Leandra Medine's Blog, page 601

How to Get a Head Start on Next Spring Before You Accidentally Buy Another White Basic

Sometimes, when I’m about to read a new book, I find myself feeling like that was it — whatever story I last produced was the end of my writing career. Never again will prose strike me the way it did. I am finally empty. Complete with absolutely nothing left to say. But then! I’ll open that book, and if it’s really good — a sort of rebirth will occur. The wheels of creativity will start spinning again in motion. I’ll make comparisons and strike analogies I didn’t even know my bank of witticisms maintained and just like that, I’m back in the game.

This happens with fashion, too, right? You’ll feel like the best outfit you ever wore will forever be the best outfit you’ll ever wear. Like you shouldn’t even bother attempting to get dressed again because what’s the point. And then! A new fashion week season will rear its head and through the use of new trends both on the runway and not, new energy will start pumping through your veins. Instead of relying on the “infallible” basics in your wardrobe, you’ll want to experiment. You’ll begin questioning what you’ve dubbed your “staples” and with the help of your friend (that would be moi), you’ll soon realize that before you buy another “boyfriend blazer,” you really, really don’t need one.

Here’s what I’d like to call a head start on the things you will want to buy next season, bringing to attention a deluge of things you might think you want, but trust me, you will not.

Shall we?

Okay!

1. Color: Forget the black, omit the white, Pantone prevails.

[image error]
Turn on your JavaScript to view content

2. Sparkles: See ya later, tonal blends. Lamé, embellishments — really, anything shiny — (paired with utilitarian khaki or denim, of course) win this round of How to Look Cool.

[image error]
Turn on your JavaScript to view content

3. Prints: Because they’re cool again — especially when embroidered (brocaded?), on footwear and married to themselves.

[image error]
Turn on your JavaScript to view content

4. Gucci loafers. (But if that won’t work for you, I have a pretty strong feeling about ballet flats, too.)

[image error]
Turn on your JavaScript to view content

5. Slip dresses in lieu of jeans.

[image error]
Turn on your JavaScript to view content

6. Khakis in lieu of jeans.

[image error]
Turn on your JavaScript to view content

7. If you can’t say no to jeans (I get it, I get it), wear them cropped and flared.

[image error]
Turn on your JavaScript to view content

8. Eyeglasses (for this, I blame Gucci), both subscription and not.

[image error]
Turn on your JavaScript to view content

9. While high waists have not left yet, baggy pants are coming.

10. Given how extensive our collective arsenal of shirts has grown, it would cruel to predicate their end. (Also, what does an “end” even mean?). Instead, though, you might find that you want to wear them a bit more creatively. You can reference this post from last Spring if the slideshow images won’t do it for you.

[image error]
Turn on your JavaScript to view content

Photographs by Phil Oh via Vogue.com and Adam Katz Sinding via Le 21eme.

The post How to Get a Head Start on Next Spring Before You Accidentally Buy Another White Basic appeared first on Man Repeller.

MR Round Table: Are We Really Having Yet Another Tech Talk?

Leandra Medine: The cover of last Sunday’s New York Times review section had a story on it called “Stop Googling. Let’s Talk.” Before even reading it, I found myself thinking, “Oh my gosh, I can’t wait to Round Table this.” Then I interrupted myself and was like, Why am I so obsessed with having conversations about the way Generation Y no longer knows how to communicate. Is this an affliction independent to me? Do other people like having this conversation, too? And furthermore, if other people do like having it, is that because we’re looking for an excuse to turn our heads at technology?

Rob Fishman, former editor at Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, and founder of Niche, an app that facilitates the monetization of social media stars’ accounts: It probably speaks to your interpersonal failures as a human being. I’m just kidding. I think in part, it is generational. How much of what we do has to be relegated to things we do on our phones? I always find it strange when you see someone and you’re like, “How was Venice?” But they didn’t tell you they were there. They don’t even have a friend who told you they were there. It was just something you happened to observe on Instagram.

LM: And then the person who was in Venice is like, “Why are you stalking me?” and you’re like, “…That’s information you publicly put out there with the intention of my looking at it.”

RF: Right, or even worse, we become used to people knowing where we are. It’s almost like it was in the news. “Did you see about Leandra’s trip? Looks like she had a great time.”

LM: That’s sort of interesting, right? These feeds are becoming the new tabloid magazine.

RF: Here’s something strange: As a result of Vine and Instagram – there are a bunch of teenagers who are insanely popular. You have to think about how they go to school every day. What is that life? Lele Pons was a sophomore or junior in Florida and she became the most watched Viner in the world. All of her Vines are about typical high school situations, which is really interesting. They’ll cover, you know, when your teacher calls on you when you’re sleeping, or when you’re late for school — little situational things. Is she saying, “Hey, this is what a normal high school student is like, and I’m not that, but I can kind of relate to that?” Or is she trying to connect with them? It’s weird to be someone who is as followed as Tom Cruise in high school.

