ByKat Hours Updated
Comments 233 Comments

Holiday Weekend Open Thread

This post may contain affiliate links and Corporette® may earn commissions for purchases made through links in this post. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

cover of the book, CARELESS PEOPLE: A CAUTIONARY TALE OF POWER, GREED, AND LOST IDEALISM

Something on your mind? Chat about it here.

Full disclosure: I'm still in the midst of reading this book. But a huge hat tip to the reader who recommended it somewhere in the threadjacks — it's an amazing read so far. (Well, I've primarily* listened to the book thus far, and it's such an easy listen.)

She's shared less than five stories so far, I think (not all regarding Facebook, either), and each and every one of them have been absolutely jaw dropping, told beautifully, and honestly leave me speechless and emotional if I have to stop in the middle of the story. (My poor son had to listen to me telling him the entire story of her shark attack because I had just listened to it and I was still OMG-ing.) I'm assuming this is where the cover art comes from!

She's also been talking about how she decided she was fascinated by Facebook and the “global revolution” that she saw coming in 2011, and how she went about pitching an entirely new job to the Facebook team, including using her network and adjusting her pitch in really smart ways… great reading if you've ever had a fantasy job that you wanted to make reality.

The book is available on hardcover for around $17 at Amazon, Bookshop, Target, or Barnes & Noble; if you're a member of Kindle Unlimited (*raises hand*) it's available for free.

*Am I the only one who likes to get the ebook and the audiobook out at the same time and move between the two? I often find it easiest to start a new book via audiobook. I belong to a few different libraries so I like this Chrome extension to put myself on various hold lists; Spotify Premium also has a lot of audiobooks available.

Sales of note for 9/5/25

233 Comments

  1. Where can I buy suits these days? I wear jackets most days and need a handful of suits for dressier days (I work in finance/policy in DC; we still do suits). I like dress suits best, but like a pants suit sometimes. Almost no one has dress suits and for the literally 2 or so I can find online, the dresses are too short. I’m not 20 and don’t want to show my thighs: mid knee is perfect. The pants suits seem to all be hugely oversized. I feel like those only suit very tall and very thin women. I’m tall but not extremely thin. J Crew used to be reliable but they killed the resume dress and have no replacement. I’ve looked at Brooks Brothers, Nordstrom, The Fold, Talbots, Ann Taylor, Hobbs, Banana Republic, MM Lafleur. Any recommendations?

    1. Poshmark. Especially if you’re looking for skinnier pants because those just aren’t a current style.

      1. Unless you are a very consistent size or looking to replace something you already own, I would not do poshmark (I am not).
        You can still find dress suits if you look. For example, Hobbs has a “Mel” blazer & dress coordinating combo at Bloomingdale’s. JCrew had a linen bread dress and blazer that was knee length for summer. I think you need to look for separates though because the “sets” are all going to be short dresses unless you want some Tahari or CK dress suits if from Macys.

          1. Should have clarified. I want something not just black. I already own the Mel suit from Hobbs. The small number of dress suits are almost all black.

    2. Best suit I ever had was a 100% wool skirt suit from Tiger of Sweden. Pricy but worth it — I got so much use out of it (including wearing it as separates).

      1. I have some suit dresses from Dillards, Antonio Mela I brand, that are going on a decade old and holding up incredibly well.

    5. I discovered Aritzia this week while in an actual mall this week looking for new work pants. They have a couple of dresses that pair with their blazers. Mostly synthetic fabrics instead of wool and not like super high quality, but probably on par with Banana Republic or Ann Taylor.

    6. Bloomingdales at Friendship Heights, Max Mara, St. John, Boss. I prefer non-dress suiting, but this is where I have gotten or tried on dress suits recently. I’d also try Akris Punto, which you can get at Saks also in Friendship Heights if you are up there instead of the store downtown. I definitely have better luck at the stores in Friendship Heights over Tysons– they are more geared towards what you need.

    7. j Crew Executive Dress and matching jacket; dress is 42.5″ long shoulder to end.

      Brooks Brothers Essential Sheath Dress and matching jacket; dress is 39″ long down the back.

      Talbots has several dresses with coordinating jackets, although they might be a bit more feminine than you would like.

        2. The issue is you need a tall size.

          Dress suit wise look at Boss, Tiger of Sweden and I have purchased a couple of sets on this site which last a year:

          https://mooyius.com/collections/set/products/stylish-tweed-three-piece-power-set?_pos=12&_fid=450e04cc7&_ss=c

          The jacket on this set is long but because it’s monochrome it works.
          https://mooyius.com/collections/set/products/camel-wool-blend-structured-skirt-suit?_pos=67&_fid=450e04cc7&_ss=c

          This one would work for your height too:

          https://mooyius.com/collections/set/products/cream-cropped-blazer-and-high-waisted-pencil-skirt-set-with-belt?_pos=135&_fid=47578ed6c&_ss=c

    8. resume dress is still there and while it’s final sale now they recently had it marked as “new resume dress” with matching jackets — i wouldn’t be surprised if they have another version back soon.

    11. Hugo Boss and Theory (sized up). I’ve also made Anne Klein at Macy’s work.

    12. Elie Tahari? They have a lot of crepe pieces including sheath dresses and traditional jackets. They don’t show them styled as a dress suit, but you might take a flyer and see what might work together. I really like their pant suits. Again, all the pieces are sold separately so you have some options.

  2. I liked the book a lot but the author did not accept any responsibility for her own participation in what FB did. She went into a whole explanation of how she needed the money.

    2. Agreed. I thought the first half of the book – about the Meta origin story – was fascinating, and the second half of the book was less so.

    3. Agreed. It’s an interesting read, but she really glosses over her own involvement or gets really into justifying it.

    4. I liked it, and didn’t feel like she was overly defensive of her own involvement. I’m fuzzy on the timelines but Wiki says she left FB in 2017 and I thought the depth of everything terrible that was going on didn’t really become apparent until after the 2016 election or at least the immediate run-up to it.

      1. That’s when it became wild spread public knowledge. I assume it was widely known within Meta long before that.

  3. I randomly read an article that gave me a lot of calm this morning about how blue state AGs are working together and war gaming and so forth. I hate to ask but do we think it’s true?

      1. I’m going to ask a really stupid question…when we say blue states pay more, what does that mean? Do the citizens in the state pay more in their federal income taxes than the state gets back, or is the state sending its own pot of money?

        I have always assumed the former, but then the risk of paying less is shouldered by taxpayers

        1. It means that blue states have more people with more money. It’s just a commentary on wealth and population distribution.

