Frugal Friday’s Workwear Report: Stripe Rib Polo 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.
Our daily workwear reports suggest one piece of work-appropriate attire in a range of prices.
I’ve been looking for a few things to wear to the various summer outings that will inevitably pop up on my work calendar over the next few months. I work in a pretty casual industry, but I’d rather wear something that’s a little more elevated than the company-branded polo that many of my male colleagues go for.
This striped polo sweater will be perfect for the picnics, baseball games, and happy hours headed my way this summer. Pair it with ankle pants and your favorite “work sneakers” and you’re ready for anything!
The sweater is $27.97 at Nordstrom Rack and comes in sizes XXS-XL.
Sales of note for 5/16/25:
- Nordstrom Rack – Looking for a deal on a Dyson hairdryer? The Rack has several refurbished ones for $199-$240 (instead of $400+) — but they're final sale only.
- Ann Taylor – Suit Yourself! 30% off suiting (ends tonight) + 25% off your full price purchase (ends 5/18) + extra 40% off sale
- Nordstrom – Beauty Deals up to 25% off (ends 5/17) — also lots of markdowns on AGL (50%!), Weitzman, Tumi, Frank & Eileen, Zella, Natori, Cole Haan, Boss, Theory, Reiss (coats), Vince, Eileen Fisher, Spanx, and Frame (denim and silk blouses)
- Banana Republic Factory – 50% off everything + extra 20% off
- Boden – 10% off new women's styles with code + sale up to 50% off
- Eloquii – Up to 60% off everything + extra 60% off sale + $1 shipping on all orders
- J.Crew – 60% off sale, and 40% off packing picks (prices as marked)
- J.Crew Factory – New arrivals, plus up to 60% off everything and 20% off orders of $125+
- M.M.LaFleur – Daily flash sales, and lots of twill suiting on sale! Try code CORPORETTE15 for 15% off.
- Rothy's – Up to 50% off last-chance styles
- Spanx – Free shipping on everything
- Talbots – 30% off dresses, skirts, shoes and accessories
Has anyone bought all or part of a (butchered) cow? DH and I came across a local-ish farm that sells beef by the quarter, half, or whole cow. The price for a whole cow would definitely be worth the storage inconvenience, but the price for a quarter cow probably is not. Two other couples are interested in a quarter cow each, so that would leave us with half a cow. It’s just the two of us and we eat red meat maybe twice a week, but we also entertain a lot (DH smokes a lot of meat). I just don’t want to have frozen beef for the next 5 years. For anyone who has bought beef by the cow – how much of the cow did you get? How long did it take you to use it? Would you do it again?
When i looked into it I was grossed out by the huge variety of things you get – we tend to be a 93% lean family/filet mignon family and even the ground meat that was included was 80%. You should ask if you buy a cow and quarter it if there will be enough for 4 equal divisions – there may not be.
This makes no sense to me. Some parts are cool, but others are icky? It’s all the same dead animal.
Uh, that’s life? Do you kiss your partner’s lips and armpits with equal measure because it’s “all the same animal”? Some parts are icky.
It’s not unusual to like certain cuts better than others. The universe of people who enjoy a steak is larger than those who like tail or tongue. Maybe you want those pieces, but not everyone does.
Access, freezer space, and up-front costs aside, that is one reason why many people only buy certain cuts rather than a whole or partial cow.
Same. My family is pretty picky when it comes to cuts. I always want a filet my husband always wants a strip steak. That said, it my understanding that one of the perks of a cow share is that it forces you to get creative and try new cuts and recipes.
With regard to freezing, I suspect lots of the meat I eat has been frozen and I’m not sure I can tell. Butcher box steaks were frozen and they were a hit.
It’s a good point on the division. We want to make sure our friends’ expectations are in line with what they’ll get.
DH gets real fancy when it comes to meat. He had a chest freezer and smoker before I met him. He also had a butcher box subscription just for himself (!) and does amazing things with even low quality meat. He dry ages his own steaks. I have zero concern that he can make good use of whatever we get!
Sounds like you are the perfect family to try this then. Your husband will really enjoy it.
If financially you can swing it, just get the 1/2, and entertain a lot this summer!
Congratulations on having a life of such privilege. 80% ground is fine and is what I go for to add fat and richness to beans and pastas. You sound like an incredibly limited person.
OP, a lot of people will split a cow share with friends.
I only use 80% for burgers and don’t personally need the saturated fat at this time in my life (I miss being younger when no amount of saturated fat seemed to budge my lipids!). But if the cost saving on half a cow were substantial, I wouldn’t mind draining off the excess grease before adding other ingredients to a chili or soup.
80% ground is fine for so many things and makes life a little tastier.
This is so snarky! Really, no need to be so judgy even if you feel that way.
Only here could someone post that they prefer leaner beef and someone manages to make it about privilege.
I mean, they used the language “grossed out”
I’m the 93/filet person – we’re trying to eat less red meat in general so if we’re going to have the very occasional steak I’d rather it be what I want. Reading How Not to Die right now which is really hammering home the problems with carnivorous diet.
Oof, I am sorry you are missing out on taste.
My parents went in on half a cow with friends and “somehow” they ended up with all the ground beef and no steaks. Some friends!
Wow, I would have been so angry…
Unless you have some amazing freezer situation, I wouldn’t do this. As it is, freezing meat just isn’t that great compared to getting it fresh. If I’m entertaining, I’m not going to the freezer to pull out meat. And if it’s just the two of you, that will take forever to get through. Just go get a couple of steaks when you’re in the mood from the butcher.
I think a dedicated freezer would be necessary for that quantity of meat!
I would be very surprised if I could tell the different between smoked meat that had some point previously been frozen vs. meat that never had been.
But even for steak, those frozen ButcherBox steaks can be quite good.
Yes it is. My parents do this routinely and need a chest freezer for all the beef. Alternatively the butcher can store it for you in some places, for a fee of course, but it cuts down on the savings and the convenience.
I’ve eaten a lot of beef in my life and I’ve never noticed poor quality from frozen beef that is packaged properly. Even stuff that is more than a year old thawed just fine into a bright red color?
It’s just a pain in the neck to deal with it. I do find a quality difference over time too, you’re not meant to freeze things for years.
Certainly it’s best when used within six months to a year. My point was mostly that meat properly packaged by a butcher and stored in a chest freezer OP mentioned shouldn’t experience significant quality degradation when it’s thawed.
Our small chest freezer just went up so we’re replacing it as soon as Memorial Day sales come around. We talked to the farm to make sure the new freezer will be big enough.
For the two of us, we always figured a half cow would be too much, but we don’t entertain a lot. The meat lasts a lot longer in good condition in a real freezer.
It’s fine and what most people do where I live (or they process one or their own), but it doesnt sound like you eat enough beef to be worth it. You would need a dedicated freezer.
Much of it is stewing cuts (makes sense because that’s what much of the animal is), which is great if you do a lot of braises.
Yes! We buy a half each year direct from a farmer and it is processed by a small town butcher. You can customize the packages and sizes of everything, which is nice. Any cuts we don’t prefer to have we ask the butcher to toss into the hamburger. If you’re more likely to eat beef stew than just roast beef, have more pre-cut into stew meat and ask for bones to make broth.
Have a good chat with the butcher on each cut and the options for it, like tenderizing round steaks to make those easier to use up and not be dry as a boot. Some butchers will also pre-form your hamburgers so it’s quick and ready to go.
A half will fit in a small-ish chest freezer and a quarter will mostly fit in a large fridge freezer that is completely empty.
Lastly, not all beef is the same. It’s good to know what flavor profile of beef you prefer and purchase that profile. My preference is slow pasture raised with a bit of corn finishing at the end. Most farmers are happy to chat at length about their practices and herds.
