The New York Times Faces Backlash For Criticising ‘Mom Hair’

None of the women were having it.

As if mother’s didn’t have enough pressure on them to be everything for everyone, The New York Times released an article a couple of days that suggested they need to do something about their ‘mom hair’. The story has since sparked a social media backlash.

The article, which was titled ‘Mom Hair: It Exists, Now What To Do About It‘, interviewed a hair stylist in Manhattan, a mummy blogger and a hair salon owner in Brooklyn about how mums could make their hair styles less ‘frumpy’.

Hair stylist Juan Carlos Maciques offered advice to mums on planning their hair early in their pregnancy.

“Ideally, you’d start planning while you’re still pregnant,” he said. “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.”

He even went on to say why mothers should consider staying long with their hair, suggesting that there might be a reason to hide.

“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.”

Luckily, the Internet is the perfect place to provide feedback, and men and women alike did not hold back in the comment section. They immediately jumped on the post with negative reactions, causing a social media backlash.

One commenter was not happy about the publication suggesting that women should look a certain way: “Because we just cannot seem to *stop* ourselves from criticizing how other women look. Jesus. Enough already. Know what my “mom hair” looks like? It looks like the hair of a woman who gets up at five, who works hard all day, who goes to bed and who *might* remember to remove her ponytail holder. Enough already. How about lifting each other up for once?”

Another commenter astutely pointed out that the word ‘mom’ has been adopted to become synonymous with negative adjectives like ‘frumpy’, ‘old’ and ‘outdated’. She also said: “Why does “mom” = bad?!?!? Get off of mom’s backs for once. In the U.S. we get 6 weeks to get our recently pregnant bodies back in “pre-mom shape” before we have to go back to work. During that time we also have to nurture and nourish a new baby, tend to the rest of our family and home, and prepare emotionally to get back to work. But now we also need to use this precious little time making sure our hair is up to some standard of fashion likely established by people who never woke up at 12, 2, 3, 4, and 5 to feed a screaming infant before going to work. Ugh. NYT you’re better than this.”

One woman put her thoughts bluntly: “Wow, I’ve seen it all. Thanks for the article telling women to keep their hair long to hide their fat faces behind.”

Some of the funnier responses proposed that we make ‘Dad hair’ a thing, and flipped the gender stereotypes. A man commented saying: “You’ve likely seen it at the ballgame, or mowing the lawn: buzzed on the sides, slightly less buzzed on top. It’s “Dad hair”. What can we do about it?”

If the article brought anything positive with it, it was the hundreds of people defending a woman’s choice to wear her hair how she wants, and telling the publication to back off of our mums and affecting their body image.

Related stories