Leandra Medine's Blog, page 645

Net-a-Porter’s New BFF? Chanel

Is it just Amelia, or has Net-a-Porter been acting an awful lot like Beyoncé lately what with its esoteric allusions to fantastical new projects on a horizon so imminent, one minute you might be scrolling down your Instagram feed, bare fingers in motions and then next, boom: there are three gold rings sitting across your knuckles smacking each other.

And just like that, Net-a-Porter’s new-album-equivalent of a product has dropped, which today seems to define a moment in fashion consumerist history: for the first time since computing systems were invented, CHANEL Fine Jewelry will be available for purchase on, yes, Net-a-Porter.com.

The product line, officially called the COCO CRUSH Collection, includes five quilted rings (all bands) and a cuff designed to seamlessly fit in to the rest of the storied house’s narrative. All jewelry is rendered in 18-karat yellow and white gold, and if I may speculate, may very well become the makings of a new generation of heirlooms. The pieces will only be available through May 6th, so if you’re feeling like today is the day you start building out an arsenal of goods to one day give to your daughter, don’t forget to tell her you made history.

The Dormant “Clothes Person” Inside Me

The Cultural Enthusiast is the dormant clothes person within me, whose eccentricities and artistic penchants sneakily appear in my everyday fashion choices. I have learned to embrace the Cultural Enthusiast, secretly hoping that one day, I shall become the curious, eccentric dame who sits alone, sketching in a museum.

The Cultural Enthusiast makes her public appearances in cafés or teahouses, particularly ones with purchasable local art on the walls. Though the Enthusiast enjoys such venues, she also prides herself in her collection of international loose-leaf teas. Thus, the stainless steel thermos becomes a regular accessory in the Enthusiast’s wardrobe.

Her most prized accessory, however, is her backpack, which must be both elegant and durable (favorites include products from TUMI and Mandarina Duck). They say the dog is man’s best friend, but the Cultural Enthusiast’s best friend is her backpack. The backpack is more than just a safe place for valuables: it is her travel companion, accompanying her everywhere she goes.

The backpack is one of two key investment pieces, the second being a high quality pair of boots.

The Enthusiast is very particular about her boots: they must have a substantial heel, yet they must also be comfortable; they can have a worn, weather-beaten look, yet, as a whole, they must be able to withstand Nordic winters. In addition, the Cultural Enthusiast enjoys wearing distinctive jewelry and eyewear, each piece preferably having its own backstory. (This way, upon appreciation of the accessory, the Enthusiast can further impress the unsuspecting admirer).

My inner aesthete opts for a combination of comfort and seemingly “effortless” style, wearing minimalist classic knits and, in warmer weather, breezy blouses and linen shift dresses. A high neckline is a constant trend among the tops, as dark turtlenecks emulate the flair of an artist, a thespian, or, more specifically, Alan Rickman. The idea of functionality and a vintage taste steer the Cultural Enthusiast toward the high waisted figure, which can be achieved through denim mom jeans, pleated culottes, or swinging midi skirts.

The Cultural Enthusiast’s signature look, however, comes from the absurd amount of bags she carries, worn for the sake of necessity rather than glamour. In addition to her treasured backpack, the Cultural Enthusiast lugs one or more tote bags and/or a cross body briefcase (intentionally ambiguous as to whether it is an instrument, a laptop case, or a portfolio). In addition, the Cultural Enthusiast, as indicated by her title, considers herself an aficionado of all arts, thus often carries a camera around her neck.

The contents of the tote bag further emphasize her artistry: a sketchbook, a pamphlet map (because the Cultural Enthusiast refuses to rely on a smart phone), vintage bronze binoculars (used for both zoo expeditions and opera performances), a miniature French dictionary, and a Yayoi Kusama-inspired umbrella.

The Cultural Enthusiast, with all her bizarre and somewhat introverted tendencies, reflects the desire to be unique, worldly, and, at the same time, natural. As a result, I am unashamed in accepting this eccentric character. I have an intuitive feeling that one day my dormant clothes person will wake up, and I may just become the peculiar yet lovable Cultural Enthusiast.

Illustration by Marie Louise James 

What’s the Point of Runway Nudity?

If you think back to the most recent season of Girls, you’ll notice that Lena Dunham’s naked body was set on display exactly zero times. This varied tremendously from previous seasons, where one of the most prominent debates off-screen rotated around her nudity. My personal belief was such that if she believed she needed to show her body to make a point, let her shimmy topless until the cows crawled home, udders soiled, (though of course not devalued) by the public domain. But a countering popular opinion was that “nudity without purpose” is nothing more, nothing less than distracting.

