Interesting article on disposable fashion

[Drappa]

Interesting article on disposable fashion in today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/may/08/fast-fashion-death-for-planet?intcmp=122

 

[Kate O Potato]

Thanks for this, Drappa. It was reading an article like this a few years ago which led to my current take on shopping. I will only buy something if I love it, if it's well made and if I know it's timeless. I can't abide 'faddy' looks and trends, and think that Primark is the scourge of modern society. I see so many teenagers at school with bags or clothes which cost a few pounds, and their attitude to it is that it's cheap so it doesn't matter if it only lasts a few months in their wardrobe. Even worse, cheap synthetic materials are going into landfill at a record rate, and we need to think responsibly which materials we are choosing to buy, in order to change demand. If we stop buying cheap synthetics then hopefully retailers will get the message and stop selling them, and hopefully even go for the Fairtrade option. It's really easy to source FT cotton these days and I think that where possible, retailers should be acting responsibly by doing so.

 

[Puzzicato]

Thanks Drappa! So interesting

In one year you'll accumulate in the region of 28kg of clothing – adding up to an estimated 1.72m tonnes of brand-new fashion being consumed on an annual basis in the UK

this is so shocking to me! As I am convinced my annual clothing purchases don't weigh that, I can't imagine how much some people buy!

And this

Perhaps that mindset explains why a fashion industry commentator watched in horror as she saw one satisfied customer emerge from Primark's flagship Oxford Circus store with six or seven brown paper bags full of clothes. It was raining heavily, and as the young woman proceeded down Oxford Street one of them broke around the handles and folded cotton flopped on to the pavement. Naturally the journalist expected the girl to bend down and collect the clothes, but no. She just walked on. Fashion was apparently so expendable it had turned into litter.

is absolutely chilling to me! I cannot imagine the mindset of someone who would do that!

 

[lareine]

Places like Primark are just awful. Hardly anything is designed to last more than a couple of weeks! Having said that, the best socks I ever bought were all from Primark so that is something I would stock up on there, and definitely not disposable given how many years I get out of them

New Zealand doesn't really have any shops like that. Clothing and shoes are generally more expensive here than they are in the UK, but on the plus side they seem to generally be higher quality too. Of course you can buy cheap tat here if you want to, but it's not as pervasive. As for toiletries, there is nothing like Boots or Superdrug so no temptation to buy random unnecessary stuff just because it's pretty or smells nice. Although I miss the selection, I don't miss the materialism and crazy spending to buy things I hardly care about.

These days I make almost all my own clothing, which certainly removes the sweatshop guilt factor. The only sweatshop involved most of the time is in my own house! I buy jeans, underwear, and wool knits, but make everything else myself.

 

[Drappa]

^^I know, that second quote was unbelievable! Although I have to say that 28kg doesn't even sound all that much, especially when I think of how many really heavy clothing bags I have taken to charity shops lately (and walking there you realise how heavy stuff actually is). If that includes coats and jeans, they alone probably weigh 1-2kgs each.
I have to admit I bought a Primark dress in error once, as it was advertised as vintage on Ebay and I didn't realise until it arrived.
I used to be so guilty of this, as I tended to buy so much before vintage, and just changed my habits in the last couple of years. I still have too many clothes, but am selling them off or giving them to charity shops now. I have to say that both vintage and my husband taught me to really wear things out and buy quality when I can, to not buy the same item in 3 colours and not to buy things that don't actually fit or flatter.
I have always mended my clothes, or tried to fix them, but this was never really encouraged by my Mom. She used to laugh and tell me to just throw away things that had a hole or were old. In a way she is a child of "progress" as described in the article, and a victim of the disposability and accessability of fashion, because she grew up not having much and revelled in the fact that she could give me more. I am just now, as an adult, starting to find a middle ground between being wasteful and over-thrifty. My husband grew up the exact opposite way, and suffered from it because his parents are very stingy and he was embarrassed by it as a child. We learned quite a lot form each other really, and I am very thankful for that.

 

[Puzzicato]

I've been trying to convince my husband that when his tshirts are more hole than cotton, it's OK to use them for washing the car! But I do generally fall on the stingy end of the spectrum. I've always loved fabrics, so I've never really found cheap fashion appealing because the fabrics are never very nice.

I think where Primark really seems to come into its own is children's clothes - when kids are growing really quickly there doesn't seem to be any point in spending more money on clothes, especially when people don't have the old hand-me-down network.

 

[Drappa]

True, but even then I think I' rather get them from charity shops or auction sites, especially because I read that used children's clothing is healthier because it's been washed so often that all the dyes and pesticides aren't as harmful anymore (not sure how true that is).
I can't even bear to go into Primark, it's just too messy in there for me. I love H&M sometimes, but again, the shops are usually such a mess and so untidy and full it's not even worth it.

