Dove was, however, already way ahead of the game. Their Campaign for Real Beauty launched in 2004 and continues to empower girls and women of all ages and shapes. But last I heard, Dove doesn’t drive home magazine sales. Sexy things do. And naked sexy things will sell even more magazines.

And suddenly, we embraced the body — naked (or nearly so) and often un-airbrushed — while we also further embraced the plus-sized.

Glamour ran a spread of naked-and-not-insanely-thin models in November. You might remember that infamous picture of plus-sized model Lizzie Miller with tummy flab? (No! Not tummy flab!)

A couple months before that, model Natalia Vodianova bared all on the cover of British Vogue’s June 2009 Body Issue, an issue that vowed to look at how women — yes, even women thinner and more famous than you — felt about their bodies and how they, too, obsessively watch their weight and wished their butts were perkier. (But wait, if even the “perfect” feel insecure, is there hope left for the rest of us?)

And the trend continues on into 2010:

• Naked and un-airbrushed Jennifer Hawkins will grace the cover of the Australian Marie Claire in February.

• V magazine has dedicated its whole January issue, out on the 14th, to plus-sized models in all states of dress and undress.

If all bodies are beautiful, shouldn’t we focus equally on the thin and not so thin? The short and tall? The curvy and boxy? Despite the valiant efforts, we can’t assume that occasionally swapping out rail-thin models for those with some meat on their bones will, on its own, make 2010 the year the fashion, beauty and advertising industries suddenly changed their minds.

These women — underweight or slightly overweight — are still models. The images we digest are the results of teams of makeup artists, hairstylists, wardrobe assistants, lighting specialists and creative photographers that none of us “real” people have at our disposal. Fashion spreads, despite the model and her size, are still perpetuating parts of a beauty myth — the glowing, perfect skin, the undimpled thighs — and the message that you are not good enough the way you are. (And that products! They have all the answers!)

Designers’ samples are still size 4 … or smaller. Runway models are still hired as emaciated hangers that catch your eye and on which designers can hang their art.

Shedding light on the fact that different body types exist — sure, it’s a step in the right direction. But for maximum impact, to make the change that communicates my body and my self are awesome just the way they are, we have to be able to prove that a different message and image will make the industries more money than what they’re making now.

What sells the most — whether it’s putting women down or lifting women up — will eventually win in the end.

Main photo via NYMag.com
Center photo via Glamour.com

And all this is for … what? To uphold unachievable standards the fashion and beauty industries are trying to impose on us? What about something that screams You’re awesome and beautiful just the way you are! Not quite the self-affirming message you get from looking at, say, the latest Louis Vuitton ad campaign.

So this is where About-Face comes in. They’re actually doing something about it. In addition to presenting media literacy seminars to schools and universities throughout the San Francisco Bay Area that help equip women with the tools, information and confidence they need to resist the media’s negativity and notions that you’re never enough, About-Face goes to the streets to directly impact the local community. To deliver the messages they feel women deserve to hear, but hear all too rarely.

Their latest stunt?

This Saturday, August 15th, About-Face supporters of all ages will be putting up static-cling decals in the dressing rooms of various stores that say the types of things women ought to hear when they look in the mirror. Messages like “Confidence is beauty” and “YOU: No Photoshopping necessary.”

They’ll also be setting up their own dressing room at the excessively foot-trafficked cable car turnaround where Market Street and Powell Street meet. (If they’re diverted elsewhere, check Union Square!) Here, women can step up and write on the mirror and express the messages they think women deserve to hear.

Jennifer Berger, About-Face’s executive director, shares in a press release that the young women involved in the organization and this particular activity believe that:

Women and girls have the right to feel beautiful the way they are, rather than trying to conform to the unreal, unattainable images we see every day. Sadly, many women and girls don’t like their bodies the way they are, and we need to change that.

The public is invited to participate during the event. Members of the community can talk with women who come up to the outdoor dressing room, or help the girls covertly put up decals in local stores. (All items posted in dressing rooms will be removable without damage to the walls or mirrors.) If supporters can’t be there in person, they can catch the action on Twitter by following @aboutfacesf.

EVENT DETAILS

Event: “Covert Dressing Room Action” by About-Face

When: Saturday, August 15, 10 a.m. – 2 p.m.

Where : Cable Car Turnaround at Market and Powell Streets, San Francisco, CA (In case of problems in that area, this event will be 3 blocks up Powell at Union Square, on a sidewalk bordering the square.)

