Am I over HELLO KITTY yet?

Given that I have been in the cave as far as blog world news goes I'm not so sure if the upcoming Hello Kitty collection is new to anyone anymore (no, huh?). I found myself clicking on a link to a so-called "private viewing" of the Hello Kitty make up stuff that would officially launch next January (at which point they will sell out in two days because they started selling them before Christmas...?).

Now at first I thought oooo...SHINY! and other than that studded (beaded?) pink and white face everything looks classy and adult-like (no?). Then I clicked on the link and found myself staring at overpriced toys.

You know how women like to mock men by calling one manchild or just plain immature? Well, their obsession with cars and "cool" things (like comic book heroes and cowboy themes) is kind of like our obsession with "cute" things. Why else would Hello Kitty have a make-up collection? Or Barbie one with MAC? Or why does the Disney store have an adult section? Why would you want to match with your daughter? O.o;;

I'll admit that beside my monitor I have a 2007 Classic Pooh plush (limited edition) from the Disney store that I snagged as soon as I saw it, and that I carry a black classic pooh purse to work, and that yes, my classic pooh is wearing a santa hat at the moment x3 ...And yes, I <3 Betsey Johnson designs, because they all have this princess-y, childlike feel to them, but you know what else?

I don't buy them. I adore them. I wanted this shiny red Hello Kitty purse for the longest time (and you could get a matching red wallet too!) and then I said no to myself and told everyone I don't want it (just in case). Why? Because I feel old. And while it might be cute to have a secret stash of adorable things in your purse (your wallet, your lipstick, your make up bag, your keychain, your iphone cover....)--is that the kind of image you want to portray to the world? 

What I mean is, even if you really are a cute and fluffy person on the inside, when your at home, with your family or your best friends, your loved ones, etc., is that the only you that exists?

I think not. I think most of us have layers to our personalities (are we not complex creatures?) that take on different faces, different looks, and as a result make us feel differently and react differently. Think about it: if you are supposed to be in "work mode" and you dress like you're going to the mall, how does that affect how you feel? Would you not feel more confident at work if you were wearing a pant suit or whatever your uniform normally is? If you are on campus (where everyone's dressed casual, here would be in jeans and flip flops), do you want to wear high heels and $1000 dresses?

...I think that adorning ourselves with cute accessories, cute make up, cute products that make us feel innocent and sweet in our minds, perhaps make us smile when we take out our wallets to make a payment (how rare!), may seem like a good idea in the short-term, but in the long-term it may harm our image as a woman to be taken seriously by the outside world.

Given that, how seriously do you take your "image"?

The Mindset of Luxury - Is luxury different for different people?

There have been many efforts to make luxury more accessible to the general public.  Brands that the wealthy do not even consider when thinking of "fashion" or "style" often label themselves as luxury brands.  I don't know about you, but I don't consider mid-market labels luxury brands.  The definition of a luxury good is something excessively expensive, that has a cheaper counterpart, is coveted for pleasure, that is of higher quality, and which is hard to obtain.  Thus while I think that brands like Coach and Kate Spade (Forbes reference) are overpriced, and most likely meet all other requirements, they are not hard to obtain. 

But this leads to the question of, is anything that can be purchased with money hard to obtain? Perhaps Hermes and limited time goods are the epitome of true luxury, for can you not buy an LV bag as long as you have the funds for it? You don't even need the funds in today's society, not when you have a credit card.  I heard there was a woman who conned people into giving her tens of thousands of dollars for a business venture, but ended up spending it all on luxury goods (i.e. clothes, jewelry, bags, shoes).  So if you're whole paycheck is a Coach purse then yes, it's a luxury good for you, but what if your whole paycheck were more like a YSL purse? Does Coach cease to be a luxury good for you?

I think yes, I think the definition of luxury is relative to your financial situation.  The problem with today's society is that most of us don't realize this.  Why do I own Louis Vuitton when I don't have the trust fund nor the paycheck to buy another one tomorrow?  Why do I own a Gucci bag when I cannot afford to buy another one at a drop of a dime? Why do I even desire luxury that's not in my range?

...What levels of luxury are there?

This is a difficult topic because it touches on one's personal finances, the core of where you come from and where you are right now.  Do you earn an LV bag every month now? Do you think it's too much of a luxury and settle for Coach?  Or are you earning a Coach and settling for Guess? Are you ever going to get a Hermes salary?

Luxury goods have been studied to be related to how we want to raise our status in society. I do believe in this, as I do think people judge you by the quality of what you wear, the cut, and how it suits you. I don't think they judge you by the pattern on your bag, nor do they care that you spent hundreds of dollars on a pair of Coach sneakers. I believe there's a fundamental difference between spending money on high quality goods as a way of selling yourself, whether to find a mate, to impress at work, or to gain better social standing, than buy an LV purse to match with your Abercrombie and Fitch shorts & tank top. 