I also think one of the biggest myths I used to buy into was that if I bought more expensive items and didn't wear them much, it didn't matter because I could just sell them easily. Now I know that fashion moves so quickly, it's really difficult to even sell designer items without making a huge loss if they are a few seasons old.

 

[Frenchy56]

I fully understand and respect the concerns you guys have raised; I have to admit, though, that whilst I'm nowhere near as bad as I used to be, I do like Primark for accessories like belts, little earrings et cetera, and basics like tights, plain t-shirts, socks. I'd say about 75% of my wardrobe is from charity shops now, but I do still go in Primark occasionally. My defense would be that whilst you don't go to Primark for long-wearing, brilliant quality stuff, I do think the wear-once aspect is exaggerated (and seems to be more about shopping habits than the goods themselves). Also, I don't think anywhere on the high street is particularly brilliant quality; whether you buy a £30 topshop top or a £8 primark one, they're both made cheaply in struggling countries; at least Primark are charging you an honest price. I don't have a lot of money, and I don't like to spend a lot of money, and find anyway that decent quality things at good prices are hard to find. I certainly don't have the money or patience to be hunting out vintage.

Just my opinion of course!

 

[sheeplady]

I don't know, I have mixed feelings on this, to be honest.

I have no problems spending good money on clothes, if it is a piece I will get a lot of wear out of, is made of natural fibers, and is made someplace with decent labor practices. I wear my clothes until they are worn out and can't be fixed (I mend things) and then I turn them into napkins or rugs and then rags. I don't buy fad things- unless I like the fad. I'm really picky about clothes, and don't pay attention to current fashion.

While I am willing to pay quite a bit for an item that has natural fibers and I'll get a lot of wear out of, BUT, I am really hesitant to pay a lot of money for something made in a place where I don't like the labor practices. To me, I won't buy anything for more than $60 USD that is made in one of these places. I feel like it is rewarding these companies too much for using child labor. I can't guareentee that a $300 piece is actually made in a factory that treats it's laborers better than the $30 piece. I do know that if both pieces are made in the same country, the $300 piece is a lot more profit for the company- a bigger reward for probably abusing their employees. And I haven't noticed a huge difference in the quality of these pieces.

Some things I just haven't been able to find made in places with good labor practices- such as fitted cotton blouses. So, given the choice between a $15 blouse and a $100 blouse, I'm buying the $15 one. I think that a wardrobe is an investment. But just like any other investment, I'd prefer to invest the big bucks into some place that I consider to be ethical.

 

[Miss sofia]

I've been trying to convince my husband that when his tshirts are more hole than cotton, it's OK to use them for washing the car! But I do generally fall on the stingy end of the spectrum. I've always loved fabrics, so I've never really found cheap fashion appealing because the fabrics are never very nice.

I think where Primark really seems to come into its own is children's clothes - when kids are growing really quickly there doesn't seem to be any point in spending more money on clothes, especially when people don't have the old hand-me-down network.

This is a great thread!!

I have to say children's clothing is the only problem i have really. I have made a conscious effort on the whole to be as ethical as possible with my wardrobe, charity shops and vintage being my main buying points. I don't use Primark for example, although some gaps in my wardrobe that can't be filled by vintage or second hand on ebay, have to be done on the high street sadly.

However having a nearly-teenage boy, who is very active, poses it's own set of problems clothing wise. There just doesn't seem to be much in the charity shops or boot fairs for him, probably because most of the kids his age/size, are similarly hard on their clothes too. (I do make rags though, from his old gear, i do have kids who i hand down his 'best' bits to, but sadly the chain stops with him, as his older friends are similarly not yielding much for him to be able to wear ). So i am forced to take to the high street and buy what i can't get from ebay for him also. I do try and buy ethically where possible, and as good quality as i can afford, but it does get expensive and my purse doesn't allow for him to be shredding expensive jeans or what have you on a weekly basis, so i have no option but to buy cheap play clothes for him. Unfortunately when you can buy cotton t-shirts and trousers that are perfectly serviceable for a few quid a go, i have no choice.

 

[Puzzicato]

Some things I just haven't been able to find made in places with good labor practices- such as fitted cotton blouses. So, given the choice between a $15 blouse and a $100 blouse, I'm buying the $15 one. I think that a wardrobe is an investment. But just like any other investment, I'd prefer to invest the big bucks into some place that I consider to be ethical.

Have you looked at TM Lewin? I particularly like the Mandarin Collar shirts and they often do 3 for £75 deals, which keeps my wardrobe very well stocked. They talk the ethical talk http://community.tmlewin.co.uk/blogs/posts/lewin-ethical-and-environmental-policies although I don't know if this has been externally verified.

