How Savemart changed my life

Clothes shopping used to be something I was crap at.  Looking, fine, but actually trying stuff on and making a decision?  Not so good.  The stakes just seemed so high, given that I usually didn't have much spare money and I'm very aware that I'm not necessarily a good judge of what suits me; when I look in the mirror, like so many other people, what I see is perforated with body-image baggage, some mine, some my mother's, a fair bit from Barbie, most from the media images I see All. The. Time.  

Not to mention my insidious fear of shop assistants in clothing shops.  Why do they always look so put together, and intriguingly edgy, and effortless, when I had to really think about what to wear and then ended up going for the safe option every time? I completely understand why Tina Fey so often wears a lovely dress in the same shade of blue to awards shows.

The first time I walked into the Onehunga Savemart I was intimidated.  So many clothes!  Then I noticed that the people who worked there were all in red t-shirts and jeans, the changing rooms were pretty beaten up, and the floor was uneven.  There were trolleys to put your finds in, masses of clothes of a million different types (really), books, more jeans than you would get at a Jeans West. My kind of place!  No one was going to judge me for what I picked off the rack or tried on, no one was going to try to sell me something, it was oddly peaceful and restful, because there is so little interaction between any of the people there.  Which is probably a bit sad for some people, but for me was rather nice.  

I think the first time I didn't even try anything on.  I suspect I bought a handbag - I've gone from having two "grown-up" handbags, both given to me by my mother, to rather a lot more, all from Savemart and all cheap as chips.  I vowed to return, with more time (I can never go for less than 2 hours) and an open mind.  

My fledgling op shopping confidence from my student days has returned, now with more faith in my body that has produced two children and I've come to feel more comfortable in.  Sure, there's heaps of dross, but also some amazing gems.  The best thing I've ever seen was a Vera Wang wedding dress for $60.  I didn't buy it, not being in need of a wedding dress, and I guess it might have been a fake, but it was in great condition.  My best buys to date have been wool jackets - I have little shoulders and seem to benefit from the cast offs of others who discover their new jacket is too tight.  

To start with I was still very harsh on myself, rejecting almost everything I tried on.  But the prices were so low (I often look at the "designer" stuff which can sometimes be as much as $60, but most of the rest is $10 or less) that the risk for me in grabbing something and finding out later I didn't have the confidence to wear it was almost eliminated.  I tried on stuff for fun, stuff I couldn't imagine ever having an occasion to wear, but what the hell, I probably wouldn't buy it, and there was always the chance it could be great.  My trolley got fuller, I worked out a system for myself of how to most efficiently try on masses of clothes while respecting the three items in the changing room limit, and I bought more handbags.

I started to take an interest in putting an outfit together (with a handbag of course), rather than only feeling comfortable in an ensemble put together by a shop assistant for me.  I clashed colours, ignored rules ("blue and green shouldn't be seen", whatevs), and started to value my body for what it does for me, not how it looks.  Clothes have become an expression of my personality, rather than a way to hide.  If something doesn't end up looking right after I get it home or wear it a few times, whether it be the fit or the colour or the style, then it goes back in the donation bin, having cost me often less than a hot chocolate.  If I find a better red shirt or green handbag then the lesser one gets handed on too.  

I have found my attitude has changed from "my body's wrong for this" to "that 's too big/tight/bright/dreary"; the blame shifted from me, my body, to the clothing instead.  This may seem like a very simple thing to many, but for me it was a revelation; it's the clothes that don't fit, not my body.

And that's how Savemart has changed my life.  

Once a month or so I try to shoe horn in a few hours to visit the Savemart in Onehunga, New Lynn or Northcote (I hope to venture to Manukau sometime soon) for a fix.  Sometimes I buy nothing (maybe a handbag) but usually I come home with something I'm excited to wear.  It's a long way from my teens when I wore black constantly not because I was a goth (that would require learning how to do make-up and potentially standing out) but because I wanted someone to ask me if I wore black all the time because of Dinky Bossetti (no one ever did).  