Great advice.
I have not bought this amount at one time, but regularly get grassfed meat from a small farm that keep a small herd of grazing, neutred bulls. I buy mince, cuts, stock bones and fat all delivered frozen. The quality and taste is a lot better than supermarket fresh, surprisingly so.
Neutered bull = steer
Signed, former FFA lifer!
If your DH is into smoking meat, I wouldn’t hesitate to get half a cow. He knows what to do with it, and it’ll get eaten.
So we live in the country and have local farms but we just go buy meat from them whenever we’re going to make it. It’s so much easier to store the cow at the store, so to speak, than to take it home.
My dad’s side of the family are all cattle ranchers – buying half a cow is more normal to me than buying meat at the grocery store! Yeah, you need plenty of freezer space. If you’re worried about quality degrading as it sits in the freezer, spring to get the meat vacuum packed and it lasts twice as long. It’s important to know what to do with all the cuts you’re going to get. It’s my favorite way to eat beef, as there’s a lot more knowledge about where it came from and the conditions it was raised in. I haven’t gotten more than a quarter cow with just my husband and me, simply because we can’t eat through it that fast. A quarter cow takes us through most of a year, and we eat beef about once a week, a big enough meal that there’s usually leftovers for lunch the next day. We never host though.
My housemate did this. Turned out he didn’t like grass-fed beef, so we then ended up having a ton of beef in a freezer we all paid utilities for. Until another roommate unplugged the freezer to iron a shirt. Then it remained unplugged for several weeks. Then we wondered what smelled like dead animal in our basement. It was a forking fiasco. NEVER AGAIN.
Just watched the newest Stacy London show yesterday – what are everyone’s thoughts? It was so good to see them again, like old friends almost. But I’m not sure it’s that different from the early 2000s version apart from Stacy very obviously stopping herself from describing something as flattering or camouflaging.
I just don’t see how this would work in this day and age. If we’re not worried about what’s flattering or camouflaging, then why not just let everyone wear what the F they want?
For me, one purpose beyond flattering or camouflage is expressing myself with fashion and style and/or participating in fashion and trends because I enjoy it, it’s like art. I want to know what looks are trending, how to interpret them for the over-30 crowd, different versions of trends, and get ideas on how to combine colors or proportions or pieces that I might not have thought of myself.
Another aspect is aside from what’s flattering is what looks cohesive and polished while still being interesting/alt/expressive/artsy–like what separates a frumpy outfit from a cool artsy lagenlook outfit (beside being model-tall and slim!) –what details and proportions and tweaks could I make that can take casual options or interesting pieces in a more polished/cohesive direction?
What’s bad about camouflaging or wanting to find things that are flattering?
Is it a crime to want to look good in this era?
The body positivity police will come for you
Apparently.
Yes, at least among the chronically online.
I’m mostly annoyed that Amazon’s shop the look links do not include the exact pieces from the show, and are instead the Amazon dupes.
I’m sick of links to Amazon fashion in general. That’s pretty much the last place I want to spend my money on clothing. I want to buy from brands that have an actual name and some sort of quality record, not the random suppliers all over Amazon.
Right?? I don’t want cheap, crappy Amazon clothes ever.
Super agree–rayon, flowy nylon…cheap, cheap, cheap. I do not dress like that. There’s a time in one’s life when you want juniors cuts, and juniors fabrics. I’m past it.
And I highly object to the dupes. It seems wrong. All fashion is derivative, but exact copies are exploitative.
I watched one episode. The one where the mom of teens wanted Paris Hilton style.
It seemed so outdated to me. We are not really in an era where people dress up like that, at least in my west coast life.
Maybe future episodes will hit me better. But the show feels a bit forced to me, especially the pretend camaraderie between Stacy and Clinton.
I watched that same episode and found it enjoyable but kind of exhausting. Had no need to click “next episode.”
Last year I was at a party with Stacy London and she was STUNNING in person. Like, in that way where all the energy in the room went to her.
That’s my only contribution to this thread but I felt it an important one :)
Wow that’s awesome. Thank you for your important contribution!!
I think the later episodes where they help people who really wanted to experiment with new styles for a new life were better than the first ones. It’s interesting that we have a million home and food shows but not style shows. It’s nice to see people who just want to experiment have a chance to do that versus focusing on what’s current.
There’s nothing for the stylists to do on this show! They can’t criticize, they can’t offer much feedback, they’re just glorified personal shoppers.
I would watch Stacy & Clinton read the phone book, but this show bummed me out. I miss learning from them.
It’s tempting to just check out all the time (and that’s what Trump wants), but I feel compelled to post that a dead woman in Georgia, Adriana Smith, is being kept “alive” on machines to give her fetus time to grow and to not violate the state’s abortion laws. My friends and I had a gallows humor talk on this subject months ago, but reality sure isn’t funny. Please consider calling your reps today, going to a protest this weekend, and/or donating money to organizations trying to help women.
Actually, it has nothing to do with the state’s abortion laws. It’s an advance directive law that precedes Dobbs and many pro-choice states, such as Michigan, Washington State, and Wisconsin have on the books.
Whether or not you agree with those laws, they aren’t abortion laws. It’s literally an entirely different section of the state code, one dealing with estate planning and not abortion.
That is incorrect. Emory Healthcare cited the state’s antiabortion law when explaining its refusal to allow Smith to pass naturally to the family. Nice try though.
Due to HIPAA, can Emory really even discuss this? I am not sure that we know what we think we know.
From the Guardian: “Emory Healthcare said it could not comment on an individual case because of privacy rules, but released a statement saying it “uses consensus from clinical experts, medical literature, and legal guidance to support our providers as they make individualized treatment recommendations in compliance with Georgia’s abortion laws and all other applicable laws…
Smith’s family says Emory doctors have told them they are not allowed to stop or remove the devices that are keeping her breathing because state law bans abortion after cardiac activity can be detected in the fetus – generally around six weeks into pregnancy.”
Which is a nothingburger of a statement for what is happening here. For all we know, her next of kin situation is murky and they may be in disagreement with each other or may agree with the hospital or are insisting on this. We do not actually know from this.
That’s not true. Unless you have a clear health care proxy or next of kin in total agreement, you get the same outcome without the law because either the family wants this or there is disagreement. End of life snafus happens every single day, not just with pregnant women, all over the US, even in states with different laws. If you care about health care proxies, put your energy there.
The family isn’t even suing here. There is an unrelated lawsuit challenging the GA law and the funder of it is who is being noisy here, not the family. Many families chose this, not because they actively want it, but because of disagreements about care or paralysis. It’s not Emory being the bad guy.
That poor woman, literally an incubator.
Right it’s almost like a womb is just a commodity
IDK — if I were at 33 weeks and the baby was progressing, I’d really keep me alive another few weeks until the baby’s lungs matured.
She was 21 weeks pregnant.
But Adriana was 9 weeks when she was declared brain dead, which is very different. The fetus is showing signs of distress now, including fluid in the brain.
Correction, 21 weeks pregnant at the time of this reporting.
I just don’t think that people are thinking about this when they have end of life discussions. IDK how you draft even knowing about these facts.
From the article I read, I understood it to be 21 weeks right now, but she’s been on life support for 3 months. So the fetus was 21wks minus 3 months along at time of event.
Also sounded like family has not reached consensus on what to do, so she has just been kept alive.
I feel like way too many people are veering into stigmatizing the medicine involved instead of the injustice involved in this exact case.
So just to be really clear: it’s actually awesome and good that the brain death of a mother doesn’t always have to mean the demise of a fetus, thanks to modern medicine, and it’s okay to choose this. It’s not some kind of inherently abhorrent human rights violation in every scenario.
Turning a woman into an incubator is abhorrent
No, it’s not. If something happened to me and I became brain dead when pregnant, I would want my family to keep me on life support until my child could survive on its own.
I’m completely pro-choice. But that also means that I get to choose to keep my fetus/child alive.
You are being willfully obtuse. The hospital is forcing this. Smith didn’t choose it. Her family didn’t choose it. It’s being thrust upon them because of horrific anti-woman laws.
Due to HIPAA, do we really know anything here? I am not sure how they can really even discuss specifics. And with what anyone else says outside of a court opinion, I’m not sure I’m buying everything 100%. If you had asked my sister about my mom’s wishes or documentation, you could have gotten a mouthful and a lot of yelling and no actual documents, which is likely why she wasn’t on a HCPOA and didn’t have a copy of her advance directive. And that was much less fraught than this.
Losing the freedom to make that choice for yourself or your dead loved one is abhorrent.
It’s not the hospital forcing this then. The law is the law and their hands appear to be tied, or no one with a medical license to lose wants to FAFO. Maybe the family could get her transferred somewhere out of state, but I wouldn’t want to be the ambulance service they called for the transport or the receiving facility. Maybe people should just demand that they be left on top of a mountain (etc.) to die and insist that no one come and try to help. Life is just a big mess at times. [And the family could insist on this in the absence of the law, especially if it’s unclear who has decision power or if there is disagreement.]
And I have relatives who think that getting cremated is immoral. But that’s why we have advanced directives and wills, so that we each get to decide for ourselves what happens to us after we die.
She didn’t choose it. The hospital is forcing it.
I understand. But some women do choose this, and broadly stigmatizing the choice is different from focusing on what’s really wrong in this situation.
I would be fascinated to know where you stood on last week’s discussion. I don’t disagree with you, in your example or with surrogacy.
No one is stigmatizing the choice – make sure your family knows what you want, then. We are outraged that a family that a family is suffering immensely, unable to grieve and facing down enormous medical bills as well as the possible birth of a medically-fragile infant.
I am still thinking about the organ donation analogy! So long as organs are donated and not sold, is it consistent to have people rent organs out for cash vs. making surrogacy available on a donation basis? A lot of people are uncomfortable with creating a scenario where people of means buy spare kidneys from people who are just desperate for cash, even if we know there are people who would have donated anyway. I feel confident there are surrogates who would have volunteered anyway.
I don’t see how you can be so focused on protecting people’s choices, but not see how the hospital in this case is forcing a choice on the family. Your ‘what about people who see it differently?’ is distracting from the case at hand. This isn’t about them.
The law ties (or ostensibly ties) the hands of every hospital and doctor in Georgia. How is this the hospital’s fault exactly? And it’s federal law not to turn away emergencies (or pregnant woman in labor), so once she showed up there, she wasn’t going anywhere absent family or a decision-maker choosing to move her, not that the outcome would be different.
Could her family choose to move her to a different hospital? Also who is paying for 3+ months of life support? Are they making her carry to 40 weeks or taking baby before then?
Planning to take baby around 32 weeks. The family is financially responsible, which to me is the most reprehensible part. Forcing a person to be kept bodily alive means the hospital or state should eat the cost!
How can the family be responsible? Pregnancy emancipates a minor and she doesn’t seem to be married. I think that this point, she is likely medicaid-eligible and/or indigent and the taxpayers will be paying and the balance written off.
The hospital should absolutely be forced to eat all costs – including NICU. They are overriding her family’s decision. Their insurance would pay to defend them if the state sued them, their insurance should pay for the consequences of their decision to NOT fight the state law too.
I agree. The hospital and state should be forced to bear every single cost. They’re the ones forcing this horrific scenario.
IF it’s state law, it’s not really the hospital deciding. All hospitals and doctors have that rule. I bet Emory regrets that they showed up at its doors.
Someone pls read the articles — we don’t even know what the family wants here, but it seems that Emory isn’t the bad guy, if there even is one here.
It is unlikely that insurance will pay for this. The woman, who is the insured party, is being kept on life support with no medical necessity. The fetus is not covered until birth.
She didn’t chose it, but the hospital isn’t forcing it. The law is. And she didn’t chose to avoid this through an advance directive (or perhaps her advance directive is full code / chosing to live mechanically) or from being actually presented with This Exact Choice.
I don’t understand why we keep repeating that the hospital’s actions are based on the law, as some sort of rebuttal? That’s exactly what the OP highlighted, and suggested calling upon lawmakers to intervene?
Yeah, I’m very pro choice and obviously take issue with the fact that this is being forced, but it is interesting that the family hasn’t said that they want her removed from life support, just that they should be able to chose, which I agree with. I could certainly see being in this situation and wanting to be kept alive for the sake of my baby (and I don’t have kids and would have an abortion without a second thought if I did get pregnant so I’m certainly not in the baby incubator camp generally).
From the interview I saw with the mom/grandma, it sounded like they would choose to remove lifesupport, if given the option. They are very concerned about the practicalities of this – the huge hospital bill for continuing life support, the hospital bill for a NICU stay, and then the potential for a lifelong disability and care costs for the child. If our country is going to force this, the least they could do is provide healthcare and disability coverage. But no. It’s almost like they just care about punishing women…
Yeah, in this case it seems like there’s her mother speaking out, but there’s also the father of the baby, who may have different feelings? And isn’t married to the mother, so that probably makes the legal decision making harder. Plus it’s complicated by how early she still is in pregnancy, which increases the risk to the kid. This had the potential to be a messy case even without the abortion laws, I just wanted to stand up for the position that it’s not as simple as saying that keeping a woman alive as an “incubator” is abhorrent, though it should always be a choice.
The father’s opinion has no bearing on the conversation. They’re not married. There’s no medical directive in his favor. The couple knew she was pregnant, if they wanted him to be her next of kin or have medical POA then they would’ve executed the appropriate documents. They didn’t. That means her family gets to decide. It’s abhorrent that their decision is being overridden by the interests of a fetus.
I think you already know that couples don’t execute the appropriate documents to name someone next of kin or have medical POA when it’s what they did in fact want far more often than they actually get around to doing that.
No, they don’t execute POAs, they get married.
This couple didn’t get married because they didn’t want to be family. That decision should be respected.
There are good odds that that is true! But do you really not know any couples who only hadn’t gotten married yet when they started a family because they were planning a huge wedding and saving up for it for years? In my world, people who have to save up for years to pay for a wedding often don’t have wills or other legal documents since lawyers cost money too. Yes this creates bad situations when unexpected tragedies happen.
If she was only 9 weeks pregnant when she went on life support then they knew for, at most, 7 weeks, and probably less than that.
Technically, it’s impossible to know you’re pregnant at 2 weeks because that’s still before conception! It’s pretty much impossible to detect a pregnancy before about 3.5 weeks.
IDK who even is the family here. Is she married? Because I understand the hierarchy as:
Durable health care power of attorney
POLST
Living will only if no one can be found
Spouse if married
What do you do when there are parents or adult (or a mix of adult and minor children or only minor children) children or siblings but no unifying voice?
It is a mess under better circumstances, which this isn’t.
And we routinely pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in end-of-life futile care, especially when it’s unclear what a patient’s wishes are or in spite of a HCPOA and advance directive, a facility insists on a POLST but wants the patient and not the HCPOA person to sign it, along with a new-to-them doctor who is really pressed for time.
maybe that’s the answer, that without any of the people in the hierarchy then she/the baby is a ward of the state
Even if her family would choose to take her off of life support if they had the option, saying so risks too much harm. In the event that this pregnancy produces a child, imagine how painful it would be for that child to see new stories quoting his or her family members stating that they wished to end the pregnancy.