LM: This actually lends itself really well to the injection of that ridiculous story that was in the last issue of New York Magazine with Donald Trump on the cover, about that sixteen-year-old girl who has seven thousand Instagram followers. It was a classic tale of Upper East Side Gossip Girl who’s popular possibly because of Instagram.

RF: What’s interesting is — I bet you every high schooler in the country knows or has a friend of a friend who’s a social media star. Like, “Oh yeah! He goes to the high school across from me!” When we were growing up, the popular kid was the best athlete. If you look at a lot of these kids now, in some ways they’re wimpy.

LM: Which is essentially just a note on the way in which culture is deciding who’s cool and who’s not.

RF: Right, but your phones per this point become the medium through which decisions are made. I would never know about these kids if I didn’t have Vine, and neither would kids all over the world. So the fact that they’re glued to their phone all day has made them globally popular.

Amelia Diamond: I don’t want to take us too off topic, but I think there are two interesting points here. One is how this Vine world — which forces you to be on your phone (or computer) to consume it — is a detachment from reality. And the other is the idea of being relatable, or needing to relate with each other, which is why Vine stars are popular. They connect. All those, “When you’re in class, but you’re really asleep”-type memes, they make everyone go, “Been there,” or, “That’s me.” I would also argue that the kids who are popular online are not “popular” at school. I think that they reached out to the online community in the same way that I–

LM: I did!

AD: That everyone does to find their own communities. But I think the only reason why I’m saying this is because I read about one Vine kid who doesn’t have a lot of friends at school and yet is insanely popular on social media. So it’s a new kind of popularity with an added layer. But is it more real or more fake? At least when you’re popular on Vine, it’s typically because you’re funny.

RF: I actually think that this is the crux of the issue. If you look at this idea of being detached from reality…there’s been celebrities who grew up in a small town, became stars, moved to LA, and suddenly were detached from reality. You read about them in the papers – you wouldn’t recognize their life before the detachment. I think the question the article posed is: has the advent of these technologies made us all detached from reality?

LM: Or furthermore, is this the new reality?

RF: Right. Has reality shifted to this new plane? We all have these friends and strangers liking our photos. That never happened before. You never had this built in audience, which I think is really what that article is saying: is everyone leaving behind their reality and becoming detached?

LM: My argument would be: if everyone is doing something that becomes the new normal, then that becomes the new version of reality. So it’s not really detachment anymore.

RF: Well, then we’re in The Matrix, right? Where everyone’s bodies are attached to some main frame underground and these idealized conceptions of you interact. You become an avatar of yourself that you present, but it’s not you.

LM: I’m also thinking about the people who use those body-morphing apps that make them look thinner than they really are, but they’re very unapologetic and transparent about using the apps in person. It makes sense! Because how many people see you in person? Like, not even a quarter of the people who see you online.

RF: There’s that scene in The Matrix where the guy is eating a steak, and he says something like, “I know this is fake but it still tastes good so I don’t really care that it’s not real.” And I think that’s true — I don’t think anybody really believes that celebrities are dating each other all the time. But it’s entertainment. Our friends have become our entertainment. What’s more interesting? Hearing about a friend’s two-week trip and looking through their carousel of slides or seeing three photos where they thought they looked the coolest. Like yeah, that’s a little detached from reality: it’s filtered, maybe they make themselves skinnier, even — but it’s better for the audience.

A: It’s life, edited. That part’s fine. The problem is that if we weren’t having this exact conversation right now making us self-conscious about using our phones – actually, Leandra and I can’t use our phones because they’re recording this, and you’re probably in pain because you’re trying to be polite and not looking at your phone – but if we were just friends having a casual breakfast, there’s no shot that we wouldn’t have picked up our phones a few times by now.

The Times article said that high school kids live by a three-person rule. If there are at least three people at the table engaged in conversation, then you get the silent nod to go detach and look down at your phone. You’re momentarily excused. That’s the weird part to me. It’s not about the separate, digital lives we all live and how that blurs our reality, because I think that’s now inevitable; it’s the fact that they interrupt your day to day life and what’s happening in real time.

LM: The question is whether or not this is sustainable. Do we hit a wall?

RF: The time that’s sad and scary is when you’re with your best friends and still doing that. It’s one thing if you’re at a conference and you’re bored and your phone is a means of escape, but when you’re with your significant other, your best friends or your family and you’re still on your phone…why?

LM: This complicates personal live so much. Because you could be sitting at a table with your boyfriend or husband and he could be having an affair while you’re with him!

AD: You wouldn’t even be like, “Who are you texting?” You’d be like, “Oh great. Let me check my texts, too!”

