Category: Fashion

When The Devil Wears Prada premiered in 2006, it didn’t just capture the imagination of moviegoers—it also prompted countless comparisons to Vogue’s legendary editor-in-chief, Anna Wintour. For years, Wintour remained mostly silent or circumspect about how she felt about the film’s portrayal of a high-powered magazine world. But in a recent public discussion, the 75-year-old fashion icon surprised many by admitting she enjoyed the film—and found it genuinely funny.

---

The Context: Fiction, Inspiration, and the Burden of Comparison

To understand why Wintour’s remarks are notable, we need to revisit the story behind The Devil Wears Prada. The film is based on Lauren Weisberger’s 2003 novel of the same name, which itself was widely interpreted as drawing from Weisberger’s experience as an assistant (or former assistant) in the fashion magazine world. While Weisberger has said the book was not a direct memoir and that she drew from multiple influences, readers immediately associated the cold, demanding editor Miranda Priestly with Wintour. SlashFilm+3Wikipedia+3Wikipedia+3

When the film adaptation was released, its depiction of the ruthless but glamorous magazine industry—along with Meryl Streep’s unforgettable performance—cemented The Devil Wears Prada as a cultural touchstone. Still, for Wintour, whose public persona is often seen as austere and distant, the film posed a delicate question: Would she embrace it, reject it, or remain guarded?

Over the years, she often gave noncommittal responses. In earlier interviews, Wintour called the movie “entertainment” and said it was “not a true rendition of what happens within this magazine.” SlashFilm+2British Vogue+2 She declined to explicitly confirm whether she shared traits with Miranda Priestly, remarking that such judgments are for “the audience and the people I work with” to decide. People.com+1

---

Wintour’s Surprising Take: “Highly Enjoyable,” “Very Funny,” and a Fair Shot

In a new revelation, Wintour broke her long silence and openly shared how she now views the film. In a recent episode of The Run-Through with Vogue podcast (via The New Yorker Radio Hour), she reflected on her reactions to the movie—with a tone of genuine amusement and acceptance. The Guardian+2People.com+2

Wintour confessed that she walked into the film’s premiere “wearing Prada, completely having no idea what the film was going to be about.” People.com+1 She acknowledged concerns from insiders in the fashion world that the film might portray her harshly or unfairly. But rather than bristle, she said:

“I found it highly enjoyable and very funny.” The Guardian+2People.com+2
“It had a lot of humor. It had a lot of wit. It had Meryl Streep … and I, in the end, I thought it was a fair shot.” People.com+2Cinemablend+2

She also noted that she frequently discusses the film with Prada designer Miuccia Prada, quipping, “I say to her: ‘Well, it was really good for you.’” The Guardian+1

By calling it a “fair shot,” Wintour concedes that while the film is exaggerated and stylized, it captures enough truth—through performance, tone, or broader sentiment—to merit respect. Her choice of words is telling: she doesn’t reject the portrayal outright but frames it as a somewhat caricatured but artful version of the fashion world’s extremes.

---

Why Her Reaction Matters

For decades, Wintour cultivated a mystique. Her signature bob, dark sunglasses, and carefully metered public persona made her both venerated and intangible. To many, she embodied the real-life basis for Miranda—impenetrable, commanding, aloof. Wikipedia+2British Vogue+2 By contrast, The Devil Wears Prada gave viewers a dramatic, often brutal, inside look at the pressures, power plays, and relationships in fashion.

Wintour’s decision to embrace the film (rather than dismiss or distance from it) subtly shifts the narrative. Here are a few reasons why her stance carries weight:

• It humanizes her. Accepting humor directed at one’s self is a sign of confidence. Instead of recoiling at caricature, Wintour acknowledges it with grace.
• It lends legitimacy to the film’s ambition. Calling the movie “very funny” and “a fair shot” affirms that it wasn’t merely a sensationalist takedown but a thoughtful, satirical representation.
• It rewires public perception. For critics or fans who once dismissed the film as glib or unfair, Wintour’s verdict undermines that stance.
• It dampens illusions. Wintour has long been cast as the untouchable fashion queen. Her comments suggest she sees more nuance behind the glare.

---

Did the Film Hit Too Close to Home?

Naturally, many wondered whether the film’s portraits stung—even slightly—for Wintour. After all, Miranda Priestly is a demanding, often merciless boss. Did she ever feel mischaracterized or hurt?

In past interviews, Wintour maintained distance. She once remarked that she doesn’t always make “warm and cuddly” decisions, and sometimes colleagues don’t hear the answer they’d like—but that’s part of leadership. The Tab In an earlier British Vogue piece, she was described as “bemused” by the film rather than angered. SlashFilm+1 In Anna: The Biography, author Amy Odell recounts that Wintour initially told a Vogue editor she didn’t remember the author of the novel—a remark that seems more dismissive than defensive. SlashFilm

What stands out now is that Wintour no longer seems compelled to guard her reputation so carefully. By choosing to applaud The Devil Wears Prada as an entertaining, witty depiction—while acknowledging its caricature—she signals a comfort with self-reflection few maintain in public life.

---

The Impact on the Film’s Legacy

Since its release, The Devil Wears Prada has become more than just a fashion comedy-drama; it’s a cultural touchstone, a shorthand for workplace power dynamics, ambition, identity, and compromise. In the years since, it’s been cited in articles about corporate culture, women in leadership, and the sacrifices demanded in high-stakes creative industries.

Wintour’s new commentary cements the film’s legitimacy—and it may shift how future audiences interpret it. Instead of seeing it solely as a pointed critique, one might see it as a stylized satire with its own merits, intentionally exaggerated yet grounded in kernels of truth.

Her remarks may also encourage others in her world—fashion insiders, journalists, executives—to be more open about how art depicts them, whether in admiration, critique, or parody. In effect, Wintour’s open-minded reaction may embolden more honest dialogue between real-life subjects and their fictional representations.

---

What Wintour’s Reaction Tells Us (and What It Doesn’t)

What it reveals:

1. A sense of humor. Her delight in its wit shows that she can step back from her own mythos and appreciate the artistry of others.
2. Perspective and resilience. She frames The Devil Wears Prada as a film, not a threat, and doesn’t seem rattled by its barbs.
3. Confidence in her legacy. By not insisting the portrayal be “correct,” she implies she already owns her narrative.
4. A willingness to engage. Her participation in this recent interview signals a shift from guarded to more open expressions.

What it doesn’t settle:

• Exact similarities. She still leaves comparisons between her and Miranda Priestly to others to judge. People.com+1
• All past feelings. It’s unclear what she might have thought privately when the film first came out or when the novel circulated.
• Any personal offense. While she frames the film kindly, she doesn’t explicitly say she was never hurt—it’s more that she’s unconcerned now.

---

A Final Word: She Wears Prada, But She Took the Joke

It’s ironic—and revealing—that the woman long associated with an icy, untouchable image now embraces a film that caricatured such traits. By calling The Devil Wears Prada “highly enjoyable” and “very funny,” Anna Wintour demonstrates a rare ability for self-distance, a mark of maturity and public grace.

Wintour’s stance may not reconcile every criticism, but it reframes the conversation. Rather than a defensive posture against caricature, she offers a disarming wink: Yes, you can laugh. And maybe there’s more than a little truth in the joke.

Oh, sweetie, what happened to the days when celebrities graced the red carpet with elegance and poise? Now, it seems like the goal is to shock and confuse. As your self-appointed fashion critic, I’m here to guide you through the most bewildering fashion choices of 2025. Buckle up, darling; it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

---

The Rise of Red Carpet Ridiculousness

Once upon a time, the red carpet was a place where elegance reigned supreme. Grace, poise, and a gown that made you gasp. Now? It’s a free-for-all of fabric experiments that look like leftover costumes from a school play gone wrong.

---

Karen’s Hall of Fame: Red Carpet Offenders

1. The “What Even Is That?” Award

Nothing says “I’m trying too hard” like wearing something that looks like it was designed during a sleepwalking session. If your dress requires a Pinterest tutorial to understand, darling, you’ve already lost.

Example: Celebrity Y at the Glam Awards — a neon ensemble shaped like… I don’t know… a jellyfish? Karen says: “Speak to your designer, darling. Or better yet, your manager.”

2. The “Show Me More Skin” Award

Yes, sweetie, revealing gowns are a thing — but there’s a line. Some celebs are crossing it faster than you can say “wardrobe malfunction.” A slit that goes to your belly button? Darling, we don’t need to see everything. This is a red carpet, not a beach.

Example: Celebrity Z — a dress so revealing it could cause a medical emergency. Karen says: “Put some fabric on that bod and call it a day.”

3. The “I Didn’t Read the Dress Code” Award

Some gowns just scream “I didn’t read the memo.” Floor-length velvet at a casual movie premiere? Darling, what are you even thinking? It’s not a coronation — it’s a publicity stunt.

Karen says: “A dress code isn’t optional. It’s polite.”

---

The “Back in My Day” Moment

Back in my day, a dress was a dress. No feathers, no glitter explosions, no avant-garde “what the heck am I wearing?” moments. A gown was about sophistication, not shock value. But these days, darling, sophistication seems to have gone missing, possibly hiding under a pile of fabric scraps.

---

Karen’s Fashion Advice for Celebrities

If I had the honor of whispering into your stylist’s ear before a big event, here’s what I’d say:

1. Know your audience — If it’s a movie premiere, elegance wins. Save the glitter explosions for… glitter balls.
2. Comfort matters — If you can’t walk without tripping over your gown, honey, it’s not a look, it’s a liability.
3. Stick to timeless classics — Black, gold, or deep jewel tones never go out of style. Unless your goal is to be the punchline of the evening.
4. Less is more — Over-accessorizing is a crime. Sparkle should whisper, not scream.

---

A Few Recent Red Carpet Disasters (That Karen Couldn’t Ignore)

Here’s a roundup of outfits that made Karen clutch her pearls this season.

The Glitter Gown Gone Wrong

One star showed up in what appeared to be a disco ball nightmare. It was glitter, glitter everywhere — and not a hint of elegance. Karen says: “Darling, there is such a thing as too much shine. That’s called a fashion crime.”

The Curtain Call

Another celebrity arrived in an outfit that looked suspiciously like drapes from a 1970s living room. Karen says: “We’re here for fashion, not interior design.”

The Over-The-Top Slit

And then there was the gown with a slit so high, I needed a passport to see it all. Karen says: “Honey, modesty isn’t dead. It’s just hiding somewhere under that fabric.”

---

The Karen Perspective: Why We Need Fashion Critique

Fashion critique is essential, darling. Without it, we end up with an unending parade of chaos masquerading as style. My naggy perspective is here to keep celebrities grounded — and remind them that sometimes, the best accessory is good taste.

---

Closing Thoughts from Karen

Darling, fashion is an art — but it’s also a conversation. And right now, that conversation is dominated by questionable fabric choices and outfits that leave us asking: “Why, dear, why?”

This is why I, Karen, exist. To speak the uncomfortable truth. To critique with sass and style. And to remind the world that elegance never goes out of fashion.

So, next time you’re preparing for the red carpet, remember: speak to your manager. And your stylist. Preferably both.

Because darling… this isn’t fashion. It’s a tragedy.

Alright, settle in, because today’s topic isn’t about one specific horror, but rather the cumulative dread of everyday existence. It’s the constant little indignities, the endless inconsiderations, and the sheer lack of common sense that seems to permeate every public space. It’s the pervasive petulance of public life, a general grievance galore, and honestly, someone needs to speak to the manager of society itself! Welcome back to The Manager’s Desk: A Daily Dose of Disappointment.

I remember a time when public spaces were for, well, the public. Shared respectfully, with a tacit understanding of mutual consideration. Now? It’s a free-for-all of self-absorption, rudeness, and a shocking disregard for others. It’s enough to make a sensible person want to stay home forever, behind triple-locked doors, with a pot of Earl Grey and a good book.

