The Space Between My Peers

I’m closing out 2005 with some leftover Christmas thoughts. For some reason, I found myself more interested than usual in re-reading the familiar Biblical passages this Christmas season. Two things struck me:

When Mary was found to be pregnant, a young unwed mother, it was a much bigger deal than those circumstances would be today. We sometimes overlook the fact that God could have provided for her and her child in many ways: through her relatives Zachariah & Elizabeth, her extended family, or through the provision of the Magi. Instead, He chose to provide for them in a way that is often sneered at in today’s feminist society. Jesus was raised by a mother and father (although not His own), in what appears to have been a large family. Imagine that!

Then, after the visit from the Magi, God spoke to Joseph, instructing him to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt to preserve Jesus from the murderous Herod. I will refrain from commenting on the symbolism of the whole Egypt thing and just note that it appears the newlyweds had a season to bond as a couple, albeit with a small child, before returning to Nazareth and their extended family.

Just a couple of thoughts I had never really considered before.

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

Retail therapy. Supposedly that’s when people go shopping to make themselves feel better. In the real world, where most of us live, shopping just can’t do that anymore. It’s confusing, depressing, exhausting and, as often as not, futile. Who hasn’t spent hours looking for something that should be easy to find, only to find rack after rack of the same old not-gonna-do-it garbage?

Yesterday I stumbled across this post, detailing one shoppers frustrations. Although the author speaks from the point of view of a large woman, most of us can relate.

Which brings up an important question: Where would you shop if money were no object?

(Consider that question now, and find out when to expect the lowest prices in those stores. Maybe the first week of February you can afford to shop there.)

More and more women say they seriously hate shopping for clothes. What about you? Is retail therapy or does it make you need it?

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

With Christmas behind us, and I trust that you have your new garments “styled in” to your wardrobe, it’s time to prepare for the biggest clearance-shopping season of the year. And who goes shopping without knowing how much they have to spend (Luke 14:28)?

(Collective gasp!) Does she mean budget?

Have you ever wondered what the “experts” believe you should spend on your wardrobe? I checked for you. Actually I expected a range, but the numbers from both sides, fashion and finance, are the same: about 5% of net spendable income. For more help with your “spending plan” (euphemism for budget), see the excellent resources available from Crown Financial Ministries.

Just in case you were wondering, I do not use the 5% formula. (I spend less.)

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

Welcome back to reality, after a wonderful Christmas break. Okay, some parts weren’t so wonderful: the runny nose, watery eyes, sneezing, and swollen glands. Ever wonder about statistics for being sick on Christmas and/or the day after compared to any other day of the year?

But now that Christmas is behind us and most of you lovely ladies received new clothes as gifts, what next? You must “style them in” to your current wardrobe. To “style it in” is a term that I made up (this is my blog, I can invent vocabulary as I see fit) based on what professional stylists do in the fashion industry. In other words, you must create great-looking outfits combining your new clothing and accessories with your existing ones.

The goal is to be sure that the outfits you envision in your mind actually work on your body. Try on every possibility. If you have a new sweater, you should try it on with each pair of pants and every skirt it might go with. Carefully recording combinations that work will save you time and trouble on mornings when wardrobe trauma threatens to overwhelm artistic inspiration.

Have fun with this project. Turn the heat up in your dressing room (for me that’s my bedroom), so you don’t mind repeatedly changing your clothes. Crank up some perky tunes. Older girl children may want to “play dress-up” with you, and pre-schoolers can sit on the bed and keep you company. (I don’t recommend inviting your husband, he’s likely to be too distracted by the sight of you dressing and undressing to be of any help.)

The downside to blogging about clothes is that now everyone is afraid to buy me any. On the upside, I don’t blog about fine jewelry.

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

Stuck in my head this Christmas, from We Three Kings of Orient Are:

Glorious now behold Him arise,
King and God and Sacrifice,

(Now are you thinking about trying to smoke a rubber cigar? Sorry. Sticky tune, isn’t it?)

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

For the past few days I have been blogging about employing the Golden Mean principle in assembling great-looking (or, at the very least, normal-looking) everyday outfits. Now I will illustrate another combination of lengths in the same proportion, using a jacket I own which is a harder length to wear.

