<![CDATA[Jezebel: east hampton]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/jezebel.com.png <![CDATA[Jezebel: east hampton]]> http://jezebel.com/tag/easthampton http://jezebel.com/tag/easthampton <![CDATA[America Loves Abused Puppies Approximately 2.5 Times More Than Battered Women]]> Did you know that there are 3,800 animal shelters in the United States, but only 1,500 shelters for abused women? Economist Allison Schrager is well aware of this fact, and she wrote about the puppies vs. people issue in More Intelligent Life. You might be thinking that it's not an either animals or women issue, that it should be both, that we should support the humane treatment of any being. But it turns out that for many philanthropists, it is either/or. Schrager talks about a charity devoted to helping battered women, called the Retreat. "The charity is located in East Hampton, a posh beach community, full of people who make philanthropy a part of their financial and social lives. Yet she struggles to find donors," Schrager notes. "In response to her requests, [the fundraising director] often hears, 'Well, no one I would know would be a victim of domestic violence. Besides, I already give money to the animal rescue charity.' The animal rescue charity is one of the best endowed in the area."

Perhaps, as Schrager points out, people are more willing to give money to animal organizations because they perceive animals as blameless. Battered women? Not so much. "Perhaps we prefer helping animals because we believe they have a greater need. People often think a battered woman is free to leave her situation, while animals are physically prevented from leaving," Schrager writes. "Humans are easier to blame for their circumstances. Because we do not grant animals the same freedoms, we also do not assign them the same level of responsibility for their situation."

So is it wrong to give money to animals when you don't give money to human causes? Is there a charity hierarchy that should be widely acknowledged?

Does One Abused Woman = 100 Abused Puppies? [More Intelligent Life via Newser]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5019968&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Ralph Lauren Marks D-Day With Lobster, Cologne]]>

  • All-American fashion designer Ralph Lauren celebrated the anniversary of D-Day this week in a manner that was pretty tasteful, in the way that those mango-sized logos are tasteful...
  • ...which is to say, ahem, "utterly gauche actually", because we studied French literary theory and are total snobs about things like commemorating the commencement of a battle in which 60,000 or so (strapping!) young men died liberating Europe from the Nazis by launching a new fragrance. Stay classy, Ralph! [Page Six]
  • Paula Abdul has a fragrance coming out for (her words!) "a sophisticated type of woman." She has been wearing the still-unnamed fragrance to promote it. And by "wearing" we mean carrying around a bottle containing a strong-smelling liquid she claims is her "sophisticated" new fragrance. [WWD, sub req'd]
  • Valentino speaks! The man's first public statement since the purchase of his eponymous fashion house put the retirement rumors to rest: "I'm not thinking of retirement. In the future, we'll see. I love my work too much. There's still a lot to do." [WWD, 1st item]
  • The Washington Post's fashion critic, Robin Givhan, interviews Bitten shoppers: "I wasn't expecting Armani cuts at these prices." [Washington Post]
  • Now you can smell like $800 shoes, too! Jimmy Choo has just inked a fragrance deal and their debut women's scent will be out in spring 2009. [WWD, sub req'd]
  • Ah, the phrase "concept store": It warms our hearts (and makes us scratch our heads)! We're still not entirely sure what it means, but apparently there's a new one on the global fashion block, Cara & Co of Moscow. [Vogue UK]
]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=267133&view=rss&microfeed=true