Kindred Spirits?

Is it me, or does anyone else think that the girls at Go Fug Yourself are kindred spirits under the wonderfully snarky comments on their blog?

Before you wonder, remember that the girls insist that Fugly stands for “frightfully ugly” and never, as far as my perusal has discerned, indulge in anything but high-minded Swiftian satire as they literally take apart their hapless celebrity fashion victims. I happened on their site after linking from one of our commenter’s blogs, and recalled that I had seen them profiled in the Wall Street Journal for their witty chatter. For those of us who indulge a guilty pleasure of fashion mags, and have wondered in pain who on earth ever designated Chloe Sevigny a fashion icon, they are the answer to a prayer. Not only do they manage multiple daily postings that are as fresh as they are tart, they do it in a manner that betrays a reflexive revulsion at exhibitionism parading as merely bad taste.

I detect potential modestyniks in these two, although they may be horrified to hear it. Comments, please!

Comments

[Wendy Shalit]

I am on the fence. On the one hand, yes, they are exposing the downside of exhibitionism but the manner in which they're doing it has its limitations.

It is very interesting how they're so popular now. Funny how it's still taboo and "judgmental" and "intolerant" to make a reasoned argument for being modest. But if you just smirk at people, then somehow everyone agrees that's socially acceptable.

So are they really kindred spirits, or just smirkers?

I think at the end of the day, if they can only make fun of other people and not tell us what it is they believe in, then they are perhaps not kindred spirits.

What does everyone else think, am I being too serious?

[Spinal Tap]

Hysterical!

I'm still laughing over the The Dread Pirate Parton and Prithee, Mistress Lohan!

This is more than smirking...I'm siding with Elizabeth on this one.

[L.B.]

Well...looking at the India.arie entry...perhaps they are on the side of the forces of good.

"I mean, look at her: She glows. The dress hugs her bust and gently cuddles her curves without pinching anything, exaggerating things to bizarre proportions, and the detailing is both interesting and graceful without being over the top. The neckline flatters her and doesn't look like -- or look like it feels like -- a harness...In all: bravo, Mama.Arie, for enhancing your daughter's lovely, healthy body, and proving that women who look like women -- and not like they just snapped off a tree trunk -- are the real idols."

[Mary]

Eh, I admit it’s funny but I’m going to agree with Wendy on this one. It’s good to show the downsides of exhibitionism, but that’s not always what they do. They have ‘fugged’ people for being too modest: just recently Dakota Fanning for a lovely, age appropriate dress.

[Jeannine]

I do think their popularity (one of the world's most popular blog site!) points to the possibility that the vast majority of the population does not think these Hollywood stars are admirable. I believe the average person probably reads the Fuggers, laughs and then thinks, "That is...sooo....right," and keeps on laughing.

Yet Wendy's point is extremely well taken and very much correct, as it points out a particular hypocrisy—that a reasoned position for modesty can get slammed harshly. But when two girls poke fun at the indecent and vulgar manner of many stars--sometimes in a very harshly worded manner--the world says "Bravo!"

Ironically, the Fuggers are sometimes taking the same position as we are. Yet they are meeting them at their level, low and blunt, in their lingo, and describing them “to a T." If the stars won’t listen to reason (and they seemingly don’t), they might listen to the THOUSANDS of people who daily click on the Fug site to laugh hysterically at them. It takes numbers to get their ear, and the Fuggers have their ear.

The Fuggers do not get it right all the time as Mary points out. Yet on some remarks, they are about as direct as you can get regarding the revealing and bizarre Hollywood fashions. Their popularity is at least a barometer that incoming the trend might be very different. Those crass, cheap, vulgar stars (Paris Hilton and Mrs. Britney Spears are a couple of their frequent targets) are getting sidelined, and aggressively so.

But even the Fuggers know they might be out of a job if that trend continues--- they write about the one time (only time?) Paris Hilton wore a classy outfit. The fuggers write, “Someone's been taking lessons from Nicole ‘Girl, I Left The Fug Last Year And Haven't Ever Looked Back’ Ritchie. Paris looks so...sweet. Wholesome. Cute. Well-coiffed. Nicely shod. I can't even see her vagina. If this keeps up, I'm going to be out of a job."

I included some Fugger samples below that reveals they are some kind of Extreme Modesty Fog Horns – when someone really breaks modesty, these girls get out the massively loud Fog Horns. Or are they Fug Horns? Here goes the sample…

Danni Ray wore a dress that exposed nearly 100% of her derriere, and then bent over for the cameras. They write, “Grammy Fug Carpet: Danni Ray. You're at the Grammy Awards, honey, not the gynecologist. Put your peaches back in the can, stand up straight, and stop visually begging people to use their trophies as a speculum.”

