Nordstrom has gotten a little better, but not much. Your choice is still pretty much look like a hooker, or a waif, or look like someone’s Granny in a knit suit. Their casual clothes are fine, but it takes forever to find something there that is attractive, professional looking, but not revealing. Don’t get me started. For instance, women over the age of 14 should not wear pleated skirts. It makes their butts look huge regardless of what size they are. So of course Nordstorm has 10 different jackets that I would like to own — but only offers pleated skirts with them. Or their wide selection of blouses with little cap sleeves that make anyone who weighs more than 115 pounds look like she has overstuff-sausages for arms. I could go on, but you get the picture. Nordstrom gets a lot of my money for shoes and hand bags, but not a lot for clothing any more. I am over at Bloomingdale’s and Neiman’s, and maybe Sak’s.
I agree with everything you’ve said, however based on the photographs presented, this case, unlike the Nordstrom incident, is without merit. If those fashions aren’t conservative enough for you, then you’re Amish.
Pinkbell said:
The clothes pictured don’t look too bad except for the last girl in the purple dress. I wouldn’t wear it because the neckline is too low.
Perdogg said:
She’s not dressed like a slut.
*******************************************
I'm wondering if it could be that the featured and heavily-promoted fashions on display on the sales floor differ from what is typically presented in online catalogs? The lady shareholders apparently have the view that revealing fashions are being excessively promoted, but I agree that 'most' of the catalog pictures, at least in the initial pages, don't look terribly revealing.
Consider also the matter of Nordstrom's, which also features what I would consider unobjectionable ladies' fashions at least in the first few online pages
Women's Apparel Online - Nordstrom
Yet there's an entirely different view from Freeper 3AngelaD, whose view of Nordstrom's appears to be similar to that of the Marks and Spencer lady shareholders:
3AngelaD said:
Nordstrom has gotten a little better, but not much. Your choice is still pretty much look like a hooker, or a waif, or look like someone’s Granny in a knit suit. Their casual clothes are fine, but it takes forever to find something there that is attractive, professional looking, but not revealing. Don’t get me started. For instance, women over the age of 14 should not wear pleated skirts. It makes their butts look huge regardless of what size they are. So of course Nordstorm has 10 different jackets that I would like to own — but only offers pleated skirts with them. Or their wide selection of blouses with little cap sleeves that make anyone who weighs more than 115 pounds look like she has overstuff-sausages for arms. I could go on, but you get the picture. Nordstrom gets a lot of my money for shoes and hand bags, but not a lot for clothing any more. I am over at Bloomingdale’s and Neiman’s, and maybe Sak’s.
************************
Being a male stoat and I confess, not a terribly fashionable one, I haven't really paid attention as to whether there's a big difference between what's heavily promoted in-store versus what's in the catalogs and the online sites in terms of ladies' fashions.
Has anyone noticed a significant difference in these sales mediums in terms of what's offered? The Marks and Spencer lady shareholders and 3AngelaD appear to suggest that there may be.
I’m appalled at some of the styles of clothing that are offered in larger sizes, like tube tops, halters, and above the knee skirts.
Some clothes just should not be made in some sizes.