SHOW NOTES Table of Context* Synopsis* Timestamps * Reading list* Recommended googling* Thank youBTW: this is the think piece this episode is based on: Show Notes & SynopsisOnce I heard that the American Girl Doll Co was quietly canceling productions of Felicity the 17th century American girl doll due to her story. I've concluded that this would be the beginning to means an end. To be fair felicity was supposedly or allegedly getting pulled from production because in her original story books the American abolitionist no that's Felicity had family that owned people. They got me thinking about the narratives that dolls Play in our eyes. And after finishing my pop culture class I learned that popular substances are substance less. Dolls and imaginative play I felt like I gave up way too soon. Just to only see older kids still actively enjoying them.I certainly remember waking up one day and realizing that my mom was donating all my dolls without really telling me I was 12.I'd like to vote deeper I soon realized that toys were a tool and it's production value and heavy price was a symptom of a late stage capital and patriarchal society. They wanted to exclude women from imaginative play early on in order to keep them from her receiving unique forms of financial independence.I'd argue that since this is primarily affecting toys geared towards girls, we are seeing some type of gatekeeping of imaginative play early on. Many scholars argue that in 10 years imagination will be the most sought after skill in the job market. We're certainly doing these tween of the surface especially as we erase TWEEN culture. Doing girls at the service by teaching them through media, pop culture, and play that they are to grow up much faster. We will explore the mid the legends and the misconceptions. As we find a whimsical retelling in toy culture and girlhood and the patriarchal nonsense riddled within play. TIMESTAMPSChapter I:Gatekeeping imaginative play: (01:06) The Thesis: (2:30)Who thinks that dolls suck now: (5:06) Is that a Study In your Polly Pocket (9:03)chapter IItween hood: (11:12) What happened to the tween Era: (16:28)Beauty influencers are replacing fashion dolls: (18:22)Chapter IIIMyth Busting: (19:21) Babysitting and American Dreams: (21:25)Conclusions: (25:00)Reading ListsBabysitter: An American History: Miriam Forman-BrunellPrincess Cultures: Mediating Girls’ Imaginations and Identities Miriam Forman-Brunell (Editor), Rebecca C. Hains (Editor)Recommended Googling:* What is the usage of dolls in psychological studies* Toy marketing and pricing across genders* What is the famous doll study* What happened to the tween era * Studies on if women mature faster than boys* The differences between Monster High GEN one and GEN three* How have Bratz dolls changed then versus nowMila's Thoughts Lately is a reader-supported publication. To get access to video essays at a podcast a week before posting on YouTube, become a free subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit milasthoughtslately.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome back to the desktop mini podcast. we chat about beauty politics pop culture and power through feminism.Little Miss me, journalist extraordinaire has a lot to say in this video all the way from glossier layoffs, to leaked labs drama and Cardi B's new hair care brand. Making trend predictions and commentary on all things in the beauty space for the month of March.Contribute to my independent beauty editor dreams by becoming a subscriber to my sub page here: If you're ready for part two (sub stack contributor exclusive) then click here: Sincerely yours Mila.This podcast will also be available on Spotify, Apple, and wherever you listen to your daily podcast. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit milasthoughtslately.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit milasthoughtslately.substack.comThank you to my paid contributors for supporting my multimedia beauty editorial Substack. Part two is an exclusive deep dive that elaborates on where we left off in part one.If you haven't listened or watched part one yet here's the link to it on YouTube (Watch here)If you're they're actually I think they should shoot for drugstoreready to dive deep into topics like Leaked Labs, how POC founded brands struggle compared to others, and E.L.Fs pipeline from weird to offensive commercials, then please enjoy.If you rather Watch part one first or on its own it is still just as great. In part one we talk about Leak Labs, Glossier doing everything but going bankrupt, and Cardi B's new hair care brand. (there is no paid content bellow this line this time, but enjoy the free preview.)