And any performer will textbook-tell you that the first thing to avoid in espousing your point of view is distraction. I can understand that, but couldn’t quite wrap my head around why she may have diverted the conversation until the most recent runway season, where nipples were trending at a pace that could have put the virality of the return of the 70s to shame.

It made me wonder if nudity in fashion has a purpose. And furthermore, I guess, if it needs to have a purpose.

I happen to take no issue with a woman exposing her body. This should likely come as no surprise for someone who ranked within the 88th percentile of extroversion according to Myers-Briggs. In fact, I spent an entire week in Mexico wearing bathing suit tops that were so sheer, my own husband (noting their futility) recommended I take them off so as to prevent tan lines.

And I did — which really makes me wonder why the prevalence of uncovered nipples on a majority of runways (cue: Gucci’s opening look, Saint Laurent’s architecturally drunk one-shoulder dress, a set shown with a pair of Jacquemus pants that may or may not have been Margiela in a past life and Yeezy’s own body-sock) has affected me at all.

I’m chalking it up to one of two things. On the one hand, I may be desensitized and possibly a bit jaded by the overwhelming shock-value that brands consistently attempt to demonstrate. Yes, the spectacles are great, the performances are entertaining, but we come for the clothes — right? If there are no clothes, what are we there for? In some cases, it really might be that a set of nipples will support a garment better than any bra or blouse could — one of Valentino’s closing red dresses from the collection that will be forever called The Zoolander Show confirms that.

But for a single-shoulder Saint Laurent dress, from a collection that has become so much about the consumer and not at all about the critic, what point, save for I’m High Fashion, Hear Me Roar, is being made? In an age when we are subject to condemnation for effectively saying, or thinking just about anything, how are we supposed to address or make sense of nudity’s pervasiveness in fashion? Do we embrace it and perhaps accept what might become a change in the way we participate in fashion, or do we cry “distraction!” until just like with Girls, it goes away without anyone really even having noticed?

All Images via Style.com

MR Round Table: The Gravity of Our Words

Leandra Medine: Can you recover from a comment you make publicly anymore? In the last couple of months we’ve seen a ton of backlash toward Giuliana Rancic and subsequently what that has meant for Fashion Police (it’s going on hiatus and losing a cast member). In March, The New Yorker published a story by Lena Dunham titled, “Dog or Jewish Boyfriend? A Quiz.” This one fell under heat for the obvious anti-semitic implications that could be inferred from that comment.

There are several more examples of this happening, two of which include Justine Sacco’s tweet, which the New York Times recently revisited, and the college baseball player’s tweet about Mo’ne Davis. I think that an interesting conversation to have right now might consider whether or not it’s fair that we can no longer take back what we say. Or maybe…are we now finally living through the cautionary tale (“Watch what you say”) we’ve all be taught? Or is there some merit in forgiving, forgetting and allowing people to live?

Charlotte Fassler: I think people assume that “watching what you say” mostly applies to those with some sort of authority. But Justine Sacco only had 127 Twitter followers, and it took a single tweet to have her be the number one trending topic on Twitter. Putting something into the “webisphere” can have a bigger potential impact than you think. If your Twitter or Instagram is public, your private jokes with friends can suddenly be taken to a new level.

Amelia Diamond: For some reason, I can’t help but eventually feel worse for the person who said the stupid thing. I haven’t quite gotten there yet with Mo’ne Davis, because who the hell calls a 13-year-old girl a slut. That said, Mo’ne Davis responded, saying something to the effect of: everyone makes mistakes and everyone deserves a second chance. The guy who wrote that tweet was kicked off his college’s baseball team, and she asked his college to let him back on the team.

We all say stupid things. If I had a book printed of every stupid thing I’ve ever said, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. There are people you assume are a bad person and so what they say, they mean and should be thrown into a pit of lava. Generally though, you have to assume that people are good but have bad moments. If your bad moment is verbalized online, you can’t take it away and that sucks.

LM: I wonder if we should be forced to watch what we say. In this era of overt political-correctness, maybe there is some value in possibly just speaking on instinct. Of course people should be held accountable for their words, but should they be forever penalized? Are they forever penalized?

AD: I don’t think they should be forever penalized. It goes back to what Stella Bugbee said to us when we were talking about moderating the comment section. That’s where freedom of speech gets blurry because technically, freedom of speech means that we should be able to say whatever we want and not be legally penalized for it. But then you have to ask, where does human decency come in? Where does feeling threatened come in?

Take Paula Deen for example, someone who went on record using the N word. I don’t think anyone’s ever going to forget that. Should they?

Kate Barnett: So, aside from the criticism just not going away, is it also desensitizing us from the terrible things that people say? Everything is just so discounted to such a degree.

