April 26, 2013

Dress for the part. But what’s the part anyway?

Miu Miu ciré pencil skirt — can it be worn at work?

My favorite fashion shopping website is Net-a-Porter — I think by miles it’s the most functional, appealing and the one with the finest curatorship of clothing among all.

Net-a-Porter used to have a workwear section, dedicated to clothes and looks fit for the office, but that should do no wrong in a fashionista’s eyes. Plenty of Roland Mouret and Victoria Beckham there, a bit of McQueen and Stella — tailored stuff mostly, structured totes and pumps. I looked for the section now, and it’s gone, they only have now vacation and wedding “shop by occasion” sections. But the existence of the section is unimportant; what matters is… what is adequate workwear after all?

Can those McQueen cropped metallic honeycomb-lace pants be taken to the office?

Here’s why I’m saying this: where I work, people dress very badly. If they wear suits — men or women alike — those suits are usually very plain and sometimes, straightforward cheap. Cufflinks for guys are unthinkable — we have meetings with customers or suppliers from different companies and they always come to those wearing what seems to be their finest, while our representatives have the practical simple plastic buttons doing the job of keeping their pulses covered. Should I come to work decked out in VB in such a scenario?

I don’t posess anything designed by Posh Spice, but I do own a burgundy silk pencil skirt by Lanvin that is perfectly office-friendly according to Net-a-Porter’s workwear rules and cost me only a 100 USD (thank you Century 21! I love you!), and I wear it to work like nothing else mattered. And it doesn’t to me, but to my colleagues, it’s like I’m the idiot who really dresses up for work, or at least that’s how I feel. Maybe they’re thinking “oh my good, she looks so chic” as they stare at me. I don’t know.

What is it to look professional, and more: how much of yourself should you compromise in that task? Because it’s not just about the type of fabrics and cuts and shapes that are allowed, there’s a quality issue there and a taste factor that are both very subtle, counterintuitive even — you can’t be really too tasteful at work, you can’t colorblock even if it’s Roksanda Ilincic who’s doing it for you, and God forbid you’ll wear tailored beehive McQueen pants, even though they’re basically black with a dash of gold.  Is it even good to be noticed at work by your impeccable, somewhat sartorial tastes in fashion, and anyway — should you care?

April 8, 2013

A woman’s farewell to the Iron Lady

Margaret Thatcher, the most important woman of the 1980′s — I dare say, at least in politics, the most important woman there ever was in the XXth century — has left the building.

Do you have mixed feelings about her (do you even know who she is? I mean, I am young, or at least I think the status should apply to anyone under 30, but apparently people are even younger nowadays)? I do.

On one hand, a woman who knew how to be authoritative without emulating a man; she would often wear a double string of pearls as homage to her twins (a girl and a boy) and work a very nicely done hair and make-up, at least after she became Prime Minister. With a Queen and an Iron Lady, a leading woman by birthright and another by the will of the people, the UK in the 80′s was pure girl power. Right?

The politics of Thatcher was pretty much the politics of the conservative men of her time. Sometimes, it felt like she wanted to be the toughest one in the room — except the room was full of gentlemen and that was still a time in which an analogy between the nuclear arms race and boys measuring up their genitals against each other in the boy’s room felt particularly convincing. As a woman who perhaps had done too much to fight for her place and as far I know, never raised any feminist flags — I believe that actually makes sense if her obsession with liberalism is considered, and that she probably felt that anyone, men or women, should make do with the opportunities presented to them instead of whine about the status quo (not that I agree with that) — Thatcher just played the same game that was being played by everyone else, and everyone else meant the fellas.

