Tieless Trudeau

The Prime minster of Canada comes out to press conferences looking like this:



He's not only tieless but has also ditched his jacket.

But even what passes for ties now is a thin black strip, usually leather. Gone are the days of paisley designs with matching pocket squares. Men have become as emasculated as their fashion shows us.

This past section was written BEFORE I looked up "Men's Tie Fashions" in google (without quotes).

And I found this on GQ's April 3, 2017 issue:



Notice along with the Thin Black Tie ^TM, the top button is unbuttoned.

It was one of the images for the article: Justin Trudeau Just Nailed This Ryan Gosling-Approved Style Move

The article is written by an adolescent thirtsomething, who fawns over celebrity men (including Canada's celebrity Prime Minister), and who has a degree in Fine Arts from Boston. I guess looking at pretty men now counts for an artist's task.


Men in the 1950s
Gregory Peck advertising for Eagles Clothes

For more on men and ties, read The Necktie by The Thinking Housewife.

How to Acquire Style and Substance

Cary Grant, 1957

Below is a correspondence I posted on my style blog in 2013.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A young man recently wrote to me and asked:

Your posts are great and so pertinent to the madhouse we currently live in. I was wondering if you think the slovenly dress habits will be discarded within the next 10 years or so as people get fed up with the general ugliness. Or are they too far gone?

I generally gird myself mentally before I enter the public square these days. I expect to see slobs, hear rude language, be tailgated, walk away from cell phone conversations etc. I'm praying that network news goes the way of dvds.

And the way people let their kids scream and screech!

I think Lawrence Auster called it the age of the "totally liberated self".

Is this anti-culture too far gone? Should we traditionalists run for the hills and try to carve out a little patch of sanity?

George Orwell (a weird kind of socialist) wrote an essay called "Some thoughts on the common toad" and concluded it saying that in spite of the lies spewing out into the world Spring is Spring and they can't stop you enjoying it. A little comfort I guess.

I answered him with what I thought would be a practical guideline on how to maneuver the non-aesthetic mentality of our age:

I don’t know. Beauty, beautiful things, like a culture and a country, take years, centuries, generations to build and solidify. Ugliness and destruction occur in very little time. Even consider dressing: It is easier to slap on anything as opposed to wearing clothes that have an aesthetic sense.

I think our era hasn’t constructed, or built, its aesthetic sense. Other eras built theirs, out of what came from their past. Ours hasn’t bothered with that. I think it stopped soon after the late sixties and early seventies. I cannot think of a definitive eighties, nineties or “new millennium” style, but I can immediately recognize sixties, fifties, forties, thirties, twenties, styles, and further into the past.

I’m still trying to figure out why that is, but I think it happened when beauty was “downsized” as I call it, and when people thought it was too elitist. It probably has to do with equality, as I write here. But the problem with “equality” is that it courts the lowest denominator, so everyone becomes equally ugly.

But, the interesting thing about aesthetics is that it doesn’t require “equality” to function in any and all levels of life. The young shop girl can look beautiful (or at least aesthetically pleasing) and can borrow her ideas form the wealthy socialite to form her own pleasant look. Also, when beauty is around, even in limited quantities, everyone benefits. A beautiful statue in park is for everyone to appreciate. A beautiful lady glimpsed at in her car (in a store, a restaurant, etc.) makes people happy, including the lowly shop girl. Beauty does make the world a better place, I’m convinced.

Anyway, back to your question:

I think it is possible to discard slovenly dress habits, and even sooner than within the next 10 years.

1. You can start right away. For example:

A. Rather than wearing sneakers, always wear good shoes.

B. Dress well when going out, even to the corner store.

C. Of course, over-dressing to the corner store can look odd, so try to fit your dress to the occasion. There are great casual clothes around, and you don’t have to slip on a silly t-shirt or a worn out sweat shirt to go out and buy your milk.

D. Have a good hair cut, perhaps copying a style from another period, or using a men’s magazine for ideas (some have surprisingly well-groomed men models).

E. Try to get things to match, in style, color, design etc.

F. Find good accessories like ties, hats, belts, handkerchiefs, jackets. The whole look matters.

G. Avoid jeans at all costs. They look sloppy, and they are boring and unattractive.

H. And behave well, gentlemanly and chivalrously.

2. Avoid these items:

- Sweat shirts or t-shirts
- Sneakers
- Jeans
- Shorts
- Thematic prints like a shirt you bought at your last rock concert, or the tie with Disney motifs.
- Dramatic prints. Stripes and small circles or diamonds on shirts is as far as you should go.
- Baseball hats
- Odd jewelry, or pierced ear/nose
- Tattoos
- Hoodies

3. Try to find different styles for different occasion

A. Office wear

This is still generally more formal. Even if you work in a casual office environment, dress as if you might meet your next new boss, or your big client.

B. “Street” wear

Street wear is less formal. But you are out showing yourself to the whole world. Do you want to be seen in sloppy t-shirt and jeans, or look nice, presentable and attractive? You can add the thematic printed shirt here, perhaps a Hawaiian shirt for summer, and penny loafers are a good substitute for sneakers. As a hat, a panama hat might be a nice touch rather than that ubiquitous, ugly baseball cap.

C. Week-end and home wear

You’d be surprised at how people dress at home, when they think that “no one” is looking. Of course, their own families are looking, observing and often mimicking. If you have young children, they will be influenced at how you present yourself even at home. Get out of the pajamas and dressing gown mode, and actually wear some real clothes that are not for sleeping in. “Pajama mode” dressing includes baggy sweat shirts and sweat pants, and t-shirts, sloppy slippers/flip flops, etc. Leave the t-shirts and sweat shirts for the garden or yard work. You can be comfortable in a loose shirt and pants. Try a Hawaiian shirt, a short-sleeved golf shirt, sweaters, penny loafers, Dockers once in a while.

D. Visitors/Visiting wear

Dress up when visiting friends, and when friends come to visit. Don’t overdue it, of course, if the event is casual, but look good. Rather than a sweat shirt, put on a dress shirt, or a short-sleeved golf shirt. Try different, subdued colors for a change, like pastel lilac or light blue. Don’t pull out the Hawaii shirt for this one. No jeans, of course, and no sweat pants. But tan Dockers are a good, neutral choice. Penny loafers, and more formal shoes like Oxfords, can substitute for sneakers.

E. Visitors and week-end and home wear are somewhat similar

In a way, you should be ready for some event, even if at home. Some-one may decide to pop in for a visit. Mix your “visitors wear” with your casual home wear when you’re at home.

4. Look for good examples and guides

A. Magazines

Look up GQ magazine and other men’s magazines. Many have surprisingly good selections of men’s clothes. But pay more attention to the ads. The articles are often featuring the next “avant-gard” designer, whereas the ads are more conservative.

B. Tailors

Go to a tailor. Try to find a small, modest, old-fashioned one, who has had some formal or “old world” training. Such tailors are often a wealth of information. Ask for their advice. Have a suit custom made.

C. Formal Occasions

Look around during formal occasions. See what people are wearing for weddings, engagement parties, christenings, office formal parties, etc. Formal wear has been downgraded so much that wedding suits might actually fit your every-day life style.

D. Public Figures

Watch what public figures – news anchors, presidential candidates, Donald Trump, etc. - are wearing. Study how they accessorize with their ties, handkerchiefs, shoes, hats, and even their hair styles. We are still a some-what conservative culture when it comes to how our leaders are dressed.