LM: That seems to present a challenge. Amelia and I were just talking about anxiety and how we both struggle with it, and I was saying that I think millennials have taken to working out because it’s the only time we get “me time” now. Manicures and pedicures and blow outs are not “me time” anymore because you’re on your phone, right? When you’re exercising you can’t be on your phone. And that’s also might be why people are taking to meditation.

RF: Even with Burning Man — you’re not on your phone.

LM: All of these retreats! You check in, you give your phone up. People are hungry for that. That’s why I wonder whether or not it’s sustainable. Or if it just opens up a band-aid — a new avenue of business that reacts to the problem (gym class, meditation, retreats) instead of solving it.

AD: I would love if we all somehow turned off – but everyone would have to agree to do it. Everyone in the whole world would have to not be on their phones, or else you’d get left behind.

RF: I think there’s also this pretense that it’s for work. Which is true, but work and personal lives have become so intermingled. Most people, when you ask what they’re doing on their phones, say they’re emailing. You wouldn’t admit that you’re bored in the conversation and therefore talking to a friend. I certainly respond to emails faster because I have my phone all the time. A lot of them aren’t urgent. Even the notion of a push notification on your iPhone: you’re literally getting things pushed at you! Think of that word, right? Your phone’s saying you got a text message, you got an email, you got three new likes. And it’s hard to compete with that urgency in the “real world.”

Software on your iPhone is directed to grab your attention. But if you see someone on the street, they’re not like, “Quick update! I went to dinner last night, I’m moving!” The real world stuff ends up taking a back seat.

LM: Right, so that’s funny, because in interpersonal relationships, there’s a lot of communicative masturbation that needs to happen.

RF: Right, you stroke each other’s egos, like, “How are you?” That stuff. On your iPhone you’re not getting all the news, you’re just getting the punch line.

AD: Back to your first question, why we’re so obsessed with talking about our phones all that, I think it’s because it’s the most relatable thing to talk about. That was my other point. All those meme-Instagram accounts. I saw one that was making of these very me-memes that said, “Relatable Text Over Funny Picture.”

RF: Yeah, that whole notion that you have to be relatable is kind of scary. Why don’t you go be relatable to the person sitting next to you?

LM: Is relatable is a synonym for authentic here?

AD: Not always. I think you can craft relatable, just like that meme was proving. Whole other convo, but, last night, my friend who does these nightly monologues on Snapchat said something about how gossip sites are now taking screen shots of celebrity Snapchats and posting the screen shots as tabloid updates. She was saying how fucked up that is, because Snapchat is supposed to be the one sacred area where you just let your stuff live for 24 hours, then it’s gone,” and I was like, whoa. Not that Snapchat was safe, but since when is it a place for “news.”

LM: I mean, Snapchat’s not your younger brother’s best-kept secret anymore.

AD: But is Snapchat news?? US Weekly could screenshot one of our pictures because we have a public account and write a story titled, “Man Repeller’s having margaritas!”

RF: It could potentially be screwed up if they stole something you said privately to each other, but if you’re publicly broadcasting something as a story, it seems like fair game.

AD: Creepy. And I’m curious about whether it’s going to get creepier and creepier to the point where it’s not creepy, it’s normal, or if we’re going to revert all the way back to the way things were before smart phones and cell phones. Like, when land lines were all anyone had and you actually had to listen to your voicemails.

RF: If you read ten pages of Infinite Jest as I did, which was written a pretty long time ago, the way people talk to each other is over the television, but they have these avatars that looks like a better version of you – and that kind of forecasted this whole idea, like you were saying, Leandra, of people altering themselves for Instagram, and then you see that there’s a rise in cosmetic surgery and all that. The biggest change I see is that our phones are making us become idealized versions of ourselves. It kind of betrays the human condition, which is that we’re all many-faced and imperfect. You know? You’re not that.

AD: We’re a generation of sharers, and because of that, we try to portray these highly curated, perfect worlds. But technically, it’s always been that way. If you think about it, our grandparents’ generation didn’t talk publicly about divorce or anything “ugly.” Women were never seen without heels or lipstick or their hair done; men weren’t seen in public without their hat. That’s all curated and fake, too.

LM: It hasn’t changed for a different reason, though — because public laments come up all the time, but we talk around them. Think of all the “honest thought pieces” that are being shoved down our throats. 1 in every 100 is honest and authentic, but for the other 99, the issues they address are don’t actually address anything. They yell, “I’m so honest, I’m so honest, I’m so honest!” but don’t actually offer anything.

RF: I think that’s right. It is interesting, though, what you were saying about our grandparents dressing up. If I run into someone on the street they’re usually wearing exercise clothes yet I’ve never seen an Instagram of them wearing their spandex, right?