The Mobile Phone Menace: Loud Talkers and Digital Zombies

Where do I even begin with the mobile phone? It was supposed to be a convenience, wasn’t it? A way to connect. Instead, it’s become an instrument of public annoyance. The loud talkers! Good heavens, why do people feel the need to shout their entire private conversation for all to hear? In the doctor’s waiting room, on the bus, in the quiet aisle of the supermarket! “Yes, Brenda, I’m at the canned goods. No, I haven’t seen the lentils. Did you remember to water my geraniums?” I don’t care about your lentils, dear! I don’t care about your geraniums! I just want to browse in peace! Have they no concept of a “private conversation”? Or the simple courtesy of lowering one’s voice in public? It’s rude, that’s what it is. Just plain rude.

And the digital zombies! Those poor souls, glued to their glowing screens, oblivious to the entire world around them. Walking into lampposts, bumping into people without an apology, completely ignoring their own children. Families sitting at dinner, all staring at their devices. Friends meeting up, but everyone’s more interested in what’s happening on their screen than with the person sitting directly opposite them. It’s isolating, it’s distracting, and it’s making everyone forget how to actually connect with another human being. It’s a sad reflection of a generation that’s lost the ability to truly engage, to look someone in the eye and have a meaningful exchange. It’s all superficial, fragmented, and frankly, quite depressing. And the constant notifications! Bing! Buzz! Beep! It’s enough to drive a sensible person mad! You can’t get a moment’s peace from the incessant digital demands.

The Lost Art of Queuing: A Disregard for Order

Then there’s the utter chaos of queuing. Or rather, the utter lack of queuing! You stand patiently in line, waiting your turn, and some brazen young person just saunters up and shoves in front of you as if they’re the only person on earth. No “excuse me,” no apology, just pure, unadulterated entitlement. Whatever happened to the simple, polite understanding of “first come, first served”? To respecting other people’s time and effort? It’s a blatant disregard for order, and frankly, for basic fairness. It’s a microcosm of everything that’s wrong with society – the “me, me, me” mentality. I find myself wanting to grab them by the ear and give them a good lecture on civic duty, but Brenda tells me that’s “frowned upon.” Frowned upon?! So is cutting in line, dear!

And the self-checkout machines! Oh, the sheer frustration! “Unexpected item in the bagging area!” it screeches, even when there’s nothing there. You try to scan something, and it doesn’t register. You need an attendant every two minutes. It’s supposed to make things faster, not turn a simple errand into a test of my patience! And half the time, the person using it is utterly bewildered, holding up the entire line while they fumble with a single apple. I’d rather have a human being, thank you very much. Someone who knows how to operate a simple scanner without a voice telling me what to do.

The Public Transportation Peril: Noise, Feet, and Bad Etiquette

And public transportation! Good heavens, what a nightmare. The noise! People blasting their dreadful music from their headphones so loudly you can still hear it. Or playing games with loud, irritating sound effects. And the feet! People putting their dirty shoes on the seats! Or sprawling out across two seats as if they own the entire bus. Have they no consideration for others who might want to sit down? It’s unsanitary, it’s rude, and it shows a complete lack of respect for shared public spaces.

And the eating! People bringing smelly food onto the bus or train, leaving crumbs and wrappers everywhere. It’s a shared space, not your personal dining room! Whatever happened to discreet snacking, or waiting until you get home? It’s a testament to the sheer lack of self-awareness and consideration for anyone else. It’s a pure degradation of public decency, and frankly, it makes my stomach churn.

The “Woke” Wonderland: Common Sense on Hold

And let’s talk about this “woke” culture that seems to have taken over everything. Good heavens, it’s like everyone’s walking on eggshells, afraid to say anything for fear of offending someone, somewhere, about something utterly trivial. They’re so concerned with “inclusion” that they’ve excluded common sense. You can’t even use simple, everyday language without someone taking offense. It’s exhausting trying to keep up with all the new rules and sensitivities.

And the constant policing of language and thought! It’s like a never-ending inquisition. People are so quick to judge, to “cancel” someone for a perceived slight, without any room for nuance or understanding. Whatever happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt? To having a robust debate without resorting to outrage and condemnation? It’s creating a generation of overly sensitive, easily offended individuals who seem to actively seek out reasons to be upset. It’s a dangerous path, I tell you, when polite discourse is replaced by performative indignation. It’s the death of critical thinking, dressed up in moral superiority.

The Manager’s Verdict: Demand Decency and Discipline!

So, why all this railing against the pervasive petulance of public life? Because, my dear readers, it’s eroding the very fabric of our society. It’s making shared spaces unpleasant, interactions frustrating, and the general atmosphere one of self-absorption rather than community. It’s a slow, creeping decline in civility that, if left unchecked, will leave us with nothing but isolated, irritable individuals who can’t coexist peacefully.

My earnest plea: Demand decency! Demand discipline! Demand that people put down their phones, respect queues, speak softly in public, and consider the impact of their actions on others. It’s not too much to ask for, is it? These are basic tenets of a civilized society, not optional extras.

At The Manager’s Desk, we will continue to highlight these daily frustrations, to point out the glaring lack of basic human courtesy, and to lament the general slippage in standards. Because if we don’t speak up, who will? Will we just let them turn our public spaces into one giant free-for-all of rudeness and self-interest? Not on my watch!

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I think I heard someone blasting loud music from their car outside. Honestly, the nerve! I simply must investigate. The sheer audacity of it all! And then I need to go water my geraniums. Properly, mind you.

I had to go to the post office today. It used to be a simple affair. You put on a sensible pair of slacks, a nice blouse, perhaps a cardigan if there was a chill, and you conducted your business with a modicum of dignity. But stepping outside my front door these days feels like I’ve been given a front-row ticket to a circus I never asked to see. What I witnessed on my ten-minute walk was so visually offensive, so utterly baffling, that I had no choice but to come home, pour a stiff cup of tea, and write this. This isn’t just a blog; it’s a public service announcement. It’s a funny fashion review, yes, but it’s also a desperate plea for the return of common sense.

Welcome to my new corner of the internet, where we will conduct a thorough and brutally honest modern fashion critique. Someone has to say it, and it seems everyone else is too busy taking pictures of their questionable ensembles to notice they’ve forgotten half their clothes. So, let’s begin this outfit review with my first and most pressing question for the general public: You call THAT an outfit?

The Distressed Denim Debacle: Paying Extra for Moths?

Let’s start with the trousers. Or what’s left of them, anyway. I’m talking about “distressed” denim. Distressed? My dear, the only thing distressed is me, having to look at it. This has to be one of the most financially irresponsible and logically unsound bad fashion trends to ever exist.

Back in my day, if you had a hole in your jeans, it was a sign of a hard day’s work or a clumsy encounter with a rose bush. It was a problem to be solved with a needle, thread, and a sturdy patch. It was certainly not something you paid for. Now, I see young people walking around in jeans that look like they’ve survived a fight with a lawnmower, and they’ve paid a premium for the privilege! The sheer audacity. You’re giving a company, let’s say “Supreme Spenders Inc.,” $150 for a pair of jeans, and they’re giving you 75% of the material. Where is the other 25%? Did they run out of denim? Is there a global shortage I am unaware of?

The “ripped jeans are ridiculous” argument is not just about aesthetics; it’s about practicality. What happens when it’s windy? You’re inviting a personal, targeted draft directly to your kneecaps. What about rain? You’re just asking for polka-dotted wet spots on your skin. I saw a young woman whose jeans had a hole so large, her entire thigh was exposed. Frankly, it looked less like a fashion statement and more like a gruesome hiking accident. She needs a paramedic, not a photographer. If you want ventilation, wear shorts. If you want to wear pants, then for heaven’s sake, wear the whole pant.

The Crop Top Catastrophe: Is There a Fabric Shortage?

Speaking of missing material, let’s move up the torso to our next offender: the crop top. Or, as I like to call it, the “shirt that gave up halfway.” I simply do not understand the crop top trend. When did showing off your entire midriff become appropriate for a Tuesday afternoon trip to the grocery store?

