Nostalgia Friday - part II

No, this has nothing to do with cheese or lofty moral dilemmas. It has to do with one thing, and one thing only - nostalgia. Nostalgia is a funny thing. It occurs when we miss something that is no longer there, and potentially never was. Nostos means homecoming - but it is not any home you have or had, but rather the mythical, perfect home of your dreams. Our memory tends naturally towards exaggeration, the good is ever better, the bad that much worse, when sifted through the neurons that comprise memory.  We long not so much for that which no longer exists as for that which we imagine existed. Nostalgia, then, is akin to utopia, which could mean either the perfect place or, depending on the intention of the man who coined the term, no place. Duality and disappointment are wired into the linguistic makeup of both words.

So why a semantic exegesis on your Friday read, you may ask? Well, a friend posted the link below on his Facebook page. It is about a song - Africa by Toto - that I personally heard in 1991 when I was in the army. I was on a brief brake in Eilat with a few army-met girlfriends. We were all super nerds, fresh out of our little nerdy parental homes, pretending unsuccessfully to be more worldly and wild than we were. Africa was playing in a beach-side bar, lights danced on the rippled surface of the dark water, and I still remember how I felt when I heard it for the first time, what aspirational fantasies coursed through my head at the age of 18. No, I never wanted to bless the rains down in Africa, I never even wanted to go there, but the easy sentimentality of the song resonated with the actual sentiments of an 18 year old. That's what cheese songs do - and why they work.

It is also why the following thorough take-down of the song is so damn great. Enjoy ladies. You can thank me later:

Hat tip: Aaron Tillman.

Summer evening wear, the celeb edition

I am not into posting and picking apart every celeb appearance, but when you have lady stars who are known fashionistas, whose very celebrity is often wrapped up in their wrappings, I think that dissecting their sartorial choices is a Vestments mandate. As it happens this week was a busy one, with plenty of material to go through.

First,  this appearance from Sarah Jessica Parker:

SJP is wearing a dress by Schiaparelli - an Italian haute-couture label recently resuscitated. The original iteration was known for the surrealist designs of its founder, Elsa Schiaparelli.  The new iteration attempts to revive the surrealist whimsy, but to my view, with limited success. This dress on SJP is a case in point - aside for the fact that it is utterly age-inappropriate and unflattering on an almost 50 year old - the nightgown-ish design and print are unfortunate, as it the super low neckline that creates an odd proportion even on a leggy model.  BAH.

A much more successful look by the same label appeared on the enviable frame of the fantastic Tilda Swinton, who, by dint of genetics and personal quirkiness, manages to pull off even the most complex outfits on a routine basis. Granted, she usually has the sense to chose items that are flattering and smart. This, with the print offset by a much better color, and a much stronger cut, is no exception:

Our next example comes from Kerry Washington, who wore Sportmax:

What can I say? The runway is better styled (the white belt is really needed here); the proportions are wrong on Washington (skirt should be shorter - this is an awkward length). Could be much cuter than how it ended up.

Next up is Cate Blanchett in Chloe:

Even she can't pull all these ruffles off. The styling is good (love the earrings and sandals); the white is a good white; but the whole thing looks like a toilet paper commercial. It is super absorbent!

Finally, we have an actress who is merely a wanna be in every way (the chick Johnny Depp left Vanessa Paradis for) - and she is making an appearance here only to illustrate my hatered for Stella McCartney's design aesthetic:

This, ladies, is a dress of ridicule and ridiculousness. I rest my case.

Nostalgia Friday: Say Cheeese!

Coagulated, acidified milk is a delicious thing.

Yes, I am fully aware that this is a fashion-centric blog. But sometimes a person must take a stand on matters that exceed the sartorial. On matters of grave importance. On matters of personal taste and therefore personal freedom.

So - coagulated, acidified milk is a delicious thing.

Sure, its high fat content isn't particularly good for one's mid section, but it is healthier than baked goods, and - at least as far as I am concerned - much harder to resist. Granted, it is not for the faint of stomachs as this cute scene from a silly but adorable movie I similarly can never resist when it comes up in the gym:

http://www.flickclip.com/flicks/frenchkiss1.htm

My personal favorite is a French, semi-soft cheese known for the village that began producing it and easily recognizable for the thin black line that runs down its middle - Morbier. For most of this year, however, Morbier was nowhere to be found Stateside. Apparently the FDA (regulatory authority responsible for food and drug) found something to be wrong with a batch). Devotees - moi! - were left bereft and orphaned, their treats a scarcity.