This isn’t about whether they wish to “end the pregnancy.” This is about whether they want a brain-dead family member to be kept alive. Period.
Anon: Yes, I understand that. My point is that a child would not understand that. The family has to consider how their words will be viewed by a ten year old, 15 year old, etc.
That’s BS. If they wanted to take her off life support and were able to do so, there wouldn’t be a 15 year old to ever worry about.
This comment is discussing why the family—that currently is being told that they do not have the right to choose to take her off of life support—may not be comfortable voicing their desire to remove her from life support. It is highlighting that the family could be choosing to avoid the outcome of the hospital forcing the pregnancy to continue, the pregnancy resulting in a child, and that child seeing new stories stating that their family members would have chosen to end the pregnancy.
Who is 15 here? She is 30. With a BF and a child already.
It sounds good, right – just keep her on life support and the miracle baby is born. But, despite modern medicine, she’s not just an incubator that can easily grow a baby . Her organs aren’t able to function on their own and the fetus isn’t developing normally. In documented medical literature, in a majority of cases like this, the result is not a baby born alive. I think most to all (?) of the babies born from these situations had longer to develop before the mother’s brain death yet even in those better situations there were still serious lifelong side effects. So they’re basically torturing these people, saddling them with medical debt that they don’t want, the fetus will very likely die, and if it somehow manages to be born will very likely have severe, lifelong complications.
I agree that this is not likely to be happen in this case, but in situations with better odds, there have been good outcomes before (miracle babies as you say) without serious lifelong side effects.
It’s such a slippery slope. The guardian article says the fetus has fluid on its brain and may not survive birth. I’m passingly aware that some surgeries can be done in utero. I have no idea whether fluid on the brain is one of them but let’s for a moment posit that it is. If mom is brain dead then who gets to make the decision about “life saving” surgery for the fetus that is extremely invasive to mom? If her family can’t choose to remove her from life support then can they choose to decline surgery? Who gets stuck with that bill?
And also this story is such a good example of why anti-abortion laws are nonsensical. If your living, already born child were on life support then you could choose to remove life support. But you can’t choose to remove life support for your unborn child (the life support being your own body), apparently even if your body requires life support to continue operating. It makes no sense for the “life” of a fetus to be elevated above every other human life.
In my view, unless the mother left specific instructions in a legal document saying she should be kept “alive” in this circumstance, then the default should 100% be removing life support. She never consented to this. That’s all that matters, and it doesn’t really matter that she probably didn’t think of this scenario in advance. Because she didn’t, we (society) cannot make such an enormous assumption for her.
But how do you decide what the default assumption should be? If she’s truly dead and gone, how is she being harmed? If she’s an organ donor, does this not count?
She’s not an incubator!
Apparently she is though! I feel like you’re stigmatizing all pregnancy at this point. This is where babies come from.
Ahh!! We do not abuse people’s bodies even if they are “truly dead and gone.”
I don’t believe you honestly think that this “counts” as organ donation.
For me, this incubator is shorthand for more than the process of bringing a baby to term. It’s comparing a human being with an inanimate object and implies that pregnant women are robbed of dignity and respect.
A pregnant lady gets to decide what is comfortable to her, whether to drink coffee, when to exercise, work late or take it easy. A mom chooses whether breastfeeding is working, and should be able to balance the needs of all family members, including her own.
Obviously children must be protected from harm, and people choosing to be parents have a certain amount of obligation to prioritize the child. But when a discussion extremely de-prioritizes women’s well being to achieve some perceived optimal outcome for the child, then women are reduced to that one purpose, and that’s what the incubator shorthand represents.
“I feel like you’re stigmatizing all pregnancy at this point. This is where babies come from.”
This is not a good faith response. Do you understand what an incubator is? It’s a machine. A tool. Not a person. That’s the point. Treating pregnant women like incubators means treating them in a way that denies their humanity. When people say “she’s not an incubator,” they’re saying “do not treat this PERSON as if she was just a machine to be used to keep someone else alive.”
Forced pregnancy is the issue! The issue is women’s rights! The issue is not that pregnancy is inherently dehumanizing, or that being held on life support to benefit someone else constitutes abuse of a corpse… but if women consent to serving as mere incubators then it’s okay because they consented to this abhorrent horror show of dehumanization and abuse.
This is an insane comment. Like, what? The default assumption should be to let HER AND/OR HER FAMILY decide. Yikes. The idea of my braindead body being kept alive to sustain a fetus, against my family’s wishes, makes my skin crawl.
But the comment didn’t say to let the family decide; they said that “unless the mother left specific instructions in a legal document saying she should be kept ‘alive’ in this circumstance, then the default should 100% be removing life support.”
That’s a weird default to settle on especially if the reason is ick factor (“makes my skin crawl”). There are existing situations where the family has decided to continue life support and ended up with a baby and it’s not some huge travesty.
Yes, it’s a travesty if the state decides and no one else gets any say, as is happening here. Pendulum swinging to an extreme that prevents family from trying to do their best to make the right decision in a tragic circumstance isn’t a good idea either.
I am pro-life (come at me if you want, but I am consistent womb to tomb, so no death penalty and also pro-social safety nets) and I also think this is very bad. Letting a woman pass away naturally and having her young fetus die, too, is ethically permissible under the double-effect principle. Completely sad all around. Beginning with the fact that this poor woman was brushed off with her severe headaches.
Really appreciate your perspective, thank you for chiming in.
I really don’t understand how you could be pro life and not be in favor of this. This is the endgame of your entire worldview. Her constant becoming and remaining pregnant are irrelevant because at least there is a chance of a baby. It’s a pretty awful situation people like you have brought about.
Go take and medical ethics or moral philosophy class. It is the difference between killing someone vs. not treating someone. For example, , there is a difference between medically-assisted suicide/homicide vs. having a DNR order.
I am not one of those people but I acknowledge the good faith of someone who believes that both abortion and the death penalty are murder, who do not believe in IVF, and who are otherwise consistent.
Sure, but let’s be real. This situation does not involve a principled debate about the ethics of killing v. not treating someone.
This is keeping a woman’s body on life support solely so that she can continue to gestate a fetus based on laws that are designed to strip women’s bodily autonomy.
The doctrine of “double effect” is, in my mind, applied in an intellectually dishonest manner when it comes to abortion and pregnancy. It’s an “out” so that prolifers and Catholics can avoid the most horrific outcomes of their policy positions, but it’s really hard to accept with a straight face. Like treating an ectopic pregnancy and misframing the issue as a “diseased tube.” No, the fallopian tube isn’t diseased. The tube is perfectly fine but for the presence of the embryo. It is the embryo’s presence that is the medical problem. The death of the “baby” isn’t a “mere unfortunate side effect” of removal of the tube. The tube is being removed so that the embryo in the tube will be removed from the woman’s body. Termination of the pregnancy and removal of the embryo is obviously the intent of the procedure. And all you’ve accomplished is forcing the woman into a more invasive and damaging procedure for no reason.
But more importantly, the doctrine of double effect is Catholic theology, which has no place in either law or medical decision-making, unless a patient specifically consents to decisions made on the basis of this doctrine.
Concur on all counts.
Part of my pro-life belief is that natural death isn’t the same thing as having death as the desired outcome. We all die eventually; that doesn’t make it okay to deliberately cause our deaths.
Per the AP:
“She’s pregnant with my grandson. But he may be blind, may not be able to walk, may not survive once he’s born,” Newkirk said. She has not said whether the family wants Smith removed from life support.