The length of the troublesome jacket is almost to the middle of my thigh, making it half of my total (head to toe) length. Worn with a knee-length skirt, the look would be about 75/25, causing the skirt to appear inappropriately short. With trousers the proportion is a little better, but …

What I really need to complete this outfit is a skirt in that fabulously flattering length that women all over are resisting, the riding skirt. Designed to hit just below the large calf muscle, the length below my (buttoned) jacket would be just about 62% of the length of the jacket.

Incidentally, when putting together a look which incorporates your entire body, from head to toe, your “unit” will be approximately a head-length, measured from visual top of head to chin.

No doubt I will revisit this topic when the weather starts to warm up (and we pull out our crops, capris, shorts, etc.). In the meantime, I keep wondering why I can’t just find some on-line fashion authority who I can link to, borrowing her explanations of these very basic concepts (1 Cor 1:27).

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

Previously I explained employing the Golden Mean principle of pleasing proportion when wearing a dress. After clarifying a point or two today, I hope to show how the same principle works when wearing pants.

1) See yesterday’s post for a way to test a monochromatic look. If the color works for you, feel free to wear a monochromatic look of any length.

2) A 3 to 5 ratio is close to the same thing as 60/40. It is okay to vary proportions a few inches from the ideal, it makes things more interesting.

Two easy ways to make a pant outfit appear balanced:

1) Wear a top which approximates the colors and contrast level in your head, with a different color trousers. Tuck the top in at the waist.

2) Pair low-rise jeans with a colored top, untucked, and a belt.

In the first example, the 3 “Cuisennaire Rods” are measured from the top of the head to the waist; the 5 are from waist to sole. This is the same concept as a skirt and hose and shoes, all the same color, with a tucked in blouse. In the second, the head is not included in the calculation; the 3 units are from collar to shirt-tail and the 5 are measured from the bottom of the belt to the hem of the jeans. (I have short legs so I always incorporate my shoe color into the bottom portion of my outfit.)

Have I totally lost all of you wonderful people? Cast your vote here. Should I keep on explaining this topic, or just move on?

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

…Phew! I’m back. I’ve been running my little fingers off, searching the blogosphere, indeed the entire world wide web, looking for a simple explanation and illustration of the Golden Mean. With about as much success as I generally have, and minus more minutes of my life than I would like to admit, I have this to offer you. Hopefully most of you already get it. The Golden Mean is the principle, originating in nature,which governs proportion and it has application in all areas of art and architecture. Unfortunately, it seems we have mostly missed it when it comes to getting dressed. But who among us wouldn’t like our daily appearance to be an artistic composition?

The easy way to apply the Golden Mean to getting dressed = imaginary Cuisennaire Rods! Cuisennaire Rods, for you non-homeschoolers/teachers, are math manipulatives for primary students.

How it works: for each composition you are given 8 total (imaginary) units. In order to create a pleasing and interesting balance, 3 to 5 is the ideal ratio. Previously I proposed using shoes the color of your hair. Worn with a just-below-the-knee dress (a look both contemporary and classic) and skin-tone stockings, the head and legs/shoes add up to the 3 units and the dress is the 5. Does that make sense?

I spent many hours in front of a full-length mirror with a tape measure and calculator before mastering this concept. Then I realized it really doesn’t have to be that complicated. Sometime soon I hope to explain how to use this concept to help you decide whether or not to tuck your shirt in.

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

If you could only have one pair of shoes, what color should they be? Whatever color your hair is. Of course, I don’t want to become some sort of shoe nazi. The principle I’m suggesting is balance. Simply put, your hair is always part of your ensemble, the very top part. Your shoes can repeat the color, like bookends, without necessarily becoming part of what’s in between.

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

After posting my previous, What Not To Wear … To Church, I found this article. Christian ladies, you should all read it in its entirety. Is it speaking to you?

I believe that the way we women are dressed (or undressed) when we go out in public is an important issue, and that several biblical principles support this viewpoint. The first is 1 Corinthians 10:32, which says, “Do not cause anyone to stumble.” Pretty simple. What it basically proves is that it is our problem if men in our church have trouble keeping their minds on God because of our choice in fashions. Our feminine desire to be thought attractive must come second to helping men keep their thoughts pure.

That’s love. Putting the interests of “other” before the interests of “me”. And in no way does that necessitate being unattractive. In most cases, immodest apparel is not the most artistic presentation; but the female form is intrinsically beautiful and can always be used to get attention. Is that the kind of attention you want?

Stay tuned for more on the art and science of dressing.

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader