Did you love Stacy on What Not to Wear? - YouLookFab Forum

Category

Inspiration

Welcome! Read about what to wear and how to wear it on the YLF Blog. Join the YLF Forum to ask specific questions or just chat about fashion and personal style. Or check out the curated list of things we love in YLF Finds.

Outfits Ensembles Trends Advice

Did you love Stacy on What Not to Wear?

UmmLila (Lisa)

Veteran

http://www.refinery29.com/2016.....ging-story

Here's an excerpt:

"AT 47, I'M FINDING MY TROUSER POCKETS ARE FILLED WITH FEWER AND FEWER FUCKS.
STACY LONDON
”
In my late 40s, I’m ready for the kind of uniform that empowers and emboldens. Not the me people may know from TV and not the me from 20 years ago. My style doesn’t have to have a context yet, just like my value in society doesn’t. It is all evolving. And it all remains to be seen. But I own who I am when I walk into a room, and it is only age that has given me the privilege to feel that. What 32-year-old me could never have known is that growing older is such a gift. Age has mellowed many of my insecurities because the pressure is no longer on me. At 47, I'm finding that my trouser pockets are filled with fewer and fewer fucks.

I’m not saying all women my age should dress the way I do. But my style is helping me to understand the kind of woman I am now. The point is, no matter HOW you dress, many women my age don’t always own the exciting possibilities afforded them because they don’t feel valued by our current culture. In fashion advertising, the end of 2014 and most of 2015 all of a sudden became the Age of Age. Julia Roberts for Givenchy. Cher for Marc Jacobs. Joan Didion for Céline. Charlotte Rampling for Nars. Iris Apfel for Alexis Bittar. Seeing older women incorporated into the fashion world should feel like progress. But the Age of Age came and went in less than a year. It may as well have been called the Shock of Age. To sensationalize age for the sake of attention isn’t the same as reverence or acceptance. It merely made age a momentary trend. Trends can be escaped. Age can’t.

So what’s this article about? An aging woman who wants to wear suits and not poufy dresses? No. It’s about taking a hard look at the traditional ideas that are associated with women’s inalienable rights, be they wearing skin-baring dresses or having children, and that “having it all” no longer means those rights need to be exercised. As our freedoms change, so too will cultural expectations. It’s hard to think about being 47 when you’re 27. Not that you should feel compelled to. I know I didn’t. I didn’t know what my future would look like or how I would dress for it. I didn’t know I would wind up on TV, helping people develop a style that made them each feel like their best self. I didn’t know I wouldn’t get married or have kids. I didn’t know I would feel caught between the age that I am and the accomplishments that normally define that age. What I did know was that I wouldn’t know. What I know now is that it feels both strange and entirely okay."

39 replies

Latest reply was from Mochi

Anonymous

I liked her on TV, and I have come to really appreciate her point of view.

unfrumped

Veteran

I loved theIr show! I never saw it in real timd but just YouTube versions. I could watch it forever.

Gaylene

Veteran

I wasn't a particular fan of the "What Not To Wear" Stacey London, but I gained a great deal more respect for her after reading her book.

What is rather funny--and, if I'm being honest, a bit irritating--are her references to women who are further down the aging path. I kept thinking "Oh honey, you are going to cringe when you read this in twenty years". She might be in for a few surprises in the next couple of decades.

Anonymous

I know what you mean, Gaylene. I wish I were in my late 40s again. It's all relative, isn't it?

Suz

(website)

Veteran

I really liked her book. I never watched the show.

I think Gaylene's probably right -- if the clothes she wore in her 20s are not "her" now, her current comments won't be "her" in 20 years, either -- but that's okay. I admire her willingness to take that risk and speak out and make a fool of herself. There's something very lovable in that.

rachylou

Veteran

I did love both WNTWs, but I also found both very conventional in the style direction they steered people in. That makes sense for a tv show; I don't argue it. Still tho, I'd like to see a show where they up the style quotient without sucking, oh say, the harajuku out of a person.

That said, I do like Stacey... and think Gaylene is right.

Style Fan

Veteran

I never watched the show. We don't watch TV. I sometimes watch TV shows on You Tube or Netflix. I did read the book on body shapes. I can appreciate what she has written here. And like Suz I love that she speaks out.