We don’t even know what the family wants to do — they may not want even want her turned off. And it seems like she was still in a relationship with her BF and was 30 (not a child where the parents do get a say). In Canada, she may have been considered to be common-law married.
Canada would never have kept her on life support. Don’t rope us into this nonsense.
But it would have picked a decider for that decision. If say a common-law husband objected to withdrawing life support (the miracles happen people, not some weirdo from The Handmaid’s Tale), what then? To me, that is still a likely scenario (or where there is disagreement or no clear decider).
Then fine, that’s his decision. The issue here is that her next of kin have no choice, and have to pay for all this.
I differ a little with some commenters about whether this is using / abusing the woman — she’s dead (tragically) and it doesn’t have any impact on her future. But it’s harrowing for the family to take away their agency to make decisions on what happens now
Oh I may have misread and you are suggesting the common-law husband disagrees with the legal decision maker. Then…too bad? Let this be a lesson that marriage is not a banal “social construct”…get married if you want to be the decider.
But common law marriage is legally marriage right? It’s not the same as a non-spouse. It’s not a lesser degree of marriage. The law recognizes the marriage or it doesn’t. Whether the relationship constitutes a marriage varies by state but the rights and privileges of common law spouse are not different at least in the us, than another spouse.
Canada is quite good at delivering death instead of medical care. Don’t be too proud of that, regardless of your feelings on this matter.
Sadly, there is truth here.
Wow you’ve fallen for the republican rhetoric congrats
She’s not married, so her parents would be the decision-makers unless she had designated someone else.
The AP article says the hospital told the family they had no choice but to continue life support. The lack of choice is a problem no matter what choice they would ultimately make if given that choice.
I went back and read the article again to check. The article said it is the family that said that the hospital said they cannot remove life support. The article did not say the hospital said that, and the hospital will never talk bc of HIPAA. So it’s all second hand info from the family, and how the family interprets the goals of care discussions.
What is interesting to me is that removing life support from this woman and switching her to comfort focused care is not an abortion. Two separate issues.
There is nothing to prevent the family from requesting terminal extubation and switching this woman to comfort care. The family clearly has not. They have made a daily decision to keep her on life support for 3 months.
There are families who maintain their loved ones on life support in brain death as long as the heart will beat. In this instance, we are just seeing a family who will do it if there is a pregnancy.
DH and I haven’t vacationed in years and now kind of want to get to Europe probably July or August. Would either Edinburgh and Glasgow or Oxford w a night or two in London fit what we are looking for? If not can you suggest other places?
Both of us love small cities, architecture, universities and just walking around. We tend to go to a monument or museum or two per day but also love to check out the local bakeries, shops, explore the town on foot.
Other concern here is DH needs to avoid crowds and we still mask at times – not outdoors but like on a crowded tour, airport and plane, hotel elevators we’d mask. We’d eat outdoors as much as we could or get takeout and eat at a park or in our hotel. We realize AirBnb is an option but we are both luxury hotel people – that makes the vacation for us so we’d rather stay in a hotel and just mask in elevators and lobbies.
I know no place in Europe is ever quiet but thoughts on Edinburgh and Glasgow or Oxford? Other ideas? Any times to avoid because it’s a major event or something? For Oxford we’d look into what the first university week is and avoid that.
Edinburgh is a great choice only about the dates of its Aug festival ( from August 8 to August 31, 2025)
*avoid I mean
Edinburgh in August is very very crowded with the Festival. July is better – Scottish schools are out, but if you go early July, the English schools aren’t out yet. It’s a great city for bopping around though. I like Glasgow but I’m not sure it’s the best city for tourism. It’s friendly but not particularly pretty (largely b/c there’s a motorway coming through it). My impression of Oxford is that the streets are pretty packed, Durham or York would fit the bill but again, pretty busy in the summer (unless maybe you go before the schools break).
Avoid Edinburgh in August.
Oxford is great, very walkable. Bath as well. Norwich is a compact and interesting place. Canterbury.
Bath is great and a short train trip from London. Bristol is also a great walkable city and only 20 minutes from Bath by train.
Additionally, if you’re game to rent a car you could visit Cheddar which has nice outdoor walks and, of course, cheese. Stonehenge is also round these parts.
I highly recommend the Royal Crescent Hotel in Bath for the OP and her husband who are into luxury hotels.
100% co-sign!
Hi there, fellow airborne-disease conscious person! My family still masks in similar settings like you describe – aside from some health conditions, we simply like not getting sick when we travel.
I just wanted to chime in that you can absolutely travel in Europe as an occasional masker and successfully avoid getting sick. We’ve done trips to Tuscany, Rome, London, Japan, Switzerland, and several cities in Germany during different times of the year, including in winter. While we couldn’t 100% avoid crowded and stuffy indoor dining, we certainly tried our best by sitting by open windows, going for dinner at 5pm, keeping away from obviously sick people, and masking whenever possible. We have yet to get C19 (we test often), and only had 2 viral colds in the last 5 years (acquired through the kid who’s in school masked).
We don’t feel like we are missing out on travel – we went to museums, cooking classes and various tours. N95s work!
I haven’t been to the UK post-pandemic but in general it’s easier to be Covid cautious in Europe than in the US. There’s outdoor dining everywhere, with a much longer season than we have in most of the US. The climate in Florence is not that different than the climate in my US city, but they dine outdoors there nearly year round and that’s not the case here.
I don’t know that I would bother with a night or two in London. I might either do London and some of the smaller cities as day trips like Bath, Cambridge, Oxford, the Lake District, etc. Or go to Scotland (or Ireland).
I would love some advice on this marriage issue.
I’m married (for the second time) for about 5 years, tween child from prior marriage. We live in The City. I am from The City and have family and friends within 10 minutes. Husband lived in The City for 10+ years before we met although he’s originally from The Suburbs.
For the last few years Husband has been talking about how he hates The City and wants to move away somewhere rural. This is impossible now because of shared custody of tween. Tween’s other parent lives a 5 minute walk away and tween can easily go between houses and get to school and activities from both. Husband understands this but wants us to move as soon as tween is in college.
I absolutely do not want to move. I objectively love The City and my lifestyle here, I love having family, friends and community here. I love that when I go to the farmers market on Sunday morning I run into people I know. I love the access to cultural amenities and public transit. I love walking everywhere. Etc. Husband is much more introverted, does not value these things and hates that there’s “too many people”. He is not outdoorsy, just introverted.
Ideally he wants to move somewhere rural or a very small town, which I would hate. I enjoy visiting such places but am very very happy to go back home at the end. I also hate the thought that if we move away, tween would end up going to other parents house more during school breaks because their friends and other family are here and there’s more stuff to do here too. I also definitely see tween deciding to live in The City after college (though of course nothing is certain), but tween would only rarely visit parents in a rural area (very extroverted and not at all outdoorsy). Tween loves growing up in The City.
I’m feeling really sad about this because I can see how miserable he is where we are and I know he would feel better if he knew there was an end date but I cannot in good conscience promise him that we can move in X years because I really really don’t want to move. He says he did not feel this way pre-COVID and loved living in the city, but after being away from the crowds for a couple of years of WFH, he’s changed how he feels. We talked about a weekend house in the country, but neither of us love the idea of going back and forth, and budget-wise, it would mean no vacations (and we love traveling).
If anyone has dealt with something similar in their marriage, I would appreciate your advice.
This is a rich person solution but could you do both? When kiddo leaves home, downsize, keep a condo in the city and get a small house in the country/suburbs.
We are doing the opposite; we are planning to downsize our large suburban home to a smaller one and then buy a second place in the city.
