Elevate Difference

State Quarter Necklace

Readers, Wabisabi Brooklyn’s State Quarter Necklace has got me feeling conflicted. You see, I've always had a fondness for small acts of rebellion: sneaking a few beers as a teenager, slapping "this is offensive to women" stickers on public advertisements, getting it on in the coed bathroom at an indie rock show. I know these things aren't going to change the world, but a little transgression makes for funny stories and hours of mischievous entertainment. So you'd think I'd be down with a necklace that is evidence of a minor crime against the U.S. Treasury—and yeah, for the most part, I am.

Having drilled two small holes through the quarter on either side of Colorado, Wabisabi designer MaryAnne LoVerme affixes an 18-inch copper chain to the coin, which positions it just below the sternal notch. A tiny gold star and company stamp are attached to the chain near the lobster claw clasp, which increases the ease with which the necklace can be put on or removed.

As the company's name, according to LoVerme, means "beauty of imperfection" in Japanese, the silver-copper color contrast perfectly suits her design aesthetic. LoVerme says she works with coins in order to "imbue jewelry with an element of chance and luck," and luck is something she'd better have on her side on the off-chance that the secret service takes issue with her creative liberties. Those folks don't mess around:

Whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

This necklace is cute, but it ain't $100 or six months in jail cute.

Another thing that isn't cute about this necklace is wearing it where I live: India. While twenty-five cents doesn't get you more than a Ring Pop or a Wacky Wall Walker in the States, on the streets of Kolkata I can get a kati roll and a cup of cha with that loot. I could buy two kilos of aloo or 500ml of Amul dahi. And the thought of wearing a symbol of American economic imperialism around my neck in a place where millions are starving... well, let's just say I won't be wearing this chain around my neck until I'm back on US soil. For those who aren't in my same situation, feel free to show your state pride or the upside down profile of George Washington by visiting Wabisabi Brooklyn. LoVerme may even throw in a free gift; I got a Goumet Scented Pencil made from recycled newspapers that smells like Black Cherry. I think I'll give it to one of the schoolgirls who lives in my building.

Editor's Comment: No more comments will be allowed on this post, as it has become a playground for a group of etsy/indie designer bullies who would like to turn Elevate Difference into a site for some ridiculous and contrived vendetta against one of our writers simply because she expressed a political sentiment they disagree with (or, more entertaining, who they see as having participated in a conspiratorial plot against Wabisabi). Much of the information being circulated in the etsy/designer realm of the blogosphere about the way this review came about is inaccurate—such as the claim that this necklace was sent by the designer to India at her own cost, which it untrue as the necklace was requested by an ED Editor and sent to ED's office in Georgia, not the writer directly. This can be verified by asking MaryAnne LoVerme at Wabisabi. I shouldn't have to remind grown adults about the import of information being based in fact, not speculation and blatant falsehoods. We have published several reviews that are less than favorable (some written in a far more caustic manner) for a given product, but this type of overblown response that some people are demonstrating is quite rare, I can assure you. Probably because most people recognize that throwing tantrums in public isn't good for their own business. Well, unless you're Glenn Beck or someone who makes a living on that sort of thing. Either way, the ganging up of anti-feminist trolls who perpetuate oppressive myths about catfighting and female irrationality is in direct opposition to the mission of Feminist Review, and only serves to make women in general and etsy and indie designers in specific look foolish, so it will not be allowed to continue on this blog.

Written by: Mandy Van Deven, August 9th 2009


You are confusing the blog itself, which is comprised of over 200 writers with vastly differing opinions about feminism and social justice, with one writer's opinion. Unless the company provides return postage, it's up to the writer of each review to decide what he or she does with the item.

I am not affiliated with the Brooklyn Indie Artist Group and I don't know the seller of this item.

Yet you remain anonymous. Hmmmmmm... Anyone else smell trout? Carp? Sea bass?

What about incoherent ranting? Why don't these weirdos just give it up already?

I noticed that you ask people to send you free products for review. On an Etsy forum post, you said that you do this because because "a photograph can't tell you if something is going to turn your skin green or have good quality stitching/construction or fit properly or how heavy it is or if people give you compliments when you wear it." You did not address any of these issues in this review. I also noticed that you request that items to be reviewed be sent to Athens, Georgia, yet your reviewer lives in India. How much did it cost to send this necklace to India and how could that money have been put to better use? Could you have reviewed this necklace without actually having it sent to India or even to Athens, Georgia? Again, the review says snothing about the necklace that one couldn't have gotten from a picture. Where is this necklace now? If you do not return products to the submitter, where do they go? Do you sell them and give the money to charity? Do they sit in a drawer, never to see the light of day again? Or do you wear and use these free items, as long as they don't feature or use currency? This is your blog and you are certainly entitled to preach your own brand of feminism and voice your concern for poverty...it would just seem a little more sincere if the end result was a bit more proactive. I am not affiliated with the Brooklyn Indie Artist Group and I don't know the seller of this item.

