For years, I’ve done a Met Gala poll on my Instagram stories; best dressed, worst dressed, who understood the theme, and who missed the mark. It is one of my favorite annual rituals and over the years I have built a little fashion loving community because of it. I love seeing how differently people interpret the same looks, and how designers interpret the yearly theme. It makes the whole thing feel participatory, like I can enjoy it without needing to be anywhere near the steps.

And maybe that is why we’ve never really needed the Met Gala to be something it isn’t.

The Met Gala has always been a contradiction dressed in couture, more than ever this year with the theme being “Fashion is Art”. It is positioned as fashion’s most important night, but it is also a fundraiser where a single ticket costs more than most people’s yearly rent. So when Lauren Sánchez and Jeff Bezos enter the conversation in a bigger way, people suddenly start asking whether money is ruining the art. Lol. As if money wasn’t already the point.

To me, this year’s discourse feels louder than usual; the idea that proximity to Vogue can be influenced by billionaires, followed by the visibility of major sponsors, has pushed everyone into analysis mode. Add in corporate partners like Snapchat, and Meta, and suddenly the Met starts to look less like a museum fundraiser (which was already an area of debate) and more like a very expensive brand activation.

The Met Gala has never been a space built for emerging designers in the way people romanticize. I know we love the idea of it being about pure creativity and artistic expression, but it has always been an invitation-only ecosystem shaped by wealth, influence, and visibility. The Costume Institute does not run on good intentions, it runs on funding. Duh.

However, that being said, I do get why people are annoyed. When Bezos is announced as an honorary co-chair, it does make you pause, and wonder: what does he actually know about fashion? His expertise do not surround draping, nor textile innovation, and definitely storytelling through clothing (which is the major reason why the Met has always peaked intrigue). So the concern is less about him personally and more about what it represents, and moreover, who gets to shape fashion when the people funding the room are not the ones creating within it.

But then again, when has that ever not been the case….

Another particular reason why this year feels different, is due to the blatantly obvious sponsorship culture, with brands wanting now, more than ever to be seen, tagged, and integrated into the moment. I think that visibility is what people are reacting to.

Because if we are being honest, the Met Gala has always relied on the exact kind of capital people are now critiquing. The difference is that now the sources of that capital are more obvious.

So does that take away from the art?

I go back and forth. I think in theory, more funding should enable more ambitious exhibitions, but funding also comes with influence, even if it is subtle.

Because despite all of this, I still watch. I still vote in my own polls. I still have opinions about who understood the theme and who clearly just wanted to be photographed. I still enjoy it. So when people say the Met Gala is being ruined by billionaires, I don’t fully buy it.

The illusion that this was ever purely about art feels harder to maintain and simultaneously the illusion that access was based on creativity alone feels thinner.

XOXO

Sarah

I. the wardrobe is trying to tell us something

I cannot be the only one with Bieberchella FOMO this weekend. While on the surface for a lot of us this kind of FOMO might be about the concert, I think it’s about the feeling. Standing in a desert at midnight, hearing a song you grew up with, surrounded by people who were shaped by the same after-school TV shows, the same bedroom posters, the same blonde wig on a Tuesday night on Disney Channel.

Something that stuck out to me was how everyone showed up dressed like the best version of their 2007 selves. Low-rise jeans and rhinestone tops and going-out clothes that look like they were excavated directly from a 2010 Teen Vogue catalogue. There was a collective understanding to show up in the outfit that made the most emotional sense. Essentially, it was a cultural moment dressed up as a wardrobe choice.

II. bieberchella: the outfit was the message

Justin Bieber headlined Coachella 2026 solo for the first time, his first big performance since cancelling the Justice tour in 2022. But it wasn’t just his moment. The audience might’ve been the most honest fashion moment of the year, basically saying: this is the era that made me, and I’m not done with it yet.

In a way, it mirrored exactly what he was doing on stage, sitting with his past, scrolling old YouTube clips, duetting his younger self. Half nostalgia, half moving forward. The crowd was doing the same thing, just with their outfits.