And I also own more handbags than I ever thought I could.  

out of uniform

a school that forces kids to wear roman sandals is a school that hates children. seriously? these are the ugliest and most uncomfortable footwear ever designed. what torturer designed them i don't know or care, but i don't see why our kids should be lumped with. for goodness sake, i had to wear these monstrosities when i went to school. have there been no acceptable innovations in footwear design in 30 years that would be acceptable to persons in charge of deciding on school uniform?

i've never been a supporter of uniforms. hated them when i had to wear them, hate that my own kids have to wear them. i hate the loss of individuality, the conformity of it all. to me, it teaches kids that they have to lose anything which makes them different, individual and their own person. they lose their personal identity to the identity of the institution forcing the uniform on them.

i understand the arguments for them, especially for school age children, around the peer pressure to dress in fashionable and expensive clothes. uniforms are apparently the cheaper option. but given that kids need clothes for after school and socialising anyway, i don't know that there is that much saving. maybe uniforms are the better option for some people, but no, i still hate them.

our uniforms were so uncomfortable. disgusting drab brown tunics. and for PE, we had to wear rompers. rompers are truly worse than roman sandals, if that's at all possible. thank goodness sports uniforms have evolved to something more decent. i think the only way to ensure our kids have decent uniforms (if they must have uniforms at all) is to force all the adults in the institution to wear it as well. let's watch the principals and teachers being forced to push their feet into roman sandals, and i bet that rule would be gone in a day.

to add insult to injury, our teachers are being forced to spend their time policing these uniforms, when they really should be spending that energy on teaching our kids. ok, with the basic uniform, i can accept that they have to enforce it otherwise there would be no point. but to police the roman sandals, and to punish kids if they aren't wearing them? that is just a total waste of time. it's certainly not how i want my tax dollars being spent.

Be the cupcake

From Amazon.

Slutwalk: Walk of Shame or McFeminism?

i'm going to reproduce this piece by kamayani sharma, which a facebook friend directed me to. i think it raises an interesting perspective on slutwalk in the indian context, and how well that protest translates from toronto to delhi. the comments on the facebook page are worth reading as well.

i don't agree with everything in the piece (the title of the piece particularly annoys me, though i've reproduced it), but the class issues are particularly relevant. and i 'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that the only way for women's protest to get mass media attention these days is if there is sexualisation involved in some way. would the slutwalk have received so much attention if, as ms sharma points out, women were to wear the actual clothes they were wearing when raped or assaulted? i know that was one of the points underlying slutwalk - that it doesn't actually matter what you wear, because your choice of clothing isn't going to make you safe or put you in danger. what i mean is that the attention these events received was because of the sexualisation, and that same message packaged in a way that didn't have overt sexualisation would probably have been ignored. and it bothers me that the best way for women to get attention is still through sexualisation. but maybe that's just me.

anyway, enough from me. here is ms sharma:

The common Indian slut is a girl who has had the audacity to have had consensual sex and the naiveté to expect nobody to judge her for it. Her natural habitat is some tree-decorated borough in a metropolis, her upbringing privileged and her lifestyle equipped with all the trappings of bourgeois affluence – a good education and considerable freedom and support to do what she wants. The common Indian slut, therefore, is not so common. She is part of a teeny tiny minority of women in this country who can hardly be regarded as representative of the Indian woman and her ordeals. Yet, Slutwalk or Besharmi Morcha is exactly that – an attempt to gloss over the range and depth of oppression that Indian women have to put up with in order to lionize a sudden upper middle-class urge to do something...anything.

It took mass action in Toronto earlier this year to galvanize Delhi’s public into convening and protesting, clearly indicating that the march is really being led by people who are heavily influenced by the “Western” media. Now, I am not suggesting that just because this rally was organised by a certain class or set, it is to be dismissed. It’s because this rally constitutes only that certain class and set, that its political and intellectual commitments appear wobbly. It is not reverse-classism to denounce SlutWalk as the act of well-meaning but ultimately ill-read girls for whom public life is a series of strolls from a metro station to a waiting car, usually in a gaggle. The Facebook group for the event had women saying things such as, “I believe the greatest freedom is the freedom to wear what I want.” The problem with a statement like this is that smacks of a sociocultural advantage that very few women in India can even dream of, much less demand. The freedom to wear what you want is all very well but what about the freedom to even be on the streets wearing what you want?