The sheer variety is astounding. There are cropped sweaters, cropped blouses, cropped t-shirts. What’s next? Cropped winter coats? It’s madness. You spend all this time picking out a top, only to have it stop abruptly somewhere south of your ribcage. It looks like a terrible laundry accident. It’s the sartorial equivalent of a sentence that just ends without a…

And again, the practicality! Are you not cold? My mother always told me to keep my kidneys warm, and she was a wise woman who never had to contend with seeing someone’s belly button in the frozen food aisle. These tops offer no protection, no comfort, and no mystery. It’s all just… there. For everyone to see. I suppose if your goal is to announce to the world that you have a naval, then mission accomplished. But couldn’t you have just sent out a memo? It would be far more efficient and certainly less drafty. This isn’t a funny fashion review so much as a genuine question of thermal dynamics.

A Word on “Athleisure”: The Uniform of Giving Up

Now for the trend that has truly blurred the lines between the gymnasium and civilized society: “athleisure.” First of all, let’s discuss the word itself. It sounds like something a marketing committee came up with after three days of no sleep. “Athletic” and “leisure”—two words that should be kept in separate, well-defined social spheres.

The premise of what is athleisure seems to be that you can wear your exercise clothes for every conceivable occasion. Going for a jog? Fine. But wearing the same skin-tight, luminous spandex to brunch, to the bank, and to a parent-teacher conference? Unacceptable.

These are not clothes; they are compression garments. They are designed for one specific purpose: to wick away sweat during strenuous physical activity. Wearing them for eight hours while you sit at a desk or browse for throw pillows is simply unnecessary. It gives the impression that you are either about to break into a sprint at any moment or that you have completely given up on the concept of tailored clothing.

A proper outfit has structure. It has buttons, zippers, seams that mean something. It has pockets that can actually hold more than a single key. Athleisure has none of this. It’s the uniform of perpetual, unearned comfort. Comfort is not a right; it is a reward you get at the end of the day when you change into your pajamas. It is not something you wear to meet your partner’s parents for the first time. Have some self-respect. Put on some real pants.

In Conclusion: A Call for Garments, Not Gimmicks

As I sit here, my tea now lukewarm, I am left with a sense of profound bewilderment. This modern fashion critique has barely scratched the surface. We haven’t even touched upon men wearing sandals with socks, bucket hats, or glasses with no lenses. It’s a sartorial wilderness out there.

So, the next time you get dressed, I implore you to look in the mirror and ask yourself the question honestly: “Is this an outfit, or is it a cry for help?” Are your clothes a complete set, or are they a collection of fragments? Do they project confidence and competence, or do they simply scream “I was cold so I put on this thimble-sized sweater”?

My work here is far from done. Subscribe, if you have the stomach for it. And please, leave a comment below with the most ridiculous fashion trend you’ve seen this week. We all need to know we’re not alone.

Yours in sheer disbelief, A Concerned Citizen

To Whom It May Concern at the Head Office of Modern Style,

Please consider this letter my formal, official, and long-overdue complaint regarding the current state of your product. My name is Agnes Periwinkle, and I have been a devoted, dues-paying member of society—and by extension, a consumer of clothing—for seventy-three years. In that time, I have seen trends come and go. I survived the shoulder pads of the eighties and the low-rise jeans of the early 2000s, which I believed to be the absolute nadir of common sense.

I was wrong. So very, very wrong.

What you people are parading down runways and selling in department stores today is not fashion. It is a social experiment to see how much nonsense the public is willing to endure before we all decide to just wear potato sacks. Frankly, the potato sack is looking more and more appealing. It’s breathable, biodegradable, and, most importantly, it is a complete and whole piece of fabric.

I am told one cannot simply call up “fashion” and ask for the person in charge. This is, in itself, a flaw in your business model. However, since this blog is the closest thing I can find to a customer service hotline, I will lodge my grievances here. I trust you will forward this to the appropriate department. I have the time to wait.

Grievance #1: The Pre-Destroyed Clothing Racket

Let us begin with my most pressing concern: the deliberate and systematic destruction of perfectly good clothing. I am referring, of course, to the plague of ripped jeans, distressed sweaters, and pre-frayed everything.

