, a football game, I do not want to spend a ton of money on it, as I know I will never need to wear it again and I don’t care about it being durable. I think that fast fashion websites are successful for people with the same thinking as me, I want cheap but stylish clothes, and I am willing to sacrifice on their quality.

While this is a very appealing concept, it comes with its downfalls, and a large one is the sustainability aspect. According to this video by The Economist, 30,000 tons of clothes are put in the waste in the UK every year, which is the largest growing category of waste in the country. A spokesperson for Savanna Rags, a sorting plant which sorts discarded clothes and distributes them to Africa, Europe, and across the UK, said that he has noticed a decrease in quality of clothes over the past few years. Because of this, the plant is forced to process a lot more clothing to get the same amount of clothes that are of the quality that they can actually pass on.

This contributes to so many clothes being put in the waste every year. Because these pieces are not of the best quality, people often put them in the waste after only a few wears. Because these pieces cannot be reused, they are simply thrown in the trash which has significant impacts on our environment. The severe impact of clothing waste was surprising to me when doing research because I feel that other aspects of waste are more talked about in society, like plastic waste.

This issue will be very difficult to solve because the fashion industry still needs to run and be successful, so it will continue to use the business model which is most successful. Others like me may have the same idea to buy cheap and poorer quality clothing, so these businesses will stay supported to continue this.

Stores also use the marketing technique of “if you don’t but it now, you won’t get it”. They may have sales which are only within a few days, or may insinuate that a product will no longer be available if one doesn’t buy it right when they see it.

Some brands are making improvements to this like Rent the Runway, which allows users to rent clothes for a few days at a time so that they can get more uses out of each piece of clothing. Patagonia also has many repair centers that they encourage people to send their clothes to so that they can be repaired and reworn rather than thrown away.

It will take great reform in order to change this problem. First, these businesses are so successful because of the ideology that people want cheap clothes. I don’t personally see this being changed any time soon, as people are always on a budget and looking for the easiest way to be a part of a trend. Additionally, businesses work on this business model, and because it works for them to get business, I don’t see them changing it any time soon. It would take great understanding of this issue from people in order to change the concept of fast fashion, and honestly, because of the stubbornness that people often exhibit I unfortunately don’t see this changing.

The truth behind a store that may seem like chaos

The idea of a messy store is quite familiar to me. My first and only job (besides babysitting if that even counts) was working at Home Goods. In case you are unfamiliar, Home Goods is a part of the TJX company which includes stores like TJ Maxx, Marshalls, HomeSense, and a few others which are not as mainstream. The aim of the company is to sell high-end, often designer products at a reduced price.

Part of my job was to recover the store. This occurred at the end of the day (usually around 4 or 5 pm). Basically, each employee would get assigned a section of the store and we were responsible for going through each aisle and organizing it. This includes finding anything that was put in the wrong place and returning it. You would not believe how lazy some people are. The store itself is not that big, yet people refuse to walk back and put an item where it belongs so they just leave it in the wrong section. I would find soaps in the pillow section, pans shoved between sets of sheets, and even empty Starbucks cups in with the stationary. This truly is a testament to how lazy some shoppers are. It really is not that difficult to put a pillow back in its place, yet some people believe it is acceptable to leave it on the ground.

Managers and employees would receive many complaints about how messy the store was, often from Rae Dunn loving Karens. It was very difficult for us to constantly keep the store clean. On any given day we would have hundreds of customers shopping in the store, moving items around and not putting them back. This especially was a problem on weekends. We were often understaffed, and most of our employees were either ringing people up or putting new merchandise on the floor, so there was no one to recover the store at all times. Obviously, it was not going to be super clean when hundreds of people were moving things around from opening at 9 am until anyone was around to recover the section later on in the evening.

Most of us who did work on recovering the floor were people like me, high schoolers just looking for some extra money to pay for food, clothes, and school. Obviously, we do not owe our lives to the company, and many of these part time employees were not that committed to really making the store nice and clean for shoppers. This laziness can be reflected in the work of recovering. Because the store was often understaffed, no one would be fired for not doing sufficient work, and without this reinforcement, many employees believed that they could do the least amount of work in order to get by and still get paid. In reality, how can you really force 16 year olds to go above and beyond if they know they will get paid the same for doing a lesser amount of work?

The biggest money maker for TJX as a whole is their credit card. This was drilled into our heads as employees. We needed to ask every single customer if they were interested. Managers really pushed for this because if someone signed up for a credit card while they were on duty they would be rewarded with a bonus.