          1. It’s beyond that. It’s well documented that blue states subsidize red states.

            I live in CA and the $10,000 limit on state income taxes + property taxes absolutely killed us. It was intentional too, because California didn’t go for Trump. (He has said this publicly)

          3. Blue states subsidize red states BECAUSE blue states have more wealthy people. Those aren’t unrelated statements.

          4. I see you’re totally ignoring the point about the cap on other taxes.

            Cost of living tends to be higher in blue states too, which necessitates higher incomes in order to attract employees. Cost of living is high mainly because people want to live here (the cost of housing, particularly) but we do pay a higher percentage of our “disposable” income on taxes.

            I am happy to pay taxes for things like Medicaid and other programs that help the young, the elderly, and the poor. But having leadership in red states bitch about us while we are literally supporting them certainly rubs me the wrong way.

        2. Ok, that’s what I thought, but then I don’t see a way to start paying less… I guess that’s what the policy wonks are for. Either individuals stop paying taxes (and get punished) or we all vote to cut federal taxes and raise our blue state ones in turn. But then we are basically gutting the premise of United States and every public system that operates on scale

    2. I hope it’s true. As far as I’m concerned, Dems couldn’t fight their way out of a paper bag. At least Newsom has some b@lls in the redistricting fight.

      Has a single viable democratic candidate been identified for 2028? Just one?

      1. As a Californian, I am really enjoying what Newsom’s social media team has been up to. Aside from being hilarious, it’s apparently getting under The Orange One’s skin, which I find delightful.

        1. I think it’s so annoying and childish. I’ll vote for Newsom or any Dem in any national election, but I hate that this is what the discourse has become.

          1. I hate how useless and politically correct my fellow democrats have become, so I will take snark over nothing.

          2. Just got stuck in m0d for posting a link but I’m all for Newsom fighting back. He needs to use simple words that people understand and to fight back hard. The Democrats have had decades to take the high road and it doesn’t work. I’m over it.

          3. It really says something about Dem leadership that imitating MAGA for laughs is how they fight back.

          4. That’s not all he’s doing. I’m not saying this is a great national situation that we’re in, but Newsom should absolutely be fighting back hard with insults and viral videos. It’s better than playing dead like everybody else appears to be doing, and it seems to be helping.

          5. Unfortunately “when they go low, we go high” has not been the winning strategy that the mature among us would have hoped. It’s time to stop doing “the right thing”, come up with some vicious sound bites, and actually make a splash with voters

          1. I agree – I was a very rule-following child and “work it out” and “don’t hit back” never seemed to work. Recently, in middle age, I’ve been harsher and sterner with bullies (or would-be bullies) and the results have surprised me. It works. They either leave me alone, back down, or do what they were supposed to do in the first place.

          2. I think part of the Democratic leadership disconnect is that the senior leaders still think they can rich guy scold everyone to following norms. Trump and his supporters don’t care what the norms are. Dems rule followed their way off a cliff.

            Newsom is getting under Trump’s skin. More people should follow suit. Get him so enraged at the stupid stuff that he’s too distracted to get the big things accomplished. There are no guardrails or adults in the room now. Best to turn him into the old man screaming at the tv he wants to be until the midterms.

      2. It’s going to be Pritzker, Newsom, or Walz – everyone else should’ve been more vocal by now. Maybe Buttigieg if we’re lucky.

        2. We need Newsome because he’s a young, good looking, straight white man. We saw that extremely competent woman could not beat MAGA and it is not time to play. This country is still run by the patriarchy. Period.

          1. I don’t know if this is one commenter over and over again, but “man” is not the answer you’re looking for. “Charisma” is the answer you’re looking for.

          2. Name one woman who is widely regarded as having charisma. Misogyny means we will always pick away at a confident, capable woman like “who does she think she is?” And therefore she will never be regarded as charismatic.

            “I just don’t like her, can’t put my finger on why” kind of bullshit.

          3. It is always weird when people dismiss certain commenters because they think they know something. I haven’t commented on this issue before. Kamala Harris was problematic like Newsom. I think she has charisma but she didn’t win. This country is still far from voting for a woman.

    3. I work for a blue state AG, and I can confirm that there is much, much collaboration among the blue state AGs and their offices.

      1. Thank goodness. Please give us hope.

        Signed,
        A doctor / scientist that is devastated

      2. Same. So much strategizing, including about who should file lawsuits and why. They have weekly democratic AG calls. This has been going on since the election, and they were strategizing far before the election just in case.

        They are also having democratic AG town halls nationwide. There have been a few of them now.

  4. I posted a few years ago about an ex-friend impregnating his mistress and out friend group seemingly being okay with it resulting in me distancing myself from them. Well I recently noticed all our mutual friends stopped following the cheater on socials. Very validating but I’m going to keep that chapter of my life closed.

          1. Okay, I had not scrolled down to the cupcake thread when I read this. I was so confused.

      1. I am not OP but shunning is a very powerful tool. I think it’s great that this scum of the earth is losing friends over his actions.

        1. I’m more pragmatic. People fail—it’s a part of being human. The baby is real and will need community. That’s what matters. Shunning is a barbaric practice best left in the past.

          1. I agree that it doesn’t make sense to shun a baby!!

            But shunning obviously needs to be brought back. Way too many r*p*sts have supportive friends and communities right now.

          4. I imagine the cheater has plenty of people to validate his actions. And the OP states she left the group awhile ago – so she doesn’t know what his latest offense is. Perhaps it is shun-worthy. And maybe he’s not even close to the baby or the mother, and the circle of friends is. A lot of ifs but we don’t know anything and the OP doesn’t know everything

            And grease those liners lol

  5. If you bake cupcakes or muffins, is there any way to get them to not stick to the pan other than using disposable papers? I feel like whether I use metal, silicone pan or silicone liners, it’s a PITA to clean…

    1. I use a Trudeau silicone muffin pan almost weekly and never have a problem with things sticking to it.

      1. To add: I don’t use liners. The muffins just pop right out and I stick the thing in the dishwasher at the end.

    2. What’s the concern with disposable paper liners? They’re dirt cheap and unless you’re running a commercial kitchen and baking thousands of cupcakes a week the environmental impact is extremely minimal.

      1. you know you’re probably right about the environmental impact considering the very few disposable paper liners i have have been sitting in my pantry for 15 years.

        i’ve tried the dishwasher as well as spraying with pam beforehand (baking pam, olive oil pam, the yellow gross pam) and they’re just gross.

    3. Oil. Put some vegetable on a paper towel and wipe the tops of the muffin tin, and into the muffin tins themselves with oil. You can use a product for this like Pam or oil + flour product like Baker’s Joy. Also I use silicone cups for muffins and cupcakes, but I still wipe the oil on the top of the muffin tin.

    4. Also I put the metal muffin tin pans and the silicone pans in the dishwasher which removes a huge PITA factor. Like, not a PITA at all.

    5. Spray with flour. You could use parchment paper on the bottom too if that’s the issue.

    8. I like my muffins to brown, so I only use liners on cupcakes or if I’m making something extra delicate. I just oil them well and then let them cool a little before popping them out of the pan. Most of the time it’s fine and when it’s not, soaking the pan is enough to clean it pretty easily (I use a bottle brush).

