Leandra Medine's Blog, page 669

Office Apropos: Winter 2015

The striped shirts and sheer cropped socks of fall have become the misleadingly 70s-representative puffer coats and double ply-soled creepers of winter. This, of course, indicates nothing more, nothing less than the introduction of a new installment of Office Apropos wherein we, the writers — Esther included! — document five days of work outfits and live to tell about it. Click through the slideshow for captions and credits then shimmy over to the comments section and answer us this: what would you do-o-o for a Klondike bar?

See more Office Apropos here.

New York Closets: Lara Speier

If you were to peruse the wardrobe of this week’s New York Closet contestant prior to an in-person introduction, you’d find a collection of clothing so eccentric and enmeshed with the wearer’s personality that you’d feel as though you know her. Today, you can meet Lara Speier and her closet at the same time. Speier runs the mobile editorial projects at Yahoo while working on her side hustle, The Skinny Dipping Report. She’s also helping to build a bike-share program in Tanzania and via five selfies taken back in the fall, Lara is proof that getting dressed is a true extension of personality; that there’s fashion — and then there’s personal style.

Monday:

I’m kind of dressed like an American football player from 1914 here. I have on vintage plaid pants and a cropped athletic sweatshirt that’s made from a heavy knit. These brown leather flatform loafers remind me of the helmets said football players used to wear and the original pigskin footballs they played with. Felt like a real athlete today.

Glasses: Warby Parker, Top: Theyskens’ Theory, Pants: Palm Beach Vintage, Shoes: Zara

Tuesday:

This outfit is kind of “Amelia Earhart in 2015,” most notably because I’m wearing a vintage brown leather jacket, dusty pink harem trousers and red velvet loafers that proudly display the cat-in-love-emoji. Earhart would totally wear these shoes in 2015 right? She’d be having such a good time!!!

Glasses: cheap, Leather jacket: vintage, T-shirt: Zara, Pants: H&M, Shoes: Del Toro x  Moda Operandi

Wednesday:

It was cold today, so I woke up wanting to subvert the weather and how gross I feel with a lot of white, mom jeans and a colorful scarf. It’s amazing how clothing can do that, how it can allow you to create some delusional yet physical shield against the real world.

Glasses: Warby Parker, Jacket: Theory, Sweatshirt: American Apparel, Jeans: Polo Ralph Lauren, Scarf: Diane von Furstenberg, Shoes: Asos

Thursday: 

I’m dressed like a stay-at-home mom who’s dropping her kids off at school, only to return back at home 20 minutes later with coffee and croissant in hand to watch Wendy Williams and return to bed to “do e-mails.” In reality, I’m in my work elevator, going to get some ice cream and birthday candles for a co-worker’s birthday.

There’s something liberating about mixing prints at the bottom of your body. The striped sneakers poking out of the polka dot pants tell you I have a sense of humor and that I may be blind.

Peacoat: Calvin Klein, Sweater: Theory, Pants: Moschino, Shoes: Zara

Friday: 

LOOK! I have legs! And while it’s close to Halloween, I’m not dressed up as a schoolgirl — it’s just a regular Tuesday. I often renegade to schoolgirl or schoolboy looks for reasons I do not understand. Maybe this is me submitting to a “uniform” look to counter my more “original” looks. Maybe this is me wanting to feel more feminine, which takes on this prep-school-Cher Horowitz form. Or maybe I just want to wear something that allows me to repel fall rain. But really, I think I just have a penchant for knee highs, pleats, buttoning the top button and recess.

Glasses: Warby Parker, Top: Steven Stolman, Dress: Theory, Boots: Stuart Weitzman

Follow Lara Speier on Twitter. To learn more about the bike share program she’s working on in Tanzania with the Cyclones: a NYC-based social cycling club, check it here. Last but not least, learn more about (or submit photos to) the Skinny Dipping Report here.

