I don't have as much time or resources to shop as I'd like to these days ... and there's really no point anyway since the best stores I can shop here are TJ and Target. So I really look forward to getting all those free brand catalogues in the mail: J.Crew, Martin & Osa, Express. I know we're not talking Dolce & Gabbana, but it satisfies my fashion itch for now.
Fashion is cyclical. I know this. We've seen 50s and 60s dresses come back into style, bell-bottom pants, espadrilles, wide belts, skinny belts, polka dots, and more. But it's also innovative - hopefully recycling elements of trends that once were into something better.
To my shock and nauseated horror, when I opened my most recent brand catalogue I found the faux pas of faux pas. Tight rolled pants with short socks and heels.
Excuse me?
Now, I've watched every episode of Sex in the City seeing Sarah Jessica Parker's character try to pull off everything from a fanny pack to a backless dress with a bra. I've also lived on a college campus for the past 11 years and seen a number outside-the-box outfits walk past my office window. I'm open to all of that. I've tried some of it myself (not the fanny pack). I've tried the boots over jeans look, I bowed to the peer pressure of capri pants, I've worn a print t-shirt with a suit. I get it. But tight rolls, socks and heels?
The only time that should ever be worn is if you get out a DeLorian in 1985.
Clothing is utilitarian, but fashion is art. What statement, exactly, is one trying to make by scrunching one's pants into hard lumpy rolls above the ankle? Are you a beach comber? Are you on your way to Maine? Add short, hot pink socks with your favorite pair of pumps and you've just hemorrhaged my eyes. I don't appreciate it.
I'd sooner campaign across the world advocating skinny jeans and wearing a headband across one's forehead (Note: to everyone on The City - stop it. You are not Wonder Woman).
This is not art, this is not utilitarian, this is just ugly and embarassing. The only thing that should be resurrected from the 80s is the music. Leave the rest of it alone and let's fondly remember it for what it was. Past tense.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Swinging the Pendulum
I've been thinking a lot about personalities. My massage therapist once said something interesting about her own mother, which was that for most of her life, she was incredibly giving and selfless to a fault. She always worried about what everyone else needed and did her best to fulfill that.
In the end though, as she grew old, she became one of the most self-centered, bitter and inward people one could imagine.
Maybe this could get chalked up to aging - ailments, adjusting, etc. But I wonder more if it wasn't the pendulum of her personality swinging the other way as a result of spending so much time way to the left of center.
If a person is out of balance, absorbing themselves in anything that doesn't allow for well-roundedness - work, helping people, a marriage, children, working out, etc. - will they eventually reach a breaking point? Will they hit the wall on one side and careen straight into the polar opposite?
In the end though, as she grew old, she became one of the most self-centered, bitter and inward people one could imagine.
Maybe this could get chalked up to aging - ailments, adjusting, etc. But I wonder more if it wasn't the pendulum of her personality swinging the other way as a result of spending so much time way to the left of center.
If a person is out of balance, absorbing themselves in anything that doesn't allow for well-roundedness - work, helping people, a marriage, children, working out, etc. - will they eventually reach a breaking point? Will they hit the wall on one side and careen straight into the polar opposite?
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Nothing Box
While eating oatmeal at a truck stop I was enlightened as to the difference between men and women. I was introduced to the Nothing Box.
Apparently, as it was explained to me, women's brains are constructed like a ball of twine - everything overlaps and interweaves. For example, a mother may wake up in the morning, get her three boys fed and ready for school, do a load of laundry, plan dinner, and head out the door to her own full time job. When a woman hears shes getting company, she plans to change the sheets, stock the fridge, straighten the house, and find a few local activities her guests may enjoy. Everything interconnects, overlaps, etc.
A man's brain, on the other hand, is constructed like boxes. There's a work box, a family box, and there's probably a golf box. A man can only be in one box at a time, singularly focusing on one issue. The man who has company enjoys his company. He's not in the kitchen prepping hors d'oeuvres, wipping dessert plates, and refilling the ice trays - he wasn't in that box.
The most favored box a man has is the Nothing Box. Jumping in his Nothing Box, the man can shut off anything and everything, clearing his head and recharging. Ahhhhh, the nothing box.
Unfortunately while the nothing box is heaven for the man, it's the box women hate the most.