  6. There’s been a real rise in moral relativism / the ends justify the means thinking in political comments here. It has really felt like a race to the bottom, like people are thinking “if they don’t have standards, I don’t have to either.” I’m also starting to hear that tone offline from some friends who spend a lot of time online.

    Have you guys also experienced this in discussions offline? If it bothers you, how are you responding to it offline? Are you even bothering to say anything at all?

    Not super interested in a flame war. It’s okay if you disagree with the premise or think the ends do justify the means. I’m really just looking to hear how people who don’t feel that way are navigating conversations with people who fervently do feel that way.

    1. The average American has a shockingly low reading level. In theory I want to take the moral high road but we need numbers and the average American is confused by anything other than catchy slogans with simple words.

    2. I made a comment above about not worrying about doing “the right thing” and I wonder if you’re riffing off that! I do think that’s different than doing “the wrong thing”, if that makes any sense. Like, it’s not okay to lie and cheat and steal. But if you have to be a little abrasive and reductionist and focus on winning issues while setting the rest aside, I think that’s okay.

      I’m not an ends justify the means person when it comes to being unethical, but I do think the Dem party holds itself to artificially high standards and that is not resonating with voters. I note “artificially” because all politics has a seedy layer, so the posturing as being the completely moral and above the fray often rings hollow.

      1. I actually hadn’t seen your comment! My comment was based off discussions here all week and then a conversation with a colleague this morning.

      2. It really seems like what they characterized as having high standards was just a combination of (a) being genuinely condescending classist snobs together with (b) being sell outs beholden to many of the same interests as their purported opposition, which came with a constant need to cover for hypocrisy and deliberate failure.

    3. Governing is about compromise, and people are imperfect, diverse, and with needs, wants and preferences that dont always sync up. That’s a long way of saying that I know I’ll never have a perfect law, government, candidate or representative. With that in mind, when the administration in power is full of actual fascists doing fascist things, I am fine with overlooking some fairly victimless missteps like a mortgage application irregularity. Especially when I consider the motive behind the accusations.
      Any one of us could be next, especially black women. Keep that in mind.

      1. I understand your position. I’m asking how other people who are not “fine with overlooking some fairly victimless missteps” are having offline conversations with people they know and love who are. (And I’m not interested in litigating whether that’s a fair characterization of that specific issue; this is a broader question).

        1. IMO, everyone is fine with it, the world is too complicated a place for things to be as black and white as you aspire.

        2. I’m just not. My father is a Fox News fanatic and I nod and redirect the conversation. If it’s something particularly egregious I will make a quick rebuttal so he knows I’m not going to suffer fool assertions, but I’m not going to change him and after years of this he rarely brings up politics anymore, and almost never in front of my kids (which is a line for me and once I blew up about it).

          If you generally like the person, you could briefly make your case and then say “I guess we’ll have to table this because it doesn’t seem we agree. What are you doing next weekend?”

          And if it really makes you think poorly of the person and you can’t get over it, put some distance in the relationship. They’ve showed you who they are and it’s up to you what you do with that

          1. That’s fair. I think where I’m struggling is that these are people I am generally politically aligned with and wish I could have interesting conversations with! But maybe the answer is to just take politics off the table with them.

    4. I’m sure you’re not perfect either. Tbh I find people claiming the moral high road to be tiresome unless they themselves don’t contribute to evil (public service/NGO job, zero waste, vegan, etc.)

        1. Well at some point the commenter is right. These people do get tiresome because they aren’t perfect either and need broader life perspective. Or meds. Or a life.

      2. I’d say that I’ve found that we all see ourselves as someone with strong principles and consistent views, or at least I do. But then when it gets down to the nitty gritty, I have areas where I am willing to compromise and others where I’m not. If we talk about topic XYZ, and I’ll advocate for some kind of meet-in-the-middle approach, you might find that a slippery slope to getting it wrong. I think in order to keep a dialogue going, it’s important to acknowledge that our roles might be reversed on a different topic. So it becomes more about the opinion on that particular topic not aligning, and you don’t put a person in the box of moral relativist, or obnoxious preach.
        Also, considering a spectrum of views helps calibrate your own, so even if we don’t agree, I still appreciate learning about another perspective.

      3. Yep. In fact, relative to the post above, as a liberal I think it’s time we got down and dirty. Moral high ground ain’t working and it’s tiresome to keep having these perfectionist standards for who we will or won’t vote for.

      4. Moral perfectionism can go really wrong surprisingly quickly too (whether we’re talking about Zizians or just PETA).

    5. I’ve definitely heard people talk about being more practical / less dogmatic with respect to politics. While I certainly don’t think that the ends always justify the means, I don’t think it helps when Dems focus on issues that don’t have a lot of relevance to the lives of most people.

    6. Put it this way – Republicans aren’t quibbling about whether the ends justify the means. They’re just doing what they want. Democrats can either write concerned memos in their offices or start playing dirty too. The option of playing a fair game doesn’t exist anymore – now that the game has turned rough, isn’t it better to try to win instead of calling for the referee and saying it’s not fair?

      1. Again. I understand the position you’re expressing. I am asking how people who disagree with that position are having conversations with people who hold it, because frankly, each of these little rants is exactly the sort of non-productive cynical rambling that I’d like to respond well to in my real life, where I actually care about the people who are saying these things and want to engage well with them.

        Each of these comments just read like bots sewing sectarian thoughts. They’re basically just talking points with no actual analysis behind them. That’s fine online, truly, because there’s a good chance that’s what they are, or they’re just smart people blowing off a little steam on a Friday night by being a little trite (I know I’ve done that plenty here!).

        But again, my question is for people who share my general concern and is about how to structure in person conversations when someone starts framing things in this way.

          1. Sure! Maybe I did. Hopefully now that I’ve clarified it several times, that will help.

          2. All I’m going to say is that if this hostile, condescending vibe you’re bringing to this comment section is what you plan to bring to family who disappoint you, you’re the one who is going to end up disappointed.

          3. I think a liiiiitttle hostility when you’re getting comments like @5:58 is ok.

        2. What’s your concern, then? I don’t spend more time than I have to engaging with anyone who is ok with what’s going on in the US right now. There is no conversation to be had that will change it.

        3. Just so I understand: you want to sit on a high horse and say any infraction of any law is equally the same in disqualifying our leaders. You want to argue that a murderer and fraudulent filer are equally morally bereft and should be fired or prosecuted (or, presumably, go to hell).

          I would *want* to argue that a murder has definitely resulted in harm as well as breaching other higher laws like those of most gods and cultural norms… meanwhile someone who has committed mortgage fraud, even knowingly and willfully, was not harming anyone and in fact only breaking a law that politician wrote recently probably with lots of input from bank lobbyists.

          I’d want to argue it… but wouldn’t really see the point if the above is your position.