The Highs and Lows of Molly

Call her old-fashioned, but my mother’s philosophy of name-bequeathing was simple: she wanted her children to have names that held a very slim likelihood of being misspelt or mispronounced. My three older siblings – Jack, Meg and Lucy – plus myself, can attest to this. Although it’s predominately been a smooth-sailing journey in the spelling and pronunciation correction department, there have still been some ups and downs.

If my quarter-century relationship with my given name, Molly, was presented via line graph, it would be reminiscent of the Nepalese Himalayas. Or the Manhattan skyline, for some contextual relevancy. Coupled with my last name, O’Brien, I’ve experienced numerous peaks and troughs of appreciation and ingratitude of this particular diminutive of Mary. They are as follows:

Trough: Getting voted #1 in the poll, “The Most Popular Dog Names In The English Speaking World.” There were many instances where this caused a substantial amount of confusion after hearing my name yelled aggressively in public (“MOLLY!”), followed by a directive to “heel” or “get back here right this instant!” (Curious to see where/if your name ranked? Have a .)

Peak: Not having a single same-name competitor throughout my entire schooling career. There was never a need to clarify “which Molly.” It made me feel like the Madonna of St. Dominic’s, East Camberwell.

Trough: Having the validity of my identity questioned by having to repeatedly answer: “No, it’s not actually short for anything.”

Peak: Variety of flattering musical odes: Nirvana’s “Molly’s Lips,” Little Richard’s “Good Golly Miss Molly,” and “Sweet Molly Malone” as sung by The Dubliners.

Trough: The minimal success in nickname generation throughout high school. The few self-prescribed monikers that I experimented with were wildly unsuccessful — particularly, the Gossip Girl inspired single-consonant “M.” Meanwhile, “Moldy” was a favorite amongst inter-school sport competitors. It was considerably upsetting.

Peak: The strange but strong affiliation I developed with fictional characters whose identity I resonated with. Special mention to Molly Weasley, matriarch of the wizarding world.

Trough: This lowlight is a reference to my last name O’Brien, whereby the devil-in-disguise apostrophe acts like an uncooperative little shit when making any sort of online booking. One time my reservation got straight out declined when booking a domestic flight and the subsequent furor to get through airport security was a mighty ordeal.

Peak: Receiving several free drinks when visiting Dublin due to my name being so unapologetically, hilariously, overtly Irish. (Now would be a good time to mention that I also have red hair.)

Trough: Moving to New York City for an impulsive sabbatical only to learn my name is a very popular colloquialism of the street drug MDMA. It makes for very confusing introductory conversations.

Peak: The amusing fact that Apple technology autocorrects my name to Milky. I think it’s a nickname in the making.

I have no doubt that these ups and downs will continue to accumulate and prompt me to imagine my alternate fate had my mother chosen to be a little more adventurous. But isn’t it in our DNA to wish for or wonder about the things we don’t naturally have? I guess our names are no different.

And besides, things could always be worse.

Written by Molly O’Brien

Has Adidas Been the Leader of Effortless French Style All Along?

I ask you to consider two recent consumable products that have been published for purchase on several luxury corners of the Internet:

These white sneakers, so clearly manufactured in “dedication” to the now-pervasive Stan Smith sneaker.

And these red track pants, which I swear on the tampon in my left boob pocket, were Adidas in 2001. I know this to be true because I not only owned them but I snapped them off at any opportunity that would present itself. Dinner ready? Pants off. House phone ringing? Pants off. Brother crying? You know.

I still appreciate them — the pants and the shoes. So much that I have gone so far as to obtain the latter (granted, in an elaborate leopard print), but who the true purveyor is of the effortless style that these items seem to encapsulate should be questioned.

Here we have Isabel Marant, who tiptoed into fashion in 1995 with a line of bohemian style tunics and boots that jingled, and airy skirts that did wonderful things for women’s legs. Twenty years, almost to date, after the birth of her label, Marant has indubitably amassed her level of popularity based on her ability to sell a lifestyle that is so easy, so effortless, so downright cool, it never could have come with a price tag previously.