AD: What do you mean by discounted?

KB: When you look at the vitriol that’s up all of the time on your Twitter feed, for example, you have access to so much more of people’s — what otherwise would be intimate  — thoughts. I’m asking if we as a culture are somewhat desensitized. Yeah, there’s some article and it’s trending on Twitter and people are horrified, but for how long?

CF: That’s what I thought was interesting in that New York Times article — they went to the author of the article that essentially ruined Justine Sacco’s life, and he said that he still stood by his story because he felt it was juicy. Then later, when he made a stupid comment and was publicly shamed, he apologized to her.

Esther Levy: On social media, you put yourself out there to be judged by people. Who are the people condemning Justine Sacco? What gives these people the right to be the judge, jury and executioner? I don’t necessarily know if I think that’s fair, but then again, we’re electively putting ourselves in that position.

LM: Well what’s your personal policy? Do you forgive people for nasty things they say to you and how long does that process take?

EL: I think it depends, I don’t think there is one answer.

AD: There are certain people who you feel meant actual harm, who said something with evil eyes and all that. If a friend said something really crappy about me, I’d probably be pissed (it’s happened before) but if they apologized, I’d assume, Okay, you were drunk. You were in a bad place. There are benefits of the doubt depending on who you’re talking to and I feel that way about the public as well.

EL: I think that’s the problem though. At least within the judicial system, there is a system. When you commit a crime, there’s a specific amount of jail time you get — obviously I’m oversimplifying this — but there are finite sanctions in place. With something like a misconstrued or malicious tweet, there’s no way to measure whether the punishment fits the crime. There is no set system in place.

KB: Do you think there’s value to people’s response to that, though? As a social corrective?

In the case of Justine Sacco, she thinks that she is funny. How much is that her wanting to entertain and wanting to get the feedback from social media, and how much of it is her having a very caustic view of the world and lack of awareness?

AD: Lack of awareness is a huge one. I think that that’s what happened with Giuliana Rancic. I’ve heard so many versions of that story, but in one account I read that what she said was a line fed to her over the microphone, and that prior to this comment she was already getting criticized for picking up the snark void that was left behind. But she’s not funny, and that wasn’t her role. If Joan Rivers said that comment I don’t know that anyone would have gotten mad, because it was Joan Rivers. The Fat Jewish gets away with a lot of stuff that most of us could not.

LM: He gets away with it is because he doesn’t care and might possibly sense a vulnerability from the audience because they know that their shouts are not going to penetrate his moral compass.

CF: Think of a media entity like Vice, and some of the provocative headlines and articles that they’ve put out. Sometimes they make the rounds and people get annoyed at them but at the end of the day, this is the voice that they project.

AD: There’s definitely a public threshold for digestibly, uncomfortably offensive versus violently offensive.

CF: With Lena Dunham’s article in the New Yorker — a recognizable publication, it’s an article, which took time. It wasn’t just a tweet, which is a much more flippant way of communicating your thoughts. A tweet has a character limit, it’s one sort of idea dump. I think that often times people don’t really understand how Twitter works or what they’re putting out there.

AD: For me personally, Lena Dunham has had so much controversy, I think that this is a case where in a week, it’ll be forgotten. I think that it comes down to intention. When you know that something had a funny intention that didn’t land, it’s sort of easier to forgive, maybe?

KB: I see that in personal relationships. There are friends of mine who can say something totally off color and I’ll be like, “What are you thinking? That’s not funny.” It’s different though when you’re putting it out there. It’s different when you have any sort of influence. You don’t get the benefit of having said something terrible in a conversation with somebody that you know and who understands what your intention is. You only get the characters.

LM: Maybe this boils down to a conversation on the gravity of words.

AD: I think they’re always stronger than we want or intend for them to be.

LM: Why is that when we make a silly comment, like calling women “moms on a cruise” and the audience gets offended, we rise to our own defense, shouting, “Come on, guys! We’re kidding here!” Whereas when Lena Dunham compares her Jewish boyfriend to a dog we’re — or I — am thinking, “Why is she always putting her foot in her mouth?”

We can be so hard on others, but when it’s us, because we feel like we know our intentions and understand that we’re really not trying to offend anyone, we think, “What’s the big deal?”

Is there some sort of system that needs to be put in place, like a regulator? How do you do that?

AD: Well that’s where freedom of speech, or the conversations around censoring it, gets people so up in arms.

LM: Right, and that’s happening more and more because of the prevalence of this concept of hyper-political correctness. Are any of us actually saying what we want to be saying anymore and is that shift problematic? Are we supposed to be living in a world where everyone exchanges pleasantries at the level we do now? I mean this is New York. I feel like you’re not a real New Yorker until someone curses you out; or offends your religious policies; or the color of your skin; or the shoes on your feet.

