Frugal Friday’s TPS Report: Vanora Wave Printed Skirt

105 Comments

1. Love it.. just bought it. Loved the site… wanted to shop around but was afraid to spend too long.. might lose the skirt. Curious what everyone thinks about wearing this through the winter… or is it more of a Spring, Summer and Fall type thing.

   1. I would wear this skirt in the winter, but I’d tuck in the tie part around the waist. For some reason, that seems the most “spring/summer” part of the skirt in my opinion. It is lovely and I can see remixing it for every season!

      1. I agree. I should have wore this dress yesterday when I saw Alan.

         I think he was sober but probabley for the first time all year.

         Alan looked at me, and scratched his head, b/c he could not beleive how cute I looked in my red dress.

         We will see if he calls me.

   2. I love it as well. I think that the season it’s appropriate for will depend on a lot on the feel and texture of the material. Spring and summer certainly, and it might work in fall and winter as well, but its hard to tell simply by looking at it online.

      1. I love this one too. I think with tights and boots it could look really cute but agree this will depend on the fabric.

         SAlit-a-gator, are you a UF grad? If so, Go Gators! :)

         1. Not a UF grad, but always loved the play on words between “alligator” and “litigator.” I do however think UF’s mascot is pretty awesome.

   3. It is an interesting site.

      Colored Lace Dress Wanter Whose Name I Can Never Remember: Behold, a lace dress that is not white, nor $300 http://www.shopruche.com/au-revoir-lace-dress-in-navy-p-8786.html

      I will probably be posting on Corporette reading the colored lace dress for years to come.

      1. OOOooohhhh and this one http://www.shopruche.com/neoclassic-prestige-lace-dress-p-8189.html

         1. And this one comes in many colors, including teal http://www.shopruche.com/meeting-before-dark-lace-dress-in-teal-p-7824.html

            Ok, I’ll stop now.

            1. Please never stop, Ru!

            2. =)

      2. Hee hee Ru, I think that was me looking for a coloured lace dress, ages and ages ago (I never did find one). Thank you for remembering! I love the first one you posted and the blue would look great on me. But I am so skeptical of Ruche’s sizing system that I am nervous about ordering anything from them. :-(

2. Careerist had an interesting article this week:

   http://thecareerist.typepad.com/thecareerist/2011/09/opting-out-is-not-a-choice.html

   1. Interesting, definitely. As is often the case with this topic, I’ve got to say that I found that article patronizing and somewhat insulting. Women are individuals; they make choices for a lot of different reasons. (And so do men.) Why is that surprising? Also, why is it surprising that people (not just women) are going to have obstacles in their lives, particularly if they attempt to be strongly focused on multiple things? Men who have hard-driven, high-pressure jobs give up a signficant portion of their family time, as do women. Some people dig it, some people don’t. That’s the way it’s worked since the dawn of time.

      If you want to work a high pressure, high power, high rewards job, great. I assume that if you’re smart enough to do that, you’re also smart enough to understand that there are only going to be so many hours in the day to do other things, so you’re probably going to miss some of those other things. If you want to work a family friendly, lower pressure job (or no job at all) in order to spend more time with your family, great. I would also assume that you’re smart enough to know that you are likely to not be providing as large a service to your employer as the person in the first sentence, and thus would probably not earn as much pay or power.

      Each individual person and family needs to make their own choices, and it’s not really anyone else’s business. To suggest that somehow a “choice” is not in our hands or we’re in denial about it, just because there are tradeoffs associated with that choice, is patronizing and insulting.

      1. Right on, I couldn’t agree more. I’m a lawyer with a very well known organization and I choose to make less money because the kind of work I do is more important to me. Similarly, I expect that I will choose to reduce or take time away from my career to have children and/or spend time doing other things–why? I don’t think it’s necessarily because I’m a woman (though maybe that makes it more socially acceptable for me to do so) but because I want to. That sounds nice to me. Doesn’t have to be what other people choose at all.

