Non-Mom Jeans, or, You Don’t Know What You’ve Got Till It’s Gone

I have never been the most fashionable dresser. Not when I was a teenager, not when I was in the working world, and certainly not now that I am a stay-at-home mom. But I’ve tried to avoid the most egregious fashion faux pas, and I think I’ve been pretty successful, with one notable exception: I wear mom jeans.

They’re not the worst mom jeans. They’re not the old 1986-style paper bag waist jeans with a waistband that hits about 3 inches above the belly button. They’re not pleated. But they certainly aren’t low-rise skinny jeans. They’re just your basic, waistband right around your belly button, mom jeans.

So I really felt like I was taking a big step a few days ago when I bought a pair of genuine, low-rise, boot-cut, non-mom jeans. And at the risk of sounding like I’m bragging, I’m kind of rocking them. But at the same time, they make me realize exactly why mom jeans are mom jeans. And there are a few things I can tell I’ll miss about my mom jeans.

The most noticeable difference between these jeans and my mom jeans is that these jeans stop about 2-1/2 inches below my belly button. [Brace yourself, here comes an actual photo of me – and my belly button - in these jeans.]

This may seem like a minor difference, but there are a number of implications. First of all, you’ll notice a slight bulging over the waistband. Mom jeans are high enough to nicely contain that little muffin top. Gravity nudges the flab just low enough that buttoning your mom jeans perfectly encloses those extra pounds like a neat little drawstring bag. Non-mom jeans squeeze it up over the top like an uncapped toothpaste tube.

Another issue with low-rise, non-mom jeans is that those 3 inches you lose includes the pockets. Jeans pockets end at the same point on your hip no matter where the waistband is. So instead of my nice, deep mom jeans pockets that could easily hold an entire Kleenex pocket pack and a matchbox car, I have a 1-inch deep flap that tauntingly holds one neatly folded, unused Kleenex. And by “holds,” I really mean “holds,” because non-mom jeans are snug enough at the hips that I’m never going to get that sucker out without a pair of tweezers.

And the final issue with non-mom jeans is the dreaded “whale tail.” At least, with sweet young things who wear this kind of jeans, it’s a whale tail. Older ladies who may (or may not; I don’t presume) opt for slightly more coverage in their undergarments are likely to reveal something more properly described as a rhinoceros tail. A peep of granny panties is noticeably less sexy than a glimpse of thong. And a glimpse of thong in a granny panty size is even less sexy than that. So without sharing my particular preference in undergarment types, let’s just leave it that whatever tail I’m showing when I bend over in these non-mom jeans is something that nobody wants to see. (Hence the lack of another actual photo of me at this point. You're welcome.) And let’s face it, with a 1-1/2-year old and a 3-year old, I’m bending and stretching enough that my tail will be showing plenty.

So how do I solve this problem? I can answer that in two words: Untucked shirt. Or possibly three: Fabulous, untucked shirt.

No muffin top in sight, no tail or any kind showing other than a shirttail, and long sleeves so I can tuck a few Kleenexes in there for emergencies. You can take the mom out of the mom jeans, but…

 

50/50 Isn't Always 50/50

One of the most important things I’ve learned about being married is how to compromise. More accurately, one of the most important things I’ve learned about being married is that compromising doesn’t always mean a 50/50 split. In fact, it rarely means a 50/50 split, except in the aggregate.

Let me explain what I mean by that. Before I was married, I assumed that the best way to compromise in a marriage would be to always meet in the middle: You want Chinese food, I want Italian; we’ll get Mexican. You want to see an action flick, I want to see a foreign art film; we’ll see a romantic comedy. You want to go to Hawaii, I want to go to Quebec; we’ll go to Nantucket. And there’s nothing wrong with compromising that way every now and then. But the problem with these situations is that although nobody has to do something they really don’t want, nobody ever gets what they really do want, either. After nearly 5 years of marriage, I realize that compromise works better when it’s 100/0 sometimes and 0/100 other times.

Most good compromises in a marriage involve a solution that’s closer to a 100/0 split than a 50/50. My husband is great about doing chores around the house, so there are definitely periods of time when our housework split is 50/50. But then there are weeks when he is working long hours and has lots of commitments outside of work, and the housework ratio is closer to 90/10 for a while. And then along comes a week or two when I am overwhelmed and exhausted, and he steps in and makes it 10/90 for a while to give me a break. That’s a much better compromise than keeping it 50/50 all the time, in my opinion.