AD: The problem is that each person has different things that offend them. I am far less offended by religious comments, because I’m not religious. But if anyone were to ever use the word “fag” around me, I’d get very angry.

LM: I guess that’s also the societal weight put on specific words. We don’t have a problem calling each other “fuckers.”

KB: I think there’s something to what you were saying about the difference between when someone else, versus when we say something. I’m not saying in every instance, but isn’t there something beneficial to us having to take pauses and think about the words that we’re using? Because they do have weight, and they do mean something, and there is a way to convey what you mean to say. Whether it’s funny, or intellectual, or off the cuff, without offending somebody. If you didn’t mean to offend somebody, then you’re not actually communicating well.

LM: That’s a really interesting and smart point. We talk about this with our stories all the time. If Amelia is confused by a sentence that I put together, that means that I was not successful in building a clear sentence. It does not mean that she’s an idiot — and this subtle difference in who is to blame is an important one.

AD: I totally agree. But sometimes people are wrongly offended. There are instances where the general population needs to get a grip.

There are well executed, hilarious comedic jokes or well-written newsworthy articles that offend large populations of people. There are political statements that people are campaigning against. Those can be misinterpreted wrongly, I believe. Not necessarily because they were communicated wrongly.

KB: There’s always the aspect of, somebody can say something that massively affects someone else, and they can both understand each other crystal clear, particularly if you’re talking politics, and neither of them be in the wrong. I completely agree with that. So I guess I’m not saying that if someone is offended and you didn’t mean to offend them, that you’re always communicating poorly. By and large, if you get some sort of backlash to this extent that you didn’t anticipate, and didn’t have any sort of self-awareness that this is what you were going to generate, that’s sort of the point when I feel like you’re not quite communicating well.

It’s also about knowing your audience. One of the reasons that Joan Rivers could get away with snark versus Giuliana Rancic is she spent who-knows-how-many decades in small clubs honing her craft as a comedian. She can be eerily offensive, but she built an actual craft and she knew exactly how everything she said was going to be taken. There’s thought and artistry put into it, and she created the effect she intended.

AD: Maybe it hinges on whether or not you have an audience, or an intended audience. If you know the audience you’re speaking to, even if you’re bound to piss off 3 people in that audience who did’t want to hear the joke —

LM: That doesn’t make it okay though. I feel like something I tell myself frequently re: running this business is that I have to get comfortable with feeling uncomfortable. I have to find comfort in discomfort, because it’s never going to be comfortable. As long as it’s moving and growing, there’s going to be no true level of comfort. When you become really comfortable with your audience and feel like you can say whatever you want to say, you lose sense of the fact that your words carry the weight that they do.

AD: Totally. But don’t you think there’s a difference between those who have an audience and therefore understand it and those who don’t have one, who are speaking for their own brains as opposed to a group of people?

LM: The latter is what George Saunders called the braindead megaphone.

EL: They’re also not necessarily asking for an audience.

AD: Which is where feeling sorry on their behalf comes in: “They didn’t ask for this!”

LM: So what’s the conclusion here?

CF: I don’t want to reduce it to “think before you speak” but I think it’s just trying to grasp this weird social climate we live in, with being able to project things that you’re saying to more people than you think you can.

AD: In an ideal world, of course people should think before they speak.

LM: But this isn’t just speaking, with Lena Dunham’s incident — this is a story that was published in the New Yorker. Do you know how many eyeballs had to look at that piece before it went up?

KB: What’s her response? Has she recanted at all?

LM: David Remnick did on her behalf.

KB: There are all of these levels obviously, but Giuliana said, “I’m sorry, I was wrong.” Has Lena done that? Will she do that? Will she mean it?

LM: Right. Did Giuliana mean it? She was sorry that —

EL: Because of how it went down.

LM: She was sorry for the outcome. She’s sorry that people were not charmed by her sense of humor.

KB: She’s sorry that people see her this way.

LM: Which is very different.

AD: But I’d argue that she’s sorry she ever said the stupid joke. I feel bad for her for some reason. I think she said a really stupid thing and got punished for it. I think as someone in the public eye, she should know better, but I’m like, ok, how long is that woman going to have to suffer?

So is it after the apology then? Is that when we stop? Do we pester until we get an apology?

LM: Are apologies even satisfying?

KB: Also, what do you think, is Giuliana entitled to the influence she has? Do you feel badly because she’s lost some of that and the work that’s gone into it?

The other thing that comes up is, if she had said it at a roast, would anyone care?