(The Jonas Brothers are also currently on tour celebrating twenty years of music. Important to mention so if you find yourself reaching for an old velour tracksuit this spring, just know the universe fully supports you.)

III. the disney channel closet never closed

Here is what I think is actually going on: we are not dressing “Y2K”. We are dressing Disney Channel. And those are two completely different things.

If you grew up in the mid-2000s like me, you were also immersed in the Disney Channel glitzy aesthetic, the glittery flip phones, the embroidered jeans, the hot pink baby T-shirts.

Disney Channel’s costume designers were deliberately using brighter colors and maximalist layering because they were competing with cartoons for children’s attention. The result was a wardrobe philosophy that was defiantly, unapologetically joyful, and it went straight into our brains at a formative age and never entirely left.

Now, referencing last weeks article on Capri’s, we are in a time marked by economic uncertainty and digital saturation, and a result, nostalgia has become a coping mechanism. Nothing compares to the comfort of early 2000s Disney Channel, representing a time that valued non-digital connections before adult responsibilities arrived.

IV. sabrina, miley and the clothes that came with them

Sabrina Carpenter headlining Coachella this same weekend is not separate from this conversation. She entered this industry placing third in a Miley Cyrus singing contest before signing a record deal at twelve and spending three seasons on Girl Meets World. She then did the quiet decade of work, until Short n’ Sweet hit number one and won two Grammys. People are fiercely devoted to her not just for the music but because she’s the Disney Channel girl who kept going, and kept dressing like herself the entire time.

And then Miley came home. On March 24, exactly twenty years to the day Hannah Montana premiered, she returned for the 20th Anniversary Special on Disney+. She toured Hannah’s rotating closet on camera: the rhinestone tops, the cowboy boots, the sparkly going-out dresses. Streams of the catalogue surged 306% the week after, from 4.6 million to over 18.8 million plays. Searches for embellished denim, Western sets and sparkly minis quietly spiked within days.

And as a final offering of nostalgia, The Devil Wears Prada 2 arrives in cinemas May 1, nearly twenty years after the original. The film that first taught us fashion could be a whole personality (and is a huge inspo behind this blog hehe!!), returning at the exact moment we need reminding.

V. we’re going back to girlhood. and we’re wearing pink.

Underneath all of this is something even more specific: a return to girlhood. More specifically, the particular feeling of being a girl before the world got opinions about it.

Millennial pink resurged in 2025 (and i’m not just talking about Barbiecore tbh that was a bit tacky to me lol), linked directly to Gen Z’s inner child aesthetic and feminist nostalgia. Designers like Chloé, Miu Miu and Sandy Liang used it to evoke girlishness with intention, a sort of delicacy balanced by depth.

And then there are the friendship bracelets. When Taylor Swift told fans on the Eras Tour to make them and trade them, she accidentally reactivated something deeply primal. Michaels reported a jewellery sales increase of over 40% chain-wide and up to 500% in cities the tour visited. On Etsy alone, $3 million worth of friendship bracelets sold between April and August 2023. eBay saw a 15,200% increase in friendship bracelet sales. Those are the numbers of a generation sitting cross-legged on the floor, stringing beads, remembering who they were before getting dressed became complicated.

The clothes, the pink, the bracelets, the FOMO from Bieberchella, the sparkles, and 2000’s workout sets all fall under the broader scope of a past nostalgia.

VI. we’ll always find our way back home

Justin in a peachy hoodie, duetting with his teenage self. Miley standing in front of a rotating closet full of rhinestones. Sabrina on a Coachella stage in a look that hasn’t changed in ten years because she never needed it to. Miranda Priestly striding into an elevator twenty years later in red stilettos, like no time has passed at all.

And in our wardrobes: the pink, the butterfly clips, the friendship bracelets stacked wrist to elbow, the going-out tops that technically belonged to a fictional teenage pop star but feel, right now, like the most honest thing you own.

We’re dressing like ourselves, circa the last time everything felt simple, and our inner Sharpay Evans (loud, sparkly, completely unbothered) is absolutely thriving.