          1. Mortgage fraud isn’t really wrong in my books. Banks are awful and immoral, they use lobbyists to write predatory laws to prey upon the poor and working class. Legal and moral are not the same.

    7. Perhaps it’s worth considering whether so much is cut and dry. An example: my husband was incredulous and disappointed that Joe pardoned Hunter after promising he wouldn’t.

      To me, it was the act of a loving father with the foresight to save his son from a raging lunatic. I still believe it was the right call, as we know Trump would’ve had him in front of a firing squad by now.

      It may be that few things are black and white. Morality IS somewhat relative to the rules of the society…and right now they have gone up in flames

      1. Thank you for this comment. It’s thoughtful, and I appreciate it.

        I actually am looking for exactly the sort of conversation you seem to have had with your husband! There is gray in the Hunter pardon, like you say, and I like hearing people’s thoughts about that gray. It’s potentially a very interesting conversation, and you’ve staked out two arguments in just a very short comment.

        What I’m running into instead is someone who might say something like “what difference does that pardon make either way? Trump uses pardons for whatever he wants.” And like sure! Yeah! He probably does! And that is absolutely the least interesting take you can bring to the table in this conversation, because it’s just “this person does it so I should get to do it too!”, which isn’t really an interesting or well considered opinion. But I don’t want to say “what a boring and shallow take!” to my friends or colleagues, so trying to figure out how to kindly work around that to get to more interesting discussions.

        1. Your friends and colleagues are tired. They don’t want to engage in more ‘interesting’ discussions. If you’re so starved for stimulation maybe try volunteering for candidates or organizations.

        2. So you want ways to tell people they’re boring and shallow without using the words? And you’re the judge of what’s boring and shallow? Please report back on how that goes.

          1. No, I’m concerned about how people who have always held complex and varied ideas have started expressing simplistic ideas that sound like Russian bots opinions. There’s been a shift from considering world events in the context of deeply held beliefs to not discussing those deeply held beliefs at all. It’s a very similar slide to what I watched some of my Republican relatives go through five-ish years ago. It made me sad to watch it when it happened with those relatives, and it’s sad to watch it now. Probably the answer is that there’s nothing I can do, but I am bummed about how the conversations are trending.

          2. I guess you need to at least consider the possibility that you don’t have all the answers. You and your friends used to be so well aligned in the past, now you feel like you’re the only one holding on to clear moral principles. But we have seen a shift towards the current situation for the last two decades, and it’s not obvious how to stop it. So you need to at least appreciate that maybe your friends are frustrated with how old principles might have enabled the rise of totalitarianism, or allowed it to happen. They might see you desperately holding on to the exact mistakes that got us here, while they are considering new solutions.
            I am not necessarily saying this is definitely the case, since we are talking in hypotheticals anyway, but if you want to have a productive discussion, you need to have some humility and see how your position is flawed as well.

          3. That is very fair. To take this out of the hypothetical, the topic was Newsom’s social media strategy. If you have historically been very loud about how Trump style social media is eroding American democracy, and now you’re calling the Newsom stuff genius, that’s an interesting shift and I would’ve been interested in understanding it.

        3. Well, your friends and colleagues aren’t obligated to provide you with what you think are more interesting discussions. I can tell you that I personally care deeply about these issues and simultaneously do not want to engage in nuanced discussions with my friends about them. These people might be giving you “boring and shallow takes” because they don’t want to get into it. Or perhaps they think their take is valid and in fact is not “boring and shallow.” Either way, the fact that you disagree with them doesn’t mean they’re obligated to discuss it with you. I have friends like you, and frankly, they’re exhausting.

          You might consider focusing your efforts on actually effecting change or finding a place focused on intellectual debate rather than trying to force discussions that meet your requirements with friends and colleagues.

          3. So, I absolutely hear you and largely do not talk politics with my friends for this reason. I almost never initiate the topic unless it’s really close to home for both of us. This colleague brought the topic up completely unprompted, which you would think would indicate that they wanted to talk about it. But when I said “huh, I don’t know that I agree that that’s a good strategy. How do you think it’ll play out in [additional context]?”, that’s when I got the “fight fire with fire” “they do it so we should too” conversation shutdown.

            Chalking it up to colleague being in a bad mood and moving on!

          4. I can’t believe ANYONE would compare Newsome’s social media strategy to Trump’s!!!! To be honest, I have been annoyed with, as an example, AOC when she has lowered herself to engage in a childish way on Twitter. Governing via Twitter is terrible. Discussing social policy as an elected official via snarky tweets is terrible. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT NEWSOME IS DOING AT ALL! He is mocking Trump and daring people to criticize him. Dude, if you think our opinion of Trump vs. Newsome is a shift, you aren’t as smart as you think you are.

        4. They may just not genuinely care. There are lots of Americans who don’t care anything about politics or elections (not even half of us vote). So they may be giving you the what does it matter response because they don’t care.

          There are also people who believe everyone is cheating and are fine with cheating if it benefits them. Or they’re fine with cheating when it is blatantly out in the open. Instead of viewing it as it not being interesting, consider those are just their morals and proceed from there. Are you trying to change them or engage in debate? You might have to find another forum instead.

        5. OP, I don’t know why you’re getting so much hostility but I also don’t know what your actual question is here. In the pardon hypothetical, if your friend says “who cares,” I think you can say “right, sure, but what do you actually think about the pardon itself? Do you think he should have done it? Did you think he would? What would you have done in that situation?” If that leads nowhere, I think the answer is that isn’t a conversation you should pursue and you switch topics.

          But, separately, I think the reason you are seeing this more now is because the alternative clearly didn’t work and people are feeling the consequences of that very acutely. It’s a two party system. You’re picking chicken or fish for dinner. There is no silent option. Not voting for Kamala because you didn’t like Biden’s Gaza policy didn’t do anything to make things better in that situation, and the list can go on. I think plenty of people can have thoughtful conversations on lots of issues but most people do not have energy right now for someone saying “ah well both sides are bad…” because it’s just not the same.

          1. That’s fair. I had a catch-up with a colleague this morning who has, historically, been a very thoughtful, well read, measured person. They came in saying something that ran into direct conflict with what they believed even two years ago. When I pushed on it gently, they said that you had to “meet fire with fire.” It was very similar to some of the responses I’ve gotten here so far. And they just could not move past the “it’s working for the Republicans” argument to talk about any other aspects of the issue. I don’t mind if that’s one of the things you’re considering, but this person previously would’ve been thinking about the issue from multiple angles instead of just that one. It really was just kind of a flattening out of their thought process that felt jarring to me.

            I’d read a bunch of comments here that kind of had the same vibe. But I’d also read a lot of comments pushing back on those comments, and I was hoping to hear from the people pushing back. I’d wanted to hear how they’re responding to this more utilitarian (I guess?) approach to these sorts of questions when they encounter it in real life. It just feels … less human and more algorithmic, for there to only be one belief at play in thinking about an issue. It also just makes the conversation shorter. But I really do love my friend, and I didn’t know how to respond to the new fervor and one-dimensionality of their viewpoint.

