Hermione Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi kenuchelover,
>
> > supermarkets don't depress me as much as the
> > average boutique.... or for that matter, the
> > clothes section of the average department
> store.
>
> If you read any 19th century novels, it seems that
> the less well-off people had one outfit that they
> wore on weekdays, and another they wore on Sundays
> - their Sunday best; and those two outfits were
> expected to last them for several years.
>
> Then the consumer society came into being ... I
> suppose that some of the discarded garments might
> eventually find their way into charity/thrift
> shops, and so get recycled that way.
>
> From the ecological point of view, though, I think
> there's something to be said for the way the
> French used to things in times past. The thinking
> was that, if you had a limited budget, you should
> concentrate on getting things like one pair of
> really good shoes, and one or two accessories like
> a good handbag and/or belt. That would leave less
> money for clothes, of course; but you might buy
> just one new (nice) skirt or jumper, so that you
> could have two or three outfits that you could
> wear through a season. French women (in those
> days, at any rate) didn't seem to mind having
> fewer clothes, as long as they looked good in
> them.

Fantasy novelist Terry Pratchett described a version of this in one of his Discworld novels.... a police sergeant from the city of Ankh-Morpork (loosely based on Britain), notes that poor people pay $5 for cut rate shoes that wear out within a month or two, while rich people (who have the leisure capital, AKA excess over rent & food, to do so) buy a superb pair of shoes for $50..... that last for 5-10 years.

But also, don't forget that effete modern noses pretty well require a larger wardrobe.... it isn't practical for people to wash all their clothes every 2-3 days (too costly re time & money), but if they don't have clean looking and SMELLING clothes they are ostracized & suffer all kinds of societal/economic discrimination. Ergo, it's more efficient for them to buy larger wardrobes, than to wash halfloads of laundry or to spend 2-3 times as many hours at the laundromat, or to get fired or NOT get hired due to their appearance & odor.

I don't object so much to the quantity of clothes people buy (so long as they actually wear them out, or "recycle" them in thrift shops rather than discard them in the garbage), as the deliberately eco-hostile (in the sense of valuing fashion & micro-trends over ecological considerations) & carelessless impractical nature of many clothes.

Flashing shoes with mercury batteries are an ecological abomination! Flimsy skintight guazy synthetics in an overweight society that pushes anorexic models onto pedestals translates to planned obsolescence and is self destructive to boot. Rubber/plastic shoes that don't get recycled are an ecological abomination (my father saw ROADS made from worn out tires & RUBBER sneakers in SE Asia during the Vietnam war.... in the wet tropics, they were more durable, and cheaper, than concrete or asphalt..... and gave better traction to boot!). Garments without pockets (for a female population that usually could BENEFIT from disguising their figures with loose clothes or filled pockets!) are sexually repressive AND a crude advertising ploy to sell high priced trendy purses to.... no pun intended.... boot! High heel shoes and boots are sexist, risky, and NOT really that attractive on most people.

> Whilst the individual garments might not
> have been always made from fabrics from
> sustainable resources, or incorporated
> environmentally-friendly dyes, there was at least
> less emphasis on the idea that maintaining one's
> image depended on having an endless succession of
> different garments, to be worn once or twice and
> then discarded. It wasn't quantity that mattered,
> but quality. Unfortunately, times have changed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hermione

Yep.

Kenuchelover.