And then we have Adidas: a behemoth that’s been manufacturing sportswear since 1949, and while, yes, it is easy to blame the recent influx of “elevated sportswear” within fashion on a totem of 21st century dressing (we are ironists, and as such, should address that in the outfitting choices we make), there is a level of sincerity with which many of us live. If we’re taking to track pants that might simply just mean the silhouette is satisfying; they’re saying what they need to say, and you, or I, feel good in them. I’ll take this on step further:

Maybe I mean to wear Birkenstocks because I find them easy on the eye, or simply comfortable. And that pastel blue, Peter Pan-collared puffer coat? Yes, sure, a pillar of the way in which many young boys interpreted achievable warmth in, say, 1972, but also a fine way to stay warm in 2015.

So now I ask you this: are these sneakers and these track pants an ironic nod to a heritage brand that we’ve been softly overlooking, or are they simply a manifestation of The Changing Times? If that is the case, should we defer to point A and consider the inevitable — that Adidas has been the steward of effortless style all along?

Your Place or Mine?

For a little while, an anonymous Google document circulated among my female friends at school. The pages were filled with the kinds of testimonies that sound all too familiar to most of us with Internet access.

Some described events that courts of law and your mother call rape. They broke my heart and made me mad, and they scared me—a little bit. They proved just how risky it is to be young and alive and a woman today. Some chronicled more minor violations: the occasional explicit comment, the odd boob graze, this time that a boy I know grabbed a stranger’s face and made out with her on her way out of a party.

And almost all of them took place at my school’s version of fraternities.

There are a thousand things wrong with the culture of drinking and sex on campuses across the country, but one was implied over and over again in this record of gross indignities. My school has a real estate problem, and it isn’t the only one.

The fact is that fraternities (and their functional equivalents) are what the New York Times deemed “hubs for binge drinking and hooking up, sometimes consensual and sometimes not.” They are the beating, blaring hearts of social life on most campuses, and they tend to be owned, run, and operated by young men.

The prevalence of devastating sexual assault at colleges around the country has never gotten more attention than it has in the past few months. But while we debate how institutions should respond to the crisis, less digital ink has been spilled on what steps we should be taking to prevent it.

Juliet Lapidos, who penned an editorial for the Times this week, argues for a “counterintuitive” and perhaps even imperfect strategy. “Who could compete with fraternities and bring more party choice to universities?” she asks. “Sororities.” Lapidos explains that most Greek-letter sororities are not allowed to serve alcohol at their houses. But while the rule is supposed to discourage underage drinking, it “also gives frats undo control over the party scene.”

Perhaps the time has come, says Lapidos, to reverse the ban: “[I]t stands to reason that female hosts would prevent the worst excesses—like punch spiked with date-rape drugs—that can lead to violence. And perhaps they wouldn’t let a classmate lead another, drunker classmate upstairs to a locked room.”

Lapidos justifies her better-than-nothing approach with the assertion that “telling fraternities not to throw parties is overbearing; telling undergraduates not to attend frat parties won’t work; and telling undergraduates to control their drinking at frat parties probably won’t work, either.”

But her contention raises important and uncomfortable questions about who is to blame for sexual assault and what needs to change in order to preclude it.

The first rule of assault is that there is none. It happens in dorm rooms and fabulous apartments and five-story walk-ups. It happens to girls who wear turtlenecks and to women in bandage dresses and to people we love so much it hurts. You and I, we know this. Here is what I am less sure of: Whose responsibility is it to stop assault? Should sororities throw parties that frats cannot be “trusted” to host? Do proposals like the one that Lapidos offers do more to apologize for rape than thwart it? And what do you think it would it take for college co-eds to have fun, get drunk, hook up, and stay safe?

MR Round Table: Are Emojis Ruining Us?