            I don’t know. People change, and my old friend may just have been having a bad day today. And people are definitely being hostile because it’s a Friday night, and I think people get weird on a Friday night. It’s okay. This wasn’t the right space to think about this issue, but I’m sure another space will be.

          2. OP, you’re the problem here. You’re going into casual conversations with exhausted people expecting committed, impassioned political debates drawing on classical theory and fine argumentation. You’re encountering the reality that people’s theories have evolved and instead of acknowledging their beliefs as valid or asking more, you’re judging them for being simple-minded. That’s a mistake. Those of us who want to “fight fire with fire” have often thought on the matter very deeply, whether or not we express that to judgmental colleagues.

          3. I appreciate that in the abstract, but I do think I am better positioned to evaluate the dynamics of a conversation I personally participated in than you are.

          4. I’m not sure what “fire with fire” means. If it means “actually trying to accomplish something real,” then we need clearly more of that. If it means that they think they can fight full-fledged fascism with lukewarm fascism, I think that’s both bad and won’t work.

          5. The specific context for that comment was that they thought the Newsom social media strategy was genius because it was fighting fire with fire. So I don’t think anyone could really argue it was someone “trying to accomplish something real,” and I don’t think it’s an emotionally charged enough idea that talking about whether it’s a good one or not would wear someone out. I’d never suggest to a pediatrician friend that they shouldn’t be upset with the dismantling of the CDC or anything like that, and I think people overestimated the seriousness of the issues I’m talking about because I was vague.

            To be clear, I think people can think the strategy is good or effective, but I just would’ve been interested in a more thoughtful conversation than “it’s obviously working for Trump so why wouldn’t we?”

      2. I’ve been hearing about “moral relativism” my whole life and it always confused me. Everything is somewhat relative. I don’t believe in physically harming people, wouldn’t punch somebody if we disagreed. But if I I thought my life was in danger and punching would help, you can bet your sweet bippy I’m going to punch that person.

          1. The world isn’t what you want it to be. Maybe it’s time for *you* to evolve. Your rigidity won’t serve you.

          2. The comments I’ve received here largely reflect far more rigid and fatalistic thinking than what I’m rolling with.

            Having ideals and being able to discuss topics in the context of the full spectrum of those ideals is not rigidity. And “they do it so I can too!” is not flexibility.

    8. Is this the person telling us how DJT was unfairly persecuted for the Russian Hoax just the other day?

      I think you have to have a sense of perspective. The world is on fire and treason is happening everywhere. I’m not too worried about small issues when every time we oust a leader someone worse rises, either because the other side won or because there are less and less intelligent, sane people who wants to do this work on any side.

      If THIS administration wants someone gone, I’m going to imagine it is because the person wouldn’t play THEIR game for any amount of money or power, and that’s who I want to stay *in* power. They can’t just do anything – Abuse children or sexually traffic teens? Rape people? Defraud cancer charities or underprivileged students? No.

    9. We are in a civil war and only one side is fighting. We are well past polictics, elections and courts so we are certainly past manners.

    10. I think a lot of assumptions about how things are supposed to work got blown up by SCOTUS and part of what you are seeing is inconsistency is people trying to figure out how to play a game that has fundamentally different rules.

    11. For me it goes the other way. I know I have standards and ideals, and I know what I have had to compromise or the choices I’ve had to make. I can feel very judged and negative about myself and what I’ve been through. So, why would I do that to almost anyone else? Someone I don’t know, like the current vice-president of the US, who seems extremely selfish and self-centered, is easy to judge. But most people are not clear cut and I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, the same I do for myself. So I’m less judgmental but yeah I can see why people might think I’m more morally compromised

      1. Yeah, I actually feel the same way as you! I have ideals, of course, but the interesting conversations happen in places where it’s tough to implement them or two ideals are in conflict. I am struggling in conversations where people don’t want to discuss ideals at all and solely are taking the “they do it so we should too” approach to analyzing thorny issues. But the answer is pretty clearly “well, if that’s their approach, then they just aren’t a fun person to talk about this stuff with anymore,” and that’s okay! Not every topic needs to be for every friendship.

        1. So you consider it a compromise of morals that your friend enjoys Newsom mocking Trump’s stupidity in tweets?

    12. Highly recommend “Six conversations we’re scared to have” by Deborah Frances-White.

      1. Thank you! If I could mark best answers, this would be one. This looks like the sort of thing I was looking for; I’ll place a hold at the library.

        1. God you’re exhausting.
          You’re a great reminder about how we have to build community and coalitions even with very annoying people, so thanks for that at least!

          1. I would be very happy to be left out of any coalition you’re in, Roxie dear, as you consistently have just the absolute dumbest takes.

          3. I’m extremely comfortable judging this commenter. Like I said, she consistently has the worst takes; haven’t you noticed that she likes to put a turd in the punch bowl of some comment section at least 2-3x a week?

            Also, I think it’s funny you’re judging me for saying she has bad takes but not her for calling me “exhausting” and “very annoying.”

          4. I agree w/Roxie here.

            I also judge people who make anonymous posts critical of named commenters’ patterns of commenting.

          5. Loling at you stepping in to anonymously co-sign mean girl behavior, @11:33. You’re right; at least Roxie has the courage to be like she is under a consistent handle.

    13. This is actually easier to answer than you think. Consider the hierarchy of needs. You’re preaching high minded ideals to people who are starving and unhoused. You’ll get better traction (on your high standards) when the earlier needs (winning elections, having a coherent platform, not having to fight fascism) are met first.

    14. There’s no place in a political discussion to make your own standards the norm. Politicians are by nature complex people and not always super moral. You elect them to fight for your values, not be an example of the best of our community. I remember being a teenager seeing nominees for positions need to withdraw over off the books nanny’s/gardeners, and even then, wondering why we cared about nonsense to this degree. When building a world you have to find the middle ground that most people can tolerate. The extremes of either end have to be ignored. This includes your insistence that everyone meet some standards you made up in your head.

      1. +100 Even the regard of what is moral in politics is largely opinion. And it is prideful to pretend as though your read on the situation is The Truth. Liberals are as guilty on this as MAGAs (possibly moreso, because the MAGAs know they are being racist/sexist/whatever and liberals just insist they are “right”)

        What we need is more humility, and to approach conversations with a true curiosity and acknowledgment that you might be wrong if we want to get anywhere

    15. I think you’ve gotten a lot of really intelligent answers here that are far from the algorithm/chatbot which honestly is more what you sound like with the black and white thinking (or a very sheltered, young, person, I guess). You’ve made no arguments for why mortgage fraud is causing harm equivalent or relative to fascism or ICE raids or killing cancer research. The Biden example – who cares? He’s out. He will not be back in power. Hunter is bad news and will not be in power. Equating Biden’s actions to some moral depravity within the D party seems like painting with too broad of a brush. Personally I think he did the right thing with a vindictive Cheeto in power, but I also acknowledge that JB had way more information than I did on this topic so I’m assuming he had even better reasons than I can imagine.

