• ryedaft@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Man’s been dead for 14 years, it’s not like he’s gonna come out with a new collection anytime soon

  • Justin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Absolutely not, I would never! I throw my coat away each time I use one, and buy a whole new set at the beginning of the week. What a peasant!

  • 9point6@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    159
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Reminds me of Daniel Radcliffe (I think?) wearing the same jacket or something for months because it made the paparazzi photos useless as people just assume they’re all from the same day if someone is wearing the same clothes

  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 day ago

    Obvs this is my main concern about eventually becoming famous. I wear the same clothes all the time.

    Will my fame save me from this? Some famous people get away with it. I never hear anyone saying “you know, JFK always wore a suit”.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I’ll never become famous because I’m doing absolutely nothing to pursue fame. However, if I were to one day become famous, the paparazzi would be bored as hell because I wear the same outfit every day. Except when it’s above 10 degrees, then I swap the jeans out for shorts and ditch the hoodie - but then that’s my outfit for the next 5-6 months.

    • Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 day ago

      Which actor made it a point to always wear the same outfit in public to fuck with the paparazzi? In my head I remember Daniel Radcliffe doing that.

    • teije9
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      it’s okay to wear the same clothing multiple times if you’re a man. if you’re a woman you have to throw away everything that you’ve ever even slightly touched

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        16 hours ago

        There was an Australian news anchor who wore the exact same suit weeks in a row and nobody cared.

        If his female co-anchor did the same, it was immediately in the headlines

      • Ellen_musk_ox@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        But none of their stans are clicking on articles about what they’re wearing unlike Katie here.

        The paparazzi version of Zuck or Jobs is writing an article about some stupid thing they do, even potentially damaging behavior, and convincing the reader it’s evidence of brilliance.

        They wear the same shit because they have no fashion sense. But it’s been spun as “I can’t waste any precious brain power on mundane decisions” which is such a load of BS. What it’s actually demonstrating is they’re both dunces, incapable of picking up basic social skills, unable to engage in basic social behavior, uninterested in exploring something simply for the sake of relating to others.

        There’s all sorts of conclusions to draw.

        But nope, the things you or you do daily well enough by glancing at others, and checking out a store or two is IS JUST TOO MENTALLY TAXING AND WASTING THEIR BRAIN JUICE

          • Ellen_musk_ox@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            23 hours ago

            I don’t care about small talk, but I engage in it as a social custom.

            And I don’t try to pretend I’m superior to others for not caring about it.

            • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              21 hours ago

              Yeh, I believe this is the right approach. It makes sense that it’s important to people to have some rituals around interaction and bonding even if they don’t mean anything to me personally and even if they don’t have any deeper or fundamental meaning.

              I think it would be nice if society were more forgiving of people who struggle with it though, it can lead to a lot of bitterness and resentment.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      My main concern is I’m not doing anything interesting enough to make me famous, so to become famous without making any significant changes to my lifestyle would be really strange

        • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Sounds about as likely as winning the lottery on the every once in a blue moon I’m gifted a lotto ticket. Just not something worth worrying about when there’s far more pressing matters I should worry about and find resolutions to

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    1 day ago

    For those wondering, Page Six is basically the shitty gossip part of the New York Post. It’s a rag within a rag – an almost unprecedented level of raggery.

  • EndOfLine@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    121
    ·
    1 day ago

    Global News did an experiment a while back. The men wore the same thing, on-air, for a week. Then the women did the same thing on the following week. Wanna guess what the results of this experiment were?

    Instagram post on it

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I’m glad the emails to the station were curious and not complainy, from the couple I saw. Kind of seemed like “yep women are observant and intelligent and naturally asked a question about a rare occurrence out of curiosity“

      Presumably some of the people writing in would structure the world in a less misogynistic fashion, were we to give them magic wands, but they still made observations in today’s world. I would’ve been really sad if all the emails were taking digs at the anchors!

      • Laurel Raven@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I didn’t read through them but I saw a few as they passed and I’m pretty sure I saw at least a couple iterations of “did they run out of clothes”, which felt pretty nasty to me

      • I see no mention of it so why don’t you enlighten us with the facts instead of guesses.

        and I get your silly little point. But there is such a thing as internalised prejudices and internalised discrimination; so your “clever” little point does nothing to take away from the fact that the scrutiny was greater on women than the men-presenting anchors. lol.

      • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        Wanna guess if it was men or women who profit the most from the relentless consumption machine? Wanna guess if it was men or women who controlled women’s livelihoods based on their conformance to their standards of femininity, until, like, one generation ago? Lol

          • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            20 hours ago

            Who’s in the 0.1%?

            Sex & gender discrimination is a way, one of the most important ways, in which we are divided in order to make class oppression possible.

            So I agree, blame the 0.1%, but the only way you can actually do anything about that is by healing the gender divide, and you’re not going to do that by pretending everything is fine and equal when it’s not.

            The 0.1% are the reason why women are oppressed, sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

            • tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              19 hours ago

              I might be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure about half of this 0.1% are women. The ultra rich aren’t single and they have kids.

              I agree with you that gender discrimination is one of the many ways to divide the people, but I don’t see how healing the gender divide will end the growing wealth inequality.

              • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                47 minutes ago

                You are mistaken. It’s wrong to think that just because they’re married their wives have meaningful control of any finances. It’s easy to see, for example, when they separate. Gates and Bezos’ former spouses took about 10% of their respective fortunes. Musk is single, lol. Putin is also single, but do you really imagine he ever let his wife make a decision?

                Those are cherry picked examples, sure, but you can go down the list of billionaires and see that they are divorced much more often than you think, and their wealth doesn’t change much in the divorce.

                More basically, the men are the ones on the list, aren’t they.

                Their children also don’t have that kind of power until their parents die or at least get old enough to start succession planning, and they certainly don’t have control of the money.

              • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                19 hours ago

                You agree that it’s a way to divide people, but you don’t think more united people will help against wealth inequality?

  • NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 day ago

    Well, you can do it without question. You’re a pleb. I’m personally appalled that someone of her status would do such a thing though, like some sort of degenerate, homeless jezebel.