A grocer’s daughter who fought for her place in the sun, she felt everyone should fight for their goals instead of having them handed to them by the government. War against Argentina, privatizations, and a fierce defense of capitalism, in its neoliberal form to be more precise, have made Thatcher quite the dubious political figure — if not one of the most important in the XXth century, coming right after some important dudes like her colleague Prime Minister Churchill, FDR and Charles de Gaulle, and also some more well liked and equally relevant guys such as Nelson Mandela and Gandhi. I’m not sure Ronald Reagan was more important than her (although he did engage into some wicked economics who pretty much ruined everyone else’s during that decade, while her thing had a more restrictive damage. Tough medicine, they say). Their symbiotic behavior was, however, quite emblematic of a time to establish Capitalism’s hegemony or kill us all trying.

Can we separate the Iron Lady from the woman who almost as if unaware of her gender disadvantage in her battlefield of choice has come to be a legend of willpower in politics? Can the deeds be admired without agreement with the ideology behind them? Should gender issues be altogether forgotten as women, homosexuals and every cross or multi-gendered individual (and to be quite precise — is it even possible that anyone isn’t in some degree with a foot in each gender anyway) go about their struggles, as apparently they were for  Mrs. Thatcher at each time she passionately fought for every of her beliefs? Is it time for difference to be forgotten, because it is so obvious and at the same time, so repeatedly proven meaningless, or is it still not, and fight still must be fought for us women to gain our places in the sun without having to play the games of the men who are in power?

April 5, 2013

Thoughts about femininity inspired by the Mrs. Carter Tour

I guess the drone has become more important than the Queen B

What Beyoncé is trying to do with her Mrs. Carter Tour is a tricky and noteworthy move: she’s affirming her freedom to place her marriage and her experience of raising and having a family, a child — her man’s name the symbol of such — above her own professional persona. What started with her affirming that if a man liked it, then he should put a ring on it, very cohesively led to this point in which the sexy lady decided to shout to the world, rather loudly, that married life is delightful, delicious, de-lovely.

Generous displays of legs and cleavage aside, Beyoncé demonstrates to have a very, very conservative personality — at least when we’re talking about love. She does it without denying female power, saying that it is us, girls, who run the world; however, that doesn´t stop her from telling men they’ll only have her through marriage. Now, she’s not only married, but making a point out of being known as a particular man’s wife.

I guess I don’t have a problem with a woman who says she wants to get married. Honestly, I do to. It’s fine that this is important to people. I think the not-so-early feminist approach to sexuality as a right to, say, promiscuity, somehow became a bit of a dictatorship — as if wanting to only have sex with a person you truly love was a dishonor to the feminist cause, as if sexual freedom had to mean having a generous amount of partners to account for. I guess the whole point is to be able to choose freely and not be judged for your personal beliefs and interests concerning self-presentation, love and sex, right?

In this sense, I enjoy Beyoncé’s message: to be free means to be free, including the freedom of publicly loving to be in a family and to have your husband and your children. It’s like saying, hey, I’m not eating frozen food for the rest of my life just because cooking was imposed to women before me and now women should prove to men they are not here to cook for them (nor themselves, nor anyone. ANYONE!). I like cooking, I like sewing, I’d love to be able to spend a lot of time raising my kids, which are non-existent at this point but shall be made in a reasonably near future, and I don´t think I´d ever be able to hire a maid to clean my house because I feel like a house is too personal a thing to be cleaned by someone else (would you hire someone to wipe your ass if you had money to do so? that’s how I feel about someone being paid to do my dishes). I also share most housekeeping activities with my roommate-partner who happens to be a man and who happens to be a person I really enjoy pampering when I’m not tired from work or anything else that might tire me, and that goes both ways too. To take that message about yourself to the general public is fine and I think is a valid message about femininity.

However, however, Mrs. Carter, that’s not quite the right message. I think with this move Beyoncé takes a strange step towards confusing family with the male authority over the family. And that move takes the flavor of all other interesting ones for me. No, no, Beyoncé, you’re not Mrs. Carter; you’re Beyoncé, not just a man’s woman, and you love your family and you love motherhood and you love your man.

