lamilana

[lamilana]

no rich man goes to heaven?

In recognition of recent conversations relating to wealth inequality, monopolies, and health insurance inequity, I want to discuss the intersections of this discourse with religion, namely Christianity.  In the King James Version of the Bible, Jesus says  “I tell you the truth, it is very hard for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I’ll say it again—it is easier for a camel to go…

[lamilana]

no cuz im obsessed with this pic

[lamilana]

Current Obsession: 60s eye makeup 💄🐈‍⬛🪄👜📿👢

[lamilana]

[lamilana]

so lucky!

look at what i found at the thrift😭

[lamilana]

modern things i think the kennedys would like from my tiktok!!!!!!

[lamilana]

Jackie Kennedy

[lamilana]

At school, a lot of my classmates admit that they’re ashamed to be part of this generation. To which, I ask why? They argue that we’re too sensitive, that we’re destroying traditional norms, and are a more conceited and overall negative group. It can be argued that every generation is, to some extent, similar. It’s just the environment and social norms that have changed. I’m not the biggest fan of change, but it’s necessary to acknowledge the progress our society has experienced within the past 60 years or so. I’ll highlight some common arguments I've heard. 

Families/women were better in the past

Yes, because they didn’t have a choice other than to be dedicated to their husbands and children! Before the 70s, many women didn’t have rights to divorce abusive husbands, get credit cards, or own mortgages. Yet, people will still argue it was a better time because a family could have bought a single family home on one income. I will concede to that specific argument, but I think that people are blaming the wrong group of people here. How is it women’s and feminism’s fault that capitalism is exploiting workers and refusing to protect them by raising minimum wage to match inflation’s levels, etc. Women today are more successful than ever, maybe even more than men. Therefore, a lot of people are bent on tearing them down. We have to stop looking at the past with rose-colored glasses—it really wasn’t all that great back then.

People are too sensitive

Are we forgetting that people in the 50s/60s/70s were crying and burning buildings because a person of a different skin color dared to sit next to them or use the same bathroom as them? Some issues that Gen Z fixtates on are futile and unnecessary. But that’s why they shouldn’t be given attention. People in past generations also had stupid ideas. There’s a reason why people don’t remember them now: because they understood  and thought nothing of them. When you constantly push a small group’s radical ideas on everyone through fear tactics, of course people will overdramatize and feel attacked.

They’re terrible employees

For not following anarchic rules that are used to exploit them with no benefits? Most of gen z understands the balance between work and life. Corporate office jobs that expect you to work without overtime, go above and beyond when you’re not being promoted like your parents did, expect bachelors degrees for minimum wage jobs deserve to be given the same energy they give their employees. 

Addicted to tech

Who created tech to be addictive? Boomers, Gen X, and Millennials. People wouldn’t need to be on their phones 24/7 as a job if our society cared more about guaranteeing basic living conditions for everyone.

To conclude, this generation does have problems but people make it seem like we’re about to destroy society. Problems will always exist. It’s not something new to have disagreements about beliefs and morals.

Let me know what you think below!

[lamilana]

Back in 1981, the iconic fashion influence and British/French actress/singer, sat next to the designer of Hermes, Jean Louis Dumas, on a flight. When the contents of her bag spilled, the man offered to design her a bag, a large one with pockets to hold all her items. The original drawing was done on one of the sickness bags the airplane provided. In 1984, the Birkin was introduced to the market.

Prior to the Birkin bag, Jane Birkin was known for carrying around a wicker basket, originally a fisherman’s basket from Portugal. Simplicity and functionality were the main motivators for Jane. She just wanted a bag that could carry everything she needed. The actress and singer dressed the basket up for events and down for days on the beach. 