E. Fashion History

Look up the history of fashion. How did people dress ten years ago, fifteen years ago? In the fifties, or forties? In the 19th century? During Medieval times? You’d be surprised to find that men took what they wore very seriously. A knight is identified partly by what he wears. So is a king. As is an early twentieth century gentleman.

F. Fashion Statements and Items

Find distinguishing items of different eras, periods and styles. It could be the walking stick/umbrella of the English Gentleman. Or the colors of a sixteenth century costume which you can incorporate into the colors of your tie and lapel handkerchief. Or the hats worn in the 1950s.

G. Different Cultures

Look at different cultures around the world and study how they differentiate between formal wear and casual wear (e.g is “casual wear” universal?). Did they have specific, attractive wear for men? Were men and women equally well-dressed?

H. Different Classes

How do the rich and the poor dress? You might think that only the wealthy are concerned with looking good. But, all walks of people dress cleanly, respectably, and with some flair. Poor people in Africa, for example, the poorest of the poor in the world, managed to develop a bright and cheerful style, with imaginative tie-dye, block print and batik fabrics, which million-dollar designers copy as their latest runway creations. Even cheap Walmart clothes are often colorful and attractive.

I. T.V. Shows and Movies

If you watch T.V., try to find shows that can give you good style examples. Subscribe to a “Hollywood movies” channel and watch shows and movies from the forties and fifties. We can still relate to those styles, and in fact they’re making a come-back. Study the suit cuts, the colors men wore, the shoes and ties, the hair cuts. Find what you like, and what can fit into your lifestyle, and just copy it!

Cary Grant shows true style and substance with a simple, relaxed pose (see above image). No aggressive expression, no slovenly style. Here is male aesthetics at its best.

J. Vintage Styles

Look for vintage style magazines (including women’s magazines), style history books, etc., and read about the dress and style expectations of those eras. Go to antique and vintage clothing stores and search their racks. As the shop owners for information. Many of them have a fountain of knowledge about style and design.

5. Ignore those who call you "old fashioned"

The MTV DJs or the slovenly week-end sweat shirt wearers have become standard bearers of our contemporary style. They are NOT experts. If your children or younger acquaintances tease you about your style, ignore them, and continue with what you’re doing. They will come around if they see you’re serious. Young people are susceptible to beauty, both boys and girls. We just need to show and teach them. Adults who tease you with subtle jibes are not worth paying attention to, especially if they are the types that wear the droopy sweat shirts and old t-shirts. They might come around, but don’t be too concerned about that.

6. How to approach those annoying loud cell-phone monologues, and jeans hanging down to the knees

Find it in yourself to “confront” slobs, bad language, loud cell phone conversations disclosing intimate details, etc. Don't do this every day, though, and don't stress yourself out. But, try it once in a while to show such people that they’ve passed beyond norms of decorum. This might get risky since people can get really angry, but assess who you can do it to. People need to know that such behavior is unacceptable.

7. How to personally make a difference

I think revolutionary things start with leaders, or those who take a bold step ahead of others, and who are not afraid of confrontations and negativity. But, prepare yourself mentally, intellectually and personally before you embark on your “making a difference” mission. Here are some things you can start with:

A. Start a blog.

B. Write letters to the editor.

C. Find a magazine, a newsletter, a community paper etc. which will accept your articles.

D. Talk to family and friends about your observations, especially if it concerns them.

E. Make suggestions to your retail stores about clothing items to bring into the store.

F. Form a society like "The Society of Sartorially Conscious People," or "The Well Dressed Group" as you develop ideas and plans on how to make the differences you wish to see around you. Many changes in the past occurred because people formed groups of some kind for support and for strength. Fashion is no less serious, and requires as much energy as any other movement.

8. Change your manners and style to fit your message

A. Please, thank you and excuse me go a long way.

B. Decent and polite behavior attracts people to you and your style.

C. Don’t shirk from full-on arguments, and don’t get bullied by bullies. But choose your place and your manner carefully when interacting with such people. Often, abrasive behavior will only alienate you from others, and prevent you from making your influence. Everyone can a potentially be on your boat, but some more than others.

9. Running to the Hills

I haven’t thought about this. I think it is an option, or could be an option. But this place, this whole place and not some cave in the hills, is our world. I think we need to defend it where we are. We can metaphorically run to the hills by building our own community as I have described above. But that should (could?) be the start of us building our defensive/offensive strategies, when we can begin more concrete changes. I think some inevitable confrontation is looming in the future, so we better get ready now.

10. "Spring is Spring and they can't stop you enjoying it."

And yes, you are right (or George Orwell is right). There are still many beautiful things around us, natural, cultural, familial, and so on. Enjoy the lovely spring that is already here, and the warm summer months just ahead of us. Read good books, look at good art, take care of yourself physically and spiritually. Start a hobby such as photography, woodwork, marathon running, etc., to enjoy life and to keep you in good spirits. We are not here to destroy, but to create.

And be good to people, even the slothful ones.

Nothing

"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music" Friedrich Nietzsche


Derek Hough, the talented dancer from
Dancing With the Stars

I was by the lovey Jubilee Garden in Mississauga when I saw a young man moving gracefully. At first it looked like he was dong some kind of stretching exercise, but he was moving to some inner rhythm. He was not a dancer (I didn't think so) but he was artistic.


The Jubilee Garden as winter approaches
[Photo by KPA]

"Are you an artist?"

"No."

"What do you do?"

"Nothing."

"Oh. What did you study?" I've met before another young man who told me he had recently been a student at the nearby Sheridan College and was going on with more school since he couldn't find work.

"Philosophy," said this young man.

"You're a philosopher!" I concluded, pointing my finger at him telling him off for his lazy withdrawal.

How many times did this young, white man hear that he was "nothing?" In this world where the brown-skinned man rules, where Chinese and Indian philosophers are venerated, where multiculturalism runs the world, the heir to the white western civilization is deemed "nothing."

Does this young man realize that it is this "nothing" civilization that his "nothing" ancestors built which draws all these people here, reaping all the benefits but giving him nothing in return, other than to call him "nothing?"


Derek Hough

The Poor, Discomfited George Clooney

The usually debonair George Clooney looks discomfitted, here with his new wife, Amal Alamuddin

I wonder why?

Here's the scoop on her, from last March 2014 (I collected these from a variety of sources - there may be more to add):

- She’s Druze, which is an offshoot of Islam.

- She is defending Julian Assange, of the Wikileaks fame in his extradition case with Sweden

- Her mother, Baria, is a foreign affairs editor at Al Hayat, a Lebanese newspaper

- She attended NYU School of Law

- After graduation, she joined the New York firm Sullivan & Cromwell, where she worked for three years before moving to London

- She clerked for Sonia Sotomayor when the future Supreme Court justice was a judge at the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which covers New York

- She's worked as an adviser to the UN Special Envoy, Kofi Annan, on Syria

- She has been been Counsel to the inquiry launched on the use of drones in counter-terrorism

- She's the legal advisor to the King of Bahrain

- Sh has written on international criminal law

- She has edited a book entitled The Law and Practice of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon

- At the Doughty Street barristers' chambers, she represented Yulia Tymoshenko, the former Ukrainian Prime Minister

- She represented Abdullah Al Senussi, former Libyan intelligence chief and Muamar Gaddafi’s right-hand man in a case of alleged crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court


Alamuddin with Julian Assange

Clooney looks peaked and stressed. I don't think it is the new life as a married man, as the new life as a man married to Alamuddin. I wonder what they talk about? The terrible United States, with all those war criminals? The wonderful Middle East, blighted and maligned by the West?

