#fire is also dangerous old technology but we don't see them being against that do we? or swords?

[enbyboiwonder]

Y’know, when Lee came and found me and told me to give over any data disks and especially any weapons I find in the mines for destruction (and of course it was the fucking church who found me first and not the research center. Luckily though I found the research center soon after. The church ain’t getting shit), I thought I’d be finding old nuclear warheads down there or something. The first time I found a glowing purple dot on the scanner, I assumed it was a weapon, and when I pressed A, I thought it had taken me to the entrance or something and I couldn’t mine in that area anymore. I didn’t realize it had taken me to an unused room with a few monsters to kill and a few chests to loot (and I could go right back and keep right on mining), and I also hadn’t uncovered enough to see that it was a pipe. I realized the second time, though.

No, it’s the triple barrel snakebite, a.k.a. the poison blaster, as I like to think of it. The day after I first pieced one together and tried it out, I received a cease and desist letter from the church (and lost nonexistent favorability points w Lee and Nora lmao). lol how ‘bout no.

Anyways, fuck the church.

[antiloreolympus]

10 Anti LO Asks

1. To add to your collection of RS's old tumblr ask screenshots (LO canvas league era), i distinctly remember there was an ask where someone asked why is mortal realm so behind olympus technology-wise and RS responded something along the lines of technology timelines not being aligned "because the gods don't wanna share the goodies" (the quotations are her exact words, to be precise) and it was kind of an early red flag for me? I mean, the greek myths are all about gods helping humans and giving them the means to survive or about explaining natural phenomena that benefits humans whether it's prometheus with introducing fire or athena and hephaestus spreading the knowledge of crafts among humans or even ares and poseidon making way for the first court trial in greece on areopagus. You don't get the permission to "deconstruct" the myths if you don't even know what they are initially about

2. What makes me tick is RS makes everything up instead of working with mythology (first thing she'd have to do is to...ummm, know mythology but oh well). She seems to see original mythology as something limiting to her creativity instead of something that unlocks more possibilities for more interesting storytelling. If someone wants concrete examples, let's say persephone's half-bothers plutus and philomelus who'd make an interesting dynamic of maybe two protective/concerned older or younger bros (it'd lessen the portrayal of demeter's "bad" parenting) and she'd have a support system of two guys who don't have the motive to get in her pants, unlike , ykno, the rest of the male cast.  Also it'd even out the playfield between Perse and Hades finance and power-wise as Plutus is a god of wealth and Perse,aside from being a heiress, can also turn to her brother for financial help instead of being reliant on Hades all the damn time. Intead RS put Arion just for some lame joke of persephone having a horse brother and is stripped away from any familial connections (male or female) she has in myth so she'd fit in Hades's waifu mold with no risk of going sweet home alabama that myth implies so much

3. the fact persephone is barely over the age of 18 doesn't help when there's so much panels and art of her where's she's literally just naked. if she was 300 or smth we could at least know we are likely not looking at a naked underage girl, but instead it's like??? you're just praying youre not?? especially when she's around grown adults like hermes and hades?? rachel please i dont want to be put on a list -

4. i feel so bad for RS' partner because apparently hermes is based off them (and everyone knows persephone is her self insert) yet in comic hermes' whole purpose is to simp for a woman who literally doesnt like him and being a walking joke. like idk id be so offended my partner sees me like that?? like damn i cant even be with you in your fantasy?? you rather run off with blue mads mikklesen if given the chance?? anyway poor hermes and that kiwi i appreciate you 😭

5. I can’t take Persephone serious as a protagonist she failed to grow as a character in her own. She can’t do anything without Hades she didn’t fight back against Apollo, she failed to tell Zeus the truth, and hen warrant for her arrest was made she didn’t think about her mother at all being in danger! And her punishment was basically doing her job and growing her powers…?