Once receiving the Birkin, Jane decorated it eccentrically. She collected various mementos, like necklaces, bracelets, travel souvenirs, patches, and attached them to her overflowing bag. The 20,000-27,000 dollar bag was scuffed up and used to its last thread. The Birkin slowly gained popularity in the 90s, even though it was originally designed in the 80s (when the market was dominated by Chanel bags). In the 2010s, through social media, it became a well-known status symbol among celebrities like Cardi B and Kim Kardashian. They boasted their closets full of pristine-condition Birkins online.

There is no problem with this. Some people prefer a more neat presentation. The issue lies in the original message the Birkin carried. Jane Birkin made the bag functional, not just a vanity piece. Today, people associate Birkins with these celebrities when the whole point of the Birkin was to use it to its full capacity and as a keepsake of sorts. Jane Birkin, the inspiration for the bag herself, only had 6 Birkins in her entire lifetime. Compare that to Victoria Beckham’s reported 100+.

This year, a trend on Tik Tok has emerged where creators ‘Jane Birkinify’ their purse. Many are documenting themselves thrifting and reusing items they’ve already had. Another group is encouraging buying various trinkets on Amazon to quickly replicate Jane’s Birkin, which defeats the purpose of expressing your authenticity by slowly collecting items throughout your life that show your journey.

All in all, the Birkin has strayed from its intended use and has now become an almost-classist status symbol–the exact opposite of who Jane Birkin was.

[lamilana]

Cover art illustrated by Satsuko Okamoto for Teen Look magazine, circa 1960s ★

[lamilana]

how i would style the pjo cast: https://themilana.wordpress.com/2024/11/05/restyling-the-percy-jackson-series/

[lamilana]

Recently, I came upon a show called Pan Am while scrolling on Youtube. Set in the early 1960s during Kennedy’s presidency, it follows a Pan Am airline crew. Our main characters, Laura, Maggie, Teddy, Dean, Colette, and Kate, travel around the world and showcase the time period's pivotal moments. 

It’s understatement to say I love this show! I’ve always been fascinated with the glamorized life associated with being a flight attendant. The show is a combination of some of the things I love most: fashion, the 1950s/60s, and melodrama. Too bad it was canceled with only one season finished. Since most of the actresses and actors have aged, maybe a reboot can be done with a new crew in a different decade or have the original characters reprise their roles for another decade.

Anyway, I’d rate this show an easy 5/5!!! I might do a more in depth review at another time, but I’m not sure at this moment.

[lamilana]

the loss of a collective aesthetic

Every generation, or at least decade, is thought to have a distinct aesthetic. The 40s were utilitarian but still traditional until the New Look was introduced and dominated the 50s. The 60s saw the rise of skirt hemlines and British-mod inspired fashion, led by the new middle-class teen consumers. The 70s were earthy tones with 1940s inspired menswear inspiring womenswear. The 80s were vibrant and neon with over exaggerated hair, shoulder pads, and jewelry. The 90s, on the other hand, were led by minimalism, with some influences of grunge and goth. The 2000s were mainly gothic/preppy inspired. The 2010s were very 1950s inspired with their peplums and A-line skirts. But, by 2024, there is no distinct style we can assign this decade. Why is this?

Defying Categorization Under Increased Surveillance

As tech advanced in the 21st century and social media became prevalent among all demographics, surveillance increased too (Farah). There have been multiple cases where social media companies have stolen their users' information and categorized them to sell to third-party groups. One of the most recent cases is when millions of profiles were harvested from Facebook and given to a third-party party to benefit certain parties in the US 2016 presidential election and Brexit (Cadwalladr and Graham-Harrison). Facebook failed to alert these people even after learning of the data breach (Cadwalladr and Graham-Harrison). Most websites now require a subscription in which you are expected to happily hand over identifiable information like phone numbers, addresses, and credit cards. Some governments and police have begun using information from the internet to identify criminals, even though this may lead to serious racial profiling. 