RobinF

Veteran

I haven't read the book and I kind of liked the show, but not a fan of her TV personality. She was too snarky for me. I loved the British version of the show much more.

viva

Veteran

Edited: I just read the entire article. hadn't done that at first.

First, I will self-identify as a WNTW and Stacy fan. The emotional arc was what really hooked me on the show; I loved seeing how women changed how they saw themselves and their possibilities when they shook up their uniform. But as rachylou says, the emphasis on the hourglass shape was very conventional -- although in keeping with the era, I suppose. On the other hand, I loved watching the women shop in a wide range of stores, from Macys to little boutiques. It was instructive (ETA although painful, because for some women this was torture).

I get you, Robin, about Stacey's snark, but I found her personality bracing and refreshing, especially compared to the insipid Carmindy (at whom I always wanted to throw couch pillows). And can we talk about Nick Arrojo? The hair transformations were pretty thrilling.

Anyway, I found this article really interesting. Obviously Stacey is writing from where she is right now. I wouldn't expect her to have the perspective of a 60 year old, and she wouldn't either. That's the whole point of this piece -- that as a young woman she didn't know what it would be like to be 47, and that's okay (and, by way of extension, that she doesn't know what it's like to be 67, and that's okay too).

Two things stood out to me as especially insightful: 1) her comment about how quickly the "age of age" came and went. That is really true, and it's sad. Older women were cool for a hot minute. 2) where she says "my style is helping me understand the kind of woman I am now." I really love that and I think it is all about, over time, our style evolving with us, and we evolving with our style.

But, can I just add that i have no idea what she means in the callout quote? "Her trouser pockets are filled with fewer f*cks?" I'm not offended by the language, I just don't get it. Can someone translate?

ETA: Thanks Meredith for the translation.

Tanya

Veteran

I was a big fan of both her show and the book(s), and learned a lot from those. That was the age of conventional figure flattery, but before JFE and slouchy fits that was what almost everyone aspired to anyway.
I find the text refreshing and interesting. I am sure she will think differently in another 20 years, but that is the beauty of growing ans changing. I totally agree that aging is a privilege.

Traci

Veteran

I'm not sure how this article sits with me having watched more than my share of WNTW and cringing at how forcibly they extracted, as she puts it, the "fucks" out of the participants pockets. Some of the women came to the show excited to have a make over, but many, many claimed to feel great about themselves and empowered by their choices and those women were hounded by Clinton and Stacy until they subjected to the idea that how other people perceived them mattered more than how they felt about their own looks themselves.

She mentioned in the article that she's not sure how fans of the show will feel about her new approach, but I guess I would have loved to have also heard a little bit of remorse about how she approached people. I guess it's just tough for me to hold her up as an example of a person owning her own look regardless of what other people think, when that was the very thing she was against, and made most of her livelihood putting down. It just rubs me wrong. I haven't read her book, so maybe she touched on this and how she transformed her worldview on fashion, conventional figure flattery and personal style, in the book?

Meredith

Veteran

Viva, I think it's realated to the sentiment of the image below. Barren fields, empty pockets. Just a play on the saying "I don't give a f*ck."

This post has 1 photo. Photos uploaded by this member are only visible to other logged in members.

If you aren't a member, but would like to participate, please consider signing up. It only takes a minute and we'd love to have you.

viva

Veteran

@traci; "those women were hounded by Clinton and Stacy until they subjected to the idea that how other people perceived them mattered more than how they felt about their own looks themselves."

Wow, I really do not remember the show that way at all.

Anonymous

Viva, I thought the through a lifetime, your f@&$s would be cumulative but maybe if you annualize them they're fewer?

But either way, I'm still not sure what she's saying.

ETA: I understand what she's saying now. Thanks for the clarification Meredith and Janet.

Traci

Veteran

Really? I just remember lots of women who would go in the 360 mirror room and explain why they liked their look and Stacy and Clinton would laugh at them, mock them, and tell them how wrong they were. It was somewhat playfully done, but there was a definite air of "we know, you don't" going on in there. Some would walk in there and say "oh, yeah, I get it now" but there were many who said they felt good and they were always then lectured about what their look said to other people. At the end, of course, they were all thrilled, but in the beginning it was all about telling them that their friend's, family's and coworkers opinions mattered more than their own.

The thing is, I don't think Stacy and Clinton were necessarily wrong in this! I do understand why people care how others perceive their fashion choices. It just makes her complete flip a little hard for me to swallow.