6. "the art is subjective!" well i wish i wasnt subjected to it 🤔

7. I know this whole comic is full of un-self reflective hypocrisy, but are we really not supposed to find it stupid minthe is basically slut shamed for wearing a revealing dress around a child, but its perfectly fine for persephone to wear as revealing of clothing around the same child they're so concerned over? it's not even a cause of showing hades' hypocrisy, it's just straight forward "yep! minthe is evil no matter what but it's ok with persephone does the same thing!" like ???

8. There's something funny of LO fans trying to accuse Ava's Demon of ripping of LO as if it wasn't already published and popular in 2012, aka nearly SIX YEARS before LO even came out. Hell, it was HUGE on tumblr when RS was on it, there's no way she didn't know about it, and a lot of the LO characters seem awfully similar to Ava's Demon (Hades and Gils being a VERY obvious similarity). I'm not saying she did so, but if any sort of ripping off did happen, it would be from RS, not Michelle.

9. This is coming from someone who does have a huge age gap in their parents marriage(about 8 to 9 years apart) but the reason I don't see a problem with mine is that they both meet when they were MATURE ADULTS with jobs. Persephone cleary is not mature enough for Hades minus all the other problems with this relationship. 

10. LO fans hates Hadestown because tthey can't stand complexity, the cast and crew who love to shit on HxP, or the Persephone actresses who especially love to push a Hermes/Persephone supremacy agenda!!

[your-brilliant-lady-m]

Part 4 - Basic Concepts of Miraculous Ladybug: Glamour

You can call it however you want: kid's show logic, superhero disguise logic, magical girl show logic, cartoon laws, suspension of disbelief, etc. But the fact that nobody recognises Marinette, Adrien and others when they are suited up IS NOT BAD WRITING. It's one of the main laws of this genre. That's not because characters are stupid, okay? So, being frustrated that everyone in the show acts stupid about this "wearing a mask that covers only eyes" trope is strange. This criticism is not valid or fair.

But, this trope has to make sense in-universe as a worldbuilding and narrative element.

Miraculous doesn't give us much direct information on how glamour works. And in this case, I think we need both SHOW and TELL. Because if you don't establish the glamour rules clearly, you are going to run into problems and create unfortunate implications with your storytelling choices.

Appearance

Miraculous obviously gives our heroes magical glamour. In "Lady WiFi" we find out that masks can't be taken off. It's magic. No other explanation is needed.

Miraculous can slightly change the appearance of users (eyes, face shape, height and hairstyles). People can identify and notice the hairstyles of heroes (numerous Ladybug wigs, statue in Copycat). Jagged Stone points out the change of hair when he mistakes Chloe for Ladybug ("Antibug"). But it's just a costume. There is no magic that prevents Jagged from understanding that Chloe isn't Ladybug. So, how does it work? But it's forgivable because it's cartoon logic. Suspension of disbelief works here, I suppose. I won't judge this too harshly.

Glamour also obviously prevents people from making a connection that Marinette and Ladybug have identical hairstyles. So people know that Ladybug wears her hair in pigtails, but magic does not allow them to notice similarities.

Another important question. Does glamour work on Kwamis? Can they see who is behind the mask?

New York Special makes it clear that magic does not affect robots and they can see through glamour. Does that mean that Markov, AI built by Max, knows the identities of Ladybug and Chat Noir? And it's never addressed.

Plagg in "Frightningale" says that holders can subconsciously choose their superhero appearance. This is actually pretty interesting and I like this idea a lot. Except the show is not consistent with this. The transformation of Master Fu looks identical to Nathalie's. And we have seen how different from each other Ladybug and Black Cat holders looked in the past. At the same time, Master Fu and Nino have different takes on Turtle superhero suit.

Age Glamour

Does age glamour exist? Do people see Ladybug, Chat Noir and other heroes as adults even when they look like teenagers to the audience (their height and build are smaller even when they are transformed)? Is that why no one ever questions the fact that children nearly die on a daily basis?

I mentioned unfortunate implications earlier. Well, this is where they come into play. Let's talk about "Copycat". A lot of people discussed it before me, so I won't bore you with details.

When I watched "Copycat" for the first time Theo's crush on Ladybug didn't bother me, because I thought that he sees Ladybug as his peer, a girl who is about 20-23 years old. Theo is an artist, his character design is that of an adult. He has his own studio, its appearance indicates that he did serious commissions in the past. The guy has no idea that Ladybug is like 13.

But then we get "Heroes' Day" and "Ladybug". And Hawkmoth calls them "kids", which means that there is no age glamour. Others see Ladybug and Chat Noir as teenagers. Perhaps, other Miraculous users aren't affected by age glamour. Therefore regular people see all heroes as adults but other heroes are able to guess their age more or less correctly. But you must spell this thing out because the audience can interpret "Copycat" differently. If there is no age glamour, then Theo is crushing on a teenage girl and he is fully aware of this fact. And this doesn't look good for your show.

The "No Age Glamour" theory is further confirmed in "Sapotis" where Alya just straight up analyses voice recordings and says that Ladybug is a girl their age. If glamour exists then it should also cover technology. Kwami can't be photographed. Face and voice recognition software shouldn't be able to analyse transformed superheroes and detect their identities in any way.

Besides, after "Sapotis" Alya should definitely be sure that Ladybug is not 5000 years old (also not an adult), especially after she wore Miraculous herself and was one door away from detransformed Ladybug.

SEASON 4 UPDATE! There's no age glamour after all.

In "Furious Fu" Su Han calls Chat Noir a child without knowing his identity. It means that everyone knows their superheroes are teenagers. "Copycat" can't be saved from that, uh, subtext anymore. No one questions the danger of their job or the balance of their lives outside of the mask. No one doubts their competence after "Origins" ever again. No one becomes annoyed after being bossed around by two teenagers in spandex. You had many opportunities to drop these details into the narrative. Someone could have been akumatized over this (I will not be ordered around by some magical kids!).

I don't know why writers decided not to use at least this idea and slightly adjust "Copycat" if they got rid of the age glamour completely. It can be explained as kid's show logic, but unfortunately, I'm reluctant to do it. If many characters sympathise with akuma victims on-screen, why not with the teenage superheroes who must fight them?

New York Special had this weird focus on collateral damage out of nowhere (the damage done by sentimonster Robostus) and yet it has 0 effect on the main story. No one in Paris is pissed that their 2 teenage protectors weren't there.

Ironically, "Furious Fu" and that one remark made by Su Han also created unfortunate implications for other moments in the show. Just hear me out. Apparently, Jagged Stone wrote a "thank you" song for Ladybug knowing that she is 13-15 year old child back in "Pixelator". Fandom is more than happy to roast Lila for lying about saving Jagged Stone's cat and him writing her a "thank you" song. Fandom claims that Lila's tale could harm Jagged's reputation, when he wrote a song for teenage Ladybug several weeks prior. Meanwhile, in-universe this lie is 100% believable.

If we put on "realism glasses", then both this whole song situation and Theo's crush in "Copycat" have uncomfortable implications. However, the show's canon can't be viewed and criticised through "realism glasses". I admit that bits and pieces of my criticisms are affected by these "glasses", but, ultimately, I'm trying to be fair and concentrate only on things that can't be justified by "cartoon logic and worldbuilding".

Could the existence of age glamour solve this problem of unfortunate implications and other concerns mentioned above? YES. Is it better for the narrative? YES. Is essential for the story? NOT QUITE. Could the absence of age glamour be called an irredeemable storytelling flaw? NO.

Disclaimer: On a side note, only older audience can notice these implications. Children, the target audience, most likely won't understand this subtext simply because they don't have enough experience. So, perhaps, this criticism is unfair, because these moments only look weird to me as an adult. It's like an adult joke in a cartoon that you don't get until you reach a certain age.

There's nothing technically wrong with adult writing a "thank you" song for a teenager. It's just an expression of gratitude. However, unfortunately, we live in a world, where adults normally wouldn't write songs for teens to express gratitude only. In real life similar actions would imply pedophilia and would be actively scorned by the public. No one would risk their reputation like that even if their intentions were genuinely pure and sincere. But this show can't be viewed through "realism glasses", because it's a cartoon and in certain cases we as the audience must use suspension of disbelief and pretend that certain things are possible for plot to happen.

Su Han also wants to give Ladybug and Black Cat to adults. Why didn't Master Fu do this then? Writers don't give us any explanation. Throughout the show we never question this up until the moment it's revealed that adults don't have time-limited powers. Then comes "Furious Fu". Story suddenly becomes self-aware here. Because apparently nothing prevented Fu from giving the most powerful Miraculous to adults who won't have time limit and will be more effective against Hawkmoth (see part 3 for more details).

I have a very good example of Age Glamour done right. It works in the story. There is no confusion or unfortunate implications. There is like one plothole connected to the glamour (it's been years and I still can't forgive them for Cornelia and Caleb) but otherwise, it's a pretty solid example of both show and tell. Clearly, writers wanted to avoid uncomfortable implications which are present in "Copycat". I am talking about W.I.T.C.H. comic books and animated series.

If you are not familiar with it, I'll give you a brief explanation. The story follows 5 girls, the Guardians of Kandrakar who are chosen to protect their world and parallel ones from evil. They receive magical powers from the amulet known as the Heart of Kandrakar. Their powers are based on elements: fire, water, earth, air and energy. Our main characters are about 13-15 years old. In the animated series they are younger and they attend middle school, making them 12-14 years old. But the transformation makes them look 18-20. They look like young women to each other and to other people. At the same time, people can recognise them, their looks and voice don't change. Most people don't know that they are really teenagers when they are not transformed and these people don't know that magic can make them look older. That's why everyone treats Guardians like adults when they are transformed. Comics establish this fact in the very beginning. In first issues characters state that they look older, we are also shown this multiple times.

In fact, one of the first side plots revolves around the fact that Irma uses her powers to sneak into the disco club to meet up with her crush. Irma is 13 at the beginning of the series, she is a high school freshman. Her crush, Andrew Hornby is a senior guy 17-18 years old. Irma has liked him for a long time and wants to impress him, so she decides to be clever about this. She transforms into her Guardian form of the 18-year-old girl, hides her wings, sneaks out to the club after her parents are asleep without any problem, and meets Andrew, who obviously doesn't recognise Irma in this girl who looks about his age. Smitten Andrew offers her a ride and 13-year-old Irma doesn't understand the implication of that offer, so she accepts. And, obviously, he decides that she is interested in more than just a ride home, since she agreed, and the comic implies that he fully intended for them to have sex in the backseat of his car. But Irma understands the implication only when Andrew tries to kiss her. She panics and turns him into a frog. And she actually pulls this "I need to look mature" trick more than once over the course of the series.

It's not the only situation where this age difference is handled well and makes sense. People who know the main characters in everyday life remark on their older appearance during transformation. Sometimes people flirt with Guardians when they are transformed. In one of the side-novels centred around Cornelia, she is worried that the prince of the realm they helped to save from famine would try to marry her. That never happens, but Cornelia actually brainstorms with her friends about how to tell the prince that she is really 15.

There are many other plot points where this happens, but I think that you got the idea. I really like how "Age Glamour" was handled in W.I.T.C.H.

How do we fix this? Create the situations where people offhandedly mention "Age Glamour" in the presence of Marinette or Adrien, use Kwami for this.

"Don't worry, dear. Chat Noir and Ladybug are adults, who know what they are doing. I am sure that they will handle this. "

Theo could say: "Oh, I wonder which university Ladybug goes to?"

"So, does that mean that other people see us as grown-ups, Tikki?"

A few words and boom, problem solved. Then allow the "show don't tell" rule do the rest.

