Scott Schuman is usually celebrated, feted and applauded.
For anyone who doesn’t know, his hugely successful blog, “The Sartorialist”- featuring elegant, snaps of seriously well-dressed hipsters at work, rest and play – set the tone for hundreds of me-too blogs to follow. He’s an icon in the world of fashion blogging.
But he put a well-clad foot in his mouth yesterday, when describing the style of his fellow blogger, Angelica Ardasheva.
““I loved that she’s a bigger, curvier girl than most of the other bloggers who you see in the press and tend to represent the genre.” he wrote as a caption under one of these pictures.
And then, this: “The subtle thing she achieves so successfully in these two looks is to complement the sturdy but beautiful shape of her legs with an equally strong shoe. A daintier shoe would be overpowered but these shoes create a beautiful harmony for the lower half of her body.”
But why such a kerfuffle?
There’s not much to offend about this, comment, now, is there?
Refer to the pictures, again, chicks.
Then join me in throwing yourself on the floor, to wail inconsolably and pummel the carpet with your well-padded little trotters … No! Sorry! Make that sturdy little bigger (but curvy!) legs.
I know it is just three little words, but his careless use of them to describe this woman is indicative of the madness that is fashion.
The fact that this woman has shape to her legs, does not, in my book make her legs “sturdy,” or make her “curvy,” and “big.”
But I live as far from Planet Fashion as it is possible to live and still wear clothes.
In the crazy world of fashion, “big” and “curvy” is what Scott sees, and the rest believe.
And in this world, of course, “big” “curvy” and “sturdy,” are not flattering terms.
Maybe he doesn’t really know what “sturdy” or “big” looks like.
Flitting amongst fashions finest, as he does, I am sure that he rarely sees anyone who does not fit into a sample size 0.
These comments (which I’ve lifted lock, stock and barrel off Styleite) give a accurate indication of the tone of the hundreds of responses: “Why even mention her weight? If you include her to be “diverse” and then point out why she is so different to all the other women you feature here, what is the point? Finally, I have never seen you make similar comments about the men you feature here, some of whom might be considered “robust.” and “I have never seen you address how some tiny little waif did a kick-ass job of camouflaging her protruding clavicles, and rightly so!” and “When will a girl who is obvious attractive simply be ‘attractive’ and not ‘attractive for a curvy girl’? Forget all the extra adjectives. Yes, she’s pretty and yes, she understands the importance of proportions. (Only antique mahogany furnishings should be commented on for sturdiness).” And finally: “Why even mention her figure – surely it doesn’t make a jot of difference to her ability to put together an eye-catching look?”
If he does want to see “sturdy” legs, I’m sure that many of the hundreds of the irritated women who commented on his blog, would be more than happy to oblige – by using theirs to give him a good kick in the butt.
If I were there, I’d be one of the first in line.