'"Sad Girls 'R Us" is a crass but accurate title for my personal library.'
HALEY, CAN YOU POST THE TITLES OF YOUR ENTIRE LIBRARY PLEASE!?
I hope you punched him and said THERE THAT'S BETTER.
"What I’m waiting for is a writer who understands the complexities and nuances of trying to be a person both on and in spite of the internet; for the kind of writing that gives its readers the expansive, resonant relief of understanding and being understood, of being chastised, forgiven, and encouraged to do better all at once." Hey... Emma? Emma, I think you are that writer. Or at least, for me you are. Please write more. Thank you.
@Lisa Frank @Gleemonex totally! It's a weird, surprisingly complex thing to unpack: I was totally struck by the unbridled cuteness of these lil' tots, but yes, absolutely, there is a socioeconomic aspect to this. The writer and photographer have noted this as well, and made the point that the cost of the meal came out of the editorial budget, as it would any other story (and they were seated in a private room, in order not to distract any of the diners!). But yes, in a country where the income gap is large enough to sail a cruise ship through, the financial aspect of this shouldn't be ignored -- thanks for bringing it up.
My take: the kids are cute, the story is great, and the feature has been done only five times in the past year and a half. I think they realize what they're doing -- and as long as this remains an indulgence and a rarity, I'm A-OK.
I swear I am not one of those Debbie Downer, nobody-gets-to-have-fun-when-there-are-STARVING-PEOPLE-out there types, but: This does not sit well with me. It's kind of cute ... and Shatner knows I love a Very Special Occasion meal at places like this (though I've never been able to score a table at TFL -- yet) ... and my kids would react similarly (although I've already hardcore socialized them to be more fucking polite about stuff they don't like, especially in company, at the table) ... it's just that it raises all kinds of socioeconomic-class-hackles for me. There's something almost sneeringly wasteful about it -- I'm not explaining myself well, but the whole thing made me grimace more than smile, you know?
God yes, thank you.
Just this morning I had a driver say/yell, "Good morning... Good MORNING... GOOD MORNING!!!" to me as I ignored him on my walk to work.
I suppressed the stabbing urges with difficulty.
@beetnemesis Jesus Christ, what has happened to The Hairpin?
I've been enjoying the stuff that the new editors have been putting up so far, but this article is almost identical to something I saw on Jezebel. And the divisiveness and vitriol in the comments thread went right into Jezebel territory as well. I'm not saying there isn't ever a call for this sort of dialogue or language, but I always thought that back in the Edith days, The Hairpin unapologetically just WASN'T one of those times or places. And that's why we loved it.
Dead on. To me, the most interesting part of the show in today's fashion landscape is its use as a social media and marketing tool. Fashion shows really did used to be a very insider-y (from what I understand. I am not an insider) industry function, like a trade show. Now they are, for many brands, the biggest ad campaign of the season. A new sector of the industry has sprung up around getting the right people photographed at the show, filming and producing behind-the-scenes videos, and making sure the show's authorized hashtag is getting enough play.
I don't ascribe to the whole "democratization of fashion" theory because no matter how many people view the livestream of a Marc Jacobs show only a few can still actually purchase the goods. But I do think the round-the-clock coverage and fast fashion boom mean that we cycle through trends a lot more quickly. While this may encourage innovation and creativity, it also burns out a lot of talent and puts a great deal of pressure on brands to stay relevant.