[realsamcalloway]

3/27/17 - Interview With Author Elizabeth Cline, “Still ‘Overdressed’ In 2017″ (www.regardingstyle.com)

Originally posted March 27, 2017 and appearing on www.regardingstyle.com.

© 2017 TRSB (Sam Bone)

Still “Overdressed” in 2017: Catching Up with Elizabeth Cline

By Sam Bone

Most standard format written articles (whether in print or digital) begin with the author of the article talking about the interviewed subjects’ past accomplishments and also plugging upcoming projects. A lot of times, there are behind-the-scene motives as to why a person is being interviewed, like say, because there is a product to be pushed or an agenda.

Well, this is not your mother’s format here.

Not when it comes to Elizabeth Cline.

For all of us who are thinking of, or already have begun an ethical fashion journey and also for those who are currently heavy influencers, Elizabeth really needs no introduction. So I won’t give you one. I will rebel against journalistic standards slightly and begin with what Elizabeth has done for me, the previously-found-guilty, and what she can do for you.

Before I go any further, I just need to say that I am thrilled to have Elizabeth Cline for this interview! Thrilled isn’t even a big enough word to describe my feelings about it.

I’ve been hugely impacted by Elizabeth’s speeches and also by her hard-hitting, slap you in the face then pull you in for a hug book, Overdressed. I am impacted and thankful for Elizabeth Cline because, aside from the sickening realities that she speaks of very bluntly in her book, she also has a way of reassuring you that you’re not a terrible person or consumer. Before I dove into the pages of the book, I was somewhat scared because I, like Elizabeth and so many others, fit the profile of that person who shopped at Forever 21 Men’s and H&M. When I think of all of the times in my life I’ve said to someone inquiring about what I’m wearing, “..and it only cost me ten dollars!”… it makes me cringe.

In the Church of Elizabeth Cline, she preaches that it is okay to have been a consumer of fast fashion—What truly matters is understanding the repercussions and changing our buying habits for the better. Amen.

Now, aside from all of that, Elizabeth Cline was the poor person who first received my panic. I had spent a few weeks watching YouTube videos; anything and everything that came up as a result of my search of “fast fashion.” I obsessively read and tried to grasp all of the statistics I was hearing and reading about. I, at one point, realized that some of the stuff I had read was maybe a little too outdated (2014 is like 10 years ago!), so I quickly filtered my results. I was in a total tail spin and whirlwind of information. My whole life, I’ve also dove straight into the depths of the unknown, in an attempt to take in as much information as quickly as I can.

I was freaking out. I had a Winona Ryder in “Stranger Things” panic attack. Then suddenly… I hit a wall. I needed to know more, needed someone who would maybe understand me, and the first person I thought of was Elizabeth Cline. To my shock and awe, she replied and we began a dialog.

I know that was a tad long-winded, but in your reading that, Elizabeth, I want you to know that no matter how far I go in my journey, even if nowhere at all, I will forever remember your kindness, accessibility and generosity. Indebted indefinitely.

 What’s up and how are you doing today? Where in the world are you (Los Angeles, Brooklyn, etc.)?

I live in Brooklyn! We had a snowstorm today and everything was mostly shut down. So I did what any normal person would do and bought a bottle of whiskey and turned on Netflix. 

I was listening to a September 2016 radio interview you did with Heritage Radio Network yesterday and learned about your new journey in film making. I am so excited for the documentary! How did this happen for you?

When Overdressed came out, I knew that the story of fast fashion would be best told visually. Even as a print journalist, I could see that it would have so much more impact if it was presented as a movie. After several years, I eventually came back around to the idea of making a documentary and started looking into how I, as someone who's never really worked in documentary film, could pull this off. Right now I'm filming two separate projects, one on fast fashion and one on textile waste. I've got my own gear, shoot with a couple of different camera people and producers, and have an editor I work with. It's a lot of fun. 

The interview I heard is now a few months old… have you come up with a title yet and how is that process going?