Are you on Facebook? Check out more event details there, too!

About-Face Background

About-Face equips women and girls with tools to understand and resist harmful media messages that affect their self-esteem and body image. They deliver media-literacy workshops in the San Francisco Bay Area, enable girls and women to take action in their own ways, and maintain the resource-filled web site About-Face.org. About-Face is based in San Francisco, and educated more than 700 young women in the 2008-09 school year.

About-Face’s success with previous actions has been profound, and includes their teen-driven action using full-sized body-shaped cardboard cutouts at the Powell BART/Muni station in late 2008, the Yay! Scales action in Union Square in July 2008, and our “Please Don’t Feed the Models” poster in 1998.

Sadly, this San Francisco-based handbag & shoe company known for its delicious leathers, patterned patents & placement on Gossip Girl, is going out of business. Brand new heels, flats, weekender bags and clutches—typically way overpriced, even when on sale or on eBay—were being grabbed off the hole-in-the-wall Mission Street warehouse’s shelves for ridiculously slashed prices, and damaged (but easily fixable or hardly noticeable) ones at even higher discounts.

A year ago, at one of the brand’s seasonal sample sales, I walked away with an $800 bag for $50, a bag I’ve carried on my shoulder nearly every day since I bought it, and it’s hardly showing signs of the many bus seats, cafe tables and floors on which it has rested or under-the-bar hooks from which it has hung.

So what did I walk away with at the last Goldenbleu sale … ever? (Tear.)

These navy peep-toes for a mere $25 (The designer lines at Payless go for more than that, and they’re not even real leather!):

And these “desert pearl” (i.e. slightly metallic, light brownish colored) boots for $45, the box of which is tagged with the original price … $475:

One of my girlfriends walked away with this bag but in black … for $10! All it needs is a small grommet to resecure the handle.

Who said luxury shopping in a recession was impossible? They obviously don’t know where to shop!

Top photo courtesy of MyFashionLife.com

Today was a momentous day in history for many reasons, but after watching the Obamas dazzle everyone at their inaugural ball, it made me think: Today marks a victory for America. For Democrats. For the world, even. But with Michelle Obama officially the First Lady, today is also a huge day for tall women everywhere! Finally, we have a tall, elegant, fashion-forward woman to look up to who’s not a supermodel, but rather, a role model.

What I love about Michelle Obama is the fact that she doesn’t shy away from fashion risk — from clothes or from heels, despite the fact that her husband is only a couple inches taller than her own 5-11 statuesque frame. She stands tall no matter what.

So, to my fellow tall female comrades: if you have been waiting for that extra boost of confidence to make you throw on your favorite pair of 4-inch heels without hesitation, this is it!

At tonight’s inaugural ball, our First Lady rocked not only a floor-length Jason Wu gown, but shoes that put her almost higher than eye-to-eye with 6-foot-almost-2-inch President Obama.

What does tell all the millions watching? (Amongst other things:) Don’t fret if you might be an extra inch, two or three taller than your date, your man, your husband. It’s all about how you carry yourself. And if you can carry yourself like Michelle Obama, well then, what are you worried about? Glide. Own it.

Photo courtesy of AP Photo

Let me just say, first of all, THANK GOODNESS Obama won. We. Finally. Did. It. Bring on the change!

Admittedly, I was surprised, at first, to see the Obamas walk out on that Grant Park stage donning the color of the losing party. But then again, red is classy and classic — not to mention powerful — and perfect for the transition into the chillier months ahead. And the family looked so united, overjoyed and filled with emotion (and love!) despite their recent loss.

As he gratefully accepted his victory in front of an international audience, Obama oozed confidence, standing tall, dignified and at ease in his classic, custom-made suit and tie. The girls: ecstatic and elegant in princess-like evening dresses. And Michelle? A (slightly modified) Narciso Rodriguez Spring 2009 piece, a black widow spider-esque dress paired with a little black cardi and glittering silver bangles and earrings.

Her bold statement that was this dress was a risky choice, perhaps a bit of a Carrie Bradshaw moment: We may not love every outfit that comes out of that closet, and she has definitely worn more elegant and “safe” things in the past, but we love her for going for it.

The cardi may have changed the intended proportions of the dress, and the red splotches may be a bit strategically placed — immediately drawing your eyes to her bust & below-the-waist — but she rocked it with confidence and the most encouraging, genuine smile. As a much-appreciated bonus, she showed America that runway fashion can still look good off the runway, on a body that’s not a nauseating size zero.