March 13, 2013

1993: Experimental Jet-Set, Trash and No Star @ the New Museum

SetWidth570-Screen-Shot-2013-02-11-at-12.47.39-PM

The New Museum is currently showing a collection of works produced in New York City during the year of 1993. For those who do not remember (or eventually did not quite live through) the early 90′s, those were messy times surrounded by a very strange sentiment of war being over and then not quite; of rethinking the concepts of identity and otherness through the lenses of those who braved a new world that became completely western — or not; that unwelcomed entirely any form of dictatorship — with a few exceptions; marked by the massive integration of the European continent and the silently (maybe not that much) unwelcome dependency the American Way of Life developed towards its Latin-American immigrants. It was the times when some of the most beloved idols revealed themselves as homosexuals and died of AIDS (and I honestly admit I think only of Freddie Mercury here, but that man’s voice and presence was worth about 20 of the other icons around by then and represented oh, so many people’s pain at that time); times when being a woman started to mean something different at the office and at home, but not entirely.

This exhibition takes us back to a time when wearing black from head to toe actually made a lot of sense. Many were in grief for loved ones that in their death bed, suffered from some bizarre moral stalking that welcomed disease and death as a fit punishment for defying whatever authoritarianism they called virtue. Many could not be cheerful thanks to the end of the nuclear threat when the sort of immaterial Star Wars that marked the Reagan government in the 1980s was replaced with a very real Desert Storm in the early 1990s by his successor, Mr. Bush, the father (as now he’s come to be referenced). All this pain and questioning is there, clearly exposed in the many floors of the beautiful New Museum, in a very crude and honest way to try to make sense of that strange new world.

Femininity and homosexuality intertwine in a discussion about who has the right to define and possess gender, showing itself in a variety of works that expose the many forms sexuality can take in a challenging, almost aggressive form, as if daring the viewers to look away, testing their ability to defy convention and regard difference as the most normal part of life in society. The early 1990s were more than 20 years ago, friends, and those were vastly more flourishing times for radicals and moralists, people who would throw AIDS in the face of homosexuals and discriminate immigrants as the source of disorder and economic crisis. By then, the faintest hypocrisy was still not needed and such positions could be voiced far, far more openly then it is possible today. The strength of the reply as voiced in the works selected for this exhibition reflects the vicious forms of hate directed to whoever was elected as the other, the minority.

I strongly recommend this exhibition should you be around NYC until the 23 of May. It´s not like Bowery isn’t a nice place to be, anyways, and the New Museum is absolutely gorgeous and has a wonderful terrace with a great view that should not be missed. Be prepared for bad taste — it’s the early 1990′s after all — and matters you will feel are dated, or treated in a somewhat radical way. When you realize you are entertaining that sentiment, remember why you do it — because they did it that way back then so that you wouldn’t have to a few decades later.

March 7, 2013

Impressionism, Fashion and Modernity @ the Met

Impressionism, I believe, is probably the most popular and adored of the art movements. When confronted by works created by masters such as Monet, Manet and Renoir, I believe very few do not experiment a sense of awe and amusement. The special exhibition Impressionism, Fashion and Modernity at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, however, subtly lets us into the backstage of the construction of this powerful unanimity that circles impressionist painting, taking us right back to the trenches from which it emerged: the Parisian high society.

When reading about it, at first, I figured the exhibition would just cater to a certain historical curiosity, allowing us to literally immerse ourselves in the fabric of time and materialize the impressions of textures the artists had delivered. What was waiting for me there was instead a very relevant contribution to the comprehension of the Impressionism movement as a integral part of the French society, an art embedded in the small politics of relevance that we may not fail to spot in the art scene of our days, but we might forget was also present even when the works in question hold, as of present, the status of undeniable masterpieces.

