Stranger Things star Millie Bobby Brown shared a big moment on Instagram. The actor, who plays the mysterious and telekinetic Eleven, shared a video of the major hair change she made before filming began on the first season of Stranger Things, the addicting Netflix show. S he wrote that shaving her head for the show proved to be the most “empowering” moment of her life.
“The day I shaved my head was the most empowering moment of my whole life. The last strand of hair cut off was the moment my whole face was on show and I couldn’t hide behind my hair like I used to. The only image I had in my head about what I could possibly look like is Charlize Theron in Madmax. As I looked at myself and couldn’t see my old self, I realized that now; I have a job to do and that is to inspire other girls that your image or exterior part is not what I think is important. What I find important is caring, loving and inspiring other girls. Thought to share my thoughts during this life changing moment." Bobby Brown captioned the post.
Brown seems to be feeling nostalgia for her shaved head. Only days before sharing the video, the actress also declared that she “missed” the style. She explained on Twitter that it had been responsible for helping her to look differently at traditional notions of beauty.
Katy Perry took the plunge for practical reasons, but stuck with it for reasons similar to those Bobby Brown touched on. "Sometimes your hair falls out when you go too blonde. So, this is the way I handled it,” she told Ellen DeGeneres last spring. A few months later, she realized it was deeper than just a cut: "People like to talk about my hair, right? They don't like it or they wish that it was longer...That is a little bit of why I cut my hair, because I really want to be my authentic self 100%.”
Bobby Brown also crushed the red carpet while she was growing her hair out – which is no easy feat – rocking cocktail dresses from Kate Spade New York and looks from Burberry. And of course, the budding fashionista already sat front in the row at New York Fashion Week — twice.
Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?
This weekend, actress Eliza Dushku came forward about the abuse she experienced as a child actor. She penned an essay on her Facebook page, alleging that she was molested on the set on the action film True Lies at 12 years old by Joel Kramer, the film’s stunt coordinator. Kramer has denied the allegations, though he has been dropped by his talent agency, WPA.
Now, fellow actress Jamie Lee Curtis is speaking up for Dushku, in an essay for the HuffPost. Curtis played Dushku’s mother in the movie, and revealed that Dushku told her about the alleged abuse “a few years ago,” and discusses the working relationships she’d had with child actors.
“I was shocked and saddened then and still am today,” wrote Curtis. “Eliza’s story has now awakened us from our denial slumber to a new, horrific reality. The abuse of children.”
Curtis notes that even though child actors have chaperones and guardians on set, and there are strict regulations about how long they are able to work, “...yet sadly, as with any rules, these are often broken.”
She also writes that the relationship she shared with her child coworkers was a complicated one. “I have wrestled with my role as a mentor, colleague, surrogate, and friend, and each relationship is individual and unique. Are we really friends? Are we work mates? Children are not mature enough to recognize that subtle difference,” writes Curtis.
Ultimately, she shares our revulsion at what happened to Dushku. Curtis points to a workplace culture that has allowed abuse to occur: “All of us must take some responsibility that the loose and relaxed camaraderie that we share with our young performers has carried with it a misguided assumption that they are adults in an adult world, capable of making adult choices.”
Children, even working children, are still not able to process information the way adults do, and it’s up to adults to ensure their safety. That responsibility, even on a film set, is sacrosanct and comes before all else.
If you have experienced sexual violence and are in need of crisis support, please call the RAINN Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE (4673).
Following days of harsh backlash, Catherine Deneuve has published a public explanation of why she signed her name to this week's letter from 100 French women denouncing the Me Too movement. The actress apologizes to victims of "odious acts," such as sexual assault and harassment but still defends her decision to sign the letter.
"I don’t like this aspect of our times where each feels the right to judge, arbitrate, condemn — a society where simple denunciations on social networks lead to punishment, job losses and often lynching in the media," Deneuve began her letter to the French paper Liberation, published Sunday night, echoing the initial sentiment of the controversial Le Monde letter. She then seems to criticize the quick removal of Kevin Spacey from All the Moneyin the World and to New York Ballet leader Peter Martins' resignation following allegations he abused and harassed dancers because neither men had a trial before losing their jobs.
But then Deneuve pivots to criticism of fellow signers of the letter, in particular, actress Brigitte Lahaie who said in a TV interview that women can have an orgasm while being raped. Statements like that, she said, are like "spitting in the face" of victims.
Deneuve said there is nothing in the original letter that says harassment is good, otherwise, she would not have signed it. Since she became an actress at 17, she said she's witnessed filmmakers abuse their power over women.
"What creates situations that are traumatizing and unbearable is always the power, the subordination or some sort of overpowering," she wrote. "The trap occurs when it becomes impossible to say no without risking one’s job, or being subjected to humiliations and degrading sarcasm."
That statement does contradict the original letter, which seemed to defend men's right to harass women, stating, "Rape is a crime, but trying to seduce someone, even persistently or cack-handedly, is not – nor is men being gentlemanly a macho attack."
Nowhere in this new explanation does the actress address why she has in the past defended director Roman Polanski, a convicted statutory rapist. But she does bring up her feminist credentials by reminding readers that in 1971, she signed another controversial public letter from "343 sluts" admitting to having had abortions. That's why the only women to whom Deneuve feels the need to apologize, she concludes are any victims of sexual violence who were offended by the letter.
"I am a free woman and I will remain so,"she said.
If you have experienced sexual violence and are in need of crisis support, please call the RAINN Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE (4673).
We are living in a world of feminist anti-harassment campaigns like Time's Up and Me Too, which lay the responsibility for men's sexual misconduct squarely on men themselves, but many people are still intent on holding survivors (most often women) responsible for such behaviors.
Nowhere is this more serious and disturbing than in cases of rape, where survivors are still frequently asked what they were wearing, how much they had to drink, and if they had led on their attacker. Now, an art exhibit aims to reclaim the accusatory refrain "What were you wearing?"
An exhibition in the Molenbeek district of Brussels, Belgium, named What were you wearing? is tackling one of the most pervasive myths of rape culture: that a survivor’s clothing makes them in any way culpable for the attack.
The exhibition consists of 18 outfits recreated based on statements by student rape survivors from Kansas University, which held a similar exhibition in September. The organizers told Refinery29 it was "too difficult" to find people who wanted to talk about their own experiences.
Photo: Courtesy Of Molenbeek
Among the items on show are pajamas, tracksuit bottoms, dresses and even a children's 'My Little Pony' T-shirt, which hammers home the ubiquity and scope of rape. The intention was "to create a tangible response to one of our most pervasive rape culture myths," said Delphine Goossens, Molenbeek prevention service's project manager.
"The belief that clothing, or what someone was wearing, 'causes' rape is extremely damaging for survivors," she told Refinery29. "This installation allows participants to see themselves reflected in not only the outfits, but also in the experiences of the survivors."
Photo: Courtesy Of MolenbeekPhoto: Courtesy Of Molenbeek
The organization wants to make people rethink the stereotypes of rapists and survivors in our prevailing rape culture, and how our assumptions – about a survivor's behavior, clothing or how much alcohol they'd consumed when they were attacked – may contribute to it.
"We still tell our young girls to pay attention to what they are wearing, but we still do not teach our boys not to abuse," added Goossens. "We would like people to understand that every woman could wear what they want and they shouldn't be attacked. That's what the exhibition shows: no outfit can prevent rape."
Photo: Courtesy Of Molenbeek
What were you wearing? is on show at the Maritime Community Centre in Sit-Jans-Molenbeek until 20th January.
If you have experienced sexual violence and are in need of crisis support, please call the RAINN Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE (4673).
Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?
Today is Martin Luther King Day, when people all over the world celebrate the life and legacy of the famed minister and civil rights leader. To mark the occasion, Google changed its homepage with a new Doodle by artist Cannaday Chapman.
The artwork features a young girl sitting atop her father's shoulders as they watch King, Jr.’s famed “I Have a Dream” speech on the National Mall. A group of faces surrounds the girl, each taking in the beauty and hope of his words.
“I felt very honored to have the opportunity to pay tribute to one of America's bravest leaders,” said Chapman in a featured interview with Google. He mentions that he was busy when approached about the project, but felt he couldn’t pass it up.
The Google Doodle is especially poignant because it speaks to King, Jr.’s leadership, but also focuses on the people who followed his movement. We don’t see King, Jr.’s face in the artwork. This was by choice, Chapman explains. “I was inspired by people. It may appear that this movement or any civil rights movement was brought about by one person, but it's the people that have the power to bring change. I wanted to make an image about those people.”
The art was one of several drafts that Chapman proposed to Google. Other sketches featured children drawing King, Jr.’s face in chalk on the ground, and a worker putting up a wheat paste poster of him on a street wall.
Dr. King was instrumental in the movement towards equality for African-Americans and the working class. As a nonviolent activist, he was imprisoned in 1963 for protesting Jim Crow laws in Birmingham, Alabama; from his jail cell, he wrote a letter that would become famous. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” he wrote in the Letter From a Birmingham Jail, words that still deeply resonate today.
Chapman’s artwork reminds us that King, Jr.’s dream still lives on today, in the people who reject that status quo in order to achieve a more perfect union. “I would like people to remember that current events and our actions today will shape the future generations of tomorrow,” says Chapman. We remember that while a person can die, their legacy lives on, and gives us lessons to heed for our lifetime.
Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?
There are certain parts of our skin-care regimen that aren't really up for debate. We cleanse and moisturize in the morning and at night, and keep our more intensive treatments for right before bed. But I recently got into a heated debate with a friend about where exfoliation fits into the equation. I've taken to scrubbing in the morning (after an editor mentioned it helps her makeup sit better). My friend told me I was crazy, and that I should be exfoliating at night, since that's when the bulk of skin care is "supposed" to take place.
So, I did what any beauty editor would do: I polled some experts. And, it turns out, even they aren't 100% aligned on the topic. "Many people ask for specifics on the best time to use a physical exfoliant, but it really is dependent on the individual's habits and lifestyle," says dermatologist Harold Lancer, MD. "If someone wears makeup on a daily basis, exfoliating at night would help to lift any remaining makeup particles from the skin and ensure that your products are penetrating properly," he adds. But Dr. Lancer goes on to say that if your face is dull in the morning, or if you have oily skin, exfoliating in the a.m. may be best.
Dermatologist Karyn Grossman, MD, however, has a bit of a stronger stance. She typically prefers her patients to exfoliate in the morning. "In general, patients should focus on protection in the morning and correction in the evening," she says. "I find that most patients will tend to use stronger, more irritating products in the evening. Thus, adding exfoliation to this can cause or increase the potential irritation." So, if you use a stronger product, like a Retinol, make sure you space out its application from your exfoliating products. Since Retinols and the like tend to be used at night, an a.m. scrub might be better for you.
But, regardless of when you exfoliate, both derms agree on the type of exfoliant you should use: "[It] should always be gentle, with vibrating or ultrasonic brushes, super-fine scrubs, etc.," Dr. Grossman says. "Never use large, jagged particles that can cause micro-tears in the skin." Dr. Lancer agrees and adds that you should always follow with a good moisturizer. Scrub on, people!
This two-speed cleansing brush will remove makeup, dirt, or oil that has accumulated on your skin throughout the day. You can use any gel cleanser with it, but we're partial to the one that comes in the set.
Clarisonic Mia 2 Skin Cleansing System, $169, available at Sephora.
With eight intensity settings, this innovative cleansing tool can be customized to fit your day-to-day skin needs.
Even the most sensitive skin types can score some gentle exfoliation with a manual cleansing tool like this one. It might feel like a throwback from the skin-care Stone Age (B.C. — Before Clarisonic), but it gets the job done in the most non-irritating way possible.
Sephora Collection Precision Pore Cleansing Pad, $6, available at Sephora.
Gentle Scrub
This all-natural physical and chemical exfoliant, formulated with sea kelp and lemon peel, will leave your skin brighter. And might have you craving a green juice...
AcureOrganics Brightening Facial Scrub, $9.99, available at Target.
With gentle rice powder and silica particles replacing abrasive (and environmentally unsafe) micro-beads, this cleanser is perfect for those with oily or sensitive skin — and it's under $5.
Simple Smoothing Facial Scrub, $4.99, available at Target.
Gentle enough for every skin type, these tiny beads slough off dead skin to stop breakouts in its tracks. Bonus: Unlike some physical scrubs, this one is A-OK for the environment.
Renée Rouleau Mint Buffing Beads, $32.50, available at Renée Rouleau.
Hydrating Moisturizer
This moisturizer is lightweight and super absorbent, making it the perfect pick for summer. And how pretty is the packaging?
Tatcha Pore Perfecting Water Gel Moisturizer, $68, available at Tatcha.
Sunday Riley C.E.O. C + E antiOXIDANT Protect + Repair Moisturizer, $65, available at Sephora.
There's nothing quite like finding a moisturizer that hydrates day and night and adds the kind of natural glow your Champagne highlighter can't.
Kate Somerville ExfoliKate Glow Moisturizer, $65, available at Sephora.
The pore-refining magnolia extract, Lumicol (which boosts radiance), along with a host of other ingredients developed by Dr. Barbara Sturm makes this heavy face cream worth every penny — and ideal for the colder months.
Dr. Barbara Sturm Darker Skin Tones Face Cream Rich, $230, available at Molecular Cosmetics.
This calming, but also incredibly fresh, formula desensitizes skin deep down, protecting it from within, the brand reports. Bonus: The cream is thick, but doesn't leave any residue before makeup.
Clarins Gentle Day Cream, $64, available at Clarins.
For the best exfoliation practices to get rid of dead skin — check out this Short Cuts video.
Like this post? There's more. Get tons of beauty tips, tutorials, and news on the Refinery29 Beauty Facebook page. Like us on Facebook — we'll see you there!
Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?
After years of battling with my skin, I’ve (almost) got my acne under control. I’m using benzoyl peroxide to tackle it, but while it is definitely treating the blemishes, it makes my skin painfully dry. I’m thinking about going on Roaccutane if this doesn’t give me the results I want, but I know the dryness will be even worse if I do. What do I do? I know it’s silly!
Martha, 26
The kind of people who roll their eyes at skin problems are also, in my experience, the kind of people who insist on giving you a five-minute lecture on exactly why they’ve brought that bottle of wine to your party, and like to pepper conversations with references to their own alternative superiority – aka, the worst people. Do not let anyone make you feel bad for caring about your skin or feeling unhappy about your acne. Your skin is the largest organ of your body and if it’s out of whack, you are absolutely allowed to feel down about that. You are not weak, or vain, or silly.
I’m glad you’re finally on the home stretch of clearing it up. However, the problem you’re describing is all too common. Benzoyl peroxide works by nuking all the acne-causing bacteria on your skin but in doing so, it also leaves the skin parched, like the roof of your mouth after a night of drinking. Roaccutane (also called Isotretinoin) is similar: It stops you from producing pore-clogging sebum, but the dehydration it causes is sadly universal. (One of my girlfriends is currently taking it, and she always smells faintly like the Elizabeth Arden Eight Hour Cream she smothers on her lips at 15-minute intervals.)
"While it’s tempting to lather on thick, greasy moisturizers, it’s counterintuitive and can result in further blocking your pores," says dermatologist Dr. Anjali Mahto. "Look for products that are labeled as non-comedogenic, which are less likely to be pore-clogging." That’s right – while you might want to dunk yourself headfirst into a vat of cold cream, you’ll only make matters worse. Surely it’s okay to use some nice facial oil then, right? Wrong!
"While taking a treatment such as Roaccutane, the skin goes from being oily to extremely dry and sensitive," Dr. Mahto adds. "Skin care must change to reflect this. It’s important to avoid products that are heavily fragranced, which can lead to skin irritation. Stay away from facial oils, which are likely to be high in fragrances."
With standard cases of dehydrated skin, I’d usually put in a few bits here about the importance of exfoliating to create a blank canvas – but in your case, Martha, that wouldn’t be a good idea. "Stop using harsh abrasive mechanical exfoliators (basically, Clarisonic-type brushes and face scrubs) as these can cause damage to the skin," says Dr. Mahto. "Also, chemical exfoliators — products containing alpha hydroxy acids such as lactic or glycolic acid, or beta hydroxy acids like salicylic acid and retinoids — are off-limits as they’ll further sensitize your skin and make it sore."
Think about it: You’re always told to avoid laser and waxing while you’re on Roaccutane as it can cause scarring and discomfort while your skin is fragile. Stick to soothing, not scrubbing.
In any case, the dermatologist who prescribes your Roaccutane will see your skin up close and personal, and be able to give you solid recommendations. If you stick to topical over-the-counter products, be diligent and check for added fragrances, oils and harsh exfoliators in your other skin care.
In the last four years the following things have happened:
I have had surgery seven times.
My mother was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.
My mother came to live with me for nine months to be treated for pancreatic cancer.
I got a divorce.
My agent fired me and my manager saved me.
I shot a hilarious show.
I moved three times.
My partner and I doubled our business.
I fell in love.
I proudly joined the boards of two remarkable organizations and traveled to over 23 different countries around the world.
My stress induced early menopause.
My mother's pancreatic cancer returned.
I got married.
My mother died of pancreatic cancer.
There have been so, so many goodbyes in the last four years. I said goodbye to my 30s, the house I so lovingly built, and a decade with a husband who left me gasping for air. It is an entire era of my life that will forever be shrouded in doubt, deception, and a lurking fear I just dreamed it all up. I said goodbye to my appendix, my breast implants, and my endometriosis. I said goodbye to the chance to have a baby. Goodbye to eating everything I wanted without giving a damn about calories or carbs of any of the rest of that completely tedious foodspeak. I said goodbye to playing the ingénue.
At one point in the middle of all of this I was freshly divorced and childless with a cat, sleeping on a mattress on the floor because none of my new furniture had arrived. It was completely fine because there were so many exciting things coming my way — freedom! dating! choosing all my own furniture! watching Netflix as late as I wanted while texting my best friend in L.A.! My friend Melanie said to me just after my divorce, "Remember, the reward for suffering through all this bullshit is that now you can do anything you want. Literally. Anything."
For a while, it was true. Honestly, that span of time when my mother went into remission and I moved into my bachelorette pad was some of the most fun I have ever had. Mom wasn't sick. I wasn't sick. I lived in a teeny perfect gem of a place that suited me to a T. I was falling head over heels for a kind, tall, handsome, gentle genius. I had unlimited dinners with martinis, my gay husbands (“gusbands” as they prefer to be called) and I bought a lot of cocktail dresses. All good stuff.
Then 2017 appeared, my mother lost 14 pounds in nine days, and it started up all over again. Tumors. Removing a pancreas. Type 1 diabetes. And the slow, sinking, ugly suspicion that this road was headed to a place well beyond our reckoning. This road was going to end.
I asked myself how that was possible when everything else was just starting again. A new partner, a new nephew, a new home for flowers, and summer swimming, and rosé. A new train station off a new rail line. I was just getting my stride back. But it derailed as I hustled back and forth to Texas, never spending more than three consecutive nights in a single place. My love life was in suspension. I felt like I would go mad. Bachelorette pads are fun, but they are for bachelorettes, not ladies with beaus. And certainly not for ladies with beaus who have their own homes and families to work out; ladies with a sick mother thousands of miles away smack in the middle the Lone Star State.
I lost my mother. She died on September 15th. My sister, father, and I spent the last 24 hours of her life dosing her with morphine and stroking her forehead. We each cut a lock of her hair when she passed and could barely speak for grief for the first hour. There is no goodbye like goodbye to your mother. I don't wish it on my worst enemy. Of all my goodbyes, this is the one that cuts the deepest. It is the one hole that will never be filled. I will have to learn to live around it.
And this how I do that: I remind myself that life is also full of hellos. Mercifully, thankfully, miraculously, perhaps when you need it the very most, you discover there is HELLO.
Hello to new nephews who clamor around my sister with their big blue eyes and sticky fingers; a dark-haired, smart young lady who is my step-daughter whose shy smile fills my belly. Hello to a fancy apartment that is bewilderingly new and frustratingly foreign but full of welcome. Hello to old friends who never, never left my side — with whom I have traveled the world and bared my soul who are — at this very moment — planning our next international adventure. Hello to a hero husband who asked me to marry him in the happiest of moments and filled my heart. (That same man moved heaven and earth to make the wedding happen before my mother passed away. I cried every day of the first three months of our marriage. And he kissed my forehead and said, "I got you" every night.)
This year I say hello to the unbreakable, unstoppable, warrior woman in me who will not be defeated, who will never be bitter, who will not live a life backwards; she who will trust, and love, and find joy. I say hello to this marvelous, unthinkably lucky opportunity I have. How extraordinary to be at this place in my life and be granted so many beginnings.
Not so many summers ago I was in the old stone house in the kitchen, with the bright blue cabinets watching my mother slice a peach. She was whistling. I could not have known then how limited our time was. How few days we had to share a grilled cheese, argue over what movie to watch, swan about in the pool. Ruthlessly you learn just how precious it all is. Mama: My most heart stoppingly final goodbye. There isn’t enough time. There is never enough time, and there are so many goodbyes. So when you are presented with a new beginning, say hello.
I look at 2018 and I say, HELLO.
Stephanie March, is an actor, philanthropist and entrepreneur. She is the co-founder of the makeup salon, Rouge, that she founded with her longtime Law & Order SVU makeup artist, Rebecca Perkins. Best known for her role as ADA Alex Cabot on TV’s hit series, Law & Order SVU and most recently starring on Adult Swim’s Neon Joe , Stephanie has also appeared in 30 Rock , Happy Endings , Rescue Me , Grey’s Anatomy , Mr. & Mrs. Smith , The Treatment , Predisposed , and Innocence and has been seen onstage in the critically acclaimed revivals of Death of a Salesman , Talk Radio , and Boys’ Life . Stephanie spends a significant amount of time traveling globally in her capacity as an activist for causes benefiting women and education. She has served on a variety of boards including Planned Parenthood Global, the advisory board of OneKid OneWorld, and she served on the board of directors of Safe Horizon for five years. Stephanie is the celebrity ambassador for the World of Children Award and an advocate for Planned Parenthood. She is a graduate of Northwestern University and currently resides in Manhattan with her husband, Dan Benton and her Maine Coon, Taco Cat.
Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?
I never posted a #MeToo story, and I’ve spent months trying to understand why.
It isn’t that I couldn’t think of anything worth mentioning or that I feared retaliation or even that viral hashtags generally awaken all of my most juvenile nonconformist instincts. (They do, but what a petty reason to sit out this one.) Although I agree with Daphne Merkin’s warning in a controversialNew York Times op-ed that, “stripping sex of eros isn’t the solution,” I don't see that as a necessary byproduct of allowing women to publicly name their harassers. And I certainly don’t think less of those who participated in the outpouring. My attitude toward the movement changes as each new chapter is written, but my predominant emotion has been gratitude.
So, why did I still hold back? I can think of a few reasons but mostly what stopped me from speaking out was a visceral aversion to seeing myself as a victim or letting anyone else put me in that box. Let me be clear: I know this is fucked up. On an intellectual level, I realize that relationships and encounters I could not control do not define me. My failure to control them has nothing to do with my intrinsic weakness.