LM: Right. It’s really funny you say that because something I take great pride in on the Man Repeller’s account page is that it feels like it’s being executed in real time, and for the most part, it is. The pictures are low fi, they’re rarely professionally shot, the videos are silly — I like looking a little disheveled and out of place. Half of the reason I’m building Man Repeller is because I want to recreate what Sex and the City was for me, which was a built-in, relatable best friend that felt very honest. The medium and approach is obviously different, but the sentiment is the same.

AD: Back to initial question again! Why are we inclined to talk about this? Because we all work in this world? I think we’re all talking about it because it’s the most relatable thing to talk about. We all get it and can chime in.

RF: I think for most people it’s a deep look in the mirror and you don’t always like what you see. How many times have my friends or family said, “Get off your phone?” The other day my mom’s friend who’s a docent at the Whitney took us on this tour. I had a bunch of emails to respond to, and in between stops at the paintings I was checking emails. My mom got mad at me, and you know, she was right. Her friend does this for free, and she’s here showing us Jackson Pollock and Jasper Johns and all of these incredible sculptures and if I’m her and I’m looking at this kid typing away at his phone, I’d be like, you’re not present, you’re not appreciating what you’re doing.

LM: Yeah, pulling out your phone is like the new blowing cigarette smoke in someone’s face.

RF: There’s no ruder gesture than looking at your wrist. And people said that when the Apple watch came out, if that was going to become the new norm, then what would that mean about our society?

LM: …Until it’s not rude anymore. But what about when you’re on the other side of that? You’re talking to someone and they’re pulling out their phone. Do you find yourself frustrated? Even though you can sympathize and empathize with what they’re doing?

RF: It’s rude and frustrating and it makes you self-conscious of your habits. One of the things I hate is when people are at a dinner and one person checks their phone and then it becomes this silently agreed upon phone time.

A: Maybe we’re always talking about this stuff because phones and technology are a safe area. You can’t really offend anyone if you write or report or crack jokes about phones and tech.

However, you can offend people on different platforms easier than ever. The author of that article was talking about how people have actually become less inclined to voice an opinion because they know people will gang up on it. The other day this guy was telling me about how he posted a status talking shit about the city he’s from, and how he was completely surprised when everyone on Facebook attacked him under the status. I was thinking, Yeah, you posted it on Facebook. Hello. Even if they weren’t actually pissed, they would’ve been bored, and found a reason to be pissed. Like, don’t post an opinion there, are you kidding? Unless it’s “This cat’s the best,” and even then, someone will be like, “Fuck you, I like dogs,” or, “My cat died, that was super offensive.”

RF: You think people have kind of dumbed down?

AD: No, but I think people are more afraid of voicing opinions now because they know they’ll get attacked, and this article said the same thing. Everyone thought Facebook would encourage conversation and the opposite has happened. But, I think that maybe why everyone’s writing about phone and talking about tech – I’m doing a story about how phones are the new measure of parenthood, like how you’d carry an egg around back in the old days of sex ed — it’s because you can’t get in a fight about it; it’s an easy-going topic. We can all agree because, well it goes back to being relatable. It’s a safe topic.

RF: You’re saying the author in The Times picked a topic where there’s no other side?

A: No, I just think it’s one of the easier topics to cover as a writer.

R: Right, like “Kids are on their phone too much.”

A: Yeah. If you’re trying to figure out what to write about that’s good and true and funny and relatable, phones make for great fodder.

RF: I guess the other side of all of this is asking if it’s actually great that kids are on their phones because they’re more worldly.

LM: That’s exactly what I’m thinking. What’s the defense for our phones?

RF: There are two ways to look at it. They’ve made our lives easier, but have they made our lives better? Yes, it’s incredible that you can hail an Uber anywhere, but it wasn’t that hard to get a taxi before — in New York, at least. I guess if you look at places like San Francisco or Boston where it was really hard to, then in that sense, it’s a utility for us. But that ten minutes you saved looking for a cab, does that materially make your life better? Does knowing what all of your friends are doing all the time make your life better? When you look at all the apps you use everyday, which of them has made you happier?

AD: When my phone dies I am…

LM: Thrilled?

AD: Thrilled and – if I’m home, who cares, but if I’m out, it makes me anxious. I’m like, “Well now I can’t meet up with my friend, I don’t know if I’m late, I don’t even know what time it is…”

LM: That’s an interesting question though. What app actually brings joy into your life?

RF: Yeah, when do you feel truly happy?

LM: My notes app makes me feel happy because I write ideas down and that quells the anxiety of thinking I will forget them.

RF: That’s a good example. For people who write, having Google Docs or Evernote or Notes or whatever – I think for the creative generation, your phone is a huge boom. You can make videos on the go, you can take photos, all that fun stuff. I guess the question is more for the casual consumer.