XOXO, Sarah

Is your fashion statement aligned with macroeconomic uncertainty?

I regret to inform you that I now track capri pants with the same intensity economists track the yield curve, which is to say, obsessively, and in a constant state of mild dread. Here’s why:

Somewhere between TikTok trend cycles and retail earnings calls, a quiet pattern has emerged: when capris come back, something is… happening.

For the uninitiated, capri pants, those sometimes gorgeous and sometimes awkwardly cropped, mid-calf silhouettes, are neither here nor there. Not quite shorts. Not quite pants. While subjectively fashionable, they are objectively a liminal garment for liminal times.

Which, if you think about it, is exactly where we are.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), consumer spending has remained resilient into 2024–2025, but with a noticeable shift: leaning more selective, more value-conscious, more “I will treat myself, but only if it’s on sale.” (bea.gov)

And fashion? Fashion is reacting accordingly.

Enter: the capri.

The Capri Confidence Index (Yes, I Made This Up — But Also Not Really)

Let’s talk data, because this is where it gets uncomfortably real and as an engineering and occasionally finance girly, I love this type of analysis.

Trend forecasting platforms and retail analytics firms like Edited and Business of Fashion Insights reported a noticeable uptick in searches and product drops for capri-length trousers in late 2024, with continued growth into Spring/Summer 2025. Designers from Miu Miu to Jacquemus have quietly reintroduced cropped silhouettes into collections, not simply as nostalgia, but as strategic positioning.

Even more interesting: Google Trends shows a steady rise in searches for “capri pants outfit” beginning mid-2024, peaking just as inflation stabilized but interest rates remained high.

Coincidence? I would love for it to be.

Historically, we’ve had the Hemline Index : the idea that skirts get shorter in boom times and longer in downturns. It’s debated by many, and occasionally mocked (but isn’t when relating to fashion…) :

But capris complicate things.

They’re not longer. They’re not shorter. They’re a bit more… hesitant.

Which might make them the most accurate economic indicator of all and my preferred preferred indicator of our economical shifts.

The Lost Years: Where Did Capris Go (and Why)?

To understand why their return matters, we need to revisit their disappearance.

Historically capris were effectively exiled in the 2010s, a decade defined by aggressive optimism in fashion. Think skinny jeans, bodycon silhouettes, hyper-clear aesthetic identities. You were either minimalist or maximalist. There was no in-between.

Economically, this tracks.

The post-2008 recovery, especially in the latter half of the 2010s, was marked by relative stability and rising consumer confidence. Fast fashion boomed, trend cycles accelerated and people went to the club in business attire lol... and so, identity, and by extension, clothing, became sharper, more defined.

Capris, meanwhile, are inherently indecisive.

And indecision doesn’t sell well in times of confidence.

According to NPD Group (now Circana), apparel purchases during the late 2010s skewed heavily toward denim and athleisure, categories that offered either structure or comfort, but rarely ambiguity.

Capris offered neither; even though they were abundant across runways and in every suburban yoga class.

And thus, they disappeared.

2025: Inflation, Interest Rates, and the Return of the Mid-Calf

Now let’s look at today. We are not in a recession. But we are also… not not in one.

Inflation surged globally between 2021–2023, and while it has cooled, consumers are still adjusting. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, spending remains steady, but increasingly selective, with more emphasis on value and durability.

And right on cue, capris are back.

Runways from Coperni, Tory Burch, and Ferragamo reintroduced them as early as Spring 2024, signaling a broader shift. By 2025, they were everywhere, from celebrity street style to mainstream retail, with analysts noting a measurable rise in cropped silhouettes and capri variations.

Even more telling: data-driven trend platforms observed ~20% growth in capri-style visibility in 2024, particularly in fitted, legging-style versions.

Capris sit perfectly within today’s economic psychology:

• You still want to participate in fashion

• You don’t want to overspend

• You want versatility

• You are, frankly, a little unsure what’s coming next

Capris solve all of that.

They are the wardrobe equivalent of saying: I will engage, but cautiously.