Like every generation before it, Generation Z’s instinct will be to go against mainstream culture. Past trends often had a select number of sub-trends. For example, in the 90s, counterculture fashion trends had sub-trends like grunge, punk, and goth. These people were easily categorizable due to the distinct elements found in one sub-trend but not another. This generation, most likely to avoid this categorization by institutions whose values are openly questioned, has blurred these sub-trends and promoted mixing-and-matching instead. Accordingly, there will not be one singular trend the majority of people will follow and companies have to abandon their “one-size-fits-all” approach to the youth (Farrah).

Incentivized fast fashion via social media algorithm

Social media, especially short-form social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram Reels, pays creators with affiliate links They also have their own online shopping tools like TikTok shop. Proportionately, more people want to be an influencer or content creator as a profession—57% of Gen Zers to be exact (Malinsky). For users, it has become incredibly easy to click and buy a whole new wardrobe without considering the impact of overconsumption ( Venkatraman). Also, since these platforms are largely short form, it means that creators are forced to compete for the users attention and engagement. As a result, they have to introduce new items on a rotary basis to keep their stats, resulting in multiple trends that rise and fall quickly. People feel the need to keep up due to the fear of being “cheugy,” which is the following of outdated 2010s trends (Venkatraman).

These micro-trends have also been amplified by fast fashion. Whether or not microtrends have caused fast fashion or fast fashion has caused microtrends can be debated. But, its impact on how easily people can buy into new trends monthly, or even daily, is undeniable. Fast fashion brands like Zara and Shien copy popular designs often seen on celebrities within a short time frame, sometimes as soon as 24 hours, and sell them for affordable prices. The promotion of overconsumption and its accessibility has allowed people to look widely different from each other. There is no longer one distinct trend that reins supreme.

Tech ruins attention spans and everything is blurred

Have you noticed how the major trends since the turn of the 21th century have not changed? By major trends, I mean the everyday clothes people wear. In schools, for instance, the common uniform for students, at least public school students, are pajama pants and hoodies. They lack the soul, as I would describe it, other generations had with their every-day clothes. 

The environmental conditions for this generation are widely different from past generations. The 20th century oversaw chaotic events (Balugo). However, if you were trying to remember the events of the 20th century, you’d probably be able to name these events in order. With tech, though, time has sort of blurred. Algorithms and personalization of how and what news people get and ruined attention spans make this harder for the 21st century. This contributes to the lack of collectiveness we feel. Even old counterculture movements led to mainstream trends eventually (Balugo). But this took time—time you don’t have with microtrends!

In the 20th century, trends were more collective with older people engaging in trends like 80s neon (Balugo). It was not exclusive to teens, 30 year olds, or 60 year olds. Everyone had a similar aesthetic going on. Now, perhaps due to the increased amount of choice people have, older people do not join in on trends as they used to. This causes a divide between the looks of older and younger generations. Also, thrift stores, places where you can get one-of-a-kind items have become more popular and mainstream now. They are a way to access old trends and pull inspiration. This leads to individualistic choices that harm mass culture. 

In conclusion, the loss of a collective aesthetic is a symptom of a much larger issue: the loss of true shared experiences. It’s not only sad that life has become so much more chaotic due to tech, fast fashion, and consequential digital surveillance, but it’s even sadder that society has in some ways deteriorated in ways that make it harder and harder to return it to the way it once was. There isn’t much more to say other than the days of buying quality clothing items for an affordable price in a local store are slowly being phased out, and with that comes the connection we have to an aesthetic. Share what you think below!

[lamilana]

escape echo chambers!

Growing up, my family never outright identified clearly with one political party over the other. It was mainly just specific policies or actions they discussed. They often poked fun at politics and downplayed how serious it is. This led to me being more indifferent. I used to parrot their talking points in schools and to my friends, not understanding the impact of my words.

As I grew up, I gained more access to the internet. While this could have been disastrous, I credit the internet for introducing me to new perspectives I wouldn't have had before. With a staunchly conservative and religious family, some ideas I wouldn't have never comprehended the complexity or depth of them. Researching and coming to my own reasonable conclusions has given me a sense of individuality and self-confidence.