Since the podcast, I have been mostly working on a follow-up to Overdressed, which is an ethical style and shopping guide. I do have some ideas for a title but nothing is set in stone. 

As a slight curvature, I discovered that you were in a heavy metal band called Mortals out of Brooklyn! I could tell you were a bit punk rock when I first saw you speak at the April 2016 Chicago Humanities Festival and it was certainly an allure for me, as my background is also musical (music promotions and I’ve been the vocalist of a few bands myself). My question is how did you manage to pull of separating the two “jobs?” I was shocked when I found this out and thought “how did I NOT know this?” I am sure it would surprise quite a few people as well.

That's awesome! I've been in the punk and metal scene since I was 14, and it's a huge part of who I am. I got into activism and social justice through the punk scene. For a while, I kept those two parts of my life very separate -- playing music and working in the sphere of Overdressed and journalism.  You'd think that it would be impossible to hide anything about yourself given the Internet, but somehow most people don't find out if you don't want them to. Ha.

Sadly, I quit my band last year so I could focus on my documentary and writing more books. Sigh. It certainly wasn't an easy decision but it was the right one for my life.

Since 2012’s release of Overdressed, what have you been up to in regards to your delivering a message about sustainable and ethical fashion?

The book was a little ahead of it's time, so I haven't been doing ethical fashion related stuff full-throttle since 2012. I mostly promote the book through public speaking -- it's the best way to bring what's on the pages to life and get people thinking. I have given dozens upon dozens of lectures and talks at universities, high schools and community groups over the years, and I am slated to do at least six talks this spring. There's real momentum behind the ethical fashion movement now, so I feel like this year and last were probably my most active since the book's release. I try to stay engaged on social media with the ethical fashion community as well. In addition to the documentary and the follow-up book, I am also running a secondhand designer clothing business via eBay and a textile and fashion reuse lab in Brooklyn. I have a lot of irons in the fire. Too many, on most days.

In your eyes, how has the fashion industry changed since 2012?

I think perceptions of the fashion industry have changed a lot. There's now a broad popular understanding of fast fashion, and why it's problematic. There's a general sense that the global fashion industry is bad for the environment and often for human rights as well. I was filming recently with some activists in front of a Forever 21 in Los Angeles, and a college student immediately walked up to us and said, "Yeah, fast fashion is bad. I work at Forever 21 because I need a job, but I know it's not a good company." That would have never happened in 2012! Of course, there are also thousands of ethical fashion companies around the world now, many of them small but growing. Everlane and Reformation have made the concepts of transparency and sustainability cool or accessible for Millennials.

Within the fashion industry, I'm most excited about how digital technology is changing and will continue to change the way we consume. You follow me on Twitter, so you know how much of an advocate I am of resale and rental sites / apps. I think the future of fashion is shared, in the sense of circulating items from user to user until their useful life is over. We will have to continue to shift consumer behavior to fully realize the sharing economy's potential within fashion -- Americans tend to think of wearing someone else's clothes as dirty or something poor people do. That's really got to change, and I think it's finally beginning to do so.  

Speaking of change, with the new Trump administration here in the United States; what are your thoughts on his trade executive orders and the overall reception (or lack thereof) of his ideas and rhetoric from the fashion industry?

As someone who's written extensively on global economics and studied and researched trade in the U.S., China and Mexico, I can say with confidence that Trump's view on global economics and trade is dangerously inaccurate. He sees globalization as a zero sum game where the U.S. lost and China and Mexico won. The U.S. is of course still the world's largest economy. Growing inequality and a lagging middle class is a phenomenon that's playing out around the world, not just here, and it has as much to do with technology and automation as it does with the way trade deals are structured. I don't think it's a bad idea to renovate NAFTA, but only if the goal is to build environmental and worker protections into the agreement (the original does not include anything like that) but that's not Trumps's intention. So my guess is he'll change it in a way that's devastating to the U.S. economy and makes us less competitive and less innovative. Trump just wants us to go back to the 1950s or 1980s when manufacturing employment was a significant portion of the population, but the world he's trying to recreate no longer exists.