At this point in the conversation, a fourth party approached the table. Amelia and Leandra began speaking to her when…

AD: Rob, are you seriously on your phone right now?

RF: Rule of 3!

Rob Fishman has written a few stories for Man Repeller before, you know. Check out his story on male jeggings, and another on why he won’t buy you a wedding gift. You can also follow him on Instagram and Twitter if you’re not mad about the gift thing.

Photographed by Krista Anna Lewis

The post MR Round Table: Are We Really Having Yet Another Tech Talk? appeared first on Man Repeller.

Super Basic Horoscopes

Got excited that this was a post about pumpkin spiced lattes? It’s not, but this one is. 

Rather than Susan Miller’s usual sign-specific horoscope breakdown (she’s two days behind due to personal matters), she left us with one half-hour video that breaks down all of October — but I know you’re busy. For as little time as everyone has for news of a potential planetary apocalypse, you have even less time to watch 28 minutes and 37 seconds of Susan News Anchor Miller, no matter how riveting she may be (very) — which is why I did it for you. So below, all you need to know, regardless of sign, about your life in October.

Starting with September 27. The eclipse that took over your Instagram feed at the end of last month may have left you feeling discombobulated — even now. That will sort itself out over the course of these next few days, so cheers to the Weeknd and being unable to feel your face.

October 6 is a bad day to ask a favor from a VIP, so stop texting Helen Mirren to pick up your dry cleaning. It’s also a bad day for anything related to money, performance reviews and presenting ideas to venture capitalists, if that’s on your typical agenda. October 6 is a Tuesday, so maybe just avoid work and play hooky with your human backpack.

October 9th: THE DAY YOU’VE BEEN WAITING FOR. Mercury’s scheduled to check out of Club Retrograde on a hump-day, which is fantastic news if you are sick of losing things, miscommunications, delayed trains, slow Internet, carrying around a bag of rice “just in case” and having your life ruined in general.

October 11 is a great day to set up money-making plans, but not a good day to sign anything or DTR these plans. The sun is opposite Uranus which Susan pronounces like “Ur-ah-nus” because she’s classy, causing some sort of celestial rash. (The sun is causing a rash, not her pronunciation.) Just be patient. If things do go awry, Uranus wants you to be imaginative and resourceful to fix it, which is annoying, because Uranus is the one being an ass in the first place.

The new moon on October 12 is cranky. (Welcome to the club, new moon.) Suck it up and don’t make any impulse decisions. Breathe. No added anxiety needed.

On October 15, Mars in Virgo and Pluto in Capricorn will agree on politics, which never happens. Suz Thriller who has such news anchor hair, let me tell you, wants you to think of Mars as a booster rocket that takes your ideas into space, drops them off, then lets you figure it out once everything’s in orbit…kind of like college. So it’s scary, but you can do it. Remember it’s exactly what you asked your parents for in high school: freedom.

October 17 — Mars will conjunct Jupiter today, which happens once every 2 years. Take advantage of the fact that Mars gives a boner to everything it touches. Think money, ideas, your career — all have the capacity to grow if you put your head down and charge forward. Weird visual, I apologize.

October 25th is Spa Day. It’s also a great day for love, “gorgeous love,” per Susan, and anything involving relaxation, luxury and beauty.

Naturally, Mercury will be at odds with Uranus at the same day and has the capacity to cause a literal shit storm. Just stick to your ~*me time*~ and all will be fine — there’s nothing you can’t conquer after a cucumber eye mask and a great make out.

The month ends with a full moon in Taurus on October 27. (Ok obviously the month ends a few days after but the effects of the full moon will carry on, a bit like walking mono. In a fun way!) It’s a sweet moon that encourages romance, imagination and beauty. It will help you find love, cure writer’s block and melt creative obstacles as it drives you to seek inspiration absolutely everywhere you look, like a professional Pinterest curator who lives for moments and never regrets.

Bonus fun fact that effects absolutely none of us: Susan Miller’s daughter’s fiancé Leo is a Leo.

Illustrated by Cynthia Merhej

The post Super Basic Horoscopes appeared first on Man Repeller.

MR Writers Club Prompt: If Picking Your Nose Was a Restaurant Review, How Would You Write it?

You’ve read at least one restaurant review, right? They span a healthy range from obnoxiously exclusive (often citing aromatic delicacies as one such reason to attempt the beef bourguignonne– but what the fucker is bourguignonne?) to hilariously real (see: The Infatuation) and if done right, they can make your mouth water. But have you reckoned taking what works about a restaurant review (stellar descriptions, on point comparisons and often, too, a relentless hankering to connect with your tastebuds — whatever it takes) and trying to apply those tenets to another kind of review? One time, when I was in college, I “reviewed” my younger brother’s Yeshiva League basketball game like it was a music record. That was a fun assignment.