      2. I agree with you. We (or I assume most people) go into their jobs with a pretty good idea of what to expect. If this conflicts with how you choose to spend your personal time (be it raising children, golfing, going on church missions, skiing, etc…), then it is up to each person to chose whether to stay in that job. I chose a lower paying job so that I could have the flexibility I wanted to be with my children. Although I will say that this choice is one that I feel grateful to have. Not all too long ago I was a young, single mother waiting tables to put food in my daughter’s belly–and felt no guilt about working or staying home. There was no choice there….

         Now my husband stays home with our two youngest children and works on a part time/contract basis. But I have still chosen not to find a higher paying job. This time though, there is a choice.

   2. Oh, and also, I’ve noticed that all of these family issues laments are based around the idea that the only person in a family who could handle the childcare issues is the woman. That’s simply not true. But as long as we’re just going to allow the assuption that it is, we’re hardly going to get anywhere in making changes so it’s not.

      If you’ve got the big deal job, why not let your husband change the diapers and teach the ABC’s? Or, at least acknowedge that as an option? (Do you really care that much about what “society thinks”?)

      1. I agree & that’s exactly what is happening in our family right now. Dh’s job security was uncertain at best, spending half the last 2 years unemployed. My career is going really well, I just got a major promotion. We decided that what was best for our family (we have 3 boys) was for him to stay home, possibly find some part time or casual employment since they’re all in school now. Hopefully in a few years job prospects for teachers will look up & he can return to the work force.

         We don’t really care that we’re going against the societal norm, but dh sure would like to feel some outside support for our choice. I get mostly positive comments from people who find out I’m the main bread winner. He gets mostly negative.

         Although I will say that dh is a great dad, but the house would be cleaner if I was the one at home full time. Cleaning is just not one of his strengths.

      2. Well said!

   3. interesting article. i’m of the opinion that it IS a choice, and i don’t agree with the premise that framing it as such “holds women back” … in fact i would think that if anything, constantly seeing ourselves as hapless, powerless victims of a structural societal barriers holds women back.

      that doesn’t mean it isn’t tough. it’s very difficult, and the choices can be abysmal. but important to recognize that we DO make choices all along the way – from college and grad school and jobs and partners to love and childbirth on up. women need to be willing to take responsibility for decisions they make – or just as importantly, the way they deal with what seem like unfair life events.

      1. Agree completely with your comment. I think it’s equally insulting to imply that women don’t recognize that they’re being held back. To borrow a loaded phrase, thinking that women are powerless victims of societal barriers just perpetuates the “soft bigotry of low expectations.”

         1. The problem is that some women want to have it both ways. It’s human nature (perhaps) to try to avoid responsibility for your choices.

            For years, I’ve been reading articles and comments in the New York Times about educated, middle and upper middle class primarily white women who act as if leaving the workforce for many years hasn’t and shouldn’t make a difference upon their return.

            They act as if their needs trump those of the others in the workforce, and not everyone is a white, married male exec. There are single people, people of color, people with limited resources, all of whom have their own struggles who didn’t have the choice of opting out.

            1. The issue is that they *SHOULD* have it both ways. The United States is horribly behind other countries in offering benefits like paid maternity leave, subsidized daycare, and humane hours for all workers (men and women). In some countries parental leave is mandatory for both parents. People in those countries are often surveyed as being the most happy populations worldwide. We really should be working to compete instead of telling women they can’t have it both ways.

            2. MelD:

               We should all have a lot of things. In our country, laws are enacted because of pressure on lawmakers by people with power and leverage.

               Now who do you think has more power and leverage and interest in structural changes to benefit those who rear children, who are primarily women? Women with jobs and independent economic wherewithal, or homemakers without money of their own?

               Let’s deal with the world we live in.

            3. And the articles and comments to which I referred were genuinely grating in their childish narcissism. These women acted as if they were the only people who mattered.

               To them I say: Grow Up.

      2. What do you mean by “women need to be willing to take responsibility for decisions they make”? Should a woman’s responsibility be to put her career on hold just because she and her SO decide to have a child?

         I understand that framing women as victims because of unfair societal barriers holding them back is harmful, but isn’t it as equally harmful to assume that men aren’t nearly as capable to take care of their children as a woman is?

         I hate hearing all this nonsense about mothers being better and whatnot for a child’s well-being, its ridiculous. As long as children have a loving family environment and responsible parental figures, what does it matter who works and who stays home?

         1. I could be wrong, but I read the women need to take responsibility comment to mean that people need to take responsibility for accepting and planning for the fact that all choices are going to have upsides and downsides- i.e., if you want to be a big-deal in your job, you’re probably going to have give up some time with your family, or if you want to spend more time with your family, you’re probably not going to be at the tip-top of your job.

            (That, along with Anon for This’s rant about men being capable of child care, is pretty much my opinion; see above, so I might just be projecting.)

            1. That’s how I read the comment as well. But the conflict should be minimized. Ironically, it won’t until women have more power in the workplace.

         2. who exactly is assuming that “men aren’t nearly as capable to take care of their children as a woman is” ?

            i didn’t say anything about men because the original article was about women. women need to be willing to take responsibility for decisions they make. so should men, obviously.

            1. That comment was in respect to men and childcare never being a topic for discussion. Women trying to balance career and family are constantly talked about but it is rare to read an article about men trying to balance.

            2. It is rare to read about men dealing with family balance, but I’d note that it certainly is something that men do- I’ve spoken to many, many men who comment that they wish they could spend or could have spent more time with their children, or even a few who’ve given up certain job related things to do so (My husband, for one). For men, though (broad generalization, of course), it’s not looked at as some sort of “right” or “fairness” issue, but as just a fact of life.

               And it’s obnoxious to me that these women’s workplace issues articles never acknowledge that the same trade-off exists for men, and act like it’s all about and only about women.

         3. I think that’s exactly the point. if the woman decides she wants to be the one to stay home, she needs to take responsibility for that decision. men are completely capable of making that choice as well, and couples need to go into marriage and children having discussed this before hand.

         4. But aren’t women making the CHOICE to not allow their husbands to take the child care lead? My husband works at home and make half my salary but he is takes care of the house and our son. When I get home, homework is done and dinner is on the table. It is OUR choice to have a little less money so someone is home for our child after school. It is not an option for us to have the kid in daycare for hours after school.

   4. I agree with everything Lyssa said. I also think that people say things like ‘”I just want to spend more time with my family. It’s really a personal decision.”‘ because working at a law firm sucks, and it’s not socially acceptable to say “I hate working 60-hour weeks, and I hate all you people. So long, suckers.”

      1. J– this is my favorite post EVER!

      2. I remember a Fortune magazine cover from the late 80s or early 90s. A woman with a Harvard MBA had “opted out” and Fortune was all too happy to show how she had traded her fancy business suit for shorts and a casual haircut so she could play with her babies all day.

         There should have been a caption: “A(n) (educated) woman’s place is in the home.”

         It was a pleasant and manipulative image, upper middle class attractive blond mommy with babies.* But life can’t always be about the easiest thing.

         *Needless to say, no one was interested in poor women of color who couldn’t even entertain the idea of opting out. No, they were treated as if they were nothing more but pre-Welfare Queens.

         1. Articles like this kind of make me wonder what people think money is FOR. If I work my butt off in a career that is pretty much all about financial gain, I’m doing it so that someday I don’t have to work, not so that my money can accumulate to the point I can bathe in it like Scrooge McDuck. I realize that there are some people, like Sheryl Sandberg, who seem to genuinely enjoy their high-powered careers and aren’t in it for the money. But there are many, many more people who are in it solely for the money and will get out as soon as they can. Kudos to them.

            Incidentally, I work in the public sector and will be lucky to retire at 65. I like my job so much that I can’t “turn it off” even in yoga class or on vacation. But I completely, completely understand why so many of my law firm friends take the full 6-month maternity leave and decide to quit after their second baby. I’d quit too, and I imagine they’d have quit around that time even without having a baby.

            1. +10 LL Points for Scrooge McDuck reference

            2. I don’t think that’s why those women got out. I think it was because life in business was hard and many women did not believe that their hard work would be rewarded. The only reason these women could quit was that they were married to men who had high-powered jobs who could support them while lived in suburbia.

               Although I’m sure they’d saved some money, they would not have been able to live the very comfortable lifestyles depicted just on their savings.

               Many people, men and women, don’t like corporate life (It’s funny how many of the advice blogs on it are written by people who didn’t like it, including this one.), but you’re reinforcing the attitude that women are not permanent participants in arguably the most rewarding and powerful spheres.

               As long as that attitude persists, women’s progress in the corporate world is going to be impeded, as well as the improvement of conditions for women. Companies are going feel they can do as little as possible until real pressure is applied.

               As fun as it might be, we can’t all quit and write blogs or start craft companies. Some of us need to work for institutions, and if we’re working, it would be nice to make real money, especially, since money matters a lot in these uncertain times.

               It controls your personal safety (where you live), your health (being able to afford insurance), your child’s education (private schools with decent class sizes and perhaps permitting your child to emerge from college and grad school as something less than an indentured servant to the loan companies).

   5. It was an interesting article. Kind of obvious to me, but not condescending. It addressed some home truths that a lot of women are willing to embrace.

      –If women want to advance in the workplace, they can’t drop out for long periods of time.

      –The more women who have a long-term stake in the workplace, the more leverage there will be for real corporate and governmental accommodations for childcare.

      –Taking several years off to care for one’s children is a luxury, not a right. Many people in the workforce do not have that option.

      1. Typo:

         “are UNwilling to embrace” (Wishful thinking on my part?)

         This whole business about “choosing your choices” is silly. Society helps define those choices. Society is still not terribly interested in helping women develop themselves beyond the birthing and raising of children.

         1. Yeah, but outside forces define all choices, be them society, economics, the laws of physics, etc. There’s a great comment at the article from someone who goes through this whole thing about how it’s raining outside, so she chooses to stay inside, but now she doesn’t have the benefits of being outside and so on . . .

            And I’ve certainly never felt that society was not interested in helping me develop myself beyond birthing and raising kids. I would hate to try to tell that to the generous business that funded my complete undergrad scholarship, the taxpayers who funded the state universities I attended, the benefactors that provided some scholarship money that helped me through law school, the judges that hired me to work for them after law school, the attorneys that have taken time to give me advice, my family who’s always been supportive to me, and the law firms that have hired me to work for them. Are they not part of society?

            1. I’m talking about women as a group, not your individual experiences.

         2. ” Society is still not terribly interested in helping women develop themselves beyond the birthing and raising of children.”

            I actually think the opposite is true. If society were interested in the birthing and raising of children, we’d have paid maternity leave, public daycares, socialized healthcare, and adequately funded schools, among other things.

            1. I didn’t say society did all it could.

               It’s hard for me for me to believe that you believe that the image of woman pursuing education and important career is as celebrated as woman who is appealing to men, marries, and has kids.

      2. –Taking several years off to care for one’s children is a luxury, not a right. Many people in the workforce do not have that option.

         I always feel like this is an important thing to remember; even in past eras, there were an awful lot of poor and lower middle class women who were in the workforce while raising children because they just didn’t have a choice. Which isn’t to say that we should feel guilty about having the choice or anything, just it’s important to remember we’re talking about professional women in the workforce not women in the workforce period; the latter has always been a reality.

         1. Exactly.

            1. Thank you.

               I don’t begrudge anyone who has good options and exercises them — but I can’t stand it when there seems to be zero recognition that it is a privilege to have such options and that there can be long-term negative effects on women as a group. If women aren’t seen as serious workers in there for the long haul, they’re not going to be taken seriously. End of.

               But some women won’t acknowledge that. They do whatever is most convenient, drop out of the workforce and then complain that they can’t find decent work when they decide to return.

               Women have been on notice about this effect for decades. It’s not 1970, with the first large wave of women entering the workplace thinking they can “have it all.” It’s now accepted that nobody, man or woman, can have it all.

   6. I’m really surprised by this discussion. Maybe it’s because most of the people responding are lawyers?

      There are many careers where there isn’t a real high-power vs. more family friendly set of options. In academia, for example, you either are tenure track or soft money/adjunct. The difference in work, salary, job security, and benefits is much, much greater than the difference in the number of hours (some adjuncts teach at several institutions and probably put in equal or more hours to TT faculty). The reason I personally found Larry Summers’ comments about female scientists so infuriating is that they completely overlooked the possibility that the model for TT hiring is antiquated. Are scientists who work 90 hour weeks actually more productive than those who work 40 or 50?

      I’m sure there are jobs where the number of hours you work equals your output. But I would argue that is less true of jobs that require a lot of brain power. People get tired and make mistakes. Some jobs have functional tasks that you can do with little concentrations, when I was a researcher who mostly wrote analysis software there was very little that wasn’t mentally taxing. I was as productive during 6 well-rested hours as I was in 12 hours with no sleep.

      I know other careers are different. But I don’t think as women we are going to get anywhere unless we challenge the assumptions underlying what defines dedicated and competent. I have always been dedicated to my work and willing to make sacrifices. But no job should be all or nothing. Men don’t like it either, but they accept it because someone has to.

      1. Are scientists who work 90 hour weeks actually more productive than those who work 40 or 50?

         Almost certainly. There’s a limit to what you can achieve by “working smart” or any of the other bogus managerial magical statements that have been formulated over the years.
         Sometimes you have to put in the time.

         Many years ago, I attended a law firm retreat. It was a typically sexist firm and I assume to assuage its conscience, a woman speaker was scheduled. She had no educational credentials and no experience of corporate or big law firm life and frankly, sounded like an idiot. She made argument based on absolutely nothing that women added value (with what, our uteri?). She was suggesting some kind of adjustment to the billable hours formula. After she stopped speaking it was never discussed again.
         (Not saying that there aren’t alternative and better ways to measure productivity, but to do it on a male/female basis is ridiculous. And sexist.)

         Incidentally, I thought Summers’s assertions were ridiculous and was elated when he resigned. But common sense should tell you that if you have two people, both of whom are working knowledgeably and efficiently, of course the person who puts in more time is going to get more done.

         1. Must have forgotten to close the “” bracket. Sorry. Wish I could edit my comment.

3. Sorry for the reposet, I just know some of you (AIMS? maybe) were looking at the limited for some transition suits.

   So right now if you buy any jacket, dress or skirt, or pant, you get one of your choice for free. (so you can do two jackets, two dresses, one jacket one pant, etc)

   Shirts are buy one get one free (this includes some nice looking sweaters)

   40% off all accessories
   AND, the code 241 will get you 15 off every 50

   And you are virtual dollars which are 25 dollars off the next 50 you buy, and if you sign up for secret savings club, they put 10% of what you spend in an account for you. so the next time you shop youll have that and the 25 off of 50.

   1. Thanks!! That was me. Now I know what I am going to be looking at during my lunch break :)

      1. And if you use ebates, you can get 2.5% back on top of all of the above sales.

   2. I think I tried on everything in the store last weekend and am wearing a suit from there today. I also got this dress as one of my free pieces: http://www.thelimited.com/detail/red-sheath-dress/3357119
      It doesn’t look great on the model in the picture but fit me very well. It’s made from a thick jersey and is lined. It’s knee length on me.

   3. Kat posted on Facebook yesterday a link about how The Limited is launching a plus size line aimed at working women at the end of October. I’m personally super excited to have another place to shop!

4. I just got an email from Talbots that everything is now 25% off with free shipping through Oct 10.

   1. Thank you, SF Bay Associate, for the head’s up! I had deleted that email, can you believe it?! Just ordered the red suede heels I’ve been eying for a while …

   2. What’s Talbot’s sizing like, comparable to Banana Republic or Ann Taylor?

      I’m 5’6″ and normally wear an XS at small at both places, and a 0 in AT dresses and a 0-2 in BR dresses/skirts. I’ve never ordered from Talbots before, but now I have some incentive!