Apparently this deficit was just an opening shot in a larger campaign by the FDA - there are now - wait for it - ALLEGATIONS!! NYMag reports:

 Reasons You Should Be Troubled by the FDA’s Cheese-Aging Regulations

It's been a weird few days for people who love good cheese, particularly wheels of American farmstead cheese aged on wooden boards: Last week, it seemed as if the FDA had moved to ban aging cheese on wood, a practice almost as old as coagulated dairy itself and the production aspect that turns Comté into, well, Comté. New York's Department of Agriculture got curious as to why the agency had all of a sudden cited several producers for doing something New York and practically every other state permit, so the FDA replied it was simply enforcing long-standing policy, not doing anything new: Wood, being porous, "cannot be adequately cleaned and sanitized," which sounds bad, and besides, Listeria outbreaks have plagued the cheese industry as recently as March.

[...] While the agency's position on aging cheese on wooden boards seems to be more clear, it's uncertain whether this will become an eventual focus of industrywide enforcement[...] If the rules were eventually enforced, here are.. reasons why it would be a huge deal.

1. The rule-tightening could apply to imported cheeses. Bid adieu to"the great majority" of foreign fromage, says Cornell's Rob Ralyea. Rob Kaufelt, owner of Murray's Cheese, tells Grub, "Comté, Beaufort, and others like that would effectively disappear."

4. There's not much science backing the FDA up. This fight revolves around its contention that wood grows bad bacteria like Listeria, but critics — who have centuries of tradition on their side — counter that good bacteria, like what live in yogurt, are the point of wood aging. They're ready with studies showing the process is neutral at worst, beneficial at best. Says Saxelby: "There's more listeriosis from pasteurized cheese and deli meat than from wood-aged cheese."

5. Cheese aged on anything else tastes weird, comparatively speaking. "The thing about wood," Saxelby explains, "is it breathes. If you put something on a plastic or metal shelf versus a wood shelf, the stuff that sits on the plastic or metal shelf isn't going to be able to breath and isn't going to ripen properly."

6. The move would favor Big Cheese, where wood-aging is impracticable. "I'm not given to speculation about these kinds of theories, mind you, but some are saying it's maybe because the large producers have been losing market share against what we call 'the good stuff' these days," Kaufelt says, before clarifying: "Though I suspect it's more bureaucratic."

7. Finally, cheesemakers aren't dairy's Appalachian moonshiners."We use strict testing and sanitary procedures," Kaufelt says. "It's been that way since the beginning, since we first worked with [the Department of Agriculture]. They're strict, and have to be." 

* * *

As a former Soviet citizen I dislike scarcity, especially one caused by inane governmental incursions into the market. Think about it - the very same FDA that found an innocuous cheese guilty just recently approved an incredibly powerful narcotic painkiller - and that in a smack of a resurgent heroin epidemic in the country, caused - by and large - by painkillers that act as potent gateways. Hence, pardon me for questioning the wisdom of said governmental agency as it attempts to regulate MY CHEESE!

Don't F--k with my cheese!

Negotiating with The Man

As some of you know I've been thinking a lot about the fallacy of the feminist myth that you can have it all - the 'all' in this case is the holy grail of a stellar career and great motherhood. I'm thinking about it so much I might be actually motivated to put down my thoughts on paper, but meanwhile a New Yorker writer composed a piece on the dangers of acting 'tough' in negotiations.  I am not certain that the example they use as an opener is that great, though - having been in that situation myself, such negotiations should never take place over email and some of the items should have been left off the list completely - there is a difference between forceful and stupid.

Here, judge for yourselves:

JUNE 11, 2014

LEAN OUT: THE DANGERS FOR WOMEN WHO NEGOTIATE

POSTED BY MARIA KONNIKOVA

This spring, an aspiring professor—W, as she’s chosen to call herself in a blog post about the experience—attempted to negotiate her tenure-track job offer with the Nazareth College philosophy department. She wanted a slightly higher salary than the starting offer, paid maternity leave for one semester, a pre-tenure sabbatical, a cap on the number of new classes that she would teach each semester, and a deferred starting date. “I know that some of these might be easier to grant than others,” she acknowledged in her e-mail. “Let me know what you think.”