Rimi- Onek khub boka gori meyera achhe, na ki? Amar tomar shundur katha khub bhalo lage!

Hey Jenn-

There are faux-brand name clothes galore sold on the streets by the kapor wallahs, but by and large, we don't have "real" brand names in Kolkata... at least not in the circles I travel in. And I don't wear "western" clothes here anyway; it's all salwaar kameez for me. :)

Thanks for the further explanation of Kiva. It's a great org.

I haven't read through all these comments but wanted to point out one...

You stated that the US is not worried about poverty and doesn't think about money. Or that was the general idea that I got...

Have you seen the economy in the US? Have you seen our numbers? The US is in a horrible situation that we have not been in since the beginning of the stock market! I think we're all conscious of our money and for you to imply we're not is ridiculous.

As for the review, you really should have focused on the product, which you did not. The product has nothing to do with the fact that you live in India and CHOOSE not to wear it there.

Many good points are brought up here on both sides, but I am surprised no one has mentioned that (as far as I can see) this coin is still perfectly spendable! So really, all this necklace represents is a quarter in personal savings.

I don't disagree it might be in bad taste to wear this necklace in an area where poverty prevails, but hope the reviewer also refuses to wear all brand name apparel/accessories. Brands not only traditionally cost more than this item, WORSE YET they are produced by the very corporations that take advantage of poverty in order to drive production prices down and profit margins up.

Interestingly, I believe it's the original reviewer who (somewhat snidely) remarks in the comment chain that she would rather see someone taking the $28 spent on this necklace and use it at Kiva.org. For those not familiar, Kiva is an amazing website that has created a platform for individuals to help provide micro loans to entrepreneurs working to lift themselves out of poverty. It is an incredible idea, and was started by some beautiful people (one of which is a friend of mine). I encourage everyone to check it out and consider being involved.

However! In my mind, making a loan to Kiva, and paying $28 for a piece of artwork from an independent artist that you admire are very nearly the same thing. Why should it be considered a loftier option to support entrepreneurs in another country before supporting the women and artists of our own communities?

Personally, I would rather forgo a Friday night out, or a week of Starbucks and do both (kiva & indy artist purchase). We all have many opportunities in our lives to make better choices about how we spend our money.

I hope that blogs such as this will consider devoting more words to the simple ways we can change our habits to change the world.


I'm not sure I understand your implication of unethical behavior. All reviews on this site are fully accessible to anyone who is considering sending a product for review. As stated before, one need simply search "etsy" or "jewelry" or any number of other keywords to locate our numerous reviews of independent business owners. Nothing is ever hidden from anyone.

Also, Feminist Review never guarantees the content of the review will be without criticism. This is the implicit (really, explicit if one reads our mission statement) risk one runs when submitting an item for review and a company should obviously weigh the potential costs and benefits of such a risk. That is just good, sensible business practice.

I hope that the Feminist review will share this particular review with the other Etsy artists they approach for free product--it is the ethical thing to do. This comment is a fair statement and not a threat--it just seems to me that struggeling artists should be shown that the types of reviews posted on your site may not always be favorable, so I hope you will publish this comment.

It is unfortunate that the comments of this review have devolved into some version of schoolyard bullying.

It is not our mission to uncritically laud every non-mainstream creation simply because it is non-mainstream. Our mission should be taken in its entirety with the knowledge that each review is written from the subjective perspective of the writer and those whose opinions differ or concur with the opinions of the writer have the ability to leave comments to that effect (like several people have done above) so long as they comply with our [Comment Policy](http://feministreview.blogspot.com/2007/05/comment-policy.html" rel="nofollow). As multiple comments have been made that do not adhere to our Comment Policy (namely, threats), further comments will be moderated before appearing on the site.

Feminist Review has and will continue to publish reviews that support the work of independent designers. This can be verified simply by searching "etsy" or "jewelry" or any number of other keywords. It can also be verified by reading the many upcoming product reviews, of which there will be close to one per day until mid-September.

A comment made by Lorrie Veasey has been removed for its threatening nature. Similar comments will be removed, and if necessary, reported to the proper authorities. Threats are taken seriously and NOT lightly.