      1. I haven’t made arguments on specific topics because my question was explicitly not about specific topics.

    16. OP, your responses are becoming more and more insufferable. It simply isn’t true that everyone around you is a rigid, fatalistic, sectarian bot. It’s absurd that you’re doubling down on that and refusing to engage with the substance people are offering you, even here in quick comments. It’s time to stop insulting people for being dim and two-dimensional and time for some self-reflection.

      Also? This isn’t suffering and you don’t deserve sympathy. This is life. People disagree about what’s important.

      1. Thank you for the insult. It added value, and I’m glad you took the time to type it out.

    17. What you are finding is that many, if not all, of your friends and colleagues are not interested in talking with you as deeply as you would like to about these issues. Even if they bring up the subject, they might simply be venting and don’t expect to be challenged on any nuanced level, so they shut down the conversation. Let them be. Find the friends and colleagues who *are* interested in having these conversations. You will find out who they are by gently probing to see if they are receptive to going deeper. If you can’t find anyone among your existing friends and colleagues to have these conversations with, find more friends. Join a local political campaign committee or your local Democratic club. Try a local meetup group. Find a community online.

      1. Somehow I think OP would get the ‘its not working out’ speech if she tried to volunteer, can you imagine someone this intolerable door knocking? 🤣

        1. Thank god I don’t plan to do *anything* on behalf of the Democrats ever again!

          2. My point is, look for your people outside your current friends and colleagues who have signaled to you that they don’t want to talk more deeply about this stuff.

    18. Wait wait wait

      You started this conversation saying “There’s been a real rise in moral relativism / the ends justify the means thinking in political comments here. It has really felt like a race to the bottom, like people are thinking “if they don’t have standards, I don’t have to either.””

      And this isn’t about our treasonous Dear Leader or the moral pit that is the Republican party — not about the less-than-lily-white leaders on the D side … but it’s about NEWSOM’S SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN?? How does that even have anything to do with moral relativism? Did he call you personally a ding dong or something?

      Gift article. You might want to read more intelligent commentary instead of expecting it from friends at the watercooler.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/08/gavin-newsom-social-media-trump/683968/?gift=PEb_GDID3744HtoRx9Zp6b8Mkex9LFQ70-sNztjV7-w&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

      1. Nope! That specific comment was about the Newsom social media content. The conversation covered other, more substantive issues, too, and the same theme has played out here regularly in various contexts, too.

        1. Here’s what you keep missing: if Newsom helps defeat Trump, then his strategy is correct. It matters not one bit if it passes an artificial purity test. It’s no crime to have immature social media posts; that’s not immoral. Newsom has adapted more than most. I hope he continues to fight like hell, which is the only way to defeat fascism. You can’t do it democratically, or at least history provides no examples of it.

          2. Yes, yes, history is rife with examples of people doing the contemporary equivalent of shit-posting on the internet to defeat fascism.

          3. So, I don’t know that I agree that the sitting governor of California is the right person to play the role of parodist here. (Among other issues, I worry that exiting this tone and returning to a more serious one will be a challenging pivot, and I also worry that it is deepening the divide between CA and other parts of the country in a way that seems non-productive). But you’ve given me something to think about, and I appreciate that.

    19. I think what you are missing is that people are scared and, for many of us, our lives are under attack. We may want to make a (superficial to you) vent for 30 seconds, but the last thing I want to talk about with most people is politics. Talking about it doesn’t change anything. And honestly, the people I know having those intellectual debates with their friends are not the ones actually doing anything.

      So, yes, I’m thinking deeply about these issues. But no, I’m not going to waste my limited energy so that I can entertain you. I’m going to use it on something that is worth while.

      1. Thank you for finding the strength and bravery to make this comment on a fashion blog while your life is under attack 🫡

        1. OP, people aren’t refusing to engage with you because they’re dumb and shallow. If you talk to them like this, they probably try to avoid you and get out of conversations quickly. You’ve been ALL over this thread insulting people and almost no one has posted anything that pleases you. Take your unhappiness somewhere else.

          1. I have just matched the energy of the commenters I’ve responded to. If they are thoughtful and constructive, I’ve responded accordingly. And then, hey, I’ve occasionally met fire with fire for the cranks – isn’t that what you all are advocating for as a good thing?

        2. You really are showing your a s s here. It sounds like you want to take a philosophy class rather than engage with the reality on the ground in America right now. There’s literally people that are dying, Kim.

          1. Thanks for the reminder that there have been absolutely no interesting philosophical or religious conversations happening at any point during any forms of oppression and that that is a thing no one could ever expect others to be able to engage in. I’ll see how well my Dietrich Bonhoeffer book burns, I guess? Maybe I can use the MLK speeches as kindling…

          2. I finally get it!! You’re sheltered/rich/blue bubbled not young and dumb.

            The great MLK speeches you’re waiting for aren’t coming because inspo sound bites aren’t worth that much. Also you can’t have one side be dignified statesmen with curly-cue mustaches and the other side be profane clowns with knives sticking out of their head, you know?

    20. love that there are a million voices in this thread telling you you’re wrong and prideful and expect too much from friends and politicians

      and on the other side is just you, stomping your feet and insisting you’re right and we’re all dumb

      2. Yeah, it’s usually a good rule of thumb that if three different people are “wrong” and you’re sure you’re right, you’ve got things backwards.

        1. The Westboro Baptist Church has more than 3 people in it who think a lot of my choices are wrong. I’ll start listening to them based on this excellent comment!

    21. OP, you asked for ways to frame the conversation, so I’ll give you one based on your comments in this thread.

      You write that you replied to your colleague who complimented Newsome’s social media strategy by saying “huh, I don’t know that I agree that that’s a good strategy. How do you think it’ll play out in [additional context]?”

      IMO that comment is putting your colleague on the defensive by saying you think his opinion is wrong but without backing it up with any reasoning. Instead, you might try saying something like, “I’ve been thinking about this new strategy too, and I’m wondering if it will backfire in X scenario for Y reason. What do you think?”

      If you come to the conversation with curiosity rather than judgment, and you put yourself out there by sharing your beliefs rather than only critiquing his, that might open the door to a more nuanced discussion of the kind you’re craving. But it might be that he isn’t really considering a twitter war of words a moral issue at all so in his mind it doesn’t warrant extended back and forth or hand wringing over a change in values. You might disagree, but I don’t think that would be a productive conversation and in your shoes, I would move on. We all have different moral compasses, and as this thread demonstrates, kindness doesn’t always prevail on the internet, by anyone. 😉
      I also agree with other commenters that many people are just exhausted right now, and it’s too distressing or depressing for them to discuss this stuff, especially if the discussion is heading more toward a debate, which is the vibe I’m getting from your comments. That’s not a knock on you; some people like to debate politics, and you seem like one of them. But even many people who previously did are over it right now or don’t have the stamina to do so as vigorously as they once did.

