ByElizabeth Hours Updated
Comments 289 Comments

Frugal Friday’s Workwear Report: Short Puff-Sleeve Sweater

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.

A woman wearing a medium blue short-sleeved sweater and black pants

Our daily workwear reports suggest one piece of work-appropriate attire in a range of prices.

This was one of my favorite purchases from the Nordstrom Annual Sale this summer, and now it’s available at an even steeper markdown. This short-sleeved sweater is super soft, not too warm, and the perfect length for a long-torsoed person who struggles to find non-cropped sweater options.

I bought the cocoa color this summer, and at this price I will probably add both the navy and black to my collection. 

The sweater is $19.60 at Nordstrom, marked down from $49, and comes in sizes XXS-XL. I would say that it runs a bit large, so if you’re in between sizes, size down.

Sales of note for 10/16

  • Ann Taylor – 50% off + free shipping on everything!
  • Brooklinen – Friends & Family – 20% off sitewide and 50% off select bundles
  • J.Crew – Extra 50% off 3+ sale styles with code – includes lots of suiting, sweaters, and pants
  • J.Crew Factory – Friends & Family, extra 15% off your purchase
  • M.M.LaFleur – October Sale Event, best prices of the season (Try code CORPORETTE15 for 15% off on other items)
  • Nordstrom – 5840+ new markdowns for women, up to 40% off
  • Talbots – Friends and family, 30% off your entire purchase
  • Theory – End of season sale is on with extra savings (new prices are marked)

289 Comments

  1. Help me understand: if you are assaulted on a college campus (or off-campus event or housing), how are young women taught to go somewhere other than that city’s police and immediately to a hospital for a SANE exam and related healthcare needs they have? This is not for your RA or your school. When you are a victim, these people may not be in your corner or are undertrained peers who can’t really help you.

    1. I don’t understand why a college involves itself at all here. Like why are there college trials/punishments? It should go straight to the police and the college should have absolutely zero role here.

      1. Two possibilities.

        1) What happened wasn’t illegal but still did not meet the standards of conduct that the college requires of its students. It is totally okay for a college to have higher standards for behavior than what is illegal and to enforce them with college specific consequences (like getting expelled).

        2) What happened was illegal, but the college has lower standards than the law, and wants to protect its students from legal accountability and consequences.

        1. I think a college kids itself that it can be a decider and investigator when it has duties to both parties. It cannot advocate both sides and investigate and decide. There is civil court and criminal court. A felony is a felony. A tort is still a tort. College shouldn’t make a difference.

          1. Colleges have to enforce codes of conduct beyond civil and criminal anyway. Or are you really suggesting they take “cheating on an exam” to court?

          3. Cheating on an exam isn’t a crime. Or a tort. It likely violates a contract with the school (like an honor pledge), so the school can exercise options but it had better be clear in the facts (not just “AI flagged this for cheating”) or it should expect to be sued. And the school should also be aware of promises it makes to students, like treating them fairly and not arbitrarily. Lawsuits are expensive to schools even when they win.

          4. I wouldn’t want to attend or graduate from a college that had no higher standards for its community than whatever keeps you out of trouble with the law. Aren’t higher standards than the law completely normal in many professions? What are we going to college for anyway? And there are a lot of codes of conduct that make sense to me (it’s not illegal for a TA to ask out a student in their own class, but it’s not hard to see why it’s a problem).

            Substances are part of the history here. There are dry campuses where they just don’t want students drinking even if they are 21. You may think that is dumb, but then we come around to the situation where drinking is allowed on campus, but underage drinking is still illegal, and everybody goes to the same parties. So then there’s a strong incentive to handle things on campus and protect the students from consequences of underage drinking.

            With assault cases, even when people go to the police, the campus has to sort things out on campus to some extent (do the two parties keep attending the same small class that they’re both enrolled in week to week, etc.).

          5. States authorize organizations to govern licenses in their professions (e.g., being a nurse or a lawyer or doctor). So there may be some state actor / due process concerns there. Religions govern credentials for clerics (but in some, if you are called to preach, you start preaching).

            If you go to Liberty or Messiah, they have a contract of sorts with students and definitely have formal contracts with employees. In my city, a brewery is a valued small business and sponsors 5Ks and PTAs; at my nephew’s college, he (a student) couldn’t wear a t-shirt with a brewery on it. I know that Trappist monks brew beer, so I think that God maybe confused by some of his children, but humans are imperfect. Colleges are even more so.

          6. 8:41: Colleges are required my Title IX to take action. They nmay not legally butt out. How are so many college educated professionls unaware of title ix?

        2. Anyway my take is that it’s the second reason. The college is trying to protect the accused from any consequences, protect its own reputation as a safe place, and will throw any number of victims under the bus in the process. The Hunting Ground documentary is worth watching.

          1. IDK that colleges are protecting the accused so much as just hoping it will all go away quietly and not affect their yield rate.

          2. The way the stats work out, it’s typically just a small number of people who are responsible for many, many assaults each. But if those people face consequences, parents become massively paranoid that their son will be accused of something if he attends that school. Basically parents seem to care more about their sons than their daughters.

          3. The concern re daughters is evergreen. The concern with sons seems just college-specific: like if your son goes to a trade school or to work or is done and working, the concern over a shadow trial ruining his life is not there. Leaving a job for a dark deserted walk home or parking deck or having a bad boyfriend or being at the wrong party with the wrong friends is a worry if your daughter is 16 or 36.

    2. speaking as a college professor… there are several reasons, not all internally consistent:
      – underage students have been drinking and are afraid they will get in trouble (this is a big one)
      – police departments are often hostile to, or skeptical of, victims
      – students believe the campus authorities are less intimidating (consider campus police v. real police, especially in a major urban area)
      – getting a r*pe kit at a hospital can be very traumatic for survivors
      – the police are not always good actors, and the criminal justice system can gaslight and traumatize survivors. students may perceive the college to be more sympathetic and kind to them (rightly or wrongly)
      – in addition, campus policies (which have to do with title IX compliance, at heart), often have a lower standard of proof than a legal case. technically an assault is usually BOTH a crime AND a conduct violation.
      the recent cases in the media are horrible! but this is a lot of what

      1. These are all very valid, but I just think ultimately whatever is in place for dealing with cheating on exams (councils etc) isn’t sufficient for an assault case

        1. totally! although also these are usually difference administrative processes — cheating and other academic misconduct are usually some kind of council of students and sometimes faculty and staff (often called some version of an honor council); there’s a different body for adjudicating Title IX violations (which is what sexual assault is counted as, yes this is also problematic in its own way). This body is usually staff and sometimes faculty as well; not typically students. Usually things like straight alcohol or nonsexual conduct violations are handled by staff in student life.

          1. also, every school I’ve taught at has told students that they can pursue both the college process AND the legal process (and, because of mandatory reporting, the college may pursue its process even against the wishes of the victim). But what message the school says it’s giving, and what message is received, can of course vary. The general advice to “call the campus police first” is supposed to be so the campus authorities can help you deal with the real police and hospital if you go that route; obviously, this can play out in multiple ways as well.

          2. I think calling both the college and actual police is probably the way to go. I wouldn’t trust a college to fully run a legal process, and there have been so many examples of it not going well. But yeah they could catch code of conduct violations that fall below actually breaking a law

      2. I think a college is kidding itself that it can do better than civil authorities. It will never be a neutral arbiter. It has every motivation to sweep things under the rug.