AD: But that comes back to knowing your audience, doesn’t it? Justin Bieber’s roast is getting knocked all over the Internet because of racist comments about Selena Gomez. I think six jokes got pulled from the airing Monday night because they were so widely controversial and racist and rude.

LM: I think an interesting thing to consider is how we feel when we’re offended by comments, and what we look for in response to them. What do you want when someone offends you? Do you just want an apology? Do you care if they’re sorry? Isn’t sorry supposed to feel like this intimate connection you have with someone? How can you strike that with someone you’ve never met?

AD: I think if someone said something insanely offensive, and then they apologized in a way that made me really believe that they didn’t know that what they said was bad, they didn’t understand the weight or implications of it — for example, Giuliana — maybe she’s so vapid, and so detached from reality, that she did not understand that what she said what offensive. And she apologized. It’s harder for me to accept an apology based on a comment that comes from a place of true intolerance. Then the apology feels as though it was said for the sake of your public image. That’s much harder for me to digest or accept.

LM: When people take issue with the stories you write, how do you feel?

AD: I never write anything with the intention of offending people, and my whole thing is always: if I’m going to make fun of someone, then make fun of myself more. I hate nothing more than having enemies. I personally try to write articles that bring people together. I like to write things that bring people together. I love when someone can say, “Oh my god, I know exactly what you’re talking about.”

So when someone takes offense to something I’ve said, I feel bad. But it doesn’t mean that people don’t get mad. In the past, when I have pissed off people, or edited an article that pissed people off, I try to write in the comments, “Hey, really sorry that you took this that way.” If I ever said a comment that was unknowingly racially or sexually offensive and it was a bad joke that shouldn’t have been said, I would have never have meant it in a bad way. I would apologize and I would mean it, and I think that’s why I’m more hopeful of people’s intentions.

CF: I just don’t think you would ever say something that was racially or sexually offensive in a public forum.

LM: Well not knowingly. I accidentally put MLK Day and a bikini wax in the same tweet and that was almost really bad.

AD: I accidentally titled a post “Strange Fruits” because I literally had no idea what the song was about. There are very dumb mistakes that we all make.

LM: I feel like I have to believe that there aren’t that many people in the media, at the level that a Lena Dunham or a Giuliana Rancic or even a John Galliano are involved, where they’re acting out of pure malice. Galliano’s circumstance is obviously different because there was a lot of vitriol in his speech which we saw on video, but that was rooted in a much deeper and darker frustration with himself than it was anything to do with the Jewish population.

AD: Right. And you as a Jewish person are responding in that way. Versus the Lena Dunham article — which clearly pissed you off — you feel like she should know better.

LM: It’s annoying to see people that you believe are really smart, interesting and compelling, making the same stupid mistakes over and over again. How many times has she had to put her foot in her mouth these last couple of years? How many free passes will she get?

KB: Before what?

LM: Before she’s actually removed from the public conversation. Or does that not happen? Are all of these experiences ones that make us, the audience, feel like we have a bit of power? We’re mice being fed crumbs, who are getting excitable by the power implied by a regular person forcing a celebrity to apologize and then asking for cookies and cakes and enormous pastry platters as a result.

I think my ultimate point of view — and I don’t know if this runs counter to everything we’ve just said — is that people need to chill. The irony of this 4,000 word dissertation on thinking before you tweet is that we need to chill. I don’t know if by chilling, we’re appeasing the cakes that the mice demand and I don’t know what the future of dialogue looks like, but I fear that we’ve hit a block where an actual lack of free speech in the collective consciousness is ruling the conversation. That’s bad.

Image Shot by Norbert Schoerner, for Prada Fall 1998. Check out past Round Tables here. 

Get Your Shit Together, and Meditate

Life is freaking nuts. It’s messy and loud and complicated. It’s wonderful, too, but even the good stuff can add on to the ever-growing pile of stress. Apparently meditation helps, but who has the time? Who has the flexibility to sit cross-legged on a mountain as part of some transcendental workshop?

I’ve recently learned that for a literal peace of mind, we all have the time. And flexibility or fancy workshops aren’t required; you can just sit in a chair. I talked to a handful of people (normal, everyday people who needed to find a way to chill) about meditation: the do’s, the don’ts, and the how-the-hell-do-I-even-begin-because-this-shit-is-scary.

As for the why: You’ll sleep better. Your memory will improve. The little things won’t affect you as much. You may start to feel — dare I say it? — less stressed. Maybe we can do this together. No better place to start than right here.

Melissa Lau, founder of Seachange Coaching, on how to get started:

“Pick a tiny commitment. I’m a fan of Stanford Professor BJ Fogg who studies habit formation. His research shows that the core to habit formation is committing to something so small that you can’t say no: if your goal is to exercise more, your tiny commitment might be to commit to putting on your sneakers every day, regardless of whether you actually go to the gym.

