I’ve always been told guys don’t care for most trends, each time I’ve explored the latest hipster, bohemian or Kirstin Stewart-”what do I freak’n care” trends through the years. I would always think, well I don’t dress for guys so what does it matter?

There is something to be said to live in an era where fashion is purely a statement of self-expression and no longer of class, vocation or age. Yet current styles from the industry sweep up more territory than others, setting trends that define a decade.  It is now the age of  “modern beauty.” At least that’s what W magazine would name it. From it’s appearance, this “modern beauty,” if you will, is a sort-of plain, monochromatic faced, clean slated look that says, “I put a lot of time into looking like I didn’t take much time”; A rather engrossed simplicity. Think well-tailored, streamlined and tonal, makeup minimalistic, playing up harsher features like deep sunk-in cheek bones or fiercely thick and groomed brows. It’s been making a mad rush down runways and the likes, while famed stylist to the stars, Rachel Zoe would like to sum their personal style as such (eh, I would disagree.) Today one would call this look androgynous. 

I’ve always been a fan of the masculine look. Probably ever since first watching When Harry Met Sally with all Meg Ryan’s grandpa sweaters, fall trousers & matching vest attire, like camouflage against a New York City Fall. Then later, to my late discovery, there was the great Diane Keaton in Annie Hall (a film that couldn’t possibly embody one women’s personal style better, always so fully herself) who’s tomboyish look was altogether effortless, clean, beautiful and all the while masculine.

Come each Fall, or no Fall (I don’t believe I’ve had a real one since NYC in 2010, *sigh*) I always love classic trousers, a wool vest, some sweet old man loafers fit for a dainty foot, and a great fedora or some boyish bowler hat (when I have the guts). There are very feminine ways to be “masculine.” I may be wrong, but I would say dressing masculine every now and then is neither a turn off or so-called man-repeler. 

Androgynous is commonly misinterpreted as today’s version of masculine (ha, though by the judge of things it just might be.) The word androgyny is derived from the Greek root words ανήρ, (andr-, meaning man) and γυνή (gyné, meaning woman), referring to the combination of masculine and feminine characteristics.That being said, it is not meant to own solely masculine or feminine traits but genderless and unisex. It’s a rather flat look that, yes like every other style, has evolved to a mainstream “look”. Today you will even find a category for Androgynous models, specifically tailored for such genderless appeal.

What is considered as androgynous has evolved greatly throughout the years. In the 1920’s, better known to most of you as the decade of The Great Gatsby (aka the Jazz Age), the bob was the infamous androgynous fashion statement of the century. It was considered by many as masculine and unbecoming, (again where I question my taste: I find bobs the most flattering and becoming haircuts, though my brother always manages to eagerly sway me from making the cut once again,) reminding me of a favorite quote from Downton Abbey when the series enters the 1920’s and bob are all the rage: Referring the new fashion Matthew’s fiance states, “I don’t know how feminine they are.” Spiteful, Mary replies “ I don’t know how feminine I am.” I guess it was a tomboy’s ways of being a rebel in that day, though today’s androgyny statements don’t quite compare to Daisy Buchanan’s sleek coiffe. 

Today’s androgynous statement is a different look entirely. Its one that is cold, not manly. Flat, not masculine. Structured, not buff or burly. Due to this uproar, I will even admit succumbing to the desire to grow in and bush up my thinner eyebrows for the sake of some similar looks, but, getting finally to my point, do men find this look becoming or repelling?

While I know many men could care less what style a woman wears, let alone notices (cause frankly most men don’t), this one peaked my curiosity. Could this androgynous fashion statement be a little less becoming than some women may think? Or is that altogether the point. It may be that sexless styles and fashions are for that very purpose, to confuse and repel men from any interest.

While these modern designs and cover looks continue to flourish for woman I can’t help but wonder (for those shallow and vein women like myself who, yes, actually do care at times what you think of what we wear) if this androgynous trend is something guys care for? So tell me men, what is your take on this so-called “modern beauty”?