        A rape exam is traumatic but do you really want PID to go untreated? It is crisis healthcare and we out to support girls and women. They can pause and exit the process as they are comfortable but they deserve to start it. Think for a moment: this is not that different than going to a gynecologist after a rape. A pelvic exam should happen if indicated either way. A man raped would get care. Or a child. Why not a woman?

      3. I get all of this, but these are not good enough reasons. Either take it to the real authorities or don’t, but the idea of alternative justice is foolish and it should be illegal for colleges to enable it.

        1. I think you’re not acknowledging the statistical reality. For every woman who gets raped, there are surely dozens who experience everyday harassment or gender discrimination at colleges. The university has a legal obligation to offer training, resources and staffing for all these cases, even though they can handle some better than others. So they send out general comms and training to familiarize students with these options.
          Also it’s wild to me that in 2026, you seem to not relate at all to someone not trusting the police.

          2. You can’t really outsource a felony investigation and prosecution unless you are a vigilante. Not sure what third option really exists.

        2. Would you extend this to employers – should companies have no way of investigating, suspending or firing Bob who slapped Jane’s butt in the hallway, unless and until criminal charges are filed?

          3. I would extend it all over the place. I don’t think you should have the right to say a candidate for elected office assaulted you if you never bothered to take it to law enforcement.

          4. the f*ing law enforcement who stood with ICE vigilantes to beat down my neighbor’s door last year? While all other immigrants living in the street hid in terror?

          5. And you want a college to investigate that? Give me a break. The answer is to elect people to conduct better oversight over law enforcement.

      4. Title nine also has implication for sexual assault, although I don’t remember the specifics. There have been cases of students found guilty/not guilty of SA in court and then had the opposite finding by their schools.

        1. I am not a lawyer, but I would be surprised if every form of harassment, bullying, and discrimination relevant to title nine were also generally illegal.

          I also genuinely don’t know the status of situations that are relatively common on campuses like “seduced under false pretenses or a false identity” or different kinds of stalking.

    3. Is this in reference to a news story? I didn’t see anything in the Times. Just curious!

        1. I think anytime you are tempted to respond like this to someone’s good faith question, you should put your phone down and walk away.

          1. i found those when i did a news search but… those girls did go to police so i was confused. anyway thank you!

    4. A lot of colleges are state or city government creatures, so state action in the process is already often there. So they are bound by a lot more laws that IMO their employees are not properly trained on.

      1. Work on a college campus, and I concur. As a supervisor, I’m required to go through a yearly training, and I’m always crossing my fingers that I never have to use it. It’s complicated, and if you don’t deal with these issues all the time, good luck to you and hope you don’t misstep.

        1. A friend is a GC for a university where the undergrads are awash in alcohol as a badge of honor. I wouldn’t want that job in a million years.

    5. I think the police are often not advocates for the student, especially minority students. I went to college in the Boston area and our school was very very clear we were to avoid the Boston PD as much as possible. Based on my one interaction with them where the one Black kid was roughed up when our car was pulled over, I think the school was right. More generally, I always thought campus police forces were much more forgiving of things like underage drinking like local police so racial issues aside was always taught to call them first if someone got too intoxicated at a party. For something like SA it seems more appropriate to involve local PD, but I would still have started with campus PD. They can work in tandem.

      1. In my big city, underage drinking isn’t seen as a little-p problem and they are swamped with big-P Problems. Campus police can be awesome, like helping a stressed out student who finds a car with a flat tire or dead battery or patrolling for safety so kids can walk home from the library safely. Or emergencies like a parent has a heart attack moving into a dorm or someone needs an Epipen or CPR.

        Some people are in between functioning adults and kids who need a mom, especially when they are drunk for the first few times.

      2. Police are supposed to advocate for the facts, not people. Either you want to prosecute a crime committed against you or you don’t. It stinks, but if you don’t go the real route, you don’t have rights to the fake route. College justice is a total farce of a concept.

        1. I understand your correction of the phrasing, but clearly if the police are going to rough somebody up instead of advocating for the facts, that is still a problem including for people who very much want to prosecute a crime committed against them.

    6. I think there’s actually 3 things:
      1)Reporting to the school’s internal system, split into
      – Whatever code of conduct enforcement mechanism the school has, which isn’t (of course) equipped to run a criminal investigation, but also can do things like expel a student on a lower standard of evidence. Think of this like the equivalent of being fired after an HR investigation at work.
      – Many schools have dedicated *support* services for survivors, sometimes explicitly exempt from reporting obligations (unless a minor is involved). Think of this as more like calling a crisis hot line: their job isn’t to investigate, it’s just to support the victim in the moment, talk through her options for reporting if she wants to, connect her to other resources like counseling, etc.

      2)Calling the campus *police*, who should be sworn law enforcement officers, and should have the same reporting requirements as city police officers.

      3) Calling city police

      If 2&3 are yielding big differences in outcomes, that’s a problem

    7. The answer to your question is TITLE IX. There have been cases where the police decided there wasn’t enough evidence to charge a student with s+xual assault so there would be no consequences to a student accused of assault. That means the alleged victim has to go to class with her attacker unless the college takes action. Plus, for State colleges, the campus police are police.
      https://rainn.org/federal-legislation/title-ix-how-it-affects-survivors-of-campus-assault/

      1. Fair, but that is along the lines of “in addition to,” not instead of, and after the legal practice has played out.

        I also think from the comments that no one understands criminal law and the differences between patrol officers, detectives, and prosecutors.

        1. Anon at 11:45: I am a criminal defense attorney who has represented defendants in Title IX proceedings. In fact, the college process takes place very quickly and it completed long before any criminal case proceeds. This is all set out in federal law.

      2. If there’s not enough evidence then no one is in a position to find him guilty. Why should the college? You just want a consequence to make yourself feel better when the facts don’t support that?

        1. 11:49: You are asking me if I want to feel better??? You do understand that a person can be found not guilty in a criminal trial but liable in a civil trial? The burden of proof in a criminal trial is beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. Students have 14th amendment rights to due process which must be followed before they may be expelled or suspended from college but the burden of proof is low. I will say that Title IX in this context is not without controversy as there were changed made by the Obama administration that upset conservatives. Hope that helps! https://nwlc.org/nwlc-in-the-press/the-beginning-of-the-end-for-obamas-title-ix-rules/

        2. I have a serious answer to that:

          Because there is no such thing as 100% proof in most investigations. As much as people would like to believe otherwise, we are always going to have some of the guilty go free, and some of the innocent punished.

          Because the State has a unique ability to impose consequences no one else can (imprisonment, backed up by force), we, as a society, set the tilt the balance towards the accused in criminal cases (“beyond a reasonable doubt”), as a check on the State’s unique power to impose consequences. But that doesn’t mean “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the only just standard of evidence to use in all circumstances, for all consequences – civil law has a different bar, private organizations have different bars. My college used “preponderance of evidence” – basically, is it more than 50% likely you did it? My church, which has historically had terrible issues with abuse that we want to make sure never reoccur, has an even lower bar – we’ll remove people from leadership roles and positions of trust on any allegation that is not “manifestly false or frivolous”, that is basically: “is it *possible* you did what you’re accused of”.

          But HR, or the student discipline board, or the electorate, or the church review board, can’t imprison you. It’s ok for private institutions, that do not wield the coercive force of the state, to have different standards of evidence.

