We've heard you loud and clear - negative reputation is back. Remember that it's still against the rules to complain about being downvoted - if you think someone's mass-downvoting posts or otherwise abusing the reputation system, DM a mod and we will take care of it.
There is room for criticism on her decision, especially since she makes it a point to highlight how she accelerated her graduation. Most people with that kind of tenacity are ready to head out and grab that career by the balls. I can't speak for all degrees that parents push their children to pursue, but there are quite a few that are worth having because you can go off and do your own thing afterward, but if that doesn't work out, at least you have this degree to fall back on - especially if you check in on it every once and a while. I used to envy my friends' who went for dental and nursing degrees because they can always take a hiatus for a few years and come back, so long as they renew their license. Most people don't have that luxury, but I am moving more and more away from the subject. I just wanted to defend parental guidance because there is what you want and reality. There is a reason why "starving" is a modifier for most artistic pursuits. Should it be that way? That's a different conversation. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind, and much of this is the fault of the way that we push high schoolers to immediately go to university (like they know what they already want). However, I still maintain there is room for criticism for someone who never actually full put their all into pursuing that path before closing it. As much as you suggest that she can go back to it, like many other people in this thread, I think she won't be able to fall back on it because it takes an immense amount of networking and b*tch work to move up that latter.
This was me when I moved from SoCal to London for a spell. For me, I was running away from my problems and only found that my problems traveled with me. It was years after moving back that I realized that, no matter where I go, dating was going to suck, meeting adult friends that had the time to meet up were going to be difficult and that I needed to grow up and realize that I had to do something about my depression and anxiety. Every city has it's own feel, but all of them have the same things (aside from the horrible public transportation) she's leaving LA for. Ashley is going to have the same issues she has now, just a wardrobe that has to be four seasons instead of one. In fact, I'm going to bet it is going to be even worse because I can imagine that NY is pretty competitive in dating, difficult to find real friends and getting the infrastructure to create her own line. Also, I don't discount that LA has fake nice people, but my question is are these judgement purely based on the fact that she (admittedly) only mingled in West LA and they were maybe influencers? My guess is yes, yes it was just that one judgement. Sidenote: I know she said she took the bus, but I wonder if she knew the subway does exist in LA. I've only taken it once, from Long Beach to Van Nuys, it was pretty efficient for the distance and reputation LA has.
She made it very clear how to lose fat in a healthy way. It's so refreshing because so many people make it overly technical or skip right over. The other thing that I thought was great, which no one really makes clear, is that your body has a set weight. When you healthily lose enough fat, it doesn't guarantee necessarily mean that you're going to be lower than the weight you started. When you build muscle, you might gain more weight but that's because muscle and fat don't have the same density. It was brilliant of her to point it out because a lot of people don't think about that and may get disappointed if they mark an ideal weight but don't realize that, at some point, you lose enough fat that your muscle starts to build up. I do hope she makes more videos on fitness because I think she has way more informative things to offer!
THIS x100! I wanted to put something in my original post on the video, but I didn't want to write a novel and I wanted to be overall positive because I don't think of Ashley as a villain. Myself, as well as other people I've met or have heard talking about their chosen partner, never would have thought that the man that's my husband would be my husband. All the people I knew were so perplexed at my choice for so many reasons. He wasn't in the most perfect place in his life, but if other people were honest, nor was I. But I have found that there is never "the right time" due to the fact that you never know what life is going to hand you. Yes, there is certainly a personal checklist I'd give my kids to consider before marriage, but none of the things on that list have anything to do with having x-number of boyfriends, x-number if sexual experiences. You don't need to play the field in hopes that you're going to meet your 10 because you just don't know over the course of time when your actually fully commit to them. And, speaking from experience, going to have didn't give me any sort of life skill that went toward having a partner. That's another story, though! We are so comfortable in our worlds that we never consider how loss of a family member, illness, market crashing or even the sudden rush of abundance will do to us and/or our partner. You have to talk about the best with your potential partner and be ready for some bad to come. Also, if you want to serious date, then you need to just make it very clear from the get because you can weed out the men from the boys real quick. This is turning into a rant. I'm going to stop now, but I agree with everything that you said 100%.
