Categories
Health

Mom’s Night Out Shouldn’t Exist


Part of the reason we even have a perceived need for “mom’s night out” is that parenting has undergone a fundamental shift. In his New York Times review of journalist Jennifer Senior’s book All Joy and No Fun, Andrew Solomon writes that “parenthood as we know it—predicated on the unconditional exaltation of our children—is no more than 70 years old, and it has gone through radical readjustments over the past two generations.”

Expectations around parenting are so great now that of course parents (read: moms) need a break from making sure that little Joe is getting an A in social studies; that Emma has a dozen or so friends to invite to her sleepover; that Benjamin is seeing the best possible sleep specialist. For parents in the 1800s, children were born and reared to help alleviate the workload on the farm, with ideas about success tied more to harvesting food and caring for animals than to a letter of admission to an Ivy League school. But now that parents are dealing with raising exceptional children with exceptional grades and exceptional futures, the pressure needs an outlet. The pressure falls on the shoulders of moms—and the outlet? We’ve decided it’s a night or two out at a small-plates restaurant.

In A Perfect Madness—her 2005 examination of modern (middle- and upper-class) motherhood—Judith Warner writes that “the women around me, for the most part…had comfortable homes, two or three children, smiling, productive husbands, and a society around them saying they’d made the best possible choices for their lives, yet many of them seemed just miserable.” Over a decade later, the unease persists, but now with social media. Instagram beams out “perfect mothers,” who never seem to need an hour to themselves just to scream into the void and still find time to make homemade party favors for their children’s birthdays. These moms’ “nights out” end at 8 p.m. to be home in time to tuck their kids into bed. (When a dad shows up on the ‘gram, he’s lavished with praise for being so “hands-on.”)

So what do we want? The occasional mom’s night out isn’t a bad idea—moms, like all overworked people, need social structures of support (and sometimes lemon-drop martinis). But the implication that whenever a woman leaves her children after dark she’s having a “mom’s night out”—as in the Hathaway case that Curtis Sittenfeld tweeted about—reinforces the notion that moms are their children’s caregivers and that dads are, at best, backup babysitters. (Never mind that the event Hathaway attended, the Critics’ Choice Awards, was a work-related event, not a round of drinks out with a group of girlfriends.)

As with most things, there is a compromise to be had here: It isn’t enough to suggest that moms be allowed to find a greater sense of identity outside the home and apart from their children; dads also need to find their sense of identity within it. Studies show that couples who share household chores are happier than those in which the woman does the bulk of the domestic work; it also stands to reason that children benefit from the sustained presence of both of their parents.

And then there’s the question of who gets to have a “mom’s night out.” Sure, Anne Hathaway with her coiffed hair and sequin dress can go to a red carpet gala. My friends and I can plan a night out at the latest restaurant—we have time, some disposable income, and supportive spouses. But no one guarantees a mother time to herself—not in the immediate aftermath of work with a federal paid leave program and not as children grow up. Meanwhile, the moms who most need a break from the relentless work of childcare are the ones who are least likely to be able to get or afford it.

If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy. But it’s going to take a lot more than a few cocktails a month to make mama happy. It is going to take the equal partnership of papas. It is going to take structural change that means that both parents get time off of work when a child is born. It is going to take, in other words, a lot more than a mom’s night out. So put on that lipstick. Zip up your sequin dress. Mama’s going out—she’s gonna get herself a revolution.

Laura Turner is a writer living in San Francisco. She is currently at work on a book project about the cultural history of anxiety. Follow her on Twitter @Lkoturner.





Source link

Categories
Health

Christina Ricci Is Glad Social Media Didn't Exist When She Was a Young Star


Lifetime kicks off a month of true crime biopics, featuring women with incredible stories, tonight with the premiere of Escaping the Madhouse: The Nellie Bly Story. Christina Ricci plays investigative journalist Nellie Bly, born Elizabeth Cochran Seaman, who went undercover to expose the horrendous conditions and treatment at the notorious Women’s Lunatic Asylum in Roosevelt Island. Without giving too much away, Bly undergoes treatment at the asylum and has no recollection of how she got there or who she really is.

If that’s creepy and disturbing, imagine what it was like for Ricci to play the role. “I had a really hard time with one of the scenes, because as a mother in real life it’s just horrendous [to see these women suffer],” she says. But it was important for Ricci to tell Bly’s story, even though she didn’t have an extensive knowledge of her previously. “I found it really interesting to see how we treated our poor and mentally ill. The whole point of studying history is to not repeat the mistakes we’ve made, so it’s important to understand that this was a reality for people.”

Even so, Ricci found herself looking for ways to leave such dark subject matter on set. “It’s natural defenses,” she says. “Your brain doesn’t want to think about terrible things, so [for me], if you just allow it to recover, my brain will go right to the adorable kitten nearby.”