Today, the MR Writers Club asks you to reconsider the age old axiom: you can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can’t pick your friend’s nose, and replace it with this: you can pick your friends, your nose, their noses and then write about it as though it were a restaurant reviewing covering the best smoked sea bass you’ve had since Yom Kippur breakfast at Goldsmiths. Dig deep into the orifice that is your nostril and don’t just pick a winner but write one, dammit. Become one with the experience of uniting finger and snot; describe the texture of that exploration. Is it dry? Moist? Will you eat it upon claw-release? How do you feel? How do those around you feel?

Serve it to us, friends! And for this week, do it in 250-400 words. All submissions should be sent to write@manrepeller.com by 12 p.m. EST on Thursday, October 8th.

Here’s my pass at a first sentence which you are free to plagiarize at your leisure: Beak, located in the heart of face and featuring two astounding nostrils, has recently re-opened after a brief shut down that was caused due to flooding.

Photograph from Vogue Paris, 2001 via The Blonde Salad

The post MR Writers Club Prompt: If Picking Your Nose Was a Restaurant Review, How Would You Write it? appeared first on Man Repeller.

5 Things You May Have Missed at Paris Fashion Week

You’re not at PFW? Me neither. But you know what they say: “Stop turning my quotes into clichés!” They also say, “It’s always Paris somewhere.”

So let’s pretend it’s right here, right now.

1) Rick Owens showed human backpacks for Spring 16.

The real genius of his homo sapien school supply carriers, however, was in his use of the human as papoose-meets-fannypack, too. Not only do these live accessories appeal to the Crossfit generation (people are heavy!) they will appeal to those struggling to multitask: a Rick Owens backpack has your literal back — so long as it’s not asleep, it’s always ready to lend a hand.

2. Flash Tats have absolutely no end in sight.

Anyone who showed up to the Tuileries on September 30 during the ~*golden hour*~ aka, the OG of photo filters, got painted in gold to celebrate makeup artist Pat McGrath’s limited edition pigment, set to hit her website at the end of this month.

3. Sinead O’Connor Head is happening.

First on Ruth Bell for Saint Laurent’s Cruise 16 collection, then again on the streets of Paris. Three’s a trend.

4. The Row showed spring weather along with their Spring 16 collection.

Sorcery. (The collection was beautiful, but New York says hi — miss u.)

5. Speaking of Sorcery, wizard horses are trending. 

A long-maned gray horse stole the Jacquemus show. Before we get into an awkward Karen Smith-esque situation where you counter that the horse is white, kindly note that horses are technically gray unless they are albino, unless-unless this is actually Nero, the Rare White Friesian (who is still, technically, gray). I think this is a Lipizzan, though.

See? Leandra leaves for Paris, et voila: Horse.com

The post 5 Things You May Have Missed at Paris Fashion Week appeared first on Man Repeller.

What’s the Best TV Series to Re-watch?

Not to be all whatever, but Dan Humphrey is super annoying. I cannot believe anyone ever attempted to compare him to Seth Cohen save for both of their childhood crushes that turned into borderline stalker-y obsessions that were eventually reciprocated by the Girls of Their Dreams, which could happen to Seth, for sure, but Dan? No. Not with those sideburns. Actually, they both had strange sideburns. I’ll chalk it up a transitional time period in media-mandated male beauty. Note to self: compare time periods on phone next time Netflix buffers.

Jenny Humphrey, however, is comparable. Her character was not only completely made-over from her literary form for the sake of television, she was basically rewritten in the same likeness as Kaitlin Cooper and Julie Taylor.

Except Julie Taylor is the most-worst.

Worse than Julie Cooper.

I can’t even fathom how parents like Tami and Coach Taylor had a kid like Julie. She’s such a brat. But she’s also such a teen. They must always be concerned, like: is she with Matt, is she making poor choices, is she trying to do the right thing but getting peer pressured by Tyra? How can you trust someone who changes their hair that often?

I’m always concerned, too: is Riggins cheating on me? Is Ryan going to walk out again? Does Nate have better eyebrows than me?

All of these thoughts keep me up at night. Up and into the wee hours of the morning I sit, bleary eyed and aware of my professional and physical-fitness call times, clicking “next” on my remote, because no matter how many times you’ve seen the episodes, some TV series are like Pringles. Once you pop…

These are my top 3 to re-watch: Gossip Girl (currently in progress), The OC and Friday Nights Lights. But you know what’s coming next, right? When it comes to the best re-watchable shows — the real life/sleep-cycle ruiners — what are yours?

Photographed by Krista Anna Lewis

The post What’s the Best TV Series to Re-watch? appeared first on Man Repeller.

