#fashion inequality

[scipunk]

Judge Dredd (1995) - Mega-City One

[murfpersonalblog]

Thanks for tagging me @little-desi-historian! ❤️

YES, all of this takes me back to something I wanted to touch a lot more on in my original post when it comes to the historical male image, Percy, Lestat, and Matadors; because it truly does link back to how AMC is playing with dandyism and society's expectations about effeminate men.

Dandyism is a form of resistance culture. As I've said before, Lestat flouts gender norms because HE CAN do whatever he wants & get away with it. His androgyny's on a different level: effeminate or masculine, he's still a vampire, a SUPERnatural creature elevated beyond the bounds of social mores that determine what men & women could or SHOULD act/dress like. MANY people across social media have pointed to Lestat's limp wrists, long blonde "Barbie" hair and ESPECIALLY him dressing in drag in Ep7 as proof that he's the "wife/mother/woman/femme fatale" in Lousta's relationship, and THEN claim its either gender essentialism or homophobic/racist to say Louis is CANONICALLY female-coded one in BOTH the books and show (as AR said so). But no, Lestat in drag was a power move, because he doesn't care what anyone thinks/says/does--he'll just eat them. Mockingly eating the baby in a dress was a deliberate bastardization of motherhood/womanhood. Louis is called every homophobic name in the book by those expecting the black man to just take being insulted, but MARQUIS de Lioncourt DEMANDS being crowned KING of Mardi Gras, Krewe of Raj, & he'll show you exactly what he thinks about your silly homophobic hypocritical human society: You're just "the MEAT," let them eat KING Cake--you're his FOOD. Eff y'all, I'm dressed to KILL you, & laugh doing it.

Lestat's behavior is not only derived from the time period he was born & raised in (the Rococo era of so-called "effeminate" high class dandies--a la Percy Blakeney, etc). Lestat is the embodiment of PRIVILEGE: a powerful rich white male vampire, who leans into being foreign/French White to excuse anything he does that people find strange/off/unnatural/dangerous--all the red flags. 🚩🚩🚩

And red flags brings me directly back to matadors/toreros.

@toscrollperchancetomeme

😂 TYSM! Sam Reid dropped so many juicy deets; I couldn't resist! There's so much depth to the Matador outfit, beyond the gendered aspect of bullfighting that I discussed before. Let's go back to what Sam said about Lestat, and delve deeper into matadors:

The most iconic apparel worn by toreros ("bullfighters") / matador de toros ("killer of bulls") in Spanish bullfighting is the Traje de Luces, the "Suit of Lights." The colors are usually bright & vivid, as part of the showmanship & pizzazz. Darker palettes are less common, as shiny sequins (the luces/lights) became part of the standard fit.

However, Lestat's all-black Matador outfit from what Sam called the "villain sequence" in Ep5 seems to be loosely following the style of a different but very closely related outfit, the Traje Campero "Rural/Countryside Suit" aka Traje Corto ("Short Suit").

(These costumes are typically worn during ceremonial parades and a very specific festival I'll get back to in a moment, cuz it's important.) Unlike the Suit of Light's sequins & silk, the Rural Suit is made of suede, leather, or velvet, in dark muted colors. The pants can be light or dark, striped & patterned, with or without chaps (also found in gentleman's uniforms of military officers and cowboys).

The trajes originated from "the flamboyant costumes of the 18th-century dandies and showmen involved in bullfighting, which later became exclusive to the bullfighting ritual." (Wikipedia)

The ancestor of both trajes (luces/campero) is traditional 17th-19th century Andalusian clothing (Andalusia being the home of Spanish bullfighting), closely associated with a very particular type of masculine dandyism. (The campero/corto is also the costume worn by Andalusian male flamenco dancers.)

"Before the 17th century the profession of bullfighting did not exist as such, and the fighters did not wear luxurious & shiny trajes de luces, but instead normal clothes of the time according to the social class to which the bullfighter belonged. The first bullfighter trajes de toreros appeared in the 17th century, when professional bullfighters from Navarre & Andalusia wore characteristic garments with their gangs to participate in performances and thus differentiate themselves from other bullfighter bands." (translated/truncated from Spanish website)

In the mid-1700s, Francisco Romero revolutionized professional bullfighting by establishing the first matadors who fought on foot, heroically fighting the bull face to face with swords & the muleta (iconic red flag) in a dance-like performance, dressed in a suede/velvet coleto (jacket), a precursor to the traje campero. Romero (from a carpenter family) wanted to show off & stand out from the nobility, and changed the game entirely, through a form of social resistance-turned-innovation.