…and to push boundaries a bit (because I am unafraid), what are your thoughts on his conflicting opinions about resourcing USA companies back to the homeland, while he keeps both his product lines and his daughter Ivanka’s overseas? I, personally, find this baffling and astoundingly hypocritical.

I feel like we've all taken the Made in USA worship thing a bit too far, myself included. Now we have an autocrat running the country because he promised to bring factories back to America. We need to take a long, hard look at what we hope to gain from on-shoring certain industries and evaluate how and if it's even possible and how and if it's going to meet our wider goals of higher employment and a stronger middle class. I think in a lot of instances, on-shoring is not the answer we're looking for, especially if it means making the U.S. uncompetitive by adding trade protectionism to our industries. 

Instead, I think the U.S. should continue to focus on building advanced manufacturing here, which is something Obama put a lot of money into. That's partially why the portion of U.S. GDP going to manufacturing is as high as it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Advanced manufacturing relies on technology, automation and advanced skills. And then we should continue to grow our boutique, artisan, small-batch manufacturers who represent quality and craftsmanship. I really don't want to see stores like Kohl's and Target make all their clothes here again. And if we start clamoring to see something like that here, we need to really ask ourselves what the motivation is.  

People like you and I work tirelessly to spread a message about the repercussions of fast fashion and the waste it causes and also by encouraging consumers to shop more ethically; how will this work when there are companies and world leaders who simply refuse to withdraw because the payoff is so huge? To these people, what would you say?

I don't want to see an end to outsourcing. Trade and globalization are a good thing. But with this global world we live in, we simply have to figure out how to regulate environmental standards and enforce living wages in garment factories that are currently generating huge, unprecedented profits. I also think it's fine to partially subsidize high-end, high-skilled garment factories in the U.S. that still have specialized tailoring skills for example -- we want those skills to survive. It's also important for the Garment Industry in NYC to survive as it's an important tool for design and innovation in the U.S.

When people take the problems with fast fashion into consideration and decide that they want to change their buying habits, a lot of people’s minds go straight into “I can’t afford that” mode. I’ve even heard arguments that go as far as saying that it’ll never work (ethical fashion as a first thought for consumers) because consumers are so engraved with prices offered by retailers like Target and Forever 21. What are your thoughts on this consumer mindset?

I think it's a challenge. American consumers in particular are trained to buy a lot of clothing over the course of a year, which makes them very sensitive to price. How could you spend $200 on a single ethical item if you're then going to turn around buy 68 items per year (the American average)? Who can afford that!

I think there are probably two different potential markets for ethical fashion. Women who are a little further into adulthood; they're making their own money and they're looking to build a wardrobe and buy higher-quality pieces. For them, ethical fashion is not as hard of a sell. For that person, it's about spreading awareness that buying higher-quality pieces that you truly love is really satisfying and such an incredible source of joy and happiness. That's part of the reason I'm writing the ethical style guide, as people aren't really given the skills anymore to shop well. It's a process and a journey going from thinking like a fast fashion consumer to thinking like someone who wants to build the wardrobe of their dreams. Those are two different mindsets and demand two different approaches to spending. 

For teenagers and college students, someone is going to have to come along and basically create a Whole Foods of ethical fashion, something that has enough buying power and economies of scale to keep prices down. Young people are either spending their parents' money or they don't have a lot of disposable income. And they are under a lot of social pressure to keep up with trends and shop a lot. So, yeah, whoever can figure that out will be hugely successful I think!

Thank you so much for your time! What can we all expect next from you?

Ethical style and shopping guide coming soon!

 To stay up-to-date with Elizabeth, you can follow here on Twitter here, bookmark her official website here and while you’re at it, purchase Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost Of Cheap Fashion here!

Certain elements, such as links and photos, may have been removed from the original version of the above article.