My goodness. I do not mean to be critical of most of the previous commenters... actually, I do. And I prefer to do that without velvet gloves on.

Just in case my name isn't a dead giveaway, I'm Indian. The city Mandy currently lives in is my hometown. And I've met her twice briefly. This, perhaps, shall inspire greater forthrightness in other people who see fit express personal disapproval of the review after the manner of unbiased critique of her--rather sterling-- idea.

If one accuses Mandy of being unfair to indie jewellery designers, that's either a knee-jerk reaction because one belongs to the ilk, or because one is plain daft. And in a rather narrow-minded way at that. If the former is the case, I suppose I could well have taken offence myself, since I used to design jewellery made of coloured jute threads and beads while at school and early in my university years. Of course, in most parts of the third world such attempts to supplement one's income does not merit the satisfying creative label of "independent jewellery designer". One merely strings together beads for quarter of a dollar. I say this not in acrimony, but merely to point out that the first world offers its residents several kinds of affluence and prestige, even if it is in the form of professional/vocational labelling. One might declare one wants no such labelling, but they are their's to call up on anyway. Had I called myself an indep. jewellery designer, people would have snorted in amused contempt.

Secondly, it astonishes me that people imply this review is mean, shallow, off the tangent, what-have-you. I, from my subjective position as an Indian who has recently moved to the United States, think it is a deeply perceptive and extremely well argued point. What I particularly admire about the review is Mandy's even-handedness--not once does she denigrate the product or the designer--in fact she encourages enthusiasts to try it--she merely states a rather interesting way in which this particular pendant might be viewed. This even-handedness, I'm sorry to say, is entirely lacking in most of the above responses. Snideness is not a valued part of the adult intellect. Neither is it indicative of cleverness or social awareness. Quite the contrary, in fact. One--any one--would do well to keep that in mind.

To be fair, most Indians Mandy meets would likely not even notice her pendant if she chose to wear it. Those that do might even think it cute. But that doesn't in any way dismiss the possible reaction she lists here. For example, had I seen such a necklace, I would certainly be left in some doubt about the wearer's tastes and socioeconomic relativity. Readers of a feminist website should be the first to realise that being of a minority does not invalidate a point of view. If anything, such bringing to light such points of views should be applauded.

I'm amazed no one agrees with the issue of illegality. To wear currency still in, well, currency, is a crime because you're taking away money they government will have to--and effectively cannot--account for. It is particularly irresponsble to do it to to US coin and currency, simply because the US is so deeply entrenched in global economic networks. Every bit of money that goes missing influences economically disadvantaged people around the globe. An act of rebellion against American imperialism? Hardly. If one loves symbolism so much, I'd advise them to collect an out-of-use European coin and wear that around the neck. I do. You'll add a pound to your wight by the sheer symbolic weight of it.

And finally, Pat, I wonder how you visited fourth world countries. Perhaps it was a slip of the mouse, or perhaps you're not quite clear on what "fourth world" means. I would not go so far as to say that one slip invalidates your comment entirely, but it certainly takes away authority from it.

If there are comment-length limitations, I've certainly violated them. You'll excuse me for not apologising.

Pat- It's not a matter of not sticking out. Obviously as a 6'1" white girl, I stick out. It's a matter of whether I want to wear my privilege as some sort of badge of honor. And I don't. (Third and Fourth world? Here's a quick [guide to privileged language](http://this.org/magazine/2009/07/16/third-world-developing-vocabulary/" rel="nofollow) that might interest you.)

The point of my talking about the illegality of the necklace was exactly as you state. I said I like this aspect of it because, if worn in America, it could be interpreted as an act of rebellion, which is something I can appreciate. Overlooking the entirety of the review and focusing on the small aspect one disagrees with does better serve the arguments people are attempting to make; it undermines those arguments as well.

Power and oppression are not stagnant. They are situational and contextual. The only way this becomes apparent is by talking about it. Sometimes this will be a comprehensive discussion of the root causes in an academic text. Other times it will be a brief allusion in a product review. Art is intended to make people think and seek out more comprehensive sources for further exploration.