Hello Siren Academics, Here is your early upload of my video essay before it hits YouTube. I hope you are all having a chic day. In today’s episode, we dive into how the 2008 recession wrote romcoms, why everyone hates communication majors, and most importantly, what happened to the chic corporate jobs we watched in romantic comedies? Thesis: Do office-setting romantic comedies perpetuate harmful attitudes towards women in work culture? Find the corresponding essay on my Substack here:Sincerely yours, Mila Duffy This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit milasthoughtslately.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome to an episode of vanity office hours were along with having a casual discussion on a unpublished thesis as we do hair-skin or our makeup. We also take the initiative to have a Q&A about everything from research, to beauty, to power.Early bird posted on my Substack here, wait to watch it on Friday on YouTube. Enjoy the free show notes and feel free the ask anything about beauty, power and politics bellow. SHOW NOTES1. The Pop Culture SourcesThe “Injection Horror” Motif:* The Movie: The Substance (2024/2025): This is your primary visual reference. Focus on the “Activator” syringe and the neon-green “Substance” juice. It’s a literal representation of “The Theft of Vitality”—where the younger self (Sue) literally drains the older self (Elisabeth).* Article for Context: The Substance: A Feminist Critique of Beauty Standards – This dives into the “violence of beauty standards.”* The Show: The Beauty (FX, Jan 2026): Ryan Murphy’s new series is the most relevant current event. It features a virus (The Beauty) that makes people “perfect” but eventually makes them explode. It is a direct satire of Ozempic culture and the “Side Effect Aesthetic.”* Article for Context: TIME: Ryan Murphy’s The Beauty is Wildly Entertaining and Surprisingly Smart – Focus on the “Medicalized Path to Perfection.”2. The Product Motifs (The “Packaging” Obsession)The beauty industry is obsessed with looking “clinical” to prove efficacy. Look for these specific motifs:* Syringe Applicators: Brands like Peter Thomas Roth and Medi-Peel have used syringe-style packaging for years, but in 2026, it’s a full-blown trend. The “click” of the syringe is the new “pop” of the lipstick tube.* “Liquid Needles” (Spicules): The rise of VT Cosmetics “Reedle Shot” and similar “liquid microneedling” products. They use tiny microscopic needles (spicules) that prick the skin.* Article for Context: Vogue Scandinavia: The 8 Biggest Skincare Trends for 2026 – Discusses “Regenerative Stimulation” and “Liquid Needling.”* The “Sterile” Aesthetic: Note how packaging is moving toward white, silver, and “pharmaceutical” blue, moving away from the “Millennial Pink” of the 2010s.3. Talking Points: The “Side Effect Aesthetic” ConceptsUse these points to elaborate on the why behind the trend:* The “Hollow” Status Symbol: * The Concept: “Ozempic Face” (hollowed cheeks/temples) was originally a side effect people feared. Now, because it signals you have the money for $1k/month shots and high-end fillers, the “gaunt” look is becoming a class-based aesthetic.* The Twist: We are re-entering a “Heroin Chic 2.0” era, but it’s medicalized. It’s not about rebellion; it’s about optimization.* The “Medicalization of Vanity”: * The Concept: Beauty is no longer a “hobby”; it’s a “health-related endeavor.” We don’t “do our makeup”; we “administer our protocol.”* The Logic: By making products look like medicine (syringes, vials, ampoules), brands bypass our skepticism. We trust the “doctor” more than the “influencer.”* The “Trauma = Transformation” Loop: * The Concept: Why do we want our skincare to prick, sting, or look like a needle?* The Logic: In 2026, we’ve been conditioned to believe that if it doesn’t hurt a little (or look like it could), it’s not working. We are seeking “controlled trauma” to feel like we are evolving.* The “Body as a Project” (The Murphy Satire): * The Concept: In The Beauty, people accept the risk of death for the reward of a perfect face.* The Reality: Connect this to real-world side effects. We are willing to tolerate “Ozempic burps,” nausea, and “filler migration” because the “side effect” is the price of admission to the “Aesthetic Elite.”Quick Links for Your “study guide” * On the “Ozempic Face” Narrative: Vanderbilt University Study on Midface Volume Loss (2025)* On “The Beauty” Satire: The Guardian: A Body Horror so Delicious You Could Pass Out* On the “Liquid Needle” Trend: Get The Gloss: Why Microspicules are the New Obsession This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit milasthoughtslately.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit milasthoughtslately.substack.comIn part 2 of our seasonal research recap we will reflect on the research process, and commentary for the most profound narrative pieces from the season.in part one we will talk:* media I have been consuming that is inspiring the next issue* commentary on the entertainment industry through a critical lens.* The updated tier system and the expansion of free articles & essay.in Part two (for paid subs)* the deep dive into my research process and commentary on essays like:* the first jepg was of a play boy model* the first thrivalist edit* the glowup industrial complex* and fanfiction as rebellionconsider being a paid sub here: https://thedesktopvanity.substack.com/subscribe