      1. Man, I wish this had been the first comment I’d gotten. I think I would’ve been less on the defensive when the kookier comments hit. Thank you. It’s productive, thoughtful, critical without being nasty — just well done all around, so thank you for writing it.

        2. I’m reading all this for the first time today, and you need to reflect on why you insist on blaming others for conversations meeting your standards, and, crucially, for your own behavior in conversations.

  7. Curious for any personal reviews on the Moosewood Cooks at Home recipes?

    I’m a vegetarian and do a lot of Budget Bytes recipes, i.e., quick and easy cooking. Eat a lot of beans and lentils.

    1. I don’t cook much, but my mother is an amazing cook who swears by Moosewood. Most of the soups she makes come from their cookbooks. They are delicious!

    2. One of my favorite cookbooks and one I still use even in the age of getting most of my recipes off the internet. My sil and I were just discussing the Moosewood cookbooks the other day so it’s fun to see them mentioned here. The Curried Fried Rice and Sweet Potato Salad are still staples for me. I still make some of the soups from there as well, but have probably changed the recipes over the year so that they no longer are strictly those recipes.

  8. Great feature! I finished the book after seeing it recommended here as well. I loved it. I also work in a similar position at a similar social media company and it was especially interesting to get her perspective.

  9. Can anyone please tell me the length of the BRF Forever Sweater in size Medium. I’m 5 foot four. I’m looking for something that will work with a skirt without being too long and sloppy, but also not super cropped. The website does not have the measurements.Thanks!

  10. Well, our holiday weekend just went to sh*t. Our baby’s infant daycare emailed and said it’s closing due to financial difficulties. Other spots are slim to none. Fml.

    1. I’m sorry, that is a huge stress. This happened to me (for toddler care, not infant though). We got through it by hiring an experienced sitter until a spot opened up.
      Can you get in touch with some of the other parents and maybe arrange a nanny share (even temporarily)?

    2. Oh, that’s so hard! In addition to the nanny-share idea, would the daycare be willing to provide contact information for any of the workers who would like to take on private clients?

    3. Ugh. That’s awful. Try to contact the folks that work at the daycare now to see if any of them are interested in doing a nanny share?

    4. For anyone who has influence at a corporation that wants to retain women…please havre employee benefits include subsidised emergency childcare. This is exactly the kind of thing that can kill working parents careers…often the women.

      I say this because it happened to me, and I leaned on our employer benefit package to hire a temp nanny until we got a space elsewhere.

    5. Look up which daycares accept vouchers and are part of the head start program. You don’t have to have a voucher. I had a great experience. They had home cooked food, real care for the children with grandmas rocking the babies and a group of amazing women working with the older children to get them ready for school.

      They had space because no one thinks to use them if they don’t qualify for vouchers. Best daycare ever and so supportive of me as a working mother.

    2. Travel Pro is a luggage company started by an airline pilot I think. If you look at pilots and flight attendants at the airport, that’s the luggage they are most likely carrying. It’s good, sturdy, and reliable, with lots of thoughtful features. They have basic and fancier models for different price points. I think it’s generally good luggage or was, anyway, as I don’t have more recent experience. That’s as far as I can go in trying to answer your question though :)

    3. I mean, I have recommended travel pro several times here, but my goals for luggage are lightweight, durable, practical – I’m not taking airport fit checks for social. No complaints from my 2021 or 2023 purchases after fairly heavy use.

    4. Travelpro is an excellent, stand-alone brand. For truly heavy-duty luggage, if you travel frequently, check out the Travelpro FlightCrew line — it sports a more robust frame and wheels and zipper. I just returned from a two-week business trip where I used a smaller “commuter-size” Travelpro FlightCrew rolling carry-on, checked a Travelpro FlightCrew large expanded rolling carry-on, and used a Tumi laptop tote as my personal item. (plus a Tumi mini cross-body that I consolidated into the tote for security and aircraft boarding purposes). That system worked great!

  12. I ended contact with my mother in January, telling her that until she is working towards long-term sobriety, I can’t talk to her. She’s emailed a couple of times since then – I think from those emails that she recently stopped drinking. She is still very much in denial – both that she is an alcoholic, and that she needs treatment. There’s a long way to go unfortunately.

    Since January, I found out that I’m pregnant. I am very, very happy about this news. But I don’t like that my mom doesn’t know; I’m having a lot of guilt about it. There are all kinds of updates about my life from this year that she doesn’t know, this is the one that I do feel like I should tell her.

    Anyway, I’ve asked friends (who have experience dealing with addicted family members) for advice about this, and the response was that it’s my news, that I don’t owe this to her and I should keep the boundary. The other concern is that I unconsciously want to tell her about being pregnant with the hope that it will convince her to get into treatment or admit that she does have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. I don’t think that’s the case, because this has already gone on so long that I don’t think anything I do will influence her behavior, but who knows.

    So, I’m looking for opinions about this. Would you tell her, and how would you word it?

    1. Can you have an intermediary tell her? Then she will have the information, but without direct contact with you.

      1. I could have my husband talk to her, I hadn’t considered that. Thanks for the idea.

    2. I’m so sorry. This sounds very, very complicated. I’m offering my thoughts in case they’re useful, but they’re not coming from personal experience.

      Would it work to email her something like, “I wanted to let you know that I’m pregnant, due in X. I debated a lot whether to tell you — it’s something I want you to know, but I’m still committed to keeping distance until/if you stop drinking and are genuinely working on long-term sobriety.” And then keep the boundary.

      The fear is that she’ll contact you and perhaps try to guilt you, or maybe she’ll make promises. But if you can continue to keep the boundary after this (eg, no updates about your pregnancy, etc.) then I think you could send that email.

      Good luck. And congratulations on your pregnancy!

      1. This seems like the cleanest option. Covers the information and reiterates the boundary. Appreciate the idea!

    3. I’m sorry. I think so much of it depends on why you ended contact initially. It was your decision to establish the boundary, and it can be your decision to change it. You truly do have the right to do whatever you want here.

      If you want to know what I would do as a person from a family of addicts, I would be very, very hesitant to change it if you set it up because she has a history of violence, theft, or cruelty, and more willing to change it if it was because it was too painful to watch her destroy herself.

      That being said, if you do tell her, you need to assume it will change nothing for her. It is good that you recognize that that hope is in your heart; you will be happier if you do the work of saying “okay, I’d love that to happen, but I have to accept that it probably won’t” on the front end.

      Congratulations on the pregnancy; I hope it is a joyful time for you.