The man who explained this to me believes in the Nothing Box theory. He said it's glorious. (I really think he used the word glorious) And I - after knowing my brother for all 29.9 years of my life - definitely believe it's true.
So why would the woman hate (loathe?) something that is so central to a man's being? Is it because women are jealous they don't have an invite to the box? That was the wisdom of the Nothing Box dweller in my life.
My view, however, is there is a much simpler, easier-to-buy reason. I submit that women are annoyed by the fact that, after putting up with a man who can only handle one-track-thought all day long, that man gets to jump in his Nothing Box to recharge; thus leaving the woman to handle: everything.
Tricky little buggers.
All is not lost though. Not to be outdone, I also believe that women are learning to find their own Nothing Boxes. With the ever-increasing delay in marriages and reproduction, women are able and willing to cuddle up in newly discovered nothingness. I'm not sure which came first, finding Nothing or staying single longer, but the relationship is surely strong.
I know I possess the ball of twine upstairs. But I also know I'm getting more comforable with my very own Nothing Box. I like it in there - it usually involves a good book or a chick flick. At least until the commercial break brings me back to earth, what's not to love?
....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuMZ73mT5zM&feature=related
Apparently, as it was explained to me, women's brains are constructed like a ball of twine - everything overlaps and interweaves. For example, a mother may wake up in the morning, get her three boys fed and ready for school, do a load of laundry, plan dinner, and head out the door to her own full time job. When a woman hears shes getting company, she plans to change the sheets, stock the fridge, straighten the house, and find a few local activities her guests may enjoy. Everything interconnects, overlaps, etc.
A man's brain, on the other hand, is constructed like boxes. There's a work box, a family box, and there's probably a golf box. A man can only be in one box at a time, singularly focusing on one issue. The man who has company enjoys his company. He's not in the kitchen prepping hors d'oeuvres, wipping dessert plates, and refilling the ice trays - he wasn't in that box.
The most favored box a man has is the Nothing Box. Jumping in his Nothing Box, the man can shut off anything and everything, clearing his head and recharging. Ahhhhh, the nothing box.
Unfortunately while the nothing box is heaven for the man, it's the box women hate the most.
The man who explained this to me believes in the Nothing Box theory. He said it's glorious. (I really think he used the word glorious) And I - after knowing my brother for all 29.9 years of my life - definitely believe it's true.
So why would the woman hate (loathe?) something that is so central to a man's being? Is it because women are jealous they don't have an invite to the box? That was the wisdom of the Nothing Box dweller in my life.
My view, however, is there is a much simpler, easier-to-buy reason. I submit that women are annoyed by the fact that, after putting up with a man who can only handle one-track-thought all day long, that man gets to jump in his Nothing Box to recharge; thus leaving the woman to handle: everything.
Tricky little buggers.
All is not lost though. Not to be outdone, I also believe that women are learning to find their own Nothing Boxes. With the ever-increasing delay in marriages and reproduction, women are able and willing to cuddle up in newly discovered nothingness. I'm not sure which came first, finding Nothing or staying single longer, but the relationship is surely strong.
I know I possess the ball of twine upstairs. But I also know I'm getting more comforable with my very own Nothing Box. I like it in there - it usually involves a good book or a chick flick. At least until the commercial break brings me back to earth, what's not to love?
....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuMZ73mT5zM&feature=related
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Bounce Bandwagon
I read a book called "Bounce" ... it could have been titled "Who Moved My Cheese" or "Good to Great" or ... you get the picture. Its premise was that companies will inevitably experience disintegration on some level or another. Truth. The key is how reintegration is handled on the back end. The author asks if a company will be like a Christmas ornament, and when it falls from its peek it will shatter into thousands of pieces. Will it be like an orange and stay together on the outside, but be pretty damaged on the inside? Or, will it be like a hard rubber ball, hitting the ground and bouncing back even higher?
Good concept?
Absolutely.
Ah, but here's the devil in the details, the point no one wants to admit: Company cultures don't shift or improve because someone (or a management team in this case) read a 150pg book. Company cultures are built and sustained because of who people ARE. I think it's realistic to assume that if a class of undergrads read Bounce or any of its peers, some good could come away from it. Perhaps as they would each consider how they will manage, how they will interact with co-workers, what approach they will take to their professions; a book like that could shift a forthcoming workforce dynamic. However, I'm hard pressed to see that someone in their 40s, or someone a few years from retirement, will adjust ingrained behaviors and attitudes because of something they once read on an airplane. Makes me think of Jerry McGuire's memo.