In an article I recently read, Annie Zaidi touched upon something that I remember saying to a friend when I first read about the SlutWalk. The word ‘slut’ itself is such an endemic term; who uses it and who gets called it? Certainly not sex workers and punters; or blue collar migrant labourers from rural regions stuck in a time warp where women must still behave according to medieval gender roles or risk abuse worse than being called names; or the lower middle class city dwellers who propel their ascent by keeping orthodoxy towards their females well-oiled, if somewhat disguised by a patina of status production activities like ‘education’. So who? It’s rich kids who can be openly promiscuous without any real repercussions that do the slutting and the slut-shaming. Of course, that doesn’t make the term less problematic in this context either since it still targets only the girls and has troubling implications for the potential to construct healthy sex-positive self-images among young ladies. BUT. That is not the point. The point is that the term ‘slut’ has such a supremely restricted role that it cannot be appropriated as a tagline for any truly feminist argument against the status quo. We cannot ‘take back’ a term that was never ours to begin with but is a verbal graft that runs out of meaning beyond the confines of the microscopic group of Indians who would use it.

Women in India are not harassed for being ‘sluts’, they are harassed for being ‘women’. Period.

Their sexual history is irrelevant, their clothes don’t matter. The fact that they dare be in a place that only men should be in – that’s the problem. Sexual crimes are always about power, about who is in charge. Indian men feel increasingly emasculated and threatened when they see women in areas previously dominated by them and in their struggle to re-establish authority, they resort to the violence of sexual assault, whether it’s verbal or physical. In the minds of most Indian men, there is no such thing as ‘slut = sexually free woman’. There is such a thing as ‘free woman = target for sexual assault’.

The fight to be out on the streets is really what this protest should be about. Out on the streets whenever we want, wherever we want and yes, wearing whatever the hell we like. This is a tussle for public space – the Indian male’s sense of entitlement and the Indian female’s sense of deprivation – against the interplay of slowly weakening traditions and reactionary backlashes occurring in the conflicts between the urban and the rural, the poor and the rich, the heterosexual and the homosexual, the man and the woman. This is about the patriarchal codes that control our commons and civic spaces. This is a battle for the right to walk unmolested through any strip of land within the Indian border. This is about equality. This is about all women, from prostitutes to rag pickers to factory workers to university students, having the liberty to go about their business when and how they see fit. How is that possible when this spectrum of concerns has been reduced to pseudo-political pageantry meant to appease “good girls from good families”?

SlutWalk is an annoying, antifeminist paradox. It is recreational hacktivism of the kind which topples over the very ideas that it is meant to uphold, by tearing down feminism (from Toronto to Delhi) and pandering to ignorant notions of patriarchy-friendly (!) ‘gender equity’. It packages serious issues that Indian feminism has been dealing with for years into a designer occasion that plays right into all the conventions and clichés that femininity worldwide is expected to conform to, challenging nothing and confirming chauvinist male attitudes by reassuring them that all the ‘sluts’ *giggle* really want is the licence to wear really tiny skirts and won’t they allow that pwetty please?

Something far more sensible and sensitive is Take Back The Night, wherein people stay out all night at a candlelight vigil to talk about their experiences and come up with safety solutions, or to a lesser degree Blank Noise’s ‘I Never Asked For It’ campaign which had women from all over the country send in the clothes they were wearing at the time of assault (unsurprisingly, full sleeved salwar-kameezes made the cut thus proving the concern about ‘wearing what I want’ redundant) and arranged a clothes drive on one of Bangalore’s busiest roads. Both these campaigns are inclusive and interactive; they enable members of communities, castes and classes across a very wide scope of locations to participate in constructive and meaningful dialogue and improve their society’s understanding of feminism and gender violence outside the home.

What does SlutWalk do? Provide weekend entertainment for some advantaged young women like politics in a Happy Meal?

Syria bans face veils in unversities

This recent post prompted a discussion about a proposed law change which would affect those who wear the niqab and burqa in France:

The draft bill says that “no one can, in the public space, wear clothing intended to hide the face.” The bill also defines “public space” broadly, including streets, markets and private businesses, as well as government buildings and public transportation. A fine of $190 will be imposed on those wearing the full facial veil, and anyone who forces a woman to wear such a veil will be punished by a fine of as much as $38,000 and a year in jail, doubled if the victim is a minor. (from here)

As some of the discussion around that post argued that this was racist move I was interested to read that Syria (a secular state with a muslim majority) has this week announced a ban on women wearing full face veils in universities. From a feminist perspective, does this change the debate?