There are also certain things that are always, permanently, and forever going to be 100/0. We will never go out for Indian food together, even though I love it, because my husband hates it. I accept that, and that’s my 0. And we will never go downhill skiing together, even though my husband loves it, because it’s just not my thing. He accepts that; that’s his 0. Trash patrol? His, 100%. Packing the diaper bag? Mine, 100%. Squishing centipedes on the bathroom floor? His, 100%. Sitting with the kids teaching them their letters? Mine, 100%. But when you add it all together, it comes out to a nice, even, equitable 50/50.

I will admit that in certain moments it doesn’t feel so equitable. On days when I’ve just finished the 7^th load of laundry and emptied the dishwasher for the second time, I feel a bit put upon. And on days when he’s spent the entire day shoveling the driveway and getting MY car inspected, my husband probably feels like he’s getting the short end of the stick. But when we look back at the big picture, we both agree that it’s pretty even and fair.

Maybe there are some people who are happier always getting their 50% share. Maybe some folks prefer never getting 100% in order to never end up with 0%. And if that works for you, that’s just fine. But for me, accepting 0 every now and then in order to get a 100 every once in a while gives me a marriage that works 100% of the time.

Not Indian food.

 

The 2013 Golden Globes Red Carpet Review

Last night was the Golden Globe awards, so naturally today’s blog will be a red carpet fashion review. As I glanced through some photos of the stars on the red carpet, I noticed a few trends that helped divide the nominees into neat categories, as follows:

Black Dresses

The nominees: Adele, Debra Messing, Nicole Kidman

Adele’s simple, pleated black dress with beading and lace around a simple round neckline was flattering on her barely-post-pregnancy-figure, and her beehive updo and long side bangs gave her added height (which was particularly noticeable as she towered over Al Roker during a pre-show interview). Messing’s black gown had a beautiful rippled texture, but the skirt seemed perpetually twisted, like when your pantyhose get turned around the wrong way, and the bodice was a bit overly snug. Kidman was striking in her fitted column with midriff cutouts that dropped dangerously – but gorgeously – low in the back, with very apropos gold stars around the neckline.

Winner: Nicole Kidman, hands-down.

White Dresses

The nominees: Lea Michele, Anne Hathaway, Michelle Dockery

 

Michele avoided her usual mistake of trying a bit too hard to be sexy, and hit the perfect note with a lacy, shoulder-baring halter dress slit way up to there – subtle yet sexy. Hathaway showed off her slim (perhaps even slightly consumptive, post-Les Miserables) figure in an Audrey Hepburn-esque column that suited her pixie hairstyle and beaming smile. Dockery was luminous in a clinging white gown with gold lace bodice and tiny train.

Winner: Michele by just a hair over Dockery, with her points for "most improved" nudging her ahead.

Red Dresses

The nominees: Jennifer Garner, Naomi Watts, Claire Danes

   

Garner’s textured cherry red column was drawn up at the bust, cinched in with a tiny belt, and had a hint of a train. Watts chose a deeper burgundy red that demurely hugged her curves and featured a keyhole neckline and a detached train. Danes looked statuesque in a coral red column with a plunging neckline, a hint of a train, and loose hair and minimal accessories.

Winner: Danes, for making it look soooo effortless.

Lace Dresses

The nominees: Jennifer Lopez, Emily Blunt, Amanda Seyfried 

  

Lopez, as she often does, chose a skin-colored, skin-tight dress, this time with a lace overlay. Blunt wore a sleek, vintage-looking gold lace gown with triangular cutouts at the waist. Seyfried’s bodice featured criss-crossed bands of lace creating a slight peekaboo effect, although with her long, limp locks, I half expected to see her gliding along a misty forest path at midnight.

Winner: Blunt, nearly by default simply for choosing a color that did not exactly match her skin tone.

Ball Gowns

The nominees: Jennifer Lawrence, Lucy Liu, Zooey Deschanel 

  

Lawrence wore a fire engine red, fitted-to-the hips ball gown with a narrow black belt emphasizing her tiny waist. Liu’s gown appeared to be made of the drapes from “The Sound of Music” but had a perfectly fitted bodice and crisp, bell-shaped skirt that moved beautifully, but I found her fuzzy, slept-in braid a bit distracting. Deschanel’s full, cherry-red gown had a sweetheart neckline set off by a single strand of pearls and a full skirt.

