The War On Skinny Jeans

The attack headlines read, “Skinny Jeans May Cause Health Problems.” Read about it here. Puh-leeze! This kind of fear mongering is not helping to advance the conversation we need to have about women’s clothing. There are, however, several fashionista groups who continue to speak out and fight back. Here are a few completely unprompted, absolutely spurious examples.

This is a direct attack on American values. When you think about it, wearing skinny jeans honours the brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our right to wear tight clothes. If we give in to this kind of terrorism, pretty soon we’ll all be wearing those loose-fitting burka things.
Meghan — Plumbottom, Wisconsin

I’m offended that the media continues to use the demeaning word “skinny.” It’s encouraging to see that Walmart, eBay, Amazon and Google have changed their policies and are now using the more sensitive “slim-fit.” However, more work needs to be done to educate the public about just how hurtful the “S-word” can be to women of slenderness.
Glenda — University of Donner Mountain, California

Historically, women’s fashions have always come under fire. Way back in the 60s, women made a show of burning their bras in a misguided attempt at equality and research shows us that there were isolated anti-corset groups in the 19^th century. I’m certain this “skinny” thing will blow over and the ladies will get back to wearing attractive clothing again.
Dr. Trim Seekprey — Nobel Laureate

This is a nefarious attack on women by George W. Bush. It’s a known fact that Dick Cheney sits on the Board of Directors of several multi-national yoga pants manufacturers who are taking advantage of this “so-called” health scare to sell yoga pants. I’m disgusted that we live in a world that puts corporate greed and profits ahead of fashion.
Ruston Bland — ex-comedian

Our 12-year-old daughter was the victim of “skinny jean shaming” on Social Media. Her father and I were so proud of her fashion choices until she came home from school in tears. We contacted the principal and were informed there was nothing the school could do. Apparently, posting an inflammatory news story on a child’s Facebook page is not considered a hate crime. Ridiculous! We need to regulate the Internet to protect vulnerable children from cyber-bullying.
Cary and Ann Umbridge — concerned parents #skinnyshame

There’s no scientific proof that “skinny” jeans have any effect on a woman’s body. The measurable but insignificant changes in temperature and blood pressure should be attributed to a woman’s natural menstrual cycle. No further research is necessary.
Report of the Strauss Scientific Group — San Francisco, California

In a time devastated by Third World poverty, disease and starvation, it’s easy for First World problems to fall through the cracks. That doesn’t mean they’re any less serious. We need to open a “slim-fit” dialogue that engages this issue honestly. This is clearly about the human right to choose apparel that reflects how we identify ourselves within the entire human spectrum. Awareness and tolerance can only be achieved if we silence those negative voices who are driving the agenda.
ThinksMart Activist Collective — Chicago

If you dig a little deeper you’ll find that there have been some major corporate contributions to the hospital where that woman was treated. Plus, there’s a video on YouTube showing a woman, who is clearly Australian, walking into the hospital unaided. Furthermore, one anonymous source says the only woman given intravenous drip that day was wearing Levi 505s. Is it merely a coincidence that the hospital still refuses to identify her? What do they have to hide?
DreadAxe War Anthem — Blogger

If “skinnies” are good enough for The Royals, they’re bloody good enough for me.
Denwin Yelbladder — Yobmouth, England

Hivemind: It’s No Coincidence

I don’t believe in coincidences. They are the transparent devices of CSI (in its many incarnations) and bad mystery novels. Over the years, I’ve found that when random acts are connected for no apparent reason, there’s usually a reason. That’s not to say that I think our lives are preplanned by three beautiful maidens casually spinning and snipping yarn. However, I do believe that there are way more patterns to life than we’re willing to admit. Coincidences are just those patterns boiling to the surface. Let me demonstrate.

In the last 24 hours, I’ve had three different techno conversations with three distinctly different people. (FYI, two of them were with people less cyber-savvy than me.) I did not initiate these conversations nor were they planned in any way. Yet, all three, although totally unrelated, somehow ended up scolding social media for discouraging dissidence and promoting groupthink and behaviour. No big deal, right? Social media is a popular topic, and these days, it’s catching the blame for everything from childhood obesity to the assassination of Mohandas K. Gandhi. However, think about it. What are the chances? Three unconnected conversations come up with a consensus — the straightjacket of groupthink — when that very consensus is an unwitting demonstration of groupthink itself. Irony, yes; coincidence, no — because here’s the hot fudge on that ice cream sundae. In each of the conversations, the person I was talking to (texting, in one case) used the term “hivemind.” I realize “hivemind” is a perfectly acceptable internetism, but again, what are the chances? Especially when two of the three conversationalists shouldn’t even know the word, let alone what it means. The laws of anti-chance simply don’t allow for this kind of randomness.

So if this isn’t just a coincidence (which it isn’t) what pattern are we seeing? The obvious one is that people are concerned that social media promotes groupthink or the “hivemind.” D’uh! Take a look! After you’ve been “awesome” and “amazing” on Facebook, the only other thing you can do is “Like” or “Share.” There’s no icon for “Bugger off!” The mere fact that people are mentioning “hivemind” in conversation tells us that, beyond the constant hype that social media is an eclectic gathering of all ideas — a virtual Classical Athens, if you will — there’s an uncomfortable awareness that this might not be strictly true. People are beginning to worry that our cyber-social world is actually just an assortment of techno rich primitive tribes. The concern is we are simply digital Cro-Magnons gathered around our backlit campfires with other members of our own group, who, by selection, share our values, opinions and ideas: no others need apply.

This is not a problem in itself. Generally, like our heavy-browed ancestors, we prefer the security of the clan. People have always been willing to adhere to the restrictive nature of a group (even a virtual one) in exchange for its safety. Unfortunately, the by product of this adherence is a suspension of our individual egos to conform to the socio-ego of the tribe. People are uneasy about this kind of subordination, even if they don’t fully understand it. That’s why it’s coming up in unrelated conversations.

It’s no coincidence that I was told by three different people, in rapid succession, that social media is not all it’s cracked up to be. Nor is it happenstance that they all agreed that the monolithic socio-ego of things like Facebook and Twitter are overpowering mere individuals. The problem is they all used the same terminology – “hivemind.” And that was no coincidence, either.