midlife body

by Ann Dunnewold of Who Says?!!

 

I’m not trying those on, they’re size 10!”

“I refuse to wear a size 12.”

“Wow, I fit into a size 6!”

“Let’s go in this store; in here, I’m a size 4!”

On any given shopping trip, put me and perhaps a daughter or sister or two into the dressing room together, and the chatter pretty much flows just like that. Then there’s the “I’m smokin’– look at me!” dance when a size 6 zips up neatly.

The feminist ref in my head may as well throw down the penalty flag since I’m guilty of having spiked the “size equals value as a woman” football into the end zone in order to get that little victory.

Who says a six (or a four or a ten) is a badge of honor–let alone a badge of shame? Then there’s that ridiculous size 0 or 00!! Does that make me a size nothing, or double nothing? Sounds like I’m invisible–or the incredible shrinking woman.

I’ve been every size from a 16 to a 4, and I definitely like myself better when I’m wearing the “right size.” However, too many women fixate on an arbitrary number as to what is the right size. The numbers are arbitrary, as I found out while learning to sew back in 1967.

The history of standardized sizing began with home sewing patterns back in the 1930s. Prior to that time, most clothing was individually sewn and tailored to fit the wearer. Then in an effort to standardize sizing for mass produced clothing,  the first large-scale scientific study of women’s body measurements was done.  About 15,000 American women were measured, 59 body points in all, as part of a USDA survey. Marilyn Monroe-esque curvy was the shape of most women at that initial assessment, with pronounced bust and hips and thinner waist. A size 12 then measured as a 30 inch bust.

In 1956, however, a new role model came on the scene–the Barbie doll–and sizing changed again. Now a size 12 was a 32 inch bust. (and beautiful bombshell Marilyn would’ve worn size 16!) In mid-1967, the standard changed once again and size 12 became a 34 inch bust.

Fast forward to today: sizes are firmly anchored in the realm of “vanity sizing.” Store to store, designer to designer, manufacturers  lure you in by labeling ever larger sizes with smaller numbers. In fact, the fashion industry resists any effort to standardize sizes, as was done in 1940, fearing loss of a customer if the size she wear gets upsized.

Upsized like a value meal? Who would stand for that? I try to forget this crazy numbers game! Do I like how I look? Do I feel good? Does this outfit feel like me? I’ve tried to define my style and stick with it and ignore the size, rather than let it make me feel bad about myself.

Photo credit: www.princecharmingsmadame.com/

{ 27 comments }

This summer, my sister and brother-in-law celebrated their Fiftieth wedding anniversary. It was a very big deal. Their three kids threw them a black tie dinner dance at the gorgeous Hyatt Hotel in Long Beach, CA. This photo is one of the MANY that were taken that night (I believe there were no less than two videographers in attendance), and I’m showing it to you for a reason.

I’m wearing those Lisette L “pants with Flaterie fit” that I told you about on MidLifeBloggers back in August. Turns out that while there were many photos taken, this is the only one that featured me in my Lisette L’s, which is why you’re having to look at a really BIG jpeg. I want you to pay attention to is me from the waist down. From the waist up is okay as well…

Yes, the vibrant blue of my sister’s gown kinda plunges my black Lisette L’s into the background. No mind; let me tell you about them.

Lisette L pants are the brainchild of a Canadian couple, Lisette Limoge and her husband, Neil Small, and they have created a variety of styles that are pull-ons with no buttons or zippers. If you’re thinking Old Lady Pants, forget it. They’ve done it with a fabric and a fit “that flattens and flatters, slims the abs, contours the hips and shapes the behind.”

It’s true. There is no need to wear Spanx underneath these because they are, in fact, their own Spanx. Yet they have the weight and feel and look of slacks. I wore them all evening without feeling like I was in a circa 1950′s girdle. In fact, if I can best describe how they felt, it was this: like a glove. This is how I imagine slacks should fit if they’ve been tailored perfectly for your body. Except that these, the Lisette L’s, were straight off the rack.

I do have a caveat, however. It was only after I removed them from the washing machine that I saw the “hand wash only” tag.

I try to avoid such garments because–well, frankly, I only do such hand washes once or twice a year, so the garments end up in a pile of dirty clothes waiting for me to feel guilty enough that I act.