Winner: Lawrence, for having an elegance belying her newbie status.

True Couture

The nominees: Marion Cotillard, Halle Berry

 

Cotillard wore a bright orange satin dress with an asymmetrical, almost-bubble hemline and a black belt that went half under and half over the dress. Berry wore a silk, sari-inspired, single-shouldered gown with a cutout over one hip and a thigh-high slit.

Winner: Berry, because almost anyone else wearing that dress would have looked trampy instead of elegant and glamorous.

Cleavageriffic

The nominees: Jessica Chastain, Katherine McPhee, Kate Hudson

  

Chastain’s gown was a pale seafoam green that was perfect for her strawberry locks and china-doll complexion, but the front was a bit too loose and drapey for such a plunging neckline which her made double-sided tape work overtime. McPhee’s black satin gown had a more “constructed” look that stayed in place nicely and a peekaboo slit in the smooth skirt. Kate Hudson’s black column with gold accents on the wide belt and highlighting the plunging keyhole neckline clung to her figure in all the right places.

Winner: Hudson, because sometimes less is more – and more is less.

A for Effort, F for Effect

There were very few clunkers among the crowd. In fact I could only come up with a single nominee for this category: Lena Dunham. On someone else, this gown might have worked. It’s an interesting warm chocolate brown color, and has lovely seaming forming graceful, flattering lines. But the square, off-the-shoulders cut of the neckline makes her look as broad-shouldered as a football player, and her obvious lack of practice walking in high heels made her look like a trucker as she tromped and tottered across the stage to claim her awards. This was a perfect example of not matching the gown to the wearer.

 

Best B-Lister

The nominees: Nicole Richie, Stacey Keibler, Kelley Osborne

  

Richie’s sky-blue lace column was simple and flattering, with demure long sleeves and round neck and the tiniest puddle of a train. Keibler’s black velvet sheath was ringed with silver sequins. Osborne’s palest green corset gown had a ruffled sweetheart neckline and was perfectly fitted down to the knees, but then descended into an unfinished-looking mess of fabric at the hem.

Winner: Keibler, assisted as always by having the best accessory of all, George Clooney.

The 2013 [Fill in the Blank] Film Awards

I stumbled across part of the broadcast of the Critics’ Choice Awards last night, and for a few minutes I was confused because I knew that the Golden Globes were scheduled for this weekend. Eventually I realized that this was a completely different awards ceremony, and it suddenly struck me how many annual movie awards and awards presentations there are. No wonder the stars have so much trouble coming up with appropriate outfits – in a good year, they could be attending nearly a dozen red carpet events within ten weeks! Just look at this award schedule:

Satellite Awards (International Press Academy) – December 16National Society of Film Critics Awards – January 5Critics’ Choice Awards – January 10Golden Globes (Hollywood Foreign Press Association) – January 13Producers’ Guild Awards – January 26Screen Actors’ Guild (SAG) Awards – January 27Directors’ Guild Awards – February 2BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) Awards – February 10Writers’ Guild Awards – February 17Independent Spirit Awards – February 23Academy Awards (Oscars) – February 24

And this list doesn’t even include some of the more limited awards and ceremonies, like the African American Film Critics Association (December 16), the Annie (Animated Feature) Awards (February 2), the Boston Society of Film Critics (December 9), the Florida Film Critics Circle (December 18), the Los Angeles Film Critics Association (December 9), and the Women Film Critics Circle (December 22).

As an example of what actresses (and to a lesser extent, actors) have to go through during the awards season, let’s look at last year’s Best Actress Oscar winner, Meryl Streep, and Best Supporting Actress, Octavia Spencer. These two provide contrasting examples of an experienced, established Hollywood legend and a new, rising star. Because it sets the bar, let’s begin with their Oscar night dresses:

Both gowns are elegant, glamorous, flattering, and age-appropriate, with tastefully understated hair and makeup and minimal accessories. They both did it right on the Big Day.

 

Now, let’s go through several examples of their other big red carpet appearances.