Today Relevant Magazine online posted a review I had the opportunity to write after seeing The Place Beyond The Pines.

With my rather contrary views to the majority, many may not love what I have to say. But alas,  at times I’m known to speak my mind.

One could say this post is two little dreams come true today….

1. I wrote for RELEVANT.

2. I wrote a film critique for an actual established website! 

There’s nothing like hearing what a man is really thinking. And then there’s nothing like a magazine blatantly, and unapologetically, stating “the women that we feature in the magazine are ornamental.”

Alex Bilmes, editor of UK’s Esquire, is such a blatantly honest man.

In London last week during a panel discussion about feminism, Bilmes spoke out about women’s place in Esquire Magazine, which is (no surprise here) “aimed at men, specifically.” Bilmes’ words on the topic slipped off the tongue assured and without an ounce of regret throughout the discussion:

I could lie to you if you want and say we’re interested in their brains as well, but on the whole we’re not. They’re there to be a beautiful object. To be objectified…

What we do is more honest…

The fact is that heterosexual men regard women in many, may ways: they’re our sisters, our daughters our wives, mothers and we do see them as 3-dimensional human beings. But there are certain times we just want to look at them because they’re sexy.”

Needless to say, the world of media, female and male journalists alike, were appalled at Bilmes charmingly subtle approach, that he will likely never live down. But could you say that Bilmes’ words present the truth of how most magazines (and film and television alike) tick, and the truth just isn’t pretty to hear? 

Bilmes is honest enough to know that not all women are dumb enough to buy the pitch that “yes, Esquire loves to hear about women’s views on politics and social media.” No, most of them couldn’t care less what we think. You can look at the cover of Esquire and see that, or Maxim, or flip through GQ or Details for that matter. It doesn’t take a scientist to discover this, and hearing it from Bilmes mouth surely isn’t the first time we (any woman who lives on this planet) have been introduced to the idea that certain materials exists as pure sugar cane eye-candy to feed men. Whether or not you think it’s right is entirely another topic, but it should not be a surprise. What exactly did we want to hear from the editor of Esquire of why women exists in their male-targeted magazine? To buy into an idea from a men’s magazine that why every other feature displays a glamazon in teeny, tiny lingerie or bikinis (or what have you) is because of their deep interest and care for the psyche and persona of these female individuals would be a joke, and a degradation of feminism itself.

Obviously the targeted readership of Esquire are not men who read the magazine eager to dive into by the minds and wit of it’s featured women. This should be no surprise to us. 

The editors of the US Esquire could lie to us and say that they decided to feature Megan Fox for the cover of the January 2013 issue because of the fascinating opinion on war in the Middle East or her experiences speaking in tongues, but really, who’s the fool if we were sold on that pitch? For decades magazines have featured women for the exact reasons Bilmes explained for Esquire. So why is this so all of the sudden so appalling to us?

One thing can be said for Bilmes, like him or not, I’m sure he will have no communication problems in his marriage.

You couldn’t have convinced me in college I would be writing a piece, on Valentine’s Day, about “embracing being single past 25.” There are probably dozens of girls, very much like I was in college and just after, who read this title and either turn their head follow some gutting-superstition that knowledge of any such advice will make them more likely to be in my shoes one day, or they read with sympathy for me, praying to God they don’t ever have to face life still single just a few birthdays shy of 30.

Of course by the time any of us single people hit age 25, there are countless simple things you realize you’ve taken for granted and may one day miss when you add a spouse and kids to the picture. While being a single female in any society, in any day or age isn’t always peaches and cream, something about facing it in your late twenties brings you to a new (or honest) appreciation of this rare season of life. If you are having a hard time of seeing the bright peaches and sweet cream that can accompany the life of a single women past 25, here are just a few I’ve come to relish…