The Impressionist movement relates to modern ideals in that it both denies and affirms the perennial by emphasizing the present, the moment; representation is embraced as such and detaches from the contradictory obsessions for both ideal and reality that permeates art in the days of yore. The ephemerous, the impression, gains immense importance, being, in fact, what is truly worthy to be captured. And portraits cease to function as documents meant for posterity that idealize their objects as great warriors, lords or saints and instead become a statement of their personality and uniqueness: enters style as an immense part of this equation.

The first piece of the show is a very fine green and black striped silk-taffeta dress that was worn by Monet’s wife Camille as she modeled for one of his paintings. Through the subtile curatorship, we are led to understand how the fashion in the pictures would attract curiosity and interest as much as it does now in celebrity pictures and Vogue Magazine. It was the majestic dress that has caught the eye of the viewers in the salon where the painting was first exposed.

A painting then was as powerful a status indicator as being invited to shoot an editorial could be, except the concept here was far broader, extending to intellectual and personal wealth implications in a way that being cover of Harpers’ Bazaar never will. The most fashionable ladies, on the other hand, were also and simultaneously the best sources for great composition — that´s when you realize the colors and the textures and the ruffles and laces were all there, were sewn together by someone and worn by someone else that mattered to a picture because they were in possession of them, and not the opposite — and the finest patrons available for an artist, as they used their influence to get the works in which they had modeled into the finest exhibitions and salons, making sure they would grant their portraits the status of great art.

To be immersed in the particularities of real life instead of the usual larger than life feel I get from the Impressionism movement made me actually feel closer to understanding what it was truly about. Somehow, the ego-trips  inspired by Facebook and Instagram today seem a bit less current when we are confronted with this century old brand of vanity, the same look-at-me-being-tremendously-charming-while-I-take-my-gloves-off-and-by-the-way-this-is-art-OK?-not-just-me-showing-off-my-designer-clothes-and-being-pretty sort of thing made possible by such powerful artists. Who can say to which point they truly subscribed to portraying the mundane, even though they did it so remarkably? It is made clear in the exhibition that the likes of Monet and Renoir clearly understood that, on top of the aesthetic revolution they were proposing and of the truth behind their own brand of modernity, there was good fame and money to be made out of reframing the superfluous routines and interests of the upper classes into art.

(all pictures from the internet due to the fact they were — theoretically — not allowed to be taken)

February 28, 2013

The me trends

20130228-144548.jpg

Sneakers and black and white and the nineties are all the rage, but blue fingernails and red polish on your toes are even more so. At least, with me.

It started during American presidential elections so maybe the choice of color was somewhat unconsciously inspired by politics, but the fact is those colors, combined, remind me instead of Superman (which are intentionally the same as the American flag, I know; Superman IS America, both a farm boy who made it in town and a hero, each side of his personality also one of the Great Struggle for Freedom).

Blue nails work beautifully with red hair, so it’s been hard to get over that. Red toe nails are good with every shoe there is. Together, they make me feel like a superhero; how can this sentiment be overcome?

20130228-144155.jpg

This is to convey a less superficial point than to simply advise you to follow my personal nail embellishment mania. In fact, I think the me trends are the ones that make our personality surface. There is a lot to be said about the likes of Wintour or Lagerfeld: if anything, they have a signature style, something so rooted in their self images it never gets more than slight alterations. On the other hand, most people do change (see: family album) but those who do it in spite of themselves are the weirdest to watch throughout the years.

I think we always should give in to our personal convictions regarding style, in spite of what is said or seen on the scene. Don’t try anything you feel is ridiculous or do indulge in something you are dying to try even though no one said you should.

On a side note: pink and green have been really da thing for a while now. That is, for me (pink pants, green shoes, red toe nails — put on a white blouse and it will work with the blue on your hands, too!).

February 21, 2013

Midway

This is a beautiful narrative of the sad story of the side effects of the consumption age. We need conscience — of our existence as part of a much larger whole upon which we depend — to start playing an immense part of our daily lives and habits right now, and this movie might just take us a step closer to that place.