The Capri as a Recession Vibe (Not a Recession Signal… But Close)

Let me be clear: capri pants are not causing economic slowdowns. But they might be reflecting them.

Because what’s fascinating isn’t just that they’re back, it’s when they come back.

• Early 2000s → peak visibility

• Post-2008 → practical styling dominance

• 2010s boom → disappearance

• 2024–2026 → resurgence amid economic uncertainty

It’s not a perfect correlation. But it’s not random either.

Fashion doesn’t just follow money, it follows how people feel about money, and right now, the feeling is cautious optimism.

Which just so happens to be the exact emotional energy of a pant that stops halfway down your leg.

The Capri as Cultural Mood Board

If fashion is a reflection of collective mood, then capris are a very specific emotional state:

“I don’t know what’s going on, but I would still like to look put together.”

They are the sartorial equivalent of ordering a $7 latte instead of a $9 one and calling it financial discipline.

And culturally, they align with everything else we’re seeing:

• The rise of “quiet luxury” (aspirational restraint)

• The normalization of outfit repetition (economic realism)

• The obsession with “timeless pieces” (fear of trend volatility)

Even the aesthetics match. Capris pair effortlessly with the current wave of controlled minimalism, ballet flats, slim knits, structured bags. Nothing too loud or risky.

Final Thoughts: The Market Is Cropped

If the 2010s were defined by confidence and clarity, and the early 2020s by chaos and excess, this moment sits somewhere in between—measured, cautious, slightly unsure. Which is exactly why the return of capri pants feels less like nostalgia and more like a signal. The last time they dominated was the mid-to-late 2000s, just before and during the 2008 financial crisis, when consumers shifted toward practical but still optimistic spending. Capris thrived in that middle ground: not luxury, not disposable, just adaptable enough to justify the purchase. This pattern aligns with broader apparel behavior noted by Circana, where downturn periods consistently push consumers toward versatile, multi-season pieces over statement trends. And as the economy stabilized in the 2010s, capris disappeared—replaced by sharper silhouettes and clearer identities, where ambiguity simply didn’t sell.

Now, with consumers once again navigating uncertainty, still spending, but more selectively, capris make perfect sense. They are efficient, flexible, and slightly noncommittal, the wardrobe equivalent of cautious optimism

Capris might be fashion’s most unexpected forecasting tool—showing up right when confidence softens, spending tightens, and we start dressing for uncertainty.

—

If the mini skirt was the symbol of economic exuberance, and sweatpants were the uniform of crisis, then capris might be something far more specific:

The outfit of economic hesitation.

So no, I’m not saying the next time you see someone in capris you should check the yield curve.

But I am saying this:

If enough of us start dressing like we’re unsure how long summer will last, the economy might be telling us the same thing.

And this time, it’s hitting mid-calf.

XOXO

Sarah

—

If you want to learn more:

• U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) — Personal Consumption Expenditures Data: https://www.bea.gov

• Business of Fashion — The State of Fashion 2025 Report

• Circana (formerly NPD Group) — U.S. Apparel Industry Insights

• Google Trends — Search interest data for “capri pants” and related terms (2024–2025)

• Edited (Retail Analytics Platform) — Assortment and trend tracking data

• Various runway collections (SS24–SS25): Miu Miu, Jacquemus, Prada coverage via fashion press and BoF

  ---

March is Women’s History Month, and every year it makes me look at fashion a little differently.

Typically, we discuss fashion through runway shows, trends, and designers. However, a much larger picture emerges when I zoom out and examine the industry's organizational structure.

The fashion industry is more than just a creative one. It is an international economic system, and women are the ones driving that system at almost every level, from production to consumption.

The Women Making Our Clothes

The stats are hard to ignore when I consider the fashion industry's production side. Approximately 70–80% of workers in the garment industry worldwide are women, especially in major apparel-producing nations like Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia, and India.

Garment manufacturers give millions of women access to the job and vital income. The clothing business has contributed significantly to the rise in women's economic engagement in various areas.

However, there is also a glaring disparity in the global fashion supply chain's structure.