          1. Yes.

            I’d add that sometimes what happened is that somebody definitely did a bunch of other things that add up to a pattern of behavior that point to a character issue or poor judgment even if there’s more uncertainty around a single accusation. It is okay to have higher standards for some roles than “can’t be proven to have done this crime even if they unquestionably made bad choices and showed poor judgment.” The youth pastor needs to have actively good judgment, not just stay on this side of the law!

          2. I wouldn’t want to be judged on what I could have possibly done. That’s a terrible way to proceed. How can anyone defend against that?

          1. Well, yes, OJ is the perfect example. And there seems to be a lot of women on this board woefully ignorant of basic civics.

    8. Just chiming in on an experience from my college days 20+ years ago. There was unwanted physical contact (hand on chest) in the office of our college newspaper but no one witnessed. Being on the newspaper in a leadership role cut your tuition in half or entirely depending on the role. Nothing came of going to court. But the campus was able to take the individual off of the paper to create a safe working environment. I don’t believe his tuition was affected but it could have been and they moved him into a non-peer facing role assisting with some marketing for the college (so still got some comms experience). Had there been a witness, I still am dubious a court would have been much help, but I have absolutely no doubt the tuition would have been yanked and the internship-like experience if not enrollment entirely. It’s not always a bad thing–code of conduct is sometimes an easier way to punish.

    9. I doubt (I’ll ask my college kid when I see her) that women are taught to seek out their RA or their school to the exclusion of the police under the circumstances. While contacting actual law enforcement authorities ASAP is probably the best way to get a conviction in a court of law, victims don’t always make the decision to go straight to the authorities (for better or worse).

      As a GenX, it’s the rare same-age female friend who doesn’t have a story about some kind of assault. For those of us that went to police, more than a few were told that there would be no investigation at all because we knew the perpetrator or it would be “too hard” to find someone or some other nonsense.

      There’s also the issue of jurisdiction. Most of the Very Bad Stuff that happened to girls at my college happened not on-campus, but at frats affiliated with other local colleges. It made my college look great, statistics-wise, even though it was just a quirk of geography.

  2. I have worn my hair in a side part for over 20 years. I’m a millennial who works with a lot of Gen Z, so I see mostly middle parts. I think a middle part makes me look like a serene renaissance Madonna or a creepy child from a horror movie. Is this just because of what I’m used to seeing, or do middle parts just not work on some people? What makes a side or a middle part work better on someone?

    1. Bone structure and proportions. A middle part makes my nose look like Mr. Potato Head’s. If you want to switch it up without going Middle Part, try some side parts that are closer to center but still lopsided – even .5 to 1″ off center for me is a dramatically better overall look.

      1. Agree with this. A middle part highlights any lack of symmetry or prominent features more than a side part.
        I feel like my nose and features are too prominent/not symmetrical for a true middle part to be flattering, but I have come around to seeing that a slightly offset middle part looks better than the deep millennial side part I have rocked for years.

    3. I’m the opposite – I’ve always been middle part! I’m so glad its in style. I just like it when things look proportional and feel that it frames my face nicely. Maybe it works because my hair isn’t totally straight like a horror movie child

      1. My hair isn’t totally straight either but I do wear it pulled back most of the time. I guess I’m afraid the middle part is kind of severe? I’ve been called a child of the corn before lol.

        1. Ooh I don’t like how my hair looks pulled back, it looks too severe. I usually wear it down. Maybe I should try putting it back with a side part

    4. Emily Dickinson is in the house these days.

      I like to think that my side part makes me look like Veronica Lake :)

    5. Keep the side part if it looks good on you. Middle part does my nose no favors, I don’t care what the kids are doing.

    6. I should really give a middle part a shot. My mom bullied me about it looking bad when I tried it as a kid so I just never tried again.

    7. My hair strongly prefers to part itself on the side and no amount of Gen Z judgement will convince it otherwise. If I try to part in the middle, one half lies flat and the other poofs up two inches higher.

      1. Same for me. The way the hair grows out of my scalp is somehow not the same everywhere. Must part on the left or chaos reigns.

        1. Same! I suppose my follicles are trained to grow for a left-side part. I did try the middle part for a while, but it looks severe on me because I have fine, thin hair. Also, a middle part does not play nice with my widow’s peak. I kind of gave up and decided my millenial look suits me and looks classic in my work place.

    8. My hair parts itself about 1″ off center to my right no matter where I think I want to part it. I gave up on anything g else a long time ago.

  3. Flying to Denver and will have Sunday to myself. Flight lands at 12 and staying near the Children’s Hospital. Any recommendations for things to do and places to eat? I love nature and hiking so gorgeous views and/or good food, not necessarily in the same place. No diet restrictions. I won’t need a car for the rest of the week, but open to getting one for Sunday if needed. Thanks!

    1. It’s at a high altitude, so that could impact hiking. Where are you coming from?

      1. +1, we are at sea level and if we try to exercise at our normal level on Day 1 of a Rockies trip, our bodies quickly remind us they’re not at normal capacity.

        Boulder might be a good place to look up some light hiking- you’re not at peak Rockies altitudes but you can get great views of them.

        1. Instead of “hiking” consider it “strolling” and you’ll be fine. Just don’t set out for a 4 hour uphill both ways loop trail expecting to make good time.

        2. I was knocked flat on my behind the first time I visited CO. I grew up around sea level (NYC) and live there now (MA) so had no idea how badly the altitude would impact me. Drink tons of water, gentle exercise, and rest more than you think you need to on your first day. Avoid alcohol too!

    2. Take it easy. You can get altitude sickness if you gallop around at your usual pace the first day. What about hitting a spa and some great food instead?

    4. I did a hike at North Table Mountain Loop near Golden last time I had a free day in Denver. There are several different route options of varying lengths. I was fine with the altitude FWIW.

      1. If you have a car, this is a great recommendation if you are not acclimated. Still low enough in the foothills that elevation is not bad, and the views are beautiful. Also, the short trails around Red Rocks are pretty and you can visit the Amphitheater. Golden and Red Rocks are very close. Hydrate and wear sunscreen, you are a mile closer to the sun.

        1. And there’s weekend public transit to redrocks now fyi!
          and our light rail + busses have tap to pay, so you don’t need to mess around with downloading an app or anything (and as long as you use the same card, tap to pay will automatically give you the best possible pricing – like if you tap to pay several rides in one day, the system won’t charge you more than the daily pass rate).

    5. was just in Denver! We toured the State Capitol and visited the art museum, both were great.

  4. What did everyone think of the top 100 list of best TV shows now that it’s finalized? So many good ones!

    1. They recognized some less popular stuff like reservation dogs which I was pleased with but overall it was kind of pedestrian? Kind of seemed like they just picked based on popularity rather than artistic integrity, acting, writing etc.

    2. I called it that Veep would be top comedy! The top 20 was pretty much what I expected, especially after the rest of the list was released.

      Overall I thought it was a good list but a bit repetitive in some weird ways. Do we really need both Tony Bourdain shows or two Nathan Fielder vehicles? I would have removed the repetition to feature some new things.

      1. I rolled my eyes at 2 Bourdain shows like 5 numbers apart. I don’t even think of them as different shows?

        I also think Office UK is better than Office US, but I am highly biased towards British humor and making 12 great episodes rather than 250 episodes of varying quality and I HATE sentimentality or “twee”-ness. Veep, 30 Rock, and Arrested Development (first 3 seasons) are my GOATs of comedy, and I love The Thick of It, which I can’t believe made the list!