It's why I'm so against just listening to others around me and taking what they say as truth. Everyone has their own biases and values that will influence the ideas they promote. Children, especially, are vulnerable to harmful rhetoric spewed by the people they grow up with. If you watch the anti-integration protests at Central High in the 1950s, you'll see children who don't even understand algebra properly be ready to attack and villainize a whole group of people based on what they've heard from their communities.

People will comment on echo chambers present on social media and internet but neglect the echo chambers that are present in the United States. Many counties are still somewhat segregated due to racist policies. This prevents new generations from interacting from new cultures and developing an open mind. Thus, continuing another hateful cycle.

But that's not to say this problem isn't bad online. People nowadays have lost so much of their critical thinking skills to the point that they believe anything someone they support tells them. Whenever I'm scrolling on Twitter, I see multiple far-right accounts taking footage of something like Muslims in a European country and promote Islamophobic and xenophobic rhetoric by claiming it was an 'attack' (usually on Christianity). They get thousands of likes and comments of support, only for the community notes to reveal that the video is not where the original poster claims it's from.

People will control and mold you into their version or idea of who they want you to be if you let them. Politicians specifically gain from you being a sheep to their ideology because, in our corrupted government, it allows them to stay in office and make money off of investors. Many, but not all, don't have your best interests at heart, which is why you have to be a principled person. You have to open your horizons and become uncomfortable with the truths in society. We don't live in a perfect place: people die everyday from violence, kids are starving, and women are slowly losing their rights. Something like politics is something that impacts everyone. People don't understand the weight of their decisions. Yes, people the government are public servants but if you elect selfish people, they don't have to respond to your demands until the next election. If you don't the play the game, the game plays you!

[lamilana]

convenience isn't that good

Everything is at the tip of our fingers today. You can buy clothes, food, home maintenance, and achieve a decent schooling all without leaving your home. But, is this really a good thing?

Before I delve into my opinions on this subject, I should address that there are certain groups that benefit with the modernization and rise of tech, like people with disabilities or autoimmune diseases that can’t leave their houses as easily as I can or women whose household burdens were eased through innovation. I’m choosing to focus on people who have the choice to experience inconvenience or some sort of discomfort but refuse to.

Up until the early 2010s, people had to memorize their friends’, families’, neighbors’ phone numbers. There wasn’t an easily accessible stored cloud to call upon. With the introduction of the iPhone in the late 2010s and the growing fixation on the ease that tech brought into our lives, people no longer had to rely on their memory. Not only does this create a separation between your connections with your community and your own brain, it also raises the issue of over dependence on technology to get by in daily life. 

In school, students often use google to search up answers. In my language class,

most students choose to use google translate to complete our assignments rather than reading and understanding the material. While students cheated before phones and such, it was through friends or more generally the people around them. 

Many people buy items online through platforms such as Amazon instead of going in store. But, by doing this, you lose all the meaningful interactions you would normally have in person. Maybe we haven’t learned our lesson from the pandemic, but social interaction is necessary even if you find small talk awkward. A lot of people don’t have social skills anymore; they don’t feel bad acting however they want towards others in public or online. It’s a shame how people prioritize ease over what life is really about: going out of your comfort zone to achieve belonging. 

This convenience is also compounded by the hustle culture western society has promoted in more recent decades. While convenience started with industrialization in the 1800s, the overuse of plastic and damaging environment practices took hold in the latter half of the 1900s. People would rather go through a McDonald’s drive through and eat food filled with harmful chemicals than cook eggs at home, all in the name of efficiency. Who benefits from this? Corporations! Middle class and lower class workers, for example, deal with more and more health issues in America due to the convenience available by over-processed foods. These foods are pushed by businesses who want workers to be easily accessible and profitable to them. There are more issues related to this but this is the gist of it. 

Ultimately, convenience is bad! We need to go out and talk to people and develop relationships with the people we surround ourselves with. Living in isolation and complacency just to achieve an easy life is damaging.