Had I ruined my Lisette L’s? They were all creased up and wrinkled, so I put them in the dryer. But when I took them out–voila! as they would say at Lisette L in Quebec–they looked just as good as they had when I put them on before my sister’s party. Had they shrunk up, however? I feared as much but when I tried them on just now, they still have that like-a-glove fit. I’m not sure why Lisette L has that hand wash only tag on them, but mine went through the washer and dryer just fine.

There are a number of different styles, colors and patterns. Here, have a look at the behind-the-scenes video of Lisette L’s 2012-13 line:

 

Lisette L sent me the pair of pants pictured above for the purpose of reviewing them. The opinions are, as always, my own.

{ 10 comments }

I am of the mind that shoes make the woman.  Or, rather, shoes make the woman’s look, outfit, dress.   And unmake it, as well.  Meaning: the most gorgeous, expensive well-fitted outfit will be brought down several pegs at least by shoes that are not the equal of that outfit.  And vice versa: A blah dress straight off the marked-down-forever racks at Ross or Penny’s can be made to soar, so to speak, by wearing it with incredible shoes.

I have been, if nothing else, the girl with the cute shoes, and I relish shoe shopping. The thrill of the hunt: what new and different is out there? Will they have it in my size? Will it fit? Well, maybe that last one wasn’t so important. Not that I would emulate Cinderella’s sister and cut off my toes to fit into a cherished slipper, but really, don’t all women expect some measure of foot discomfort?

Beauty is not painless, as my Aunt Regina used to tell my mother. My mother listened to her older sister; she daily wore high heels, as high as they made them, which at the time was a scant three inches.

Of course, Aunt Regina, who was an artist and designer, not to mention an Upper Westside New Yorker, was the absolute arbiter of what one did and didn’t do fashion-wise. So I was befuddled when she suddenly appeared in the worlds clunkiest shoes. Space shoes, I believe they were called, about as ergonomically correct as could be, since they were made to fit a plaster mold of one’s foot.

They were without any redeeming design features, but according to Aunt Regina they were necessary for her feet. Something about bunions and corns and falling arches–I don’t know what all. Clearly this was something only old people thought about, so I stopped listening to her explanation. Such shoes had nothing to do with me.  And never would.  Ever.

I am not sure if I am close to the age Aunt Regina was then. When you’re young, everyone over forty looks old (which is why we don’t recognize ourselves in the mirror these days). I do know that the ills of the aging foot, of which I wrote last week on MidLifeBloggers, are mine.  I still won’t wear space shoes, but I’ve moved into the arena of Comfort More Than Cuteness.

You’ll notice I said Comfort More Than, not Comfort Over Cuteness.  My friend, Laurie, and I debated this the last time I was in New York.  Laurie is also an Upper WestSide New Yorker. She has the delicate, narrow feet that I associate with patricians, while mine are the large ones that the peasant stock stood on. She had the exquisite shoe taste to go with her feet, and I have spent no little time envying her foot wardrobe. No more, though. Laurie now wears running shoes 24/7 wherever she goes.  Sad to say, those beautiful patrician feet aren’t holding up so well, and Laurie has opted for comfort over style.

I could tell from the comments on the MidLifeBloggers post last week that Laurie is not alone.  I am somewhat solitary, it would seem, in my insistence on wearing shoes that have some modicum of Cuteness to them.  But this whole adventure with FootSmart has forced me to question my standards, and that has sent me dangerously close to that spiralling downward tunnel labeled “I Don’t Want To Be Old.”

I don’t want to be dead, either, which is what wiseacres, generally male, generally middle-aged have told  me is my alternative to being old.  Yes, I get it.  So let me rename that tunnel, “I Don’t Want To Be Perceived as Being Old.” Ah, that’s much clearer.

It’s a tunnel that has many entrances. Today we’re talking of feet, but it could just as easily be facial features and hair color and the propping up of various body parts. Isn’t that, after all, why we cover our gray and botox our wrinkles? So people who see us don’t automatically put us in the category of Old. Because we know how old we are, so there’s no fooling us. And those near and dear know it as well. No, it’s that person over there, down the street, in the next office who we are hoping to convince to still take us seriously. Which means, we believe, in seeing us as Not Old.

It used to be easier, I think. When I was a kid, old ladies wore black lace-up brogues with a squat inch heel. Now they’re the height of fashion, and old ladies wear–what?

These are the shoes that FootSmart just sent me.  They’re by Clark, Haley Eagle Flats from their Privo line. Clark’s, you know, the ones who make all those ergonomically- and orthopedically-correct shoes.When you see them on my feet, tell me–how old am I?