    3. Personally I would have put Friday Night Lights in the Top 10, but I know there were some weak storylines in Season 2.

      I do think Buffy the Vampire Slayer should have been on there somewhere.

      1. Somebody didn’t like Whedon. And fair enough, but it does seem like a gap compared to other titles that were both less popular and less influential.

        2. Yes, it would have had to have been Firefly. Even Angel was 90s.

          Though now would be a great time to watch Dollhouse.

          1. did you know that eliza dushku is apparently now a practicing psychologist or something? kind of in a woo practice (i forget specifics) but still, go eliza.

    4. I had the opposite reaction; this is clearly not my cultural bubble! So many stinkers that I regret ever trying to watch.

      I kind of wish Person of Interest had made the list, but maybe it’s just on my mind because of surveillance always being in the news these days. But the list is generally light on science fiction that isn’t space fantasy.

    5. I feel like a lot of the shows on the list really aren’t my jam, you know? The anti-hero journey that leverages trauma and dramatic churn for viewership type show.
      My take away is that tastes vary.
      If I were on a Desert Island, I would want to take, say, Brooklyn 99 with me (not even on the list) rather than The Wire. I thought The Wire was gripping (and perhaps a little emotionally manipulative), but I don’t really want to watch it over and over again. There’s something about the top shows that just makes me feel deflated.
      I guess if my benchmark for good tv is stuff I would want to re-watch, I think that would probably skew more comedy and warm family dramas and science fiction/ fantasy and a lot of those didn’t make the list. With some of the darker edgier stuff, once I’ve seen it, I don’t need to re-live it.
      What is more interesting to me than the list itself is to think about why these shows are what rise to the top for the people making the list.
      It’s probably the same reason NY Times made a list of 50 Best Thrillers, but we are still waiting for a list of 50 Best Romance Novels.

      1. I thought The Wire belonged there, but I also don’t think at all about rewatchability and almost never rewatch anything.

      2. I never rewatch shows. Too much tv (and movies, and books, and everything else in the world) to watch things I’ve already seen. So for me, the test of a good show is 1. how much I enjoyed when I watched it, and 2. how much it continues to live on in my head years later. #2 for me has bumped down a few highly rated shows, like Breaking Bad, which I actually don’t really think much about, while Better Call Saul, though admittedly more recent, feels more resonant to me. Veep has also aged pretty badly for me, now that our political system all just feels like a joke out of that show, except it’s real life. I also have a hard time ranking limited series on a par with longer series because they just don’t stick with me in the same way. Station Eleven is probably an exception to that, but I think only because I also read the book (and it’s one of the rare books I’ve read multiple times because I wanted a refresh before the show aired). The first season of The Terror should probably get a mention for that too, as a combination of book and show that has really stuck in my head so much that I almost have a hard time keeping it separate from real life events. Too bad so few people saw that show that it didn’t make the list.

      3. I thought it was a good list but I agree Brooklyn 99 very much deserved a spot. I also would have had Shrinking on there; as far as Apple TV dramedies go, I think it’s far superior to Ted Lasso.

    6. That list was definetly not to my taste. I don’t know their criteria for choosing shows, but it seems very samey.

      I have seen 9 of the 100, and maybe one or half a series (and gotten bored very quickly) of three additional ones. I guess I don’t see as many American shows as I thought.

      The only shows on the list I’d be willing to put on this weekend would be Slow Horses or Bake-off. I’d rather rewatch series like Firefly, Broadchurch, Vigil or Bosch.

  5. Question for lawyers. What happens if someone wipes their phone after a serious incident involving the death of someone in their care, but they haven’t yet been charged with any crime? If, over a year later, a criminal investigation begins, a search warrant is issued for the phone communications and metadata, but the contents have already been wiped, can the person be charged with obstruction of justice? Can the data typically be recovered from the cell phone company after that?

    1. This question is too heavy and involved for this forum and you should ask a lawyer you’ve retained. Not kidding.

    2. This is easy. Probably yes, a person can be charged. IDK if that is a felony or misdemeanor and what sort of proof problem you have. But the police get and execute search warrants. In lawsuits, parties can issue subpoenas. IMO very different things.

      The phone company’s records are the phone company’s records. The ISP’s records are the ISP’s records. Wiping your phone is just wiping your phone.

      1. Yes and there is some speculation about that but nothing definitive. I was talking to someone about it and he said that there is no guarantee that Apple would still have data more than a year out from a date. He also said that he thinks the Eastlands likely did wipe their phones because they would know certain texts would be incriminating and that criminal charges could be on the table.

        1. So I guess I’m curious, as a chronic deleter, are people supposed to keep their records forever if no one has asked for them?

          If there’s an investigation, I get that, but keeping texts in case an investigation occurs seems like too much to expect.

          1. Exactly what I’m wondering. Couldn’t someone fairly easily claim “I didn’t delete texts to obstruct evidence, I deleted them to clear up storage space”? In Mystic’s case, there was a letter demanding preservation of evidence for civil lawsuit purposes within one week of the flood, but that wasn’t related to the now-possible criminal charges.

          2. Yeah, I don’t understand why this search warrant is coming so late.
            (I also think it’s bananas that they are being criminally charged potentially. What a witch hunt.)

          4. Like the conversation above, people are fixated on “justice” whether the facts support their narrative or not.

          5. to 11:44 – i haven’t followed this case as much as some of the posters here but i thought the owners were pretty wildly negligent?

          7. You can be a chronic deleter; that’s fine, but AT&T is not. They keep your data for 10 years and will comply with a subpoena for your data. The police don’t need you to keep your texts, they will get them from the phone company.

          8. Then why don’t they just do that instead of threatening people about preserving their records?

  6. The 2016 Subaru Forester DH and I share was recently totaled. We need a new car, but disagree on what to buy.

    After considering various compact SUVs:
    – I want to buy a brand new 2026 Forester Hybrid. We both like almost everything about the car, but my husband really hates the large iPad style touchscreen. He especially dislikes that some of the climate controls can only be accessed through the screen. We think we could negotiate the price down to $32,700 before taxes and fees.
    – DH wants to buy a used Forester, primarily to avoid the large touchscreen on the current models. Certified pre-owned options near us start at $25K for something like a 2023 non-hybrid with 50K miles. I’m reluctant to pay these types of prices for a used non-hybrid when I can get the new hybrid model for around $7K more.

    We also considered a Toyota Rav4 or Honda CR-V Hybrid. Used versions of these models seem like an even worse value than Subaru. We liked the CR-V test drive, but I’m reluctant to buy due to reports of head gasket problems and being a common target for thieves (we park in a driveway in a major metro area; no garage). The new Rav4 has waiting lists in our area and is at the very top of our budget.

    How should we resolve this? My brain is fried from car research and we’ve maxed out the car rental coverage provided by insurance. Should we just lease a car and reassess the options in 3 years? Buy a used Forester and trade it in once Subaru goes back to physical climate controls (possibly in 2028 or 2029)?

    1. Check out the Hyundai Tucson. It’s not perfect on the touchscreen issue but it’s a lot better than the models that you named and we’ve been very happy with the hybrid. It has excellent ratings and it was widely available in our area when we bought in 2025, whereas the others were not. We paid about $45k.

    2. My 2012 Subaru was a total lemon. I will never buy another Subaru. Toyotas only.

      That said, if your heart is set on a Subaru I would definitely go with the new hybrid. I am with your husband re. climate controls on the touchscreen, but it’s pretty much unavoidable at this point. We just bought a RAV4. It does have physical temperature controls, and the fan control is permanently visible at the bottom of the screen and not too difficult or distracting to use. Supposedly the 2026 Hyundai Santa Fe has its climate controls permanently visible at the bottom of the screen too.

