I find that ad campaign to be cynically ironic somehow. Distasteful, condescending, self aggrandizing, and hilariously pretentious. People who shop at Lululemon are too distracted texting angry messages to the people who “un-friended” them on Facebook to ever take on a huge book like that. Much less understand what “Who is John Galt” means. I bet they sometimes find themselves having some uncomfortable conversations on the bus.

Poor yuppies….The irony of Chip’s “message” is that buying clothes with a branded identity attached is a glaring example of supreme mediocrity. Pretending to do yoga and advertising it by wearing stupid pants isn’t the path towards greatness.

Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” struck me as naive. In her world of awe-inspiring, stoic industrialists, there’s no corporatism or built-in obsolescence of product, oligarchy or corruption.

Anyway, hi there and I like your observations about this. This is the most attention I’ve ever paid to Lululemon in my life.

I think there is some glamour behind buying an expensive brand, for sure, however I know when I buy things that are glamourous (which I use loosely because I can’t afford Gucci glamour) I think my satisfaction comes from being able to pay for it and earn it myself. Maybe then it is ok to scratch a consumer itch?

The comment that provoked this comment was the idea that Tom’s’ intention is to create anything other than children with shoes. Their shoes are probably not worth $60 but they are not of vastly lower quality than anything else. A friend of mine has worn hers for 3 years and they still work fine (ie no holey soles, etc). If 3 or 4 years is not a sufficient life span for a shoe, I don’t know what is.

For $60 you get a decent pair of kicks and some kid gets a covering for their feet where they wouldn’t have. The cost of mailing a package the size and weight of a pair of shoes to a country like Mali or Niger, where children go barefoot is steep. Granted Tom’s probably has a partnership on shipping rates and the distro is done by World Vision, so they’re making money. But making money by selling shoes isn’t wrong; in fact making less money by selling shoes and providing kids at risk of stepping on things like diseased needles with other shoes is the opposite of wrong.

For the record, I’m glad you asked the question because it made me think about this issue for about 20 minutes longer than I would have otherwise. That’s why I loves ya, buddy.

PS – x=y(me): There IS NO SPOON. Where x is the spoon (i.e. the value that a company wants you to place on their product) and y are the values that I have, just intrinsically, solve for “me” (i.e. my ability to make positive consumer choices and preserve self-image, etc). Good luck in 2012, eh?

The thing about finishing a challenge set out before you isn’t the things that you think you will learn, it’s the stuff that you find yourself learning that you had NO idea would come up… it’s the stuff in the dark and secret places that I don’t like to let people see because I hate to ask for help or to look vulnerable. Ever.

I am so intensely happy for you that this project has opened up some of the doors for you that my little project did for me. They aren’t the same doors, but they lead to the same place. I realized that, unlike those folks in the bar, I don’t need someone to take me home, or someone to come home to, really. I can want that and look for that, but it’s not a challenge like a Master’s thesis or a PhD. It is not within my scope to make someone love me… learning that you can’t choose for others but only for yourself is a nice little lesson to tuck away when feeling small and overlooked. The same way that learning that you are the fierce and phenomenal woman that you are is never going to change no matter whether you are wearing Miu Miu or MEC.

You’re a champ and in my books, you’re at the head of the class.

2. My middle name might be Veblen.