"At that time, bullfighting on horseback was more important, which was considered a sport and not a show. Bullfighting on foot was not yet widely recognized." (translated from Spanish website)

Bull-killing on horseback was practiced by Spanish noblemen, attended by lower class assistants on foot. Romero was the first to make on-foot matadors the stars of what was increasingly becoming a dandified show/performance/dance. Matador Joaquin "Costillares" Rodríguez introduced even more showmanship, competing against Francisco Romero's grandson Pedro Romero (famously painted by Goya--bottom right).

For his matches, Costillares (middle) dressed in flashy silks, threaded in shiny silver braiding; the precursor to modern traje de luces. Like Francisco Romero (left), Costillares wanted to show off & stand out; and revolutionized the male image of the bullfighter through clothes.

In 18th-19th century Andalusian Spain there were 2 types of dandy: the French-imported upperclass petimetre (effeminate dandy), and the indigenous working class majo (masculine/macho dandy).

Noyes, Dorothy. “La Maja Vestida: Dress as Resistance to Enlightenment in Late-18th-Century Madrid.” The Journal of American Folklore 111, no. 440 (1998): 197–217. https://www.jstor.org/stable/541941

The majo, like many dandies, became the peak of Andalusian fashion, across all social classes; and torero/matador outfits weren't the only ones to take cues from them:

18th-19th century majos "distinguished themselves by their elaborate outfits and sense of style in dress and manners, as well as by their cheeky behavior. The majos outfits were exaggerations of traditional Spanish dress. The style stood in strong contrast to the French styles affected by many of the Spanish elite under the influence of the Enlightenment. Majos were known to pick fights with those they saw as afrancesados ("Frenchified" – fops)." (Wikipedia)

The majos' flamboyant/cheeky/saucy/exaggerated behavior was aggressively masculine; a lower/working class resistance to social mores imposed on them by (foreign) elites, whom they saw as more feminine, and FOUGHT against, to reaffirm their masculinity. These dandies were violent, brazen non-conformists; as beautiful & stylish as they were dangerous. And matadors/toreros knew that the bullfight was the perfect arena to exemplify the spirit of the majos through the dandified performance art/sport of killing bulls--a universal cultural symbol of masculine prowess & strength. Spanish bullfighting used to belong solely to the aristocratic equestrian sphere. Lowly pages/assistants like Francisco Romero (dressed in the precursor to the Rural/Countryside Suit), were the first to buck the system by killing bulls on foot--he likely didn't own a horse. The Romeros were from a carpenter family. Costillares was the son of a butcher. But through bullfighting they gained social status and became icons of masculinity--and dandies.

Lestat--the nouveau riche son of a poor country marquis--insists on being all the beautiful things he is without apology: masculine & effeminate alike. But like I said, it was no coincidence that Carol likened Lestat's Ep5 villain outfit with matadors--he's fighting Louis for dominance in their household, and reaffirming his place at the top of their very gendered social hierarchy, as a warning to BOTH "the housewife" AND "the prodigal daughter" he feels are threatening his authority as their Maker, so he defeats them BOTH.

Carol Cutshall initially designed Lestat's matador pants as pajamas--loungewear. (Lestat's CASUAL & comfortable in his ability to KILL--matador means "Killer" in Spanish--and remember what I said about Louis & Claudia being put on the same parallel level in Ep5, when Claudia's attacked by "Killer" aka Bruce.) Sam said Carol made several versions of the pants; and yup, they're foreshadowed in Ep5 when Lestat first starts arguing about Louis' depression, then they pop up again in Ep7 during the Murder Plot--two instances @dwreader brilliantly linked Lestat (& Stanley Kowalski) wearing wifebeaters. (Listen, Carol, I just wanna talk.... 😅🔫)

And here's my last points about Lestat's matador outfit. First there's the irony of Lestat (who grew up poor in rural France) wearing the something very similar to the matador/torero's Rural Suit, traje campero (aka Short Suit (traje corto)). But what's more interesting is that that type of Short/Rural Suit is usually only worn during special festivals called the Tienta ("trials"), not the regular corrida ("bullfights").