In my day, when a pair of trousers had a hole in the knee, it meant one of two things: you were a child who fell off your bicycle, or you were a hardworking person who spent your days on your knees in a garden or on a factory floor. A hole was a sign of a life lived, and it was promptly and respectfully patched. It was a mark of character, not a fashion statement you purchased with a credit card.

Now, I see these youngsters walking around in jeans that look like they’ve survived a knife fight with a badger. And they paid for them. A premium, no less! Can someone please explain the logic to me? It’s like buying a brand-new car with a massive dent already in the side and bragging about the “vintage aesthetic.” It is madness.

Who is the manager that approved this production line? Did a machine in the factory malfunction one day, and instead of fixing it, some bright spark in marketing decided to call the mistake “style”? Is there a national fabric shortage I am unaware of? Are we rationing denim? Because from where I’m standing, it looks like you’re selling half a product for double the price. It’s a racket, plain and simple, and I for one am not falling for it.

Grievance #2: The Great Shirt Shortage of the 2020s

My second grievance concerns what I can only assume is a catastrophic disruption in the shirt supply chain. I am, of course, talking about the “crop top.”

It seems no one can afford to manufacture a shirt that covers the entire torso anymore. We have tops that stop just below the armpits, sweaters with giant, inexplicable holes cut out of the shoulders, and blouses that are more accurately described as “structured napkins.” What is the function of such a garment? It certainly doesn’t keep you warm. It offers no protection from the elements. Its only purpose is to guarantee a chilly draft around your midsection and a deeply concerned look from your grandmother. Me. I’m the grandmother, and I am very concerned.

There was a time we left a little something to the imagination. Now, everyone’s vital organs are practically on display next to the avocados at the supermarket. Your belly button is not an accessory, dear. It doesn’t need to see the world. It’s seen enough. This isn’t just about decorum; it’s about basic practicality. If I am paying for a shirt, I expect to receive a whole one. Is that really too much to ask?

Grievance #3: The Tyranny of “Oversized” Nonsense

Now, you might think, based on my previous point, that I am advocating for less fabric. You would be mistaken. On the one hand, you can’t be bothered to wear a full shirt. On the other hand, you’re all drowning in blazers that look like you’ve mugged a much larger, and possibly unemployed, giant.

Whatever happened to the simple, elegant concept of a garment that actually fits? A shoulder seam, by definition, should sit upon the shoulder. A pant hem should hover gracefully above the ankle, not serve as a personal dust mop for the city sidewalk. This is not a radical idea. This is just common sense.

Yet everyone under the age of forty looks like a child playing dress-up in their parents’ closet. The key difference is that the child knows it’s a game. You all seem to be taking it seriously, which is the most baffling part. You spend a fortune on a coat with sleeves so long you can’t use your hands and trousers so baggy they constitute a legitimate tripping hazard. You look sloppy. You look like you’ve given up. And you’ve paid a fortune for the privilege of looking like you’ve given up. It is an enigma wrapped in far too much polyester.

Managerial Summation and List of Demands

So, there you have it. A brief summary of my primary complaints: broken clothes, half-shirts, and giant suits. The common thread here is a complete and utter divorce from reality. Fashion, I am told, is art. But when art becomes this impractical, this unflattering, and this ridiculous, it ceases to be art and becomes a simple con.

Therefore, I have no choice but to issue the following demands:

1. An immediate and unconditional return to sensible tailoring. I want to see seams where seams belong.
2. A federal mandate ensuring all clothing is sold in a complete, un-ripped, and structurally sound state.
3. Pockets. Real ones. Deep enough for a hand, a set of keys, and a healthy dose of indignation. In everything. Especially women’s trousers. This is non-negotiable.
4. Finally, I demand to know who is in charge of this entire operation. I want a name. I want a number.

I will be waiting for a satisfactory response. Do not test my patience. I have a landline, a comfortable chair, and an entire afternoon to dedicate to this. Don’t make me come down there.

Sincerely, and with great concern,

Agnes Periwinkle