Alamuddin looks like she's close to her family. Family dinners must be something special. Debbie Schlussel writes this about her experience with the family:

Over the past few months, actor George Clooney’s been photographed all over the place with Amal Alamuddin, a very anti-Israel Lebanese Arab who worked for the United Nations and represented Wikileaks’ anti-American former chief, Julian Assange. The Lebanese legal book she authored is extremely anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. Alamuddin, who was Clooney’s date to the Obama White House last month, is not Muslim. I’m familiar with Ms. Alamuddin (pronounced “Ah-lah-muh-DEEN”) and her family because I met her and them at the wedding of her cousin in the mid-1990s. They are extremely anti-Israel, and I was subjected to their absurd, non-stop anti-Israel questions and comments as the only non-Arab (other than the bride and her family) at a dinner the night before the wedding.

I went to law school with Alamuddin’s cousin (who has the same last name) and the cousin’s wife. I was friends with the cousin’s wife (who is not an Arab), and when they were dating in law school, I repeatedly heard from him about how he hated Israel and sided with the Palestinians and the P.L.O. Later, when I was invited to the the Alamuddin wedding, I was on the receiving end of more of that. As I noted, I was the only non-Arab at the pre-wedding dinner at Chicago’s now-defunct “Uncle Tonoose” restaurant. They all knew I was Jewish, and the conversations and questions directed at me were a mix of myself as both Jewish museum exhibit and target of anti-Israel questioning. Clooney’s future girlfriend was there, too, and she was in her late teens at the time (I was in my mid-20s).

The situation with the Alamuddin family was surreal, as I was asked repeatedly about “Jewish Europeans” “invading” Israel, er . . . “Palestine.”

Clooney, I think, is in over his head. His Druze-lawyer-anti-Israeli wife will be nothing but a handful. What a stupid man.

And one strange thing. He wore the same suit he wore to his wedding at the Golden Globes. Yes he was there for Golden Globes' lifetime achievement award, the Cecil B. DeMille Award, but doesn't that warrant its own "special" suit?

This is the confident and debonair Clooney of a couple of years ago.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat

When America Was Great

Museum of Modern Art, New York
1956
Medium:Photolithograph
Dimensions:40 x 25"
Gift of TWA

The poster is from a recent Antiques Roadshow. Below is the appraisal's description. It was appraised at $2,500 - $3,000 in the original show in 2009, and upgraded to $3,000 - $4,000 in 2014.

APPRAISER: Let me tell you what I know about the poster. The obvious thing is, it's advertising TWA flights to New York City. The artist signs his name "David." His full name is actually David Klein. And David Klein was a very prolific artist who worked for TWA. This is one of the more recognizable and one of the more popular images that he designed.

GUEST: Really?

APPRAISER: And in my opinion, it is one of the greatest graphic depictions of Times Square. It's a geometric, abstract, almost kaleidoscopic view of this great, bustling intersection. He captures all of the energy, he captures all of the excitement, he captures all of the movement. It was done in 1956. It is part silk screen and part photolithograph. The bright colors have been put on through a silk-screen process, and everything else has been printed via a lithographic process. One of the other great things about the poster is the plane that's on top. The plane is the TWA Lockheed Constellation, known as the Connie. They were considered great airplanes. You see it was a propeller plane. There's the propellers on it. And with these planes, TWA was able to initiate full service to Europe. Now, I'm not the only one who likes this poster. The company liked it so much that they continued to reuse it in subsequent years. But there's one way that we can tell that this is the original printing and not a later printing, and that is the airplane itself. Because shortly after 1956, propeller planes were phased out and jet planes were phased in. So subsequent printings of this poster don't show the detailed Constellation. They show the silhouette of a jet plane actually leaving a vapor trail behind it as it goes across.

GUEST: Oh, my goodness.

APPRAISER: And not only was the company very fond of this poster, but this poster is also in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art in New York-- MOMA.

(More here)

David Klein with his TWA Poster in his studio
Circa 1957

Here is some background on David Klein:

David Klein was born in El Paso, Texas in February of 1918. He moved to California where he attended the Art Center School [later renamed the Art Center College of Design] in Los Angeles.

During the 1930s, he was an active member of the California Watercolor Society. This group of artists often chose to paint watercolors depicting scenes of everyday life in the cities and suburbs of California. They painted directly with little or no preliminary pencil drawings, and used paper as a ‘color’ in a new and creative way.

[...]

David served in the army during the Second World War, where he illustrated numerous army manuals.

[...]

After the war, David Klein moved to New York and settled in Brooklyn Heights, where he would live for the next 60 years. In 1947, David Klein worked as an art director at Clifford Strohl Associates, a theatrical advertising agency. Before long, David became the illustrator of choice for many of Broadway’s best-known shows of the period.

[...]

David Klein is best known, however, for his influential work in the field of travel advertising. During the 1950s and 1960s, David Klein designed and illustrated dozens of posters for Howard Hughes’ Trans World Airlines (TWA).

David’s use of bright colors depicting famous landmarks in an abstract style defined the state of poster art of the period. In 1957 a TWA poster of New York City became part of the permanent collection of the MoMA (Museum of Modern Art) in New York. These works are much imitated and to this day define the excitement and enthusiasm of the early years of post-war air travel. They defined the Jet Set style and have become iconic.

David won numerous awards for Excellence from the Society of Illustrators for his TWA work, including his Philadelphia, Boston, Switzerland, and Africa poster art.

[...]

David Klein also created poster and advertising artwork for several films, most notably Barry Lyndon, The Island of Dr. Moreau, and The Gauntlet.

Although Mr. Klein worked commercially almost until the end of his life, in his 70s, he returned to his artistic roots, focusing his creative energies on watercolor paintings.

[...]

Examples of David Klein’s early and later watercolors are in the permanent collection of the Department of Interior’s Museum.

[...]

(The complete article is here)

Here is the current American Airlines ad:


The image is from the New York Times, which heads the article as:
American Airlines Focuses on the Glory Days of Flying

The text reads:

Modern life affords so few opportunities to think, to relax, to think. Make the most of every moment aloft between New York and Los Angeles or San Francisco. Rest in the fully flat seats of the First and Business Class cabins. Or enjoy enhanced Wi-Fi and a full library of entertainment at every seat. And with the most daily nonstop flights, you can make the most of your time on the ground too.

The legend is back.

NEIL PATRICK HARRIS // ACTOR

This is the homosexual actor who recently "got married," and "has" two children, juxtaposed with the real legend, Gregory Peck. And look at the guilty smirk on Harris' face. And see how Peck stands with such confidence.

There are other interesting things about the dyptich. There is the strange, thin pole, as though keeping Harris "straight." The pole also makes a clean separation between Gregory Peck and Harris, as though there is (or should be) no connection between the two. It is more like Harris who is being kept away, framed away, from Peck.

And there is the insipid colors on the out-of-focus plane positions far behind Harris. Whereas the out-of-focus plane behind Peck is still large enough, and close enough to the foreground, to show its impressive importance, but it is clearly Peck who is the real subject of the picture.