BAFTA:

Streep has - appropriately enough - a touch of the Iron Lady with her classically upswept hair, regal train, and sexy/demure corset-and-jacket combo, while Spencer goes a bit overly casual in a crisp white shirt and feathery long skirt. They both look lovely, yet somewhat out of character and even a bit out of place.

 

 

Golden Globes:

Streep took a big fashion misstep at the Globes with a cowboy-styled gown with pockets (!?! yes, POCKETS) while Spencer hit a home run with a flattering ruched lavender gown with just the right touch of bling.

Screen Actors Guild:

Streep opted for a quirky yet stylish and flattering draped and belted grey number while Spencer hit it out of the park once again in a sparkly, demure Grecian gown.

And a few of the smaller, less formal awards:

 

The New York Film Critics Circle - Apparently Streep was late because she looks like she had just gotten off the bus and hadn't even had a chance to take off her coat or put down her bag.

the Writers Guild Awards - Spencer dazzles again with a lace underlay covered by champagne draping.

 

 Women in Film - It's not clear whether Streep was receiving an award or taking meeting minutes.

 

The NAACP Image Awards - Spencer finally broke out of her subtle neutral/pastel colors with this vibrant turquoise satin gown.

After realizing the pressure they must be under to come up with that many fancy, flattering, and appropriate outfits within a very short time, I am somewhat inclined to cut them a bit of slack in my fashion critiques.

But don’t worry, I expect I’ll be over it by this weekend’s Golden Globe broadcast (and, of course, the succeeding fashion blog)!

Through a Stranger's Eyes

Tonight, our new pastor is coming over for dinner for the first time. Any time we have guests, especially if this is the first time that a particular guest has been to our house, I find myself looking at my house through a stranger’s eyes. I scrub away the everyday dirt in the hallway that I don’t even notice most days. I wipe off the small handprints that I usually ignore around the edge of the coffee table. I hide away the messily-packed diaper bag in the closet. I try to make my house spotless and perfect for company. But of course, it’s never quite perfect. At least, it’s probably not perfect through a stranger’s eyes.

A stranger’s eyes see dirty fingerprints on the piano keys, but I see two budding pianists happily giving an impromptu concert.

A stranger’s eyes see couch cushions that are all askew, but I see the remains of a spaceship and a fort and a pirate ship built by a giggling adventurer.

A stranger’s eyes see cracks in the hallway tile, but I see all the times I’ve told the funny story about coming home to discover that our heavy glass chandelier had committed suicide.

A stranger’s eyes see chipped paint from the recliner scraping the wall, but I see my father-in-law sitting comfortably in his favorite chair happily snuggling his grandchildren.

 

A stranger’s eyes see a messily stacked pile of clean laundry on the stairs, but I see a small child struggling to fold some clothes as Mama’s helper.

A stranger’s eyes see a few toys under the sofa, but I see a child’s much-loved and much-missed treasures waiting to be discovered with squeals of joy.

A stranger’s eyes see drips of food on the floor, but I see the determined face of a little boy and a little girl struggling to master the art of using a spoon and fork.

 

When a stranger is coming to visit, I try to erase a few of those “imperfections.” But as for those I can’t or don't erase, hopefully by the end of the visit that stranger will no longer be a stranger but a friend, who sees all those imperfections - and their beauty - through my eyes.

Memes: Then and Now

When I was a kid, “memes” didn’t exist as such. But the general concept was still in place. We’d quote lines from TV shows and movies and commercials to each other – those were our “memes.” What child of the 80s has never said, “Whachoo talkin’ ‘bout, Willis?” or “I'll be back” or “Time to make the donuts”? Our memes weren’t on the internet, but they were just as universally present in teenage society.

Every meme that exists today had a counterpart back in my day. Today we have Grumpy Cat, back then, we had Maxine.

 

Today we have the Ermagerd girl, back then we had Valley Girls (whose “Oh my God” cannot be accurately expressed in print).

 

Gangnam Style by Psy? How about Thriller by Michael Jackson?

Today’s kids have Scowling McKayla. We had Disapproving Spock.

Now we have Bad Luck Brian. Back then, we had Anthony Michael Hall. (It is distinctly possibly that these memes are, in fact, the same person.)

Let’s hope for Brian’s sake that he – and all the rest of these memes - aged as nicely as AMH did: