We should all be feminists - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie at TEDxEuston
More brilliance from my alma mater, this time from my girl Brittney!
Often painstakingly selected to complete outfits, high heels put stress not just on feet, but on ankles, knees and backs, contributing to the approximately $3.5 billion spent annually in the United States for women’s foot surgeries, which cause them to lose 15 million work days yearly.
Today’s outfit: June 20, 2013
Weather in Cincinnati: H 84/L 63
- Color block dress (Kohls, 2008)
- Black & gold gladiator sandals (from Mom, 2011)
& introducing my new floppy hat! I found it for $8.30 at the Totes outlet store when I was at Cincinnati Premium Outlets consulting on my beau’s new wardrobe this very afternoon. As you may recall, I went hat shopping in LA but hats can be outrageously priced.
Accessories weren’t ever discussed in my 365 day challenge guidelines. I never have been much for accessories, anyway, so I think it’s okay to buy something now & then.
“The real fashion victims are not celebrities, but anonymous workers in poor conditions, in polluted countries.”
Spanish artist Yolanda Dominguez makes a statement on the garment industry, staging live art with “dead” models, symbolizing the 1,129 workers who perished in a Bangladeshi garment factory in April. Dominguez’s show, on Madrid’s posh Gran Via, lie in direct competition with the flagship stores of many global discount brands like H&M and Zara.
See related posts: June 2013: My 365 day no-clothes-buying challenge; May 2013: Obama’s Need to Help Fix the Fashion Industry, April 2013: Scores Dead in Bangladesh building Collapse; July 2012: Overdressed.
Today’s outfit: June 19, 2013
Weather in Oxford: sunny; H 79/L 55
I’m eating lunch with and speaking on a panel for the McNair Scholars today!
- B&W dress (Clothes Mentor, 2013)
- B&W Oxford pumps (Goodwill, 2012)
I bought this dress at a resale shop for $14. It still had its original tag and was once priced at $245! Holy cow. This dress is made in China, it’s fairly simple, and the material is pretty flimsy. I’m not impressed, Parameter (a brand I’ve never heard of).
Today’s outfit: June 18, 2013
Weather in Oxford: Raining; H 82/L 55
- A little black dress (Valley Thrift, 2012)
- Yellow belt (Goodwill, 2012)
- Grey Chuck Taylors (Journey’s, 2009)
This article says everything I’ve been trying to say about superfoods for a long time. Here’s an excerpt:
“Worse than superfoods’ origin myths, though, are their effects on the people in their native regions. In 2009, at the height of the açaí berry hype, Bloomberg News reported that the fruit’s wholesale price had jumped 60-fold since the early 2000s, pricing the Amazonian villagers who rely on it out of the market. In the Andes, where quinoa has been cultivated since the time of the Incas, price spikes have turned a one-time staple into a luxury, and quinoa monocrops are crowding out the more sustainable traditional methods.
If that doesn’t faze you, perhaps this will: Quinoa may deliver a complete protein—all of the amino acids you require—in a compact package, but rice and beans together actually do better. And like goji berries, blueberries and strawberries are packed with phytochemicals. The only problem is that lacking an exotic back story, food marketers can’t wring as exorbitant a markup from these staples: The domestic blueberry, for example, is periodically (and justifiably) marketed as a superfood, and in 2012, products featuring blueberries as a primary ingredient saw their sales nearly quadruple. But they only raked in $3.5 million—less than 2 percent of açaí-based product sales.
Yes, the food industry’s hawkers have a tough job—and you can make it even tougher. The real superfoods are lurking exactly where marketers don’t want you to look: in produce sections, bulk food aisles, and backyard gardens. Not quite as exotic as the Himalayas. But then again, neither are those industrial plots in China where goji berries actually come from.”
I am really repulsed by this judgy, jingoistic new trend in calling food “clean”. Browsing Pinterest I saw a recipe for “Clean banana bread: with honey and applesauce instead of oil and sugar!” Prevention.com has an awards slideshow of the “100 Cleanest Packaged Foods”, which includes products like Stonyfield Greek Yogurt, about which the ad copy bleats, “it has just one ingredient. Now that’s clean”. Not a word choice I would use for a food that’s produced through bacterial fermentation.
Which is my point: it seems like a significant disconnect, the construction of Clean Food with no real concept of the realities of how your food works — and yet another way to make healthier food options into an issue of class, wealth, and morality. Calling foods that aren’t highly processed “clean” immediately renders other foods “dirty”, and the people who eat them dirty by extension.
Most of the clean items on the slideshow are pretty damn expensive, and you can only get them in certain stores; I say this as a Canadian with easy access to a car and multiple specialty groceries. Hell, I say this as a Canadian who, like many ordinary people, has already made an effort to simplify and streamline her diet to cut out more processed foods, within the confines of her budget and energy.
And all of this, of course, is before you even look at the fact that “clean eating” is touted as part of a fitness regime to help lose weight. Because being fat — like being poor, like eating foods that are part of your culture and include oil and eggs and sugar — is the same as being dirty. And clean eating will cure you of being dirty.
I mean, to me, “clean eating” means food security. It means you had access to safe water and food ingredients, somewhere adequate for food preparation, something clean to eat your meal off of. It doesn’t mean stuff that costs you way too much at Whole Foods, but will make you slim, sanitized, and superior to all those fat poor people eating their dirty food.
Reblogging for commentary.
Rank-ordering foods on a moral/orthdox scale is seriously problematic.
Know that constitutes healthy food? Food that provides you with nutrition in the form of accessible calories and doesn’t rip up your digestive system (subjective to individuals! Some foods are perfectly health for some people and unhealthy for others!) or cause you to have cancer (Carcinogenic ingredients should be banned at the processing level so that they’re not IN processed foods). That is healthy food. Butter pound cake with cream cheese frosting is healthy food. A chunk of flank steak smothered in whiskey and honey is healthy food. A giant bowl of chili is healthy food (with or without beans in it!). Duck fat melted into a pile of rosemary-infused mashed potatoes is healthy food. The overwhelming majority of foods that haven’t been utterly fucked with through super-refinement and chemical amendment are, by the grace of four billion years of evolution, HEALTHY FOOD.
Boiling a slice of potato in oil does not render it unhealthy.
And even when foods are unarguably unhealthy and cause the people who eat them to be ill?
EATING THEM IS NOT A MORAL CONCERN. YOU ARE NOT A BAD PERSON IF YOU EAT UNHEALTHY FOOD, REGARDLESS OF WHY YOU DO IT.
Healthiness is not a moral choice. You are allowed to make decisions in the full knowledge that they are unhealthy, because your body and your life are your own. It can get dicey if your health choices legitimately cause harm to others (I.E. cause you to neglect or abuse other people for whom you are responsible like children or elders) but if that’s off the table? YOUR CHOICES ARE YOUR OWN. And in any case whatosever:
YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO BE OR STAY HEALTHY.
Sure, health is nice. Many people choose to pursue it. Longevity is nice. Many people choose to pursue that. But they are not the only legitimate choices on earth, nor are they inherently better than making other life choices that counteract or sacrifice the above.
If you tell me that eating all-butter pound cake will make me die at 50, whereas not eating that cake will allow me to live to 100, my choice becomes
A fifty-year life with cake
A hundred year life without
And know what? If I decide that fifty years of delicious cake is a worthwhile endeavor and a well-spent life, one I’d prefer to a cakeless life no matter how long? THAT’S MY CHOICE. IT IS PERFECTLY VALID.
(Note: Any civilization that is not attempting with all of its effort to ensure that every single person in it can CHOOSE healthy food if they want it is a piss-poor civilization in need of serious overhaul. Being poor should not mean being REQUIRED to eat unhealthy food to survive.)
On the same note and specifically concerning the article above, and pointing out how absurd it is?
Know what CLEAN food is?
FOOD YOU WASHED.
My home-grown organic veggies, which are super-nutritious and ‘wholesome’, grow out of a pile of composted horse shit, dead fish, and vegetation, in a soil that’s chock full of fungal mycelium and microorganisms and insects. They come into my house absolutely swimming with bacteria, fungal spores, etc. Then I spray them down with some nice 1:20 bleach solution and give them a good rinse and they become clean. That’s what clean means.