Nazareth didn’t hesitate to do just that: W wrote that the college promptly let her know that she was no longer welcome. “The institution has decided to withdraw its offer of employment to you,” the terse reply concluded. “We wish you the best in finding a suitable position.”

What had W done wrong? Perhaps nothing, at least according to the advice to “lean in” that women have become accustomed to hearing. “This is how I thought negotiating worked,” W wrote. “I just thought there was no harm in asking.” (It’s entirely possible that there were factors at play not covered in the leaked correspondence—a Nazareth representative told me that the college was unable to comment on a personnel issue.)

In a survey of graduating professional students, Linda Babcock, of Carnegie Mellon University, found that only seven per cent of women attempted to negotiate their initial offers, while fifty-seven per cent of the men did so. We see those dire statistics and think that women are, in a sense, self-sabotaging. They don’t ask for the same compensation and benefits as men, so they can’t rightly be expected to receive them. But is it really the case that the disadvantage stems from not asking? Sheryl Sandberg, the author of “Lean In” and the chief operating officer of Facebook, acknowledges the difficulties of negotiation, but nonetheless urges women to push forward (“I negotiated hard,” she writes) and to do what they would do if they weren’t afraid. But, had W spoken to psychologists who study the role of gender in negotiation alongside more popularly rendered edicts from women at the top of their fields, she might have been less surprised at the outcome.

Hannah Riley Bowles, a senior lecturer at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and the director of the Women and Power program, has been studying gender effects on negotiation through laboratory studies, case studies, and extensive interviews with executives and employees in diverse fields. She’s repeatedly found evidence that our implicit gender perceptions mean that the advice that women stand up for themselves and assert their position strongly in negotiations may not have the intended effect. It may even backfire.

In four studies, Bowles and collaborators from Carnegie Mellon found that people penalized women who initiated negotiations for higher compensation more than they did men. The effect held whether they saw the negotiation on video or read about it on paper, whether they viewed it from a disinterested third-party perspective or imagined themselves as senior managers in a corporation evaluating an internal candidate. Even women penalized the women who initiated the conversation, though they also penalized the men who did so. They just didn’t seem to like seeing someone ask for more money.

In a follow-up study, Bowles asked participants whether they themselves would negotiate in the given scenario—that is, they were now the job candidate and not the evaluating manager. The women, for the most part, said no. They were nervous that the conversation would turn against them. “Women are more reticent to negotiate than men, for good reason,” Bowles says.

It’s not that men are immune from being seen as tough or unlikeable when they make aggressive demands. Attempting to negotiate can make anyone seem less nice, Bowles repeatedly found. But it’s only women who subsequently suffer a penalty: people report that they would be less inclined to work with them, be it as coworkers, subordinates, or bosses. The effect is especially strong, Bowles has found, when people observe women who engage in salary negotiations. “Money in particular seems to be a hot one,” she says.

One reason for the bias may be that the person hiring—or giving a raise—values different qualities in male and female colleagues. Women are potentially being evaluated according to different criteria, even if the person doing the evaluation doesn’t realize it. Julie Phelan and her colleagues at Rutgers have found that, when women are already in the hiring or promotion process—that is, when their credentials have already been screened and they are in the interview phase—the focus shifts away from their competence and toward their social skills. That effect is absent for male candidates.

W’s experience conforms to that interpretation, according to the blog post. In the short e-mail rescinding her job offer, the main rationale for the decision was based on her ability to fit in at the college and not her qualifications. (Those, presumably, were fully in order, given that she had received the offer in the first place). Referring to W’s requests, the letter said, “It was determined that on the whole these provisions indicate an interest in teaching at a research university and not at a college, like ours, that is both teaching and student centered.” In other words, your goals—as we have interpreted them—don’t seem to mesh with ours, at least now that you’ve pushed back on our offer.

Women who don’t negotiate may not be refraining because they are shy. They may, instead, be anticipating very real attitudes and very real reactions that are borne out, time and again, in the lab and in the office. Often, leaning in has an even worse effect than saying nothing. Had W voiced excitement and held onto her doubts, she would now be Nazareth-bound.