The clothing business has grown extremely efficient at making clothes at a low cost and in a timely manner. However, just a small portion of the value gained once those products reach international retail marketplaces is generally given to the workers who sew them, many of whom are women. A dress that sells for $80 may only represent a few dollars in factory wages.

When I think about fashion’s global scale, it becomes clear that much of the industry’s affordability is supported by millions of women working behind the scenes.

The Women Driving Demand

The consumer side of the fashion economy is likewise dominated by women.

Fashion is directly impacted by the 70–80% of purchase decisions made by women worldwide. Women make up the largest and most powerful consumer base in the fashion business, from everyday clothes to high-end purses.

I find this relationship fascinating because of how uncommon it is from an economic standpoint.

The bulk of clothing is produced and bought by the same demographic group.

To put it another way, women are both the labor and the source of demand for the fashion business.

A $2 Trillion System Built Around Women

In the upcoming years, the global fashion sector is predicted to generate more than $2 trillion in revenue annually. That value travels through a huge network of manufacturers, retailers, supply chains, and brands.

However, when the industry honors women, a select few prominent individuals; designers, models, editors, and executives, usually receive the most attention.

And such women are deserving of praise. However, they only make up a small portion of the women who maintain the fashion industry.

Millions of women are employed farther upstream in the supply chain, cutting patterns, sewing clothes, running factory lines, and packing goods that will eventually cross seas and end up in closets all over the world.

They are rarely part of fashion’s public narrative. Yet without them, the industry simply would not function.

What Women’s History Month Reveals

Women’s History Month is often about celebrating women’s achievements. But when I think about fashion, I find myself thinking less about celebration and more about recognition.

Because women are not just participants in the fashion industry, they are its foundation.

A large portion of the world's clothing is produced by women, who make up the bulk of the worldwide garment workforce. They also continuously develop the cultural trends that dictate what the market produces next, and they have a significant impact on the great majority of fashion purchases.

In economic terms, women sit at both ends of the fashion value chain: production and demand.

Fashion may present itself through glossy campaigns and runway shows, but beneath that spectacle sits a simpler reality.

The global fashion industry doesn’t just sell to women.

It runs on them.

If you have felt that every piece of clothing you have purchased in the last year has felt adjacent to what used to pass as a Halloween costume, then you’re not alone. Most often, it is that same material. In the past 20 years, The fashion industry has mastered a quiet trick:

Make the fabric cheaper.
Make the garment thinner.
Raise the price anyway.

An 89 CAD top made of 92% polyester is quite common in 2026. Or a completely synthetic dress that costs $248 CAD. Or a $398 CAD blazer that is marketed as "elevated essentials" and is mainly composed of plastic fiber.

The existence of polyester is not the problem.

The problem is that although overall garment quality is declining, premium rates are being paid for one of the cheapest fibers used in global apparel production.

Let's examine what polyester is, how much it costs you, how much it costs brands, and how to recognize when you're overpaying.

What Polyester Actually Is (And How It’s Engineered)

Polyester is a synthetic polymer derived from petroleum. Most apparel polyester is made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), the same base polymer used in plastic beverage bottles…

The engineering process:

1. Petroleum is refined into chemical compounds.

2. Those compounds are polymerized into long plastic chains.

3. The plastic is melted and extruded through spinnerets into filaments.

4. The filaments are woven or knit into fabric.

It is engineered for:

• Durability

• Shape retention

• Wrinkle resistance

• Scalability

• Low cost

According to Textile Exchange, polyester represents over half of global fiber production today. However, unlike many things in the fashion industry, it’s dominance is not about luxury. It’s about production efficiency and economic margin.

Clothing Production Is Getting Worse — Prices Are Getting Higher

Over the last 15 years:

• Global clothing production has doubled.

• Garments are worn fewer times.

• Fabric weights (GSM) have decreased.

• Synthetic blend percentages have increased.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation has reported that clothing utilization has declined significantly despite rising production.

Meanwhile, brands across all tiers, from Prada, to Aritzia, to Zara, have normalized polyester-heavy collections at steadily rising retail prices.