The ban shows a rare point of agreement between Syria's secular, authoritarian government and the democracies of Europe: Both view the niqab as a potentially destabilizing threat. "We have given directives to all universities to ban niqab-wearing women from registering," a government official in Damascus told The Associated Press on Monday.

The order affects both public and private universities and aims to protect Syria's secular identity, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue. Hundreds of primary school teachers who were wearing the niqab at government-run schools were transferred last month to administrative jobs, he added.

The ban, issued Sunday by the Education Ministry, does not affect the hijab, or headscarf, which is far more common in Syria than the niqab's billowing black robes.

Syria is the latest in a string of nations from Europe to the Middle East to weigh in on the veil, perhaps the most visible symbol of conservative Islam. Veils have spread in other secular-leaning Arab countries, such as Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, with Jordan's government trying to discourage them by playing up reports of robbers who wear veils as masks. Turkey bans Msulim headscarves in universities, with many saying attempts to allow them in schools amount to an attack on modern Turkey's secular laws.

See here for the full article, which also takes a [patronising] class angle on the issue in Syria:

But in the Middle East — particularly Syria and Egypt, where there have been efforts to ban the niqab in the dorms of public universities — experts say the issue underscores the gulf between the secular elite and largely impoverished lower classes who find solace in religion. Some observers say the bans also stem in part from fear of dissent.

one step forward, two steps back

from a country where the state dictates how women can dress, we have progress of sorts in terms of women's access to education:

...King Abdullah yesterday laid the foundation for the Kingdom’s first women-only university, which is to be built at a cost of SR15 billion on the eastern suburbs of Riyadh.

The Princess Noura bint Abdulrahman University, with a capacity to enroll some 40,000 students, will offer courses in subjects that women find difficulty studying at universities where strict gender segregation is enforced....

[Minister of Higher Education Khaled Al-Anqari said] “This is a milestone in the Kingdom’s history, particularly in the history of women’s education. The campus would include an administration building, a central library, conference centers, buildings for 15 academic faculties, several laboratories and a 700-bed hospital equipped with state-of-the-art facilities.

“Some areas in the campus would be allocated for research in nanotechnology, bio-sciences and information technology in collaboration with the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology,” he said.

Princess Al-Jowhara bint Fahd, the university’s president, said the institution is designed to become the world’s largest center of higher learning for women. “It would double the admission capacity of women students,” she said in a statement. “The university would have 13 colleges, including those for medicine, dentistry, nursing, naturopathy, information technology, languages, instant translation and pharmacy.”

baby steps, and no doubt this is a puff piece, but access to education is the first step towards empowerment. access to employment is the next step, and it looks like the saudi government is encouraging businesses to do that, from the article quoted. but whether or not this is more than just words remains to be seen.

and now we have another two countries who want to join the ranks of those where the state dictates how women can dress. first up is belgium:

THE collapse of the Belgian coalition government has prevented the country's parliament from voting in Europe's first ban on wearing the Islamic burqa in public.

Prime Minister Yves Leterme offered to quit after the coalition broke down, throwing the country's political institutions into turmoil....

The controversial decision could be put on the agenda for the next parliamentary session in a week's time "unless the government falls and the house of representatives is dissolved," a parliamentary spokeswoman told AFP.

this would no doubt be viewed as a case of divine intervention by the sorts of sheikhs that predict earthquakes. i certainly don't wish any ill on the belgians, but here's hoping that the vote gets put off for more than a week.

and then there is the french version, which is quite a lot more of an overt & populist political move by a president suffering from very low popularity ratings, a president who has a history of this kind of thing:

A SAVIOUR of women, or rank Islamophobe and racist? By pushing for a total ban on the burka, or full Islamic veil, in all public places, French President Nicolas Sarkozy is provoking outrage in the political establishment while winning the backing of the electorate and the far-right....

Mr Sarkozy has galvanised the Right and split the Left over the burka, with solid support from voters. Anti-racism groups are pitted against secular Muslim feminist movements, while the Socialist Party is in disarray.