Anonymous

So I loved this show, and any show that makes women look and feel awesome, like "say yes to the dress".

And the one thing my ex-husband and I agree on is that Nick Arrogo is a genius and clearly a nice guy.

But I DO remember an episode with a VERY quirky woman who got transformed and she DID look quite uncomfortable at the end of the show. And I think she said she didn't like it, and Stacy and Clinton basically told her she was crazy (not with words but with their attitude). I felt they were being awfully condescending and I think they could have done a better job fitting in some of her own personality.

I would love to see an update of this show where they put more emphasis on the personal style of the candidate. TV Heaven!

Anonymous

Oh right. I remember the 360 mirror Traci. I didn't like that part of the show because it was hurtful. I was quite a lot younger when I watched this show and I think I would react far more negatively to it now.

There were other shows like "First date" or something that we're just trying to embarrass people. I think this "embarrass people" was a genre and they don't do it as much anymore.

Janet

(website)

Veteran

Vivian, agreed on so many counts. I also disagree that their MO was to convince people that how others perceived them was more important than how they felt. It was usually just the opposite -- a lot of those women were hiding in some way or another because they didn't feel great about themselves, and S&C helped show them how they could feel better about themselves by taking pride in their appearance. So many of them thought they didn't deserve to shop for themselves (the ones who neglected themselves while they poured their energy into others), or to take themselves seriously (the ones who wore crazy costumes), etc.

Yeah, I did enjoy the show, even with the limitations imposed by the formula. I even learned a lot from it, since it was way pre-YLF and I was less into the style/fashion thing than I am now. I always saw S&C as having almost a good cop/bad cop dynamic -- Clinton was a bit more lovable, and Stacy was more snarky. But when women got truly emotional, you could see both of them respond in a sympathetic way. I always thought she seemed like a sensitive, sympathetic person under the snark -- the snark just got amped up for the show. After reading her book, I was even more convinced. But I also really like direct people who have something to say and are not afraid to say it, as long as it's not cruel. They never, ever said anything bad about their participants' bodies -- they criticized the clothes.

"I’m not saying all women my age should dress the way I do. But my style is helping me to understand the kind of woman I am now." That part resonates with me a lot. I've got a few years on Stacy, and I can't get away with some of the outfits she can wear (I love those jeans in her photo but don't have the body for them), but I don't know any other 51-year-olds in my circles who dress like I do. And I like that.

This too: "And with time, we can form a new sense of our identities as useful and productive. I will have more to say and experience and share and love and do. Age is a gift, not simply because we aren’t dead. It’s the gift of time that allows us to change our prejudices and perceptions."

As for "Her trouser pockets are filled with fewer f*cks?" It's just a play on "I don't give a f*ck" and the "I have no more f*cks to give" meme.

viva

Veteran

One thing is absolutely true: perception is everything, and perception is not fixed. So this show was in all likelihood a lot of different, often contradicting things, depending on who was watching. It's really interesting to read all the comments.

I always wanted to get my hair cut by Nick. Still do.

Anonymous

I watched the show a couple of times and I thought they were mean, nasty, and catty to the person they were trying to help. I didn't watch it after that.

unfrumped

Veteran

You know how online items sometimes include a nanosecond video modeling of the clothing? I find those very helpful in deciding whether to give something a whirl, because ii shows how something hangs, twirls, sticks out funny, and so on. And whether it's only so because the model is 5'11" and size 2!

That's a major part of what I liked about WNTW. I watched them almost " clinically", like " outfit lab" , to get ideas about proportions, drape, recognizing body doubles ( or not).

Clothing in motion on real people is so helpful. That's why Angie's picks are useful( no videos, though) because she's seen them on ladies IRL.

Angie

(website)

Fashion Stylist

I met and interviewed Stacy London in person. She has a BIG personality and is a natural on camera. I was not a huge fan of her show because I found it humiliating and demeaning for the person getting the makeover. I didn't like how the "victim" was knocked down - just to be praised later.

WNTW has become a dated dressing concept, and Stacy knows it. Stacy's second venture with her army of personal stylists failed too. That's because there are no dressing rules, and body type dressing guidelines are merely a starting point. I wish her the best of luck creating a new image for herself. It can't be easy.