on todays episode of Desktop Vanity Podcast we chat about the research for the previous issue of the Desktop Vanity Substack (November-January). we will reflect on the research process, and commentary for the most profound narrative pieces from the season. in part one we will talk:media I have been consuming that is inspiring the next issue commentary on the entertainment industry through a critical lens. the updated tier system and the expansion of free articles & essay. in Part two (for paid subs) watch herethe deep dive into my research process and commentary on essays like:the first jepg was of a play boy modelthe first thrivalist edit the glowup industrial complexand fanfiction as rebellion consider being a paid sub here: https://thedesktopvanity.substack.com/subscribe This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit milasthoughtslately.substack.com/subscribe

Back when I was a college girl majoring in Marketing my brain would move what felt like miles a minute and the chumps around me had to keep up. Or they didn’t even want to compete. when it came to entrupership, I was in a leage of my own. why? maybe becase I am a women-who is feminine presenting. I was one of two girls in my entreperships club in highschool, sadly the other girl was there ironically. what I brought to the table mattered becase it was my job, the role I can’t get paid for. but if one women is to serve through the bogg of men who, in one conversation, lost respect for me. something along the lines of this:“I want to have a perfume and pJ line outside of University,”hence no repsonse nor eye contact. They lost respect in me, becase I wasn’t just a women but one that orinally wanted to enter a industry dominated by $677 Billion dollars of revenue yearly. some women experced vast help. from the business boys around her. In my podcast she is qouted to reconized that the reason they were so happly helping her. factually according to her perspective, it was becase they didnt see her as a threat. she is a women-and in the serverty of her gender they found her not to be competion-even if they were in the same field. however doing my time in the worst summer class ever no men made eye contact with me-nor struck up conversations. so maybe, in the end little cutsey me, with her 4 internships at the time was indeed the threat. in todays episode of the Desktop Vanity we will conquer the topic of why women make better ceos?is this misandry? no. instead we are acknowledging the immense data and literature that shows that startups that are either run primarily by women or are coed by women end up being financially more prosperous quicker with more faster exits despite the concerning lack of resources.I want for us to acknowledge that I do make a reference to being a 1970s housewife. The reason why I mentioned that and also the exposé that I had quoted it simply because I wanted to relate the same financial abuse comment amongst stay at home moms I believe to be coherent with the intense lack of funding rigorously unmowed on women founders.That someone would reap the benefits of a woman's service in this case cooking or cleaning or in the case of business products and stock yet not giving them them tools to create.It is reaping the benefits and not giving anything in return and expecting more than what you can give. I wanna make it clear that I coincide those exposes with financial abuse in relation to how women only get one percent of private equity or venture capital funding in the US and then 2.11% worldwide.If you're interested in exploring women founders and funding bias then please check out one of my recent essays on the matter right here: In the end we find many ways that women have become better CEOs. And this podcast episode is to fight against the the notion that being caring collective and community oriented makes you less money. When it comes to measuring performance we see that startups run exclusively by women only get 0.8% of venture capital funding as of 2025 compared to a mix gendered founding team with 49.9% of capital invested.To get down with the data I recommend highly listening to the podcast episode as I enthusiastically discuss what makes women better ceos overall.I found it heartwarming and overall beneficial for my soul to write this as someone who is a recovering marketing major.So I'd sit here in my bed with my blue light glasses or my LED light therapy mask and I wonder deeply.. Why this video essay did not originally take off?It could be that I didn't put it in a space like this designed intentionally for women to spark joy with ambition self-love and intellectualism.The abuse that I think women face in the entrepreneurial field is abundant and overly plane is day right before eyes, but why do we not like women entrepreneurs despite Data showing that we are more Efficient overall, and we break even faster compared to startups run exclusively by men. It's a unique cognitive dissonance that I could only relate to a form of misogyny. Just the same as someone would experience being a housewife or a stay at home mom in the 70s where and a pat article society men did not feel obligated to give resources abundantly nor equally despite the unpaid labor the women varnish onto