Prime Minister Francois Fillon has been charged with trying to hurry the law through the National Assembly, where Socialists and Communists are at odds over whether to ban the burka at all, partially or everywhere.

the funniest quote from that article would have to be this one:

"When we go to (another) country, we vigorously respects its laws . . . therefore everyone must respect the law in France. It's like that."

o rly? is that what you did? cos, you know, some people don't remember it like that. and in case you think belgium is any better in this regard, think again. it doesn't seem to me that rwanda and the republic of congo have benefitted from that particular colonisation.

but despite all of that history, and despite the fact that many muslims are in france as a direct result of colonisation, it seems the natives from the colonies are still not deserving of respect. the attack is (again) on women. because they are the softer target? less likely to riot in the streets? more likely to submit to oppression? who knows.

what i know is that if these bans go ahead, it is highly likely that these women will become even more secluded than they are now. if the women are covering themselves from their own choice, then the state is saying that they shouldn't have that choice, thus taking away their agency for no valid reason. if they are covering because they are forced to do it, then such laws will make the situation worse as those forcing them will further restrict their movements. i mean really, isn't it basic common sense that if you want to stop abuse, you target policies towards the behaviour of the abuser?

in either case, it's a stupid move that won't liberate or empower anyone. it will, however, cause increasing tensions and divisions. sarkozy definitely knows this but doesn't care. i don't know much about belgium, but given the coalition government is on the brink of collapse, it's not a stretch to assume that this is a populist move there as well.

so while there's all the fuss around what boobquake does or doesn't say about women's empowerment, let's spare a thought for these women who don't seem to have any kind of voice at all in the political manoeuverings apparently designed to "liberate" them.


please note that moderation will be very tight on this thread.

Shaken because stirred

Several people have drawn my attention to this stunner in various media today, here's a snippet from Stuff:

A senior Iranian cleric says women who wear revealing clothing and behave promiscuously are to blame for earthquakes.

..."Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes," Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media.

Click through for whole article.

So much wrong with this where do I start? How about you help me out in comments...

pawns

and yet again, someone thinks they can tell women how they should dress:

Egypt's Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious centre of religious learning in the Sunni Muslim world, said on Thursday it will ban the face veil from female-only classrooms and residences.

"The Supreme Council of Al-Azhar has decided to ban students and teachers from wearing the niqab inside female-only classrooms, that are taught by women only," a statement said.

The ban extends to women's dormitories and to schools affiliated with the university, it said.

The face-veil, or niqab, is worn by some devout Muslim women. Local press reported that Mohammed Tantawi, head of Al-Azhar, said last week that he intended to ban the practice in the university.

The supreme council's statement added that Al-Azhar does not oppose the niqab, which it said only a minority of Muslim scholars consider an obligation, but it opposes "imprinting it on the minds of girls."

The decision came after female students who wear the niqab were banned from the women's dormitory of the state-run Cairo University.

now let me be clear, even the most staunch defenders of the niqab (face covering) will tell you that it's not required when there are only women in the room. so on the face of it, there's absolutely no harm in this ban, because there is no requirement to cover in this situation. but even so, i feel very strongly about the state (or any of its institutions) not telling women what they can wear, and in what circumstances.

and i can understand the desire by egyptian authorities to combat extremism growing in their society, of which they see the niqab being a symbol. but i can't stomach the thought that the fight against extremism has to be by control over women's bodies.

egypt is a country that has a very poor human rights record, and there is a lot of evidence that political dissent results in some extremely nasty and violent consequences. there is a history of extremism by the state to combat extremism in society. in that context, this move is much more of a worry.

al-azhar is, of course, an institution of quite some reknown. possibly the oldest ever university, it has a long and distinguished history and has produced some of the finest scholars. i'd say that it is well known to have a strong liberal bias, and certainly doesn't tend to produce scholars of the bent of, for example, the saudi conservatives.

i have to say that i'm not particularly surprised by this move. i understand that some scholars at al-azhar provided support for the french government's ban of the headscarf in public schools. and there is certainly precedent for bans like this in other countries with a muslim majority population - tunisia, turkey and the sultanate of oman come immediately to mind.

though not surprised, i'm definitely not happy with this move. it smacks too much of ends justifying means, and of women being pawns in a political game. the best way i know of combatting extremism is through social justice and poverty reduction.

