Friday, September 21, 2012

"[T]hey really cut out a lot of the hard work, time and sweat that I put into D.J.’ing."

I now have exactly the cold I should have seen coming given my invincible approach to public transportation (deciding hand sanitizer is all hype) and doing ridiculous things like thinking a five-second rule applies to pastry consumed outside the home. (I was really, really exhausted at the time, and now, accustomed to waking up and getting moving before 6:30, retrieving fallen baked goods no longer sounds reasonable.) Old Savage Lovecasts got me through the train, teaching-adrenaline and iced coffee from the place that adds espresso to that got me through class, but now comes the predictable crash. I was totally going to hold forth on something all kinds of profound, but instead, some links:

-One of the best articles yet about unpaid internships.

-Quite possibly the least news-containing NYT Styles story of all time. Next, perhaps a story about how instead of saying "socialite," we're meant to call them "socials" or better-yet, "handbag-designers."

- Says Gail Collins:

The fund-raiser, a $50,000-a-pop sit-down dinner, was hosted by Marc Leder, a financier who The New York Post reported as having a “wild party” last summer in the Hamptons “where guests cavorted nude in the pool” while “scantily dressed Russians danced on platforms.” You cannot blame Romney for that. If presidential candidates had to avoid all multimillionaires who held parties with naked guests and Russians on platforms, there would be no money for misleading TV commercials. 

-Is having a big chest and small waist something to complain about? Evidently.

3 comments:

PG said...

It's presumably at least as much something to complain about, in terms of expense and inconvenience in purchasing clothing (and especially undergarments), as being so tiny overall that the best-fitting clothes for one are in the children's section. There are several major brands that categorically don't fit women with big chests and small waists, no matter what size you buy. And getting shirts and dresses tailored more narrowly at the waist is far more expensive than getting sleeves, pant legs, skirts hemmed up to be the correct length on a short person.

Phoebe said...

PG, your comment illustrates why the links-roundup approach doesn't always properly convey tone. I totally get this problem, and even think I've blogged about it on many occasions. Re: kids' sizing, its peculiarity these days is that even a (short) woman with definitive curves can wear quite a bit of it. (The hormones in dairy our kids are consuming? Childhood obesity more generically?)

But what I was referring to was more what it means that Christina Hendricks's build was being referred to as an imperfection she miraculously gets around, and not, you know, one of the two versions of the female body our society idealizes (skinny and straight-up-and-down or hourglass).

In a non-links-roundup post, I'd have mused on whether it's good or bad for women that there are these two ideals - it increases the number of women approximating one or the other, but also makes it so that any woman deemed 'what men like' is thought to look bad in clothes, and any woman thought to look good in clothes is deemed 'what men don't like.'

PG said...

Ah, OK, sorry about misinterpreting. The "Evidently" came across to me like this was the first evidence you'd seen of its being something to complain about.