These Tienta are trials for young and immature bulls to be tested in the ring, to see if they're fit for breeding/fighting. 🤯 FLEDGLINGS. And who's Lestat's young bull? "Built-like-a-bird" Claudia. Who's the immature bull? The "biggest rat eater of them all," the under-developed "botched" vampire Louis. During these trials, veteran matadors can show off their skills; and novice bullfighters are shown the ropes and prove themselves. Like I said: the matador wins again.

God, even the way Lestat dragged Louis' bloody body out of the courtyard by the jaw/neck resembles the way the defeated bull--bled out & stabbed in the neck--is dragged by the neck out of the ring.

And remember what I said about Lestat and FOOD. Cuz what happens to the bulls after the matadors kill them? They're sent to the slaughterhouse to be butchered for FOOD. People EAT the bulls.

So yeah, my whole point in this post and my first one is not to sleep on guys like Lestat, Percy--or even other famous dandies like Valmont from Dangerous Liasions/Cruel Intentions (mentioned by both @little-desi-historian and @dwreader)--just because they're effeminate--especially when they're emulating mannerisms from a time period where the model of what made a fashionable gentlemen/good breeding/elite society did NOT match modern expectations about gender. People are getting distracted by Lestat's yaasified manner, not what the show itself is signalling through the relationships he has with others.

This show is deliberately painting Lestat as a villain through Louis' & Claudia's perspectives, as they were the ones who suffered under his Reign of Terror. The symbolism behind the matador-inspired costume used in Ep5 reflected gendered social hierarchies embedded within bullfighting culture (in Spain, women only started being allowed to fight in the 19th-20th centuries). Dressed in clothes resembling that of a matador, Lestat beating & defeating Louis mirrored the defeat of the emasculated bull, and the reification of the victor's masculine prowess at the top of the foodchain.

[clove-pinks]

'La M. de la Corsets': c. 1832 lithograph showing a dressmaker or tailoress and client. The undergarments depicted include sleeve-plumpers.

1830s Thursday: Big sleeves, and even bigger dreams for women’s rights.

The growing vulnerability of working women in industrial society provoked a forceful response. In 1825 hundreds of them went out on strike against New York City clothing houses. In 1831 these same women organized themselves into a mass-membership United Tailoresses’ Society. At a time when journeymen were still devoting their political efforts to a defense of artisanal prerogatives in the master’s shop, these “tailoresses” (the appellation itself testified to an advanced degree of industrial consciousness, excluding as it did the more traditional dressmaking of the “sempstress”) already understood that in a capitalist economy no aspect of the work relationship remained non-negotiable. [...]

No one can help us but ourselves, Sarah Monroe, a leader of the United Tailoresses’ Society, declared. Tailoresses should consequently organize a trade union with a constitution, a plan of action, and a strike fund. Only then could we “come before the public in defense of our rights.” The Wollstonecraftian rhetoric was conscious. Lavinia Wright, the society’s secretary, argued that the tailoresses’ low wages and hard-pressed circumstances were a direct result of the way power was organized throughout society to ensure women’s subordination in all social relations.

— Michael Zakim, Ready-Made Democracy: A History of Men's Dress in the American Republic, 1760-1860

I was disappointed in my search for pictures of Sarah Munroe, Lavinia Wright, or really anything to do with the United Tailoresses’ Society. One online article outright stated, “We know very little about this speaker, Sarah Monroe, other than that she was a garment worker and president of the newly formed United Tailoress Society -- the first women-only union in the United States.” 

I am in awe of this working-class woman, Sarah Monroe, who is quoted by Michael Zakim as saying in 1831:

It needs no small share of courage for us, who have been used to impositions and oppression from our youth up to the present day, to come before the public in defense of our rights; but, my friends, if it is unfashionable for the men to bear oppression in silence, why should it not also become unfashionable with the women?

'The Tailor's Shop': 1838 lithograph by Carl Kunz and Johann Geiger

[citylighten]

Dear Diary hasn’t been updated because I’ve been recoloring clothes for my guys 😭😭

[catholicsaintquotes33ad]

[aquitainequeen]

As fashion statements go, Ugandan-based designer Bobby Kolade’s new collection is as bold as they come.

The mish mash of stitched-together panels holds an unequivocal message, one that’s printed loud and clear on the label of his one-off garments: ‘Return to sender. Materials sourced from secondhand clothes from the global north.’