Being female or "indie" or feminist or any number of things doesn't and shouldn't make a person immune from criticism. The shit people of these various identities pull is just as destructive as anyone else. Some feminists (or feminist-oriented women) have a history of using this excuse of “sisterhood” as a way to guilt other social justice-minded women into overlooking particular oppressions (race, culture, sexuality, class, geographic location—to name a few) because they have the luxury of not being effected by them. Then they don't understand when [people of color, lesbians, working class women, women living in the Global South, etc.] say "feminism doesn't represent me and doesn’t have my interests in mind." Well, feminists are not, nor should they be, a monolithic group. And I happen to be a feminist who has a pluralistic view of the world that doesn't seek to re-create a hierarchy of oppressions, but instead wishes to dismantle them all.

Certainly I'm not claiming that my perspective is above criticism. On the contrary, I appreciate the feedback, and as I said to May earlier, I'll certainly incorporate it into future reviews. Because that's how one constructively uses critical feedback.

And if this review causes someone to give the $28USD that this necklace costs to [Kiva](http://kiva.org/" rel="nofollow) or some other place that prioritizes ending the economic struggle of women in the Majority World, I can't say I'd be unhappy about it. I'd hope you wouldn't be either.

Mandy, do you have multiple changes of clothing? Are you able to bathe regularly? Do you get all the food you need to sustain yourself? I ask this not to change to subject or try to guilt trip you, but to simply point out that the people of India are well aware of the fact that your pockets are filled with money (not necessarily your literal pockets) even if you don't wear a necklace around your neck. I don't necessarily mean you're rich, but it certainly seems that you're writing from a place of privilege. My experience in Third and Fourth world countries is that a vast majority of westerners (regardless of physical appearance) stick out.

You feel that you were critiquing a piece of jewelry with your review. To me, and it seems to others, you used a jewelry review for a springboard to something else you wanted to write about. That's fine, except you probably won't be negatively affected by your comments in a financial way (as the jeweler may be). Since the jeweler in this case s a woman and and independent designer, it feels wrong to me. In my opinion, you raised the issue of American imperialism in a very elementary way- a way that attacks a symbol as you perceive it rather than addressing roots of the problem.

One final thought to consider- You spent so much time at the beginning pointing out the illegality of the necklace, that you never once considered it could be interpreted as a big "screw you" to American imperialism. A way of saying, "I think your laws and money are silly and violent and therefore am going to take this ugly piece of metal and make it something more." Maybe people in India wouldn't view it that way, maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't care...I haven't spoken to any of them so I'm not sure.

It has come to my attention that several of the dissenting commenters on this thread have a personal relationship with MaryAnne LoVerme from Wabisabi Brooklyn (for example, May Luk Ceramics, KA, Brooklyn Indie Market). While this should not keep you from commenting, you should be more forthcoming about the conflict of interest you hold in this debate.

Anon- I appreciate your example, which further demonstrates my point about the symbolic capital that wearing this necklace has in a non-Western context. I am deeply affected by poverty because I grew up in it, not simply because it exists here. There are certainly more systemic ways to chip away at American imperialism. Although every large change is possible, in part, because of all of the "trifling" cultural, social, and political efforts that came before it. Rosa Parks wasn't the first person to refuse to move to the back of the bus. We only know her name because of the groundwork laid by all of the people whose names we don't know.

Virginia- Do you think Gandhi-ji's quote was intended to convey that one should never be critical? Being critical is a necessity for the existence of resistance. Gandhi-ji spent the bulk of his life resisting British imperialism and colonialism and lead the Indian independence movement. (Ironically, today is India's Independence Day and I type this as the Indian flag is being hoisted outside my window.) His method is called satyagraha, which means "the Force which is born of Truth and Love." He spoke truth as he saw it, and sometimes his truth was offensive to people. It was certainly offensive to the British. Perhaps you should read more about the man's ideologies and strategies than this one quote in order to have a deeper understanding of what he was conveying in these few words.

“Be the change you want to see in the world” --Mahatma Gandhi


Rather than publicly bashing an artist's work for any reason, we should be praising, embracing, and encouraging them -- anyone who wants to share their passion/craft/art with the world is truly bold and does not deserve such mistreatment.

By offering negativity, what is your contribution to the world? Be the example. It is up to all of us to be as decent as we can be every single moment we are here.

Coming from a Palestinian background, I can add that women have been wearing coins as jewelry for centuries as a symbol of fortune and power, so I rather like the modern spin this necklace puts on an ancient tradition. Mandy, you are clearly deeply affected by the poverty surrounding you in India but I am sure there are more productive critiques to leverage against American imperialism than this trifling example.

sue, are you really saying that because this is a feminist website, and the writer is a female, the people who disagree with or disparage this one female writer's opinion are anti-feminist? i consider myself a feminist, and i'm pretty sure that my thoughts aren't totally in lock-step with every other feminist on the planet.