(I don't wish to go on with photo analyses, but the second image with Grace Kelly and Julianna Margulies shows a cropped "American" in the contemporary photograph. We only see ..."ican." This could be "Puertor---ican" since Margulies looks Hispanic. And look at her emaciated face next to the wholesome looks and cheery smile of Grace Kelly)


Grace Kelly and Julianna Margulies
juxtaposed for the American Airlines Ad

Man and technology have diminished in our modern era.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four Good Reasons for Marriage

The Basics:
British Army folding bed: ca. 1860

More of the above at:

Royal Warrants, Circulars, General Orders and Memoranda
Issued by the War Office and Horse Guards
August 1856 - July 1864

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allan Roebuck, over at The Orthospehere writes on the topic of marriage:

I argue here that most men should attempt to marry, for several basic reasons. First, marriage is necessary for the survival of a people. Second, men (and women) need to be a part of a good order if they are to live well and a good social order includes marriage. And three, men were designed for leadership, as they are more attuned to the practical application of truth and justice, and are more able to impose their will on a situation, than women are.[Bolds are mine, for clarity]

He forgot one important point:

Fourth: Wives have a civilizing influence on husbands. Other than the desire to protect their wives, and the children that ensue, the very character of women civilizes men.

I think this is noticeable in the home. Regardless of the domestic influence of the wife (making the house habitable, the environment clean, and the atmosphere peaceful), a husband behaves far more civilly in his home than when in his workplace or other exterior environment.

And if his home life is civil and peaceful, and he has a trustful wife to tend to that, then his external behavior is also affected.

Think of soldiers, who have been away from their homes for months, and whose only company are other soldiers. Their existence, outside of the brutality of war, is a camaraderie of loud, boisterous interactions. They would not behave this way towards woman, and would most likely not behave this way with each other if they were in their homes with their wives and children nearby.

Or think of bachelors. Even those with erudition and great education are victim to the infamous "bachelor's pad," which is really more about having the proper environment to accomplish a purpose, whether it is to write the novel, or to have a place for whisky and frolics. They are content with the basics of domestic life: food, shelter and sleep.

When the purpose is to protect his wife and children, and their upkeep, the man's behavior and environment change accordingly. This domestic civility manifests itself with social and cultural civility, upon which societies, and countries, are built.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Young and Lesbian: An Epidemiology?

Photo from article: "Why Are So Many Girls Lesbian or Bisexual?"
From: Psychology Today, April 3, 2010
By: Leonard Sax, M.D., Ph.D.
These look just like the "college best friends" I write about below

Camille Paglia would be intrigued, and horrified, at this epidemiology of young lesbians, cheerfully "coming out."

Ellen Page

A few days ago, a young and pretty Canadian actress, Ellen Page, declared herself to be a closeted lesbian, that is until that moment when she dramatically announced to whomever bothered to listen: I am gay. She's twenty-six years old at this announcement, but according to her testimony, had been "gay" for years.

I found her video on New York Post's online magazine. It was hard to miss on the side column, with a large photo of her, and the headline: Tired of Hiding: Actress Ellen Page Comes Out as Gay.

Page is claiming that her "coming out" is "a personal obligation and a social responsibility [direct quote from the Youtube video here around the 6:15 minute point]", and is otherwise a "traumatic event."

It is interesting to see that "coming out" in the 21st century is such a traumatic event. I thought we had taken care of stigmatizing gays and had built such a "gay-friendly" world that people were declaring their "true selves" left and right.

Well, not so, apparently. Page tearfully declares: "I suffered for years because I was scared to be 'out'." Didn't Ellen DeGeneres, pernicious model for this young Ellen, present us with her "secret" in a similarly tearful declaration seventeen years ago? Her career hasn't diminished one bit, and in fact has climbed since then.


Page with "girlfriend"

Page was brought up in Eastern Canada, in Nova Scotia. Her parents divorced when she was very young, and her father remarried. She lived with her mother. At about fifteen, Page enrolled herself into a "Buddhist" school, with no academic structure, which emphasized "the arts." And her parents let her do this! Divorce is hard on any child, but a structureless one must be harsh. And worse, letting a young teenager decide on her intellectual and spiritual development is bizarre and cruel.


This is the best I could find of Page with her father.
Notice the impish quality of the father, who looks like he's out with his young son.
But then, what young boy would cling to his father like that?
Such is the ambiguous world of tomboys.


Page with her mother, looking dishevelled and tomboyish.
It looks like they were both out at some film premier,
where Page should be the star, but is upstaged
by her glamorous mother instead.

But homosexuality is still a social stigma, if "celebrities" have to make such a spectacle about their revelations. Normal, ordinary people, those that pay the films and shows to keep DeGeneres and Page in the business, will momentarily forget a gay person his abnormality as long as he entertains well. And if homosexuality is still a social stigma, despite all these efforts to normalize it, then it will always remain a social stigma.

And just in time for Obama's homosexual agenda of equality, the PBS program To The Contrary "for women, by women, about women" (my quotations), recently included on its panel an articulate black women, Danielle Moodie-Mills. I wondered who she was, with her caked make-up and twisted stringy hair.


Moodie on the PBS program To The Contrary, which aired a couple of weeks ago

I found her profile all over the internet, since then. She is a black lesbian, whose "marriage" to another black woman was profiled in the black magazine Essence. They "married" in 2010, Mills at 32 and Moodie 31, and had "been together" for six years before that, which means they started this "relationship" when they were in their early twenties.


Danielle Moodie, on the right, is:
Advisor, LGBT Policy and Racial Justice
Center for American Progress
Nonprofit; 201-500 employees; Think Tanks industry
(LinkedIn Profile)

and Ayisha Millis is:
...a Senior Fellow and Director of the FIRE - Fighting Injustice to Reach Equality - Initiative at the Center for American Progress, where her work explores the intersections of race, class, and sexuality.
(Center for American Progress profile)

They both have those fluffy jobs just right for the Obama administration.

There must be dozens around of these "lesbians" around. Girls walking around the mall, chattering and laughing: are they "young lesbians"? Two young women eating in a restaurant, fancily dressed: are they on a date? A couple, women, picking up a young child at school or at a day care: are they "two mommies"? And so on.

I won't go into the pshychological, sociological, cultural, School of Camille Paglia, analyses of what I'm seeing here, so here's my take, at least on Page, Moodie and Mills.

There is very little information forthcoming from Moodie or Mills. I've gleaned what there is available from various websites and their limited profiles in their professional biographies.

Danielle Moodie

Danielle Moodie's only reference to her parentage (from searches around the web) is a photo of hers which appeared on Essence magazine's profile of her "marriage" to Mills. Here, she is standing with a white man, named as Michael Newton, with the caption:

Dance with my father:
Danielle’s dad Michael Newton was close to tears as he danced with his daughter on her momentous day.

Below is the photograph:


(Source: Essence)

I can only assume that she is adopted. Where is the mother (adoptee)? Why isn't she included in this wedding photograph? Is she white, black, other? What kind of life does Moodie live where she has to call a white man as her father? How hard was this for her as a young girl (assuming she was adopted young)? How much harder did it get as she became conscious of her surroundings? How did the "black identity" culture affect her identity? How does she relate to whites, and to the ominous White Male?

Aisha Mills


Mills posted this photo collage on her Twitter page

Mills was raised by her grandmother. She says: "My entire life, I have been a variety of 'others'." According to this post, her mother had "Asian" roots, but she was raised by her Black Southern Baptist grandparents, as the photos above indicate. The young, light-skinned boy in the photo collage could be her brother. Or is it her dressed in a suit and tie (as a young boy)? Yes! It is her, dressed as a young boy! So there you have it.

And here below, she is with her MIU (Missing in Upbringing) father at her "wedding."