Kolade’s first collection under his Buzigahill brand is made up entirely of clothes sent to Uganda for ‘recycling’ by countries like the US and UK. Repurposed and refashioned by Kolade’s six-strong team, Buzigahill is sending them back to where they came from.

“We feel there’s a kind of clothing dictatorship, coming from the global north to us,” said Kolade. “By sending things back, we are responding with a clear, proud message: we’re not just the dumping ground. We have the potential to produce, we have the potential to create.”

[fallowfield]

had a very my little pony dream and it produced??? lore???? for the au im working on??????

[economicsresearch]

page 548 - Hat like a mountain, woven from some type of reed.

[ineedfairypee]

Equality starts here

[murfpersonalblog]

The Vampire Lestat & Sir Percy Blakeney: Most Genius & Manly of Himbos

I want to discuss the "babygirl" discourse around Lestat's yaasification, and notions that he's the "woman/wife/mother" in Loustat's household.

YES, Sam Reid has been serving nothing but Charisma Uniqueness Nerve and Talent, but I think his play on gender norms has confused people into thinking he's playing into Lestat's femininity, when actually, I think Sam's playing up Lestat's masculinity instead.

But it's a VERY particular type of masculinity, that clashes with modern norms and tastes and perceptions/assumptions.

And it only recently struck me that the vampire Lestat AND Sir Percy Blakeney (AKA the Scarlet Pimpernel) have A LOT in common: They're both foppish prissy buffoons who are tougher than they look and seem a LOT dumber than they actually are--and it's INTENTIONAL.

Because Lestat and Sir Percy Blakeney lived during the French Revolution. The Rococo hellscape of extravagant hedonistic opulence, that caused the fall of the monarchy & rise of the nouveau riche & middle classes. They came at the Revolution from opposite sides--Lestat de Lioncourt as a penniless marquis' son forced to hunt for his own food or starve, and Sir Percy Blakeney as an English elite sympathizer & spy for the French monarchy. That environment heavily colored both of their outlooks on life and interactions with others.

Aesthetics were everything--don't get Lestat started on the Savage Garden!--and a man's whole reputation and life could be ruined by his public image alone. Outdated clothes at court!? Scandalous!

Society's fashions & tastes change. The wigs, high heels, lace, makeup, limp wrists, prancing walks, small waists, shapely calves--all the Old World beauty standards now associated with women actually used to be applied to men. Manly men!

As overdone and effeminate as they might seem to modern audiences, in the 1700s, that kind of man was considered HOT--the very pinnacle of fashion, taste and breeding.

Ladies wanted to be with them, and men wanted to BE them--the nouveau riche, social climbers, middle class, etc--this was the model.

How society's double standards affect the class/race/gender dynamics between Loustat are absolutely feral. Despite how silly Lestat looked in his clothes, this fish out of water with his weird foreign talk and obnoxious behavior, Lestat EASILY "emasculated" Louis, the established & respected tough local pimp (and we would see over & over how effortlessly he could one-up Louis, especially in Ep5 when he came out of that fight without a scratch).

EFF his snatched waist, sassy hands, and long hair--this MAN was on DEMON TIME. Sam said that AMC put Lestat in a whole Matador-inspired villain outfit. Now, I don't know anything about Spanish bullslaying, but one cursory search on Jstor had all kinds of interesting things to say:

Douglass, Carrie B. “‘toro Muerto, Vaca Es’: An Interpretation of the Spanish Bullfight.” American Ethnologist 11, no. 2 (1984): 242–58. http://www.jstor.org/stable/643849.

And Louis definitely saw red and was charging at him like a bull--and Lestat nearly killed him for it.

So y'all tell me who the MAN is in this relationship. 👀 Lestat didn't become his MOTHER, he became HIS FATHER. (Louis is the one who's similar to Gabrielle!)

Lestat's money & class is telling, too. But what's ironic is that although Lestat appears Old Money to everyone (as his inheritance from Magnus was VERY old, and bottomless), he's actually nouveau riche--LOUIS was the silver spoon Old Money elite, with the DPDL estate (inherited from his white ancestors' French colonial slavery & plantations in NOLA). But Lestat was called the Wolf Killer, cuz he hunted wolves & saved his broke family from starving (and his village from wolf attacks).