This post has 1 photo. Photos uploaded by this member are only visible to other logged in members.

If you aren't a member, but would like to participate, please consider signing up. It only takes a minute and we'd love to have you.

El Cee

Veteran

I had difficulty even watching WNTW because, as Angie just remarked, most of the show seemed to center around the humiliation of the makeover participant. I found this to be troubling. I also didn't like the idea that there should be such strict style rules. Fashion should be fun and not bring on anxiety attacks. Haven't read her book, so I cannot comment.

JAileen

Veteran

I liked the Trinny and Susannah version (the original) better than the American version mainly for the reason others have mentioned. The American version with Stacy was very very mean. Trinny and Susannah were much kinder to their "victims". I also assumed Stacy was mean. How else could she have done that to people?

rachylou

Veteran

On Stacy's snark: I see her as having a kind of Brooklyn thing going on, with her style of communication. My boss has it. I don't mind it BUT I think you have to know the humour (rough and sarcastic, fond of pointing out irony) and, also, build up a tolerance. My boss often rubs people the wrong way. It had been a long time since I'd socialised with a 'Brooklyn-ite,' and I really had to pause to interpret when he came on board...

Anonymous

My mom was a direct person, but not ever rude. I grew up with it and realize it doesn't come with mal intent.

My sisters and I developed the same directness. Having a customer service job in the Deep South has been challenging because a few people have perceived me to be rude when I wasn't. I have to put sugar on everything I say just to appease these people. I can't wait until retirement because I feel like I'm having to be fakey sweet, when it's not my nature to be that way. It's amazing how my boss, who is a man, can be every bit as direct but not be perceived in the same way. I think it's a sexist Bible Belt thing.

There was only one time when I thought Stacey went OTT, and that was when she told a lady that the colors she was wearing were outdated. Seriously???

The rest of the recommendations seemed to be based on the careers of the people being made over and on the now outdated concept of only dressing for figure flattery. That said, I think it helps to know the rules in addition to how to break them, and to learn how to dress appropriately for one's job.

MsMaven

Veteran

Fascinating post and comments--thank you. I watched Stacy for years until I got tired of her formula approach.

One important part of the show was helping people dress for their careers--to make a better impression, to attract clients, to sell whatever the person was selling. It was the last hangover of the old Dress for Success approach, which did have value in its time for anyone who wanted a career in traditional businesses and professions but came from a background that didn't provide models of such.

My friend and I were talking about the rules of dressing in the 1950s, how we learned to wear uncomfortable underwear, and our Moms always wore hats and gloves when they went out, even if they were taking the city bus to go downtown to pay the electric bill. When I was in my later teens I devoured books on proper dressing, individual style (not so individual then) along with fashion magazines. I think this year is the first time in 50 years that I am not going to buy a September Vogue. It just isn't relevant to who I am now--especially since I have fashion sites like this one that give me instant feedback as I stumble along trying to find a new style to fit my current life and body. Like Stacy said, right now my style certainly isn't what I thought it would 20 years ago.

Barbara Diane

Veteran

I watched the show regularly. For someone like me, who didn't know much about clothing your body shape, how to put together outfits, etc. it was very useful.

It did take me a minute to realize that they could have been more respectful to their clients. And they realized it.

They were originally hired because of their banter and stark. The producers were looking for it.

At some point made a conscious decision to cut down on the snark. Just as at some point (maybe the same time?) they realized it was more about the inner transformation than about the clothes.

Stacy wrote about being pigeon holed, and how when she wanted to dress a bit more outside the box, the producers(?) said no.

Her book about her life was very insightful and moving.

I heard her speak in person when she was on the book tour. It was a little odd; she may have been exhausted. But she seemed to think she needed to pump herself and the audience up, this audience that clearly loved her. I was more interested/curious than most there, judging from the audience's effusiveness. She talked about her challenging experiences, but in a distant rather than heartfelt way. I just kept wishing she didn't feel like she needed to perform a certain way and could be as real as she seemed in the book. We wouldn't have cared if she said she was tired and exhausted and just shared with us.

I also heard Clinton speak, not at a book tour. He was amazing and thoughtful, heartfelt and real. And he spoke about how much it pained him how women were so critical of their bodies. I brought a friend who didn't watch the show, and she was quite impressed.

Anonymous

I sure did love Nick, though! He can come do my hair any day, any time.

12