      1. “Supposedly the 2026 Hyundai Santa Fe has its climate controls permanently visible at the bottom of the screen too.”

        Just bring back knobs, people! This problem doesn’t need a new tech solution.

        1. Right? Changing the settings by touch is a whole lot safer than even briefly glancing at the stupid screen first. I love everything about my husband’s truck except this feature. It is super annoying.

    3. 2025 CRV and neighbors have two prior versions with no complaints (+5 year and +10 years older than mine). IMO newer CRVs have the perfect amount of knobs. I have the hybrid and would buy a second for when my kids start driving.

    4. FWIW I despise the ipad-style touch screen controls and it was the decision maker when I bought my new car 3 years ago. So, while I can’t tell you what to do, I can sympathize with your DH that it’s a dealbreaker on a specific model.

    5. I’m usually Japanese cars or bust but ended up with a 2026 Chevy Trax and I’m very happy with it.

    6. I’m with your husband, I hate hate HATE touch screen for the fan/AC and would buy used for that reason.

      1. +1. When I bought my car a couple years ago that was non-negotiable. Aside from being annoying it’s a major safety hazard.

    7. Before we bought our Crosstrek, we rented one directly from Subaru for a week to make sure it’s what we wanted.

      I’d rent the Forrester you want to see how big of an issue the screen is.

    8. 100% the used Forester with the physical controls. A 2023 will still have resale value in 2028 or 2029 if there are redesigns with more physical controls.

      There’s increasing evidence that screen controls are a safety issue and car makers are starting to walk them back. We own two Subarus (2018 Outback and 2021 Ascent), both of which I LOVE. I 100% did not plan to buy Subarus but after a lot of test driving we vastly preferred them to the Honda (CR-V, Odyssey), Toyota (Rav 4)and VW (Tiguan/Atlas) products. We will be soon replacing the Outback (which we bought new) and as much as I want a hybrid, we’re planning to go used to avoid the newer Subaru screen controls.

      1. I agree with this post. OP, your husband makes good sense. Certified pre-owned is a great deal.

    9. I empathize with you! We have an 8yo Forester that DH would like to replace, but we both hate the touchscreen on the new ones and hope our current car holds out until they redesign it. We also have a Pilot that requires multiple touchscreen interactions to do anything (why does it take 4 actions to change the satellite radio station!) and we both hate it so much. We used to have a CRV and really liked it, but they redesigned the body and introduced some blind spots for us.

      If we had to buy a car today and money wasn’t an issue, I think we would start with either a RAV or a 4Runner, depending on how big we needed. We’ve driven both as rentals and really liked them. But I keep hoping that Subaru will fix its interior issues.

    10. Toyota just opened a third assembly plant for RAV 4s this summer (Google says it was in June), so there is hope that the waiting list will speed up soon. That doesn’t help right this minute, but I would hold out for a RAV4. Maybe your dealer could give you some idea about what this will do to the waiting list.

      1. We just bought a RAV4 LE. The wait was about two months, and we had to take whatever color we could get.

    11. Option 4: Buy a used Tiguan. I LOVE mine, it has manual controls (but a good touchscreen for entertainment). It gets great gas mileage and handles wonderfully in the snow. Highly recommend.

    12. I own a Rav4 hybrid, and it’s been a great car. It’s six years old with about 80K miles, and we’ve had no non-routine maintenance issues. It gets good gas mileage, and it handles well in snow. It’s a nice size – big enough to move all my daughter’s stuff to college, but not too big for urban driving and parking. I will buy another one.

      1. I drove a rental Rav4 up a snowy mountain last winter and watched 4WD trucks going the exact same speed as me (we were all in a line) slide all over the place. The Rav4 never lost traction. That was enough for me to decide my next car will be a Rav4.

    13. I have a 2015 Subaru Outback. My wife bought a 2025 Subaru Forester with the bug screen, including the need to use the touch screen for climate controls. At first I was bothered by the same thing your husband is bothered by, but I really love her car (we both do) and I have become okay with the climate control touch screen thing. It’s not ideal but I’ve adapted. So if your husband thinks he might be able to get used to it, I bet you both would really love the Forester Hybrid.

      My wife’s previous car was a RAV4 and this was her first Subaru. She likes it better than the RAV4.

    1. Hate to break it to you but basically all corporations are garbage. Nike is just less good at hiding it.

      2. +1

        Don’t love Nike at all. But it’s one of the few brands that has athletic pants that fit my very slim kid. I’m sure the alternatives aren’t any better.

    2. Yeah. I am glad athletes have a wider range of sponsors now. And never buy Nike myself.

    3. bc their shoes are by far the best fit for my feet, personally, after trying 6-7 brands.

    4. Because most people are not online enough to even be aware of this (I was not until you posted it, and I read the paper daily).

      And quite honestly, I would not be inclined to not buy from company based on the allegations of this complaint, as absolutely horrific as they are given the lack of any indication of any involvement by Nike corporate. It is not even clear the chaperones were Nike employees. But then I am professionally suspicious of plaintiff counsel looking for deep pockets.

    5. Unfortunately, a lot of companies are really sneakily bad for women. Lexi DuPont, a professional skier who had gotten a free season pass from Revelstoke for 16 years straight, was “mysteriously” dropped once she had her baby, even though she has kept skiing (and skied all through pregnancy too, tagging Revelstoke and promoting them on social media).

      1. Perhaps this was karma for Lexi Dupont promoting Eddie Bauer First Ascent gear for years that was wildly expensive and absolutely awful. Sorry.

        1. My husband loves that gear. I have a pair of fleece lined hiking pants that I lived in for all of my COVID outdoor meetings back in the day. Solid. Would recommend.

        2. Huh? I had a jacket from that line that was completely fine. It lasted me 10 years. Also, why would you not liking a product line justify pregnancy-related discrimination?

    7. not to pile on nike, but they own converse… i couldn’t believe the recent KKK ad. how do these things get past all the layers?!

      1. I had the same reaction, until I saw the full ad photo. Did you only see the cropped version?

      2. Because that Converse ad was made by South Koreans for Malaysia and was then cropped and digitally altered by people trying to stir the pot for a US audience.

  8. ISO liquid soap that is not so drying. Any recs? My knuckles are getting dry and it’s only September!

    2. I keep a pump bottle of unscented lotion next to the sink. Dry hands are unavoidable if you wash them as often as you should.

      1. Maybe in a harsh winter climate?

        I wash my hands more often than most people need to, and I don’t get dry hands so long as I’m taking my vitamins (I have gotten dry skin before from specific deficiencies, but that affected more of my skin than just my hands). I never use lotion and don’t own it.

        I am careful about soap though since my skin reacts negatively to a lot of soaps.

        1. Yes, I find this to be very weather dependent. My hand are fine in the summer and when I lived in warmer places, but I now live in the frozen north and need frequent lotion in the winter. Soap also matters, I stick to unscented soap (and everything else) or I get weird rashes on my hands.

    3. I use cetaphil. It is not just for the face.
      I buy the big bottles, one for the shower, one for the bathroom basin

    4. I love A la Maison liquid soaps. My favorite varieties are Sea Salt and Rosemary Mint. This soap is mostly glycerin, so it’s really hydrating. I have eczema on my hands and it’s the only one I love!