I'm appalled that people come to a feminist website to hate on one woman's perspective - a social justice minded one at that. Does no one see that irony? Mandy even bothers to respond to the trolls, which shows she's perfectly comfortable with what she's written.

Nigel- Do you return a book you took issue with to the bookstore because it's an ethical obligation? I'm quite sure you don't. Your suggestion has nothing to do with ethics, just illogical and snide commenting.

Mariella- There is a contextual shift that takes place alongside the geographical shift, so the necklace has different meaning in the US than it does here. But yes, I would be somewhat reticent to wear it in the US also.

This is certainly a product review. It's simply one from a social justice perspective, which is quite different from a product review that centers a pro-consumerist perspective. If you're looking for the latter, this probably isn't the site for you.

This is not so much a product review as it is an opportunity to show everyone how enlightened your political beliefs are. Which is fine, really, but don't pretend like it's a review.

The fact that you would wear it in the US but not in India is a bit hypocritical, no?

Wow, who knew Etsy folks were so testy? Seems they could stand behind their work (and the freedom they have to do it) rather than complain when someone doesn't like it. To each her own.

Mandy, did you return the necklace? It seems like the ethical thing to do.

Brooklyn Indie Market-

For the sake of full disclosure, I think it is relevant for you to be more forthcoming that Wabisabi is a member of the Brooklyn Indie Market group of designers.

That being said, I hardly see how this comment is relevant to the process of writing a review. No one forces a writer to read a book or watch a film or, in this case, wear a necklace. A writer does these things for the purposes of critically analyzing the benefits and drawbacks of a given item, which is the point of a review.

Someone was forcing Mandy to wear money around her neck?

As an FR editor and writer, I can safely say that Mandy's review is not in the least bit mean-spirited. Poverty IS a feminist issue, as 70 percent of the 1.2 billion people worldwide living in abject poverty (less than $1 a day) are women. Mandy's refusal to wear money around her neck is akin to someone not eating a Thanksgiving dinner in front of someone who is starving. She's a sensitive, caring person and frankly, I can't believe anyone had an issue with this review.

It's great that there are all these comments. Maybe it means that we in the west are beginning to actively think about what we are consuming. If that's the case, maybe there is hope for the planet and humanity. (I say 'maybe' because human rights/environmental conservation lag so far behind element/human exploitation.)

Hi May-

Thank you for clarifying. I understand your position and perspective. Certainly I'm not blaming independent designers for all of the world's ills, that would be silly. ;) I will definitely give consideration to what you're saying in order to make this more clear in future writings.

While I wholeheartedly support indie designers, for the reasons you named (supporting women, giving the middle finger to WalMart) among others, I do think it's important for us all to be critical of what we are creating (and purchasing) in a global, local, and national sense. I know it's a lot to ask, and I don't expect we'll get it "right" all the time. I do think it's worth asking though. Hopefully it helps us to find a happy medium... or at the very least maintain some level of consciousness of the plural nature of our actions.

Thank you for a lovely discussion. :)

I'm one of the FR editors - the one who edited this review for her, actually - and I thought this review was clever and right on in terms of assessing this necklace in the context of her personal life and politics. Mandy pointed out the ethical flaw in wearing this item in her current location. Simple.

People love to make judgments about other people's political choices and how we choose to rank oppression. If you address one issue - the global economy - but fail to mention AIDS, for example - you have somehow failed. This logic is flawed at best, especially in the context of a necklace made of currency! Feminism has taught many people that ranking oppressions is a futile exercise. It's much like trying to rank other people's grief. Just because someone mourns Michael Jackson does not mean they are insensitive to the plight of dying children, for example. All of these contradictions live in parallel in many of our lives. Why are we fighting about who cares about AIDS victims more? Seems we can use that energy to help people in need.

For many, the point of a review from a feminist perspective is exactly this kind of analysis. Feminism is both personal and political. Reading more than a few of our reviews will put that into context immediately.

It's also very different to use currency that is in use versus money that has been taken out of circulation. Many tourists buy souvenir money from East Berlin, for example. It is a sign of the past and what was but without the implication that anyone is wealthy or privileged enough to walk around with money hanging from their necks. Even in parts of the U.S., I'd be remiss to wear something like this because I know how relative poverty and wealth can be. That isn't about the designer; that is about how I see and experience the world. That seems the same for Mandy.

