Skip to main content

An Existential Crisis Wrapped in a Wardrobe Problem


Dress for the job you want, not the job you have.

Clothes make the human.


How do you dress a body {that has birthed two humans}{that carried you through an ongoing global pandemic and more stress}{that doesn’t look/measure/feel the way you think it should feel} when you don’t have a clear picture of who you want to be?


Before Instagram influencers, before Stacy and Clinton on “What Not To Wear” (and the many different iterations), and sometime after a Vogue subscription, there was the J Peterman catalog and its numerous historical and fictitious women carrying on around the world. I’ve been toying around with the idea of writing a long-form series about “Who is a J Peterman Woman.” If clothes or fashion is an expression of who you aspire to be, then “an unconventional woman of very good taste”--to quote but one of their many copy lines--has long been my guiding star.  


The one thing she’s not, though, is a mother to children-at-home. They may be grown-and-gone, but they are mentioned twice throughout the years of back catalogs I combed for research. However, the one thing I certainly am currently is a mother with children-at-home. Even if I set aside the question of what job do I want, the question still remains of how do I dress for the job I have? 


There are as many versions of clothing motherhood as there are mothers. Current (2020s) trends include:

-Sporty Mom in constant athleisure (may or may not actually exercise)

-Slouchy Mom in sweatshirt and joggers (ever present mass market coffee accessory)

-Junior League Mom in booties and pearls (hair and makeup understated yet perfect)

-Earthmother Mom in flowy pants and yoga top (mala bracelets stacked, perhaps barefoot)


Add more here. 


You could seek inspiration from other well-known moms:

-Michelle Obama (first, personal trainer. contemporary and colorful.)

-Martha Stewart (khakis, button-up, shoes appropriate for garden or craftroom)

-Ree Drummond (jeans, flowy top, work or fancy cowboy boots)

-Kate Middleton (bespoke. Probably no longer aspirational in the 21st century as royalty used to be for our grands/great-grands generations.)


Or go further back in history or fiction:

-Lilly Pulitzer (South Beach colorful caftans)

-Coretta Scott King (classic 50’s/60’s day dress and pearls)

-Morticia Adams (goth. And posture.)


Television has likely given us the most consistent representation of motherhood, even if it hasn’t been truly inclusive of the wide variety of motherhood looks in America. Which makes sense as tv is there to sell a way of being, of moving through our lives. But I digress … 


This is why I often refer to clothing as costume: much like in theater/film/television, we play different roles for different audiences on a weekly basis and must dress accordingly. This adds complexity to building a wardrobe. Where in one role I may desire to be Martha, in another I’d rather be more Michelle. While it suited them to maintain a core “brand” costume from which they could deviate slightly for dressier or more casual occasions, that may not work for us mere mortal moms. 


And while I am intrigued by a capsule wardrobe or a minimal closet, I do not wish to wear the same outfit for every occasion (a la insert male icon name here).


I will also leave aside the very real but very lengthy discussion of body image and weight as a construct of the capitalist beauty industry in order to take my money. Suffice it to say I cannot leave my house naked and run errands, procure groceries, take my kid to school, etc. So therefore clothing of some sort is required. And I do not wish to simply live in yoga pants and one of my husband’s old t-shirts. I tried that. I felt awful. 


I suppose I’m ruminating on the clothing issue because I’m not entirely certain who I want to be, coming out of stay-at-home orders and having a surprise baby after a decade of establishing an identity. It wasn’t full-blown J Peterman Woman, but it felt like it--that is I--was headed in the direction of “incorrigible bandit with sartorial swagger” (another of my favorite catalog quotes). It built on my quite preppy younger self and included some trends, some luxe, some sexy, some sporty (strictly for sports, as per Stacy & Clinton). Figuring out the next iteration feels like an insurmountable task. Should I get my colors done? Rent the runway? Succumb to jeans/tshirt/Converse--my current outfit dujour--for the rest of my days? 


Bigger, though, is the fundamental question: besides a mother and a spouse, who am I now? Artist? Writer? Producer? Journalist? Editor? Community Builder? Project manager? Event planner? Managing Director? Nonprofit Volunteer? CEO of Home? All hats I’ve worn in the past. Do any of them still fit? The clothing conundrum is but the outerwear of the existential crisis wardrobe. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

High Art vs Low Art

“The masses seek distraction whereas art demands concentration from the spectator.” - -The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Walter Benjamin, 1936 Is there any more contentious question in the art world than the concept of “high” versus “low” I like venn diagrams. And shouldn't art really be in the middle?  art? Who gets to judge? What are the parameters in which to judge? There is no standard definition for either concept and personal explanations range from simple to incredibly complex. One common theory about how to explain the difference is high art is “popular” and low art is “unpopular”, that is, appealing (or not) to many people. This also links to another version of the difference: that high art fosters the widest connection between people while a smaller subsection enjoys low art. This is in direct contradiction, though, to the idea of low art being part of mass culture (raising yet another question of “is art culture” or merely a com...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pass the Collection Plate, Please.

Various sizes of buildings, with some sort of seating arranged in rows, facing a slightly raised platform. may have curtains around the platform. people --primarily men-- take the platform to orate to the audience seated before them. A plea for donations is made at some point, either before or after the show, which may have music and will definitely have directives masked as stories on how to be a human in this day-and-age. children will be seen, maybe, but definitely not heard. the men in charge will believe they have been given a special gift for leading this particular group of people. and the people, for whatever reason, will also believe this. and this group of people will believe that their building and person and each other are completely different and somehow better than all the other exact same groups around their town/city/county/state/nation. If theater wants to be treated as church and church as theater, then both are getting exactly what they have been setting up for the p...
Post a Comment
Read more

Death & The Theater

I was listening to a recent episode of the Tim Ferris podcast and the guest, happiness scholar Arthur C. Brooks, was discussing death meditations. And the little lightbulb in my brain turned on with the thought, "We need to talk more about death in theaters." I know, I know, that seems like an illogical statement because it feels like we're always talking about the death of theater. This whole summer has been filled with articles and op-eds from across the country about how large regional theaters are dying in major cities. But that's not the kind of death Brooks was talking about, and in reality, it isn't death these articles are complaining about, either: they are trying to stay alive in a “E’s just resting” fashion, to find some kind of life-support for the theaters, to keep them going, receive new money from new audiences or donors, new shows, new gimmicks to draw more or different people in the door. Anything to keep from dying. We don't talk about death...
Post a Comment
Read more