    5. i like the softsense type of bottle you can get at sam’s club. the soap has to be white, can’t be clear. i’d also think you could just get bars of dove soap.

      my son *always* gets cracked knuckles etc from school and a big part is because they make the kids wash their hands 4000 times a day with lousy soap.

    6. Lidl has a very good hand soap. It’s not drying at all and it’s very affordable.

    7. Mrs. Meyers Clean Day is what we use, and it’s much better than other soaps available in regular grocery stores.

  9. Laugh of the day: my employer, whose maximum “merit raise” this year did not even keep pace with inflation, just sent out an announcement about a financial wellness seminar where we can all learn to stop buying fancy coffee so we can keep up with the rising cost of living.

    1. Massive eyeroll. My company loves to do the “we just did raises last year, what are you complaining about” when the “raises” were like, 1.7%.

    2. So outrageous! My husband just got a 3% raise after being at the same salary for over four years.

    3. We had our fiscal year end all-hands meeting and the execs talked about how it was the best year ever in the history of the company. The next month raises were max 2.5%.

    4. One year, during the downturn, at a biglaw firm, as paralegal staff, we were given raises between 1.15% and 2.95%. Attorneys were given special bonuses. We worked as much as they did. I left.

    5. Waves from federal employment, where we are unlikely to get much of anything while our health insurance premiums soar, so a net pay cut. Oh, and we are all doing the work of all our colleagues who were DOGE’d last year and haven’t been replaced.

      1. State government, too. Health insurance premiums and deductible doubled, out of pocket up 50%, but we got a 0.75/hr raise.
        I jumped from fed to state at the beginning of DOGE so at least I have relative job security, which I dont take for granted.

  10. I’m looking for advice on a very difficult situation — my grandfather has turned into a dirty old man and has been making very poor life choices since my grandmother died.

    My mother (only-child) recently let me know she has been having a difficult time with my grandfather for the past several months. Him, an 80 year old, has been… fraternizing… with a troubled woman less than half his age. Various neighbors, friends, family have called my mother with reports of his behavior, which include spending copious amounts of money (that he doesn’t have) on this woman and her child, buying her alcohol when she’s a known addict (previously arrested for controlled substances), letting her borrow my grandmother’s car, spending tons (all?) of her time at his home, & my mother suspects they went on a trip together.

    Additionally, I found out he propositioned his house keeper, which is horrific and I’m fairly certain illegal. I’ve wondered about asking her to press charges so he sees the problem with his behavior? This harassment in particular has really troubled me and I will be speaking with my mother on how this was handled (e.g., was she given pay for the weeks it will take her to replace the income, understand if she encouraged her to press charges). No one should be subject to that type of behavior. If that happened to me, I’d press charges.

    I’m incredibly hurt, repulsed, and disappointed. I don’t know what to do, how to help, etc.

    My grandfather had a stroke about a decade ago, but I don’t recall any changes in his behavior. I don’t recall him ever acting inappropriately, but I’m now questioning everything. My mother is a nurse and does not believe he has dementia, which honestly makes this worse. If he were mentally impaired it would be somewhat easier to understand.

    I hope no one else has gone through this, but looking for wisdom from this group.

    Aside from big feelings from a relationship perspective, my biggest concern is that he’ll give everything to this woman and will need long term care and my parents will feel they have to step in to pay. No one has the funds for their own care honestly, and I very likely will have to step in to help my parents outside of this debacle.

    1. You say your mom doesn’t believe he has dementia but maybe she’s too close to this to accurately assess and your grandfather needs to be seen by a neutral third party because huge personality shifts like this are almost always medical at that age.

      2. This

        There are lots of kinds of dementia that aren’t Alzheimer’s specifically that cause lack of inhibition, poor judgement, etc. And lots of non dementia medical conditions that *also* cause those. If your grandpa has a PCP he trusts, notifying the PCP of these behavior changes is a good idea (they can’t *tell* you about his care without his permission; but they can *listen* to you).

        To address your big picture concern about his future finances, the two paths are probably: is he willing to give your parents control over his financial accounts (and are your parents able and willing to take that on)? And if not, if you want to have an alternative ready to propose for when he needs long term care and can’t pay for it, look at Medicaid LTC requirements and spend down.

      3. I think you can push for an evaluation for dementia. You could also call whoever handles elder abuse in his area if you’re worried that what’s going on with the younger woman rises to elder abuse.

        If he is competent and not being abused, then consider what you can do to limit the fallout for yourself and your mom.

        Some people are going to make bad choices and there’s not much to do besides decide how much you’ll pick up the pieces.

    2. There’s nothing illegal here. You have a relational choice to make and so does your mother.

    3. He probably is mentally impaired and also being taken advantage of. That said, not much you can do about it. She will probably bleed him dry of accounts he has access to.

      I would spend less time being disappointed (because there’s a lot of “stuff” going on here and he’s a lonely old man with diminishing boundaries) and more time either getting him medical help or disengaging.

    4. I feel like I’m not following. Why is it dementia or non-medical? Couldn’t he just have had another stroke and be displaying TBI related behavioral changes?

    5. Gently, your grandmother is gone. If he wants to let someone else drive the care she used to drive, that’s ok. He’s allowed. People deal with loss differently. Same with the housekeeper. Proposition is a word that covers a lot. If he just asked her out or made inappropriate comments, that’s not illegal. Gross, yes. Not a reason to contact the police.

      That said, these are potentially signs of lack of capacity or dementia type changes. If he’s not been evaluated recently, that should be step one.

    6. My dad always said that if he gets dementia, to please cut ties, because people can become dirty and he doesn’t want us exposed to that. It’s a grim future to contemplate.

    7. You are getting really good advice about the potential for dementia. This type of behavior is an incredibly common symptom.

      But also, propositioning your housekeeper is not illegal. It might be sexual harassment and could subject him to a civil suit, but it is not a matter for the police unless he put his hands on her.

    8. You are trying to get your sick demented grandfather prosecuted for a sex crime? MY GOD WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

      2. The whole post was a bit lacking on care and concern, just anger. Maybe she’s in stages of grief—I’d give her some grace.

        1. IDK, if I believed that my relative were acting this way on purpose I’d certainly be angry. I’d probably feel that way even if I thought they had dementia.

          1. Feelings are what they are.

            But brain damage can make people act out of character or even specifically contrary to their character.

      3. lol. Yes, and definitely the burden to do so should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the housekeeper, who is obviously the most empowered person in this situation.

      4. Yea, this is really a weird post.

        OP, it’s ok to mourn an aging relative and cognitive decline. But, none of this strikes me as illegal. Just to pull out one example but that car is not your grandmother’s … it’s his.

        It could be dementia. It also could just be an elderly man who lost his spouse and is making choices that, while inconsistent with choices you’d hope he’d make for himself, he has every right to make as an adult with agency.

      5. And yet, she’s also worried someone else (the drug addict lady) will get her hands on his money. The civil suit for the sex harassment could clear out the money just as quickly. Geez.

    10. Civil and criminal law are different. It would be a high level of sexual harassment to involve the cops. Her best recourse would be a civil suit, maybe.

      But I think you should stay out of it; you’re trying to teach him a lesson and that will backfire.

  11. I have family pictures coming up soon. I always tend to wear jeans and a sweater, but I’ve gained a decent amount of weight since the last time we did photos and don’t feel great in my body. Would a dress be better? Or maybe light sweater + cute jacket or blazer for coverage + jeans? I want family pictures, but I also just want to hide away until I can lose the extra pounds.