   3. thanks! I just bought shirt from yesterday, plus a couple more. We will see how they look in person.

      1. Actually, no, I didn’t. Their website is all messed up.

   4. Is there a promo code? I am on their email list, but dis not get the email. And when I go to the website, I don’t see anything about this. I bought the seasonless wool suit in black and now want to order the grey, but not at full price. TIA.

5. I do like this, but would worry about the horizontal pattern making my hips and behind look wide. I love the color suggestions to go along with it, though!

6. All these deal posts today – thanks ladies! This could be a very expensive (yet fruitful) Friday!!

   1. I agree. Wow, need to spend some time on the interwebs doing some browsing.

7. How do you ladies wear casual skirts with pretty detailing at the waist? I feel like it never looks rights with the shirt tucked in and then with the shirt out it covers the detailing! What types of shirts do you wear and how do you wear them?

   1. I usually wear a lightweight tank or shell tucked into the skirt with a cardigan or jacket over it. So you still get the waist definition of showing off the pretty detail, but the open cardigan/jacket helps me feel a bit more pulled together.
      I also think one of those tie-neck blouses that have been featured recently would look great with this type of skirt.

   2. I’ve got wider hips/thighs, a short waist, and a tiny upper body, and I’ve pretty much decided that this look just doesn’t work on me. Wearing something tucked into an A-line or wider skirt just looks horrible for me. So, I’ll just admire the look on other lovely ladies!

   3. I usually wear a crisp white button down.

8. Wow. There are some beautiful shoes on that site.

   I particularly like the april showers rain loafers, the kona bay velvet pumps, the palais royale scarlet peep toes, and the morgan alyse emerald heels. Can you tell I like bright colors?

   All seem to be sold out, but maybe it’s just my old browser.

   1. Items tend to sell out quickly at ShopRuche and they stay up on the website for a while. It’s frustrating to see something you love and then see it’s sold out. The items I have been able purchased from there are good quality and an inexpensive price, and they do tend to come back into stock from time to time – it’s worth checking back.

      1. Cool. Until today, I didn’t even know I needed rain loafers…

         1. LLbean or lands end (I forget which one) has super cute rain loafers in a variety of colors. I think they’re cuter than the one’s on this site and probably better quality.

         2. Those emerald heels are to die for. Good eye Bunkster.

         3. Check out LL Bean. They have some very cute rain skimmers and duck-boot-style loafers.

9. PSA – Talbots has 25% off of tops, tees and sweaters — including that top that was featured yesterday.

10. I’ve seen this designation in a few comments about law schools. What does it mean?

    1. Top 14 law schools as listed in U.S. News.

    2. “Top 14”. As in, the top 14 law schools by US News Ranking. Although there is occasionally some slight movement, movement in or out of the T14 is very rare. Also, I strongly suspect that the designation originated with someone from Gtown, which holds the #14 spot! (sorry, Kat!)

       1. I’m ashamed to know this, but it originated on XOXO.

11. Is there something special about the 14th place? My firm recruited only from top ten schools, and I’ve heard of a top twenty cutoff. But fourteen? Really? I’m just curious what it’s all about. TIA.

    1. It’s because Georgetown is #14 but is still considered pseudo top ten.

    2. Actually usually its a t-14 cuttoff and not a t10 cutoff.

    3. It’s because the top 14 schools basically never change. They’ll change order, but it’s always the same schools. 15-25 or 30 or so shift about a lot, but the top 14 schools are pretty much indisputably and invariably the top 14.

       1. Until this year. I think UT or someone tied with Georgetown or something. But yes, it’s because they never change.

          The rankings, however, are ridiculously stupid and the fact that employers (and judges) treat them as sacrosanct annoys me to no end. (And I say this as someone who went to a highly ranked T14)

12. It basically hinges on Georgetown being so good and not in the top 10. BigLaw and other prestigious employers (clerkships, etc) will always recruit from Georgetown. When Georgetown fell to 14, the top school list expanded from 10 to 14.