Leandra Medine: I want to round table emojis because it’s been occurring to me more and more while I try to articulate myself that I’m having a more difficult time saying what I want to say, and I think it might be the fault of my use of emojis and umbrella words — those that have become so ubiquitous and all encompassing (e.g. “everything,” “major”) that don’t actually mean what I’m trying to say. So many misrepresented and falsely articulated emotions.

So I’m wondering: what are these shorthand forms of communication doing, number 1, to our ability to self-express and number 2, communicate?

Amelia Diamond: I think I see emojis as an interesting factor when it comes to communicating in the world of dating. I have a guy friend who has showed me entire pick up conversations on Tinder that solely involve emojis. It’s alarming that it’s possible to communicate without words. There are some languages where instead of letters, it’s characters that encompass words. But as far as communicating with straight up pictures, that’s what cavemen did.

The line of communication gets even more blurred because you’re not just wondering, what does his “hey,” or the fact that he didn’t call mean, but what does the face with the stupid tears coming out of its eyes mean when he just sends that and nothing else? Does an emoji equal a response? Is it less than a response?

Charlotte Fassler: That’s something I think about too because it can almost fill an awkward pause. But I’m a visual person, so I prefer emojis to when people were really into abbreviating words. I think those really bothered me and I’d rather see a picture.

AD: Like, “totes?”

CF: Yes, I would prefer for someone to send a thumbs up. I think that expresses more to me. Or as opposed to someone saying “OMG,” I would prefer them to send those hand emojis.

LM: But even on Instagram I notice that instead of commenting on pictures, I’ll just put out hearts or little monkeys or the hands — which I cannot even think of the word to describe — those two hands with the glow above them.

CF: Praise hands.

LM: See! Word loss. Also, it bothers me that I am not connecting with this photo because I love it for X, Y, and Z reasons. Instead I have to be like, “Praise!” and am in turn not forced to understand why I like the photo and it never comes up again. I didn’t actually draw a relationship or a connection with something. What if that becomes how I feel about everything? I find it upsetting.

AD: There was this article about how women — I think it was specifically about women —  perceive professional e-mails as “blunt.” So an e-mail without an exclamation point, or punctuated with a period as opposed to a dramatic “Thaaaaaanksssss!!” is more polarizing. I think that now the addition of an emoji to two words can be your exclamation point or extra A.

LM: But do you really want to be communicating that way?

CF: I don’t understand why people are so averse to blunt communication on e-mail. I think if you’re someone who receives a ton of e-mail and there is all this fluff surrounding the question that needs to be asked, you’d prefer if it was quick. Just, “Hey, does this day work for you?” Rather than “Heyyyyyy, it’s so nice to [emoji] [emoji]. We should really get together.” You’re reading through all of this crap just trying to get to the message. I don’t think it’s offensive, I think it’s how it should be — a blunt form of communication.

Esther Levy: E-mail generally has become much more casual. It’s almost like texting. I e-mail my friends more often than I text them. The language has changed. But with emojis, I don’t think it’s so much that they’re replacing our vocabulary as they’ve become a vocabulary in their own right. So that “praise hand” emoji is expressing something that you can’t necessarily say in words. Its best communicated with that graphic.

LM: Have you guys had similar difficulties as far as expressing yourselves?

AD: Yeah. Recently I’m like, “What’s that word for that thing that you walk on?” And someone’s like, “Your feet?” Yeah. Thanks for that word! I always thought that was by nature of the fact that we’re writing all day so our brains sort of fry out on the easiest words. I’m even having trouble speaking right now. I always thought that losing words was sort of an occupational hazard/a part of life and I think it’s going to happen regardless of emojis. I think texting and the shorthand vocabulary that follows cannot be stimulating our minds. It’s not like we’re playing Luminosity games.

EL: It’s scary because — not to sound like the premise for a really bad horror movie — before e-mail or typewriters existed people used to hand write letters, and they really had to think about what they were going to say. They weren’t going to fuck up that letter because they’d have to get new parchment paper, they’d have to dip that quill in the ink or whatever. We’ve come so far past that point. Again, not to sound apocalyptic, but are emojis soon going to be the primary form of communication? Will we not have to think about what we’re saying and how we’re saying it?