It happens, too, in situations that are removed from the negotiating table: when, despite the odds, women find themselves in leadership positions. Female leaders who try to act in ways typically associated with male leaders—assertive, authoritative, directive—are seen far more negatively than males. In the modern world, we’d like to think ourselves above such base stereotypes. But that doesn’t mean that discrimination goes away; it means that it shifts from the explicit to the implicit realm. “It’s the idea of second-generation feminism,” Bowles says. “We have these culturally ingrained ideas about what we consider attractive or appropriate, ideas of what’s O.K. for men or women. And when women violate it, people have an aversive response.” The result is that discrimination becomes more nuanced: we can’t point to overt things like women not having the right to vote. We can, it’s true, point to things like pay gaps—but, because they are inherently more ambiguous, it’s much more difficult to say that discrimination has taken place. Maybe she really didn’t push hard enough. Maybe she is a bit less qualified. Many women (and men) who ask for raises, after all, just aren’t quite good enough to get them. Maybe he did make a better case.

Bowles recalls one recent study, from the University of Pennsylvania, that observed the less obvious forms that implicit gender bias can take in the workplace. It looked at a commission-based profession—stockbrokers—where the model has long been eat-what-you-kill, and tried to see why, even in such a seemingly merit-based system, women made less than men. “They did a very careful analysis of what happened when these brokers left the firm,” Bowles says. “How were their portfolios allocated? They found that the more profitable elements of the portfolio were given to men and not to women.” The thing is, those doing the allocation may not even have done it on purpose. But they were disproportionately male, and people simply find it easier to get along with others who are more like themselves—and may reward them accordingly.

One new study even suggests that some of the discrimination effects in the workplace aren’t the result of bias against women so much as bias in favor of men. It doesn’t matter what personal characteristic we’re talking about—gender, race, social background. Like attracts like. In-groups reward their own.

The situation is infuriating in many ways, and simply bringing attention to the issues is not enough. Awareness is good, but when problems have slipped from the explicit to the implicit, from the unassailable to the ambiguous, knowing that the effect exists isn’t sufficient to change behavior. Bowles cites an ongoing collaboration between the University of Virginia and George Mason University, where psychologists are finding that telling people about implicit stereotypes may have a perverse negative effect. “They are actually more inclined to use the stereotypes in their judgments and decisions when you bring them up,” Bowles says.

One way to start solving the problem can come from the institutional side, in the form of increased transparency around hiring, promotion, and compensation decisions. “What we’ve found is that ambiguity facilitates the potential for gender effects and for stereotyping people. It leads people to preconceived notions,” Bowles says. “And transparency has the opposite effect. It’s a healthy way of changing things without having to change the world.” If a female leader is going to earn less than her male predecessor, tell her why that choice has been made.

The final piece of advice is for would-be powerful female leaders themselves: be aware that, at least until social attitudes shift radically, you are not immune from these effects. That doesn’t mean not negotiating but, rather, being strategic about it. “We’ve found that you need to offer an explanation for your demands that gives a legitimate reason that the other side finds persuasive,” Bowles says. “You need to signal concern for the broader organization: ‘It’s not just good for me; it’s good for you.’ ”

Still, in a 2012 study, Bowles and Babcock found that a team-oriented frame could indeed help—but only if used on its own. In their experiment, used in combination with a legitimate justification for the request (for instance, that you have another job offer on the table), it seemed likely to backfire for participants.

No social-science study can tell a woman what to do in any particular negotiation. The variables are too complex. And to suggest that women should be wary of asserting themselves in the workplace would be like telling Rosa Parks not to sit in the front of a bus. But, for now, any negotiation in which gender is involved remains a careful, precarious balancing act.

Photograph by Peter Marlow/Magnum.

Dream Job

When I grow up I want to be a buyer for Berdgorf. Or a trend forecaster. Check out the following interview (from The Business of Fashion):

Role Call | Andrea Bell, Retail Editor and Trend Forecaster

BY LISA WANG 10 JUNE, 2014

Andrea Bell, a retail and consumer editor at trend forecasting agency WGSN, says that you have to be immersed in all aspects of culture to catch the next big thing.