    1. A dress is almost always more flattering, I’d go that route. Get Sue Sartor or similar so the dress also does some of the work.

        1. I wouldn’t play dress up for family photos. How about a vest to go over your usual jeans and sweater?

          4. Lots of people look great in vests. No one needs to look “current” for a family photo. Honestly.

        2. Try a solid color. It and you will fade into the background. And stand behind or between children.

        3. I feel you. our beloved family photog is great in every way except she pushes me every year to wear a long dress instead of jeans and a sweater. She swears it’s more flattering. I don’t believe her, but even if it is, it just doesn’t feel like me and I want to look like myself in our photos!

          1. My advice is change. Do both looks – start in jeans and change into a dress during the shoot (I used to assist photographers in college and people did this all the time). Then you see what you like best. It’s easy enough to change in or behind a car.

    2. I’d wear jeans and a black sweater that skims the body – so you feel natural in your clothes but they help you – and practice posing. It makes a huge difference.

    3. Color blocking is your best bet to look longer and slimmer in pictures. Don’t add a bunch of bulky items. Maybe dark wash jeans and a navy blue top with a cream or blush or some other contrasting color light jacket?

    4. Do you have clothes that fit your new body type? Depending on how your weight is distributed it could be needing wide leg jeans versus skinny, a flattering blouse instead of an oversized sweater, etc.

      If it’s in your budget, it’s a good excuse to get a new outfit that makes you feel great.

      In any case, I’ve found the Somerset dresses from Anthro to be universally flattering.

      1. I’m getting there, but it’s been a slow process. I agree that oversized anything isn’t working great for me, and some structure seems better.

    5. I think very simple outfits look best in photos. I’d go to a store like Nordstrom or Evereve where you can get some styling help and look at different silhouettes of sweaters and jeans. Don’t hide, just dress for the shape you have. IRL and on the fashion socials, wide-leg pants that are fitted at the top with waist-length sweaters that are neither super baggy nor super fitted seem to be quite flattering for the “I recently gained some weight” concern. Choosing the right colors, color values, and level of contrast will also work wonders. I look dumpy in an ashy pastel sweater, but the same sweater in black or navy looks sharp.

      The blogger JoLynne Shane does a great job of breaking down what works and doesn’t work for her as a middle-aged woman experiencing body changes. Her choices of colors and details have veered a bit frumpy lately, but her notes on proportions and balance are still spot-on.

      1. I have a heavy lower half. You’d think the wide legs would be a godsend, but they actually look pretty terrible on me! Especially in photos where there’s no movement. I can rock a bootcut or flare, which I realize isn’t as on trend, but they are so much more flattering. I agree with you that simple is usually best.

        2. Same. I like a good flare, too. Sorry you are going through this. Also sorry you are getting advice for tops that “skim your body.” At my heaviest, the idea of this sleeved me out. I’m not trying to have something “skim” my lumpy bits.

          1. sorry for the word choice above, but I mean a substantial knit with some structure, as opposed to a soft stretchy sweater. Like, there are some sweaters that disguise when I’m bloated and my jeans waistband is giving me a mini muffin… and there’s a lot that don’t!

    6. I’m wearing the Quince side tie midi dress in mine. I find it to be very flattering (size up). I also really like the Spanx Air Essentials collared tie waist midi dress.

      1. I will look at both of those! Midi length seems to work well, so if I’m going to be a dress, it’s going to be something simple in that length.

  12. Any suggestions for restaurants in the Baltimore Waterfront area for work dinners? I’ll be traveling for a conference there soon and will probably have some staff join me for dinner in the area.

    1. not waterfront but had a corporate thing at Woodberry Kitchen (Tavern?) and really enjoyed.

    2. Charelston (Harbor East)
      Twist (Fells)
      The Black Olive (Fells)
      Barcocina (Fells) — pretty informal
      Little Donna’s (Upper Fells)
      Cindy Lou’s Fish House (Harbor East)

  13. We’re headed to the Grand Canyon and Zion for fall break next week, but just learned that our reservations for hotel and dinner at El Tovar are cancelled due to the flooding last month and damage at the south rim. We really don’t want to skip the GC, as it’s a bucket list item for the whole family. Any off the beaten path suggestions for lodging and food? The alternatives we got from the reservation company were all full.

    2. I don’t know if you can get a reservation under these circumstances, but the Grand Hotel right outside of the GC was really nice.

    3. Cameron Trading Post! It’s about 30 minutes away from the south entrance to the park but it’s adorable, on a Navajo reservation, with a very cool store, restaurant, etc. Just a great vibe. I’ve stayed there a few times. And it’s pet-friendly, or at least it used to be. Just be careful about time zones – IIRC even though AZ doesn’t observe daylight savings, the hotel does (see: on a Navajo reservation) so you can get tripped up on timing for things that are off the reservation, if you’re not careful.

    4. The last time we went, we did an AirBnB in Flagstaff. It’s a cute little college-y town and while it’s not super-close to the GC, it’s close enough and you’ll be doing a bunch of driving anyway.

      1. This is a good suggestion. It’s not a super long drive (~1 hr 30 minutes) and it’s a pretty drive.

    5. We live in Phoenix and stay at the Grand Canyon every year to cut down our Christmas tree. We typically stay at the Bright Angel Lodge and do dinner at El Tovar.

      Staying on the rim is fabulous for the views, but the rooms themselves aren’t exciting.

      While I’ve never stayed there, I’ve been eying the Grand Hotel in Tusayan. It’s updated, has restaurants on site and doesn’t seem to be limited by the same water restrictions.

      https://www.grandcanyongrandhotel.com/

    6. I just saw your comment that the Grand Hotel is full.

      Another option would be to stay in Winslow at the Trailborne. It’s about a 2.5 hour drive, but there’s good food options in Winslow, an alpine coaster and feeding deer for kids and you get to do some of the cool route 66 stuff.

    7. Our reservation at Maswik this weekend was also canceled. We just arrived at Red Feather Lodge this evening and are happy with it. Good reviews on TripAdvisor and close enough that we won’t spend all our time driving.

  14. Coping strategies for being patient with people who are slow or waste your time? Like a spouse who will not just spit out what they are trying to say, or someone who keeps interrupting a meeting to ask stupid questions?

    1. For the spouse, I think when they ask for a divorce, you agree. Or do them a favor and suggest it yourself.
      For the meeting, I think you spend the time denigrating them in your mind and thinking of (or even write ng down) all the ways you are better than they are. You probably have this down so just keep it up.

    3. Accept it as a part of life. We are all annoying in our own unique way. You, too. We just have to give each other grace—we’re all trying to get by in the world. And remind yourself that you love your spouse. It’s ok to be cranky sometimes, and then you get over it and recognize the humanity in others.

    4. Caffeinate less.

      We’re all going to die eventually. Do you want to spend your mortality being so annoyed by the brief mortalities of others?

    6. Gently, and not facetiously: therapy. Maybe you are justified in your annoyance, maybe not. Either way, therapy can help provide you with healthy coping strategies.

    7. My coping strategy is ignoring them, finding my zen and trying to focus on what their good qualities are, the skills they do have that make me CRAWL if that would be my duty.

      It works well for colleagues. For a spouse, you’re on your own.