Finally. A First Lady of style, of confidence, of empowerment — a woman with whom we are proud to associate.

Image via FashionTribes

No. Shorts do not crack the code. They break them. The dress code, that is.

The New York Times Style section – a place I usually consider a trustworthy Style Bible of sorts – recently revealed a shocking menswear solution to uncomfortable heat, a climate that San Francisco is experiencing now – the Indian Summer, our brief relief from the fog. This latest trend? Wearing shorts, and short suits, to work.

My first inclination? If women are not allowed, not encouraged, or get scorned for wearing shorts or anything too-above-the-knee to work, why should men be granted this luxury?

My second inclination? I do not need to see my co-workers’, let alone my boss’ or my CEO’s, thighs.

My third inclination? Loafers + No Socks = No Thank You. I smell feet…clammy ones.

I understand that this trend is meant particularly for hotter, and especially more humid, climates. That was the article’s whole point: the short-suit, or chino shorts + shirt + tie + blazer, can replace the traditional suit and trousers during the summer, because yeah – I bet men do get hot in that same ol’ long-sleeves-and-long-pants get-up every day. But frankly, there are very few company cultures that would allow this.

Bankers? No. Real estate agents? No, unless we’re talking beach realty…maybe. Anything involving client meetings? I hope not!

Short suits, however, are not the only options for hard-workers in warm climates. Oddly enough, and I’m not sure how they got away with it, the NYT makes short-sleeved shirts sound foreign and risque:

“The willingness of men to expand the amount of skin they are inclined to display can be gauged by the short-sleeved shirts Senator Barack Obama has lately favored; the muscle T-shirts Anderson Cooper wears on CNN assignment; and the Armani billboard in which David Beckham, the soccer star, appears nearly nude.”

Since when is the polo shirt a new, surprising concept in menswear? And even more so, when did a polo shirt ever hint at too much skin?

Please people. If you’re wealthy enough to be tailoring your new Obedient Sons or LOVA short suit, then do us all a favor: stop worrying about the shorts; start pairing polos with trousers – or even jeans! Avoid polyester (totally not breathable) and wear linen when you can (I know it wrinkles, but are we more worried about wrinkles or massive sweat stains during that meeting?), and turn up the AC in your freakin’ office.

But please, unless you are Beckham, do not show me your ankles, knees, or thighs.

Image via Miodestino.co.uk

You know, the fresh-out-of-college (or perhaps still in college) twenty-somethings dying to become the next Anna Wintour, or the Devil Wears Prada gal, who would do anything just to have a taste of the high-fashion magazine world. Even if that taste means running around New York City (or in my case London) dropping off clothes, running silly errands, and getting coffee. I’ve been a fashion intern. In PR. It’s not all glamorous like shows such as The Hills make it seem. Or as fabulous and involved as Sean Avery’s diary explains:

I jumped right in. First up was a creative meeting attended by the magazine’s senior staff, which gave me a broad look at upcoming shoots, potential covers, and which writers, editors, and photographers were covering which stories.

You’re kidding, me. Senior staff? Meetings? Actual insight? Assistants, let alone interns, hardly get this privilege. Plus, he is a guest editor for Men’s Vogue. Okay. I get it. He’s a famous hockey player. Professional. In his late twenties. But a blurb in New York Magazine mentions,

To be afforded such responsibility can only mean he’s doing a truly stupendous job as an intern.

I seriously doubt that him being awarded such luxuries as an intern, so unlike other Vogue interns, means he’s doing a “stupendous job.” Frankly, I think it means he’s just “well-connected” and is good press for the magazine and its internship program (especially after Devil Wears Prada, the book and the movie, that divulged…well sort of…the harsh reality behind high-fashion glossies).

Truly, why should he have an up on all the other fashionistas dying to have the job, too, who have the same credentials he’s claiming — a sincere interest in fashion and clothes — if not more qualified ones, like an education in the subject (and professional writing experience). Everyone who loves fashion, it seems, wants to work at Vogue, because like many people say, it’s the “bible of fashion.” And who doesn’t want to say they’ve worked on the Bible? The industry has a glamorous, party-life facade, but what’s underneath it all is overworked young people in a drama-central atmosphere. I want to know: is it worth it?

Finally, New York Magazine broke the ice and spoke to some real Vogue interns, who essentially revealed that all Sean Avery is getting is special treatment. He got his own desk (and assignments!) when all they got was a cramped, shared space, a list of unrealistic requests and insane amounts grunt work — expected to be performed in stilettos.