And these?

The Drew Women’s Sandy Sandals? Drew’s is known for their orthopedic shoes. Do these look orthopedic? I thought not.

Clearly, the problem is within me. Perhaps if I hadn’t spent so much time as a young woman thinking ill of my elders for their seeming lack of style, I wouldn’t, now that I’m the elder, be so hoisted on my own petard. Perhaps.

FootSmart sent me the styles shown above for the purposes of reviewing them.  The opinions are, as always, my own.

 

·

{ 18 comments }

Slowly but surely the MidLife-Beauty Advisory Board is getting into gear. Today we have tips on skin care from two members:

Laurie recommends a hand and body lotion called DermaDaily which she found on-line.  She says it’s a terrific skin moisturizer with aloe vera gel that is latex-free and gives long lasting protection. According to the company that makes it, DermaRite Industries LLC located in Patterson, New Jersey, the product replenishes and enriches the skin’s own natural oils and comes in sizes from 4 oz to 1 gallon.

Laurie also recommends Crabtree & Evelyn’s Nantucket Briar Hand Therapy.  This, according to some, is Crabtree & Evelyn’s most popular product line.  Laurie loves it not just for what it does for her hands–it’s got shea butter in it–but for how terrific it smells, thanks to the bergamont, ambergris, wild briar rose and vanilla notes.

 

Wendy decided she had to attack those things that when we were young and cute were called freckles; now, however, they’ve become the more dour age spots (which is better than my mother’s day when they were called “flowers of death”). These things–whatever you call them–are starting to show up on her arms.   She got an over-the-counter lightening cream from Ulta–Reviva Labs Brown Spot Night Cream–and says rubbing the hydroquinone-based formula  on the spots is definitely fading them.A  jar of the stuff, which incidentally neither contains nor is tested on animals, is made in the U.S. costs $10.99.

Are you interested in joining our Advisory Board?  Willing to share your happy tips and horror stories with the MidLife-Beauty community?  Email jane@midlifebloggers.com.

 

{ 1 comment }

Every year I have this argument with myself:

Me:  It’s summertime–whee!–look at all the pretty summer clothes in the stores.

Myself: Yeah, look at how almost all of them are sleeveless.  You can’t wear sleeveless. You’re too old.

Me:  Says who?

Myself: Says all the fashion know-it-alls.  Top of the list of what not to do in the summer is wear sleeveless tops and bare your aging arms.

Me: Top of the list?

Myself: Well, maybe second, after Don’t Wear Short Shorts.

I tend to listen to myself in the early days of summer.  Until I get hot.  Then I start to rebel.  And I start to wonder, who or what am I saving by not forcing them to witness the exposure of my upper arms?

Why are the upper arms of older women considered so heinous?

  • Because they’re so flabby
  • And flaccid
  • And liver-spotted
  • And cellulite-dimpled
  • And, often, fat

How is it, then that sleeveless tops on overweight young women are not considered heinous?  Is it not the cellulite-dimpled and flacid that is the problem, but the liver-spots?

And what about men of every age who wear sleeveless tops.  Why are their flabby, flaccid, liver-spotted, cellulite-riddled arms not an offense as well?  Especially when you consider that there is generally a brush of armpit hair splayed out for the world to view.

Is this an ageist, gender-related issue?  Women must hide all aspects of themselves that may hint at the state of their reproductive capablilty.  If we are not to cloister our aging bodies in our rooms, at least we can save the populace from having to witness these signs of our uselessness to society.

Yeah yeah yeah…probably true, that.  But so what?  I have no desire to even try to change the cultural mores of the Western world.  Instead, I’ll change myself.

  1. I will wear sleeveless tops
  2. I will not judge the jiggly underarms of other women who are baring them.
  3. I will not envy those with taut arms (including Andrea Mitchell, and how does she do it?)
  4. I will not not view my image in the mirror with the critical eyes of the younger me.
  5. I will stop thinking, damn, what happened to my arms?
  6. I will work at forming a revised image of what an attractive me looks like wearing sleeveless tops, as opposed to the one I now have from years of nubile models.
  7. I will not give a shit what the fashion know-it-alls tell me I must or mustn’t do.
Except–I’ve just scrolled through hundreds of Google images trying to find one to illustrate this post.  At the worst, I found a couple of photos of the before and after of a young fit woman who had had liposuction. However, congenital batwings are not what I’m talking about here.
I found any number of taut arms, including those of our First Lady of the Biceps, Michelle Obama.  But pix of the crepey, slack, mustn’t-be-revealed in daylight older woman arms–nada. Which makes me realize how insidious is the nefarious and henious attitude my culture promulgates about my arms (and I don’t use those triple-barreled words lightly).
That in turn makes me realize I must double, if not treble, my efforts at # 1-7 above.  Especially #4.  And #6.  And, oh yeah, #7.
Where do you stand in the Sleeveless: To Wear or Not debate?