A tale of two t-shirts

aka Feminism and Misogyny are not opposites that cancel each other out.

Here's a t-shirt for all the Anti-Feminazi crew out there:

Eh, we don't hate women in general. In fact we are all for the advancement of women. This shirt design was brought about with the FEMENAZI in mind. And being equal opportunity offenders, check out our MISOGYNIST T - shirt ( don't grab your dictionary there Einstein ).

What's that I hear you say? Where's the equal opportunity hating in this? Well look no further because the T-Shirt Binge brains have you covered with their dandy Mysoginist t-shirt:

I particularly liked how they spelt Misogynist* two different ways. And the whole thing with the FEMENAZI. Call me old-fashioned but I think it's a bit dangerous for people who can't spell to be making up t-shirts with words on them and stuff.


* I think I have an idea for a new cocktail - Miso soup and gin. Mmmm, yummy.

cotton on have backed off

well it turns out that "neuroses" can be very effective sometimes. remember the "cotton on" kids clothing range that put sexually inappropriate messages on t-shirts for babies? well, apparently they have decided to withdraw the range as a result of public pressure:

Last week Cotton On apologised to Australian consumers and stated that the company "recognised that certain references are not appropriate, and will sincerely endeavour to not cross these lines again."

The promise by Cotton On to stop the sale and production of the t-shirts in Australia was also accompanied by a commitment to "review the ongoing slogans range to ensure no reference is made to categories pertaining to sexually explicit behaviour, child abuse, drugs and profanity''.

the campaign against "cotton on" includes the national council of women, zonta wellington, the association of presbytarian women, the nz federation of women's institutes, the nz federation of business and professional women, the national executive of the federation of graduate women, the north shore women's centre, the working women's resource centre, the eating difficulties education network, visionnetwork, the women's studies association of nz, and i'm sure there are plenty more.

it's good to know that this campaign will be continuing another another name. from the NCW press release:

“We will be rebranding the campaign to ‘Boycott the Sexualisation of Childhood’ and will continue to shed light on this issue; an issue which is of significant concern to the Council,” concludes Elizabeth Bang.

i hate on-line polls

a judge decides that he won't allow a woman into the public gallery of a hastings courtroom, for the terrible crime of wearing a headscarf. the basis apparently being that hats are not allowed in a courtroom. i don't need to say much about that, given that the race relations commissioner has stepped in, the opposition spokesperson on ethnic affairs has a press release out (but interestingly, silence from the ministers of ethnic affairs and women's affairs ie hon pansy wong), and the judge has admitted he made a mistake:

Judicial Communications advisor Neil Billington was reported in the Dominion Post today stating the incident was the result of Judge Rea's "mistaken assumption of what was occurring in the courtroom''.

He had required the removal of Ms Ali because of her association with her brother, who had just been removed, and assumed her headgear was a demonstration of protest.

He did not have any objection to the wearing of Muslim headgear in court.

so do we need a poll on stuff about the issue? nope, not going to link to it nor tell you what the options are. but i just don't see what exactly a poll like this is supposed to achieve. do we really need to prove yet again that some people don't like muslims? and don't think muslim women should have the choice to cover their hair in particular situations? yeah, i think we know that already.

Women are small-minded, vain and jealous. There's a PhD to prove it.

WTF?, I said to myself as I read this Stuff article, Too much beauty may mean too few sales?

According to a PhD student in Australia (assuming Stuff isn't reporting her work disingenuously), women are biologically programmed to compete with one another, making ourselves ever more sexy to compete for men. I'm leaving aside the dubious 'science' of sexual selection for now, because the researcher's next claim is a humdinger: we buy less when we're served by beautiful shop assistants, because they intimidate us.

My experience of shopping is trying desperately to purchase something as quickly as possible that's suitable for work, before the parking metre runs out, while trying to prevent my fed-up children from wiping snot on the garments in the shop, while simultaneously feeling sympathy for the women behind the counter who have to put up with me and my kids for something barely above minimum wage.

I guess there's something wrong with my biological programming as a woman - nature has mistakenly equipped me with the capacity to think.