fireplaces and tapestries.Could the desire for a woman to be an entrepreneur be a form of matriarchy revenge? It doesn't change the fact though that this pushback has led to a decrease in women founders over the years. We're after Covid we saw a drop in women founders heavily decline. From 15.9% in 2020 to 13.2% in 2023. This is a response not just to the economy but also women being risk advertent and socially we desire to be in places that we belong. Does that mean that the fight is over and work done fighting absolutely not of course not. When we see the lack of support and respect we see the gentrified Women presenting Business ownership occupation to retreat. Because it is a blessing to have us in our life, and we’re not appreciated, we’re not appreciated.SHOW NOTES:podcast Episode: Why Women Make Better CEOs (and the Market Inefficiency of Misogyny)Series: Desktop VanityThesis: The venture capital world isn’t just biased—it’s fundamentally irrational. While the data shows female-led startups are capital-efficient “money-making machines” that generate 2.5x more revenue per dollar than male-led teams, systemic misogyny creates a “market failure” where these high-performers are denied the tools to scale. We are looking at a system that chooses to forfeit a $4 trillion annual revenue opportunity just to maintain the status quo of the “boys’ club”.Detailed Summary of Key Topics1. The ROI Paradox: 78¢ vs. 31¢We’re breaking down the cold, hard numbers that prove women are statistically better bets. For every dollar of funding, startups founded or co-founded by women generate 78 cents in revenue, while male-founded startups generate only 31 cents [12:53]. That’s a 2.5x higher return. Furthermore, while the “business boys” are busy burning through cash to find a market, women-led startups are breaking even in 3 to 6 months [07:58]. Men take an average of two years to hit that same milestone. If the market were rational, investors would be tripping over themselves to find female founders; instead, they continue to starve the high-performers of capital.2. “Recession-Proof” Leadership & Sustainable GrowthIn this episode, we tackle why women handle economic downturns better. Women-led teams are calculated risk-takers who prioritize profitability over “blitzscaling” [13:35]. This isn’t because we’re “scared” of risk; it’s because we’re disciplined. We build sustainable operations that lead to less burnout for ourselves and our employees, moving away from the “burn and churn” culture that defines the male-dominated tech sphere [14:36].3. The “Niche” Excuse & The 80% AdvantageWomen drive 80% of all consumer purchasing decisions in the U.S. home [15:02]. Yet, when female founders like Melanie Perkins (Canva) or Whitney Wolfe Herd (Bumble) pitched their ideas, they were told they were “too niche” [20:35]. This is the “ignorance tax”: if a male investor doesn’t have the lived experience to understand a “female pain point,” he declares the market doesn’t exist. They ignore the reality that “niche” products for women actually serve the world’s most powerful economic engine.4. The 1970s Housewife & The Financial Abuse ParallelWe are drawing a direct, painful line from the domestic “Click!” moment of 1972 to the 1% funding gap of 2024. Just as Jane O’Reilly’s iconic essay exposed the “basic disorder” where a husband claimed his income was “his” while his wife wallpapered the house to save the mortgage, modern VCs reap the benefits of female innovation while denying them the equity to own it. It is a system of corporate communication violence that expects women to be the “face” of the brand—blending personal identity with professional scrutiny—without giving them the immunity of separation that male CEOs enjoy.5. The “Likability Bias” & The Series C BottleneckWe discuss the “performance policing” where women are labeled “pushy” for being direct, while men are “confident” [06:21]. This bias intensifies as women scale. At the Seed stage, we might get 3.2% of the capital, but by Series C+, when the checks get larger and the “boys’ club” reasserts itself, that number drops to a dismal 1.8%. We are exiting businesses 6 to 8 months faster than men [18:15], yet we are still being asked “prevention-oriented” questions about how we won’t fail rather than “promotion-oriented” questions about how we will win. 6.The CEO Identity Blend: Unlike male CEOs who hide behind the legal shield of "corporate personhood," female founders are systematically pressured to be the "face" of their brand. This blends personal identity with professional scrutiny, creating a relentless, non-existent work-life balance that men simply don't have to navigate.Journalism Prompts for the Audience* The “Niche” Reality Check: Can you name a product you use every day that a male-dominated board likely dismissed as “too niche” during its first pitch?* The Invisible Labor Inventory: If you itemized the “unpaid domestic labor” you do to support the career of those around you, what would that “invoice” look like at a CEO’s hourly rate?* The Identity Tax: Have you ever felt compelled to be the “face” of your work because your technical skill wasn’t considered “enough” to represent it?Recommended Articles & ReadsPrimary Reads & Essays* “Click! The Housewife’s Moment of Truth” (1972) by Jane O’Reilly: The classic Ms. Magazine piece that explains the sudden realization of systemic inequality.