{ 19 comments }

 

Once upon a time, apropos of nothing, a man told me I had beautiful feet. That was during a time, it must be said, when I was much younger, before my feet began to bear witness to the ravages of time. Actually, there is nothing terribly wrong with my feet: I don’t have bunions or corns or other disfiguring knobs and twists of the bone. It’s mostly cosmetic that I complain of (isn’t it always in everything?) After decades of not resolving a fungal situation on my right foot, my toe nails have come to resemble something more akin to horses hooves. My left foot, I hasten to add, is fine.

It is now sandal season. This means that I must once again find a way to camoflage my errant toe nails. I’ve never been much of a manicure girl; I like my fingernails short and I suffer from an irrespressible urge to peel off nail polish. My collection of polishes, then, are all assigned duty to my toes, and over the years, I’ve attacked them with a spirit of adventure that was, I must say, ahead of my time. It was, after all, two years ago well before the current trend that I started painting my toenails with two colors of polish. Last year I did freehand op art stripes and checkerboards on my toes. Having jazzy feet allowed me to tread with pride in the strappiest of sandals.

Knowing as you do my love for all things new and improved, you can imagine how curious I have been about gel polish. The issues with my right foot toenails seem to cry out for the rock-hard, patent leather shine that the gel polishes are all promising. Except–I didn’t love the cost of the ultraviolet light that was needed to cure the job.

Then I saw NutraNail’s Gel Perfect in my local drugstore. “Sets rock solid in 5 minutes to a patent leather shine…no UV light needed, quick and easy to apply.”

Dear reader, I bought it in Passion Red and set about that very evening to give myself a pedicure. Much to my dismay, however, when I opened the box, I found a sheet of instructions that were detailed and daunting. There were three bottles–activator, cleaner and gel color–and no less than five stages involved in successfully using the stuff. The Application Process alone (stage three) consisted of four steps:

  • apply sufficient activator to all five nails
  • immediately apply gel color using enough pressure to blend with activator
  • clean brush by wiping thoroughly on a paper towel and putting it in cleaner
  • take brush from cleaner and put back in gel color to apply a required second coat

This is not what I call quick and easy. I was totally intimidated, so I decided to just do one toe nail. I chose the big toe on the right foot, which is my problem child. I followed all the instructions, and the result was not bad. But to get not bad, I could just slap on a couple of coats of regular polish the way I always have. For not bad, I didn’t have to suffer through the detailed and daunting four step Application Process.

For several weeks I walked around with polish only on that one toe (it was still winter, so no one knew my secret). But then the balmy days of spring arrived and it was time to remove the trial Gel Perfect and give myself a ten toes pedicure. That was easier said than done. I don’t know what is in the stuff, but 100% acetone polish remover does not do the job, as Nutra Nail promises. I ended up having to chip away at the raggletaggle remnants of Passion, and finally used an emery board to get rid of the last of it.

The lesson learned: a base coat is required on my toe nails, one the seals the cracks and lumps and fissures that the ravages of time have wrought. In the meantime, I have my eye on that new magnetic polish that’s out this season. I’ll let you know how it goes.

 Have you tried the new gel polishes yourself? What’s your experience with them?

 

{ 14 comments }

Has Reinvention Become the Buzzword of Our Generation?

Uncategorized

I have a problem with “to remake or redo completely.” I don’t want a complete redoing. I don’t even know that I want a partial one

Read the full article →

Buying A Bathing Suit

Body

The fact is that my figure flaws are exaggerated, exacerbated, and made paramount by the wearing of a swim suit.

Read the full article →

Introducing: MidLife-Beauty.com

Uncategorized

We’re hungry for information about all things cosmetic, even those of us who used to be above such things….MidLife-Beauty is a window onto what my friends and I are saying to each other about makeup and hair, our skin and our bodies.

Read the full article →