Who are we supposed to believe?

I heart the New York Times. Their news, their magazine, and well, their fashion coverage. And while yes, coverage from runway shows is all fabulous and glamorous, truly it’s their behind-the-scenes looks into the industry that totally get me. Especially during a time like now, when the economy, well, sucks, and things like fashion seem frivolous and unaffordable. Even more especially when movies like Sex and the City come out – movies that make us (or is it just me?) want to buy, buy, buy. But a closer look at my wallet and bank account make me realize that all I should be doing is save, save, save. Through all this I start to contemplate – how is the industry still thriving and putting on outlandish shows every season, and in-between seasons, and still coming out ahead, alive? Or are they even taking a hit? Perhaps it’s our own wallets, not designers and retailers, that are crying silent tears.

Relieved, in an article published last week, the NY Times broke it down for me. And crazily enough, over the past ten years, luxury goods, in general, have nearly DOUBLED in price. Their first example, the Louis Vuitton Monogram Canvas Speedy 30 – now priced at $685, in 1998, was in the $300-range. Luxury shoes used to be in that range, too, but now, $300 for a nice pair of leather pumps seems more like a steal! No wonder the fashion industry is still thriving. Even taking inflation into account, these prices are higher and more extreme than ever. Profits, I presume, are following suit.

But wait! Don’t get discouraged! Here is the fantastic news. Amidst all the increases prices in gas, food, drinks, designer fashion and shoes, mainstream fashion is actually being priced more reasonably, as in, cheaper than it was ten years ago:

“Today, shoppers pay the same price for a basic Brooks Brothers men’s suit, $598, as they did in 1998. The suggested retail price of a pair of Levi’s 501 jeans, $46, is about $4 less than it was a decade ago. A three-pack of Calvin Klein men’s briefs costs $21.50, only $3.50 more than in 1998. … Even some items that may seem more expensive today, like a $75 Ralph Lauren polo shirt (which cost $62.50 in 1998), are really not, because their prices have risen more slowly than inflation.”

So what does this mean? Well, the rest of us who aren’t exactly in the market to purchase designer clothes (even when they are marked down to varying degrees for all the sales right now) are in luck! We can afford $9 dresses from Steve & Barry’s or even the designer lines from Target. Even if we do want to splurge on something we don’t typically buy, there are sites now like LabelSpree and HauteLook that make higher-end and designer clothing relatively more affordable.

While we may not be on the waiting lists for Carrie’s SATC movie shoes, we can be in line at Steve Madden buying the knock-offs. …And still afford dinner and drinks after the spree!

Image via Creative Commons

Relating a department store to the scope of a company like Google implies that it’s the go-to place. That it’s the go-to brand for anything & everything fashion, in the sense that one might describe Google as such for tech-savvy and web applications. All right. I’ll play along. There can be a “Google of fashion” … but is it really Steve & Barry’s? Aren’t they getting a little ahead of themselves? I mean, yes, you can’t beat a fab dress for less than $10. And they do offer exclusives, like Bitten, the celebrity collection from Sarah Jessica Parker, fashion’s ultimate it-girl (well, in my opinion anyway). They’re hitting price-points lower than Wal-Mart’s. But are we hitting the bottom of the barrel for fast-fashion? (Fast-fashion meaning, in a sense, quickly manufactured knock-offs of runway styles. Other retailers might include: H&M, Zara, MNG, etc.) You can’t truly expect to be wearing your $8.98 tube dress for more than one spring/summer season…do you? Think about it: how long do cheap and “fast” Forever-21 tops last? Any that I’ve ever owned unravel shortly after purchase. Is S&B much different? And if we aren’t wearing their clothes months after we buy them, if that lasting quality is not present, is the store relateable to the likes of Google?

Google is everywhere. Accessible to everyone. Apparently, there are about 300 Steve & Barry’s in the country. But one of the country’s fashion capitals — our lovely San Francisco — has disparaging access to this fashion house. There’s only ONE here (granted, they ARE opening three more in the South Bay to supplement the additional two in the East Bay).

All this cheap-fashion-is-”it”-fashion makes me wonder if perhaps the meaning of fashion, of style is changing. A majority of shoppers are now taking pride in how inexpensive their clothes are instead of how pricey. Can we make headway and show people that price does not equal quality, and that high-quality can actually be found at a bargain? Let’s hope so.