I’m glad someone else said it first! We did this, we kept our city home and bought a second in the country and live between both. I was the die hard city person and I’m shocked by how much I enjoy the country and how our time has gradually shifted to spending more time there as we’ve gotten older.
This is a very pricey option, and most people cannot afford this.
This is also a board of high achieving women so it’s worth mentioning.
You could live separately. It’s not completely unheard of for married couples to have different households. It’s not as if you have young kids to take care of or any reason you absolutely must live in the same house 7 days a week. He could rent a place in the country for a year and see how you two like it or don’t. Maybe one of you will change your mind about the living situation, or maybe you’ll both be happy living apart. If the other options are, one of you is miserable or divorce, then I’d try some interim option first.
I have a couple friends who do this. She stays in the city all week and occasionally goes to the country house. He comes home to the city on weekends and heads up to the country house sometime on Monday and comes back for the weekend Thursday night or Friday.
It’s about a 3 Hour drive each way, but they seem to be making it work and have been doing it for about 10 years at this point.
I think they established this pattern more permanently when their youngest went off to college, though they did own the country house before they decided to split their time this way. He inherited the house from his late parents.
He still works as a freelancer and says he gets more work done by himself anyway, so it works for him. For her, to be honest, I think she appreciates the break from him. He’s an intense person. Obviously, I’m better friends with her than I am with him, so I only know her perspective.
I have family friends who do this. They bought The Farm and he loves it, but she is a total city mouse. She lives in a condo in The City most of the time but since its pretty close goes back to The Farm every couple weeks.
I think maybe you two are not compatible.
Assuming you want to stay married, the weekend house is likely the best option (i.e. a “his and hers” housing situation). No, traveling back and forth isn’t ideal. But if you don’t want to rip apart your life in the city, and he wants to be in the country, that’s the rub. Ideally, he gets to live more rural for a year or two before coming to his senses that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. If he hasn’t lived rural before, it’s very easy to create an idyllic view of it, without understanding the very real drawbacks of being so isolated.
Oh absolutely especially as to your last sentence. I have no idea why an introvert can’t exist in the city, and do wonder if OP’s partner has some sort of mythical Arcardian fantasy going on. I say this as about the third most introverted person I know, who lives in a rural area due to Reasons, and cannot wait to move to the city. Health care here is crap, moderately decent groceries are 30 minutes drive time each way, and depending on the rural location there is an excellent chance that city noise will be traded for some or all of loud mufflers, loud music, and gunshot noise.
I love living in the city because I’m introverted! To me small town life means not being able to step out the door without encountering multiple people who know your name and your business and will be offended if you don’t interact.
I came here to say this.
If he’s from the suburbs, he probably has no idea how up in everyone’s business people in rural areas can be. It’s introvert hell, at least for me.
We did this weekend house idea and it has been amazing. In our scenario I’m the introverted country mouse, and I’ll go to our country cottage for a month at a time twice a year.
My partner accepts it as price of admission, and I accept living in a walkable small city most of the year as price of admission for being with him.
I’ve made a lot of effort to make our rural house more attractive to him, getting high speed internet and choosing a spot where at least a couple things are in walking distance, so now he likes going there for vacations.
I agree this type of incompatibility is marriage ending. One of you can’t be miserable for the rest of their life. Better to spend a little time apart now and figure out whether this marriage can work.
Would you be willing to live in a suburb instead of a rural area? As someone who also grew up in the burbs and can’t wait to leave the city I don’t think you’ll “win” this. If there’s zero room for compromise on your end then you might as well part ways now.
This is bananas. This can absolutely be worked through and things change over time. Don’t borrow trouble. This isn’t a current problem.
I think some people use “introvert” as shorthand for, doesn’t like to be around a lot of people. It might be more of a sensory issue than introversion.
I can’t live in a city or in an apartment or condo building because I’m extremely people-noise sensitive. I always have been, apartment living always bothered me, but it’s gotten worse as I’ve gotten older. Yes there is noise in the country/burbs – barking dogs, leaf blowers, occasional sirens or aircraft – but it’s not as often and it doesn’t feel invasive in the same way as someone making noise on the other side of your walls or ceiling. I also hate crowds. Even going to the grocery store on the weekends is too much for me. The idea of stepping outside my door and immediately encountering people feels claustrophobic to me.
YES. I could never live in a big city because of the noise, the crowding, the dirt, the hassles of just getting groceries. I don’t want to share walls with anyone. I don’t want to hear sirens and traffic in the middle of the night. We currently live in the suburbs of a lovely small city where I wouldn’t mind living if we could afford a rowhouse with a garage and a backyard, but I could never live in a real City. I need peace and quiet.
When DH and I have these unsolvable, but far off problems, I now kind of just let him talk and nod my head. It’s a later problem. Who knows what will happen for you, DH, the tween, tween’s other parents, the City, real estate prices etc. in the next 5 years? Maybe highschool will stress you all out and you’ll be ready for a break too? Maybe you’ll win the lottery and a weekend house is feasible? I get it thought, I live with a stubborn man too.
+1 worry about this later when/if it actually becomes an issue.
This is a hard situation for sure. I think as you grow old, being in the city is way better, as you are not dependent on being able to walk to have an independent/autonomous life. I have seen one old couple move to rural/resorty town… and no, I do not recommend living in a town were you need a car for everything or travelling to the city for doctor appointments. And the social and cultural aspect that the city give you… these add years to your life and life to your years, for sure. Clearly, I am pro city. My parents are old, and thrive in our very walkable city.
Could you rent a house in a rural area for maybe a month a year, just for your husband to reset? Possible if you both WFH, I think
+1 to this. My husband and I shared the fantasy of moving somewhere more rural for a long time, but now that we’re older and encountering some of the inevitable health issues that come with age, we are so glad we can walk to any number of doctors – primary care and all the specialties you can name. We live three blocks from a major hospital.
(Which, bonus, means when there’s a power outage, we don’t lose power, because we seem to be on the same top priority system as the hospital.)
Definitely not dealing with the sorts of family pressures you’ve got involved here, but I grew up rural/suburbs and my husband grew up city/suburbs. If I can’t spend my weekends in an area where I don’t hear or see other humans I get so stressed out and irritable. I can literally feel all the tension melt out of me when I get into the backwoods, and after a couple weeks where I don’t have my mountain time I’m genuinely not a nice person to be around. My deal with my husband is that I’ll live anywhere as long as I can get that outdoors isolation that I crave. But I’m outdoorsy, unlike your husband. In your situation, it sounds like someone’s gonna be unhappy about the living situation no matter what. There’s not really a solution to that – either one of you is miserable in the living situation (not great) or you live separately (not great for most people, though I know one couple it works well for). I do think that your husband might just need to get it out of his system and wouldn’t really want to live rural – there are a lot of drawbacks people from the city/suburbs don’t realize how impactful they are on day-to-day life. He’d probably be better served by figuring out how to get more quiet alone time in the situation he’s in right now, or planning a sabbatical.
I think he should rent a house in a rural area and you visit him when your tween is with the other parent.
How does he feel about being a step parent? It kind of seems like that’s an unsaid factor here.
I definitely see where you would get that but he loves being a step parent and always says that tween is like his own kid. He and tween are closer than tween is with any other parent. He thinks that tween would totally visit us in the country bc tween clearly prefers our home to other parent’s home but I’m not that confident that (even awesome) parents are a bigger draw than being in The City with friends.