Source: Essence
Caption reads:

Proud Father
Aisha's father James Mills kisses his baby girl and wishes her well on her big day

The Mills-Moodie "elegant affair" of a wedding included baskets of chopsticks. The ominous absence of her Asian mother must make even the most mundane of Chinese objects into bouquets of roses.


Chopstick elegance: Reaching for some ephemeral roots
Chopsticks, from the wedding album by Essence
The caption reads:
Cocktail Hour:
"The entire wedding was an elegant cocktail affair," Aisha explained.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what is it with these young women?

- A chaotic home life?
- A dearth of masculine young men?
- Feminism pushing young women into competitive and masculine roles, where they clash with young men, both the feminized ones, and those standing their ground and refusing to give in easily to a woman-centric environment?
- Black men, unavailable, either through their dropping out of society, their criminality, or their immaturity?
- Men refusing marriage, for fear of repercussions by feminism, and feminist women and wives?
- Men refusing to mature, and instead delaying marriage and family?
- The culture pushing, through mass media, that marriage is not necessary?
- Divorce rates, and divorce costs, high, especially (uniquely?) for men, so many opting out of marriage?
The "otherness" of the other becoming too much to deal with for young people these days, who are not used to natural competitions, and eventually some awe for differences.
- The desire by contemporary people to make everyone the same, to avoid this natural alienness or otherness of people?
- The desire to make everything "nice" and non-combative?

In any case, this "best friend" type of coupling is well suited for girls in college and high school. Under normal conditions, these girls will find staunch mothers or grandmothers who will diminish that seductive environment, give them the education they need, and place them in situations where they can lead a normal life, including building their future families.

The women I've described above are traumatized orphans, both in society and in family. They have been dealt with difficult beginnings. Since their families didn't come through for them, then it should have been up to the larger society to see that they didn't normalize their ambiguities and abnormalities. Now, as adults, they are seeped in their iniquities, and will only further terrorize society. Our job now is to see that they don't do that, and that they don't amass more vulnerable innocents along their way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Parasitic Marriage and the Decline in Happiness

Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers on a panel at New America Foundation conference in 2013.
Their panel was titled: Home Economics: How the Changing Economy Shapes Decisions
to Marry - or Not Marry. (Scroll down to the bottom for the video.)

Stevenson has a Rottweiler's expression, as though she's ready to swat someone (Wolfers?).
I don't blame her. Who wouldn't swat Wolfers, with his meek and subservient demeanor.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I posted a couple of days ago images of unhappy, and aggressive, young girls who were part of a toy campaign to have them play with toys made for boys. The girls, despite their initial interest in these toys, ultimately wanted "girl" toys.

I found this comment I made at Lawrence Auster's Veiw From the Right in 2010 while looking through my emails. The comment was posted in a discussion titled: The Factory Of Liberal Society Keeps Churning Out Its Quota Of Dead Young White Women.

A long and complex 2009 study on women's happiness shows that women lose ground to men (are unhappier than men), and older women are less happy than younger women. And "[Twelfth grade] girls have lost ground [in happiness] both absolutely and relative to boys."
Twelfth grade girls, given a list of items and asked "How important is each of the following to your life? report a large number of these items with increasing importance, compared to boys. The list includes things like: "Having a good marriage and family life" to "Discovering new ways to experience things." It could well include "Running in marathons."
Twelfth grade girls in this study are overwhelmed with the expectations they adopt, and are more anxious and insecure (i.e. unhappy) in general than boys.

Although they seem happier than their mothers or grandmothers, their decline in happiness is predictable, if taken by their mothers' responses.

This study's results, coupled with the trust and innocence of teenage girls (not discussed/measured in the study), makes their "proud and sovereign" appearance not what it seems to be. And women's apparent pride and sovereignty in general. Although one would think by this study that teenager girls are more confident and happier (proud and sovereign) than their older relatives. Another one of those instances where facts debunk wishful thinking.

Here is the full pdf file of the study: The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness. By Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers.

Critics of this study show that the numbers are insignificant, but in a scientific study context, they are statistically significant: i.e., the data mean something.

Wolfer and Stevenson try to explain this declining female happiness, although I think another study which targeted the portion of women who responded with "yes, my happiness is declining" and asked them variations on "why are you unhappy" would be an important follow-up study.

This follow-up study never occurred, but Stevenson and Wolfers continue with another equally fascinating topic about the relationship of men and women in a household where both hold careers. They don't quite present it like that, but I have analyzed it in that context.

Below is a transcript of some sections of the conference Home Economics: How the Changing Economy Shapes Decisions
to Marry—or Not Marry, presented by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfer in 2013. Here is the full video. They haven't come up with any explanation for this decline in

Stevenson: In our household...I do all the bills and all the taxes, and manage all the money.
Wolfers: And I have no idea how much money I have...
[Belly laugh from Stevenson]
Stevenson: And Justin deals with all the bills and all the technology. I can barely turn on...Every time I go on the treadmill I go "how does this TV turn on again?"

Of course, like all female feminists, Stevenson wants the best of both worlds. She can act all "girlie" and confused when it comes to technology (really, how hard is it to figure out house-hold appliances and home exercise machines?), but no toddler or infant will get in the way of her career ("We have a three-year-old and an eight-month-old" announces Stevenson). And she can get her "career" too.

This must be a parasitic relationship. Wolfers and Stevenson must benefit from the double income. I wonder how much of the household chores Wolfers really does? Stevenson implies that modern domestic work is relatively easy, with all the gadgets. But someone still has to cook the dinner and clean the bathroom, albeit with fortified and quick-acting detergents. And there are the children. I assume it is her who takes care of these by maneuvering a large supply of nannies and day-cares. I assume also that she makes the meals, or at least prepares the food in advance and stores it in color-coded tupperware for her husband to defrost and serve when she's out on her after-hour missions. Then she might even take an extra hour after work to buy that new perfume, or the pair of shoes she saw recently in some fashion magazine. Or take a "girl's night out" for a drink of wine with other career women at an expensive downtown bar one day a week. And of course there will be the hair stylist, the cosmetician, the manicures and pedicures, the spa. Her ragged look in the conference photo above should not fool us. And all this costing her several thousand over the course of the year.

I wonder what "gadgets" Wolfers gets for his suffering? A boat for the summer? A "man cave" in the basement, replete with an HDTV, a surround sound music system, and a state-of-the-art Laz-Y-Boy?



This article informs us that Wolfers' hobby is "running."

If You Run the Numbers, It's a Good Time:

I'm not just an economist, I'm also a runner, training for the Marine Corps Marathon.

Runners World magazine recently argued that marathon running is an incredibly cheap sport. All you need is a pair of shoes, and you're off and running. But they're wrong.

You see, they were emphasizing the out-of-pocket cost, which is small. But the foundation of all economics is something called opportunity cost. It says that the true cost of something is the alternative you have to give up.

So each hour that I spend running is an hour that I don't spend hanging out, working, or sleeping. How do I choose? Following economic theory, I keep doing an activity only as long as it yields greater benefits than the alternative.

And as I spend my hours slugging out the miles, I'm forced to confront my choices. Instead of sweating it out on the trails, I could take on extra teaching and earn a few extra bucks. And so going running costs me good money.

The same logic applies to you. Each hour you spend on your hobby is an hour you don't spend working harder to get a promotion, studying for a degree, or shopping around for the cheapest groceries.