1. You learn how to check your car’s fluids and now drive with a little more confidence.
2. You have no one to answer to for all the money you spend on fru fru Starbucks drinks (if you call Americano’s a girly drink…)
3. You can move to a new place on a whim and discover a career, you don’t want, without it effecting too many people.
4. You can drop everything at a moment’s notice and go to a movie like Argo on a late Saturday afternoon. (Just throwing film in as a random example.)
5. You have time to discover new strengths, new passions and build on them, even if it means facing many trail and errors.
6. You can go to the mall and eat Pinkberry for dinner (and maybe even another Starbucks.)
7. You can chop off all your hair in an Eddie Sedgwick pixie cut and not care whether any man thinks it looks “feminine enough.” 
8. You’ve had time to discover how to eat in a way your enjoy, that makes you feel your healthiest and look your best (hopefully so that one day you don’t have to hound a man with the question “Do I look fat?” After all, what are scales for?)
9. You can move to a new place… again, for a new job, again and risk launching into an entirely new field and vocation, if you’re passions are leading you to do so. 
10. You can belt out to Taylor Swift and Adele (or Kings of Leon) all the way on those long, inevitable, solo car rides.
11. You can visit and apply to grad schools in Europe, even if choose not to go.
12. You can eat a vegetarian menu for days, saving yourself some money while your at it (for… more Pinkberry!)
13. You can try a variety of man-repelling fashion trends without having to take into account anyone’s cunning remarks.
14. You can one day be married, knowing fully well that you had every opportunity to do all those thing you wished you would’ve done when you were single. 

Now granted, many (or all) of the above you probably can and will do once you’re married. (I certainly hope so!) But in the mean time, taking advantage of these moments will only encourage you to have more of them when a man comes into the picture.

If you’re home sulking tonight, because it feels like life just hasn’t begun until you have a Valentine on February 14th, heed to some advice of a twenty-something-year-old who’s faced many a-Valentine’s Day single, and do yourself (and your future spouse) a favor and check off a few on this list.  

Enjoy this solo season and all the cheesy, little aspects you take for granted. Live you’re life now. 

 “C’est la vie” 

“Ben Affleck got robbed.” Those are Bradley Cooper’s words, not mine. Though after finally seeing “Argo,” directed by Ben Affleck, I couldn’t agree more. 

The film “Argo” is based on on a true story better known as the “Canadian Caper.” During the 1979 Iran hostage, CIA operative Tony Mendez (played by Ben Affleck) led the rescue of six U.S. dipolmats from Tehran, through the unlikely cover of a film crew. The actual fake film, was called “Argo.” The film follows the process for the CIA in determining the best route to bring our U.S. dipolmats back home, but throughout it’s clear that America was not so much the hero in this story, which seems to be a film trend as of late. Let’s just say, “Thank you Canada.”

After his directorial debut of “Gone Baby Gone” and “The Town”, “Argo” seems to be a new caliber of  direction for Afflect. Clearly, judging from recent award shows, few would differ in opinion. Ben Affleck has won Best Director for “Argo” at nearly every award show this year. Yet upon receiving Best Director for “Critic’s Choice”, the “Golden Globes”, the “Screen Actor’s Guild”, the “Director’s Guild of America” and even last night’s “British Academy and Television Arts Award Show” it seems illogical that the one nomination he would not receive is at the “Academy Awards.” (For those of you out of the loop, think of the Oscar’s as the créme de la créme of film awards, or for those of youplainly not interested, the World Series of film awards.)

“Argo” is was as crisp and poignant a story as they come, based on our neglected history, it unravels swiftly and sharply even with some much-needed comic relief amidst truly horrific events. Directors that bring to life the history that we’ve been kept shut from, or components we are simply ignorant to, are to be applauded.This brings up the question, how was it that Kathryn Bigelow was also snubbed from a nomination from the Academy as well? Without diving into some conspiracy theory that I may or may not have ( which I would have so little knowledge of to even convey, let alone make sense trying to post at this time of night) I can’t help but wonder how politics plays into these nominations. How directors, who’s films captured thrilling American events, will show up at the Oscars without so much as a run at Best Director is beyond me. But at the young age that Affleck is at in his directing career, I’m sure the opportunity for a(nother) Academy Award in his lifetime is highly likely. And at the end of the day when the Foreign Film Press, the Screen Actor’s Guild and the British Academy all award you with Best Director of the Year, you’ve got to feel like you’ve done something right, huh? Well Oscar, how ‘bout them apples?