To be certain, I'm not a pessimist. I am, however, a realist. And in realistic terms, all the niceties and momentarily inspiring text in the world won't effect change in a permanent sense.
After all ... Look at the "Purpose Driven Life" movement. I think people on that bandwagon found spirituality for about 20 minutes.
Good concept?
Absolutely.
Ah, but here's the devil in the details, the point no one wants to admit: Company cultures don't shift or improve because someone (or a management team in this case) read a 150pg book. Company cultures are built and sustained because of who people ARE. I think it's realistic to assume that if a class of undergrads read Bounce or any of its peers, some good could come away from it. Perhaps as they would each consider how they will manage, how they will interact with co-workers, what approach they will take to their professions; a book like that could shift a forthcoming workforce dynamic. However, I'm hard pressed to see that someone in their 40s, or someone a few years from retirement, will adjust ingrained behaviors and attitudes because of something they once read on an airplane. Makes me think of Jerry McGuire's memo.
To be certain, I'm not a pessimist. I am, however, a realist. And in realistic terms, all the niceties and momentarily inspiring text in the world won't effect change in a permanent sense.
After all ... Look at the "Purpose Driven Life" movement. I think people on that bandwagon found spirituality for about 20 minutes.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Liberal Radio ... why?
This morning on CNN there was discussion whether or not more liberal talk radio should be created to balance the conservative talk radio. I think that liberal talk radio has been attempted (Ed Schultz, et al) and it doesn't have the following convservative talk radio does. Why does there need to be a mandate for something like this? Why should time and money be spent on producing content no one wants to digest in that format? That's pretty anti-capitalist, and somewhat undemocratic if you think about it. People vote with their time in terms of Nielsen ratings and if no one is voting for it, why would it be produced anyway?
The first rule of public relations is know your audience. Know what conversation(s) they are having and how you can enter that conversation in a way that will move and compel them. Without knowing that, you'll never be able to get your point across. Without knowing how to enter the conversation meaningfully, it's like you're walking into a cocktail party and shouting at the top of your lungs instead of just going up to someone and visiting. And that's just weird.
Doesn't sound like anyone who is pushing for liberal talk radio knows their audience very well. Shouters.
(not that I like conservative radio. the hosts come across like religious fundamentalists. and that's weird too.)
The first rule of public relations is know your audience. Know what conversation(s) they are having and how you can enter that conversation in a way that will move and compel them. Without knowing that, you'll never be able to get your point across. Without knowing how to enter the conversation meaningfully, it's like you're walking into a cocktail party and shouting at the top of your lungs instead of just going up to someone and visiting. And that's just weird.
Doesn't sound like anyone who is pushing for liberal talk radio knows their audience very well. Shouters.
(not that I like conservative radio. the hosts come across like religious fundamentalists. and that's weird too.)
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Morning Reading
Do you ever miss The Way I See It on the back of Starbuck's cups? A little slice of insight from some regular (and some not-so-regular) Joes, who had enough time to not only think that somewhat provacative thought, but to also log on to starbucks.com and navigate to where one would submit such a comment. I'm a bit tired just considering it. Nonetheless I miss those simple wisdoms. Now the cups just tell me how I'm so fabulous for buying fair trade beans ergo saving the world ... But, since I throw the cup away rather than recycling it (are those things even recyclable? I have no idea), aren't I somehow back to par?
The Way I See It #76 - The irony of commitment is that it's deeply liberating - in work, in play, in love. The act frees you from the tyranny of your internal critic, from the fear that likes to dress itself up and parade around as rational hesitation. To commit is to remove your head as the barrier to your life. - Anne Morriss.
Thank you Anne.
The Way I See It #76 - The irony of commitment is that it's deeply liberating - in work, in play, in love. The act frees you from the tyranny of your internal critic, from the fear that likes to dress itself up and parade around as rational hesitation. To commit is to remove your head as the barrier to your life. - Anne Morriss.
Thank you Anne.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)