  15. Since we’re on colleges, I know several couples where they met when the guy was some sort of teacher / professor and the wife was a student in his class. I wasn’t a fellow student of the wife and didn’t ever had the guy as a professor and have met these people as an established adult couple. It seems terribly common and seems so icky, but maybe because it’s common they mutually treat it as normal. Yes? No?

    1. It’s super gross, and while it was ok-ish a few decades ago, this would not be looked upon the same way today. IMO.

      Source: work at a university

      1. People are allowed to fall in love. Presumably they are adults and can hold in their feelings until the semester is over. I’m ok with people meeting this way.

      2. I am here to tell you it was SUPER common many years ago. I graduated from law school in 1988 and three women out of my class of about 160 ended up marrying professors whose students they’d been. And in two cases there was a huge age gap. Nobody (nobody who mattered, anyway) batted an eye back then — or if they did, it was because of the ages and not because of the teacher/student relationships. If anything, it was seen as a feather in the cap of both parties.

        That said, I thought it was gross then and I think it’s gross now. I certainly hope it’s much less common.

        1. Law and med students have always been a little different than undergrad and PhD students. While I agree it’s still problematic and is certainly frowned upon now, professional students are much more adult than undergrads are, and the professor has much less direct control of the students career than a PhD advisor does.

        2. Weird reaction, I went to law school when I was 30 and dated a professor at the school who was 35. I didn’t take his class but what, I’m not allowed to date someone my own age as a consenting adult? So odd here.

          1. It’s not about the age gap, it’s about the power dynamic. It’s less inappropriate if the professor doesn’t and won’t have the student in class but there’s still a big power differential. It’s on the professor to avoid it, not the student, and at least today most professors would not date a current student at their institution. Staying in touch and beginning a relationship after the student graduates is more normalized.

    2. I’m in my mid 40s (finished my PhD 15 years ago) and it still seems to be unfortunately common among women my age. When I was on the faculty job market, I interviewed in one department where there were three senior faculty members with second wives my age who had been students in the department (and had now been given faculty jobs of some kind, some tenure track, some not). I didn’t get that job, but I was kind of glad I didn’t! Like you, I’ve only encountered these couples once they’re established (and after the student graduated), but I would be shocked if any of these universities were actually allowing professors to date their students in the 2000s (mine definitely wasn’t) and would have been pretty skeeved out if I’d known about it.

      1. And for people who don’t understand grad school, your Ph.D advisor is basically a forever conflict of interest because even after a student graduates, you co-author papers and write letters of recommendation for years. It’s not fair to the student to view them romantically rather than professionally and it’s not fair to the other students in the lab or the department to have a student you’re treating favorably. And that’s assuming everything goes well, and is mutually desired, which obviously isn’t always going to be the case. You’d need to wait at least five years after graduation before this would be fair to consider, and even then it would still feel icky to me

        1. I think I actually don’t know any couples where it was a PhD advisor! That would really be a big deal.

      2. It 100% creates a gross environment including for the other grad students. DH couldn’t wait to get out of his PhD University dept. One prof had helped a masters student who really was underqualified get into her program. They were dating and even though he wasn’t her direct supervisor, he was 100% involved in getting her into the program. And the dept head was dating another prof who was his former PhD student and the timeline of when they started dating compared to when she passed her dissertation and got hired as a prof was an open secret. This was early 2000s so hopefully things have improved.

        1. Totally agree that it creates a terrible environment for the other grad students — exhibit A: notice how your DH told you the women involved couldn’t possibly have been qualified on their own merits. I hope he’s examined his own biases since the early 2000s.

    3. I’m certain it was a scandal and was talked about at the time.

      There are some nuances here though. (Undergrad or doctoral student? Did they literally meet when she took his class or were they already in the same department? Did he recuse himself from all departmental business surrounding her?) If it’s true love and everyone is an adult, a lot of people will do the right things to avoid a conflict of interest even if there is still “they met at work” drama.

      The ickier common situation is when the teacher/professor is cycling through students who may not even know about the ones before them (they think they’re in the true love situation, but he’s going to fall in love again with a new student as soon as this one graduates).

    5. My husband is a college professor. Dating any undergrad or a grad student in the same department is not normal or acceptable at all today and at most universities would be grounds for discipline up to and including termination. It was more normalized in the past. The only people we know whose spouses are their former students are over the age of 70.

    6. It was common enough when I was in college in the 90s but we all thought it was a little gross. No one really conceived of it as illegal or predatory, at least at the time.

      1. I was also in college in the ’90s (possibly the same one, given your user name) and I definitely thought of professor-student relationships as improper and predatory back then! Especially at a women’s college, where you could imagine a dirty old man professor taking a job for the deliberate purpose of finding young girls.

        On the other hand, back then it was also popular to study the novel Lolita and to assert that it was not problematic but just edgy.

    7. maybe extra super gross: this was more or less what all my friends expected me to do when i went to college! everyone thought i’d end up married to a professor. at the time it seemed like a complement, like oh she’s so sophisticated… but nowadays, well.

    8. I dated a Ph.D student when I was an undergrad in the early 2000’s. We met because he was my teacher for a required undergraduate class. We did not start dating until the class was over and grades were in, but it was clear he was interested well before then. Our lives took different paths–he finished his Ph.D and took a tenured professor job out of state and I got accepted to law school in a different state.

    9. I graduated in 2016 and a prof was dating a student so take that for what you will. This is a world class institution.

      1. One of my professors was married to a student and I still don’t think it was an issue. She wasn’t HIS student, she was as in another department completely and they were age appropriate.

        At some point I think adults get to make their own choices and I am
        It here to police the decisions of adult women (say over 25) unless the organization’s conflict of interest rules apply.

        1. Yes, this doesn’t bother me.

          Conversely some of the power dynamics in some departments and fields of academia bother me even if no one is dating!

    10. Way less icky than the high school teacher I know who waited until his student graduated to ask her out. They got married before she started college, had 3 or 4 kids, and she left him for someone else closer to her own age.

  16. middle sized middle aged women. needs decent work pants. happy to get the same pants in a few colors. what is better than ann taylor? i”m willing to spend 200-300 if theyre really decent quality

    1. Anthro’s Colette comes in multiple lengths and colors, and I find it to be a flattering cut.
      Eileen Fisher’s crepe pants are back to being available in full length. They’re incredibly comfortable and versatile, but they are obviously pretty basic.
      Reiss has always served me well, but I only buy them when I find them on sale.
      If you can hit a sale, Vince has beautiful pants. I just bought a pair of their Colette bias crepe in a sale color. They are so pretty, although I need them hemmed a bit before I can wear them.
      AT pants have never fit me very well, so if they fit you, these recs might not be very helpful. Even at different sizes, AT is tight on my thighs no matter the cut or how they fit elsewhere.

    3. Lots of places are better than Ann Taylor, but not that many options are substantially better quality at $200. Personally, I think Banana Republic has more trouser options made of good fabrics, but you need to shop in person.
      If I were still working in an office, I’d want to buy all of my trousers at Vince (that’s closer to $450 full price).
      Other mall/high street brands to consider: COS has good design/materials for the price. Aritzia crepette trousers are pretty great. JMcLaughlin is very preppy but well made and in your price range; they have basic work trousers in a range of colors.

    5. I like my quince full length ponte flares ~$50. Also a huge fan of my wool trousers from Sezane ~180.

    6. Are you struggling with fit or with quality?

      If fit, you just need to shop around to figure out which brand fits you best (for me, AT is not a good match but Banana works really well and JCrew depends on the cut).

Comments are closed.