      1. That’s a good point. No history of violence or theft. The emotional damage has gotten worse but it’s definitely not as bad as it could be. This helps reframe the issue for me – thanks for the help.

    4. Unless she is abusive to you, I would personally tell her. My father overcame opioid addiction and I can’t really imagine cutting him out over it, but it would be different if there were abuse. Congratulations!

    5. You cannot use access or information as a way to influence or control another person’s behavior. You go no-contact to protect yourself, not to motivate the other person to change. If you think she’s stopped drinking and that’s enough for you to be comfortable re-establishing contact, then do it. But you don’t sound satisfied with her efforts, you want her to follow a specific path you have chosen for her, and you want to use information to manipulate her.

      I have been no-contact with an @bu$ive parent for more than 25 years. Going no-contact freed me from the burden of dealing with him. I did not ask him to change or offer to re-establish contact if he did. If he wanted to change, he would have done it years earlier of his own accord. He has never met my husband or our child. If he had, he would have used them to get at me. If your mother is a bad, harmful person, it’s easiest just to be done with her. If not, you can maintain a relationship and set boundaries about what behavior you will tolerate, but those boundaries are for you and should not be communicated to her as rules she must follow. Trying to manipulate or control her is unkind and will exhaust you.

      1. I don’t read anything in OP’s question that she is or wants to “use” this information. Something important happened and it feels weird not to tell her mom, despite the important boundary. Don’t map bad intentions on someone when there’s no reason to.

        1. I actually think this comment is quite helpful given her discussion of her hope that this leads her mom to change.

      2. Well, I am feeling guilty that she doesn’t know about future grandchildren. It’s a stretch to call that manipulation. I am painfully aware that my actions/hopes/life have no impact on her addiction – it’s taken ten years for me to understand that, and it wasn’t an easy lesson. There are also some assumptions that you’ve made about the situation that are affecting your conclusions.

        That being said, some of your response is what she will reply to me, so it actually helped in that sense – thanks, sincerely! And I’m sorry for what you’ve been through. I can’t imagine how painful that’s been.

        1. You said you wanted to use the news of a grandchild to motivate her to change!

    6. It depends on why you ended contact. My mother is emotionally abusive and I communicate with her only by infrequent snail mail. When my mother-in-law died, I thought that this was something I *should* tell my mom. They knew each other and I thought it was the type of news you tell family. So I wrote to her with the news. My reward was a nasty letter, received while my husband and I were grieving, in which my mom insulted my husband. If you have already gone 100% no contact, tread very carefully in breaking that, even when you feel you have news that one should or would normally share with one’s mom. My decision to write to my mom was based on my own imagination and hope that she has changed. I keep hoping my mom will suddenly behave like a normal loving mom and I have to face the fact that she won’t, and act accordingly. Congratulations on your new baby-to-be! Don’t let your mom spoil your happiness.

      1. Thanks so much, I think you hit the point exactly. I have to know that whatever the response is, it won’t be the one that I’d wanted. She’s been so hurtful and self-centered (which I truly believe is not who she is, it’s just that she isn’t the same person right now) that I don’t expect a “typical” loving response. Thank you!

        1. I can also add that if I had *not* told my mom that my mother-in-law had died, I would have felt guilty for not telling her important family news. So it was a no-win situation for me. In hindsight, I wish I’d let someone else give her the news, probably my sibling who hasn’t gone no contact. I’m also actively working on what’s at the root of this weird guilt. I hear you saying that you’d feel guilty if your mom doesn’t know about her grandchildren, and I can totally see that, but I also view this kind of guilt as something to work on in therapy. Is avoiding this guilt worth opening yourself up to more abuse and criticism? You also mentioned that your husband could tell your mom that you’re pregnant. I don’t think that’s the best play. You and he need to maintain a firm united front when it comes to your boundary with your mom. Is there another family member or friend without the same boundary who could tell her? I’m wishing you grace and luck in dealing with this.

    7. Please work through this with a professional. It isn’t just about the news; it’s also about what relationship you want your baby to have with your mom.

      My advice is to not tell her. You don’t change your boundaries to change someone else.

  13. Lowest stakes

    Has everyone but me figured out electronics and cable management while traveling?
    I always end up with a snarl of cords and cables in my carry on bag. I end up needing to pull everything out, resort, and then feel frazzled if I’m somewhere like TSA.

    I’ll be traveling for work coming up for 2.5 weeks with: Phone, kindle, and a switch, plus headphones, plug adapter, and backup battery. Traveling with a checked bag, carry on backpack and a crossbody purse.

    Zip lock bags? Lisa Frank electronics trapper keeper?

    1. TSA Precheck for starters. It’s worth it even if you don’t travel that much. Then you don’t have to take anything out of your bags at security, at least not in the US.
      There are “cord keeper” devices you can buy for pretty cheap, but I usually just wrap each cord around itself and they stay pretty separate.

    2. Make up bag with small ziploc bags inside. Or ziptie the cords together so they’re compact at least.

    3. I keep all my cables, plugs, adapters and batteries in a small packing cube with a carry handle. The packing cube goes in my carry-on, and the separate devices go either in my handbag or carry-on. The cables are all in a tangle in the cube, but they are separate from everything else.

      For a trip long enough for me to need to charge my phone on a layover or on the train, I keep my charger in a separate, easy access pocket. Not in the US, so no idea what’s best for TSA.

    4. Why is TSA relevant? You don’t have to remove cords from your bag. I’d suggest reviewing which devices have chargers in common (for me that’s phone, iPad share one, AirPods still use the old Apple charger, Kindle and big headphones use micro USB) and have one of each. They, plus my laptop charger, travel mouse, and portable battery all go in a zipper pouch.

    5. Tumi has mini zipped pencil case type bags which I use for code storage. Also works for carrying a laptop cable around meeting rooms!

    6. I have a dedicated travel bag/pouch that was designed to hold cords. I use those Velcro thingies that keep each cord neatly wound up, which means nothing ever gets tangled inside the pouch. I only bring one of each cord that I need plus an adapter. A spare battery would fit into this pouch if I needed it to. The pouch was a great gift from a friend who travels a lot and knows all the best hacks. The pouch usually goes in the side compartment of my carry-on backpack. I might put bulkier cords in my checked bag if I know that I won’t be using a particular cord before arriving at my destination.

      1. This is almost identical to the one my friend got me. It has three mesh compartments, two with zippers, and it folds in thirds, which makes it a lot more compact than the hard-sided cases. I also really like the adjustable exterior strap. If you travel with fewer cords one trip, the whole pouch is smaller. The pics show a phone in the middle slot but I never use it like that. The middle slot holds the cord I use most.

        GForce Tech Cable Accessory Organizer | Travel Sized Bag | Electronics Chargers and Cords | Mesh Pockets | Portable | Black https://a.co/d/b5TOucb

Comments are closed.