It was me and I still stand by that, for sure. People can always find contentment and happiness if they draw a hard line at when something is "good enough". I agree that I don't think she will do it anytime soon because of what you mentioned, which is why I think it would be a good idea to have a 9-5. For one, she can maintain the current lifestyle but have more freedom with her content; it's the perfect compromise in her situation, as I don't think she will be willing to not live in LA, NYC or London. She's going to need to keep taking sponsorships or have a big girl job. For two, Ashley needs to learn to settle into authority. There is a difference with allowing yourself to be a mindless drone that never challenges the moral and ethical codes of a company and being a worker that has to answer to someone. I think it adds grit as well as makes you more confident in your own values and boundaries. It could just be the parent in me, but everyone seems to have an opinion these days yet very few people can really stand by that when push comes to shove. I know you can make a living with YouTube, but what I was getting at is that I think it's an aimless career path. When I say aimless, I mean, where can you go and what will it help in the future. I mean you are thinking about what you need to pay in the here and now but what are you going to do as you retire? What are you going to do if you get an illness that you need treatment for? It could be my watch preferences, but I see mostly partnered people (where their partner has a traditional job) that really have the future laid out. The partner is saving their 401K, has a company paying benefits, etc. If the YouTuber were to stop, the partner has an income to pay the property taxes if you are completely debt free. With the where can you, when you start off as a bank teller, you can move onto a loan officer, branch manager. When is the ceiling high enough in YouTube? It seems the only path, if you have zero aspirations or capital to start your own venture, is to try and reach millions of subscribers. And this is all aside from the fact that YouTube is laying out some vague and harsh new terms that I think spells bad business and the loss of income for A LOT of people.
Ashley does seem very comfortable and natural. When given a project, there are those who work the best by themselves while there are others who work better with a group of people; I think she falls into the latter. It's not a negative, as I am definitely a collaborator more than a solo person. Different styles produce different things. I know it would take a certain amount of trust to find someone to collaborate with. The part where she said she's considered to get a 9-5 job to make YouTube turn back into hobby sounds like the smartest thing she could ever do. People probably aren't tracking my personal opinion on this, but I'm a person that believes that YouTube shouldn't be your 'end all' - just a hobby or a way to network to get to a better destination. From it's inception, YouTube could have never sustained what it is today (with how many uploads there are) without proper infrastructure to form it. Infrastructure requires money and that money was bound to come from somewhere that would dictate how "free" it could be. It's better to not have to bow down to the gods of the algorithm and sponsors unless fame is really what you're seeking... and even then we know how that works.
I can understand this. I honestly am a "live and let live" person. I'm an art history major and very proud of it; most of my family members are too. I come from an art family, but never has my family lied to me about the reality of artistic careers - unless you're talking about architects. It is objectively a lesser career field in terms of everything that to lead just a comfortable life, which I believe most people are referring to - not that artistic careers are useless or a waste of time. However, I think the biggest thing they were alluding to is the correlation between her family's background and her chosen career. If the rumors are true (which I haven't looked into and probably won't), then it would account her her feeling insecure about her career. Her mom is a professor in environmental science and her daughter has a career that is fueling more of the problem you're teaching about? If I were in Ashley's shoes, I'd feel the same way. It's a feat getting 2 million subscribers, no one can ever take that away from her, but the only way she is going to sustain the lifestyle she currently has is to bend the knee to the gods of materialism and fast fashion. Even if she were to start her own fashion line today, her demographic could only afford fast fashion. That has got to create some problems at holiday dinner table, maybe even more than her constant sex joke dropping. This isn't a boomer thing, but a reality that being an artist was not seen as a career that crossed economic lines. Nobles and the Church funded the arts that we look at today in museums until the inception of modern art, which then made the "starving artist" label a real thing.
So many people (Ashley included) are so alienated from the outside world, and the people around them, that they don't realize what the digital world says isn't always reality. You see this in articles that try to talk about outrage over x, y, and z but it really is so minimal when you consider the population of just the US and Canada alone. There are saturated areas in cities, but not everyone is an influencer full-time. Some people have main jobs and YouTube is their hobby and you can tell because their content is slow, thoughtful and not full if sponsors. And then there are the millions of people who choose not to inundate themselves with the digital world and actually volunteer, go to rallies, etc etc. Also, the idea of a hobby is an elitist and very modern facet to everyday life. Elist in the fact that only people who could afford a hobby actually engaged in one... and it's still that way today. Most people used to become skilled in one thing and monetized on that mastered skill, passing it down to their offspring. It's actually how a lot of people are making their money from home, even now! Etsy, anyone? She wants to sound deep, but she ends up sounding dumb because there is absolutely nothing wrong with monetizing on a skill. Capitalism (at the base) is about people bring their product to the market and competing. Giant corporations have turned it into the soul sucking economic system it is currently. Capitalism, like socialism, are economic constructs that can be used and abused by those who have the power. But I digress... Local people monetizing on their skills (aka. doing what they love) is the most sustainable thing because you go to local artisans to create beautiful, sturdy tables that last for generations rather than IKEA, which lasts for 10 years on a good day. Those artisans would consider their skill both their hobby and their job. The only thing that's probably stressful is making ends meet and/or taxes for being self-employed. Not to sound mean, but are you saying that spending her money on expensive items makes her not relatable? I understand different stages (and walks) in life dictate disposable income, so I'm not here to shame you at all! But when you look back on the cost of clothing from 70 years ago now, and calculate inflation, you'd see that fast fashion has altered the way we spend (frequently buying to replace broken items) and define as affordable. If we changed our indoctrination, you would find that she has the potential to be relatable. Economic status shouldn't be what relates us. If the wealthier is being more helpful than condescending or tone deaf, then it's a good match. I say this as someone who has really close friends that are wealthier and poorer than I am. One of my friends would pass down her clothes to her friends because she knew she didn't want something anymore. It never felt like charity, just a periodic closet declutter. And I mean, these clothes were high end not luxury.
I started to watching and got reminded how she is "not like other girls"... like hardcore. There is no one I know that would live just about anywhere; they all have their checklist for the perfect place. I know somewhere that won't move anywhere without a washer/dryer unit in the place, which easily adds $600-$1000 onto the rental price. Not taking time to appreciate your accomplishments? I know a handful of people like that. You aren't that different from everyone else, Kendall! It is her full-time job, though. I can't believe it, just because it doesnt seem like she's growing, but now it's making me rethink my choices in life... except not really. We'll see if her quality (and innovation) will go up because I know she's used the excuse of her parents' place for not pushing out the content she has wanted to push.
I rewatched that part (it was late and I had gotten off work), it's not even midi - it's more knee length. But I agree with everything you said. There are different lengths that function differently for the idea of the dress. It could be a cute mini if I knew it wasn't going to be crotch mini. And I think that's the thing, if it were the classic mini, where you were potentially flashing people, it may work... but that's not how it would turn out. It still would be better as the length it is or adjusted to fit her height in that original length. I'm a fashion elisted to the max. I believe that these fast fashion companies have lowered the expectations on what fashion is. It's accessible (albeit at the expense of others) for the every day person to feel fashionable but it's not fashion for the art of it, if that makes sense. She has money and access; if she weren't so afraid, she could still be relatable while showcasing real quality fashion. There's a difference between being arrogant and flaunting your Chanel and just wearing it. Note: I'm in a rush, and I'm on my mobile, so I'm sorry if this poste read more horribly than my usual low quality, "I barely want to proofread" grammar errors!