13. Help! I’m wearing a new silk shirt and somehow got deodorant on it–it’s not a white stain but more like the oil or something from it is on it. It’s not THAT noticeable but anything I can do now? Just take it straight to the dry cleaners when I get home?

    1. When you get home, try putting a layer of corn starch on the stain, let it sit for 20 min and then dust off the corn starch. Should lift the oil-based stain. A friend of mine taught me that trick (and the interwebs says that it works).

       As a back up, I purchased OxiClean for situations such as this.

       1. Ooh thanks!

    2. Resist the urge to rub it–that might make it set even more. Just take it to the cleaners.

    3. I don’t know if this is just a regular sponge or what and I’m not sure how well this works on silk (claims to), but I’ve had good results on other fabrics. Normally I would use baby wipes, but at least this doesn’t leave a wet mark on the clothing.

       http://missoops.com/miss-oops/rescue-sponge

14. Another PSA: Bloomingdales is having their friends and family this weekend; online enter FANDF for 20% off. Includes sale items.

    1. Anyone found anything good on the Bloomie’s website? I browsed briefly but wasn’t loving anything, nor could I justify the prices of the things I did love (even at 20% off).

    2. Thank you!! I’ve been coveting the ruffle long cashmere cardigan for months now.

15. Belated thanks to you ladies on yesterday’s Coffee Break for the recommendations on non-shiny tights. I just audited my collection, before it gets too cold, and am determined not to have shiny legs anymore! I pasted your comments into an email-to-self and am bringing it, on my phone, to shop for tights.

    1. I also appreciate the style comments on my tights question yesterday. Thanks!

       I just realized this morning that the SO comfy DKNY tights that I wore all day yesterday were control top. I never used to be able to wear any control top pantyhose years ago when I last wore dresses and skirts. Things have sure changed in terms of cut and materials. The DKNY “Super Opaque'” Control Top Tights are incredibly comfortable!

       1. I love those DKNY tights, and I agree control top has gotten better. In fact, I always choose control top now because it helps prevent that awful crotch-sagging problem you can get with tights.

16. I suddenly want to throw out all my clothes and shoes and replace them with items from ShopRuche. I had no idea I liked vintage-type clothes until I started browsing

    1. DITTO. All the things on the site are soooo pretty! I’m just eyeing some of the dresses and thinking to myself that if I were to spin around in some of them, the skirts would poof out in a most satisfying manner.

       1. It doesn’t matter how old I get, the feeling I get when I can twirl and the dress or skirt I’m wearing poofs out will always make me feel oh so pretty and happy! (That’s my four year old self still speaking, btw)

17. I like the clothes on Ruche but have problems ordering from them because their sizing charts are so wonky. I can never really figure out what size to order (complicated by the fact that since I live in Canada, I don’t want to deal with returns to the US, which are a PITA). Also, I find a lot of their skirts are really short so watch the length before you order.

18. I like this skirt! but then on second glance, the skinnier lines made me think of a music staff — now I can’t unsee it, and I can’t wear the skirt because I’m afraid I’d feel like Ms. Frizzle about to take a trip to the symphony.

    I also have a question: Is it ever smart NOT to counter-offer salary or benefits on a job offer? I am satisfied with the compensation package offered to me and the salary number is where I was thinking I wanted to end up, but now that that is the initial offer, I feel like maybe I set my sights too low?

    1. Snorting unattractively at the image of Ms. Frizzle tarted up to go to the symphony.

19. I didn’t negotiate at my last job because in the interview my boss asked about salary expectations, I gave a range, and the offer was within that range, so I was happy. My current job, I had an hourly number in mind (I’m part-time hourly) and my current boss offered less than what I was wanting, I countered with more than what I was wanting, and she re-countered with exactly the number I had in mind, so I accepted. Happy all around. (It really helps that even though I’m working fewer hours than my last job, but my take home pay is unchanged; I have a pretty cush deal.)

    The bottom line is, are you happy with the number, if so, take it! Maybe you just set your sights realistically.

20. TEST

Comments are closed.