* (https://msmagazine.com/2021/03/04/from-the-vault-click-the-housewifes-moment-of-truth-ms-magazine-spring-1972/)* “Why I Want a Wife” (1971) by Judy Brady: The satirical look at the domestic expectations placed on women.* (https://www.scribd.com/doc/45464220/i-want-a-wife)* “The Cassandra Curse: How HealthTech is Biased Against Women” (2024): The Guardian’s coverage of how using advocacy language like “women’s rights” can actually decrease funding outcomes.* (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/08/womens-health-tech-less-likely-to-get-funding-if-woman-is-on-founding-team)* “Own It: Five Life Lessons from Sallie Krawcheck”: A summary of the core principles from her book on navigating the male-dominated financial world.* (https://www.wealthmanagement.com/ria-news/sallie-krawcheck-s-five-life-lessons)Core Financial Research & Data Reports* Boston Consulting Group (BCG): “Why Women-Owned Startups are a Better Bet”: The definitive 2018 report documenting the $0.78 vs. $0.31 revenue disparity.* View the full report* Female Founders Fund: 2025 Review of Funding for Female Founders: A deep dive into current funding stagnations, the AI boom, and exit statistics.* (https://blog.femalefoundersfund.com/2025-review-of-funding-for-female-founders-d7bda299ddba)* PitchBook: US Female Founders Dashboard: The live data source for the “1% of total capital” and “Series C bottleneck” statistics.* Access the dashboard* Kauffman Fellows: Gender-Inclusive Founding Teams and Success: Research analyzing over 90,000 companies to show that women-led firms raise more money at similar investment stages than all-male peers when given the chance.* (https://www.kauffmanfellows.org/journal/data-show-that-gender-inclusive-founding-teams-have-greater-success-in-fundraising-and-innovation)* Digital Defynd: Top 100 Female Leadership Facts & Statistics (2025): A comprehensive fact sheet on ROI, board diversity, and the $5 trillion missed economic opportunity.* View the statistics hereEnding Statement“In the end, we don’t need more pink blazers or empty slogans to fix the funding gap. We need a market that finally operates on logic. When you ignore female founders, you aren’t just being a misogynist—you’re being a bad investor. It’s time to stop the corporate communication violence, stop the ‘too niche’ excuses, and start funding the founders who are actually delivering the returns. Thanks for sitting at the Desktop Vanity with me today.”APA Reference ListBoston Consulting Group. (2018). Why women-owned startups are a better bet. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2018/why-women-owned-startups-are-better-betBrady, J. (1972, Spring). Why I want a wife. Ms., 56.Digital Defynd. (2025). Top 100 female leadership facts & statistics. https://digitaldefynd.com/IQ/female-leadership-facts-statistics/Female Founders Fund. (2025). 2025 review of funding for female founders. https://blog.femalefoundersfund.com/2025-review-of-funding-for-female-founders-d7bda299ddbaKauffman Fellows Research Center. (2020). Data show that gender-inclusive founding teams have greater success in fundraising and innovation. https://www.kauffmanfellows.org/journal/data-show-that-gender-inclusive-founding-teams-have-greater-success-in-fundraising-and-innovationMorgan Stanley. (2020). The $4 trillion blind spot. https://about.crunchbase.com/blog/business-investment-to-womenO’Reilly, J. (1972, Spring). The housewife’s moment of truth. Ms., 54–59.PitchBook. (2024). All In: US female founders dashboard. https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/the-vc-female-founders-dashboardTrump, D., & Burnett, M. (Executive Producers). (2004–2017). The Apprentice. Trump Productions; NBC. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit milasthoughtslately.substack.com/subscribe

The Desktop Vanity is a reader-supported publication. Welcome back lovelies,And today's podcast episode of the desktop vanity we will be talking about cautionary beauty trendThat have enter the beauty stratosphere.Ones that I find myself mildly concerned about as a Industry professional since 2021Let's go ahead and begin the show notes.After heavily researching all the different trend predictions and wrap ups across Pinterest TikTok YouTube etc. And even Google search inquiries through Google analytics I have been able to conclude that there are a handful of suppose trends that I predict Will happen. Along with the potential worries that come with it as I do believe some have the potentially be problematic in nature whether it's for protecting or discriminating against protected communities, something that rubs me the wrong way, a little annoying or otherwise fascinated.One might look forward to at least one or two of these but I found it quite imperative that we think critically on the state of beauty. And how it relates to power and policy. Cause just like art beauty and itself is political and we find it unnervingly a way to silently communicate status, agenda and rhetoric.We refer unceremoniously to Charlotte Tillberry scandal vacation of their marketing with lipstick gate, we also see this with Nikki tutorials brand which, did in my opinion, another version of this scandal-ification I found more tasteful because it ended in a solution.They are two