Thing is, once you have those shoes on, the probability that you do go to the gym increases substantially. It’s the same with meditation. Rather than aim to sit for 20 minutes out of the gate, commit to just sitting in your chosen meditation chair once a day, even if you don’t meditate. But if you do sit down, it’s pretty likely that you’ll start to meditate.

Find an accountability buddy — it’ll make it much easier to stick with the practice.

Find a comfortable sitting position that works for you. Just start by sitting in a chair! (No need to wrap yourself up like a pretzel.)

Finally, experiment with different techniques to figure out what works for you.”

Molly Guy, founder of Stone Fox Bride: “How to get started? Turn off your phone, and sit your ass down. That is IT. 

Don’t move. Don’t judge your thoughts. Set a timer and commit to sitting in a comfortable, quiet place for at least two minutes. Pay attention to your breath and the way your body feels.

My meditation practice varies depending on where I am in my life and what my schedule is like. When I first started dating my husband it was really awkward at night to be like, ‘excuse me while I sit cross-legged on the floor and om and channel my higher self,’ so for a few months the whole practice took a backseat. Now that I have two kids, I meditate wherever/whenever I can find the time. Every morning on the L train for example — no joke. Or in my bedroom for a few minutes after I put my daughters to sleep.”

Sophie Milrom, founder of Eat Pops: “The biggest don’t is don’t skip. My meditation teacher told me that the only wrong meditation is one that you don’t do. Sometimes I need to scratch my head or open my eyes in the middle, and that’s ok. To me, it’s about decompressing.

Most people don’t realize that they already have some sort of meditative experience. I’ve personally found that showering and cooking are very meditative. A formal practice just ensures that you are giving yourself the right dose of that sensation every day.”

Tyler Haney, founder of Outdoor Voices: “Download Headspace! This app has taught me everything and kept my ADD from creeping in.”

Maryana Bilski, founder of BunnyJack: “The journey into meditation and inner peace has no right or wrong way — just like personal preference about drinking red or white wine with meat.

I meditate in the morning to set the intention of my day. It’s helped me find find balance. We are inundated with external forces, and through meditation you’re able to remove yourself from the onslaught of life. What you wear, what clubs you belong to or how many followers you have seem to disappear, and it is you sitting in the power which exists within you.”

Lara Speier, creative strategist and prior New York Closets contestant: “I practice Vedic meditation — it’s similar to every other kind; specifically, it’s mantra-based — and what I like about it is that you’re not forced to ignore all your thoughts. You can welcome them, have them and then leave them. If someone interrupts your meditation, it’s okay, just return to your mantra.

Anyone can start meditating by carving time to be quiet with yourself and not focused or distracted by anything. You can even give yourself a mantra to repeat in your head — just pick an onomatopoeia.

If you think you don’t need to meditate, you probably do. If you think it doesn’t work, then you probably have to keep doing it. And if you think it’s too hard, then you probably need it the most.”

Want to get your shit together when it comes to health and eating, too? Check out what the Sakara girls told Leandra.

MR Writers Club Prompt: National Sibling Day

Stick your arm into the jar of random, nostalgic, useless or altogether fake holidays that flitter around the Internet for the sake of content and you may come back with less fingers than you originally started with. I’m not sure why this is, unless fake holidays eat fingers.

In this same jar, however, is a date that tends to elicit widespread camaraderie and genuine notes of barf-worthy love. It turns Instagram into a flurry of sweet flashbacks and causes mothers everywhere to well up inside with happiness. We’re talking about National Sibling Day, which is today, so if you haven’t said something nice to yours…tell them to hang on a damn second.

We want you to write about your sibling, be it your brother, sister, lifelong best friend or pet (can I get an amen, fellow only-children?). Tell a funny story, get sappy, reminisce about the good times or apologize for the bad ones even if you stand by the fact that it was her fault too that you crashed the car into your neighbor’s mailbox.

Surely you know the drill by now but just in case you don’t, submit your #mrwritersclub story (keep it under 500 words) to write@manrepeller.com by Thursday, April 16 at 12 noon EST. And if your brother gives you shit for waiting so long to say something nice, pop your finger in your mouth, spit on it, then shove it in his ear.

Gets ‘em every time.

Check out past prompts and entries here.

Image via Beyoncé’s Tumblr

High School Trend Regression Disorder

There’s nothing particularly “cute” about a black fleece jacket. It’s functional, sure. It has pockets. One could understand why a hike leader would be drawn to such a sensible piece of outerwear.