Man on the Shops: What’s in, What’s out, What to Buy

On Saturday, I was walking through Soho and thinking to myself that I really wanted a bright sweater, so I stepped into Creatures of Comfort, now located on Lafayette Street just off Broome. There were ribbed v-neck sweaters, some sleeveless, in navy and red and a combination of both which would look cool with the slip dresses that distracted my initial pursuit in light blue, nude, black, burgundy and navy. There were also great pants — high waist in waxed linen with sailor buttons to conceal your FUPA. Pinstriped cropped flares and wool, single zipper wide legs that touch the floor comfortably enough to wear flat shoes. Jade Lai, the founder, is great with color, silhouette and fabric, which justifies the price point and is considered contemporary (between $179 and $1230 for some suits) but still presents the question of what to do and where to go if that stuff is too expensive.

I’d say visit anyway. It’s worth the inspirational mind jog before you head up a block to Topshop on Broome and Broadway where with $180, you can get this outfit.

It’s a different vibe, no doubt. If Creatures of Comfort is your cool older sister who favors ease over anything else but still looks enviably cool regardless, Topshop is your party bus. Walking through the shop will take a few laps and some time in the dressing room to ultimately decide that the cropped wool trousers don’t flare the way you’d like them to, that the high waist brocade pants aren’t quite high enough and that you can pair a liquid lamé turtleneck with an orange sweater plus a $55 skirt that’s turquoise and purple (it comes in yellow and brown, too), which is sort of reminiscent of what’s now available by Marques’Almeida (and even more so if you’re creative about the way you choose to button it) without looking — or feeling — too tacky.

It’s the right amount of fun, coupled with the kind of color that’s been largely absent from fashion but is making sense and feeling right again. So what are you waiting for?

[image error]
Turn on your JavaScript to view content

Buy this outfit!

Sandals by Laurence Dacade, handbag by Dior; photos by Krista Anna Lewis

The post Man on the Shops: What’s in, What’s out, What to Buy appeared first on Man Repeller.

The Rules of Style by Salvador Dalí

Develop an iconic facial feature. If flocculent upper lip wings are not your thing (because, you know, they’re his), why not consider a unibrow? Or maybe a patch of hair in the shape of a monocycle on your cheek?

Do accessorize with a cane that snakes in once too many times. Knight your elders with it, then call it a “Cain,” hit the youths in your periphery across the head with it and tell people you were engaged in a biblical act of compassion.

Do stow your free-standing clocks in a microwave. They will not melt, but this is performance art, people!

Consider the red Santa hat (“barretina”) as a wardrobe staple by divorcing the holiday implications and making a recommendation to yourself about black and white leopard print as a neutral knit. Use your cane here, too.

Acknowledge the arrival of Victorian collars but anticipate the changing environment in favor of Victorian (ruffle) sleeves. Do you have a velvet blazer?

Oh good.

Wear it.

How about an ascot?

Acknowledge the departure of Isabel Marant’s Fall/Winter 2012 collection wherein a French nod to the West was galvanized. Force its revival.

Do it with a small white flower at the end of your cheek.

Wear sandals until you’re ready to give them up (pair them with huge pants).

Carry around a white dove, tell people it’s Charlotte Olympia.

Wear a sea critter as a headband, tell people it’s Charlotte Olympia.

Ask yourself while confronted with the literal fabric of your narcissism every morning in the closet that carries your multifarious identities: if I were on the Spanish Riviera, would I want to wear this? If there are no pom poms or floral appliqués, you might be shit out of luck.

[image error]
Turn on your JavaScript to view content

And finally, bring your joie de vivre everywhere. Possibly keep it on top of your dove.

The post The Rules of Style by Salvador Dalí appeared first on Man Repeller.

Television Still Has a Women Problem

When your focus as a writer is women’s issues and you work as an assistant in Hollywood, writing another piece about the lack of female writers, directors and producers working in the entertainment industry can feel repetitive. Sometimes I want to switch to a different, more fun focus, like interior decorating tips or puppy slideshows. Because no matter how many feminist-driven articles I write, there’s always a new vestige of sexism popping up where you’d least expect it — in The Hollywood Reporter, in Straight Outta Compton — and no matter what statistics you point to, it feels like there’s always someone saying, “But it’s not really that bad, right?”

Wrong. It is, and I’m running out of articulate ways to explain why.

On the facts and figures side of things, I could talk about the sheer, hard numbers of women in TV. A recent study done by the Women’s Media Center is pretty illuminating: they looked at ten years of Emmy nominations from 2006-2015 and calculated that women accounted for only 8% of the nominations for Outstanding Directing and 13% for Outstanding Writing. For nominations in all categories total — writing, directing, editing and producing — women accounted for only 22% of the nominations. This is especially interesting given the fact that women comprise the majority of the mainstream network viewers, according to numbers gathered by the Producers Guild of America.