Fashion Schmashion

I actually quite like fashion - but on other people. Personally, I can't be arsed with it. I feel vague envy of the tastefully, expensively dressed women I work with from time to time; but I like those who turn up looking unexciting but comfortable. I belong in the latter camp. I also love those creative types who combine eccentric op shop clothing with great flair, and I take my hat off to those who are skilled enough to make their own clothing - that's a talent I'd love to have.

Shopping isn't much fun for me. I find shops claustrophobic (particularly when I have fractious small children with me), and they tend to remind me that I don't have much money. It was even worse when I was overweight - going to the shops just reinforced that I was poor and fat. What a barrel of laughs that was.

In the last couple of years, my late-to-arrive environmental commitment has led me to buy secondhand goods as much as I can - particularly clothing. (A limited budget makes my green principles far easier to uphold.) My kids are still a little too young to have succumbed to sartorial peer pressure, so they don't mind. And I actively enjoy it: I've spent many a happy hour browsing Trade Me or op shops. Down the road from my house is a small tailor's shop - the woman there will alter the garments I pick up for myself for a very low price. It all gives me a righteous glow of thrift, community belonging and environmental harmony.

How do other THMers interact with the world of fashion? And do you have any recession-friendly fashion tips?

Lil' consumers

Thanks to a bung neck, I've spent today at home, and I happened to see a bit of kids' TV. At 4.30, whatever programme was on announced, 'Last week we showed boys how to dress - this week, we'll show girls how to put on make up!'.

Hmmm, I thought - body image pressure has gone equal opportunity. But it got so much worse. The next scene featured a girl of about 14, being taught by a specialist how to apply cosmetics - well over $100 worth, I would guess. The whole thing functioned as an infomercial for a particular brand of cosmetics, and although the girl featured in it was a young teenager, the programme seemed to be pitched at younger girls.

Kids don't need more peer pressure. They don't need more body image stress. What they do need, obviously, is a whole lot of money. I'm not going to launch into one of those rants that start, 'In my day...' - but it seems to me that the pressure on kids to consume has become far greater in the last 20 years or so. As a 'tweenie', I didn't have that much discretion over what I wore or owned, or much money of my own. I got some say in the clothing my mum bought for me, but ultimately, this was decided by the need to live on a slim budget. Other kids in my social milieu might have had a bit more in the way of consumer goods, but to own an extensive range of make-up at age 14 was unheard of.

Who's supposed to pay for this stuff? Either kids are more likely to have part-time work these days, or their parents are shelling out. It's enough to make me dread my own kids growing older. Already, my seven year old feels she needs a cellphone, although she really has no use for it.

The ability to consume, or not, matters a lot to kids and teenagers - it's a time in your life when peer pressure is acute. I just don't want to buy into this (pun intended). When my daughter asks for something frivolous, my first impulse is to say no. Often, though, I end up giving in: I feel guilty about my daughter feeling socially alienated because I have a political axe to grind. Yet, when I give in, I know the effect is simply to make some other kid feel bad that they can't keep up with the Joneses.

On behalf of our kids, I think we parents need to form a kind of fashion non-aggression pact. It seems to me that we do our kids no favours by letting them be placed under escalating pressure to consume - pressure that leads kids to compare themselves with one another, and try to stay ahead of their peers in the consumption game. By saying no to the consumption trend on our kids' behalf, we might help deflate the pressure to buy, get our kids to question the ethics of our consuming culture, and save ourselves a small fortune in the process.

Bras for Africa

May is the month to donate your old bras to Bras for Africa:

Breastmates, in conjunction with HOTmilk, is proud to be involved with the Knickers for Africa collection drive.

We are collecting secondhand bras to send to women and girls in villages in Zimbabwe.

This is a great way to do something as simple as cleaning out your drawers, but it can make a big difference to a women's life.

The bras will be distributed to school girls and women, in villages around Harare in Zimbabwe, many of whom do not own any underwear or may only have one pair.

You can either:

• mail your bras to Breastmates at 16 Oaklands Drive, Cambridge, Waikato, New Zealand;
• drop them off to one of the many many lingerie retailers who will accept them across Aotearoa, Australia and the UK (click here and scroll down for the list)

They've been collecting since February and the aim is to send a full container to Zimbabwe at the end of May. Belly Beyond is also supporting the campaign.