 

[Penny Dreadful]

Fascinating article! I completely agree that we need to think quality over quantity. One of my own biggest reasons has been that you really appreciate what you have when you have to think carefully about it, so it never goes to waste and it actually makes you feel like you have more. Shopping for the sake of shopping and not because there's something in particular out there you REALLY need or love never leads to anything good. I have a TON of clothes, but it's almost all because I've been able to keep so much over the years. I still have some very pretty tops I got 9 years ago, and the first dress I ever bought myself when I was 12. Not only does it still fit (though it does look shorter), but it's cute enough to still get compliments as recently as the last time I wore it, to a 90s event a few months ago.
Now I'm finding the statistics rather shocking, because I've been feeling very guilty for my "over indulgence" of about 1 dress a month!

 

[Lady Day]

I have no problems spending good money on clothes, if it is a piece I will get a lot of wear out of, is made of natural fibers, and is made someplace with decent labor practices. I wear my clothes until they are worn out and can't be fixed (I mend things) and then I turn them into napkins or rugs and then rags. I don't buy fad things- unless I like the fad. I'm really picky about clothes, and don't pay attention to current fashion.

And this is the point the article is trying to get across. This is the microscopic minority point of view. No one does this anymore (here being the vast exception).

I was just having a chat with a girl friend of mine and we were talking about how we hate to shop. I hate it because I sew, and I'm a snob (I admit it) about RTW clothes. I haven't bought RTW in a good 3 years. I can't stand retailers like Forever 21, or Urban Outfitters, or H&M. Their whole mantra is if it lasted longer than a washing it's lasted too long. It's disgusting. People know value only through name brands, not actually quality of construction/fabric/wear.

Im seriously waiting for the new trend, adhesive clothing. No sewing, but the clothes are glued at the seams. Won't last longer than a paper towel. Now that would be something!

LD

 

[lareine]

Im seriously waiting for the new trend, adhesive clothing. No sewing, but the clothes are glued at the seams. Won't last longer than a paper towel. Now that would be something!
LD

I inherited my granny's collection of Reader's Digest magazines from the middle of the last century (unfortunately dumped by my mother some years ago while I was away at university -- what a loss). There was a fascinating article in one of them about how things would be in the future (which at the time was probably the 1980s!), including how clothes would be made of fabric created from paper. We would wear an outfit until it got dirty and then throw it away. They weren't too far off on that one!

 

[Drappa]

I can't stand retailers like Forever 21, or Urban Outfitters, or H&M. Their whole mantra is if it lasted longer than a washing it's lasted too long. It's disgusting. People know value only through name brands, not actually quality of construction/fabric/wear.

Im seriously waiting for the new trend, adhesive clothing. No sewing, but the clothes are glued at the seams. Won't last longer than a paper towel. Now that would be something!

LD

Now that you put it out there, watch the patent lawyers scrambling to get there first!

I have to say though, that not all things from the High street are bad quality. I have bought things from H&M second hand that are still going strong, and bought things there directly that I have had for a decade.
I think it's more then constant change of fads/fashion that causes it than just badly constructed clothes, although there are plenty of them.

 

[JiveBunny]

I think there were dresses in the 1960s called Mia that were essentially disposable - I found one on Etsy: http://www.etsy.com/listing/37834807/mexi-mia-mod-paper-disposable-dress-1966

 

[Puzzicato]

I inherited my granny's collection of Reader's Digest magazines from the middle of the last century (unfortunately dumped by my mother some years ago while I was away at university -- what a loss). There was a fascinating article in one of them about how things would be in the future (which at the time was probably the 1980s!), including how clothes would be made of fabric created from paper. We would wear an outfit until it got dirty and then throw it away. They weren't too far off on that one!

Isn't viscose essentially fabric made from paper? Is it derived from cellulose from woodpulp, or am I thinking of something else?

 

[Drappa]

I think there were dresses in the 1960s called Mia that were essentially disposable - I found one on Etsy: http://www.etsy.com/listing/37834807/mexi-mia-mod-paper-disposable-dress-1966

Why on Earth would one pay $50 for a throw-away dress, if one decided that was a great idea in the first place? Shocking.

 

[miserabelle]

Why on Earth would one pay $50 for a throw-away dress, if one decided that was a great idea in the first place? Shocking.

I think it's quite a nice piece of fashion-history, if I were more of a collector I'd be tempted by it but more as a museum piece, not something I'd actually wear! (From the description anyway it says that it's essentially Tyvec which is a vile material). I think I remember seeing a documentary about Air Hostesses, one lady said her uniform was a paper dress, and the passengers would often burn holes in them with their cigarettes.

A completely useless item, but an interesting bit of kitsch anyway.

xxxx

 

[Miss sofia]

Isn't viscose essentially fabric made from paper? Is it derived from cellulose from woodpulp, or am I thinking of something else?

Isn't rayon made from wood pulp? Not sure about viscose, will have to have a google now and find out!

Didn't some chap invent spray on clothes recently, i'm sure i saw something about it, although i would hate to think what noxious chemicals would be used.