Lestat was SO cocky after his hunt, prancing around town in his wolf furs like little Lord Fauntleroy, PRINCE LESTAT, like the kind of aristocrat he wished he was, the kind his birthright would've afforded him, if only his broke AF FATHER could've afforded it (and Prince Lestat eventually renovated his father's Chateau for the vampire court). His beautiful braggadocio/machismo was what attracted the vampire Magnus to Lestat, and made him a worthy candidate for immortality. Likewise, Lestat's brazen & BALLSY antics were what attracted Akasha to Lestat in QotD, too.

"Lestat, if all the world were destroyed, I would not destroy you," [Akasha] said. "Your limitations are as radiant as your virtues for reasons I don't understand myself. But more truly perhaps, I love you because you are so perfectly what is wrong with all things male. Aggressive, full of hate and recklessness, and endlessly eloquent excuses for violence-you are the essence of masculinity; and there is a gorgeous quality to such purity. But only because it can now be controlled." "By you." "Yes, my darling. This is what I was born for. This is why I am here. And it does not matter if no one ratifies my purpose. I shall make it so. Right now the world burns with masculine fire; it is a conflagration. But when that is corrected, your fire shall burn ever more brightly-as a torch burns."

For Akasha (and Anne Rice lbr), Lestat represented the epitome--the essence--of (toxic) MASCULINITY. The same vain, supercilious, foppish dandy obsessed with his hair and nails and purple sunglasses, always going on and on about James Dean & Marlon Brando, etc etc--is still a MAN.

He's the silliest creature ever, and he REVELS in it, because he knows good and dang well that he's the most dangerous one in the room. Whatever he wanted, he took, and fought for, controlled & dominated, come hell or high water.

Sure, he burns brightly, with effervescent light; but he's also the thing that goes bump in the night, lurking in the shadows, hiding his TRUE nature, his real face.

And we see that darkness, that ugly mean streak, as soon as Lestat and Percy feel they've been betrayed & feel their most vulnerable.

On a DIME, this man can go from being a silly, vapid clown, to a cold and calculated evil genius, playing 4D chess with the best of them. And the best trick is that because Lestat & Percy are both the protagonists/heroes of their stories, we'll clap and cheer and hope that they triumph, all while making a thousand excuses for their red flags--the matador wins again!

But what are Lestat & Percy REALLY fighting for & protecting? The rights of vampires to be effing serial killers? The rights of the parasitic monarchy/rich to leech off the poor? Don't let the pretty smiles & fun personalities fool you--they're inherently KILLERS--apex predators, hunters, and aggressively male--gay or straight, butch or femme, he wants to emasculate, dominate, penetrate, and humiliate.

The Scarlet Pimpernel is still an assassin, and Lestat is still a vampire. The patriarchal layers run deep, but their supposed "girliness" is just on the surface; it's due to the time period they both grew up in, and the aesthetic ideals of the elite during the 1700s--a time when manly men were A LOT more effeminate than what we'd expect today. But underneath that cultured veneer, they're still dangerous animals. The whole point of gothic literature Anne Rice's book emulated is that it confronts that duality head on, to consider the underlying nature of MAN's beast within. That's what makes Lestat so interesting--because you know there's sooo much more going on.

[carolinemillerbooks]

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/self-evident-truths/

Self-Evident Truths

Most of us remember January 6, 2021, when Republican Senator Josh Hawley raised his fist to indicate support for insurrectionists gathered outside the Capital.  Many of his fellow Americans were shocked by his gesture, but not all.  Recently, Hawley felt enough wind at his back to try rabble-rousing again, this time with a Bible in his fist. In his words, Without the Bible, there is no modernity.  Without the Bible, there is no America.  “Hold on, buckaroo. Your facts are wrong, I wanted to say.  But The Editorial Board of The Kansas City Star had a better response.  They reminded Hawley that many of our founding fathers weren’t Christians but deists. They pointed out the many times Thomas Pain attacked the Bible.  Thomas Jefferson, they added, cut out parts of the New Testament to create a spiritual guide that eliminated superstition and nonsense.  In 1785, James Madison charged that Christianity had been on trial for “fifteen centuries.” In his Memorial and Remonstrance, he opposed a Virginia legislative proposal to establish a state religion. Given our country’s history, The Editorial Board had no recourse but to regard Hawley’s remarks about ours as a Christian nation to be the “ramblings of an arrogant, partisan senator.” Hawley may be arrogant. Nonetheless, there is a method in his ramblings.  Like the rest of The Republican party, he strives to divide our nation along religious, race, class, political, and economic lines. His endgame is to preserve a model of political and financial power that harkens back to slavery, an era where much of the nation’s wealth depended upon free labor. In the short run, slavery was a benefit to a privileged class that was willing to blind itself to the misery the system caused. These short-term gains withered over time, however, leaving the nation morally bankrupt and with a wealth gap we have yet to solve. One consulting firm speculates that the aftermath of slavery in the coming decades will “cost the U. S. economy  $1 trillion to 1.5 trillion in lost consumption and investment. (“The Hierarchies of Weakness,” by Amitav Acharya, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2022, pg. 78.) Those who see themselves as the beneficiaries of that former system appear willing to foment division to preserve it. That might be good for them but the majority of Americans would fare better if those divisions were healed. As the matter stands,  1% of the world’s adult population controls 43% of global wealth while the remaining 54% controls 2% (Ibid pg. 77)  If wealth were shared equitably, allowing women and minorities to move out of poverty, the resulting entrepreneurship and consumerism would secure America’s financial power. It would also grow the world’s wealth by $28 trillion over the next five years. (Ibid, pg. 81.) In that economy, no one would go to bed hungry.   Contrary to the evidence, Republicans like Hawley advocate for a system that subjects large swaths of the population to discrimination.  The result is violence and disruption. (Ibid, pg. 80.)  No nation can long endure instability. At the moment, we are a country at cross-purposes. How do we save ourselves?  We might begin by challenging old assumptions.  Are democracy and capitalism inextricably linked, for example? As it stands, capitalism seems to work against the democratic notion of equality. Consumerism, the cornerstone of capitalism, requires purchasing power.  Like a great Ponzi scheme, it appears to favor those who spend more.  It also requires perpetual growth. The concept defies nature. Even the universe, scientists speculate will end. My blog on the fast fashion industry illustrated the harm of unbridled consumerism. As a society, we should examine its value. Last year Forbes published an article that listed the 4 best uses of money: 1) purchasing experiences rather than things; 2) concentrating on small pleasures. Data shows small pleasures provide greater satisfaction than big-ticket items; 3) spending money to buy time to enjoy small pleasures; 4) engaging in charitable giving.  Studies show that being generous to others is one of the top six predictors of satisfaction. If governments pursued Forbes’ brand of consumerism, we would live in a different world. Capitalism may not be at odds with democracy. Our standards could be the problem. If so, what needs to be changed? Ever curious, scientists have studied the values of peaceful nations.  Those with the greatest internal harmony promote public spaces and events that bring people together. Civic leaders rather than military figures are memorialized in statues. The media offers news without hyperventilating to gain attention. More statues to honor women and minorities, more green spaces, and a press that doesn’t monetize violence seem doable. Or, we could return to basics. We are a government of all people, by all the people, and for all the people.  When we honor equality, we will be the masters of this system we call democracy

[lorarri]

★ . . . 𝐏𝐀𝐆𝐄𝐒 𝐎𝐅 𝐕𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐄 , 𝐙𝐆𝟐𝟒

summary , a fashion icon is drawn out of writing retirement by an equally iconic 8 time world champion which leads to love blossoming rather quickly

pairing , fashion editor! zhou guanyu x fem! f1 driver! reader

series masterlist | main masterlist | sol’s masterlist | f1 masterlist

vouge

liked by yourinstagram zhouguanyu24 199,370,936 others

vouge The wait is over: introducing zhouguanyu24 first return to writing in 6 years in this issue of Vogue. Through tabloid headlines, struggles of inequality and a drive to prove herself, the story of yourinstagram is a triumph, in the world of motorsports which the protagonist has flourished by winning 8 world drivers championships and has allowed herself to grow creatively and expand beyond the world of Formula One. As the F1 driver, singer, actor, fashion designer, creative, and philanthropist considers her next moves – a new album, movie and the hope of a 9th wdc among them – she tells Vogue’s new head of editorial content #zhouguanyu what living her truth means now in the April 2024 issue. Click the link in bio to read the interview, and see the story in full in the new issue, on news stands Tuesday 19 March.

view comments

user very normal abt this. very.

user YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS

user MOTHER ?????

user SLAYED THE HOUSE DOWN

user ate soooooo hard

user THIS ALBUM IS ABT TO BE 🔥🔥

user UHM DEVOURED???

user mhm. mhm. now that’s what i’m talking about.

user someone on twitter said thank god for ur parents, I too, say thank god for them.

user my mother everyone.

user fell to my fucking knees.

user this is my religion, amen. 🙏🏻

user what god do i have to pray to 🧎🏽‍♀️

user BRO.

view more comments

yourinstagram . 3hrs ago

seen by lewishamilton charles_leclerc 98,273,472 others

f1

liked by yourinstagram lewishamilton 78,398,479 others

f1 a fashion legend and a new wag has graced us for the weekend brining iconic fit's too

view comments

user how did this guy get one chance miss Y/N

user 😩😩😩

user fell to my fucking knees.

user this is my religion, amen. 🙏🏻

user HOOOOOLYYYYYYYY

user the new wag is pulling out all the stops huh

user it couple in the paddock

user him and Y/N make such an iconic couple

user ate.

user slayed the house down boots

view more comments

[tau1tvec]

/quote

It was the second annual Debt Gala, which bills itself as a D.I.Y. alternative to the lavish spring benefit in Manhattan, which raises hundreds of millions each year for the Metropolitan Museum of Art Costume Institute.

The theme, “Sleeping Baddies: Slumber Party,” was a parody of this year’s Met ball theme, “Sleeping Beauties: Reawakening Fashion.” Many of the participants at the Bell House wore bathrobes, pajamas and fuzzy slippers, along with sleep masks, travel pillows and other slumber-centric accessories.

The Debt Gala is also a benefit that seeks to raise awareness of personal debt burden and health care inequality, and proceeds from its $35 tickets went toward organizations that help relieve people from heavy medical debt. This year’s recipients were the Debt Collective, a national union of debtors, and Dollar For, a medical nonprofit.

/end quote

Link

[andreablog2]

I used to think it was redundant to mock the met but it’s genuinely a mess of an event that if anything is like the grand opening of the New Yorks biggest month for art ..and it’s no shade it’s kind of lame how New York is the biggest city in the world and it’s biggest yearly cultural event revolves around the publicity of exploited hopeless romantics. Outside of it being like…a very excessive/frivolous display of wealth during a time of serious inequality…the role it plays in flexing americas soft power to the world who’s in New York for the many other art fairs…but also in providing this illusion of it being a semi-populist event by way of showcasing celebrities who all have rags to riches stories. It’s so many things at once, bread and circuses, a pr event, a spiritual event, a form of theater/visual arts, social mobility propaganda, pro western propaganda….also I honestly think picking apart how certain people don’t “get the theme” ad nauseum or how certain folks don’t understand the archives and how it’s indicative nobody has any true understanding or appreciation of the “arts” is still such a surface level take. Like the fashion arts ….not being allotted the appropriate amount of reverence…is the least disrespectful thing that happens but it’s what everyone gets outraged about 😭😭😭😭every fucking year. The arts matter far less than peoples lives and it’s silly to say but this event literally enables the degradation of peoples lives….in my opinion.

[tikkunolamresistance]

Witnessing a cognitive dissonance like no other, or simply sheer racist ignorance— self-proclaimed feminists are crying out over actress Margot Robbie, one of the worlds highest paid actors, not receiving her 3rd Academy Award nomination for the surface-level feminist movie Barbie (2023) that earned over $1 billion (USD) in the global box office last year…

Whilst women in Gaza have absolutely no access to menstrual hygiene and new mothers face C-Sections without anaesthesia. Palestinian women are using cut up tent material as menstrual hygiene products, which poses a massive risk for fatal toxic shock.

These same self-proclaimed feminists cannot even speak on what Palestinian women and girls are facing, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in typical Imperialist feminism fashion made a post to show her grieviences for the “Barbie Oscar snub”— when just the other week, the failed Presidential candidate had been avidly endorsing opposition to the ceasefire that would have saved thousands of lives.

There’s this phenomenon of feminism staring us right in the face; a form of feminism that prioritises hegemonic alliances over uprooting the inequality and brutality women in the global south are consistently facing. White women do not see POC in their feminism, this lack of second nature response is a direct product of white supremacy; to deny our sisters humanity, to ignore their pain, it comes from no place other than comfort in their whiteness and the imperial subjugation of the female experience that has long since centralised whiteness.