I could spend years in therapy digging to the root of this, and maybe I should, but my hunch is that it’s related to another concept that comes up in Merkin’s essay: agency. “What happened to women’s agency?” she demands. “That’s what I find myself wondering as I hear story after story of adult women who helplessly acquiesce to sexual demands. I find it especially curious given that a majority of women I know have been in situations in which men have come on to them — at work or otherwise. They have routinely said, ‘I’m not interested’ or ‘Get your hands off me right now.’ And they’ve taken the risk that comes with it.”
Do the young feminists who populate Twitter believe that every #MeToo story represents a man who needs to lose his career? Or serve time? Or drop off the face of the earth? Merkin isn’t the only older commentator who worries the movement is devolving into a sex panic. Even Margaret Atwood recently took issue with what she sees as #MeToo’s “guilty because accused” attitude. Perhaps some of this alarm has come out of a misunderstanding of social media. Twitter thrives on the kind of hyperbole that says, “all men should die,” but means, “a large number of men should reflect earnestly on their actions.” I’m not convinced a hashtag is the same as a pitchfork, though.
Still, it’s obvious that this escalating battle concerns the wide spectrum of objectionable behavior #MeToo encompasses — and that we are about to find out where on that spectrum feminists of all ages and ideologies draw the line. Do all the men who’ve been fired deserve it? Should employers consider more moderate punishments for some offenders, like the two-month suspension and reassignment that New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush got for behaving inappropriately with young female colleagues?
And is there any room to suggest, as Merkin does, that women do have the agency to stand up for themselves when faced with aggressors who are more like Thrush than Weinstein? Merkin doesn’t seem to understand that harassment and abuse are often patterns of behavior that begin after women say, “I’m not interested” or “Get your hands off me right now.” But the situation she imagines, in which standing your ground is all it takes to foil a predator, appeals to me. While I am certainly aware that men wield power over women in this society, what I find more difficult to accept is that they wield power over me, specifically. I can’t stand that it’s impossible to make myself equal simply by behaving as though that were the case. Confronting the moments in my life when I’ve suffered because of gender-based power imbalances disturbs me on a bone-deep level.
I’m not alone in this. Anxieties about victimhood and agency have come up over and over again in conversations with friends and colleagues. (Yes, even the ones under 35.) In France, a group of 100 women, including the legendary actress Catherine Deneuve, recentlyissued anopen letter complaining that #MeToo “chains women to the status of the eternal victim.” In her piece, Merkin worries that “we seem to be returning to a victimology paradigm for young women, in particular, in which they are perceived to be — and perceive themselves to be — as frail as Victorian housewives.” I share some of Merkin’s concerns, but I don’t think denying the epidemic of sexual misconduct in the workplace is the solution. So, what do we do instead? Is there a way to reconcile the knowledge that so many women have been victimized with our insistence that victimhood doesn’t define our lives as women?
The concept of “female agency” has been kicking around academia for decades. It does not refer to a Shonda Rhimes show about lady detectives or to a lesbian separatist ad agency (although, I kind of wish it did), but to the ability of individual women to exert power over their lived circumstances. Now that the internet has democratized jargon, the idea surfaces almost as often in mainstream conversation as other formerly niche words, like “problematic” and “triggering.” And, just as you see alt-right trolls mocking “triggered snowflakes” every day on Twitter, a top result when you google “female agency” is a men’s rights activist’s deranged argument that, actually, there is no such thing.
Female agency is no less fraught a subject for those of us who understand that it exists. All legitimate forms of feminism believe in equality of the genders, but they don’t necessarily agree on how women can become as powerful as men. When it comes to sex, is a woman sexually liberated when she’s free from porn, sadomasochism, sex work, and everything else that supposedly reinforces gendered power imbalances rooted in sex? Or when she’s free to choose porn tailored to her tastes, consensually indulge her least politically correct fantasies, or use sex to support herself financially? These questions are central to every significant conversation feminists have had since the ‘80s about women, men, sex, and power — including the one we’re having right now.
The history of how American feminists got to this ideological impasse is a history of evolving — and often competing — ideas about female agency. First-wave feminists of the 19th and early 20th centuries simply wanted acknowledgment of their basic personhood: suffrage, the right to own property, legal consequences for marital rape. Half a century later, radicalized by the overtly misogynistic anti-war and civil rights movements of the ‘60s, a second wave of feminists emerged. Their diverse agenda brought everything from abortion rights to workplace equality to domestic violence towomen’s sexual pleasure into the public sphere.
Not that feminists have ever agreed on what constitutes female agency — or what “female” even means. The 19th-century African-American activist Sojourner Truth, who’d been born into slavery, was famous for beseechingwell-off, racist white suffragists to fight for her agency along with their own. Middle- and upper-class white women dominated second-wave feminism, too. Rightly infuriated by a monolithic vision of female agency that centered on white-collar workplaces, heterosexual relationships, and privileged housewives, women of color, queer women, trans women, poor women, and sex workers pushed for a broader agenda. Although the tent has expanded since then, the assumption that we’re simply more inclusive feminists than our mothers’ generation is anoversimplification.
Meanwhile, in the ‘70s and ‘80s, an ideological debate known as the “sex wars” divided feminists of all identities. As a radical contingent led by activist writers like Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller, and Catharine MacKinnon fought to outlaw pornography and floated the idea that hetero sex was a tool of male supremacy, a coalition of free-love and free-speech advocates, feminist sex workers, and BDSM practitioners of all orientations and gender identities carved out a competing platform that came to be known as “sex-positive feminism.”
In the short term, at least, the sex-positive side won, partially because their opponents were unfairly marginalizing promiscuous, kinky, and poor women, but probably also because it was less threatening to men and more fun for everyone. The third wave, which broke in the ‘90s and crested around the turn of the millennium, reconceived feminism for a generation defined by its mistrust of conformity. A movement that celebrated (and infiltrated) pop culture as it championed diversity, pleasure, and personal choice was bound to embrace sexuality in all its flavors. For better and worse, the third-wave take on female agency meant giving women the power to be, do, wear, buy, and fuck whoever or whatever they wanted, without punishment or judgment. On TV and the radio, that meant scantily clad Spice Girls preaching “girl power” and the women of Sex and the City indulging their appetites for sex and shoes with equal lust.
I grew up during those years, so it was that version of feminism I learned first. In some ways, the third-wave platform wasn’t so different from that of the second wave. We still marched for reproductive rights, took self-defense classes, and volunteered at women’s shelters. But, as a teenager I listened to riot grrrl bands that wore slip dresses, and could rail against sexual violence and defend women’s right to pleasure in thesame song. I bought BUST magazine, where I could read about women’s history alongside interviews with female celebrities, body-positive fashion spreads, and knitting projects. My scrappy college feminist group sponsored sex-toy seminars.
Those influences made me more confident, adventurous, and hedonistic — all good attributes to have when you’re young. They made me less judgmental too. And they introduced me to Kimberlé Crenshaw’s worldview-shaking concept ofintersectionality, the idea that our overlapping identities (like “Black” and “female” or “Jewish” and “queer”) bring us into contact with complex forms of oppression that can’t be considered in isolation.
But third-wave feminism also blinded me to the downsides of the “I choose my choice” school of female agency. Sure, it’s gross to trash stay-at-home moms or women who wear lipstick or take their husbands’ names; that doesn’t mean patriarchy doesn’t unfairly reward those who conform to traditional gender roles. And my early feminist education left me more confused than I realized about sex and power. I didn’t judge women who used their sexuality to pay bills or get ahead, but I wasn’t thinking about how fucked up it was that many of them felt pressure to do so, either.
In other words, my feminist views were hopelessly compartmentalized. Of course I was against rape and abuse! But, on some level, I also wanted to believe that women could prevent those horrible things from happening by being fun and free and powerful and in control of our sexuality, whatever that was supposed to mean.
I don’t think I was alone in that self-delusion, which may explain why so-called “dissident feminists” were so popular in the ‘90s. Female writers bent on becoming maverick public intellectuals took issue with a new movement against rape on college campuses. After making waves with a 1991 Times op-ed titled "Date Rape Hysteria," Katie Roiphe solidified her brand with The Morning After, a book that diagnosed campus activists as hysterics abandoning feminism's empowering legacy in favor of their own victim narratives. Camille Paglia, who praised gender stereotypes in her doorstopper of a manifesto, Sexual Personae, seized every possible opportunity to paint young women who spoke out about date rape asbrats and fools. In a polemic called Who Stole Feminism?, Christina Hoff Sommersproclaimed that “American feminism is currently dominated by a group of women who seek to persuade the public that American women are not the free creatures we think we are.”
All of those books were published before I was old enough to participate in any kind of cultural conversation. My ‘90s feminist heroines were Jessie Spano, Salt-n-Pepa, Kathleen Hanna, Gwen Stefani, Alanis Morissette, Courtney Love, and Daria — not all flawless role models, maybe, but not exactly a list of date-rape skeptics, either. Still, when I did encounter the work of Sommers, Paglia, and Roiphe (who later became my grad-school professor) in my early 20s, I found it oddly seductive. If young women had simply gaslighted ourselves into obsessing over our oppression, then all we needed to do to reclaim our agency was admit that we were wrong.
Now, of course, all of us in the reality-based community know that “dissident feminism” was largely wishful thinking. In an excerpt from The Morning After that ran inThe New York Times Magazine, Roiphe took issue with the statistic that one in four college women had been the victim of rape or attempted rape. Reflecting on her own undergrad years, she mused, “If sexual assault was really so pervasive, it seemed strange that the intricate gossip networks hadn't picked up more than one or two shadowy instances of rape. If I was really standing in the middle of an ‘epidemic,’ a ‘crisis’ — if 25 percent of my women friends were really being raped — wouldn't I know it?”
Luckily time has made most cultural critics less myopic. Broadsides like Daphne Merkin’s now contain assurances that the author has no desire to vindicate egregious predators like Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, and Matt Lauer. Yes, there are still those who think the sexual misconduct problem has been inflated, but as #MeToo reveals ever more awful secrets, even those people are no longer denying that the problem exists. Roiphe is still making headlines with "controversial" stories — most recently when a rumor circulated on Twitter that she planned to unmask the woman behind the notorious Shitty Media Men list in Harper’s — but most would agree her views no longer seem relevant.
At the same time, a generational shift in how we address this epidemic is taking place. That much is obvious when second-wave “anti-sex” thought leaders like Brownmiller, the author of a classic text on rape titledAgainst Our Will, is giving 21st-century campus rape activistsessentially the same advice asSlate's Emily Yoffe about excessive drunkenness. (Critics accused the latter of victim blaming and promoting “rape culture.”) For these writers, the point isn’t that young women should be allowed to drink as much as they want — it’s that doing so is more likely to put them in danger. This, too, is a conversation about differing conceptions of female agency. Is a woman powerful when she can party as thoughtlessly as men do, or when she takes active measures to ensure her safety, even if that means denying herself pleasure?
Another difference between old-school and new-school feminists, one that may be even more contentious, is the constantly expanding definition of “sexual misconduct.” Merkin may be naive to suggest that a simple “fuck off” will always be enough to defuse any situation less grave than rape, but is she wrong to wonder whether “kissing someone in affection” or “showing someone a photo of a nude male torso [is] necessarily predatory behavior”? As someone who’s navigated professional settings where kissing on the cheek was considered a standard form of greeting and passing around nude photos was sometimes part of the job, all without any residual trauma, I’d be irritated to see careers destroyed for those reasons. Merkin could stand to acknowledge that practically all of the high-profile #MeToo cases have concerned more serious violations than those. But I’ll admit that I’ve seen young women obsess over equally innocuous behavior — and I’m worried about how many of them might spend their lives feeling powerless because of one tiny moment.