Now, I was not a hike leader in high school (nor will I ever be), but if the word “literally” was as abused 11 years ago as it is now, then I literally would have died without a black North Face fleece.

Or worse — the world would have found out I wasn’t cool.

Reasoning that it was a practical wardrobe investment, my mom agreed to buy me one. Life resumed, perceived popularity was restored, and then, of course, I needed the scarf. Then the flats. The bracelet. The coffee cup, the sunglasses, and the list goes on. High school was, and I assume still is, a cesspool of insecurity-driven consumerism; a really crap version of Girl Scouts where instead of badges of honor, we collect arbitrary symbols of social status. Thank god for graduation.

Working in fashion — an industry based upon trends — has taught me the difference between wanting something because it’s beautiful and interesting and emotionally satiating (never mind how hyperbolic that sounds) versus wanting something because everyone else has it. Style versus Sheep. I’ve either become brilliant at discerning between the two or numb to my commercial desires due to cost, but it’s rare that I want an article of clothing anymore for the sake of fitting in.

That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

This past March, I found myself re-immersed in the world of equestrian competition. In an effort to spare you the details while providing enough context, know this: I ride horses, sometimes competitively though far less frequently than my fellow competitors. Horse shows are strange in that multiple divisions occur within the same venue. My “class,” for example, could occur in the same ring just a few hours prior to that of professional or Olympic riders.

These top riders are essentially the equestrian world’s Paris. And the trends (tall boots, breeches, coats, miscellaneous gear) trickle down from them, to my fellow riders, and last of all, to me.

I’m not around these styles every day. My visual access to the “cool kids” is limited to a few weekends each year. This means that not only am I behind the trends, the majority of my show clothes are completely outdated.

Here’s what everyone has: square toed boots. Here’s what I have: round toed boots. They wear Samshield helmets. I wear a Charles Owen.

Both of our boots step in poop. Both of our helmets protect our heads from cracking open when we hit the ground. So why couldn’t I shake the feeling of wanting what everyone else has?

Perhaps because high school, unfortunately, never leaves us. Maybe it’s because humans, like horses, are pack animals: lag behind and you become someone’s lunch. How relieved I was to return back to Manhattan, then, where my High School Trend Regression Disorder could slither back into its adolescent abyss. I know it’s there, however, and it’s haunting me.

But here’s the good news about the disorder: Everyone has it.

Photograph by Michal Pudelka

I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter or Friday!

True, it’s only Thursday, but what did poor Thursday ever do to you besides not be the weekend? Let’s give it a little credit. Maybe the below will help.

Read It and Weep: Leandra’s interview with Chloë Sevigny 

In this week’s issue of Net-a-Porter’s The Edit, Leandra interviews the cult-status actress about style, the word “cool,” best-dressed lists and her new book. Check it here.

Figuratively Die: Orange is the New Black’s Season 3 Trailer is HERE.

Hurry up, Netflix. We just ran out of Comma Queen episodes and TV-tension is running high.

Celebrate: Ethnically diverse / more-PC-than-before Emoijis have arrived!

This is great news. Next request: Dancing Salsa Girl in a variety of dress options.

[Business Insider]

Watch This Somewhere You Don’t Mind Laughing Out Loud:

AMY SCHUMER CAN YOU HEAR ME PLEASE BE MY BEST FRIEND

And If You’re Still Bored or Anxious:

Check out a New York-based jewelry designer’s closet or the founder of One Management’s fridge. See if your horoscope has come true yet, throw grapes at me if I was wrong, then put on your brand new three-piece suit and scoot. Where are you scooting to? Why, the pants store of course, where you’ll laugh at anyone who tells you that you must be THIS HIGH to ride.

After that, crack open some guy advice — maybe get his thoughts on sideburns-as-the-new-sideboob? — and if he’s anti face fuzz then by all means, dump him. Too harsh, Tai? Sorry, it was a joke. I guess it wasn’t that funny. But you know what’s not a joke…that is funny? Selfie Sticks. Maybe you can use one to take a pic of you and your new monogrammed sweater that you cropped to look like Liv Tyler circa Empire Records. Does that remind you of high school? Great. Because the bell just rang — see you tomorrow!

It’s Only a Joke

When I was in first grade, my mother ruled that I had to rid my speech of the words “no offense.” I learned the habit from a girl in my class who liked to preface her cruelest remarks with the sociable expression. While it wasn’t in my nature to be unpleasant, I realized long before that the ruthless execution of less than kind judgments could make people laugh. And all I wanted was to make people laugh.

A simple offer of “no offense,” I understood, allowed me to say exactly what I wished and risk nothing. I could make fun and joke and play. I could demand that my audience not be insulted.

