***
1) Why you need an elevator pitch, and how to write one. (Idealist Careers)
2) I don’t usually go for designer bags, but this McQueen is a showstopper.
3) How do you feel about “equalism” instead of “feminism”? (USA Today)
4) This geo-knit jacket and tie-cuff jacket from LOFT are fun options for work.
5) “I interviewed the best boss I ever had, and here’s what I learned.” (Levo)
6) Boden Must Haves: Clemmie Shirtdress, Elsie Mid Heels, printed Martha Pencil.
7) Credit card tips every woman needs to know. (Marie Claire)
8) This dusty-rose suit is interesting, though I do wish it was a skirt instead of pants.
9) How to run a more effective meeting, tips we all need. (NYTimes)
10) Everlane is making the best silk tanks and silk button-ups, all under-$100.
11) What kind of exercise you need to keep your cells healthy, according to science. (Well + Good)
12) This gold Swingline stapler is on my must-have list. Because, why not?
13) What you think traveling the world should look like vs. what it actually looks like. (MSN)
***
What I’m Reading. Theft by Finding, David Sedaris.
What I Wish I Was Drinking. Watermelon Rum Smoothie.
What I Wish I Was Baking. Honey Carrot Banana Bread. That sounds healthy, right?
[image found here]
I have so many mixed feelings about the MSN slideshow about landmarks. Most of the critiques it had were basically “this is crowded.” Popular things are popular. Duh. But does that mean it’s not worth it to go to any of these places? I visited the Sistine Chapel a few years ago and we were jam-packed in like sardines, but I wouldn’t trade that experience for anything in the world. For things that have become overly modernized or are smaller/less impressive than most people expect, I think it’s a valid warning, but if the only negative thing you can say is that a lot of people want to see famous sights, then you’re just a party pooper.
I don’t know if that’s entirely true. I went to Westminster Abbey when it was jam packed, you can’t see anything, read any of the plaques, spend more than two seconds looking at something before people are pushing on you. I’m sure there are places that are perfectly fine when they’re busy, but some, you might as well skip.
It would’ve been more helpful if they had given tips on visiting during less busy times, whether that’s in an off-season or at a different time of day, or a different day of the week depending on the site. Obviously there are things that are always crowded (Mona Lisa) but it’s better to say “this is usually super packed but here’s how to get the most out of your experience if you’re going there anyway.” For example, on a trip to Istanbul a friend recommended specific times to visit the Hagia Sophia and the Blue Mosque to avoid crowds and prayer times, and I had a much better experience than if I had gone according to my own schedule. I imagine that some people in DC have similar tips about when to visit museums and memorials. I know that all the precautions can be taken and advice followed and popular things are still popular, but I didn’t like that the slideshow implied that travel wasn’t worthwhile just because you have to deal with crowds. Even suggesting less well-known alternatives would have been better i.e, “The Mona Lisa is always packed, but you can see other works by da Vinci in the ____ gallery.”
I don’t think the article was necessarily critiquing the landmarks themselves, just the disconnect between what we expect them to be like and the reality.
I love this! Especially the elevator pitch article – so important!
Kim
https://trendkeeper.me .. favorite florals!
Agree. What they didn’t capture is what it FEELS like to be there. Also, maybe try going someplace other than the one or two most heavily visited sights or paintings in a country?
oops meant this for the one above!
Ooh I ‘d love to hear how you’re enjoying the new Sedaris book. I am a. huge fan of his but wasn’t sure about the style of this one (old diary entries.
OMG, USA today called Kara McCullough a “nuclear scientist” which to me implies post-grad work and lab work too. That’s a bit ridiculous USA Today! She’s more aptly described as having an undergrad degree and entry level job. She’s 25 and has a B.S. from S.C. State and she works as “an emergency preparedness specialist in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response” according to Wikipedia. She hardly has the training associated with something like “nuclear physicist”, which is what I assumed when USA Today called her a “nuclear scientist”. Sorry, she’s undoubtedly accomplished for 25, but come on USA Today.
But anyways, ask people with these views for one instance from history where the feminist movement and/or a feminist herself did something too extreme. You get no answer. Or, you get some vague answer about man-bashing. Right…. Meanwhile, on the other side, we have facts about women’s pay gap, facts about women in upper level management or science, facts, facts, and more facts about how women are not equal.
What is there to say? What does hating the term ‘feminism’ mean? I suppose it means you generally align yourself with the views of Phyllis Schlafly who argued against the Equal Rights Amendment (a proxy for feminism)? Good ‘ol Phyllis said that the ERA/feminism: (1) undermines traditional families, (2) removes legal protections of wives, (3) means subjecting women to the military draft, (4) removes barriers to women in combat, (5) promotes abortion on demand, (6) opens the way for “homosexual marriage”, and (7) requires that public bathrooms be unisex.
Am I going to stop calling myself a feminist b/c it’s detractors throw Phyllis’ arguments up? No. Do I think feminism was only needed in past decades? No.
If there’s a decent/legitimate argument about why we don’t need feminism or its terminology, I’ve yet to hear it and I’d be shocked.
Totally making that watermelon rum smoothie. Yummmm 🙂
Thank you for sharing the link to the Levo article. I really got a lot out of this as an a staff level person and aspiring boss someday.
Saying Equalism instead of Feminism seems a lot like saying All Lives Matter instead of Black Lives Matter. Being a feminist doesn’t mean you aren’t for equality, it means acknowledging that systemic sexism against WOMEN is the problem that must be solved before there can be equality. Just like acknowledging that systemic racism is why BLM calls out Black lives, because white lives already matter.
That’s exactly what I was thinking Monica!
YES. Thank you.
I consider myself a feminist, but I think that word has so many connotations that people can’t begin to know what exactly someone means when they use the word! There are just so many definitions to different people. So when I talk about feminism, I describe my view as simply being: equality for everyone. This does not just mean women- this means other groups that struggle and are marginalized. There are many times I do not agree with some of the most famous feminists (Gloria Steinem in the last election saying that women voting for Bernie were doing it to get the attention of men?!?) or close friends that are also feminists. It’s a loaded word, and it’s nearly impossible to know what someone means when they say they are a feminist.
Also – if you ever get the chance to see David Sedaris speak in person, you MUST go! I’ve seen him twice, and have cried-laughed. One of my favorite writers, but seeing him live far exceeded my expectations. I’m having one hell of a tough week (grandfather in the hospital and boyfriend problems) and I am so looking forward to reading this and laughing!
Personally, this was not the decent argument against using the term “feminist” that I was looking for. You think “equality” is more definitive or less loaded of a term in this country!?! Now that’s laughable and I bet Mr. Sedaris would agree.