I think you’re over-factoring in your child’s feelings about this (assuming you move after they graduate high school). They will visit the parent they’re closer to more, it’s not going to be dependent on location. My husband’s parents moved cross-country the summer he graduated high school. Is it a bit of a bummer he can’t see high school friends at the same time he visits his parents? Sure. Has it majorly impacted his life? No. I don’t know about your other arguments, but if I were your husband I’d be kind of annoyed about you saying you need to stay in the city for your child after your child graduates. That’s a silly reason to stay in the city, imo.
Privileged take alert. I visit my dad frequently because he’s an hour away. I like my mom better, but she is a 4 hour drive away and doesn’t have room to host, so I hardly ever see her. We do talk on the phone regularly though. It’s not silly to try and make it easy for your kid to see you if you want to stay close.
This take is more privileged than suggesting someone maintain three homes???
The first comment about getting another house stated that it’s a rich person solution, and I figured it really only needed to be said once. This didn’t have any caveats, and I think it’s helpful to point out. (Once)
+1. It is totally valid.
Buy the weekend place
No, rent a weekend place and try it out first!
You wrote the answer to it in your question. This is why The Cottage, The Cabin and The Ranch (depending on which region you are in) were invented. You pick somewhere with more land with in a two to three hour drive from The City. You don’t get to travel as much, but you can also host friends at the place and potentially trade extra houses with friends in other areas.
The other thing that struck me about your post is that he did not always feel this way. The COVID years + having a teen is pretty stressful, and I wonder how much of his malaise about The City is really a reflection of a general malaise and stress about this part of life.
Hahahahaha, reading from The Cottage rn!
There’s a lot of years between tweenhood and college, so I would look for a compromise solution now instead of planting a bomb in the future. What does your husband want out of his future home, and is there a way to get that, or some of that, in a different neighborhood in the city or a near suburb? Is it more space? No shared walls with neighbors? A garden? Car culture? If the city is NYC, there are places within the 5 boroughs that would work. Maybe this isn’t an all or nothing proposition?
It sounds like he has no experience living in a rural area or small town. You have the same annoyances and petty grievances with neighbors and loud cars and unleashed dogs that you do in the city, just with other benefits in terms of fresh air and wildlife. But he’s not looking for what a new setting adds, he just wants to remove the annoying parts of life. It sounds like he is depressed and/or misanthropic. Does he have any friends in The City?
I would suggest a trial run with a country house that he rents for a year while you keep living in The City. If he genuinely likes it, great! But my guess is that it won’t be the magic fix he thinks it is.
I would agree to have a conversation about what downsizing will look like after your kid finishes first year of college. It’s the worst feeling going off to college knowing your home will be sold while you are gone. Give the college first year to adjust and then downsize.
What he wants could change again by then. It’s at least 8-10 years away if you have a tween.
As long as you’re both committed to staying in the city until your kid is in college, I think you are borrowing trouble. Who knows what either you or your husband will want in 7-8 years. It’s reasonable to set a financial goal of saving so you have the option to move or buy a vacation home in the future, but neither one of you should be making demands or promises about what will happen that far out.
This is slightly off topic, but why do so many men want to move to Nowhereville, USA? It’s like *literally* every single man I read about/know/have dated, their biggest dream in life is to live in a cabin with no running water in the Taiga!?!? WHY.
Sorry I just feel so frustrated–these rural living situations are almost always harder and less pleasant for women but men keep insisting on them and romanticizing the to the point I find it a tiny bit sinister (like…removing your safety net, community, and outside influences/anyone but him from your life).
It’s a male fantasy that they can handle it all themselves. And also a lie.
I think the USA part matters. Rugged individualism equates to masculinity in our culture. Every single day I think about how Jeffersons pastoral ideal and manifest destiny have left us with a bunch of wannabe hillbilly n*zis walking around the suburbs and the White House. I’d nominate the demonization of a modern urbanized society as the second original sin of the nation’s founding. And you’re darn right it’s a lie.
This made me laugh out loud, because my 80yo dad is STILL fantasizing about this! These days I say “go ahead, but remember that your children are grown adults with office jobs who can’t drop everything to visit or help you in Nowheresville”
if The City is NYC – my inlaws felt a bit like this and my MIL looked for 15 years for her dream “writing shack” upstate. They’re about 30 minutes by car away from the last Amtrak station and their house is tiny, but it was very affordable. after about 2 years of keeping their apartment in the city they just moved out their permanently, but there were compounding factors (he got cancer and was laid off, etc).
I’m an introvert who grew up in a rural area. I live in a city now. Rural areas are not the suburbs. There is nothing to do in rural areas. The town I grew up in is an hour away from everything, including good primary care. There are some local restaurants, a Walmart, and that’s about it. If I wasn’t planning to drive for things to do, my life in that town would basically be work, church, watching tv. If he just wants to stay inside all of the time, stay in the house you already own. I especially can’t imagine moving to the middle of nowhere if you don’t want to spend all of your time outdoors. It would be different if this was a small town on a transit line but I don’t think that’s what you’re describing.
The portrayal of rural areas in this conversation borders on inaccurate. Yes, you can find places with no grocery stores, no people, no healthcare, no internet, etc. But you can just as easily find a wonderful community like our small town (pop. 1800), near a college, 10 minutes from a good number of big box stores, 40 minutes each from two great mid-sized cities, surrounded by state parks, and with a vibrant community life. People deride our part of the state as “West Virginia” but we love that they have no idea what they’re missing. They can keep their suburban strip malls and city noise. We’ll keep our gem of an area!
If you can swing any sort of two-home experimental period, I recommend it! Or try an AirBnb. That’s actually how we found our place – we needed an AirBnb to house hunt this area for a weekend, and we booked whatever was available the night before. We literally said to each other that we’d never heard of this place. We got in at night when it was dark, had no idea what was around, and the town was so cute the next day by daylight! We reluctantly waved goodbye to the town on Sunday, and thought we’d never see it again since it was so small and there’d never be a listing. What popped up that day at noon as a new listing? Our house.
Try taking some fun, low-stakes weekends to get to know other areas. See what you agree on and don’t. You’ll learn something about yourself and your husband!
What’s the top equivalent of Brooklyn pants or “travel” pants like BRFs air stretch tapered pants?
For work I’m mostly in an office and like to look decently put together (mostly for me, but also I meet with externals quite a bit), but there are times I’m needed to be outside (in any weather) or bend down, lift things, help assemble stuff, etc.
I practically live in those quasi athleisure quasi look nice pants but I can’t figure out tops.
The men I work with all wear khakis (cargo or chino style) + polo but I don’t like polos. I want something nicer or cooler than a polo but not too fancy. I also don’t want clothing thats too tactical.
T-shirts, oversized button downs. But they’re athleisure pants and they’re always going to look like athleisure pants.
I wear a blazer or structured cardigan to pull the look together. Usually a shell or tshirt underneath. I think those types of pants look best with a more fitted or structured top, not something loose or flowy.
A casual button-down top that has a bit of ease? It might hit that sweet spot between casual and structured. You could wear something from your regular brands rather than something tactical or sporty.
When you want something cooler than a polo, do you mean that in the “more fashionable” sense or the “not so sweaty” sense? B/c that seems like the most obvious style top for what you describe, and if it’s a heat issue then fabric choice can help solve that.
More fashionable
Sounds like your office is more casual if you are assembling things outdoors, so maybe something like a nice knit shell under a moto jacket and cute sneakers with your athleisure pants? A half-tucked chunky sweater with pointy-toe flats?
I’m turning 45 this summer and seem to be going through a style shift, though I don’t know where I’m going to end up, honestly. Part of this has been driven by body changes that I’m not thrilled with, and part of it is just looking in the mirror and going “Yep, I look fine, but nobody is going to mistake me for a 35-year-old anymore.” I find myself going for fewer prints and less color overall. More structure. More substantial fabrics. More neutrals or neutral-like colors.
