Defending Trump ...

Tom Ford blowing bubbles with Richard, 1986

From the 'liberals'?

Does he need anyone to defend him?  He's sort of like Pope Francis - he doesn't need anyone to defend him from his critics, or so I'm told about Francis.  So what is with those who supported Trump rallying to his defense over stupid comments made by a fashion designer?

Tom Ford, along with a few other fashion designers, said he wouldn't dress Melania Trump - she doesn't fit his image.  The new First Lady can dress herself, and has been doing so all along.  The statement by Ford was in response to an interview question posed to several other designers.  Ford has made rather direct comments about his clientele, reportedly telling potential customers they were 'too fat' for his clothes.  Suggesting Melania didn't fit his image may have been a polite way of saying something less cordial - so he maybe was being nice.  (He's a recovered alcoholic and said he's much nicer now that he quit drinking.)

On Facebook I came across a quote from Gerard Nadal, not sure who he is, but he took offense to Ford's remark, and in his defense against 'liberals', he stated:  "What they consistently fail to see is that the poor and lower middle class do not want Donald Trump and his family to live as they do. Quite the opposite. They wish to live as Trump does."

I hope not.  

From what I've read from the so-called 'Rust-belt' out of work people simply want their jobs back - they want to earn a living and raise a family.  I never heard anyone say they wanted to live like Trump - unless they were contestants on American Idol or were out of work actresses looking for a billionaire.

The fashion designer statements are business as usual in a superficial, consumer, ego-driven culture.  Tom Ford is promoting his films and his clothing line.  Others would jump at the chance to have their label on Mrs. Trump's clothes. The discussion of this issue is pretty much vain and foolish and superficial compared to the reality of the working and non-working poor.  It is snob talk - just like the industry these people work in.  It's ad copy for them.

As for the poor and working class desiring to live as the Trumps do, that's not what this is about, and if it is for some, it's misguided and patronizing - and perhaps equally elitist. The Trump lifestyle is no more enviable than the fashionistas and their Hollywood counterparts.  Do you really want to be Miranda Priestly?

If you voted for Trump, if you like him, that's just fine.  We should in fact support our President, but you don't have to like him, much less defend his lifestyle.  There's nothing wrong with being rich and famous, if that is what you aspire to, fine - but the unemployed, the working poor and ordinary people are pretty much content with a sufficiency.  They want a home, an income, food on the table, healthcare, education, and family stability.  I don't believe ordinary people envy the rich and famous any more than I believed Imelda Marcos, who once defended her extravagant wardrobe saying, "Never dress down for the poor, they won't respect you for it."

Tom Ford being nice.

Tom Ford Jewelry - Should Christians be offended?

Nah!  I don't think so.

The designer, Tom Ford is not religious - he is spiritual.


In fact, there is no mention of his religion anywhere online - at least any that I could find. It doesn't matter however, since he has clearly made statements such as, "I am a spiritual person in an eastern religion kind of way."  And, "Nature is the closest thing to God and I don’t mean God by any sort of religion but by the connection to the universe, which I think we have lost."  Sounds clear to me - he's not interested in organized religion.

I would like to suggest he is neo-pagan - his religion is materialism, his spirituality is nature based.


I think many post-moderns are spiritual but not religious, in the same way. I'm not a philosopher - and I'm not an academic - but this type of neo-paganism seems to me to be rather pervasive among celebrities and people in the arts - and more pointedly, Tom Ford's spirituality seems typical for gay men. I'm speculating of course, but Ford's new jewelry line is more suggestive of ancient phallic cult symbolism than Christian iconography.


In the ancient religions, the phallic symbol represented fertility and "cultural implications with the male sexual organ". Today these cultural implications clearly represent male to male sexuality, as well as the pervasive influence of pornography, not to forget the popularity of erotic sexual aids, as well as all sorts of penis enhancement medications and or surgeries.

So - back on topic.  Should Christians be offended that Tom Ford made a phallic amulet in the form of a cross?

Why?  St. Paul tells us the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.  What can one expect?

I'm not a Ford customer of course.  Just remember, fashion is fickle.  Like cosmetics, it is an industry which lies to those who consume it - and it is fleeting; like Tom Ford's youth.  Tom Ford is not very kind to his clients - and he also restricts his clientele.  He very famously said he doesn't design for fat people.  Hence, he doesn't have to try very hard to offend anyone outside his purview or interest.

I'm going with 'No' ... I doubt Tom Ford's phallic 'cross' is meant as an insult to Christians.  I'll bet he is not even interested in Christianity enough to harass religious people.  I would refer to his amulet as a fascinus instead of a cross.  Fascinating - comes from the Latin fascinus, BTW.

In Tom Ford's line, I'm guessing it's kind of gay.  Gay jewelry - with a hefty price tag.

The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.  

For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. - 1 Corinthians 1

"Yeah ... but ..."

Right-wing-nut, Ultra-conservative Fascion Designer, Karl Lagerfeld doesn't like Mrs. Obama's hair style.

Really?

“I dun’t ündastandt ze change ze haare - ze coiffure . . . Fwank-ie, ze fwinge vas bad edea. Zits not goot!” - Story here.
 

Look in the mirror KL.

I still really like the look, I think it's very Motown. 

Honey, I only wear American designers.

Don't get me started on them Germans!

 

Lagerfeld lets the fur fly.

"The animals would eat us if we didn't kill them." Karl Lagerfeld

.

Brains and talent, a good combination for someone who looks like Michael Jackson's mortician. In an interview, German born fashion designer for Chanel, Karl Lagerfeld, discusses wearing fur and eating meat.

.

"Animals should be killed "nicely" if at all possible, said Lagerfeld, who admitted to being queasy about eating meat.

.

"I can hardly eat meat because it has to look like something what it was not when it was alive," he said.

.

He concluded: "In a meat-eating world, wearing leather for shoes and clothes and even handbags, the discussion of fur is childish." - Telegraph

.

When is the last time baby seals, little foxes, and minks attacked people? For me the problem of wearing fur is the problem of cruelty as well as harvesting animals simply to satisfy vanity and greed. Lagerfeld should be reminded that the market for fur grows proportionately as designers use (misuse) it. Inciting countries such as China to skin dogs and cats alive to supply fur to the clothing industry.

.

On size 0 models.

.

In an interview on the Radio 4 Today programme, Lagerfeld also said the issue of size zero models was insignificant compared to the "zillions" of fat people.

.

But he said: "In France there are, I think, less than one per cent of people who are too skinny.

.

"There are nearly 30 per cent of young people who are too fat. So let's take care of the zillions of the too fat before we talk about the percentage that's left." - Telegraph

.

Lagerfeld's take on the recession.

.

In further questions Lagerfeld said he viewed the global recession as "more like a cleaning up."
"It was too rotten anyway, so it had to be cleaned up," he said. - Telegraph

.
Someone needs a makeover.