Is a woman powerful when she can party as thoughtlessly as men do, or when she takes active measures to ensure her safety, even if that means denying herself pleasure?
What do we do, then, those of us who believe deeply in this movement, but worry that it could have the side effect of making people of all genders fixate on women’s vulnerability to the exclusion of our personhood? What about those of us who don’t want men to feel they can’t make a harmless but inappropriate joke at the office? Who crave the freedom, pleasure, and agency that Merkin and the dissident feminists are trying to convince us we’ve needlessly surrendered, but recognize that “epidemic” and “crisis” are in fact the right words to describe what millions of women have suffered? How do we wrap our minds around the enormity of this problem and still believe in something called female agency?
The history of feminism offers some answers to those questions, too. As these painful, intergenerational debates drag on, we’ll end up with newer, stronger, battle-tested feminist platforms. By having the courage to speak up, regardless of the likely consequences — which is, in itself, a way of asserting agency and resisting Victorian notions of female frailty — we’ll make measurable (if slow) progress. We’ll remember that, as difficult as it has been to reckon with the patriarchy’s power in these past few months, the movements for sexual and professional equality are not new. Two generations ago, the gender pay gap was more like a chasm. Many careers were entirely closed to women. Hollywood's reckoning has already yielded Time's Up, a new organization that, along with fighting for gender parity in the entertainment industry, is raising money to fund lawsuits by working-class women in all industries and pushing for legislation to penalize companies that tolerate sexual misconduct. In 2058, assuming America hasn’t been sold to Russia or plunged into nuclear winter, it will likely seem obvious to college girls that a complex person who had a few fucked-up things happen to her doesn’t have to be defined by those things.
Feminism may be notorious for its infighting, but that combative spirit has ensured its quick evolution. Each wave has represented new ways of defining female agency — and sometimes those young feminists go overboard in atoning for the sins of their mothers. Just as a necessary backlash against the sexual exploitation of women went too far and sex-positivity came along to balance it out, in this era when we have seemingly moved beyond well-defined waves, the limitations of that chill ideology have now become all too clear. It turns out that shedding our denial might do more than deluding ourselves that we’re as powerful as men to make us feel like complete people. We can’t know how our generation’s version of feminism will look in 20 years, but the way we resolve this latest paradox of female agency will surely help shape that legacy.
Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?
It's not like Katy Perry to filter herself — not in 2008, when her debut single 'I Kissed A Girl' unceremoniously made cherry Chapstick sexy, and not in 2018. That's how, for a decade, she's managed to push the conversation forward by being fearlessly, unabashedly herself — through her music, her politics, her makeup, and during our phone call... which ran 15 minutes longer than her team allotted.
"Trends change so fast, so it's all about going out on a limb," she tells me, her words picking up speed as she gets excited. "Like, remember when Pharrell wore that hat and everyone was like, Whaaat? We all did that emoji with the hand on the chin, but it's the people that dare to suck that start the trends. Trying a new haircut or beauty regimen or style, that's just fun. It keeps me interested."
The next big trend she's predicting, though, is a major throwback — with a modern Katy Perry twist. Ahead, she talks about her new lip gloss collection with CoverGirl, her real thoughts on plastic surgery, the secret to her now blemish-free skin, and more.
The Two Things That Really Changed Her Skin You probably remember the 2010 Proactiv commercial, in which Perry boasted its efficacy in treating her acne — which she swears is all true. "They do not pay me to say that! It actually solved my acne problem,'' she laughs. "I used to have really, really bad skin in my early 20s when things were starting to pop off, so it was stress-related and my body was changing from coming out of the teenage years. I remember I was doing laser treatments, trying different ointments, going to very expensive facialists, and nothing worked. Someone recommended I try the Proactiv cleanser and I thought, 'No way, no how will that fix anything.' And I’ve been using it for 10 years and it's been incredible. I don’t break out because of that."
But she says it's also about what she puts in her body that's really made a difference: "I love food, and sometimes if I'm in a bad mood, all I'll want is the classic ice cream from McDonalds that tastes the same no matter what country you're in," she says. "But that quick dopamine hit that makes you feel good for one second turns on you in the long run. In the past year, I’ve eaten better than I have ever eaten — less fast food, less sugar — and the sustainability of my body is so much better. My face just glows."
Why She's Giving Lip Gloss A Second Chance "I was such a matte lip person — I would only use a pencil," Perry says. "But this year I started to use a lot more gloss because I realized it makes your lips look bigger without having to do any injections." Not that this means her 12-piece collection of Covergirl Katy Kat Gloss is the kind you'd wear in the early 2000s. "You mean, the lip gloss that your hair would get stuck to and then make streaks across your cheeks?" she laughs. "Listen, I was such a big fan of those Dior glosses, so I get it. And I liked the look of MAC's Lip Glass, I just didn’t like the feel. It was more of a constant annoyance."
Perry says this formula has the same high shine, but isn't sticky; she swears it feels like satin on your lips. The best part is the color range, which includes Candy Kat (bubblegum pink), Cateloupe (brownish-nude), Purrple Paws (violet), White Catillac (opaque white), Wine Feline (deep scarlet), Catnip (lilac purple), Cobalt Kitty (aquamarine blue), Kitty Karma (bright fuchsia), Tabby Tease (coral), Ninth Life (brick red), Pounce (light lavender), and Indigo Kat (which is, well, indigo).
"With all my collections, I always try and push the boundaries, to try new things," she says. "This one has all the colors you want, but I've also got a really interesting blue and a white that looks great on all skin tones. That way you can experiment with color for only $10. Plus, the packaging is really cute — it has a cat head cap that makes it a great conversation starter."
On Those Plastic Surgery Rumors It's the recurring tabloid story of the last decade: Perry getting lots of plastic surgery. But this couldn't be farther from the truth — and even if it were, why the hell should it matter? For the record, "I haven't had any," she says. "I've done lasers and got [filler] injections under my eyes for the hollowing — which I'd recommend for everyone who wants a solution for their dark circles — but all of my assets are real. People tend to think they are fake, but it doesn't really matter."
She adds: "We're getting away from that negative stigma about physical alterations. Of course, always be your authentic self — but if someone wants a nose job that makes them feel better, and they love their profile more because of it, it's like 'Go ahead!' Do whatever makes you feel better about yourself. Stay in therapy, but get it, girl."
What She Learned From Having A Pixie For a long time, Perry's revolving door of bright hair colors has been her personal brand, but she's found the most freedom in chopping it. "Cutting my hair meant I didn't have to hide behind it," she says. "My face really stands out [now], and I actually feel a lot prettier with my short hair. I've really gotten to know my face better."
The Damaging Effects Of Social Media On December 13, Perry tweeted, "i can’t wait till instagram culture is over so we can all be ourselves again" — and it's a sentiment that still rings true to her today. "A lot of us are living for that picture, and then the currency is the like," she explains. "It's hard because I'd rather not care about that and just live my life. We buy clothing and products or pose a certain way or go to an event to get a picture — it's not good for us as a society. I think it's actually the decline of civilization if we're going extreme about it. We have to find a balance, and I'm trying to find my own personal balance with it because I'm just as much a victim as everybody else."
Matt Damon wants gun control. In fact, he'd like to see the weapons all but eliminated. In July 2016, Damon was on a press junket when he told reporter Sarah Thomas he wished the US would essentially ban guns, the same way Australia did in the 1990s.
“You guys did it here in one fell swoop, and I wish that could happen in my country,” Damon said. “But it's such a personal issue for people that we cannot talk about it sensibly. We just can't."
That summer, nobody could. Three weeks prior, a man had walked into an Orlando nightclub, armed with two semi-automatic weapons, and shot 49 people to death in a matter of minutes. With gun control once again at the forefront of US news media, many left-leaning celebrities were speaking up to demand policy change, and express outrage at the conservative establishment which seemed to value weapons over human lives. Yet, not much has changed since Damon concluded: “People get so emotional that even when you make a suggestion about not selling AK-47s to people on terror watch lists, that's a non-starter. I don't know what needs to happen.”
In fact, the Pulse nightclub shooter had not used an AK-47. He used a SIG Sauer assault rifle and a Glock 17 handgun. Damon used the same handgun himself, in the film he was promoting on this junket: Jason Bourne.
Of course, Damon is hardly the only actor to advocate for reformed gun laws, while simultaneously making an enormously lucrative living wielding the weapons on screen. Charlize Theron has long been openly anti-gun, having almost been shot by her own father, who was himself shot and killed in self-defense, by her mother. In 2014, she even convinced then boyfriend Sean Penn to scrap his massive collection of "cowardly killing machines." Last year, Theron starred in Atomic Blonde, as the armed an lethal heroine, "with a body count higher than her chain-encrusted high-heeled boots." This month, Liam Neeson will open yet another Taken -esque thriller wherein a middle-aged guy in a suit unwittingly winds up a one-man killing machine. Yet Neeson, perhaps more than any celebrity, has declared himself not only pro-gun control, but anti-Second Amendment, full stop. "It is the right to bear arms that is the problem," he claimed. America's gun culture, "[is] a fucking disgrace."
Neither of these action stars, nor any of their peers, has ever publicly expressed a conflict in demanding fewer guns in America, while promoting even more of them in Hollywood. It's rare they're even asked to consider it, and when the issue does arise, the answer is typically a resounding "no comment." Even Damon — who's proven himself unable to withhold commentary on many issues — saw nothing amiss in calling for a gun ban while sitting beside a poster of himself with his finger on the trigger. “I would hate to see [the movie] be politicized.”
Illustrated by Tristan Offit
That’s fair. Film is fiction, one of our country’s most treasured arts (and exports), protected under one of its central tenets: Freedom of expression. Pitting the First Amendment against the Second has so far gotten us nowhere. Research indicates violent media has little, or no effect on behavior — or at least, it does not cause it. But set aside our behavior, and consider our perception, our reaction, and the gravity — or lack thereof — with which we think of guns and what they do to people. How have our hearts and minds been shaped by a hundred years of Hollywood?
We are accustomed to arguing the import of responsible representation elsewhere. We righteously and correctly decry the insidious objectification of women on screen, and the hateful erasure of queer characters and performers of color, under the simple, unassailable argument that representation matters. Those images bleed into our cultural consciousness, swaying both our individual beliefs and our societal norms; that is the power of art, as we like to say. Except when we’re talking about guns — in that conversation, representation means nothing. It’s “just a movie.” Let’s not “politicize” it.
Fine. But if we are sincere in the desire to quell our country’s endless nightmare of gun violence, then we cannot ignore our gun culture. We can’t talk about that without examining our culture in general — at least, we won’t get very far if we don’t. And what is American culture without Hollywood?
The US is home to both the largest percentage of guns per capita and the most influential entertainment industry on earth. And while there is ceaseless debate over the violence in our nation, there is no question that, on our screens, it is at an all-time high — no more so than in PG-13 films. Since that rating was created in 1985, depictions of guns on screen has more than tripled. Movies are more violent, ratings more lenient, and overall gun-use in film has risen approximately 51% in the last decade.
The latter data point was analyzed by The Hollywood Reporter, based on information gathered from IMFDB — the Internet Movie Firearms Database, a massive, searchable compilation of gun-usage on screen. IMFDB is clearly catering to gun fans — the site gets over a million unique visitors per month, 98% of which are reportedly males between 18 and 30 — but it’s remarkably dry in its presentation. The writing is technical and the screenshots feature the guns themselves, rather than people being shot. Some may find the very existence of IMFDB unsettling, but there are far more graphic spaces on the internet devoted to guns and killing on screen. Body Counters is another online database, this one listing the people and animals killed in a given movie (“Fresh bodies only,” reads their FAQ. “Pre-existing bodies do NOT count.”). Carnage Counts is one of several popular YouTube channels featuring compilation videos of on-screen kill scenes. You won’t just find action and horror films, either. There’s a whole category devoted to Disney and Pixar movies.