It’s surprised me a bit. I thought I was supposed to be bolder in middle age? It sounds like I’m trying to make myself disappear, and while I don’t think I’m consciously doing that, I also know that my life is very full and I want to look put together without thinking about it too much. And some of the styles and fabrics that looked good on me even five years ago are not working for me anymore. I feel psychologically uncomfortable.
Would be curious to hear if this is a common thing at this stage in life.
I’m 40, so can’t speak quite yet to the age question, but I would note that most of the things you describe yourself being drawn to are also things that are on trend now (neutrals, no prints, less color)… so that could also be part of it? or it’s also possible that your sense of style is shifting but not in a “make me disappear” way (prints were such a big thing like 10 years ago, v. now, so it’s not a red flag to me that you aren’t being drawn to them)…
prints are generally not on trend right now so that might be part of why you aren’t gravitating to them…. similarly neutrals are definitely the vibe. sounds to me like you are leaning towards general trends not age related….
I’m 49 and I’m looking for the same kind of thing. Maybe for some people middle age becomes about coming out of your shell and expressing yourself loudly; for some people (me) it’s about settling down and making things more simple but more elegant.
Yes — this is what I’m feeling. A paring down, and trying to do less.
Those choices sound like you’re drawn to pieces with gravitas. What’s wrong with that?
OP here, and I like this. It also puts me a bit out of step with my family and friend group. But it’s what I seem to like, even if it’s boring.
If it’s different than those groups, in a funny way, it makes it bold!
Fwiw, I think it makes a ton of sense and you should do you.
You said, “I thought I was supposed to be bolder in middle age?” What happens in middle age is that people often stop caring as much what might think. For some people, being bolder means the courage to show up in the bright colors and prints they want to wear, rather than continuing to wear the clothes the people around them consider the “right” thing to wear.
But for others (you!) being bolder means the courage to show up wearing the simpler lines and neutral colors you want to wear, rather than continuing to wear the kinds of clothes your family or friend group consider the “right” thing to wear.
(Also, if you’ve generally been drawn to color and print, the desire to wear them will likely cycle back around again at some point in the future when you have more emotional energy for your clothing. We like what we like.)
There are a lot of Quiet Luxury looks in retail and your wardrobe likely reflects a few seasons of buying them. At the holidays I ended up in a column of taupe. Don’t invest in it too much; we’ll be off to something else soon.
My clothes are less fashion-forward now that I’m older, not that I was ever super trendy. I agree with your thoughts. My life is very full and simple is best. Even how I shop is less involved (I order online from one quality company), so that naturally limits the range of my style too. But it’s also freeing to pare down.
I’m 40 and I also stopped wearing colour or pattern except for my beloved Breton striped tees. I prefer a classic look.
I’m 38 and spent a chunk of time browsing the Chico’s website the other day, so … yeah
I’m a similar age, and have been gravitating towards more colour rather than less. I wear different colours now than 15 years ago, but significantly less black and neutrals, and zero beige or grey.
I have also become much more selective about color and prints and now stick to mostly neutrals. It’s not about disappearing–it’s about commanding attention by looking classic and elegant. Color and prints can easily veer into Barb and Star Go To Vista Del Mar territory.
There are different flavors of boldness in fashion. I prefer the boldness of The Fold (or Mon Mothma in Andor) over the boldness of Chico’s.
This is probably just a you thing. I’m your age and wear color because I like color. But I do wear it more in the summer when there are more options. J Crew linen is my favorite for this reason.
what do unmarried women wear for rings? what fingers? i haven’t worn any since my divorce and was thinking i might like to (i’m generally trying to up my accessory game as a tactic to look more intentional and polished)
Huh? They wear whatever rings they want, just like married women?
Why are people in this site so bizarre.
Do whatever you want! My friend wears a big cocktail ring on her index finger and it looks very intentional and cool; I don’t think I could pull it off but maybe you want to try it? The only thing I think looks a little dumb are thumb rings. But yesterday on this site was a little initial pinky ring and it was cute. Try things out!
I live in hope a hot titled English man will notice my ringless left hand and whisk me away, so I wear rings on my right hand. A Diamond band usually.
I’m crossing my fingers for you!!!
A right hand ring finger ring is a classic.
I like wearing stackable rings on my middle finger. My ring finger is too short for a stack to be comfortable.
Alternatively, I’ll wear a ring on my index finger and another on my ring finger. I think this reads a bit more casual than a ring on only one finger.
I wear 3 rings on my middle fingers. It’s mainly because they’re a bit big so they don’t fit on other fingers, but its become a bit of a signature look. I vaguely try not to wear very engagement-like rings on my ring finger, but thats it.
Caveat – I am married, but I am a ring person and have thoughts!
I wear rings on five fingers every day. My everyday:
left pointer: modern cut toruouquiose ring
left middle: thick silver band with hammered finish
left ring: stacked thin rings
right pointer: turquoise band
ring ring: solitaire diamond e-ring, wedding band (heirloom, was my great grandma’s)
If I wasn’t married, on my left hand I would wear pointer finger, middle finger, and pinky finger signet ring.
I’ve found that I don’t want my hands to mirror each other, but roughly the rings balance between the two hands. Right now I’m wearing two turquoise rings which feels a bit hippy/excessive but I like the modern styles a lot and both have meaning.
I kind of want to add a pinky signet ring to my daily rings but I feel like if add right now would feel unbalanced on either hand.
If you have any heirloom rings, I’d start wearing that/those on your right hand, and then looking for rings that spark joy and picking them up. I have three that came from trips, and I like that when I look at them I think of those times.
I wear whatever tf I want.
+1
+1 I just realised I don’t actually know which ring finger is common for marriage band. I don’t care enough to find out!
Married, but I still wear the same rings on my right hand as I did before I was married–a geometric band on my ring finger and a chunkier cocktail-type ring on my middle finger. I like rings so I’ve auditioned a few for my right pointer finger, but haven’t found the right one yet. Or maybe I’m holding out for a Cartier Love ring, who can say ;)
If I’m dressing up, I have a vintage statement ring that I’ll put on my lefthand pointer finger, but it has pearls so it’s not for everyday.
Married. If I’m wearing other rings I usually go with either right-hand index finger, or right-hand ring finger.
I don’t like the feel of a pinky ring, and don’t like the way rings feel on my middle finger – maybe the way my webbing is shaped or something, but they grate on me!
Married, but I wear an antique signet ring on my right hand ring finger. I used to wear a slim band on my right hand middle finger but lost it.
TL;DR: there are no rules
I am in search of a fitted, women’s cut plain white T-shirt (crew neck preferred), not see thru, size 14, for under $50 shipped. I looked at Uniqlo but their shirts are super boxy. Any recommendations?
Gap modern tees.
Garnet Hill, Talbots, Lands End
Ulla Popken – you can apply filters for color, sleeve length, and neckline.
I like Talbot’s pima bateau teas–they’re 3/4 sleeve, and not see-through in white. They are not the coolest tees for summer.
Old Navy has less fitted tees in “calla lilies” in slub cotton and I wear those all summer. They are cooler, but more casual, less fitted, more weekendy than something I’d wear to work.
LL Bean pima cotton – very smooth and comes in tons of sizes, necklines, and colors. They hold up extremely well. The white is truly opaque, and I’ve worn their boatneck and crew neck styles for years under suits and blazers.
Second this. And they come in petites so if you have a short torso like me you can get a short shirt for it!
I’ve bought some t-shirts from JC Penney, and they’re surprisingly good. Hefty, 100% cotton, and way inexpensive. I think it’s the St. John Bay brand.