Why 1 Millennial Mother Is Not Ashamed of Her Stereotypical "Mom Hair" ~ health and fitness,celebrity news,fashion blog,beauty women,whole foods,quotes about love

dimanche 26 juin 2016

Why 1 Millennial Mother Is Not Ashamed of Her Stereotypical "Mom Hair"

As a mom, there's plenty I feel guilty about. Until now, however, my hair hadn't topped the list.

According to The New York Times - which published a piece yesterday titled, "Mom Hair. It Exists. Now What to Do About It." - I should feel pretty terrible about the fact that, a year into the struggles of motherhood, I decided to chop off my long, wavy locks into a shoulder-grazing bob.

Yep, from the same publication that celebrates the "Dad Bod," the pudgy, out-of-shape physique that men get when they settle down and have kids, comes a cautionary tale about what happens when a woman gives birth while simultaneously having hair.

Oh, the humanity!

Here's the thing, though: on some level, I get the insinuation that "the first thing new moms want to do is cut their hair off."

For most of my 20s, one of the physical attributes I received the most compliments on was my hair. I was blessed with thick locks, and once I had the good sense to grow them out, I'm not too humble to admit it: they were luscious. With the addition of blunt bangs, I had a full-fledged hairstyle.

I told myself I'd never change it.

Then, I had a kid. After months of baby-wiping spit-up out of my chronically greasy-yet-brittle hair because it wasn't the day of the week that I got to shower, I was desperate to take a pair of scissors to it.

But that's where The New York Times' anthropological study into the psyche of all moms-with-hair quickly crumbles.

In coming to grips with why women decide to opt for the "longer-in-back, slightly-shorter-in-front bob," there's no mention of moms feeling tired of constant ponytails or spending precious minutes with a blow dryer when they could be sleeping.

The article insists that women choose "inescapably frumpy" cuts because they feel bad about their bodies, and it goes so far as to implore women to keep their long hair as some form of cloak to hide their grotesque postpartum figures:

"It's not just your hair that's changing. Your body is, too. You might not be at the weight you really want to be yet. And the truth is, long hair can be a little bit of a distraction. When you go short, you are more exposed. There's less, literally, to hide behind."

It also recommends that women start planning their personal hair journey while they're still pregnant - you know, on top of preparing to push a human being out of their vaginas and then raise said human being to not go on to write sexist, demeaning articles for a living:

"For hair color, you'll want to go more natural by the third trimester. An ombré is a really nice way to address the fact you're going to be having fewer hair appointments."

In all of its interviews with master stylists and former models, the article never once addresses the women it is writing about. It never gives advice on hairstyles that are easy to manage. It never operates on the assumption that moms might not have time for even irregular cut-and-colors. It never recognizes that "mom hair" is far less a problem for those with it than those offended by it.

Yes, mom hair exists. And I can't think of a single thing we should all care about less.

dimanche 26 juin 2016