About Sheryl Crow's far-too-revealing yellow dress, standing next to Lance Armstrong, as she presents an award. Her dress exposes nearly her entire upside and downside:
"Also, I know you're all wondering why I'm dressed like a walking banana with a big old bite taken out of it, but I can't tell you that, because, frankly, I have no idea what I was thinking when I decided I should borrow this dress from my neighbor, who was a showgirl at the Tropicana in 1974. I guess I thought it would be festive. But everyone's going to slam me for it, aren't they? I should have known when Lance said, 'THAT is MY favorite mistake' when I came out of the bathroom. I thought he meant me, in general, but now I know he means my outfit, specifically. So, yes, I know, I look like a cross-dressing, jaundice-afflicted Iggy Pop, but I'm here to present an award, so let's just get it over with so I can get back to the line for the ladies room. I really don't trust Kelly Osbourne to hold my spot for very much longer."

About some star I didn't know wearing a cropped shirt and extremely low pants:
"I have no idea what's going on with the proportions of this outfit. The shirt is cute and flattering...except it's too short. Or the jeans are too low. Either way, why would she wear something that exposes the exact ring of skin that every woman wants to conceal? Why, Andie? Why? Even if you're all firm and sh** there, it still looks, from afar, like you're prancing around with your muffin top out! "

At the Emmy's about Paula Abdul's extremely tight and far-too-small-for-her-chest dress:
"She seemed too strung out on the red carpet to put together a coherent thought, so maybe when she got dressed La Abdul was too zoned to notice that she grabbed her dress from the Juniors rack: From the waist down... fine. Maybe a little bit like a stripper at the Aladdin in Las Vegas, but we'll tolerate it because of the more grievous atrocities occurring upstairs."

All I can advise for the stars who HATE this site--dress classy and they'll commend you for it!! And you'll put them out of a job.

[Liz Neville]

Wendy-- I definitely see your point. My thinking was-- illustrating absurdity by being absurd. The FUG girls, as Jeannine notes, use their satire to make a point in a way that is (apparently) more socially acceptable than our (reasoned, cogent) approach. They also, at times, spell it out in a positive way, a la India.Arie, as Laurie picked up. So I say, it advances our cause, and I certainly enjoy the laughs along the way. What say you, Mistress Shalit?

[sunnyday]

"If the stars won’t listen to reason (and they seemingly don’t), they might listen to the THOUSANDS of people who daily click on the Fug site to laugh hysterically at them. It takes numbers to get their ear, and the Fuggers have their ear." - Jeannine

Having read all the comments, I suppose the above observation makes the fuggers' witty and sometimes irreverent writeups worth writing and reading. I've heard about the site but admit that I've never felt inclined to visit it on account of the name -- till now. =)

Great to catch up on my reading here. It's like a breath of fresh air before plunging into pollution again, haha.

[Eve]

Maybe this discussion can challange all of us modesty bloggers to try to sometimes define modesty and the qualities that go along with it rather than denigrating people and practices we deem as immodest. While critiquing cultural behaviors is one way of commenting on modesty, we and others can also benefit from a description of what a positive world for women and girls and men and boys would look like.

[Alexandra Foley]

Liz, I think you and I are kindred spirits! I have to confess a deep love of the Fug girls and, to paraphrase Lucille Ball, I love to hate bad fashion. Your Chloe S. remark made me guffaw. So true!

Sure I wish those ladies were first and foremost modestyniks but I am just so glad that there is someone out there calling celebs on the absurd. There is niche for everyone, it seems.

[Wendy Shalit]

Wow, this is such an interesting discussion that you started, Liz. Well, at least no one can accuse us of agreeing on every issue. :-)

So, L.B. is clearly right that the fuggy girls are sometimes positive, but overwhelmingly they are negative, let's face it--that is their shtick. The proof is, if stars suddenly started dressing modestly, would the fuggy girls close up shop and go home? Most likely, they would just make fun of them for dressing modestly (since they have already done this to Dakota Fanning and Rene Witherspoon and perhaps others, were there not a shortage of modest stars to smirk at). So suffice it to say that I don't believe their overall sensibility is motivated by a concern for modesty.

I'm not trying to spoil anyone's fun, but I do wonder: the people who check the site daily, what's motivating them? Because of a deep and abiding belief in modesty or because they just like to see people humiliated? I'm sure that no one here is looking at it for the latter reason, but my gut feeling is that it's not bringing out the best in everyone.

Although I'm certainly no fan of exhibitionism, I have to admit that I'm against our culture of "smirking" even more. I feel that we've lost the sense of what's truly funny (which requires us to believe in something first) and that all this smirking is a very poor subsitute.

I realize I'm getting "seriouser and seriouser" and perhaps no one will agree with me except Eve--or maybe I shouldn't presume, ha!--but to me modesty is about recognizing not just that we are souls, but that other people are too. For me, that view is hard to reconcile with making fun of others on a daily basis--even if the people happen to be exhibitionists.

Take their most recent entry:

"The Go Fug Yourself Celebrity Terror Watch squad is commencing a Sternum Watch for Sheryl Crow:

It doesn't help that this dress is enforcing a high waistline on her that gives her lower half a bizarre dumpyness, but that torso is a frightening thing. Dating a professional and highly competitive cyclist probably sent her over the fitness edge; now we're worried that breaking up with said professional cyclist might have driven her away from the fridge. That's not cleavage -- that's a cutting board.

