L'oiseau de Salomon

I already that idea to do as if before, but I needed Simon Doonan to really get the thing and how it could be liberating instead of a loss of time that would push me to screw my life.
When I feel bad, I can think about Simon Doonan or Tavi Gevinson or similar people, and suppose they are people around which you feel like a good person, that for them people are cookie jars of possible awesomeness instead of being cookie jars of being-a-bad-person-ness. Thinking people are cool as they are won't keep them from becoming even cooler. (I'd been searching for the right "even cooler" picture, this will make it even if it's raining.)
I like how Tavi is using her "influence", and her "public image", all the big words: while others blame fashion's, ie, lack of body diversity on homosexuals (as productors/actors of the fashion world), women (as productors and consumers-observators), youth (consumers) and/or transsexuals (mentioned as a bonus punching-bag, supposed to be neither actors no observators), she actually does something.
I know I'm exaggerating: most people just say die, pretending « fashion » is like that and it won't ever change (but isn't that an ever-changing thing? can't we be a part of its changes? aren't we?); but I already hear people saying that, for example, if there wasn't enough body diversity in fashion, it was because of « those gay designers who wanted women to be masculines », which was « sad because they preferred rounder women, and it made women believe lies about men preferences » (sumthing lyk datz), and implying the problem was that it insulted their body ogling/beauty defining privileges. (btw, I never heard people blaming the fact Alexander Johansson is kind of feminine-looking on lesbian designers, maybe because the kind of people who says these kind of things thinks all the grands couturiers are biomen.)

We can all do something, change something, even if we are a "nobody". We just need to stop thinking about "fashion's problems" as inherent to the thing or having appeared by spontaneous generation.
These are problems issued of precedent existing problems in society, and in a vicious circle it is perpetuating and nourishing these, but we can do something by changing fashion, by changing the way we envisage it and by changing the society around it.
Style can be a mean for self expression, fashion could be anything you want it to be.

Which leads me to say, I just had a taste of WORN. WORN is an independent canadian fashion magazine which relies enormously on its readers to exist, so that possible advisers enjoys no influence on its content: the only advertisements are those by advertisers who really cares about supporting the mag and its readers. Readers who can eventually submit themselves, and offer their articles and artworks.
Wornettes really care about what they write and publish. WORN is about every aspect of fashion: textiles, persons who make it, persons who made it, sociological and psychological aspects, anecdotes and life stories relating to clothes, and a lotta "further ressources" at the end of the articles! (add to that the Books about Looks reviews section)
Articles I read up to then were really --full of references?-- worked on, n°12 editor's letter is really engaged for the Slut Walk, not giving the impression to be there just to look good (most articles on the subject in other magazines give me the impression of being written by slightly detached dudes afraid of being accused of « political correctness »), and there is an haiku about desperate search of the perfect necklaces in yard sales! (who didn't ever? do not raise your hands, that's just a rhetorical question to mention my interest for yard sales and perfect necklaces)
44p., and I find informations and a bibliography otherwise fairly scattered in every places.
(There is an advertisement for Toronto's Maker Faire! It makes me happy, if I did go at a Maker Faire right now, I wouldn't feel like a mismatch.)