Before Facebook, I could probably count on one hand how many guys asked me out. And this was before Facebook was born, or rather before I was born into the world of Facebook. I was a Junior in College and had just brought my first relationship, and longest (which isn’t saying much,) to an end. At the time I wasn’t able to break up with someone, or better yet, ignore a current boyfriend long enough on a social network for a guy to get the hint. Nope, that’s back in the day when we had to pick up a phone and clearly and awkwardly address the issue. Just the same, a guy didn’t have Facebook to “ask me out.”

Once Facebook quickly evolved as the standard form of communication for our day, I’m sure I wasn’t the only girl a little taken back at how bold (if you want to call it that) guys can be through comments and messages. I’d like to know the logic behind thinking one can “generate a relationship out of thin air” or out of Facebook contact. Though, judging by my own experience, this has become more the norm, while calling a girl up is considered old-fashioned, which makes the idea of knocking on a girl’s door sound like the Dark Ages. Though, for an age where we’ve learned to love the quick, easy and uninvasive means of building a relationship through social media, do guys know any better? It seems to be the majority don’t know how to do it any other way.

In the pre-Facebook era, I would like to think that the thicker, more awkard and timid version of myself, that existed in High School (and College), would’ve been just as much worth asking out as the thinner, slightly more assured version of myself now. But, alas, I guess we all have a bit of a Shallow Hal who is just more motivated by pretty pictures than real life in motion. And for some reason as Facebook has evolved so has the pursuit of relationships online as the interaction off-line disintegrate.

There may be guys who pursue and genuinely discover the love of their life through Facebook, but in those cases they’re often long distance, friends setting up blind-dates via Facebook, etc…. let’s just say they’re rare. If one wants to “generate something out of thin air” it might be easier if one was functioning in the same air, at the same time. I could be wrong, but most of us still use cell phones right? If a girl is worth asking out online, I would hope she’s worth maybe calling up or, as far-fetched an idea as it may be, even worth attempting to cross her path.

Without a doubt, Facebook has made meeting new girls, socializing and dating “easier” than ever for guys, or so we think. It all sounds easy when it’s just your macbook and you, sitting across from one another at the table and not another face that can talk back. While things may seem easy now, the messaging, the commenting, even the poking (really, who even pokes and what is that nonsense for anyway?), inevitably a real dating relationship will have more interactions, moments and surprises that Facebook won’t be able to navigate for any man. What happens between a man and a woman when there isn’t Facebook between them is what I would call a relationship, or at least the means to begin one. 

This brings me back to that final scene in The Social Network, when Mark Zuckerberg is sitting in the conference room all by himself. He opens up Facebook, searches for Erica Albright, and requests to be her friend. A small screen pops up reading “Erica will have to confirm that you are friends.” Then he just waits. He hits refresh over, and over and over again… and sits there.

In a recent interview for her role in ‘Zero Dark Thirty’, Jessica Chastain described the opportunity that the film had, like many others, to gain support from the government. When a production decides to work hand-in-hand with the government, it gains access to federal equipment that would otherwise cost a fortune, supplying helicopters, airplanes and congressional support, which certainly sounds like it wouldn’t hurt. Yet in turn, a film also gives the government complete access to the script. For Zero Dark Thirty the production decided against this opportunity. And by the tail end of the film, it’s clear their reasons why.  