There are few sectors of the economy that offer as wide and interesting a range of career opportunities as fashion. In a new series that coincides with the launch of BoF Careers, the global marketplace for fashion talent, we highlight some of the industry’s most interesting jobs and the talented people who do them.

LOS ANGELES, United States — Trend forecasting and analysis agencies are vital to design-led businesses, which rely on their ability to research and distill macro trends and movements down to actionable information like which textiles to purchase or where to open store locations. Andrea Bell is an editor in trend forecasting agency WGSN’s retail and consumer insights division, where she is responsible for identifying and analysing trends for a range of clients.

BoF: Please describe your current role.

AB: My main remit is Americas retail analysis and includes everything from new store openings and retail expansion strategies to identifying emerging consumer tribes and the current consumer mindset.

However, as we are a global company, the international teams are keen on feeding in inspirational materials and features to other directories whenever possible, which I think is one of the strongest selling points about the company.

For example, in December my features included a Seattle street art inspiration photo file, a new store report on Acne’s Los Angeles flagship, US holiday messaging analysis, repurposed retail spaces in the Pacific Northwest, a holiday pop-up feature on Google’s Winter Wonderlabs and I contributed beauty VM [visual merchandising] photos for our holiday VM round-up.

As cliché as it sounds, our content team truly strives to provide a global touch-pulse for our clients. While we all stick to our main remit, if we find something inspirational/valuable outside our directory, we work with the other teams to produce the feature.

BoF: What attracted you to your current role?

AB: I’ve always been fascinated with the evolution of trends within consumer groups. What are the different call-to-actions based on age, sex, location, or demographics? What is the next consumer tribe? What market is being underserved and overlooked, et cetera?

The thin line between capturing the consumer and gaining a brand loyalist or being lambasted on social media is always evolving and I have to find it.

My role is part-social anthropologist, part-researcher, and part-forecaster, with lots of travel and airport dinners involved. Despite airplane cuisine, I’m very fortunate to have the opportunity to travel for my work.

Whether it’s covering fashion weeks in Peru or Brazil, attending conferences in San Francisco, Honolulu, Park City, and Las Vegas (seriously, I’m in Sin City quarterly), or visiting our corporate office in London – I can’t complain. (Unless I’m stuck in a security line, behind the gentlemen who refuses to throw away his water and doesn’t understand why his computer has to be removed.)

My work life sometimes resembles Indiana Jones sans the khakis and bodyguards. Most of the time, it’s just me, an iPhone, a camera and penchant for discovery.

BoF: What is the most exciting project or initiative you have worked on recently?

AB: Working with the global teams is one of my favourite parts of the job, and we recently wrapped the global retail presentation and the macro trend forecasts in London.

It’s difficult to not feel enthused when seeing what art movements are coming out of Asia, how retailers are engaging the youth market in Brazil, and the early adopter trends in America.

The teamwork is incredible and the presentations are thought-provoking. Throw in a catered lunch, plenty of tea and coffee, and celebratory cocktails, and it’s hard not to feel proud and inspired.

BoF: How is your role changing? What are the forces driving this change?

AB: I think the biggest changes in my role are speed-to-website, driven largely by digital natives and global online connectivity. These days, it seems like everyone with smart phone is a photographer, writer, and Insta-celebrity. (I once had a potential intern bring Facebook posts as her writing samples.)

While the Internet of Everything provides an immense resource pool and is an asset to my work, my lead time for stories isn’t mere minutes. The majority of my features are stat and data heavy, involving a fair amount of fact-checking and confirmations before being sent to my editor.

Our reports have to be insightful, informative, and valuable to our clients, who thankfully know the difference between analysis and snippets.

That being said, while we don’t publish at the speed of a celebrity gossip site, we have numerous features going live daily, thanks to an extremely hardworking (and exhausted) production, subbing and tagging team.

BoF: Tell us a story about a failure and how you learned from it.

AB: I once interned for a very well-known fashion editor. I was young, eager and desperate for a byline and she could sense this a mile away. I had to write a test piece to get the position, which was later published word-for-word in the magazine with her byline. I kept my mouth shut, never confronting her or informing her boss.

I learned three valuable lessons:

1. Being a doormat means you’ll always be stepped on. While I don’t recommend sending a company-wide email airing your grievances or bringing it up at the staff breakfast, speak to someone in senior management if you feel you’re being taken advantage of.