We consider this a high alert situation that needs to be monitored and, as quickly as possible, repaired. Somebody please make her some fried chicken, or take her to Jack In The Box for some meat and cheese between slices of butter-soaked sourdough. Britney? Where are you, dear? You're needed. Sheryl can hold Sean Preston on her lap (if she has the strength) while you take her through the drive-thru."

Needless to say (this is me, Wendy again), if someone truly has an eating disorder, I don't think calling her chest a "cutting board" helps much, especially not if a huge number of people are reading what you write.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that celebs should be handled with kid gloves. But what about the trend of celebs barely separated from their spouses getting engaged to someone new?

Why is it taboo to criticize adultery, but making fun of someone for being anorexic or "frightfully ugly" is socially acceptable?

That's what I want to know.

[Liz Neville]

Wendy-- you are probably right (sigh). But I admit it is fun to see these silly people satirized, when too often they are lionized for simply being exhibitionist, or being famous, or just for nothing at all. I do check in frequently, if only for laughs, and I wasn't feeling guilty until you pointed that out-- maybe it's just my mean streak:) Anyhow, I think the FUG girls are never going to make a case for modesty that replaces our arguments; that's not really what they do. They are in it for the (mostly) pure joy of making fun of bad taste-- which as long as that encompasses both the modest and not so modest, guarantees they will never be out of a job. But I still think I detect just shade of finger-wagging mothers from the beginning of time, all saying: "You don't think you're going out of the house dressed like THAT, do you?"

P.S. Thanks, Alexandra!!!

[Mary O]

That website is a guilty pleasure of mine too. I was tempted earlier to link to their "Breast Police" entries, but thought it too snarky for Modesty Zone. Hilarious and skewering commentary: "Put your peaches back in the can!" No, the FUG bloggers aren't exactly models of sweetness and light, but they are funny. And "variety is the spice of life!" I enjoy their take on things.

Why is it socially acceptable to make fun of anorexics? I don't know, but probably it's because the Hollywood/rich elite crowd holds that up as the model look.

[Wendy Shalit]

Mary, as long as it's a guilty pleasure....

:-)

Liz, I do see what you mean. Their best blogs *are* when they sound like finger-wagging mothers and not mere smirkers.

[Alexandra Foley]

Okay, okay. I concede. Wendy has taken the high road and I'll start my ascent. I am certainly not motivated by charity when I go their site and the smirking of society truly isn't a good thing.

But I sure have enjoyed this discussion!

Alexandra

[Mel]

I'm a long-time Fug fan; I visit at least once a day to see who they're calling on the carpet. I enjoy the writing - those girls have prefected many different "voices" to suit the occasion - and, I'll admit, I like to see the vulgar given a smackdown.

Yes, they can seem cruel, but in the year plus that I've been reading them, I've never read an entry that was cruel for cruelty's sake. Sure, some posts read as particularly harsh, but if you look at them in the context of the entire site, you'll find an underlying gentleness that is sometimes missed in the "one-offs". The Fuggers have been among the most vocal advocates for someone to help Mary-Kate Olson, Nicole Ritchie, and Lindsay Lohan as they struggled (or, in the case of Nicole, continue to struggle) with eating disorders and/or drug/alcohol abuse. By repeatedly drawing attention to the seriousness of the problem and begging those close to the girls in question to pay attention and do something, I think the Fuggers have done something good. They are incredibly popular among young women and they are using this platform to adamently voice disapproval of Hollywood's "you can never been too thin" policy. (Come to think of it, with all their swipes at Paris Hilton, they're not too keen on the "you can never be too rich" thing, either.) Then they reiterate it by complimenting those women who are "normal" and "curvy" and "womanly". They've also complimented Lohan and Olson when they finally put some meat back on their frames. I think that's cool.

[Wendy Shalit]

What about Manolo the Shoe Blogger? He's also anti-exhibitionist, but his sense of humor is, well, perhaps a bit classier. Even when he's needling Hugh Hefner there is a certain directness, nay, purity about his jibes:

http://www.shoeblogs.com/wordpress/2005/06/13/weekend-at-hefs/

And when criticizing Vera Wang's choice of clothing, he does not make fun of her personally. He pays tribute to her as a "cutie" while disapproving of her choice of leggings, for example:

http://shoeblogs.com/wordpress/category/fashion-designers/vera-wang/

In sum, I like the Manolo because he is not venomous. He is just super fantastic.

[Mary O'Hayes]

I enjoy Manolo's blog, even though I'm about the farthest thing away from a fashionista, and I'd never dream of spending hundreds of dollars on a pair of shoes (although I would for good ski boots or hiking shoes). But he does have a kindness about him, even when he's criticizing someone's clothing or attitude. He's said a number of things in praise of modest dressing and critical of trashy dressing. Of course, he praises Miuccia Prada to the heavens, and he's linked to at least two two articles about her where she praised modest attire. And talk about his joie de vivre!

[Dan Berger]

A strong "second!" to Mel. See this post: http://gofugyourself.typepad.com/go_fug_yourself/2006/02/grammy_freaky_f.html.