The proliferation of sites like these perhaps help answer one of the questions that always comes up in the debate about guns on screen: Have we become numbed by watching so much violence? Given the evidence at hand, we certainly haven’t become more sensitive. But, with the onslaught of shootings on screen, combined with the rise of real-life carnage, it’s worth asking ourselves why we’re still so entertained.
Guns have been a part of movies since the earliest days of the medium. Edwin S. Porter’s 1903 film, The Great Train Robbery famously ends with a shot of the lead bandit character, Barnes, firing his gun directly at the camera, as if shooting the audience. “The shot added realism to the film by intensifying the spectators’ identification with the victimized travelers,” wrote film historian Charles Musser. It was undoubtedly effective, in this era when moving picture was still a brand new and astonishing technology. Legend has it that a few years earlier, audiences had fled in panic at the Lumière brothers film, The Arrival Of The Mail Train, as if frightened that the locomotive might come right through the screen.
As with any great technological advancement, a backlash soon followed. In 1929, the Payne Fund Studies began, launching what would become the first — and widely lambasted — study on the media’s influence on behavior. Specifically focusing on children, the researchers reported that movies were turning young viewers into “delinquents,” with girls becoming promiscuous and boys aggressive (or at least they pretended to be, when playing) thanks to what they’d seen on film. There was virtually no scientific methodology applied during the research, and thus the studies were immediately and consistently criticized as a scare tactic designed to create moral panic. Nevertheless, it worked. Shortly thereafter, the Hays Code was created, essentially eliminating sensuality, violence, crime — or even the slightest implication of these things — from film for over 30 years.
Today, the Paynes Fund Studies and the Hays Code are upheld as cautionary tales — reminders of what happens when we let panic and puritanism guide our choices. In 1968, newly elected MPAA president Jack Valenti acknowledged the code had, “the odious smell of censorship” and abandoned it for a new rating system (a version of which we still use today). The move ushered in a new era of American cinema, generating some of our most iconic films: The Godfather, Network, Jaws, A Clockwork Orange — stories which simply could not be told without the use of violence — as well as beloved action classics like Die Hard, The Terminator, and virtually all Clint Eastwood films, which centralized gun violence specifically. In many ways, the industry is still recovering from the Hays Code — or perhaps, reacting to it.
Illustrated by Tristan Offit
Twenty years later, Martin Scorsese directed Goodfellas. In it, he replicated the iconic shot from The Great Train Robbery, concluding the film with Joe Pesci firing his gun into the camera. By this point, cinematic violence was still a subject of debate and regulation, but it was permissible, and Scorsese had already created some of Hollywood’s most legendary shooters. It is worth noting, however, that Goodfellas contains far more guns than it does gunshots. There are only four gun deaths on screen, nearly all of which are committed by Pesci’s character, Tommy (who then becomes the final victim, himself). Moreover, Tommy is written as a loose cannon, his trigger-happy habits frowned upon even by his fellow gangsters.
This is not to say that Goodfellas did not earn its legacy as a film which romanticizes crime and violence. It absolutely does. Fired or not, Scorsese centralizes guns throughout the film — sometimes quite literally, filling the frame with a handgun. This could be interpreted as glorification or as fearful respect of the weapons, but either way, it stands in stark contrast to the way Scorsese uses guns in later films.
Consider 2006’s The Departed, the entire last third of which is essentially one long shoot-out, leaving most of its main characters unceremoniously executed (the movie’s final body count: 24). Goodfellas seems almost adolescent in comparison, with its close-up ogling of old-school, wood-handled pistols, its relative lack of gunfire, and above all, its reaction to death. Characters express fear, grief, rage, and shock; Scorsese allows the camera to linger on the deceased, giving the audience a moment to process. In The Departed, it’s just a big bang, a blood spatter, and then on to the next.
Perhaps it’s a symptom of the industry’s post-code rebound, or else just the natural evolution of the medium. Guns, like everything else on film, have become more amplified as technology advances and audiences grow less impressed with the same old shoot ‘em ups. But they have always been there, because, as Dr. Joe Pierre puts it, “Shooting is fun.” Pierre is a Clinical Professor of Psychology, and Psychology Today columnist, as well as an advocate for gun policy reform. Still, he writes, “If you want to understand the appeal of guns, you need to hold one in your hand and shoot it.” It’s not always — or even often — a homicidal thrill, he argues. Shooting is also a sport, and people enjoy getting better at it, which is why target ranges and skeet shooting (and even first-person shooter video games) are so popular. “There’s also an addicting quality to improving your accuracy,” Pierre writes.
Fun is just one part of why people are often drawn to guns. They represent safety to some, the same way they represent danger to others, Pierre points out. “If there’s a commonality between the pro-gun and anti-gun divide, it’s that people feel the world is unsafe. On the one hand, suburban, white parents who are strongly anti-gun are up in arms about gun control because they feel their children are endangered...Pro-gun advocates have similar concerns, but they feel that arming themselves is the only way to keep them safe.” It’s a generalization, but one in which some truth lies. There is a vast amount of evidence indicating that people are less safe in homes with guns, but there are at least some studies which conclude that guns prevent serious injury, “when used defensively.” For those who live in remote areas, far from police protection (or for those who mistrust law enforcement) Pierre argues that gun ownership seems even more necessary. Either way, “from a psychological perspective, it’s less important whether guns actually make us safer and more important whether guns make us feel safer.”
All this is likely what makes guns so appealing on screen as well. Pierre highlights the fact that guns have always been entrenched in American culture, and therefore in our fantasy lives as well: “For those of us who grew up watching cowboy movies, war movies, James Bond movies, and the like, the irresistible urge to act out the hero with toy guns starts at an early age.” As an Freudian could argue, a gun is not always just a gun. It is an object laden with symbolism. Whether it’s power, potency, safety, fun, or even the threat of mortality, there is a vicarious thrill to be had in seeing one wielded on the silver screen.
“Most human beings are afraid of death,” says screenwriter and director, Ry Russo-Young. “And there’s something really fun and liberating about watching a hero face death and survive. But that’s also my issue with these movies, sometimes. Someone can jump off a cliff and survive, or have a million bullets coming at them, and then get up and walk away.”
Russo-Young has been making films since the early 2000s, some of which have explored difficult or controversial subject matter, like death, suicide, and sex. All three were featured in her most recent release, Before I Fall, which was PG-13 and based on a young adult novel. Only the sex, however, was an issue for the ratings board. “I had to cut that scene down because it was considered too explicit,” she says. In the final film, sex is only implied, but there are repeated scenes of a fatal car crash and an attempted suicide. These harrowing moments were central to the plot, and Russo-Young took great care to present them in a way she felt was both realistic and responsible to her young audience. But she was alarmed that the MPAA’s primary concern was over teenagers having sex, rather than teenagers being killed. “If we look at what’s allowed in films, and what we’re saying is ‘acceptable’ for young people to watch, it’s horrifying. Suicide Squad is PG-13, too,” she says. “We’re saying it’s acceptable for them to watch violence, but not okay for them to watch something they’re probably already doing, which is sex.”
For most of her career, Russo-Young has steered away from violent content, and she has never used a gun on screen. She says she would though, as long as it was in a realistic context. “Right now, I’m working on a film about female soldiers in Afghanistan, and that clearly has guns in it,” she told me. “But if I’m going to have violence in film, I want to talk about violence as a topic. I see it as my responsibility to make it psychologically resonant.” She points to films like Elephant,A Prophet, and even the Bourne series, which explore the causes and consequences of killing. “That, I think, is more interesting than just the pleasure of bang-bang.”
Maybe context can make all the difference. Schindler’s List, for example, features almost twice as many shooting deaths than all the Bourne films combined, and there is no question over the role of killing in that film. To edit out the guns in Schindler would be tantamount to Holocaust denial. That film is not an escape from real life but a reminder of a real-life atrocity.
Most films are designed to do the opposite, though. Action movies give us the thrill without the fear, allowing us to to follow the hero on a perilous journey, knowing no matter how many bullets they take, they’ll come out alive. But it’s not just the vicarious escape from death that draws in viewers by the millions. It’s the thrill of vicarious killing, too. If all we wanted was to watch our heroes survive, then none of them would have guns themselves. There would be no Jason Bourne, John Wick, or James Bond. We would lose nearly all of our action heroes, if not the entire genre, and that would be a significant loss. “Aren’t movies a form of escapism?” asks Russo-Young. “Can’t there be pleasure it watching someone kill a bunch of ‘bad guys?’ Are people not allowed to have that in today’s current reality?’’ She pauses. “Maybe the answer is yes.”
Illustrated by Tristan Offit
by It’s a bold answer — even a bold question to raise, in an industry still fighting regulators for full artistic liberty. Any suggestion that might be construed as censorial is perceived as intolerable, even in the wake of a national tragedy. In 2016, after the Pulse nightclub shooting, actor and filmmaker Michael Showalter tweeted: “Feeling angry at everyone including Hollywood movies that glorify violence. Liberal actors shooting guns left and right. Hypocritical.” He was inundated with furious replies, accusing him of erroneously laying blame on the media, and of attacking the First Amendment. In an op-ed, Showalter later clarified, saying that, clearly, it wasn’t Hollywood but the shooter at fault, and that meaningful gun control was an absolute imperative. But, he added, “The First Amendment does not require us to say whatever we want without regard for the effects that it will have...I am not in any way suggesting that we stop making action films, or stop depicting violence, or pretend that guns do not exist, or that Quentin Tarantino should start making rom-coms,” he concluded. “I am only saying that we acknowledge that things have changed. The country needs to do something. Can we be part of the solution?”
Tarantino himself had confronted these questions after another mass shooting, and his was a very different answer. In January 2013 — three weeks after 26 people were shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary School — he appeared on Fresh Air while promoting Django Unchained. Regarding film violence, host Terry Gross asked: “Is it any less fun after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary?”
“Not for me,” Tarantino replied, annoyed by the question. “On that day, would I watch The Wild Bunch? Maybe not on that day. Would I watch a kung fu movie three days after the Sandy Hook massacre?” Tarantino continued. “Maybe, ‘cause they have nothing to do with each other.”
Three weeks after the slaughter of 20 first-graders and six school staff members, it may seem like a callous response. But it is, undoubtedly, the politically correct one. Most of his peers would likely side with Tarantino over Showalter, as would the ACLU, the NEA, and the National Coalition Against Censorship — all of which champion the First Amendment rights of filmmakers. Even gun-control policy leaders argue that Hollywood is not to blame, nor are artists responsible for solving this issue. But they sure could help. Robyn Thomas, Executive Director of the Giffords Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence, calls it a powder-key problem: “The movies don’t create the problem,” she affirms. “What’s at the core of our issue is the sheer number of unregulated guns. Everything else is additive...You stick a gun in the middle of the room on its own, and nothing’s going to happen. You add someone in there with mental illness and a violent movie, now, all of a sudden, you have a powder keg.”
Still, Thomas points out, American media exists all over the world, yet our gun-death rates do not. “They watch all the same movies as we do in most other countries. They have the same violent video games, the same rates of mental illness. The things we have here are the things they have everywhere else. It’s just, if you want to have 350 million guns floating around — well, you better be sure you’re not doing things to exacerbate the likelihood of them getting used.”