Charcoal fedora tipped in the direction of the Glorious T, for emailing me about this.

Quick hit: Dances with sleeves

The junior dance dress code at Palmerston North Girls' High has provoked an article in the Manawatu Standard:

Young ladies who dare to show some shoulder at the Palmerston North Girls' High junior dance will not be tolerated.

A dress code for tomorrow's junior social event with Palmerston North Boys' High says dresses must have a sleeve, cannot be above the knee, and may not expose the back inappropriately.

This rule is being slated by parents of some Year 9 and 10 students, who say enforcing the strict code on young girls is ridiculous and old-fashioned.

But the school said the code is there to maintain an acceptable standard of attire and prevent girls from dressing "lavishly".

One mother, who did not want to be named, couldn't believe her daughter was not allowed to wear the same outfit she would wear to a family dinner. "I think it's ridiculous; it's very strict and old-fashioned.

Click through for the whole article.

I tend to think we do sexualise girls (and boys) very young these days, and a lot of that happens through fashion and clothing. That said, this does sound pretty over the top.

Black feather fascinator tipped to reader Azlemed for emailing this to me via Facebook.

Feminist Event: Pre-loved fashion sale for New Horizons for Women Trust

It's stuff like this that makes me wish I lived in Wellington. Sigh.

With a holiday weekend ahead of us, [oops, my bad, behind us now, J] you may be intending to have a clean out of the wardrobe. Think of us when you do so as we need your clothes – to give women a second chance at education.

Donations are coming in and with less than 7 weeks [now one month!, J] before the sale we are out there collecting donated clothes.

The New Horizons for Women Trust is holding its fourth annual Pre-Loved Fashion Sale on 21 March, and we need your help to make it a success.

Don’t leave your unworn outfits languishing in your wardrobe – your unwanted clothing can help us provide awards to assist women with no qualifications to embark on tertiary education for the first time, and to fund research into issues of interest to women.

Last year, the Wellington region’s great annual wardrobe clearance raised more than $10,000. This year, we’re hoping to raise $15,000 by improving the quality of the clothing we sell. If you have good-quality, contemporary items of clothing that you can spare – including bags, scarves and even coat hangers – let us know and we’ll come and pick them up.

Email prelovedfashion@paradise.net.nz with your address and phone number, and we’ll contact you. Our sale will be held from 9am to noon on Saturday, 21 March at St Andrew’s on the Terrace church hall in Wellington. Put the date in your diaries now, and you’ll be able to pick up 10 outfits for the price you’d usually pay for one.

Feathery bonnett tipped to the marvellous Pretty Pretty Pretty.

Fashion Crisis: dress worn back to front!!1!

And so the day has finally come. The news we have all been waiting for. Even in the midst of a global financial crisis of epic proportions. Despite the impending doom of climate change.

Drum roll please...

Angelina Jolie may have worn a dress back to front to the Screen Actors Guild awards.

Ellie Levenson from The Independent sympathises with Jolie, while others accuse her of being too scary to correct. You can see a full photospread at the Herald's site.

I ask: who cares? (Which does rather beg the question, why even write a blog post about it, and I admit I was mostly motivated by liking the colour of the dress in question).

Quick hit: Bikini tops - togs or undies?

The Weekend Herald does it again. Must be a slow news month or something.

New Zealanders appear to be more liberal than the Caribbeans when it comes to showing off a bit of skin.

Following a ban on Speedos and bikinis away from the beach on the island of Grenada in the southeastern Caribbean Sea, the Weekend Herald tried an experiment in Mt Maunganui.

We couldn't find any men donning budgie smugglers to take part but we did get bikini-clad 16-year-olds Laura Schmitt and Clare McMahon to walk down the the main drag, Maunganui Rd - about 300m from the beach on one side and 200m from the harbour side - at lunchtime to gauge public reaction.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there wasn't actually a story here until the reporter (or more likely the editor) created one, was there? Sigh.

Women like me embrace hijabs

Anjum has written an opinion piece for the Sydney Daily Telegraph (go Anjum!), which is now on-line: Women like me embrace hijabs. She has written about the lead-up to the opinion piece here.