LM: Do you all use emojis?

ALL: Yes.

LM: I think that Esther touched on something interesting in that it’s becoming a language unto itself. Of course, with every cultural trend always comes the sense that there are going to be different classes and groups. There is going to be an elite class who highly intellectualize whatever the trend is; there’s going to be the common denominator who probably popularized the trend to begin with and there will be the stragglers, who just kind of  fall in between those two levels. So does emoji become this intellectual nod to communication without words? Do words become obsolete? Is that what the future looks like?

AD: Words will not become obsolete. People still play Scrabble and I think the New York Times crossword puzzle is more popular than it’s ever been. People will always have a love of words. I don’t think emojis are a replacement of words for real — in digital communication maybe.

When people used to hand-write letters to communicate, there were proper and improper ways to write a letter. I think it was Jackie Kennedy who said that you’re never supposed to begin a Thank You letter with, “Thank you.” You should begin it with something like, “What an evening!” Whereas, if you get a letter now, whether it’s written in chicken scratch or in perfect cursive, you’d be like, “Oh my god! A letter! There’s a natural ebb and flow in that what was popular will fade, and each generation kind of freaks out and wonders what is wrong with the younger generation. I think emojis are just fun.

CF: I do think that they create this easy out to not express what you’re actually feeling. To tie back to what you were saying about emojis in the world of dating, I think that people already have such a difficult time in the modern age of dating, trying to express themselves or trying to decode what someone says, and I think it’s a really shortchange way to communicate with someone you’re into. Or someone you’re not into! I think that emojis can definitely be used as a tool for avoidance.

We use emojis to communicate things that are difficult to communicate. It’s like, “I don’t know how to respond to this. I don’t actually want to think about this. I’ll send back an alien and a peace sign!”

It’s a way of commenting on something you don’t actually want to comment on.

AD: I think emojis can also connote a sense of closeness. It’s an added element that says you’re on a different level. I think texting puts you on a different level: okay you have my cellphone number, we’re on a personal level, we’re not just e-mailing, you can literally contact me at 4 am. And then with emojis, it’s like, we’re not just texting about a plan to meet for a business drink. We’re one step closer to one another. And nobody uses emojis to communicate feelings of anger. Nobody that was truly furious would send the red-faced emoji to communicate that.

LM: Maybe that’s why you think it’ll continue to be “just fun,” because people aren’t offended by emojis. I can send you a knife emoji and the assumption is not that I am attempting your murder.

It’s equivalent to sending someone a grating e-mail and then signing it off with a smiley face.

CF: If anything, emojis are useful in indicating sarcasm because that’s something that’s difficult to detect in text messages. You know, people will put a lot of one letter in a word to show exaggeration (heyyyyyy), but sometimes it’s difficult when you’re looking at straight words with no affectation to them — it’s difficult to decipher what people mean. They can sound short or angry when they’re not at all. Putting in an emoji can aid someone’s personal style when you’re using something as cut and dry as texting.

AD: Everyone says that the kiss of death is a single “k,” but if you text a “K” with a red balloon, you’re like, “Well that ‘k’ wasn’t so bad!”

LM: How long does that last though, right, as it continues to function as a language that we use? Much the same way that e-mail used to feel official but has now become a more informal way of communicating with each other.

AD: It’s similar to when hashtagging took on a life of its own and left the twittersphere and became sort of this wink wink. They almost functioned as a cover up (#sorryforselfying); they were ironic. But now you can just put two glitter signs on each side of your comment and know that the person is being completely ridiculous.

Do emojis bother you as a writer, Leandra?

LM: I certainly wouldn’t use an emoji in a story. I think that completely detracts from any sort of gravitas you’re trying to convey.

CF: I’m kind of a fan, though, in text messaging — I guess they now seem a little bit creepy — of sending the semicolon parenthesis old school smiley face.