But according to my mother — queen of rhetoric, lover of language — the pronouncement had no such power. Because it is impossible to control how people will react to what you have to say. Because it is stupid to try. Because the fact is humor exposes and jeopardizes, and we know it. The verbal tic — “no offense or anything” — suggests that we can anticipate the effect our words will have on our friends and frenemies and roommates. It implies that we can neutralize hurtful language.

It was not the biting observation that my mother policed. It was the attempt to defuse it.

“Own it,” she insisted.

Blame her, then: I have offended people ever since. As a writer, I sacrifice maybe some measure of decency for narrative. I accept the cost of good work — broken friendships, hurt, lots of eye rolls. I admit what language can do and ruin and make. And I do not apologize for it.

The lesson is harder to accept this week after it emerged that celebrity dermatologist Fredric Brandt committed suicide over the weekend. As the news ricocheted around the Internet, the New York Post reported that a parody of Brandt on the Netflix show Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt — for which the madcap mind of Tina Fey is accountable — had not escaped his notice. The Post quoted his publicist, who commented that the show took a toll on him: “He was being made fun of because of the way he looks. It is mean, and it was bullying.”

Brandt’s doppelgänger on the show is “Dr. Grant,” a dermatologist who shares his hairstyle and has had so much plastic surgery that he is unable to speak. The portrait is extreme and outrageous and very funny. It is harmless compared to the tweets that Trevor Noah should probably have deleted and the satire that Lena Dunham recently published in the New Yorker. But as friends and clients of the beloved doctor mourn him this week, it raises questions about the limits of comedy and the culture of outrage that contributes to them.

Comedy is dangerous and powerful and important. It treads on thin ice, and it does so on purpose. For me, it has always been a dark magic — potent and weird, healing and destructive. But what distinguishes the absurdity that enlivens and the humor that hurts? Is there a way to differentiate between them? Should we? Is Tina Fey a bully? Do we have to be responsible jokesters or does that compromise the very work that we ask jokes to do? Is Trevor Noah even funny?

Let’s talk about it.

In Defense of the Selfie Stick

My first one-on-one encounter with a selfie stick took place in October 2014. I was opening packages for my boss when I unwrapped the technological device from a pair of gifted jeans. When I realized what it was, my heart swelled. I had wanted to try one for months — a truth (and for a while, a secret of mine) completely devoid of irony.

The selfie stick’s origins are rooted in the technology first introduced via the GoPro. GoPro cameras are ideal for extreme action sports like motocross, surfing and skydiving. They’re able to capture mind-blowing videos from the participant’s point of view through the lens of a camera mounted to a hands-free headpiece or at the end of a durable, extendable pole.

The selfie stick, however, is GoPro for the average Joe. It’s perfect for tourism. Ideal for friendship. It’s wondrous at the beach and works just as well while hiking. If you’ve ever felt the need to photograph a stranger’s meal three tables away, the selfie stick is gold.

Imagine if Ellen Degeneres had a selfie stick at the 2014 Academy Awards. How many more of our favorite actors could’ve fit into the frame? Jared Leto’s immaculate face and perfectly tousled hair wouldn’t have been 79% cropped out! Maybe Leonardo DiCaprio would have made the cut.

In addition to celebrity group shots, selfie sticks are terrific for good old-fashioned fun. There’s no need to pause the moment and slow the momentum by arguing over who has the longest arm. Selfie sticks allow you to be utterly independent. Gone are the days of asking a stranger to take your picture, or worse: someone’s little brother.

Yes they’re embarrassing. Yes they’re widely considered “lame.” But so were Birkenstocks and mom jeans. It’s just a matter of time. Besides, use of a self stick not only ensures quality control, it frees up your other hand to high five your friend mid-snap of the brand new profile pic you both can finally agree on.

Every other week or so, I receive a text from a friend with selfie stick-validating content: Beyoncé in “7/11.” Diddy, his selfie stick and a yacht. Recently, five different friends sent me the same link: a Vogue interview featuring Derek Zoolander, Hansel McDonald, and Anna Wintour. It was filmed backstage at Valentino with — you guess it: ye old extendable, dependable stick.

I bask in the validation these industry luminaries provide to my beloved mechanism. More thrilling to me, however, is that my contemporaries seem to be either giving in or catching on, too. The other day, a recently engaged co-worker held back the usual sarcasm while informing me that she’s considering providing selfie sticks for each table at her wedding reception. Now that’s the spirit.

Selfie sticks teach us to let go and live a little. Scratch that — they extend so that we can live large. A good photograph is a good photograph, but a great photograph has a story — the  selfie stick helps capture that. Embrace the stick and repeat its mantra: always raise the bar.

Edited by Amelia Diamond