I think a key reflection in our times is about the cyclical nature of infinity. I believe the abolishment of ends — of our youths, of our lives, of our love, of our things — has been the basic human obsession since those times when Richard Strauss’ Also sprach Zarathustra began resounding in our species’ ears.  However, as far as our intellect can reach, the key element to permanence is impermanence — cycles that transform matter into energy into different matter, transformation. The parts must have a finite existence for the whole to continue healthily being. And while the broader spiritual point — to find peace in our short lives by understanding ourselves as temporary forms and consciences, parts of the Universe that were cut in the shape of us for a while — is relevant and should somehow be taken, the case here asks for a specific question: should we continue depending so hardly upon products that have such unnatural degrading cycles?

Let us all go throwing bones up again and see if we can take our history towards different solutions.

February 19, 2013

All the CIA ladies

the human spies are women

Having recently finished my prep for the Academy Awards — I have already watched all of the Best Picture nominees, which covers a lot of other categories as well — I did notice the divide between the two trends of favorites — American slavery versus the CIA. While I did have a hard time deciding between Argo, Django Unchained, Amour, Silver Linings and Zero Dark Thirty, in the end, what I truly hear my heart singing is Argo fuck yourself.

That, however, is just a practically unrelated introduction to the matter of CIA ladies. If teenage vampires and the revamping of Snow White (and as of later, Grimm princesses in general) have been ruling the world of television and cinema for a few years now, the women at the Company have been given their fair share amount of spotlight without me particularly noticing it until now: Homeland, of course, Covert Affairs, Zero Dark Thirty.

I guess there has been no relevant tale of female spies since Mata Hari, who is, by the way, not a fictional character (but perhaps I’m just not knowledgeable on this particular subject, female spies, and it is just I who have not heard of the others). That of course until now that we have Claire Danes, Jessica Chastain and in a lighter mood, Piper Perabo representing for us the true personal hardship that is endured by the good covert people gathering intelligence for America at the Agency.

Argo — like I said, my favorite movie this year (except for Intouchables, which in fact was my favorite movie this year, but it’s just not running for the Oscars) — is a (true, or almost) tale of bravery and patriotism, spiced up with a delicious dose of nonsense and of course, success, and I do love a happy ending. The main character played by Ben Affleck is a flawless man — in fact, his flaws are those of others, such as his wife, who has left him for not being able to cope with the secrecy that came with his job. His thoughts and actions are all mission and country, plus he’s the coolest CIA agent ever, with some amazing Hollywood connections. This, I repeat, is the portrayal of a real man, not a James Bond or a Jack Ryan (though he does remind me of the latter).

The CIA ladies, however, are problematic. Annie Walker from Covert Affairs is the one with the least problems — she falls in love with some very wrong dudes (such as an FSB spy or a rogue ex-CIA agent) and sees her relationship with her sister become a very difficult one from the moment she joins the Agency. Carrie Mathison from Homeland is on the verge of lunacy, having bipolar and borderline personality disorder and falling in love with even more wrong dudes such as an American (cough British) soldier turned by the TV series’ resident Bin Laden. Maya from Zero Dark Thirty has no love life — no personal life at all — and no particular issues with promoting torture. As the years go by and she sees many of her friends die in the hands of Muslim terrorists, the quest for Bin Laden (the real one in this case) becomes a personal matter to her.

What they all have in common is that they have deep personal issues (even if due to the complete absence of a personal life) and that they follow their instincts almost irrationally, or at least that is how their colleagues often perceive their initiatives. Brilliance is eventually conceded to those women, but always at the great cost of being on the verge of losing all credibility. On the other hand, the male spies we have come to know are creatures of distinct rationality and perceived audacity, not lunacy (we should perhaps nod to the construction of the new kind of fucked-up James Bond, who is, however, at least how I understand it, on a carefully crafted path to becoming the good old proper one), who do not have any particular concern about their family and friends that are worthy to be portrayed for longer than five minutes per episode, if that much.