We are paying more, for less intrinsic material value, and being sold an illusion: Plastic, priced as prestige.

What makes this polyester shift uniquely modern is that it does not target one economic class, it flattens them.

Fabric composition used to be an obvious indicator of hierarchy: natural fibers denoted higher price tiers, while synthetics dominated mass retail. That distinction has diminished in the modern era. Polyester is no more limited to $29 shop shelves; it can be seen in both luxury homes and modern labels. At high-end stores like SSENSE and Net-a-Porter, you may find gowns that range from $400 to $900 and are mostly made of polyester or poly mixes.

Even classic names like Gucci, Prada, and Balenciaga frequently create ready-to-wear items at four-figure price tags using mixed fabrics, technical polyester, or synthetic crepe. Customers of all income levels are frequently purchasing the same underlying fiber, albeit at wildly disparate margins, creating an odd economic illusion. The gap is now mostly caused by branding, marketing language, silhouette, and perceived prestige rather than material factors. Although polyester is now distributed democratically, the markup is still hierarchical.

How to Know If You’re Overpaying (CAD$)

Below is a realistic low-to-mid retail benchmark in today’s Canadian market. If retail pricing significantly exceeds these ranges, pause.

Price Reality Chart (CAD$)

(Basic to mid-tier garments, non-designer.)

These ranges reflect material value logic.

If you are seeing:

• A $95 polyester top

• A $220 polyester dress

• A $380 polyester-blend blazer

Then you are not paying for fiber cost, you are paying for brand narrative.

The Health Implications of Polyester

(Disclaimer: The following references publicly available research. Always consult a healthcare professional for medical concerns.)

Polyester’s impact isn’t only environmental. It also affects comfort, and potentially skin health.

1. Heat Retention & Breathability

Polyester has a hydrophobic nature. Instead of absorbing water, it repels it. Rather than being effectively absorbed and dissipated, sweat remains between the skin and the garment. Airflow is permitted and moisture is absorbed by natural fibers such as linen and cotton.

The cultural misunderstanding becomes intriguing at this point.

In the Gulf and across Southeast Asia, modest dressing is simply the norm. Yes — that often means full coverage, even in serious heat. But here’s the part people overlook: those garments are usually made from 100% cotton or linen. Airy. Breathable. Designed for the climate.

And yet, without fail, someone will ask:

“Aren’t you hot under all that?”

It sounds logical, more fabric must mean more heat. But here’s the science lesson we all could use: thermal comfort is driven less by surface area and more by fiber structure and moisture management. Cotton and linen are hydrophilic fibers, they absorb moisture from the skin and allow it to evaporate, creating a cooling effect through evaporative heat loss. Their woven structure also promotes airflow, which enhances convective cooling.

Surface area isn’t the issue. Fiber composition is.

You can wear less clothing and still be sweating buckets, if it’s synthetic.

2. Microplastic Shedding

A widely cited study published in Environmental Science & Technology (Browne et al., 2011) found that synthetic garments release microfibers during washing, contributing to marine microplastic pollution.

Polyester sheds plastic particles.
Cotton does not.

3. Skin Irritation & Bacterial Retention

Polyester can:

• Trap sweat

• Retain odor

• Increase bacterial buildup

• Exacerbate eczema or sensitive skin conditions in some individuals

Because it does not breathe like natural fibers, moisture and heat can accumulate at the skin surface.

4. Chemical Concerns

Catalysts like antimony compounds can be used in the production of polyester. Long-term health effects are still being studied. Although direct effects on human health are still being investigated, organizations such as the World Health Organization have recognized environmental problems with microplastics.

The Overpaying Checklist

Before you buy:

☐ Check composition percentage
☐ Compare fiber type to price
☐ Feel thickness (is it lightweight?)
☐ Check lining material
☐ Examine seam finishing
☐ Ask: would this price make sense without the logo?

If the answer is no, you’re paying for positioning.