LM: To who?

CF: A lot of people.

EL: Those do seem more genuine.

AD: It’s a vintage wink.

LM: Do you think emojis are really flirty?

CF: I think they’re kind of gendered too.

AD: They are gendered. The connotation when a girl uses one versus when a guy uses one is a total double standard. But to go back to your first point, I don’t think they’re effecting our ability to articulate ourselves any more than slang has throughout language. Slang is important because it dictates what is happening in the culture at that time; what are the trends, the cultural themes? So emojis are clearly reflective of this age.

LM: Ah, digital slang.

AD: Right, which is universal. I don’t think it’s hindering anything and I don’t think it’s blocking our ability to communicate any more than slang has.

EL: But I feel like slang is a response to what’s going on culturally. I just don’t see that with emojis.

LM: But what Esther’s saying is that they don’t hold any weight or real significance in the way that slang has. But maybe emojis do speak to the larger cultural narrative, which we can’t see because we’re so deep in it.

AD: When I think about emojis I think about the online age, and about quick, instant communication and gratification. I think that our culture is hyper-PC right now and although the joke is that emojis are in no way PC, they can be used as tools to avoid offending someone.

Maybe they’re indicative of the fact that we are becomin culturally enmeshed because of the Internet. My cousins play some soccer game on an app with kids across the world because of the Internet. Maybe they don’t speak the same language, but they can send emojis.

EL: It’s definitely a universal language in a time when everybody is so connected via the Internet.

CF: As a technological feat, emojis are pretty exciting because we did have these pretty janky smilies for so long, and once there was this whole arsenal of images and cartoons that you could use to express yourself, it was fun and exciting. The novelty hasn’t worn off yet. I don’t know what the next thing is but I definitely think it’s still fun.

EL: Talking emojis!

AD: Yeah, emojis that say words. Leandra, I remember you saying that stickers were the original emojis. The 90s are back across the board, in music and in fashion. We’re seeing a lean towards 90s pop culture; people are rollerblading again. Maybe emojis are literally indicative of our (sticker) obsession with the 90s. It’s possible.

CF: To go back to what Leandra was saying about commenting on a picture and not being able to articulate why you like or connected with it, I almost think that’s true in one regard, but I also think that emojis give me a universal method of commenting on something I otherwise wouldn’t have commented on. I maybe would engage in something that I otherwise wouldn’t.

LM: I guess I don’t understand why it’s a universal language.

AD: Emojis are universal because you don’t need to speak or read the same language to understand an emoji. A kissy-face is a kissy-face. The beer emoji means “drinks” or “cheers.”

Unrelated, I’m curious to know if emojis are something you can get bored of. A lot of slang gets annoying pretty quickly.

EL: I feel like I am getting bored of them. There are certain emojis — like the red dress fiesta girl — that piss me off. When someone sends that one, it feels like a cop out.

LM: It is a cop out. You’re sending it for everything. You’re sending it if you like something, if you just bought a red dress, if you want to dance, if you want to drink, if you’re trying to force yourself into a better mood. Emojis are becoming new forms of umbrella terms.

AD: I don’t disagree but I don’t think it’s so different from what slang did.

EL: But at least slang required you use words. You had to implement them in sentences.

AD: I consider myself such a visual person that there’s some element that’s really satisfying in a good emoji. A bad emoji can — like I said — make me not want to go on a date with someone.

CF: Using emojis in text messages as a diffuser makes things feel less harsh. I prefer sending GIFs in moments of awkwardness or trying to diffuse a conversation.

AD: Esther and I often talk about GIFs when we talk about tweets. We question whether or not we’ve uploaded too many of them on a given day. I always say no, GIFs are great, they’re interactive and people engage with them. But they are almost like an extension of the emoji.

EL: I started using emojis a year or two ago and my friends and I would send them to each other — they were almost too cutesy to not be taken ironically. Whereas now I use them appropriately and they have become a part of my vocabulary.