In her nearly 30 year career, Ricci has certainly mastered the art of evolving and focusing on the positive. She says she’s grateful she didn’t grow up in the age of social media (“Thank God I was done with all my hard partying [by then].”) and that there’s now smarter roles for women in TV and film (“For a very long time, the things we were supposed to be in were so stupid”). But it hasn’t been easy either. Ahead of tonight’s premiere, she tells Glamour what she’s learned. Read on.

PHOTO: Michelle Faye Fraser/Lifetime

Christina Ricci in Escaping the Madhouse: The Nellie Bly Story

Glamour: How often do you watch your films when they come on TV?

Christina Ricci: It depends. We have Apple TV, so I’d have to go search for my own stuff. It’s been a long time that I’ve been like, “I really want to go and see that movie…” I think the last one we watched was Addams Family Values. I had to talk about it since it was being re-released for its anniversary, so I watched it again to familiarize myself with it.

My sister was adamant that I mention Now and Then, which is one of her favorites.

CR: I was in a bathroom recently with (co-star) Rita Wilson and didn’t say hi! I don’t think she recognized me. I looked at her, but she didn’t recognize me, and I totally forgot she was in that movie and that I worked with her until after. I should have just gone right up to her. When you’ve worked as long as I have, and I was a child then and am an adult now and such a different person, it’s hard to almost remember that you had contact with some people.

You’ve seen so much change through your career. What’s changed for you personally?

CR: I think there’s a real appreciation for intelligent filmmaking and seeing it reflected in movies and TV. For a very long time the things we were supposed to aspire to be in were so stupid. I had to pretend that I thought it was good, you know? So it’s nice now that you can actually say, “No, I want to be in something really smart, and I don’t care if only 10 people get it. I want to make art.” There seems to be real value to that now.

Is there anything you wish you could go back and tell yourself during your teen years?

CR: Yes, for sure. I would tell myself it’s all about the work I did and what I created, and nothing else mattered. I didn’t know that for a very long time, and I wish I had. I think it’s very confusing when you introduce a child to fame because fame is so warping. People clamor for and want it so badly. I think as a kid, you get confused, when really any adult should tell you, “No, it’s about what you create and the work you do. It’s about valuing yourself as an artist and not something to be put up for people to consume.” I didn’t understand that…I thought that I was meant for other people to consume. [But] I was a kid.

Christina Ricci

PHOTO: Dave Allocca

Christina Ricci in 1999.

Is there anything you do now to make sure you don’t have to deal with the pitfalls of fame?

CR: I never really went out anyway. The thing is, I’m not naturally attention-seeking, but I tried to be that for so long because I thought I was supposed to be. It led to me doing a lot of things to cope to be this person that I wasn’t, and that caused a lot of problems. I think now just knowing you don’t actually have to [play that game], it’s not about fame, and it shouldn’t be about fame. If what you’re seeking is fame, you’re always going to be empty. It’s something I’m trying to teach my child because I think social media and all of this attention-seeking stuff is soul-crushing. I don’t want him to have to learn that the hard way.

Right. It’s become about the amount of followers you have.

CR: It’s very strange. It’s like taking the worst part of high school and making it [a profession].

Remember when actors would go out to clubs and it wouldn’t wind up on social media?

CR: I don’t know how these young actors aren’t getting into more trouble.

It’s why I think Netflix and chill became such a huge phenomenon. What else are people going to do?

CR: Well, it’s smart and thank God. Nobody needs to be embarrassing themselves. Somebody said to me the other day—and it’s kind of funny—they were like, “You were a part of the last group of young, famous people that were insane.” Because there was no one to cover it! So it was like the last hurrah of like throwing TV’s out of hotel rooms and stuff, you know? Because right after…I think the Internet hit when I was 22 or 23, and thank God I was done with all of my hard partying. [Laughs] It’s nuts.

Escaping the Madhouse: The Nellie Bly Story premieres on Lifetime on Saturday, January 19, at 8 P.M. ET/PT.



Source link

Categories
Health

Taylor Swift and Joe Alwyn Had a Date Night, and Pics Actually Exist


Taylor Swift has been dating British actor Joe Alwyn since late 2016, and the two are even reportedly living together. However, the couple has very much kept mum about the relationship—and tend to keep the cameras out of it as well. But last night, they went on date night and, in a rare gift to the universe, there are photos to prove it.

The evening kicked off as Swift, taking a break from her Reputation tour, snuck into a screening of Alwyn’s new movie, The Favourite at the New York Film Festival—literally going through the back door to meet up with him.

After the screening, the couple attended the afterparty: According to People, the two hung out in a VIP area and “a relaxed Swift laughed and hugged Alwyn throughout his big night.”

Cameras caught them leaving the event at Tavern on the Green in Central Park—and the resulting shots are honestly adorable.

PHOTO: Robert Kamau/GC Images

Celebrity Sightings in New York City - September 29, 2018

PHOTO: Jackson Lee

Gotta say, we’re not mad that evidence of this twosome exists—here’s to more cute dates for this couple in the future.