I know many of you bloggers disagree with me--I've read plenty of posts on how buying a luxury product will make you feel good because everyone wants what you have and as a result you feel like a million bucks.  But do you know how I see it? Everyone is not looking at you, they're looking at your luxury purse. You're like the runway model wearing designer clothes; few people even see you unless you happen to be more gorgeous than the piece you're flaunting.

You know what I'd rather you spend your money on? Making YOU look GOOD. Who cares if your purse is not great as long as what you wear makes YOU look like a million bucks. What do you think now?

Are women more attractive than men?

Women today are expected to be beautiful.  Women should be beautiful. Women ought to strive for beauty.  Isn't that why you start preparing yourself an hour before leaving the house? Why you spend so much money on beauty products, fashion, and "pretty things"?
But how many men notice the effort? How many men flock over to you and compliment your eyeshadow choice, your manicure, or the way you coordinated your entire outfit, makeup, hair and jewelry (which really took a lot of deep thought on your part)? Instead, how many men puff up their chests and do silly things with the message I'm attracted all knotted up with other messages...? Have you ever seen a man swoon?

But women. Notice how women flock to men? How when a handsome or well dressed man is the attention of a large percentage of women? Most men don't need any embellishment, they just take off their shirt and suddenly they're the star.  They could be sweaty from a workout, construction workers in their dirty uniform, or literally smelly like a bum--and still women will notice! And while women are by nature supposed to hold more fat than men, men are able to build muscle more easily (hence the widespread six pack). How is that fair?

Well. It would be more fair if humans would admit to nature's sexual dimorphism trend, which basically refers to the differences between male and females in a given species.  Specifically, I am interested in why it is that while every child knows that Simba in Lion King is prettier than Nala because he has all that fur around him, most children grow up believing that they have to dress up like princesses in order to find their prince.

And even if you weren't concerned about finding your prince, everyone still wants a girl to be cute, pretty, beautiful, like a princess. Why are girls conditioned into believing they must be attractive when in nature it is the opposite?

The peacock is a prime example, as the male flaunts itself constantly while following the (very plain looking) female around. The bigger, prettier, more colorful, the better. Ducks are similar:

The general theory behind the flashiness of males and the plainness of females is that females, when pregnant and tending to young ones, need to blend in so as to not attract the attention of predators. In that sense, males are like a distraction to avert danger.  And some women claim that this instinct is why they "let go" once they get married and have children (but that's another topic).

My opinion is that women have been objectified into delicate flowers (many women are named after flowers in different languages i.e. "Rose") than men try to pick like bees in spring time.  Men emphasize ambition, wealth, and ability when wooing, but have forgotten that it is their outward beauty that attracts women first. Even in nature, females are shallow. XD;;

I have a girl crush~~

There is this girl on campus whom I really admire envy like. She always looks very stylish in this European aristocratic (equestrian) way (my preference) with her different sized LV bags, her tall riding boots, and generally expensive looking clothes.  She is everything I've wanted to be since I was a child; blonde (looks dyed though), blue eyed, tanned (though sometimes she looks slightly orange), tall, and slim. She has a model's physique and the face of a Swede. I don't know why this is ideal for me (maybe it was growing up in Finland?) but this is what catches my eye on campus and I've seen her many times throughout the quarter.

And it's not like we don't have other stylish students on campus. We have 25K students here and I see a lot of pretty girls who look really cool or put together or even cute, but in my three years on campus she's the only one who I focus on in a way that the rest of the world goes gray.  She is not what I would call beautiful, but she looks stunning behind her oversized Dior sunglasses, the cool air around her, and how she exudes superiority with every inch of her.

I think that it's crushes like these that help us understand what our personal definition of beauty is, what do you think?

P.S.
Oh, and do take this seduction test, it was amusing (but 40 questions didn't kill much time for me).


   
       
   

The Shopaholic's Arch Enemy is Advertising?

Did I mention that I no longer subscribe to fashion magazines? At various times I have received Demi, Cosmopolitan, Elle, Harper's Bazaar...and every now and then I sign up for free issues, which they, of course, remember in their system and continue to send me regularly.  Yobo asked me the other day as he browsed through another free issue of Harper's Bazaar whether I feel bad when I browse it.  Why?, you may ask as I did, and he answered: because you'll want everything in it.

It's true. I do. I don't even use Polyvore much because everything I like is in the triple to quadruple digits price range. I stopped subscribing to Harper's Bazaar because I felt it was too much like Vogue, where everything is luxuriously expensive (for me). Then I realized I should just stop browsing in general, and I even stepped away from all those blogs promoting the latest products (even though I do this sometimes...),  with reviews of the latest products, or just telling you what to buy this season.  I unsubscribed to most of them, and now I read blogs with real content, or the occasional review, because personally I find reading/writing reviews a little bit boring (unless of course I'm interested in finding out about the product, or it's something new and exciting, which would be why I subscribe to the blogs I do read). For example, I've had a Makeupalley account for at least a year now but I've written maybe two one reviews...? I don't even use it to check on products often...I guess I just prefer seeing for myself in the store or wasting money on it. >P

I've also unsubscribed for all those irresistible offers I keep getting by email, whether Neiman Marcus (outlet) or Gilt. Of course some of them slipped through the cracks and I still get them (and then there's that email that I haven't checked in a month or so), but I have learned to delete them without opening them too often. But yes, I still receive Sephora offers, Victoria's Secret offers (because of the credit card), and Vichy offers. Other than that, all gone. Amazing considering I'm a member for several sites similar to Gilt, but honestly it was a waste of time to browse them. I'm not patient enough to stalk for the sale to "begin", just as I'm not motivated enough to get up early and line up so I can catfight for a cheap deal.

Overall, I guess what I'm trying to point out is that if you're spending is out of control, then take control of it! Perhaps you cannot stop watching TV and avoiding TV ads (as I do by watching online), perhaps you do like browsing sales (I do too!), perhaps you enjoy knowing when your offers are, or going to the store and browsing slowly...But if you think you are a shopaholic then starting limiting your intake of advertisements somewhere. We can't help that they're all over the streets (unless we're hermits) but I think we should have control over our lives in terms of exposure.

So that was my two cents of the day. Got something to share?

[P.S. I'm going to end my giveaways soon, so if you haven't participated already, or you know a lot of people--help me get enough to entries! Thankee~]

You are shaped by your environment---by choice?!

I was talking with my old roommate recently (who lives in another state) and she told me she got a new job, but that there is a dress code and thus she had to spend hundreds of dollars on a new work-appropriate wardrobe. My coworker, who has a second job said a similar thing when she first got it, saying that you can't just dress casually (as we do in the office), but that if you want to look professional and mature (as we do in our age, apparently) we have to dress the role.  If anything, we all know that first impression is everything, and even if we would rather not, we judge people by how they look.

It's a topic I've had in the back of my mind for a while now, but I do wonder: how does your job/environment affect how you dress?  I posted an outfit post from last Friday wherein I wore a black cardigan--well the truth is I wanted to wear a black blazer, but I changed my mind last minute because I don't want to out-dress my boss.  The last thing I want to do is dress more professional than my boss (the client's would wonder), and in fact one of the first career advice given is copy your environment, follow your boss, because being copied is usually flattering.  Strangely, I have always felt the opposite.

I feel that copying in fashion is like copying in art, you do it for practice, you do it so that you can implement them to your own style and transform whatever it is you copied to look like "you". Blatant copying of an outfit, a style, etc. such as in buying the exact same piece from the exact same chain (store/brand) is just wrong (in my opinion).  It's one thing to buy the same piece and style it differently, it's another to buy the same piece because you like the way it was styled and want to copy it. Of course, this is just my narrow-minded opinion, and in the end I do think that doing it while searching for your own style is fine (as long as effort to find that style is recognizable).

....Back on topic, I of course don't copy my boss' style, but it's important to recognize that she only wears suits when she goes to court, and normally she wears trends and boots and blouses and jewelry.  So I don't get to wear my blazers in the office, I rarely wear heels (I'm already taller than her so what's the point?), and I don't even wear make up most of the time and I don't feel bad because it doesn't seem like she does either.  In another words, I feel like I can be lazy to a certain extent. As long as I avoid t-shirts and jeans she does not seem dissatisfied with my dressing.

On the other hand, I feel that because of where I work, I would not wear a beach/summer outfit to work (i.e. shorts, a tank top, a mini skirt without leggings), because if I were a client I would wonder about a place where the employee dresses like she's going straight to the beach afterward.  I feel the need to dress a certain way, but there is a glass ceiling that I just described, but actually only recently have become conscious of, and yet there is also a minimum requirement that has never been explicitly stated in the office.  So what am I supposed to wear?

On another note, I noticed that while the receptionist indulged in the secretary look all winter she has begun to wear floral skirts and no stockings as of late, and I wonder if she tired of her wardrobe or if she was given an "ok" to dress unprofessionally (the other receptionist, male by the way, was fired for not looking professional).

While looking for pictures to insert into this post, I found AcademiChic run by three women with PHDs "on a crusade against the ill-fitting polyester suit of academic yore". How very interesting!

How are you shaped by your environment? I mentioned in previous posts that since moving to California (from Finland) I have worn less collar shirts/vests/dress pants/heels & more jeans/skirts/tanks/sandals. Yet I know many people who come from Europe and refuse to wear flip flops, or distressed jeans, and essentially refuse to assimilate into their environment.  Sometimes this can cost you your job, sometimes it means you are regarded as omega, so refusing to blend in with your peers comes with a cost.