sides of the same coin, a different airbrush pedal of a poppy flower.What involves the scandal of marketing? And what causes it to be tasteful or in poor taste?The secret is the Y and the solution if it's become obvious that they are fixing a mistake that otherwise was either an oversight or something that inherently was inconvenient or unsealable cause and effect. And overall ends with a solution to a consumers needs rather than the end to a story or mystery.We also discussed consumer fatigue with everything from hyper Garamond fragrances, to ingredients like vitamin C AK absorbed acid and niacinamide which has started to sensitize people with a more youthful skin type.We see new other trending skin hair ingredients into the villa that formulas seem to not be tired of yet. Including vitamin C alternatives to add, Alec acid, and Trumilla a mushroom that can hold its weight 5 to 10 times in water. Causing it to be an effective hydrating agent.Another thing I left out of the podcast episode, was I believe that the gap of quality between drugstore and high-end skin care is shortening rather than lengthening. We're now the surplus of science and ingredients are becoming worldwide spread. Allowing for products of a variety of different prices to be incredibly similar and quality and effectiveness. Basically drugstore is stepping up their game-they have the ball and they're running with it. Well luxury beauty or double $ Brands might be stalling but where else can they go “if they're already up at the top?” Is probably the philosophy most of their teams haveA lot of indie brands are creating more unusual experimental fragrances and we're noticing a small decline and heavily Garamond sense that are not reminiscent but without interpretation a sugar cookie. As a brand move towards experimental fragrance to come in the market they rely on collectibility as their main market value.To add in full force I'd like to talk about hair care trends like semi permanent braids, categorized as elven braids-as Pinterest has been"In the wrap up saying that unusual braided hair reminiscent of fairytales would make its way into the stratosphere and potentially be semi permanent. Allow the people to keep these braids in their hair for days-and have the beachy braided hair be a statement to a little black dress.However to add to the discussion previously from the podcast episode I find it imperative for us to keep in mind the potential sphere of appropriation. Could this potentially be a snowball effect where we will accidentally roll our way down a hill to the one thing we swore to hate in the beauty sector.Along with hyper pigmented and multicolor blushes we see a rise in the want for gauges and tooth gems unusual hair care clips and accessories. And an overall maximized approach to wearable jewelry while minimalistic approach to skin care and make up.However we see in full force but subtly and quietly 2016 make up coming back with now a clean girl twist creating a new era of cool girl make up that is effortless simple but makes a statement and is quite easy to do with either a statement or statement eyes and a very healthy glowing skin base.As a sign of I hope my extra details make listening to this more relax podcast episode much more enjoyable than it always is.I find imperative that we keep interacting with these BD trends as they might be a solid foundation to where society is going, for example we're seeing skinny culture and die culture make its way back with the body positivity culture and ideology staying in the 2010s. Which makes it clear that it didn't feel like a movement anymore it just was a trend. Along with the Garmont and food with tips and media it's almost like we can see it on our body but we can't have it in our body.Problematic beauty trends is an untold source for understanding the potential dangers to look out for in the beauty and political stratosphere.Sincerely yours and always, Mila This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit milasthoughtslately.substack.com/subscribe

We explore the 2025 Starbucks Bear Cup frenzy, the timing of the limited-edition drop, and the theory that corporations use scarcity, trinket mania, and reward-based marketing to redirect attention away from controversy. Through the lens of media studies, consumer behavior, and modern capitalism, this episode unpacks how identity-driven shopping, algorithmic amplification, and fan-like brand loyalty help companies withstand reputational crises.You’ll also hear real examples from recent American labor strikes, how younger consumers form identity through products, and why boycotts often fail even when public support is high. This episode dissects the cultural power of Starbucks — from its aesthetic positioning to its strategic place in American shopping culture — and why these bear cups became a perfect distraction during organizing efforts by Starbucks Workers United.If you’re interested in corporate communications, brand psychology, consumer culture, feminist media studies, or economic soft-power, this is your new essential listening.Full essay available on The Desktop Vanity (Substack).Subscribe for more soft-intellectual commentary on pop culture, power, beauty, and internet culture. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit milasthoughtslately.substack.com/subscribe