"Protest Chic"

cassie-1-2-3 I think it's cute.

Cinders So... my message means less if I'm out there in t-shirts and jeans and not making some trendy fashion statement? I think this article missed the point a smidge... I read all their signs before I even looked at the captions... and then I looked at what they were wearing. Out of curiosity, what magazine is this in?

jameswilson I don't know - my cousin took a picture of it from a magazine and posted it on Facebook. I guess I just live in Orange County and am particularly susceptible to annoyance when it comes to stuff like this. So many of the protesters I see and am approached by don't seem to have any idea what they're really protesting, and they often contradict each other. I just hate that the people who are really out there trying to make a difference are being lumped in with people who protest "because it's cool".

cassie-1-2-3 I didn't read anything about the validity of your protest being lessened or strengthened based on your outfit. It's only pointing out what some people are wearing. That's all.

jameswilson It's just what it represents - "a 2012 do!" As if you have to get out and protest something because it's "in" like a pair of shoes or some new hair style.

cassie-1-2-3 Where are you getting this? It doesn't say that anywhere on the page. In fact, it says using your voice will never go out of style, meaning that it's not a "2012 trend".

jameswilson The title of the page suggests otherwise. I'm not saying people can't wear whatever they want when they protest ... I just hate that it's become the cool thing to do for so many people. I've met them - they're everywhere. I'm not saying I haven't also met people who are on target and passionate about what they say. This page is a reminder to me of all those people who don't even know what they're protesting about - they hold up signs and try to look cute so they can post pictures of it on their facebook when they get home.

cassie-1-2-3 Chic means styleness, not styleish. It's not a verb. It's not describing what protesting is. If it read "Protesting [i]is[/i] Chic", that would be a different story. Again, it's just pointing out what some people are wearing while protesting, nothing more, nothing less.

jameswilson I'm just going to agree with what Cinders said here. It's missing the point (and in my opinion, in a very annoying way). It's ignoring the message of the protest and making it about clothes, arguably the least important aspect of protesting. Plus if I walk by a girl protesting "the 1%" in her $100 Free People scarf, I'm not likely to take her seriously. Which is sad. Because the message is important.

cassie-1-2-3 How do you know how much their clothes cost? The magazine didn't even name any brand names? And why does the cost of their scarf make them any more or less valid? Isn't that actually opposing what Cinders said? Judging the validity of their protest based on what the person is wearing? Are you suggesting that only people wearing very cheap clothing should be taken seriously?

cassie-1-2-3 Also, if this is from a fashion magazine, it makes sense for it to be about fashion, since it's a fashio magazine. I don't believe that they should be banned from ass serious issues because they deal with fashion.

jameswilson Ok, we're going to just have to agree to disagree here. This is a peaceful spot and this topic honestly makes me more angry than I want to get here. I live in an extremely materialistic city and I guess I just can't shake the cynicism I've acquired from living here. Since you're accusing me of straying away from the actual page, I'll just make a final point with a direct quote from it - "fight for your right to be colorful". That has nothing to do with anything. *I also realized that I miss read Cinders statement, and for that I apologize

Cinders No, you read my statement as it was intended, but so did Cassie. She was saying that it shouldn't matter if they were wearing Dolce and Gabana or something they found at Good Will. And she's right. On the other hand, I understand frustration seeing labeled clothing at a protest against the unequal distribution of wealth in this country. However, rather than seeing it as hypocritical, see it as someone who really gets it, without having to live it. More often than not, wealthy people like Gingrich are so out of touch with the rest of the country that they don't get what's going on. They think the Occupy protests are ridiculous. It's nice that middle class, upper middle class and even upper class Americans can recognize that there is something wrong with this country, and if they want to do that wearing their best, that's fine by me. But I stand by the statement that the clothes they wear are not relevant. However, I think fashion in general is irrelevant. But I'm used to seeing it in articles about celebrities and red carpet events - that's where it is supposed to be. But looking for it in protestors... That's really not why most of them are there. That girl has a nice scarf, but I don't think she was trying to get in a magazine for it. I don't even see what's fashionable about the other two. But that may just be my complete and utter ignorance of fashion. And my disdain for this image could be chalked up to my prejudices against the fashion industry. Because I don't get the fashion industry. And sometimes, I think they're about as out-of-touch with average America as Newt Gingrich.

Sappp I don't really see the problem with this. Yes it is shallow, but aren't all fashion magazines? Wether they talk about what Angelina Jolie wears while getting groceries, what Johnny Depp has as swimming outfit or what the occupy movement wears, it is all the same shallowness. (Don't think I really disaprove of these magazines, I have had subscriptions to several of these [i]glossy[/i] magazines) You just have to take it with a grain of salt. It is not as this was in the New York Times or any other 'real' newspaper.

jameswilson Yes, I agree with you both - especially the part about all fashion magazines being shallow and not taking any of them seriously (which is probably what my reaction should have been in the first place). I just hate to see them turn something important into a fashion statement too. I also agree that what you wear shouldn't matter to your message (I know I said the thing about the Free People scarf, but like Cinders, that's just my disdain for extremely overpriced clothes and fashion - after all, trends are created by "the 1%" to make money), but that's part of the reason I don't like this - they're making it seem like it's about what you wear not about what you're protesting.

Cinders I also see it as opportunistic. "Protest Chic" is a cheap way to make money off of average people. They don't have to design a whole new "look" for this fall, just tell people "The broke young person look is so IN right now," make some cheap knock-off looks based on that, and sell it at way exorbitant prices. I think, when it comes to fashion, though I don't get it, there is a time and a place for it. Celebrities, no matter what they're doing, are celebrities and expect to be under the microscope, whether they want to be or not. Including the sweats they wear on a bad day being criticized as poor fashion. But in serious issues... I also feel like this is a women's issue. What's the men's "protest chic" look? Although, that's probably because this is a magazine whose target audience is women. But I go back to the idea that there's a time and a place for fashion. Politics and protests are not one of them. I've heard people talk about what Hillary or Palin wears to a rally, but never what their male colleagues are wearing, and normally it's designer suits. I don't even think Sarah Palin would appreciate it if she was trying to make a very valid point and all the media could focus on was the sweater she was wearing. There are some instances where it just feels wrong to talk about what someone's wearing over the actual situation that's going on. Refugees fleeing from Eastern Europe may have a really cool looking scarf around their heads and mouths to protect from the dust... but that's not the story there. I'd feel really uncomfortable if people tried to make a fashion trend that was "Refugee Chic."

youknowit101 Hating America because some magazine noticed what colors three protesters were wearing?

jameswilson Everyone is taking me too literally! It's materialism ... it's all that this sort of thing represents! Ugh That's probably it for me on this one - no more checking in on what everyone says. I've said all I can, everyone has made their points, no one is changing their minds - at this point I'm just becoming aggravated. So enjoy to all those who wish to continue. But as for me - jameswilson out. Haha - and peace to all those who both agree and disagree with me! I respect all of your opinions equally.

Cinders Whoa, back up, who the heck said anything about "hating America"? EDIT: Oh, I found it. Nah, I've heard people say that all the time. It's hyperbole. Jameswilson hates America like I hate my cat. Stupid thing makes me trip all the time, but at the end of the day, I can't help but forgive him.