Kathryn Bigelow, Oscar-winning director of The Hurt Locker, was more focused on doing more than just make a movie. Bigelow’s only clear political agenda was starting a conversation of specific aspects of how our government and CIA has handled the war on terrorism. And more than just make a movie she has certainly done, now that she and  screenwriter Mark Boal are the subject of congressional inquiry. The depiction of CIA tactics and, more specifically, the idea that torture aided the hunt for Osama bin Laden, has the government in an uproar.Just months “before the Premiere of the film, Senate Intelligence Committee, California Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein, had publicly said that coercive interrogations had played no role in how bin Laden was found.” Not only is Feinstein and much of congress not too happy with the film, but they are likely to bring Director Bigelow and her co-producer and screen writer Mark Boal into question, who they feel gained “unusual access to senior officials at the Pentagon and CIA who were deeply involved in the hunt for Osama bin Laden.” The film who’s title card read “first hand accounts of actual events” and presents itself as journalistic account of the hunt for bin Laden, certainly has our government’s attention and now it has ours, which in turn likely heightens congressional inquiry over the sources for the movie. (But it’s just a movie, right Congress.)  

We all know how this story ends, to an extent (and likely much less than we care to discover.) So why should you go see it? It’s a story we’ve all lived through, but few have explored. The film explores torture in the tactics of the CIA, both the torture they’re expected to place on others and, the torture they’re expected to endure. I could go ahead and save you $10.50 if you so desire, (SPOILER ALERT: there is no spoiler alert, since we know what happens in the end) - this is no feel good movie and has been described as “dispassionate and matter-of-fact.” For many the film might not even be entertaining, for the same reason many didn’t find ‘The Hurt Locker’ entertaining, but rather grueling or hitting too close to home. It’s subject may be too real, if not present, to the questions we are living at, but not necessarily asking. 

Whether or not you agree that torture is a necessary component to win the war on terrorism, isn’t necessarily the point. Whatever your political party may be, or may not be, ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ will get you to start thinking and talking. It meets where we are at and begs to ask, “Where do you want to go now?”

At some point after college you realize that you have more friends who are married than who are single. Of course it takes facing a few Saturday nights solo to realize that, not only you are now the minority, but making plans with your married friends becomes increasingly difficult. Then again, who can blame them for being busy? When you’re married your list of priorities, week in and week out, completely changes. You’re time is spent with things like decorating an apartment, eating out, or arguing about how you’re spending too much money on decorating and eating out. But until that day comes (and likely for most, it’s not anytime soon) here’s a few ideas of how to spend those lonely Saturday nights when you wish to do something other than sulk at home or work on your blog at Starbucks…

1. Use the time to invest. Finally start that Etsy or cupcake business you’ve been dreaming up.
2. Grow your brain cells. Maybe nows the time to get your Masters. (I know married couples with Full Time jobs and kids who manage to make this happen.)
3. Take up a yoga, boxing or ballet… or any activity you wouldn’t typically make time to do during the week. Plus now with the variety of accessible workouts online, you can try new activities without having to worry about making a fool in public.
4. Be more intentional with your single friends. Don’t wait for them to call you! Make the initiative and call up those single friends you keep talking about “hanging out” with.
5. Ask your Grandpa out for coffee. Go out with anyone in your family for that matter, if you’re lucky enough to have family nearby. It may be awkward at first for some more than others, but you’ll soon find it a wise investment of your time .
6. Make raisin scones and watch (or re-watch) some Downton Abbey. Seriously, if you work full time and support yourself, when else do you have time to make scones? Plus, no one else is around to change the channel. ( You boys can make boxed brownies and watch reruns of Breaking Bad or Arrested Development, uninterrupted, if the above just sounds altogether too involved.)