Of course, you can’t have a conversation about the statistics of sexism in Hollywood without pointing out the even more shocking figures when it comes to the lack of diversity within these small percentages of women. As Viola Davis mentioned in her Emmy acceptance speech, “The only thing that separates women of color from anyone else is opportunity.” Of all the female characters on prime time television from 2014-2015, only 21% were African American, Latina, or Asian. This is not an improvement from the figures from 2010-2011, where non-white characters made up only 22% of characters on television. If there are not roles written for all types of women, then we will continue to see only a small sliver of the population represented on screen.

Or, I could point to specific examples of gender and race disparity, like Stephen Colbert. Colbert recently came under fire for the gender inequality of his writing staff, which reportedly consists of 17 men and 2 women. All of them are white. This may come as a surprise since Colbert is a well-liked dude, but it’s less of a surprise if you turn on your TV after dark and notice that there are no specific examples of female late-night talk show hosts currently on air.

If that’s not enough and you’re still feeling positive about the prevalence of people like Tina Fey and Uzo Aduba, there’s the piece Nell Scovell wrote for The New York Times, reminding us that in 1990, women made up a full half of comedy series nominations — then vanished once again. Of that year’s nominations, she writes, “It just seemed obvious that women could compete at the highest levels of comedy and win. Only decades later did I realize it was a spike, not a trend.”

So, no, women aren’t having a comeback in television. If we were, we wouldn’t use the phrase “comeback” at all, as though female writers, directors, producers and show runners are washed up pop stars on the luxury cruise line circuit. Although the accomplishments and strides that women like Viola Davis, Jill Soloway and Shonda Rhimes have made in television are important and admirable, we can’t allow them to lull us into a false sense of security, or listen to people who insist things are better.

Instead, let’s do something about it. Use this to get a conversation started among your friends about the very real gender gap in television, or pocket the statistics and be a super-smart closer whenever someone tries to claim the last word with, “It’s really not that bad.” You can create female-driven, diverse content and hire women to help produce it. Star in it. Direct it. You can tune in to female-driven dramas and comedies and vote with your iTunes downloads and cable subscriptions for the importance of the female voice. Or, at the very least, continue to click on headlines like this one first — and then Cutest Pups of 2015 second.

The post Television Still Has a Women Problem appeared first on Man Repeller.

The Influencers: Gucci & Dries Van Noten

All the good ideas are coming out of Gucci and Dries Van Noten. Since Alessandro Michele took over from Frida Giannini at Gucci, the house has been infused with a newfangled joie de vivre that looks like lamé pleats and brocade sweaters and fur pom poms and the kinds of extravagant color combinations that have been largely absent from fashion since street style became an institution and show goers got too embarrassed to wear anything that speaks. That’s all changing, though, and Gucci might be part of reason.

Remember when the Resort 2016 collections showed? The overarching forecast was fun. Now fast forward just a single season and you’ll find that while there may not be such effusive novelty coming out of Spring, there is a lot more life. Embellishments! And color!

I’m wearing a sparkly turtleneck, for heaven’s sake!

Styling that makes you tilt your head and squint.

It’s a lot more interesting than just a sweater and pants.

While we were still in New York, three of the standout collections (subjectively speaking, of course) included Public School, Thakoon and Creatures of The Wind. There were few common denominators that strung the clothes of the respective collections together but there was one thing — possibly, inspiration from Dries Van Noten, who showed a stellar collection is Paris this afternoon — that struck a commonality.

From Public School, there were horizontally striped pants rendered on a lightweight silk twill blend that looked reminiscent of last season’s stripes by Dries.

From Thakoon and Creatures, there were pixelated paisleys set on a flimsy sheer chiffon and threads of gold woven through the blouses.

Remember those when they first arrived? In their second birth, they looked great — and don’t get me wrong here, the designers in question no doubt made them their own — but still, to see influence born out of a house that is so tight (the crowned jewel of Belgium, if I may) and still shows just two collections yearly is impressive.

For the imminent season, there is a little bit of Prada at play with bras worn over tops (also a welcome continuation to last season’s bandeaus) but it’s still unflinchingly Dries. There are masculine center pieces that are feminized with embroidery and embellishment. Oversize jackets paired with sheer underthings. Jacquard and brocade fabrics I’d have been hard-pressed to imagine together yet somehow feel incomplete as stand-alones following the show. This must be what they mean when they say you can’t unsee things. The tulle ruffles are a great interpretation on one of the bigger spring trends, too.

My guess is that we’ll keep seeing elements from both these shows come up, and I wonder if, as with everything else, it boils back down to an enviably relentless sense of honest identity: knowing what’s you, knowing what’s not and ultimately realizing that when it comes to Gucci and Dries, there’s something for everyone.

Photographs via Vogue Runway

The post The Influencers: Gucci & Dries Van Noten appeared first on Man Repeller.