Basically, the women were chosen to portray frailty — an angle rather absent from the espionage thematic until our recent times. The question remains — what lies behind the media choosing the female to represent the human side to anything? Something of which to be aware.

February 7, 2013

Try and travel

I don’t know how much YOU know about this, but planning a trip has become a far more rewarding activity than it was only a couple, maybe three years ago.

You would say, well, we all have online maps in our palms now. Yeah, that helps. I can say with much accurateness that easy wi-fi was not as easy to find outside of the US (and that includes many a big city in Europe) a mere three years ago, in spite of us being well ahead in the iPod revolution. For instance, I’m not sure if I was the idiot (be kind if that is the case) but when I went to Barcelona some years ago, I couldn’t access their free public wireless network, no matter how hard I tried — I was standing right there beside the W signs and nothing, nothing happened. So yes, internet connection and digital guides do help a lot. But I’m talking about more than that. I’m talking about pre-travel, something that is not that dependent on mobility. I’m talking about content.

I think one of the reasons why I like to share my trips with you in this blog is because I have enjoyed so many good experiences that were made possible by kind people who shared them on the web just to help other travelers have a better value for their time and money in a place they are willing to know, but still don’t. It’s very hard to connect with the spirit of cities such as New York or Paris without having someone with whom you share some affinities to help you through the choices, and not many people have close friends in all the right places.

Now… I don’t know. I think it’s somewhat easier. We have Booking.com and TripAdvisor doing an amazing job at uniting and organizing the community of travelers around the globe for the noble cause of helping fellow tourists find and judge his possibilities for themselves, allowing them to understand how their needs and interests will be met at each place. We have bloggers. And I think we have more. We have local magazines online. Anyone who goes to NYC can type “10 best burgers nyc” on Google and find lists crafted by a variety of authors from blogs to Zagat to CBS. Have an idea, search it, you’ll easily know. Or do the opposite: read about an idea, search it, and decide if you’ll do it.

I think over the years I’ve become pretty good at planning trips packed up with details — I’ll tell you about some itineraries and you’ll think I did them in a week when in fact, I compressed them in three or four days (without rushing, of course — it wouldn’t make sense to brag if otherwise). I’ll share my innocent tricks with you, and pardon me if you feel they are obvious — I feel I have many friends who would find this extremely helpful, but maybe they’re just not very smart. ;) These will work for a good bunch of places, especially urban destinations.

keep a Google Maps tab at your service at all times – the other must-have tabs are those relating to public transit information, such as bus schedules and subway maps. This is how you optimize your daily schedule.

if you have NO IDEA of what to do - it was like that for me when I went to Singapore last year — you don’t need to buy city guides anymore. Just type: things to do in [city of choice] on your favored browser and check out what the first ten results have to tell you. This will provide you with a fine beginning, but it is only the beginning.

check tips that come from many different types of sources – don’t limit yourself to advice coming from specialized websites, because you are likely to get mostly the very touristic information — they are still what is predominant on travel-oriented websites because tourists are not locals and therefore usually are more interested (or only have time, or money) to go to the most famous places and landmarks. Look for personal blogs instead of just the travel-oriented ones — see if you connect with the blogger and if you do, try their tips out. Check stuff like the fashion magazine’s culture and travel sections (here’s net-a-porter’s this week), entertainment sections on local news websites or, I don’t know, The Economist. Seriously, the Economist. Or Richard Quest’s Business Traveler on CNN. I also like to check the what to do section on hotels located where I’m going on the Jetsetter — that’s how I found out about the amazing Royce’ Chocolate and their delicious maccha nama chocolate in Singapore (and now I just found out they just opened a store in NYC!! go, New Yorkers, go! It’s fresh news, from less than two months ago. Madison and 53rd).