Related Stories:

Taylor Swift’s Second Music Video for ‘Delicate’ Is Clearly a Tribute to Joe Alwyn

Taylor Swift and Joe Alwyn Are Reportedly Living Together, to the Surprise of No One

Taylor Swift Still Loves New York, According to Her $895 Sweatshirt





Source link

Categories
Health

Beyoncé, Hillary Clinton, and Serena Williams Tree Toppers Now Exist, So Christmas Is Saved


Beyoncé owns land at the top. It’s her home. And I’m not talking about anything specific when I say “the top.” I just mean “the top”—of the charts, of the fashion world, the Super Bowl, the Grammys…you name it. Queen Bey’s natural place is on a diamond-encrusted perch, overlooking her kingdom of fans and followers. The same goes for Hillary Clinton and Serena Williams, too. These three women are so successful, famous, and revered that it’s almost too overwhelming putting their names in one sentence. The shine is just too bright.

So it’s only natural they be at the top of your Christmas trees this year—literally. A brilliant U.K-based nonprofit organization named Women to Look Up To decided to add a twist to the normal star and angel Christmas tree-toppers. Now you can decorate your tree with actual stars and IRL angels. And thus Beyoncé, Clinton, and Williams toppers were born. They sell for about $107 each, and Women to Look Up To reinvests all of its profits into “furthering female equality,” so your money’s going to a worthwhile cause. Plus, this means Beyoncé will be on top of your Christmas tree! Name something more exciting than that.

Check out the Bey, Clinton, and Williams decorations for yourself, below:

Williams is playing tennis in hers, naturally.

And Clinton’s never looked more regal than with angel wings.

If $107 is too steep for you, though, Women to Look Up To also sells card packs with other powerful female faces on them, including Angelina Jolie and Adele. ‘Tis the season to be feminist, am I right?

H/T: HelloGiggles

Related Stories:

Beyoncé Went to Target With Blue Ivy, and the Internet Is Having a Field Day

Beyoncé Got the Sweetest New Tattoo, and It Has to Do With Her Kids

Lady Gaga Showed Off a Gift From Beyoncé That’s Helping Her Through a Painful Day



Source link

Categories
Health

$10 MAC Lipstick Minis Now Exist in Your Favorite Shades


PHOTO: Instagram / @maccosmetics

There are countless tubes of lipstick in this world. There are 363 listed on ulta.com, 309 on sephora.com, and—we’d venture—at least five in any given woman’s bag. Another guess we’d put out there: more often than not, one of those lipsticks that gets plucked for action is a MAC shade. And not just any of the brand’s colors, but usually, one of its cult classics—the hues that you don’t even have to think about, you know they’ll just work. Maybe you’re a Ruby Woo person (who isn’t a Ruby Woo person?), or maybe you go for the brownish-pink Whirl. Whichever’s your go-to, it’s probably the kind of color you can lend to all your friends, because it’s just that good.

The only downside? The universal appeal has meant that up until this point, we’ve had to switch our lipstick from tote bag, to glove compartment, to going-out bag too many times per day. The upside is MAC just came out with a solution: dubbed the Little MAC collection, tiny, incredibly cute, $10 MAC lipstick minis now exist.

They’re not available in every single color MAC offers, but the brand went with its ten cult-classic bestsellers. There’s the aforementioned Ruby Woo and Whirl, along with peachy nude Velvet Teddy, mauve Mehr, red-orange Chili, wine Sin, burgundy Diva, blue-red Russian Red, muted pink Twig, and brick red D for Danger. Dare we say, this might be the start of finishing a lipstick—days rarely before known. They’re joined by eight mini Lip Glass lip glosses, likewise $10 each, in the shades Oh Baby, C-Thru, Love Child, Prrr, Spite, Nymphette, Oyster Girl, and Candy Box.

The collection also branches into eyes, with mini, $10 vials of MAC’s multipurpose pigments in six shades: Vanilla, Melon, Naked, Rose, Blue Brown, and Kitschmas. And if you’ve been eyeing the brand’s False Lashes Extreme mascara, Prep + Prime Fix+ spray, Strobe Cream or makeup wipes, now’s the time to grab them, because small sizes of the lot are $12 each. (That number ring a bell? It’s the same price of full-sized Kat Von D Studded Kiss lipsticks right now—when it rains affordable, quality beauty products, it pours.)

The Little MAC collection is permanent, though, which is the cherry on top. Or is it that MAC’s upcoming Snow Ball holiday collection rounds up trios of the minis for $29.50 each? It’s hard to say. But with those options dropping October 19, it might be worth the wait. If you have the willpower not to buy a Ruby Woo for every bag, that is.

Related Stories:
An Aaliyah MAC Collection Is Happening By Popular Demand
PSA: Kat Von D’s Studded Kiss Lipsticks Are Cheaper Than Ever Before
15 Things You Need From Ulta’s $15 and Under Sale



Source link