Even the high volume of guns isn’t necessarily the issue: Canada and Switzerland have gun-ownership rates nearly as high as the U.S. but much more stringent regulations. But, she says: “They have fractional rates of gun violence. They have 1/6th, 1/10th, 1/20th the rate of gun violence than we do. But they have a lot of guns. So, if you take a step back and see what’s out there in the world, and what’s in this country, blaming it on the movies is a little bit of an easy out.” Even within the US, she says, states with stricter gun laws have drastically lower rates of gun deaths than those with looser regulations. Given these statistics, both the problem and solution seem abundantly clear.
“That’s not to say we couldn’t do a damn better job of thinking about how violence is portrayed in the movies,” Thomas says, pointing out that Hollywood has been instrumental in changing attitudes on things like smoking and car safety, through very subtle changes. The same could be done with guns, she says — without even reducing the number of guns on screen. “You could just show characters locking their guns up,” says Thomas. “Or have a character say, ‘I don’t like my kids playing around guns.’” It sounds simple, “but the right character saying the right thing could make a difference.”
Maybe it’s the only difference we can make. We have a gun violence problem, and comprehensive policy change seems the best and most obvious solution. It also seems increasingly unlikely. There are approximately 33,000 gun deaths in the US every year, and 19 children are shot in this country every day. Thus far in 2017, there have been 300 mass shootings, as defined by the FBI. There is no political division on these points, and yet we remain at a stalemate. There seems to be no tragedy nor grim statistic powerful enough to end it. “We do need a cultural shift,” says Thomas. It is not Hollywood’s job to do it. “But it is a responsibility they could take on.”
Even if all the guns in America vanished tomorrow, we would still have to reckon with the millions of gun owners. We would still have a century-long cinematic record of filmmakers selling us on the notion that guns are cool. After thousands of mass murders, millions more of homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths, why does Hollywood still peddle gun violence as entertainment? But more to the point: Why are will still buying it?
Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?
Fashion is always moving forward, always morphing and changing, always trying to outrun itself. In 2009, the fashion blogger was born, street style photographers started to become industry mainstays, and young women with disposable incomes and a bit of marketing savvy saw their chance to become what we now call “influencers.”
In 2015, Reese and Molly Blutstein, fraternal twins living in Atlanta, Georgia, decided they would start an Instagram account to post pictures of their outfits. The sisters had both grown up with an interest in fashion, spurred in part by their grandmother, who they both cite as an inspiration. For Reese in particular, the fascination eventually led her to discover all the style bloggers who were now calling Instagram home. “I’ve always been interested in styling clothes,” Reese tells Refinery29. “I saw other people [posting outfits on Instagram] and I thought, oh, I think I could do that.” Two years later, @double3xposure, as they named it, boasts 161,000 followers, and Reese and Molly are the internet girls du jour.
Reese: Vintage Levi's; vintage jacket; Yuul Yie Pumps, $383, available at Yuul Yie; Rachel Comey bag; Molly: Araks Cadel Slip, $320, available at Shop Super Street; vintage jacket; Dr. Martens Clarissa Brando, $130, available at Dr. Martens; Pamela Love Beaumont Earrings, $200, available at Pamela Love.
Reese and Molly are both petite young women with auburn hair, porcelain-white skin, freckles, and the kind of eyes that go from blue to gray to green depending on their surroundings. Their skin glows with the kind of no-makeup makeup pioneered by the folks at Glossier. Their style is minimal and borders on “normcore," but without the subversive edge that characterized its early iteration. Whereas the first wave of influencers gained followers and notoriety over their ability to wear the latest runway pieces as soon as they became available, Reese’s initial outfits featured skinny, ripped jeans from ASOS, dresses from Urban Outfitters, and basic turtlenecks, all tagged with hashtags like #ootd #fashionblogger #styleblogger. Part of their appeal lies in the fact that when young women look at them, you imagine they think they too could do this for a living. All they would need is the right lighting, or a constant companion to take the perfect photograph.
Reese: Vintage top; Levi's jeans, Trademark Satin Suzanne Mule, $598, available at Trademark. Molly: Tory Burch Garrett Shirt, $328, available at Tory Burch; Pixie Market Martin Folded Belted Pants, $115, available at Pixie Market. Photographed by Jennifer Grimm. Styled by Emily Holland.
Although originally their plan was to “blog” as a duo, when Molly went away to the University of Georgia, where was pursuing studies in Interior Design, Reese decided to do the account on her own. The first post that appeared on the @double3xposure feed was a bird’s eye shot of a pair of black and white Dolce Vita loafers that were pretty popular at the time, with a simple, if not terribly uninformative, caption consisting of black and white emoji squares. Three months after Reese launched the account, Molly made her first appearance; she wore a camel-colored sweater, white skirt, and black and white loafers, while Reese was in a denim babydoll top, jeans, and black open-toed booties. Three months after that, the two appeared in mix and match American Apparel swimsuits. At the time, Molly had a personal Instagram account that was private, but once her sister started tagging her, the follow requests started coming in. Eventually, Molly made her @mollyblutstein account public. She now boasts over 15K followers, even though she’s posted less than 50 photos since October 2015. An accidental influencer.
Meanwhile, Reese's follower count grew, as did her confidence as a creative force. “I went from taking mirror pictures to [going] out into the streets and taking actual photos," she says. "I think I just got more comfortable with doing it out in public. Once I started noticing people that I knew, that I looked up to, started following me, I was like oh, gosh, I must be doing something right!” By February of this year, images on the @double3xposure account were routinely reaching anywhere from 5k to 11k likes, and Reese signed with Max Stein, an agent whose agency, Brigade, also represents major influencers like Man Repeller’s founder Leandra Medine, fashion editor Shiona Turini, and Tina Leung among others.
Reese: Orseund Iris Off Shoulder Knit Top, $260, available at Orseund Iris; Maryam Nassir Zadeh coat; NEED Cousin Fit Jeans, $185, available at Need Supply Co.; Staud bag; Molly: Jil Sander T-shirt, $197.92, available at Jil Sander; vintage pants; American Eagle Grommet Belt, $22.46, available at American Eagle.
“Blogging is so personal and you’re very attached to [the content you’re creating],” Reese says. “I think making money is intimidating because it’s awkward to talk about money, so to have someone that isn’t afraid of that, and that is also a step away from everything, [has] changed everything.” She quit Georgia State University, where she was studying art, to focus on her influencer career.
Reese: Super Yaya 100% Africosmic T-shirt, $60, available at Super Yaya; Pixie Market Black Belted High Waisted Pants, $118, available at Pixie Market; Molly: Hanes Relaxed Fit T-Shirt, $5, available at Hanes; Proenza Schouler Leather Belted Straight Pant, $858, available at Proenza Schouler;Gray Matters Micol Mule, $440, available at Gray Matters.
“It was hard to concentrate at school because I [felt] like why am I here? what am I doing here?. I felt like I actually learned more and met more people when I wasn't in school." Although going into 2018 with a full-time focus on being a “style blogger” — “people call what I do ‘influencer,’ which technically is what I do, but I don’t like that word,” Reese admits — she has no plans to move away from Atlanta, the city she says has given her a bit of an edge in the already cluttered world of influencers. “I think living in Atlanta helps me stay more genuine to myself because I'm not part of the fashion industry here, because there really isn't one,” Reese says. “When I'm traveling I'm part of [the industry] but then [I get] to step back from it [when] I’m back in Atlanta, so it’s way easier to just be me and not compare myself or try to be like the same people in the city.” She may not live in New York or Los Angeles, but her feed now has that classic Insta-girl look that has become its own aesthetic, regardless of real-life location. A #vibe that is both everywhere and nowhere. Her feed now includes Gucci #sponcon, Proenza Schouler’s latest sportswear drop, and the Nanushka brown bomber jacket that was literally put on the map by various Insta-girls (“It looks like you’re wrapped in a croissant,” Reese says); all photographed against desolate, textured, brightly colored backgrounds. You don’t need to be in New York or Los Angeles to find those.
Reese: Ciao Lucia Allegra Top, $285, available at Ciao Lucia; Duo NYC vintage Levi's; Gray Matters Mildred Classic Verde, $396, available at Gray Matters; Molly: Vintage top; Levi's jeans; Crap Eyewear The Love Tempo Sunglasses, $58, available at Crap Eyewear.
“I was just telling my sister how sometimes I feel like I'm pretending I'm part of [the fashion industry,” Reese reveals, “but I don't actually feel [like I’m a] part of it in a way, because I am not sure what people really think of style bloggers. The fashion world isn't what I thought it was because it's not this big scary industry that you have to be perfect. Anyone who cares to be a part of it can be a part of it.”
Despite the slightly separate paths their social media lives have taken, the sisters insist their relationship hasn’t changed. “I guess what we talk about has changed, but we talk every single day,” Molly says. “I think because she has an Instagram, it’s a lot of what we talk about. She sends me her pictures all the time and I choose the ones I think are best for her to post. We just brainstorm ideas with each other. But I mean, she's extremely creative so she has her own thing, but I help her out.”
“My fans are like oh is she jealous?, but she's not like that. We’re not like that. It’s not like that at all,” Reese adds. “I think it’s exactly the same as it’s ever been. We’re just best friends.”
Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?
Zayn Malik has a lot of tattoos — possibly even more than former bandmate Harry Styles. But as of this weekend, the internet is transfixed on his most recent addition: A special-someone's eyes inked on his chest. These have to be girlfriend Gigi Hadid's, fans concluded! Right?
The answer: We can't say for sure. All we know is that Hadid posted an Instagram Boomerang of Malik dancing on his birthday (January 12). And while the post was cute and had fans in a tizzy over how two of the most beautiful people on the planet are still so much in love, others couldn't help but point out how similar Hadid's baby blues look to Malik's tattoo.
Even from a distance, the resemblance to the 22-year-old's eyes is uncanny. But because there are dozens of other, decidedly more important things to worry about right now, we decided to save you the trouble and break down the tattoo's possible meanings so you can go about your day.
1). This is, in fact, a tattoo of Hadid — or someone directly related to her, with a very similar eye shape.
2). The ink is dedicated to his sister Doniya Malik. If this is the case, then we'd also make the claim that those eyes could potentially be for Selena Gomez (Doniya is the singer's doppelgänger, after all).
3). It marks the first tattoo for Malik with religious undertones, as the disembodied eyes could be inspired by Doctor T. J. Eckleburg.
4). This one is just for fun, and holds no significant meaning at all.
The truth is, Malik is no stranger to tattooing tributes to his loved ones. Case in point? His newest ear tattoo is dedicated to his father Yaser. And, while Malik and Little Mix singer Perrie Edwards were engaged, he had a cartoonish replication of the star drawn up on his arm (which has since been covered with a different tattoo). Should history repeat itself, we'd go with option #1 — after all, the eyes are the windows to the soul...
In a landmark move, Norway will become the 14th European country to phase out fur farming. The country's newly formed coalition government announced a manifesto pledge to ban all fur farming nationwide by 2025.
Once the world's largest producer of fox fur — the market is now dominated by China — Norway sees nearly one million foxes and mink intensively bred and killed for their fur coats each year, Reuters reports. According to the Norwegian Fur Breeders Association, the country currently has around 200 fur farms; for animals, fur farms mean a life in cramped, barren cages with painful deaths by gassing or electrocution. Thus, this promise is not just one being praised by animal rights groups — it will also inevitably send ripples through the fashion industry, considering the international fur trade is a market estimated to be worth over $40 billion and to employ over one million people.
Back in March of 2016, Giorgio Armani pledged to go fur-free, but the conversation was sparked once again in October of last year with Gucci's announcement that, beginning with its spring 2018 collection, it would no longer use mink, fox, rabbit, Karakul lamb, and raccoon dog as part of its new 10-year “Culture of Purpose” sustainability plan. “Being socially responsible is one of Gucci’s core values, and we will continue to strive to do better for the environment and animals," Gucci president and CEO Marco Bizzarri said in London during the 2017 Kering Talk at the London College of Fashion. "Gucci is excited to take this next step and hopes it will help inspire innovation and raise awareness, changing the luxury fashion industry for the better.”
The statement clearly made waves, causing other design houses to reevaluate their own relationship with fur. Just weeks later, Michael Kors and its recently acquired brand Jimmy Choo also pledged to phase out fur by the end of 2018. “Due to technological advances in fabrications, we now have the ability to create a luxe aesthetic using non-animal fur," Kors said. "We will showcase these new techniques in our upcoming runway show in February.”
In a statement, Ruud Tombrock, executive director of Humane Society International, said: "Consumers are turning their backs on the bloody fur trade, and it is only right that Norway’s politicians enable Norway to join the fast-growing list of compassionate nations refusing to allow cruel fur farming within their borders.” Though the ban is currently awaiting a parliamentary vote, the majority of the country's political parties are expected to support it.
When smaller and independent brands make the use of faux fur so appealing (see: Shrimps), and influential global houses like Stella McCartney, Gucci, and Michael Kors lead the way to an industry free of fur, we can only hope 2018 signals the tipping point for brands to take more accountability — and to invest in more sustainable and cruelty-free alternatives. Because there's absolutely no need for style to cost innocent lives.
Related Video:
Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?
Why does it feel like it only rains on our busiest days — the days we're running around from meeting to meeting with coffee and iPhone already in-hand and you somehow need to finagle an an umbrella too. But, an equally ridiculous and genius invention just changed those moments forever. And before you shake off the ShedRain hands-free texting umbrella as an unnecessary As Seen On TV-type purchase, hear us out: It's the item every fashion person didn't know they needed.
Utilizing a simple, clever design that slips over your hand and rests on your shoulder, the texting umbrella allows both hands to be free for texting, digging through your bag for your MetroCard, carrying a shopping bag, or whatever you need to be doing — all while staying dry. And we have just one question: Where the hell has this been all of our lives?
There are a few slight downsides to acknowledge, though — or rather, suggestions we'd like to make. For one, we wish that the part of the umbrella shaft that rests on the shoulder had a bit of patting of some sort, because the idea of the "black electrostatic steel shaft" pressing into our collarbone sounds like it might not be the most comfortable thing. Second, it's worth noting that this is a manual-open umbrella, which means it doesn't just expand with the click of a button (we like efficiency, okay?!). Third, it's clearly not the most stylish accessory — though it is far better-looking than the umbrella hat, which is currently threatening to make a comeback at men's fashion week in Italy. Still, next time you end up carrying a ton of stuff and it starts to pour, you won't have to look down at the non-hands-free umbrella hanging from your wrist and think, "Guess I'm just going to run for it," as soon as the skies open up. And for that, we're forever grateful.
Coming in at just $25, we feel like this is both a savvy investment in ourselves and a great gift for our busiest friends. It's 2018, after all, and we deserve the luxury of being able to send memes from everywhere — including the middle of a rainstorm.
ShedRain Hands-free Texting Umbrella, $25, available at ShedRain.
Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?
We learned earlier this year that there are more important things Jane Fonda wants to talk about than plastic surgery. And yet, that doesn't stop interviewers from asking her about her cosmetic procedures, even when it's unrelated to the work she's promoting. Most recently, the topic resurfaced while Fonda and Grace and Frankie co-star Lily Tomlin made a joint appearance on Today this morning to discuss the upcoming fourth season of the Netflix hit.
Thankfully, a majority of the interview focused on a lot of important issues, like female empowerment, Fonda's blog post on turning 80, and even the 2018 Women's Agenda for New York: Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity unveiled by Andrew Cuomo this past weekend. But like clockwork, the conversation led to Tomlin and Fonda's off-screen friendship, taking a minor and slightly uncomfortable turn that felt very familiar.
After Today co-host Hoda Kotb asked the two stars about how long they've been friends, Tomlin jokingly replied with the well-intended punchline: "Long time. I knew you before your first face-lift!" Fonda quickly replied, "We don't need to hear that," before playfully adding, "Who are you? Megyn Kelly?”
Fonda's reaction looked similar to one we've seen before. Last September, Kelly and Fonda engaged in one of the most awkward interviews of the year, in which the actress replied to a question about plastic surgery by asking, "We really want to talk about that now?"
To be clear: Fonda isn’t opposed to talking about her age, or her plastic surgery, for that matter. In fact, she once said the move “bought her a decade” in Hollywood. However, there’s a time and place. Unless interviewers also start asking male actors about Botox any time they're promoting a new film, perhaps we should refrain from worrying if Fonda — a four-time Golden Globe-winning actress — does the same.
Is there anything Kaia Gerber can’t do? Honestly, the 16-year-old has already proven she can command a runway, just about taking over Fashion Week in New York, London, Milan, and Paris. Plus she’s already earned a coveted spot as the face of Versace, 30 years after her mother first appeared in the brand's ad campaign. It’s no wonder the Internet can’t tell her and Cindy Crawford apart. On Tuesday, the famous offspring’s resume got even more impressive (if you can handle it) — and with a major cosign from Karl Lagerfeld.
Chanel and Fendi's longtime creative director has tapped Gerber to design a capsule collection of clothing, shoes, sunglasses, and jewelry for his namesake brand, available in stores this September, Women's Wear Daily is reporting. The pieces will be a mix of Lagerfeld and Gerber’s aesthetics, "with a mix of California cool for day and French sophistication for after dark.”
“When Karl first told us his idea to collaborate with Kaia, we were all excited by the incredible potential and power of bringing their two worlds together,” Pier Paolo Righi, chief executive officer of Karl Lagerfeld, told WWD in a statement. “We have been working intensely over the last months with Kaia in L.A. and at our studio in Paris. It was exciting to see her clear vision, passion, and engagement, and the collection will definitely inspire many young women.”
Could this be Lagerfeld’s answer to Tommy Hilfiger’s uber-popular, ongoing collaboration with Gigi Hadid, which seems to be getting bigger and bigger with each season? According to WWD, the duo's first show in September 2016 "generated 900 percent increased traffic to tommy.com" within 48 hours, so we'd say that's quite the business model to follow. And given Gerber's social media influence — and the fact that she's been compared to Hadid on multiple occasions — well, it might just be set up for the same level of success.
Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?
Full disclosure: The following story is about my pubes. Or rather, it is about shaving my pubic area, in case that makes it any less TMI (although I somehow doubt it).
Anyway, it was right around the time in middle school when people started growing body hair, during the wonderful stage known by endocrinologists as puberty, and I only knew one thing: I wanted mine gone. After nearly slicing off half my labia with my dad's safety razor in the shower, I decided it was time to seek help. So I did what any 13-year-old would do, and bypassed my mom or physician in favor of a decidedly cooler classmate who could give me some pointers during free period. For the closest shave, she whispered, use your razor in a back-and-forth motion — first in the direction of your hair growth, and then against the grain, as many times as you need to before it's all smooth. Quite the pro tip, my younger self thought. And it worked... for a time.
That was when the inevitable onslaught of tiny, red razor bumps and unsightly ingrowns soon speckled my sensitive bikini line — a result of dragging a razor across it over and over and over again. I finally switched to waxing in high school, which was infinitely more painful, yes, but also didn't make my nether regions glow like a pink Starburst.
But more than a decade later, Schick's latest razor launch has me reconsidering my options. The brand's newest innovation is called Intuition f.a.b., which stands for forward and backward, and it does exactly what its name implies: shaves from both directions at the same time. "The upward-facing blades enact a 'pull' stroke synonymous with traditional uni-directional shaving," Eric Kaplan, a Project Manager on the Research & Development team at Edgewell Personal Care, tells me. "The downward-facing blades shave with a 'push' stroke." So, you can get the same effect as shaving in both directions, but with just one pass of the razor this time.
I brought it into the shower with me this week, and was shocked by how effective it was. The razor felt soft and comfortable on my skin, with zero tugging, and it moved and shifted with my body's curves, so I didn't have to do my usual leg gymnastics in the shower. The result was a gentler, smoother, bump-free shave that 13-year-old me — and my misguided classmate — would have killed (or at least given up our Britney Spears tickets) for.
Schick Intuition f.a.b. Razor, $7.99, available at Target.
Phone, wallet, keys, and lipstick: The mantra of many a millennial woman. Beyond those four basics, however, every woman has a few necessities that might seem just plain weird. InSpill It, we ask influential women to share everything that's in their bag — embarrassing, enlightening, and otherwise. Here, tiny Instagram sensation Zooey In The City spills what she carries around all the time.
Honestly, we're not surprised when we see a five-year-old with a strong Instagram game. That being said, tiny fashionista Zooey Miyoshi of Zooey In The City, is still killing it amongst her kid-peers. With more than 99,000 followers and a strong #OOTD pose, sometimes we can only hope for her swagger and sass.
Miyoshi dropped by our studio to share her everyday essentials. While stars like Rachel Platten might fill up their cult It-girl bag with basics like an iPhone and Fenty lipstick, and YouTube creator Jeanine Amapola keeps black aviators, a vlog camera, and a Kylie Lip Kit on-hand, Miyoshi's daily carryall is filled with items that are slightly more whimsical. Inside her pink and purple Paris-themed Herschel backpack, the pint-sized fashion girl totes around an (on-brand) pink Fujifilm instant camera, two pairs of sunglasses, stickers, a detangler, lip balm, and many, many types of toys and snacks. Watch the video above to see what exactly a five-year-old influencer needs on a daily basis — and what exactly she uses those stickers for, how Magic Markers actually work, and what her favorite toys are. You know, normal kid stuff — even for a kid with 99,000 Instagram followers.
Welcome toMoney Diaries, where we're tackling what might be the last taboo facing modern working women: money. We're asking millennials how they spend their hard-earned money during a seven-day period — and we're tracking every last dollar.
Today, as part ofYour Spending In Your State: a recruiter who makes $60,000 per year. This week, she spends some of her money on bowling with friends.
Occupation: Recruiter Industry: Staffing Age: 27 Location: Minneapolis, MN Salary: $60,000 plus ~$1,000/month in commission Paycheck (2x/month): $1,689
Monthly Expenses Housing Costs: $812. I live in a townhouse in Northeast Minneapolis with two roommates. Student Loan Payments: $403. My parents also contribute $200/month.
All Other Monthly Expenses Car Payment: $250 for my leased car Credit Card: ~$300. I'm trying to quickly pay off a balance of $1,000. Health Insurance: $128.52 401(k): $354.98 HSA: $50, and my employer matches. Apple Music: $10.99, although I've been thinking about switching to Spotify. Donations: $37.87. I donate monthly to an environmental organization to offset my carbon footprint. They have a calculator to figure out how much you impact the environment. I also donate $20/month to Planned Parenthood. Savings: $1,000. I'm aggressively saving (usually my entire commission check) because I'll be a full-time intern for the better part of a year in 2018.
Day One
9:30 a.m. — I slept in this morning and it feels amazing. Slowly meander downstairs and make myself a latte with almond milk and my breakfast staple: oatmeal with peanut butter, bananas, and pomegranate seeds. It's so good! One of my roommates is also up and we start an episode of The Sinner. We started watching last week and can't stop. It's a great crime thriller that is full of twists and turns.