deciding where to stay - I don’t go any farther than Booking.com, but I always double check on TripAdvisor the guest’s opinions on the hotels I like the most and I ALWAYS check at the hotel’s own homepage if their rates are actually lower than those offered on Booking.com — often they are, so don’t skip this step unless you don’t care about your money.

do stuff you like – don’t just go see buildings and landscape. Do that too, but what else do you normally enjoy doing? Check the entire cultural schedule: the opera, the ballet, the classical and rock concerts, the plays that will be on while you are in town. I caught Simon & Garfunkel in Paris, and got an autograph from Paul afterwards; unforgettable. Think of jazz joints, cheese festivals, film festivals. Think of things you really wanted to buy but are very hard to find at home (if at all possible) such as, I don’t know, lavender honey, or really good and cheap foie gras. Go beyond spirits, chocolate and electronic devices…

if you do want to buy spirits and chocolate – at least while in Europe try to get them at the local supermarkets. It’s much, much cheaper than at the duty free shops.

after figuring out all the places you’d like to visit, do two things – find them on the map and check their websites. You must know their opening hours, closed days and free admissions/pay what you wish days (in NYC and Paris this might save you a fortune if you have the time to juggle your museum days according to their free admissions schedule). Have all this information clear in your head and start planning each day in a way that, if possible, you will not spend more than half an hour in your transportation mode of choice (including your own feet) from one place to another. Standard time spent on medium sized museums should be between two and three hours (see Guggenheim, MoMA, the Pompidou if you’re fast) and there is no limit for places like the Louvre or the Met.

try to insert your sightseeing (like: oh, there’s the Chrysler!) in your transportation schedule – like this: when you do your must-do walk up the 5th Avenue, stop for pictures at the Empire State, stop for pictures at the Chrysler, stop for pictures at St. Patricks Cathedral, etc. etc., arrive at MoMA.

no hesitation, make reservations – for EVERYTHING that is important to you, especially if there are no costs attached.

try to have a plan B for the cases when you miscalculate distances or the time spent on a particular place – see: Louvre. It can take many entire days… don’t give it less than four or five hours. You may have to skip a place on your original schedule and well, it’s nice to be able to still go there anyway at another time.

save the nicer meals for the evening – except if you have good reason for them to occur during lunch. Check the Michelin guide — even if you’re not into spending much — and all the specific local restaurant guides (again, search too in fashion magazines, business and news websites…). Look for your cravings (1o best burgers…). Don’t ignore market places… they are good and joyful choices for lunch.

there is no reason why you will exceed your budget on a trip – prices are sooo available on the internet. Do your research. Send emails. You can even decide what you will eat at most restaurants in large cities and know what the check will look like before even leaving for the airport. Remember: food, drink, gratuities, taxes, hotel, public transportation (calculate your trips per day to see what’s best: a three-day passport or purchasing each ticket at a time), admissions, purchases, plus 10 to 20%. This is what you’ll likely spend if you’re organized.

This is a lot of words, but hopefully an useful bunch of them. So, go plan your trip or something.

January 28, 2013

Forget Rihanna, or: in 2013, live a life without gossip

If you feel the urge to gossip, just go watch Revenge — you´ll have a lot to talk about: most characters are awful people and are very creative in talking behind each other´s backs. The men and the women alike…

Gossip is one of those subjects disturbingly related to women: put it together with fashion and miracle diets and you have yourself a so called female magazine, as opposed to masculine matters such as politics, naked gals and cars. A protest against this categorization on the present post would sadly be absolutely pointless, as a good number of magazines targeting each gender is there to confirm this unfortunate truth about how simplistically the ladies and the gents are generally portrayed.

The worst part of it though is our passive acceptance of these generic portrayals; worst, we indulge in it, by consuming products that define who we are in a quite unflattering way. I diet, I enjoy fashion, and as a human - not as a woman - I do fall prey of that morbid curiosity that results of – and from – gossip.