Psychologists like BF Skinner have explained how rewards and punishments can motivate people to accomplish things. This can be seen in environments such as the one here in the Home Goods and TJX stores overall. The company makes more of a profit if more people have their credit card (they don’t need to pay a fee to other card companies). Therefore, they reward their managers when they get cards, and their employees when they get a customer to sign up (we would get either a pin to put on our aprons or a candy bar!). This was really the key part of business; if it was the store’s appearance, there would be more rewards for doing good work on this end.

Because there was no real reward or punishment for doing great work in recovering, employees were not always motivated to do a great job. That mixed with lazy customers who do not care to put things where they belong or who are willing to mess up sections of the store and not clean up after themselves leads to the messiness of the store.

A good business strategy includes a variety of rewards and punishments for people at all levels of the food chain. Corporate workers deserve to be rewarded and punished, as do managers, and even part time workers. By using rewards and punishments, worker productivity and efficiency can increase in all business models.

Oniomania’s dangers

Back when I inquired of a few friends (all college freshman) what they are passionate about so that I could get some inspiration for this blog, many alluded to the concept of shopping. While I agreed that I enjoy shopping, I also noted the guilt that I often feel after making a purchase.

As it turns out, compulsive shopping, also known as oniomania, is quite popular in women of the college age. According to Dr. Hindie Klein in this Psychology Today article, about 90% of those with oniomania are females, and the condition typically begins in the late teens or early teens. Evidently, this is a condition which primarily affects college aged-females, which epitomizes its relevancy and interest in my current life.

While to many this may seem to be just a silly problem that teenage girls like to quip about, it is in fact a psychological disorder that should be classified and treated in the same way of which we classify more serious conditions. Dr. Klein illuminates how making purchases awards the shopper a sense of euphoria, similar to the high that a drug user may feel after a hit. When someone with oniomania purchases something, endorphins are released and they undergo an adrenaline rush. This feeling is addictive, revealing why these shoppers are constantly drawn back to the store to make another purchase.

The article also touches on how people often shop to rid themselves of the burdens of life. These include but are not limited to anger, loneliness, depression, anxiety, and self-esteem issues. Being able to shop may make someone feel better about themselves, and while it may seem foolish, even a new outfit can make someone perceive themself as “prettier”, more confident, and more willing to complete their day to day tasks.

While the high of shopping can definitely foster coping with underlying problems, it does not abolish these problems all together, which is why this establishes an addiction. People strive to feel that “high” again, causing them to go back and repurchase. A lot of the time people don’t even utilize the item — they might not take it out of the packaging or may just return it. This goes to show why people often describe it as retail therapy. But no matter how much they buy, the realities of life will always be in the background.

In addition, a shopping addiction can produce additional problems for those suffering. The obvious one would be financial issues — perhaps a shopper overestimates how much they have to spend on their own personal shopping. This then may be eating into their budget for things that are essential such as food, mortgage, utilities, and more. If an individual shares  financial responsibilities with a spouse or a family member, these relationships may begin to take a toll as the financial environment may alter with a shopping addiction.

Now this isn’t me saying that you should never shop. It’s definitely fun to go shopping, and there are times when it is essential (I need a shirt for white out, obviously). But when it transforms into a coping mechanism, this becomes a dangerous way of life. It is not appropriate to try to take the weight of life out in shopping. There are many more effective ways to improve your mental health such as exercise, talking to friends, therapy, fresh air, support groups, and more. When this becomes the solution to problems is when it should be reconsidered.

 

Image credits

 

Shopping and social media … a quintessential college freshman’s starter pack

Honestly, I’ve never had so much trouble thinking of something to write about as I did staring at this assignment. It took me asking around to friends to think of a topic that I was really interested in, and asking fellow college freshman girls I got some generic answers: shopping, Penn State football, Instagram, and coffee. While these all may seem like generic, material things that one would be shallow to be interested in, I really do believe that there’s a reason people are passionate about such topics.

Social media is such a staple in our culture. We have all heard how damaging it can be to self-confidence and other issues, but we also know that, like anything, it can have benefits. I would be interested in exploring some more psychological facts behind social media because it is such a big part of my life.

For many people, stereotypically teenage girls, shopping can be seen as a lifestyle. Many people share about their shopping addictions, and how they cope with issues in their life through the idea of “shopping therapy”. This is a characteristic that I do not share. While I see peers talking about their love for clothes and constant need for them, I have a strong feeling of guilt when I purchase something I know I already have plenty of. Sure, I love the feeling of new clothes (who doesn’t???), but the guilt of spending money always haunts me. I want to explore this idea further — what are the consequences of a shopping “addiction”? How is fast fashion damaging? Why is shopping so glorified and loved? All of these questions will be key areas that I would be interested in exploring.