12 p.m. — Having a lazy day and the roommate and I decide to do a puzzle. We venture out to Target and pick up a Christmas-themed, 1,000-piece puzzle. She buys and I'll Venmo her for half, or pick up the next puzzle. (Minnesota winters tend to cause a lot of shut-in weekend days.) I pick up popcorn kernels because we're out and we make popcorn all the time. When I get home, I reheat the lentil soup I've been eating all week. $3.29
3 p.m. — Finished a few more episodes of The Sinner and we've completed the outer edge of the puzzle. My other roommate is home after a night out and he joins.
7 p.m. — We're going out with a few friends tonight and we stop by a local grocery store to pick up frozen pizzas and beer. I buy the pizzas and my roommate buys the beer. $10
7:30 p.m. — We watch the Badgers vs. Ohio State game at my friend's house while we get ready to go out. This is one of my favorite groups to get together with, and it's always a guaranteed good time. We sneak in a couple of whiskey shots.
10:30 p.m. — We head out to a dive karaoke bar in our neighborhood. We've been regulars here for the past five years and it's one of the best spots in NE. It's packed so we can't find a table and opt for the bar instead. We order a round of drinks and a round of “Vegas Bomb” shots and we all toss in cash to cover. It looks like it's going to be an hour and a half wait to get in for karaoke so we decide to move on. $20
11:15 p.m. — We head to another great dive bar that's only a few blocks away. We split a few more pitchers of beer and nachos. My roommate throws the drinks and food on her card — she'll send out a Venmo for my portion later. We finish the night at a fun dance spot down the block. They're playing a fun mix of 90s/early 2000s pop which is the best to dance to. I cover the Lyft home. $6.97
Daily Total: $40.26
Day Two
9 a.m. — Definitely feeling the effects of last night, I crawl out of bed and make myself a latte. We watch last night's episode of SNL and agree that the night got a little out of hand. I put an egg on top of an English muffin with a little avocado — just what my hangover needs.
12 p.m. — More episodes of The Sinner and the puzzle. I don't have a lot of grad school homework this weekend so I'm okay with taking it easy. Next weekend, I have a huge project due so I won't have much downtime. I heat up leftover rice pilaf I have in the fridge from last week.
5 p.m. — We finished the puzzle and The Sinner; I'd consider that a productive day. It's a “use up what's in the fridge” kind of day, so I make myself an egg salad using the last of my groceries. My roommate Venmos me for my portion of last night's drinks and food. $24.88
8:30 p.m. — I finish up some homework that I've been putting off all weekend. I'm getting my MA online part-time to become a school counselor and it usually involves a lot of online discussions. I crawl into bed early and fall asleep faster than normal probably thanks to the late night last night.
Daily Total: $24.88
Day Three
7 a.m. — It's a struggle to get up this morning, especially with the dreary day outside. It's been unseasonably warm and it's supposed to rain today, which is unheard of for December in Minnesota. I make myself a latte to try and wake up a bit.
8:10 a.m. — I head into work (a few minutes late) and respond to missed emails from the weekend while I eat my oatmeal. I usually keep breakfast ingredients in the fridge and at my desk so I always have food on hand for the morning. It's going to be a busy day; I have a full day of interviews with candidates scheduled. I like meeting with people and it helps the day go by faster.
9:30 a.m. — My roommate and I talk about going to The Disaster Artist tonight. We're big into Oscar season and try to see all of the movies that are getting Oscar buzz. It's showing at Uptown Theater and probably won't go to wide-release so I buy us two tickets ahead of time. $22
12 p.m. — Lunchtime! I usually eat with my team and we have a café in our building that does soups, salads, sandwiches etc. It's perfect for days like today where I'm running low on groceries. I end up ordering a grilled cheese sandwich and fruit. I tend to eat much healthier when I don't eat out, oh well. $5.57
4 p.m. — Head home for the day. I'm definitely glad the Monday workday is over. I do homework and reheat more lentil soup. I've been eating this for six days but I still have a lot left. Figuring out portions for one person can be a struggle sometimes.
7:15 p.m. — Head to the movie with my roommate and I buy us popcorn to share. This is one of my favorite theaters to see movies at and this movie does not disappoint! James Franco gives quite the performance and we're laughing out loud for the entire movie. Highly recommend! $7
10:30 p.m. — Home and in bed. I fall asleep to an episode of Keeping Up with the Kardashians, my guilty pleasure. I think they're pretty funny.
Daily Total: $34.57
Day Four
6:45 a.m. — I wake up today to a handful of text messages from my coworkers and my boss. It rained and snowed all last night and the temps are now below freezing, so the roads will be pretty unsafe. Because of that, most people are working from home. I don't live far from the office so I decide to go in.
8:30 a.m. — It took me an additional 30 minutes to get to work (a lot for my short commute) and I'm one of the only people in the office. I actually have a lot to do and have a very productive morning because there is no one around to chat with or be distracted by. I'm not super hungry so I grab a few Wasa crackers I have in my desk and top them with avocado.
11:45 a.m. — I'm starving at this point and decide to order from Urban Sub because they deliver. I get my favorite vegetarian wrap, which is super delicious. I try to eat meat-free during the week unless I go out. I browse my favorite daily news sites while I eat and am thoroughly enjoying the office being so quiet. $10.16
2 p.m. — I decide to go home to avoid the evening traffic because the roads are still pretty bad. The ride home is treacherous and I'm glad to finish the day from the warmth of my living room. I got paid today, so I transfer $1,000 into my savings account. I get a commission check once a month and I've been putting it all away for when I'm a full-time intern next year. I'll be unemployed for the better part of a year, so I've been saving for a while now.
4 p.m. — My roommates are busy tonight, which is good because I have errands to run. I'm completely out of food and I'd usually go to Trader Joe's, but there isn't one near the other places I have to stop. I settle for Cub and get stuff for curry: chickpeas, zucchini, onion, sweet potatoes, garlic, coconut curry sauce and rice, as well as English muffins and avocados for breakfast. $32.13
4:30 p.m. — I head over to Target to grab Christmas candy, more Christmas lights, and some of my skincare and makeup necessities. Last stop is Home Depot to look at Christmas trees. We don't have room for a big one, and they don't have many real little ones, so I settle on a five-foot fake tree that's pretty cute. Checked a lot of my list tonight! $82.91
6:30 p.m. — I head home and make the curry; it's hearty, delicious and a nice break from the lentil soup. One of my roommates comes home and we spend time listening to Christmas tunes and decorating our townhouse. I love this time of year and how festive the weather makes it feel.
8:30 p.m. — We watch last night's episode of The Voice on Hulu and make popcorn. I crawl into bed around 10.
Daily Total: $125.20
Day Five
8 a.m. — The roads are much better today. I'm less busy this morning at work. I start the day off with an English muffin topped with avocado and a cup of coffee. I'm a creature of habit and never really get sick of avocado toast or oatmeal.
11:30 a.m. — My company likes to be pretty festive around the holidays which is always fun. Today, over lunch, we watch Home Alone in a conference room. I heat up leftover chickpea curry and snack on the popcorn and cookies that someone brought in for the movie.
4:30 p.m. — Head home and finish an assignment that is due today. Luckily, it's a lighter assignment and doesn't take much time at all. I usually have two, four-credit classes each quarter, but one of my classes ended after six weeks instead of 10. The lighter workload is just what I need closer to the holidays.
7:30 p.m. — My roommate volunteers at U.S. Bank Stadium during Vikings games and they're doing a volunteer holiday appreciation event tonight where he can invite a few guests. They're showing Elf on the big screens and everyone sets up on blankets picnic style on the field. The vendors are selling select items for a reduced price, so I grab a hot dog and eat some of the complimentary popcorn and water. $1.50
10:30 p.m. — Go home and to bed. I haven't had a chance to visit U.S. Bank Stadium since it was built so it was fun to walk around and explore the stadium and toss around the football.
Daily Total: $1.50
Day Six
6:30 a.m. — I get up to shower and find my roommate beat me to the bathroom. The only annoying thing about living with roommates is the timing of getting ready in the morning, and that I share my bathroom with a guy. Oh well. I make a latte in the meantime.
8 a.m. — I get into work and there is a hot chocolate bar set up in the break room. I help myself to a coffee/hot chocolate mixture and make an English muffin with almond butter. I have interviews until lunch so it will be a busy morning.
12 p.m. — For lunch, I heat up my leftover chickpea curry and eat in the café downstairs with my coworkers. I welcome the much-needed break. When I get back, I send out an email about supplies we need for our holiday volunteering event. We're donating necessity baskets to an organization that helps homeless youth and I'm glad to be leading the efforts.
5 p.m. — I run to grab happy hour with a couple of girlfriends. I normally wouldn't be out every night, especially considering my school workload, but it seems like everyone tries to catch up before the holidays and I try to make time for friends I haven't seen in a while. We go to a new spot, in my neighborhood which was converted from an old strip club. I have a signature rum cocktail and a glass of white wine. We split small plates of crispy rice, mango salad, and egg rolls. The food was really good and I can't wait to come back for dinner sometime. $26.88
7:30 p.m. — My roommate and I say our goodbyes and head to a friend's place for dinner. My friend and his girlfriend invited us over and we couldn't pass up the opportunity for someone to cook for us. I grab beers from our fridge for us to share. The couple lives in our neighborhood and we get together often. It's such a good time; they made us an amazing veggie curry with naan.
9:20 p.m. — Go home, glad to be climbing into bed. I feel a cold coming on and I probably need a decent night's sleep.
Daily Total: $26.88
Day Seven
6:40 a.m. — Unfortunately, I was right. I wake up congested and feeling a little off. I pop a DayQuil before I head to work and make sure to drink a ton of water.
8 a.m. — I stop by the convenience store downstairs to grab Emergen-C. It's more expensive than running to a drug store, but you pay for convenience. I buy three packets for the next few days to hopefully knock this cold out. $3.27
11:30 a.m. — Grabbing lunch today with an old coworker and a few of my current coworkers. I haven't seen her in a few months and it's nice to catch up. We go to Cooper's, which is close to my office and has great lunch specials. We split pub pretzels and spinach and artichoke dip, and each get a lunch special. Nice way to break up a Friday! $23.89
7 p.m. — My roommates and I have been planning to go bowling at one of our favorite spots for a while now. It's definitely not a family bowling kind of place, and the drinks are usually flowing. A few other friends meet us and we have dinner before we bowl. We grab a bunch of bar apps to share and I'm digging the cheese curds; we also split a few pitchers of beer. My friend grabs the bill — which he does not need to do! — so my roommates and I whisper and plan to cover bowling for everyone.
8:30 p.m. — We bowl two games and have a blast. We also finish off a few more pitchers of beer and a couple of shots that were initially intended for the losing teams, but we all partake. My roommates and I covered bowling and the group splits the drinks. $53.68
11 p.m. — We head over to another karaoke spot that's a lot of fun. I don't usually sing, but my friends are pretty entertaining to watch. I'm definitely enjoying tonight, although I'm sure I'll regret the drinks in the morning considering my oncoming cold. I'll be shut-in the rest of the weekend completing a final project so I don't mind having a little fun tonight!
Daily Total: $80.84
Money Diaries are meant to reflect individual women's experiences and do not necessarily reflect Refinery29's point of view. Refinery29 in no way encourages illegal activity or harmful behavior.
The first step to getting your financial life in order is tracking what you spend — to try on your own, check out our guide to managing your money every day. For more money diaries, click here.
Have a Money Diary you'd like to share? Right now, in addition to our ongoing diaries, we're looking for potential diarists along the following themes:
1.Your Spending In Your State:We want to run one Money Diary from a different state each week. Want to rep your state? Submithere!
2.New Year, New Job:Many people start reassessing their professional goals in January — and that can include looking for a new profession. Submit your job search Money Diaryhere.
Have questions about how to submit or our publishing process? Read our Money Diaries FAQ doc here:r29.co/mdfaqs
Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?