By my calculations my 16-week training program comes at an opportunity cost of several thousand dollars. A quicker runner would have a smaller opportunity cost. It's only because I'm both slow and an economist that I fret that the world's cheapest sport is actually incredibly expensive.

But to an economist, the choice is still a no-brainer. We think you should only do what you love, and pay for it by doing what you are good at.

By sticking to economics, I make time for running. Rather than spend hundreds of dollars worth of time cleaning my house each Sunday, I hire a cleaner, who does a better job, at a better price.

When a friend asks me to help them move, I write them a check to pay professional movers instead. It's just more efficient.

And while it can be hard to forgo extra income for a long run, it is even harder to justify wasting that time on Facebook. And with the time that saves, I'm pulling on my shoes to head out for another run.

Running doesn't cost much money, except for the initial investment in a $200 pair of sneakers (I can't see Wolfers going for $50 running shoes) and a monthly gym membership fee of $75, which will set him back $1,000 for the year (he just couldn't share that treadmill with his wife).

But Wolfers clearly understands that the cost for his running is not necessarily monetary, but the time he cannot (does not, will not) spend with his wife and family. Perhaps his running is a ruse to avoid spending time with them, in that chaotic house where he will be shouldered with the chore of the evening.

The goal of women is marriage, however much they deny it. I doubt that Wolfers would want marriage with Stevenson, as is the nature of men unsure of their women, especially emasculating ones like Stevenson. Marriage, with its life-binding promises, with the burden placed higher on males, is something to be avoided with women like Stevenson.

In the meantime, Wolfers gets to work in a career and have a extra money around from his wife's income. Although, Stevenson is clearly the more advanced, career-wise (here is the Wikipedia profile for Stevenson, and here is Wolfers'). At some point, Wolfers who will have to deal with a discontented wife, making more "family" demands on him to come home earlier, take the kids skating or soccer, help with the dishes. And why not the cooking too?


Baby Duty

He surely gets what he deserves. But, since he won't see it like that, at some point he will have to contend with a wife who files for divorce, or a separation. Perhaps she might even suspect him of/catch him cheating.

I thought Stevenson's corpulence and sloppiness (in the top photo) was because of a pregnancy. But, she's eight months past her second child's birth at that point. She just seems overwhelmed with "How does this treadmill work" and "How do I continue with my fast-paced career which won't sync with my breast-feeding and nappy-changing schedule?" I suspect she has a plethora of nannies to feed her expressed breast milk to her infant, and might even bring her baby to her office on "light" days to show what a mom she is. I think all this adds to her her frazzled look of overwhelmedness, which I think is really guilt, buried deep at leaving her children, and husband, behind for a career. And she looks far older than Wolfers, although he is only a year younger. She looks like she could be his mother.



Above is a photo of Stevenson that is profiled in articles as far back as 2008. She has on make-up, and looks pretty. She must resemble the younger woman Wolfers met as a graduate student in Harvard, when they were both twenty-somethings (Stevenson graduated from Wellesley College in 1993, and I would estimate at twenty-three, and from Harvard in 2001, when she must have turned thirty). In her most recent photo (see the top of the blog for one taken in 2013), she looks like she's simply aged. Two toddler children, a full-time career, and a live-in "partner" don't make for an easy life.

Wolfers is no better, with his longish hair, chopped off as though to deny he grooms it carefully (this is a carefully styled hairstyle to look nonchalent and "radical"). Although he looks like he's regressed back to some college era age in his most recent photos.

But, he has a fanatical look which come through when he's discussing the evils done to mankind before Obama came to save it in this video at a Brookings Institue conference taken in 2013. He is a true Obama disciple. His views seem as though he's supporting "rich kids'" ability to transfer to non-paying public pre-schools. But then he faults their move by saying that the "poor kids" would be crowded out by these rich kids, who's greedy parents would rather have the option of sending their children to the non-paying public schools.


Image from the video at a 2013 Brookings Institute conference

Odd logic, these lefties. Surely a rich parent wouldn't want his children to receive mediocre education, as well as the plethora of dangers the child could face in a government subsidized poor school? Surely he will do his best to give quality care, on all counts, for his children and family, and that would include quality day-care, even at a cost?

Wolfers' reverse logic is of course that rich kids could also be crowded out of pre-schools by poor kids entering these schools through various subsidies. But these rich kids would then be forced to enter the free public pre-schools due to overcrowding by poor kids in their own rich schools, in turn crowding out those poor kids left behind without subsidies to enter rich schools. I knew there was a catch when he started "supporting" rich kids. I had to listen to his video, and read a couple of posts, before I could surmise the above [these links might be helphul: a and b).

He must have learned his tactics for arguments from Obama, his mentor.

Such are the convoluted personalities of the liberal elite, who live their public lives advocating for the poor, yet everything they do in their personal lives depends on a large stash of income.

Stevenson and Wolfers have two children, a daughter who is about four, and a son who is about one. It will be interesting to see how the "rear" these children, and if they will have found solutions to increasing the happiness quotient of girls. And what woudl they do if their doaughter wanted a full-own, wedding-dress including, church wedding (miracles do happen.) Would they attend, or would they refuse the invitation out of principle? Or if their son, as a macho teenager laughed at his father's dishwashing ways?

As I wrote above, there are many sequels to this research waiting to be written.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mutli-Culti Girl Riveters Building Amunition?

Laura Wood, at The Thinking Housewife has posted the above image, which was sent by one of her correspondents. It is a crew of multi-culti future girl engineers. On closer inspection, what these girls are really interested in are the pinkness of their toy kitchen cabinets. The full interaction about girls (and women) in men-oriented fields like engineering, is discussed at the site.

What I'm interested in is the expressions of these little girls.

I kind of like the black girl's "come and get me if you want trouble" expression, in the group photo I posted above. I think black girls, and low-income black girls in particular, are at the bottom of the totem pole of American life. I think they have it tough. Being on welfare, as many are, is a mind-numbing life. And as the statistics show, they are single mothers on welfare: i.e their men have abandoned them. So I think this aggressive stance is a form of self-protection, even against those men who may show up for whatever opportunistic reason. Does that translate into the tough job of a construction worker though? I doubt it. Manouevering welfare to bring up a baby is very different from wheeling huge machinery around and planning the construction of a building.

But, then look at the black girl when she smiles. What a pretty face, in a strong and chiseled way, she has. Her behavior seems spontaneous and genuine. She really is smiling. And is happy to smile. I suspect that when she gets mad, it is with equal genuineness.

Next, the Asian girl. She seems the most out of place. She cannot act "tough" following the black girl's lead, and instead looks self-conscious, doing an uncomfortable parody of "tough." What happens when a rough, aggressive working man questions her authority? No smile, or half smile, will work.

And she smiles (or half-smiles) as though she doesn't know how to read the cues for "it is o.k. to smile now." Danger seems to be around the corner.

The white girl has mimicked the black girl the closest. She does look serious and angry. I suspect she could wreck her own little havoc if she had to.

But then her expression later in the video loses that boldness. Not only has she lost her boldness, she seems to be asking, pleading, for help from some higher power. Can she not act tough on her own? Does she need the guidance of her black mentor (or some other mentor - probably a male)? Her toughness seems to fall apart pretty easily.

These girls may be wearing construction helmets, but they show us that they just want to be happy, pretty girls, surrounded by pinks and lavenders. Each in her own way, seems to buckle into being the kind of girl she knows how to be.

In terms of running the world, I would give the white girl a longer piece of the rope. And I would prefer the honesty of the black girl (think if Mammy in Gone with the Wind, who loved and took care of Tara and taught her right from wrong) to the hard-drives of an Asian girl (think of the Tiger Mom, who cannot seem to push - force - even her own children to the level she expects them to reach).

Now, the next experiment would be how this multi-culti assortment of female engineers would really fare in the real world. Would the black woman listen to the Asian? Would the white woman diplomatically lead the group? Would the firm build any bridges while making money? So far, the evidence is negative.


Rosie the Riveter: I Can Do It!

I got the title for this post from Rosie the Riveter. She was the iconic image for women working in factories building war machinery towards the war effort during WWII. The "We Can Do It!" Rosie the Riveter poster was created by J. Howard Miller for the War Production Coordinating Committee of the Westinghouse Company, in 1942.

I used Rosie's image and changed it to look like a black and an Asian woman to parody "inclusive" feminism that contemporary feminists advocate.



But, the reality is that even feminism cannot unite the different races of women. Even if the language is a war against a "common" enemy: Men.

Rosie (and the Rosies) went back to their domestic domains once the men came back from the war fronts.

And all little girls want are pretty, soft toys in pinks and lavenders.


Title: I'm proud ... my husband wants me to do my part
See your U.S. Employment Service / / John Newton Howitt.
Creator(s): Howitt, John Newton, 1885-1958, artist
Related Names:
United States. War Manpower Commission , funder/sponsor
United States. Office of War Information , funder/sponsor
Date Created/Published: [Washington, D.C.] : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1944.
Medium: 1 photomechanical print (poster) : halftone, color.
Summary: Husband, in suit, and wife in working clothes, standing in front of U.S. flag.
Repository: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Women, Careers, Politics, and God

Michele Bachmann started her professional and political life when her some of her children were still quite young. She started a Christian charter school with her husband in 1993, when she still had a six-year-old, a three-year-old and one-year-old. She finished law school in 1988 (she started in 1976, and the eight years it took her was probably its conflict with her family obligations). She worked as a tax litigator from 1988-1993, when she resigned to to stay home and take care of her younger children, then raging in age from six to twelve (her oldest was eighteen by then). She entered local Minnesota politics in 2000, when her children's ages ranged from six to eighteen She was Minnesota's state senator from 2000-2006. She was first elected to the U.S. Congress in 2006, representing the 6th Congressional District of Minnesota. She was re-elected in 2008, and again in 2011. She announced her candidacy for president in June 27, 2011. She exited the GOP race in January 2012, after placing last with only 5% of the vote in the Iowa caucuses. She has announced in May 2013 that she will not run for re-election in Congress in 2014. In an interview on June 2013, she said that she's not taking anything off the table for the 2016 presidential run. Her political fight at the moment is to repeal Obamacare, and to fight against the debt ceiling. On October 10, 2013, she filed procedures to impeach President Obama due to his refusal to negotiate Obamacare, which led to a two-week government shutdown. On Oct. 16, 2013 she voted against a bill that would raise the debt ceiling.

Her professional life took her away from her family, but she entered it at the bidding of her husband, and through God's calling:

In a campaign appearance at the Living Word Christian Center in Brooklyn Park, Minn., on Oct. 15, 2006, Bachmann discussed the importance of God's calling at critical moments in her life. She told the audience how she met Marcus Bachmann, how she earned a law degree at Oral Roberts University, and how she returned to law school for a second degree, this one in tax law.

"My husband said, 'Now you need to go and get a postdoctorate degree in tax law,'" Bachmann told the audience. "Tax law? I hate taxes. Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord said, 'Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husband.' And so we moved to Virginia Beach, Virginia, and I went to William and Mary Law School there. ... Never had a tax course in my background, never had a desire for it, but by faith, I was going to be faithful to what I felt God was calling me to do through my husband."

Bachmann went on to say that God later called her to run for the state Senate in Minnesota and, still later, for the U.S. Congress. After the church posted a video of her appearance on its website, a left-wing blogger picked it up and spread it on anti-Bachmann sites. If Bachmann's opponents were hoping it would be the end of her campaign, they were wrong; Bachmann won the race in 2006 and has been re-elected twice since.

But Bachmann's statement -- in public, on stage, microphone in hand, in the context of a political campaign -- raised a legitimate question. What role does her husband play in her performance in public office? With that in mind, at the Fox News-Washington Examiner debate in Ames, Iowa, on Aug. 11, I asked Bachmann whether, as president, she would be submissive to her husband.

The question prompted boos in the Republican-filled hall, and then cheers when Bachmann answered. "What submission means to us," she said, "if that's what your question is, it means respect." [Source: Townhall.com]

As her husband advised her, her preparation in tax law is now bearing fruit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inner Beauty with a Lumpy Sweater

Andy Sachs in The Devil Wears Prada, in her "lumpy blue sweater"

Oscar de la Renta
Spring, 2007 Ready To Wear Cirulean Dresses

In the back-and-forth world of movies and fashion, it could be that Miranda Priestly's reference to an Oscar de la Renta cirulean gown in The Devil Wears Prada (which did not exist when the movie came out in 2006), could have influenced the designer to produce the cirulean gowns above!

Miranda Priestly, to Andy Sachs:

And you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar de la Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns?

Anna Wintour, after whom Miranda Prieslty is modeled,
in Marc Jacobs, in 2012.
For her, attractive, colorful clothes.
For Vogue, post-modern black and twisted shapes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes a silly film inadvertently tells us some truth. But, I don't really think it is inadvertent as much as how much of the truth can deliberate truth-destroyers destroy. At some point, things clear up and the unadulturated truth pops up.

Such is the case in the pleasant movie The Devil Wears Prada, where a jobless recent graduate of journalism school finally gets an interview with Runway, a fashion magazine.

I wonder why its producers, directors, financiers, film critics, who are 99% liberal and anti-beauty and hence anti-fashion, showed the film in such a warm light? The film is pleasant to watch, and doesn't have any of the bitterness of beauty-haters.

Well, Andy does make it into "real" journalism at the end of the film, securing a position at some New York Post type of newspaper, where she will be writing about social inequalities and other "issues." But she gets to keep her Gucci too. That's the trick: she gets it all! Which is what modern media wants young women to believe: wear your Diors and get that socially responsible degree. She should look pretty while saving the world. If the message is too hard-core, young, socially responsible women, who still want to look pretty if not beautiful, would be running as far away as possible from social consciousness.

But is Andy's "social issues" type of journalism really challenging? Does she really save the world with it? Is she willing to relocate to Somalia for several months to report on the social inequalities there? Or will she simply maneuver her position to stay in beautiful New York, live in a smart downtown apartment, and travel occasionally to Harlem on the A train (the subway line romanticized by Duke Ellington's song) in a more modest Gucci, to write about social inequalities there? And while in Harlem, why not try one of those (safely located) soul food restaurants that are sprouting up all over Harlem for the likes of her: socially conscious whites looking for "safe" places to eat in Harlem?


Take the A Train
(Music by Billy Strayhorn.
With singer Joya Sherrill, who is credited for the lyrics
(she starts singing around the 1:10 point)

Take the A Train

You must take the A train
To go sugar hill 'way up in Harlem
If you miss the A train
You'll find you've missed the quickest way to Harlem

Hurry, get on now it's coming
Listen to those rails a thrumming
All 'board get on the A train
Soon you will be on sugar hill in Harlem

Harlem Renaissance
Women in Sugar Hill, Harlem, ca. 1920
Attributed to James Van Der Zee

Why, New York is the solution. She can have her cake and her soul food - a chef-baked cake from that quaint store in SoHo, and the soulful catfish from the Harlem kitchen - and compose her heart-felt social inequality columns on her laptop, sitting at the desk she recently bought from that antique store in Chelsea.

The antique desk for all those thoughtful articles Andy will be writing

French Bakery in Chelsea, and Southern Cooking in Harlem

But these clever social engineers know that practical lumpy sweaters will start to take over. Who has time to look like a Vogue model, and write that article by a deadline? Other biological determinants will also start to dictate, like young women wanting to be kind and nice unlike that horrifically callous male boss who sees projects as objects and not as people. So try as they might, these social engineers cannot change the essence of girls, and women, so they have to sugar coat their goals in softer language.

Miranda Priestly, the editor-in-chief of Runway, is supposed to be a take on Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour. But Priestly is concerned only with the aesthetics of her magazine, whereas Wintour is a social engineer par excellence, where she interlaces the big and heavy Vogue (the October 2013 issue has 380 pages, September's - which I discuss here - 902 pages) with causes and "issues" mostly featuring women (and if men are featured, their wives take up much of the article, as in the article on Rand Paul in the October 2013 issue, where a profile of his wife takes up a chunk of the issue.

In the September 2013 issue there is a profile of Susan Rice titled The Comeback Queen (pp 506-510):

She makes her entrance wearing a scoop-neck blouse, black trousers, and a striking green Ultrasuede jacket accented with circles cut above the hem that she bought at a Smithsonian Craft Show. Her hair is combed back to her shoulders, and a gold watch and bracelet flash on her wrists. She introduces [New York Times's executive editor Jill] Abramson to Gerard Araud, the French ambassador to the U.N., embraces [Mia] Farrow, then spots David Dinkins, the venerable former mayor of New York. She hands him her own champagne flute, says "Cheers," and fist-bumps the glass.

In the October 2013 isse, there is an article on Cori Bergman, who

...has quietly become one of the country's most respected neuroscientists. Now she's leading President Obama's $100 million effort to solve the mysteries of the human brain. [Vogue, September 2013, p179-186]

Even the advertisements have a political angle. A Bulgari advertisement takes up two pages, featuring a necklace of emerald and ruby cabochons on the bare torso of Mrs. Nicolas Sarkozy, who has clearly returned to her modeling roots.

Ex-Madame La Présidente Carla Bruni in a Vogue adverisement

Vogue, under Wintour' stewardship, has gone into an odd amalgam of some beautiful things (mostly in the advertisements), to a "journalistic" type of magazine with interviews and stories on non-fashion subjects somewhat glamorized to fit the magazine. This is a magazine for the serious and fashionable woman.

Wintour, of course when things go too extreme can be ruthlessly Pro Beauty ( or pro decorum, at least). She banned the Hispanic pop star Jennifer Lopez from Vogue photo shoots (calling Lopez "low class") in after Lopez took off with some of the photo shoot clothing. It's o.k. if Lopez shows up as a bare-bodied prostitute, and appears as such in Vogue, but lo the repercussions if she steals items which would have been tossed out anyway.

Anna Wintour, who I think is at the mercy of her staff (everything seems to got through a committee in the life of these multi-million-dollar-generating magazines), and their "research" and "observations" would tell them that women are not into beauty anymore, and thus they should dig out ugliness, and of course politics. But, this is an utterly mistaken observation. Women want beauty as much as ever. It is Vogue, and the post-modern, modernist, anti-beauty elite that is dictating the terms.

But, there is no denying that the elitist Wintour does dress well.

Of course, for the elite, and especially the liberal elite (Wintour is a die-hard liberal and Obama supporter), all these experiments like building a world around ugliness, is for the rest of the world, as they, the elite, live in their gated lives (ideologically and geographically) to keep them immune for the havocs they wreck.

But watching The Devil Wears Prada a second time around, I found it surprisingly non-conventional (as in pursuing beauty seriously, and not in a post-modern, dark and and nihilistic way, but as something worthy of awe and wonder) where where Andy, the typical modern girl who has rejected of beauty, or more precisely picked up the in vogue idea of fashion as rejecting beauty, is beaten down by Runway's Miranda Priestly, and the assistant (played wonderfully by Stanley Tucci, whose played Julia Child's husband in Julie and Julia again with the formidable Meryl Streep) who tries to get this girl in the lumpy blue sweater to wear some couture.

The film is for young women (and older women like Streep who want to "mother" these young women). And young women, as I said above, still want to look pretty and nice. Older women almost always want to mother young women. And, to repeat myself, if this film tried to masculinize or uglify Andy, and demonize Miranda, it would not make it into the box office.

Perhaps "essence" will win over engineering. But so far, these social re-creators seem to have the upper hand.

Below are transcripts of a couple of scenes from The Devil Wears Prada:

Andy Comes for an interview to work in Runway, a fashion magazine run by Miranda Priestly

Miranda: Who are you?

Andy: Uh, my name is Andy Sachs. I recently graduated from Northwestern University.

Miranda: And what are you doing here?

Andy: Well I think I could do a good job as your assistant. And um……Yeah, I came to New York to be a journalist and sent letters out everywhere and finally got a call from Elias-Clarke. And met with Sherry up at Human Resources. Basically it’s this or Auto Universe.

Miranda : So you don’t read Runway ?

Andy : Uh, no.

Miranda : And before today, you had never heard of me.

Andy : No.

Miranda : And you have no style or sense of fashion.

Andy : I think that depends on what you’re-

Miranda : No, no. That wasn’t a question.

Andy: Um, I was editor in chief of the Daily Northwestern. I also, um, won a national competition for College journalists with my series on the Janitors union. Which exposed the exploitation of-

Miranda: That’s all

(Andy turns around to leave, then comes back)

Andy: Yeah. You know, okay. You’re right. I don’t fit in here. I am not skinny or glamorous and I don’t know that much about fashion but I’m smart. I learn fast and I will work very hard.

(Andy waists for a response, then turns around and leaves)

Andy: Thank you for your time.

---------------------------------------------------

Andy spills some food on her sweater while out to buy some take-out with her new collegue Nigel

Andy: Oh. Shoot.

Nigel: Oh, never mind. I'm sure you have plenty more polyblend where that came from.

Andy: Okay. You think my clothes are hideous. I get it. But, you know, I'm not going to be in fashion forever! So I don't see the point of changing everything about myself just because I have this job.

Nigel: Yes, that's true. That's really what this multibillion-dollar industry is all about anyway, isn't it? Inner beauty.

---------------------------------------------------

Andy gets taught a lesson (or two) by Miranda

Miranda: Where are the belts for this dress?­ Why is no one ready?

Assistant: Here. It's a tough call.

Miranda: They're so different. -[Miranda] Hmm.

Andy[Snorts, Chuckles]

Miranda: Something funny?

Andy: No. No, no. Nothing's...You know, it's just that both those belts look exactly the same to me. You know, I'm still learning about this stuff and, uh¡...

Miranda: 'This stuff'? Oh. Okay. I see. You think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet and you select... I don't know... that lumpy blue sweater, for instance because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue, it's not turquoise. It's not lapis. It's actually cerulean. And you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar de la Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns? And then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent... wasn't it who showed cerulean military jackets? I think we need a jacket here.

Nigel: Mmm.

Miranda: And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers. And then it, uh, filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you're wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room from a pile of stuff.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------