The Bigger Picture

Retail prices have continued to climb, fiber quality has decreased, synthetic usage has increased, and clothing production has quickened. Polyester is an example of engineered efficiency; it is scalable, affordable, and profitable. Natural fabrics, density, craftsmanship, and longevity, on the other hand, have historically been the foundation of luxury. Modern fashion is defined by the conflict between those two realities.

In this economy, reading the tag is financial literacy.

Before you buy, know what you’re wearing , and what you’re paying for.

-

We have often either heard, or uttered the words: “I don’t shop there.” At some point however, that sentence stopped being information and became a personality trait, reeking of moral superiority and an underlying desperation to be exclusive.

In fashion, there are more than enough phrases which signal taste, discernment, and moral superiority. Yet none are so quick to point out that taste is not solely determined from where you buy your clothes, it’s about where you refuse to. And no brand has made that refusal more culturally valuable than Shein.

It is no hidden truth that Shein has cemented its place fashion’s favorite scapegoat: the brand we point to when we want to prove we’re selective, ethical, and informed. It is often the first and only brand people discuss when on the topic of fast fashion, and seems to fall under scrutiny for its questionable labor practices. The brand is objectively the easy villain in a system that runs far deeper than any single logo. Hating Shein has become shorthand for being “above” fast fashion, while quietly continuing to shop from brands that operate on the same timelines, use the same materials, and rely on the same global labor structures.

Somehow, Zara, H&M, Skims, Princess Polly, and countless others were allowed a rebrand. Shein wasn’t. One became a moral failure. The rest became aesthetic choices, and in some cases even a luxury brand.

This post isn’t a defense of ultra-fast fashion. It’s an examination of how ethics, status, and shame got tangled together, and why saying “I don’t shop there” often has less to do with workers, sustainability, or impact, and more to do with who gets to participate in fashion without being judged.

In an industry built on visibility, speed, and image, the real crime isn’t consumption.
It’s being “caught” consuming in the wrong way.

Why We Hate Shein (But Still Wear Zara)

I’ll be the first to admit that I hated on Shein before, both publicly, and in private, refusing to shop their out of distaste for their widely broadcasted and unethical practices. I’ve also absolutely fallen into the belief that buying from brands like Princess Polly, Aerie, Edikted, Zara, or H&M was somehow better. It took me longer than I’d like to admit to realize that most of these clothes are made the exact same way, using the same synthetic materials, same speed, same factories, same labor structures. However they are each wrapped in different branding and portrayed very differently online.

Ethical Outrage Loves an Easy Villain

Shein has become fashion’s moral shorthand. Say the name and people already know what you “stand for.” Allegations of supporting exploitation, mass overconsumption via Tiktok hauls, and to put it plainly: being “cheap” are quick to follow. No nuance required.

But those same people, myself included at times, will still shop at brands that operate on identical fast-turnaround models, which release hundreds of styles weekly. Brands that rely heavily on synthetics and outsource production to the same regions, under the same economic pressures. With that being said, the difference isn’t the system. It’s the optics.

Overconsumption Isn’t a Brand Problem. It’s a Behavior Problem.

Let’s get one thing straight: buying fifteen bathing suits for a three-day vacation is not good. It doesn’t matter if they’re from Shein, Princess Polly, or a “conscious” brand charging triple.

Overconsumption is real and so is trend cycling, as well as disposable fashion.

But does that automatically mean shopping at Shein is entirely bad?
Or does it mean we’re avoiding the harder conversation about how much we buy, how often we buy, and why?

Shein didn’t invent overconsumption.
It just stopped pretending otherwise.

Investigate Everyone. Not Just the Easy Target.

If labor conditions are the concern, and they should be, then Shein’s working conditions deserve investigation the same way every global fashion brand’s do.

Nike. Zara. H&M. Luxury conglomerates. Influencer-founded brands.
Yes, even the ones we culturally protect.

It’s one thing to call out Shein for its speed and scale. It’s another when brands we already idolize end up in the same accountability bucket as ultra-fast fashion giants.

A recent independent analysis in the Fashion Accountability Report evaluated more than 50 global apparel companies on factors like human rights, environmental impact, worker well-being, transparency, and governance. What’s striking is that some labels we think of as more “acceptable” — including Skims — scored just as poorly as bargain-basement marketplaces like Temu.

In that assessment, both Skims; the billion-dollar empire co-founded by Kim Kardashian; and China-based Temu received zero out of 150 points, landing at the absolute bottom of the chart alongside brands like Fashion Nova and Missguided.
That kind of score reflects a lack of transparency on supplier practices, no meaningful progress on worker welfare or environmental justice, and little evidence of ethical improvement strategies.

Nike partnering with Skims suddenly makes a lot of sense when you remember that both exist within massive global supply chains built on outsourced labor and aggressive cost efficiency. But no one panics, because the branding is elite, the associations are aspirational, and wearing those logos elevates your social image.

Ethical concern stops where status begins.

So… Are We Actually Better?

I had to confront this myself: I wasn’t consuming less—I was just consuming more selectively. Buying from brands the internet approved of. Paying more for the same materials. Feeling morally superior while doing the same thing with better branding.

That realization is uncomfortable. But it’s necessary.

Because if we were truly outside the system, we wouldn’t need a villain to feel virtuous.

And maybe the real question isn’t whether Shein is bad—but why we need to believe we’re better.

At the end of the day, we’re all wearing fast fashion.
Some of us just hide it better.

Share

Leave a comment

Get more from MOTM in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

While most fashion media reacts to what has already happened, we analyze what is happening right now; across runways, celebrity style moments, social platforms, pop culture shifts, as well as consumer search behavior. We aim to identify the trends that are statistically gaining momentum before they become mainstream. Our statistical approach builds the bridge between tech and fashion.

Fashion is a $3 trillion global industry driven by one thing: what people choose to wear next. Yet most coverage relies on subjective taste, insider opinions, or aesthetic mood boards (which we love, by the way!). Muse of the Moment takes a different approach. We treat fashion as a living dataset.

Every week, we analyze thousands of real world data points from your favorite platforms like Pinterest, as well as social media, runway imagery, and retail signals to detect and report information including but not limited to:

• Which silhouettes are increasing in frequency

• Which materials and textures are accelerating

• Which aesthetics are peaking or declining

• Which styles are moving from niche to mass adoption

We then translate those signals into clear, visual, and actionable insights.

Our goal is simple: to help you understand where fashion is going, not just where it has been.

What You’ll Find Here

Each MOTM issue is built around three pillars:

Signal → What is rising, falling, or breaking out right now
Evidence → The data, visuals, and trend clusters that support it
Foresight → What it means for your wardrobe, shopping decisions, and personal style

Instead of trend lists, you get trend intelligence.

Instead of opinions, you get pattern recognition.

Why This Exists

Fashion today moves at algorithmic speed. Trends now form, peak, and collapse in months — sometimes weeks — driven by social platforms, visual repetition, and consumer behavior.

This means intuition alone is no longer enough. Influencer promotions, and mass consumption are no longer enough. Sifting through hauls, and foraging for deal for something you “think” you might want is no longer enough.

Muse of the Moment exists to give you:

• Early awareness of emerging trends

• Protection from buying into styles that are already peaking

• Confidence that your fashion choices are backed by real signals, not hype

With so much data behind our analysis, a natural question arises: does this platform remove the individuality at the heart of fashion? The answer is no — we believe fashion should feel inspired, but also informed.

Who It’s For

Muse of the Moment is for:

People who love fashion, but don’t want to waste money chasing trends that peak and disappear

Creators, stylists, and curious shoppers who want to stay ahead of what’s coming, not just what’s visible now

Anyone who wants to understand where fashion is going, and why—across culture, media, technology, and shifting consumer behavior

This isn’t about copying looks.
It’s about understanding the systems behind them: how social platforms, celebrity moments, runway signals, and cultural shifts interact to shape what we wear next.

Fashion doesn’t move randomly.
It moves in patterns, and we read them.

-

With all of this in mind, MOTM welcomes you. We’re excited to explore where technology and fashion intersect—together.

Sincerely,
Muse of the Moment