Baby, it’s cold outside

Sometimes there is truth in journalism. Last week the Sydney Morning Herald’s Heckler column mouthed off about Sydney-siders not embracing winter, sartorially-speaking. I’m not talking about Frank Sartor, Eddie Obeid or the failed state of New South Wales, but about fashion.

The column, written by a Canadian, who should know a thing or two about freezing his nuts off, argued that Sydney-siders are in denial about winter and they dress just like it’s a cool summer’s day. For instance, a hoodie and thongs and cargoes. Or thin summer dresses and bare legs. Or trakkies and a moth-eaten coat. Tick, tick, tick. Take a hike around any shopping centre or go out on the town, and that’s what you’ll see.

The Canadian columnist lamented the fact that Sydney peeps just don’t get into winter, when in fact winter has some of the best fashion opportunities: red coats, kick-ass boots, scarves, tights. And that’s just for men. Ok, he didn’t mention dagorama skivvies, but the point is it is possible to look hot when it is cold.

And it is cold in Sydney in winter. OK, not in a New York subway freezing kind of way, or a Siberian wind kind of way, but when the sun goes down or doesn’t bother coming out at all, it’s cold, damn cold. And, especially as our homes are not set up for it, it’s colder still.

I believe the situation is worse in Brisbane, a city in complete denial that it never is not complete sunshine 24 by 7. When the temperature gets down to 18, they still gad about in shorts and the world’s biggest goosebumps, but I think Sydney should collectively up the ante on its winter wardrobe.

Because it’s OK to feel the cold when it’s 17 degrees, it’s OK to wear something other than a hoodie in winter and it’s OK to look just as good as Melbourne-ites. Or better. (But that’s a whole other rant).

Advertisement

Rivers run full of price discrimination

Further proof that women shoud be paid MORE, not less than men (and not the same amount either).

I speak, of course, about ads on TV for a sale at Rivers clothes. Why are men’s heavy duty tee’s (in fact polo shirts) only costing $4.95 and women’s fashion tops are $12.95? More than double the price. Which is strange because they are not double the material. They look like half the volume and for girls’ shirts the manufacturer didn’t even have to worry about adding sleeves.

This is discrimination. I know $12.95 is not a lot of money to fork out for a garden variety top, but that is not the point. Why are we paying more than double for essentially the same thing, ie a barbecue shirt.

You could argue that the women’s tops had more variety and were a bit more intricate. But you could also argue that the men’s shirts were more durable AND they were collared shirts.

I am very cranky and want the politicians to review this situation immediately. And I haven’t even started on haircuts, moisturiser or toilet queues.