But here is what I don´t understand: while dieting is O.K. and fashion is fun, and both matters can have somewhat uplifting effects on a person´s life – after all, being in a great shape (thin, in our days) and dressing well are self-esteem boosters – gossip thrives in the most horrible emotions, envy being at the top of the list. So why admitting in such an open way our deep, dark feelings towards a gorgeous, talented (this may be open for discussion), millionaire young girl from Barbados because she has offered the world, publicly, something that can be constructed as a personal flaw (her love for a man who once hit her – No, I´m not defending men who hit women. I just think my speech against domestic violence doesn´t need to turn Rihanna into a victim or an idiot or into anything at all)? Worse, why should women accept gossip is a gender-related concern? Because we do it by consuming self-proclaimed feminine products that insert gossip as part of what is offered.

On top of already having tried a few times to induce you to abandon your Facebook, Instagram and Twitter accounts — surely without success — I now take an even wider step by urging you to share with me one of my favorite New Year Resolutions: no more gossip, in none of its forms.

Hard. Gossip is a favored corporate social interaction: everybody loves to talk about each other at work, usually not in a flattering way nor in the subject’s presence (this is one of the male´s favored form of gossip, at least where I work. Women are far less aggressive on their work environments and more concerned about their friends). Gossip and family — I know it’s what binds mine together on Christmas (and also what sets us apart while provoking epic fights among “enemy” relatives).

The thing is we spend a lot of good energy hating someone else, or simply over-examining their faults. Our attention could be probably put to better use if we just focused on bettering ourselves and finding our own flaws and living our lives instead of wasting time worrying about Rihanna being irresponsible or whatever for getting back with Chris Brown, or getting extremely upset because a third-grade cousin has knocked up a 14 year-old and she doesn’t want to abort and he’s clearly been set-up (even though your cousin is ugly, has no money whatsoever and the girl is underage and he shouldn’t have been playing with games other than those you can play in a public park, some in your family think she’s the bitch here). If you want good and dirty little secrets and a lot of shit to say about dubious people, go watch Revenge — one of ABC’s hit series with the previously sweet (Everwood anyone), now kick-ass manipulative millionaire avenger Emily VonCamp. You can definitely go wild talking behind the backs of every single character in that show, with the advantage that (1) they are really mean. All of them and (2) they are not real, so your conscience is clean.

Do this for me and abandon this preferred form of judgment for good. No more InStyle, no more Kardashians, no more royal pregnancies or marriage scandals, no more taking behind your aunt’s back about her new 24 year old boyfriend. No more telling everyone at work that you saw your boss hand in hand with his assistant on a family barbecue picture his sister published on her Facebook profile. Ride on that boat with me and save your wisdom for the mirror. Forget what else Paul McCartney has included in the lyrics of that (extraordinary) song, and stick with the part that says live and let live.

Tags:
craftedincarhartt

a blog about women who do amazing things

IT GIRL

MODA, MAQUIAGEM E BELEZA

She's got the Mood

Whatever your mood is you"ll find the vibe

Dully Pepper24H

Arte pelo Amor, Arte pelo Mundo, Arte pela Paz!

Amigas de Panela

A rotina e as ideias das amigas gastrólogas com receitas fáceis e deliciosas. Compartilhem todos que como nós são amantes da cozinha!

Eat, Sleep, Television

Watch as I amaze and astound with opinions about what TV shows I like!

The Para-Noir

We drive our deathcrush diamond Jaguar Limousines.

for the love of nike

for the love of nike

Ja'dore By Design

"I Don't Do Fashion, I am Fashion." - Coco Chanel

Mindful Acting

Thoughts of a French expat on acting and being

#the fashion recipes

styles for all types of women by Claudia

FrameWorthyWears

A fashion retrospective from two average gals

Purple Literature

All things random.

JustinaWei

The Fashion/Make up/Lifestyle Blog

CURNBLOG

Movies, thoughts, thoughts about movies.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.