Hi Mandy;

Your blog article struck a chord with me. Being an independent designer-maker myself, it can be just mayhem if somebody.(especially a blog writer with an acerbic pen) bought a ceramic bowl from me, then all of a sudden my customers and I are blamed for global warming and western conspicuous consumption while there is human right issues in China.

Humanity is irredeemably flawed. Unfortunately your Enlightenment ideal didn't come across until your further clarifying it in your comments.

On my first reading, I only saw attack on a small independent designer (Indie designers are mostly women and make below average income if you read statistics about etsy)

Regarding cute rebellion and American Imperialism, what if it is both: self-questioning and self-criticism while looking pretty and presentable with non-Walmart accessories. Handmade adornment can be a political act in itself!

Once again, thanks for responding and posting my comments.

I disagree with you completely. I think one would be remiss to review a Shephard Fairey exhibit and not discuss the issues that his work has popularized, such as copyright infringement. Perhaps it should not be central to the review, but it should certainly be mentioned.

What your analogy lacks that makes wearing this necklace quite different than wearing a diamond is the symbolism of wearing American currency in a nation that has been exploited by the West, as well as having the (global) economic privilege to destroy this currency in a nation where the value of that currency is more than some will earn for an entire day's work. (A better analogy would be wearing a diamond in Angola or Sierra Leone where conflict diamonds have been wreaking havoc for decades.)

Regarding your nationalistic argument, one could also argue that it is a sign of national disrespect to destroy one's own currency, as it is a federal crime. It's all a matter of perspective now isn't it?

I'm glad you get some enjoyment our of your Wabisabi necklace, that it reminds you of your travels. Perhaps I will also get some enjoyment out of mine when I am no longer in a socio-political and geographic locale which makes wearing it seem offensive.

i don't know, i find this whole review very mean spirited and very short sited.

One would not review a Shephard Fairey exhibit and say what sort of penalties he was liable for copy right infringement. And i don't see how this relates to feminism.

And the whole India comment is really off base. You would not buy an extravagant diamond necklace to wear around Kolkata either i'm sure, so to restrict a jewelry designer to that and call poor taste is a bit more self serving (though you try to make it about american imperialism)

I actually own a Wabisai Necklace with British pound on it - and it is very sentimental to me. Makes me think of all the fun of my UK trips.

I wish you had been able to see that in her jewelry. How our transient world of transplants to the US can be close to a little bit of home and wear their national/state or even country pride in their jewelry.

If this is what you're getting from this review, you're missing the point entirely, May.

The designer is not insensitive. She is simply seeking and catering to an audience for whom issues of global poverty are not predominant in their lived reality or ideological consciousness. This observation is not meant as a judgment or a condemnation of the designer or one who might purchase this necklace. The review is meant to offer the reader of the review multiple ways of viewing the world while asking the reader to ponder these questions: Is the necklace a cute act of rebellion or is it a symbol of American imperialism? What if it's both?

What's interesting to me is that you seem to be taking this review quite personally. I wonder why it struck such a chord with you.

I couldn't see your point either as I check the topic sentences and I see that you are not happy that you bought a necklace (or found one) in America and you cannot wear it in India, where you live.

You spent 2 seemingly positive paragraphs detailing the designs and company philosophy of Ms LaVerme so as to make a point about local and global poverty and women are the ones suffering and it's all because some insensitive indie designer pokes some holes in an American quarter?

With the same mode of thinking, surely you can see that I was trying to show this forum women are disproportionally dying of AIDS in Africa and my paying health insurance and co-payment to my doctor (incidentally, is Indian) is just plain pompous?

You did buy a necklace! You got a free pencil!

Okay, that's enough from me. Thank you for posting my comments and responded.


id wear it if i was going to sing the national anthem opening the super bowel . that tops janet.

The conflict was stated in the review: it's insensitive at best and arrogant at worst to wear money that is currently in circulation, of a vastly higher value, and was willingly destroyed as decoration in a country where poverty is so pervasive. It's like ripping up rupees in front of beggars' eyes. Whether I paid for the necklace or not is irrelevant. And poverty--local and global--is a feminist issue for several reasons, not the least of which is that women are disproportionately the ones living in poverty.

I'm not sure I see your point past these first few questions, May. Perhaps it would be more clear were it not cloaked in sarcasm.

Hello Mandy;

What is your conflict? Having paid for the necklace and not be able to wear it in India? How is this a feminist issue?

My GP is Indian, next time I go to him, I will give him your math and logic of how many Indian kati rolls and cha, or aloo and dahi I can get with my health insurance payment. It is unthinkable to pay him while millions are starving in India.

With that said, can I get a vibrator for this comment?