CF: So what do you feel like their function is when being used appropriately?

LM: Probably just as a point of punctuation, right?

EL: Right, I’m not using them on their own.

LM: My mother-in-law just texted me asking if I felt better and all I’m thinking about doing is sending her the green-faced emoji. I don’t want to say “no” but I don’t want to say “yes” either. It’s a good way of skirting the issue, of not having to answer — which actually further intellectualizes your earlier point, Charlotte, because you’re not giving an actual answer. It’s like, “I’m going to throw something out and you choose where you want it to stick.”

CF: And that’s why I think it convolutes so much with dating.

LM: I very much feel like I’m no longer a part of Generation Y — or a member of the quotient of millennial life that the world is still being built for.

AD: In terms of dating?

LM: I have zero experience with dating apps and zero experience with the way emojis can potentially ruin a relationship. I just can’t be part of that conversation.

AD: So put it in friend context. What if you were in a fight with a friend and they sent you an emoji in the middle of it, wouldn’t that frustrate you?

LM: No, because I’m such an easy going person that I feel like all I would want is for someone to send me an emoji in the middle of a conversation. I’m confrontational, certainly, but I don’t like to fight. I just like nipping issues in the bud.

AD: So if someone sent you an emoji would you take that as a white flag?

LM: Absolutely. I think that goes back to the point we were making earlier; emojis cannot be taken seriously. Maybe that’s why they can’t become their own language and when they do it’s going to really conflate our perceptions of safe places and unsafe places.

AD: I’m thinking about the conversation we had with Stella about anonymous commenters, and about people who are so brave behind their avatars — it’s almost the same way here. You can be brave behind your emoji because you don’t have to say it. Nobody can actually misquote you with an emoji, you can retort that, “Oh that’s not what I meant.”

LM: Right. You can’t be misquoted yet. I guess we just have to wait and see who kills who.

What’s The First Thing You Thought About When You Woke Up this Morning?

This week’s prompt is quite literally as simple as the title’s one question. Seasoned writers will often advise that aspirants keep a pad of paper next to their beds so to have a place to deposit ideas at a literal arm’s length upon waking up.

Incidentally, those first few minutes while we lay in bed and let our minds think aimlessly can make for the most intriguing stories, propelled by fascinating ideas. Give it a try one morning this week. Wake up, let yourself think and write it down.

Then submit it — to write@manrepeller.com, by Thursday, January 29th at 12 pm. Submissions should be ~500 words and if you feel like getting engaged on social media, hashtag #mrwritersclub to show us your progress. I will be waiting, upper inner thigh hair standing upright, breathlessly.

Image via Elle France

5 Things to Do This Weekend

I’m telling you now so you can plan ahead.

Be Blown Away:

If you’re a Beasts of the Southern Wild fan who lives in or close to New York City, visit Manhattan’s Symphony Space this Friday and Saturday evening. For two nights only, the Wordless Music Orchestra will perform with the film soundtrack’s Lost Bayou ramblers while a music-less print of the film streams in tandem. If there’s any better time to use the adjective “magical,” surely it’s now. For tickets, click here.

Get Hooked On Something Besides Phonics or Crack:

Kate Barnett, resident podcast fiend, suggests Invisibilia. The podcast explores “the intangible forces that shape human behavior – things like ideas, beliefs, assumptions and emotions” and claims that through a mixture of personal stories and scientific research, listeners will come away from the series with a new perception of their own lives.

The show comes out each Friday on NPR; catch up on the two full episodes (so far) here, and listen to a preview via Radiolab below where the voices in the intro have just as much trouble with words as Serial’s Mail Kimp.

Relive Your Childhood Dream:

A Space Jam-inspired art exhibit has opened in Chelsea, begging the question: who is more popular on Instagram — Michael Jordan, or a shit ton of mirrored lights?