Is the current Vogue issue using the responders of the Sandy Hurricane as a prop? It might look that way. Some wonder if this “is what happens when Anna Wintour feels emotion”, with a high-end fashion spread “celebrating” Sandy’s first responders. Granted Vogue and CDFA did in fact raise millions for the Sandy Relief, I’m not sure just exactly how these pictures are honoring the first responders of Sandy or how placing runway models, in designer dresses is really bringing the focus on the responders. Are your eyes immediately drawn to the firemen in these images or… the tall, Karlie Kloss in ravishing red towering over them? Initially, I’ll admit (*sigh*) my response to these pictures is, like most Vogue pictures, “Oooo, sweet!” because a place like Vogue is one of the few where doing the unimaginable, fantastical and unrealistic is possible. It’s somewhat naive and frivolous a reaction but being the dreamy, idealistic female that I am, a shoot like this looks, well… picturesque. I would not naturally flip through this spread and initially find it a controversial issue. And give me a break, anything slightly questionable Ann Lebovitz captures has a way of making controversy just look so good, no matter how controversial or politically incorrect it may be. Fashion has the freedom to do that, and has for a long time. And it’s Vogue, we’re talking about after all. Not Newsweek (oh wait, Newsweek isn’t even in print anymore, because, guess what? People don’t care to purchase fact, when they can buy fantastical fiction for their coffee tables. It’s just looks prettier.) Though most of us weren’t directly effected by the Sandy Hurricanes, more lives were affected in this storm than we’ve seen in a natural disaster in America in quite some time. So it would be ignorant not to consider the controversy such “picturesque” images might stir for those who were affected.

Take into consideration the nurses, who were so cleverly fixed around these beautiful model dressed in Michael Kors (which I’m sure didn’t feel intimidating or at all belittled while they posed in their scrubs) I wonder how honored they felt. I wonder if when they were called about the feature, they had pictured the final product quite this way.

Vogue certainly made a point to highlight this tragic event and it’s hero’s doing their nobel duty as the empire of fashion, and in many ways, New York City. But if I was Anna maybe I would’ve made a point to actually let the hero’s take the limelight for once. It may have been a bit more honoring to, maybe, feature the firefighters among the remains of Sandy in Armani suits and the nurses in Diane von Furstenberg dresses, with the hospital floor as their runway. While “it’s the thought that counts” (so I’m told) it may have made for a better tribute if the idea to “celebrate” our heros, actually did just that.

If you’re any fan of Leonardo Dicaprio, or just really great films for that matter, you were probably as disappointed as I was when you found out The Great Gatsby wasn’t going to be contending up against Les Miserables Christmas Day.  Now set to come out May of 2013, such set back only heighten one’s anticipation. Aside from the basic plot, this remake of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic will be completely unlike the Robert Redford version we all watched in high school, now under the direction of Baz Luhrmann. But when a film is being pushed back months, a production company is smart to use the time wisely. Every American literary nerd (I’ll just pretend like I’m not one of them) and every Leo-feening girl (woman, what have you…) is a shoe-in when it’s coming from the same director who created Moulin Rouge and really gave Leo his (initial) shining moment in Romeo & Juliet, but still the production company must have felt the film was lacking. Even you guys who swear your girlfriends are dragging you to this film, we know you’re secretly already as excited as we are to see it, though now you are really going to have no shame in seeing it.

With Jay-Z set to write the score for film, it will no doubt draw in an entire new crowd to the film. If you’re at all aware of music while watching a movie, this will surely effect the film. For some of us a score can easily make or break a story. It either sweeps you up or sets you off. It does for me at least. Which it will do for The Great Gatsby we won’t really know until May, but one can already see an escalation in the second trailer that came out just before Christmas. This Great Gatsby may be in genre of film all it’s own.  So unless you were hoping for Leo to gently swoon the screen like Robert Redford did, Dicaprio’s style on screen is already a tad more demanding than the likes of Redford. (What I mean to say is - Leonardo Dicaprio is never boring.) It may be Jay-Z is actally the perfect match for Dicaprio.

For the other “Biggie news” my delay in posting is due to a recent transition for me. I got a new job! Just before Christmas I was offered a position at Relevant Magazine in Winter Park, FL as the Project Coordinator. For those of you unfamiliar with Relevant, an entertainment and culture magazine I’ve followed and dreamed of working for since my freshman year of college, it’s coming into it’s 10th year now with an ever-evolving website, podcast and iPad magazine. While its not quite a writing the score for The Great Gatsby, it was no doubt the best Christmas gift. I’m thrilled to be apart of this creative team and influential magazine.