Doppelgangers, doubles, evil twins and not-so-evil twins, this week. Fred Armisen co-hosts with Ira Glass.
Act Two is about experiences of PTSD of military veterans and inner city kids.
Today’s outfit: June 17, 2013
Weather in Oxford: Partly cloudy; H 86/L 64
Gold & white sleeveless top (NY & Co, 2012)
Denim skirt (Rummage Sale, 2011)
Gold & brown gladiator sandals (from Mom, 2011)
slow kisses on lazy days,
thunder in our ears.
Today’s outfit: June 15, 2013
Weather in Cincinnati: sunny; H 79/L 57
- Salmon polka dot shirt (Buffalo Exchange, 2013)
- Cream & navy twill skirt (Buffalo Exchange, 2013)
- Gold & brown gladiator sandals (from Mom, 2011)
Yesterday’s outfit: June 14, 2013
Weather in Cincinnati: sunny; H 77/L 57
- Polka dot dress (Forever 21, 2012)
- Black leggings (Kohls, 2011)
- Black & gold gladiator sandals (from mom, 2011)
Does the process of “revitalizing cities” bother anyone else? I was in this lovely section of Cincinnati yesterday called Over-the-Rhine, which had been in bad shape up until the last few years. However, recently, there’s been a concerted effort to revitalize this area by bringing in new businesses, renovating places like Washington Park, and so on. I went to OTR yesterday to eat dinner after taking my visiting sister to the Museum Center at Union Station and had to wait 45 minutes for a table. I thought, okay, let’s walk around the neighborhood and check out what’s here, something I’ve never really done before since I basically go to OTR for the nightlife or to eat. Most of the shops sell useless, overpriced, culturally appropriated knick-knacks while the boutiques sell gauzy maxi dresses made in China for a whopping $245. If you walk a block and a half west, a parking garage and new condos/apartments are under construction. Most of the existing apartments above the new store fronts and restaurants have been renovated/updated and secured with surveilled and fenced up private parking lots.
But, if you walk about two blocks in either direction from the main stretch you’ll run into a “park” - a small, concrete alley with some murals and mosaic art that has also been revitalized. But who is in the park? A man begging for change. Two other men smoking cigarettes and trying to talk up the women who walk by (including my sister, friend, and me). Walking through Washington Park en route from the parking garage to the restaurant, who do I see? Predominantly families of color whose children are playing in the musical fountain in their regular clothes; a few men and women begging for change; a reggae performer providing the Friday night live music and predominantly POCs sitting on blankets on the lawn to hear them.
Who is in the boutiques and restaurants a few blocks away? White people, probably from the suburban parts of the city who are ready and willing to pay for the $6 valet parking rather than park themselves in a garage for $3 and walk 1-3 blocks to the restaurant of their choice. Who lives in the revitalized and newly built apartments and condos? White, younger, wealthier people with fresh college and graduate degrees and probably office jobs downtown.
Don’t get me wrong, I really like this area of the city for getting away from Oxford, having a great time, and eating delicious things. However, yesterday I was really bothered by the idea of revitalization in this and other areas I’ve been to (in Cincinnati: Clifton, Northside; in Columbus: the Short North; in Cleveland: the 4th Street Corridor) because it seems to me that the projects involve providing incentive and cheapish real estate to bring in overpriced boutiques and art galleries and “two-dollar sign” (or up) restaurants, major construction of parking structures and new living spaces, and makeovers of existing green/community spaces, potentially all at the expense of the socioeconomically disadvantaged, predominantly people of color who lived in (and continue to live) in this area. That is, bringing in businesses that these populations aren’t able to access: they can’t afford to eat there, they can’t realistically shop there, and they can’t even really be employed there (except maybe for the POC janitor that I saw in the back of the restaurant where I ate, where all the greeters/hosts, servers, and cooks were White). As these revitalized places expand and the businesses here take hold, the poor (POCs) get pushed out to the edges of these neighborhoods or into areas outside them that are equally economically depressed, crime-ridden, and “problematic” as OTR once was.
How can a section of the city be revitalized without alienating the poor and people of color? How can such communities be revitalized for them and with them instead of in ways that largely serve to attract privileged and educated (and lighter skinned) classes rather than improve conditions for the people already living, working, and going to school there?