Multitask: 

Nitehawk Cinema in Brooklyn runs “brunch screenings” each weekend. Says Esther, “It’s basically the best movie theater ever because they serve food and alcohol beverages to your seat.” Alcohol beverages! If you do not live in NYC, you can probably crash on her couch.

Read:

“I’ll Have What She’s Having,” by roving wrinkle reporter Rebecca Harrington. Harrington investigates a variety of diets, from Karl Lagerfeld to Beyoncé to Elizabeth Taylor, though the best one is easily Gwyneth Paltrow’s. You’ll devour it (LOL FOOD JOKE) in an hour and then beg for seconds. (FOOD JOKE AGAIN.)

And if none of the above sounds appealing? Why don’t you try a turtleneck on with literally everything in your closet (but watch your nose ring) while playing your new favorite artist, or, see if you can do your makeup one-handed in two minutes while using the other hand to click through photos of Solange, all the while contemplating: when it comes men in jeggings, what would Penn Badgley do?

That should keep you busy.

When Don’t Turtlenecks Work?

It was on the 29th day of the month of December that a smell so putrid I was almost paralyzed emerged from beneath a pair of arms. (This is deducted evidence given its distinct aromatic flavor.) But who could be so unwittingly soiled as to allow such a scent to disseminate?

Clearly, the gudgeon in question had no sense of social courtesy. Hadn’t his (or was it her?) mother preached the merits of hyg–and just then, while I was about to assign poor judgement to any — nay, all credulous passersby (and their parents) in my proximity, I realized the smell was coming from (drumroll, plz) me.

I’d been wearing the same red cotton turtleneck for exactly 28 days, which I knew because I hadn’t taken it off since I bought it, which happened to have been on the first day of December. I don’t know how you are with applying given information, but again, we’re now on the 29th. Of course, my not taking the shirt off meant that it had yet to meet the laundry machine I suspect could not wait to acquaint itself with turtle.

But given the diverse dexterity it demonstrated to wear so spectacularly under a blouse — any color, any print; a dress — any cut, any length; a sweater — crew and/or v; at least three bustiers I’d have otherwise rendered futile and with all the pants I’ve heretofore known — I just couldn’t.

This got me thinking about when turtlenecks don’t work, which led to a social study in the form of seven outfits, composed using four of my most valued versions of the neck conquerer paired with as much disparity as my closet could project in the form of feathers and summer dresses and polka dots and non prescription eyeglasses, which leaves us here now, reviewing accumulated data on winter’s most decisive beneficiary to once and for all, together forever, answer the pressing question that has plagued the female mind since January 5th, 1946: has Diane Keaton had it right all along?

I’m just kidding, that’s an obvious yes, it’s always been an obvious yes — but the turtleneck, really, sliced bread.

Musician to Know: Tobias Jesso Jr.

It’s not often that you discover an artist who can simultaneously make you sigh, sob, and want to die just so he can sing at your funeral. 29-year-old Tobias Jesso Jr. does just that.

A little over two years ago, the Vancouver native was still coming off a bad breakup and struggling to make it as a songwriter in L.A. His threshold broke after being seriously injured by a vehicle while riding his bike…which someone then stole immediately after.

A scar on his hand now serves as a reminder of the events that ultimately prompted his move back to Vancouver, where he filtered feelings of failure and rejection through an abandoned piano. Reminiscent of a modern day Bob Dylan, Tobias’s soulful voice and words — never precious — convey a beautiful mess of emotion. His sound is like your favorite drink. It goes down smoothly and idles in your blood stream, keeping company your thoughts at the bar long after everyone else has gone home.

In Just a Dream, Tobias sings:

“I can’t explain the world to you. I can’t explain the things that people choose to do.”

His lyrics are blunt and bare-faced. Tobias doesn’t write or sing with arrogance. His compositions aren’t racked with complexity; they’re approachable. Tobias sings like someone who has stopped trying for success. Maybe that’s why he found it.

Tobias Jesso Jr’s debut album, Goon will be released on March 17th.