THANK YOU!!! I can understand taking it in on the sides, because it is too big in that area for her. The design of the dress was definitely for someone with more curve to fill it. However, she doesn't need to f*ck with the length. She even said, "it'll look more current". I'm confusion, I'll be honest. I live in SoCal, like her, and the only people I see wearing mini dresses (like tonight) were teenagers. Even during the summer, I have yet to see something approaching or past their mid-20's wearing mini dresses not at the beach. But I digress. It's one thing to say it's flattering for your body (which she did), but midi length is still very current; Reformation sells mini, midi and maxi length dresses and they all still sell out. In fact, I think Reformation sells out faster in midi than maxi, so what is she talking about? Also, boo hoo for spending close to $70 for a vintage DESIGNER dress when you bought lace up boots from Reformation for like $500 or whatever they were in the one Elle video she did. Good vintage is expensive - even more expensive than that dress. I would be happy for spending that much for a designer dress! The one thing I hope is that she takes this to a professional to get altered than herself or else she will surely ruin it because the fabric isn't some cheaper Forever 21 synthetic fabric. It could have been the area, but I also think that Ashley is just limited in her fashion. Just glance at the quick shots of the racks, I guarantee there were plenty for her to choose - even with higher price tags. Looking back on Jenn Im's old videos, I notice that she also falls into this category. They are very fashionable for everyday, street "it" girls but not fashion editorial status. Those are two very different categories that would be able (or not) able to do things at thrift stores that seem like there is nothing.
Along with sustainability, her feminism doesn't really care about WHO is making clothing and for HOW much. But hey, girl has to pay to run away from her problems to other glamours first world cities. She's not an abhorrent person, not even bad, but if she, like hers of her ilk that preach sustainability, need to grow a pair and be willing to take a hit on their paycheck. Dreams don't need to be funded on false politics and the backs of exploited labor. Keep thrifting; one could make a lot of money from that by selling more than XS and S sizes. I lowkey root for her, but I know it just is an irk of mine when people don't put their money on the line for the politic bs they spew to impressionable viewers - especially since they're going to be the next wave of voters.
I don't think your opinion is unpopular at all; I think it's actually what most of us are thinking in this thread. Yes, there are the few people that I think are reaching, but my qualms (and I'll go so far as to say other's) have been her sustainable fashion hypocrisy and seemingly glorifying things that she's doing when it's based on insecurity - not the fact that she has insecurities. She isn't a bad person by any stretch of the imagination, but I think that her presence (to me) begs the question about the bound of being so open on social media. Here's the thing, Ashley (like all YouTubers) are slaves to the algorithms; they aren't like traditional celebrities that know perfectly well what their target demographic is for a given product or movie. So, of course it's not her fault that she has under aged fans. That being said, there is a reason they are called influencers. I know many want to now sound professional and call themselves content creators, but when do they make the most money? When they are promoting a product and/or company. Therefore, there is somewhat of a duty to understand that your actions can most certainly influence another. Now, it's not Ashley's fault for her viewer's actions, but they felt a connection to relatable YouTuber; it's like having a big sister. In one of her recent stories, she called her followers friends. There is that potential to feel like her actions would validate your similar actions. She may be only harming herself, but it might not deter others from doing the same harm - especially since she justifies some actions under the banner of feminism and girl power. I know I may get shit for this, but if we can say that current president's rhetoric is behind the actions of neo-nazis, then we need to spread the acknowledgement that big platforms can influence people across the board. Over consumption is at its high because people are (now more than ever) being influenced to do so by others we can relate to. Getting off my soapbox, it seems that she has a fashion line in the works. If you look at her NYC list, it says "fly back to LA for clothing line". Also, London has great thrift shops. She needs some better connections to get her out there to see. Plus, she could vintage shop around Europe. That's not a nag, just something I wanted to say.