2. Interns are the next senior staff. Treat interns and entry-level employees with respect. Try a proactive rather than reactive approach to their mistakes or office snafus, suggesting how they can do things differently and/or improve on their work ethic and etiquette.

3. Like an ill-fated tweet, your reputation precedes you. The fashion industry is a tight-knit community and word travels fast. If you’re known for diva-like behavior, antics and a poor work ethic, you will have trouble moving up the ladder. The same editor who published my work had trouble getting hired at other publications, as her plagiarism was well known.

BoF: What advice do you have to offer for people who are interested in trend forecasting?

AB: I think the biggest misconception from potential forecasters is that we only look at fashion. Of course, a fashion background is a strong foundation to predict seasonal key items and long-term category (womenswear, juniors, menswear) forecasts but most trend analysts dive deeper than just silhouettes. Our juniors editor, Sarah Owen, constantly sources inspiration beyond the catwalks – she’s at gallery openings, trying new cuisine, even visiting hot NYC workout spots to get active inspiration.

My two pieces of advice are pretty simple but necessary: be aware and read.

A good trend forecaster is constantly aware of the shifts in the marketplace, rumbles in the art world, music, and fashion world. You don’t have to be a hipster to get up early and go digging for records at a flea market, but the hunt may lead you to early adopters. Truly immerse yourself in culture and you’ll find the common threads that lead to the big pictures.

And read, absorb everything you can. No matter how late I’m out or how jetlagged I may be, I always read an hour before going to bed. If that’s not an option, find the time whether it’s on the train, metro, lunch hour. If you have an hour to play Angry Birds or stalk your ex on Facebook, your schedule can be easily adjusted.

Love hurts

A lesson in less is more is provided by the Pont des Arts bridge in the city of lights (from The Independent):

Part of Paris bridge collapses under weight of 'love locks' left by tourists

JOHN LICHFIELD 

PARIS

Monday 09 June 2014

There is such a thing as too much love.

A section of the metal mesh on the Pont des Arts footbridge over the Seine in Paris collapsed last night under the weight of the thousands of "love-locks" attached to the bridge by couples.

The bridge was immediately closed to the public and was under repair today. It is expected to re-open tomorrow.

A five feet long section of metal mesh fell inwards onto the bridge itself. Officials said that the design of the bridge made it impossible for debris to fall onto pleasure boats and barges on the river Seine.

All the same, the incident seems certain to intensify the arguments which have raged for several months on the safety - and alleged ugliness - of the 700,000 padlocks which have covered the Pont des Arts and other Seine footbridges over the last six years.

The practice is believed to have started in Russia but has spread all over the world. It is especially common in Paris, the city of lovers.

Couples from all over the world declare their undying affection for one another by placing their initials on a padlock, fastening it to a bridge and throwing the key into the river.

In Paris, the craze began in 2008 on the Pont des Arts, which spans the 150metres between the Tuileries gardens and the Musee d'Orsay. It has since spread to all footbridges across the Seine.

Two young Americans living in Paris started a petition in March calling for the locks to be removed because they were ugly and could damage the bridges. 

An internet rumour began in April suggesting that the Pont des Arts, festooned with locks weighing an estimated 40 tons, was threatened with collapse.

Paris town hall said that the rumour had begun when a section of the metal grill covering the bridge parapets was replaced as part of routine repairs.

Be/Cos

Good news for affordable fashion in the USA - the fantastic Euro brand COS is coming stateside. COS, with headquarters in Sweden, is the upmarket cousin of H&M - but with much better fabrics, better workmanship, less trend driven, and more expensive. Unlike H&M the brand has its own distinct aesthetic rather than being a speedy replicator of the latest hot thing on the street. COS is starkly minimalist and structural, rarely overtly slinky or sexy. No wonder I've been waiting breathlessly for it to traverse the ocean.

The brick and mortar store is opening in NYC sometime in the summer. But their online storefront has just now opened up shipping to the USA - and it is free. To celebrate their immigration the store offers a discount of 25% to first time American shoppers. You can find them here: http://www.cosstores.com/us/

A virtual jog through the store is predictably exciting. Here are some standouts: