Latest news with #AndThenThereWereNone
Atlantic
5 days ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
Why Voices on the Right Are Telling Moms to ‘Lean In'
Online, they say things such as: 'I believe women get to have it all: A career. An education. A happy marriage. And children.' And: 'Women—you are strong enough to succeed in both motherhood & your career. You don't have to choose one.' And: 'You don't have to put your career on hold to have kids.' They are not, however, the former Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg, or the girlboss head of a progressive nonprofit, or a liberal influencer. Those quotations come from the social-media feeds of, respectively, Abby Johnson, the founder of the anti-abortion group And Then There Were None; Kristan Hawkins, the president of the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America; and the married couple Simone and Malcolm Collins, who run a nonprofit in the conservative-leaning pronatalist movement that encourages Americans to have more children. (Simone also recently ran for office as a Republican.) They all contend that women need to make very few trade-offs between having kids and building a flourishing career. This argument, coming from these voices, is surprising for a few reasons. The idea that mothers should 'lean in' to challenging jobs was popularized by Sandberg, a prominent Democrat, in 2013 and embraced by legions of liberal career women. Within a few years, attitudes had soured toward both Sandberg and leaning in. Many mothers pushed back on the expectation that they be everything to everyone, and opted instead for raging, quiet quitting, or leaning out. A sunny lean-in revival is unexpected, especially from conservative-leaning women, a group that for the most part did not embrace this message when Sandberg was making it. The specter of conservatives wanting to trap women at home has long been a liberal boogeyman, but it is based in some reality. Historically, some on the right, including Phyllis Schlafly and earlier-era J. D. Vance, have argued that women should, at the very least, deprioritize paid work so they can focus on motherhood. Some conservatives continue to make this claim: At a 2023 pronatalism conference, the far-right businessman Charles Haywood told audiences that 'generally, women should not have careers.' Allie Beth Stuckey, a conservative podcast host, once told my colleague Elaine Godfrey that women should put family first, and that any professional enterprise—say, a 'crocheting business' or the like—should come second to their kids. The conservative author and podcaster Ben Shapiro has written that girls are troubled because society has told them that they need not 'aspire to bear and rear children or make preparations to build a home. Instead, we've told them that they can run from their own biology,' including by pursuing 'more work hours.' By contrast, Hawkins once posted a photo of her family, which includes four children, as proof that women can 'do both: Have a career & be a mother.' In reference to a picture of White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt holding her baby son at work, Hawkins wrote that it's a lie that 'you need to end a child's life'—a reference to having an abortion—'to have the career you want.' A female attendee at a recent pronatalist convention told a New York Times reporter, 'It's horrible to be telling young women that having kids is the worst thing you can do for your career.' Kristi Hamrick, a vice president of Students for Life of America, who has four children, told me, 'I'm highly offended by the modern-day misogyny that says you can't have a career and family, so pick career. There is no difference to turn-of-the-century misogyny which says you cannot have home and career, so stay home.' The women I spoke with who make this argument expressed frustration with those on the right encouraging women to devote themselves fully to housekeeping and child-rearing. Hawkins told me she objects to what she calls 'tradwife stuff'—stay-at-home wives who post videos of themselves, for example, milling their own flour—because 'that's not financially possible for the majority of people.' Hawkins said that she has always worked full-time and that her husband homeschools their kids. 'I think especially now in the right wing, this messaging is coming across like, 'You're either an evil feminist career woman, or you're a mother,'' she said. 'I'm like, 'What about women who want to do both of those things?'' Johnson, who has eight children, told me that in recent years, 'this tradwife movement has been very loud. And I don't like it. I don't think it's helpful. I think it's kind of reductionist. Like, 'Women, you are just here to breed.'' She's heard conservative male speakers at events use the term boss babe pejoratively. 'What's wrong with being a boss?' she wondered. Simone Collins, who works in private equity in addition to running her family's nonprofit, also pushed back against traditionalist views of women and work. Her mother, she told me, 'basically put her entire life on hold to raise me.' After Collins was grown, she 'didn't have anything else to live for and got really depressed, and that's terrifying to me.' Now Collins, who has four kids, wants to model for her daughters the idea that having children and working hard at a career is normal. She told me that she works from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day. Unlike the families of some of the other women I spoke with, hers relies on outside child care: Their tenants provide it in exchange for rent. 'I'm just not the kind of person who can sit at home,' she said, 'and only focus on kids.' Many of these women embrace progressive-leaning views on family policy. 'I think it's a gross detriment to society that we don't have federal parental leave,' Johnson told me. (This mirrors a growing sense among Republican voters that the government should boost support for working parents.) All of the women I spoke with mentioned something that is, at the very least, liberal coded: the importance of remote work to working moms. And yet none of them would generally be considered progressive. In our conversation, Hawkins criticized feminists of the 1970s and '80s; Hamrick described the concept of women working as 'very biblical,' pointing out the Proverbs 31 tale of a 'wife of noble character' who 'makes linen garments and sells them.' Johnson has supported 'head-of-household voting,' in which, hypothetically, a husband could cast a ballot for his wife. Elizabeth Bruenig: Why the left should embrace pronatalism Still, the lean-in argument is taking hold among some of these women, possibly as a practical calculation that backing women into a kids-or-career corner won't help raise fertility rates or persuade women to avoid abortion. Women attend college at higher rates than men, and men's labor-force participation has stalled while women's continues to grow. Only about a quarter of mothers in two-parent households stay at home while their husband works, a steep drop-off from the '70s. Nearly half of moms are their family's breadwinner. Despite possible differences in what they believe to be ideal, Republican and Democratic mothers work outside the home at similar rates. Today's young women will likely end up working—and wanting to do so. 'A Leave It to Beaver –style, more patriarchal approach to pronatalism is just not going to work,' Patrick T. Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, who focuses on family policy and has four kids, told me. (He works part-time, and his wife is a tenure-track professor.) Encouraging Americans to have children seems to require acknowledging that few families can survive on one income. 'Everyone has to work,' Collins told me. 'If they make it such that you are not a conservative Christian or you're not part of our community if you have a working mother, they're not gonna have any more community members, because everyone has to have a job now.' In their well-intentioned effort to encourage mothers' career aspirations, however, some of these women may be overstating their case. (Collins told me that she hasn't sacrificed her career for her kids 'even a little bit.') Many of them have organized their life in ways that are not available to many other working moms. All of those I spoke with work from home, which is something many women would like to do but cannot. Hamrick had a period of working part-time when her kids were young, something that most working mothers would like to do as well, but that relatively few are able to do, because part-time jobs tend to not pay well. The women I spoke with are all high up at organizations that offer a level of flexibility that, say, a nurse or a teacher does not enjoy. (Johnson, of And Then There Were None, lets her employees take naps in the middle of the day.) And they all have very supportive partners, some of whom don't work outside the home. The thing is, for many women, having kids can be really bad for their career. Although the 'motherhood penalty' on wages varies depending on a woman's age and profession, and has declined over time, it seems to continue to exist in the short term. That is, although their earnings might eventually bounce back, women tend to make less money immediately after having children—whether because they cut back hours; accept more flexible, lower-paying jobs; or have bosses who discriminate against them. A large study recently found that after working women have children, their income falls by half, on average, and remains depressed for at least six years. Even women who are the breadwinner of their family see their income suffer after giving birth. Hiring managers are less likely to hire mothers than women without kids, and many offer mothers lower salaries. And women with kids may avoid or be steered away from ' greedy ' jobs—or high-paying white-collar jobs—which frequently require people to work well into the night, long after day cares have closed. 'Of course there's a trade-off. It's massive,' Catherine Ruth Pakaluk, a Catholic University of America economist who has eight children, told me. 'You have to be blind to deny it.' She went on, 'If I didn't have children, I would have done a lot more professionally.' Nevertheless, she said, 'I'm happy with this trade-off.' Marc Novicoff: The loneliness of the conservative pronatalist When pressed, the others I interviewed, who had previously expressed unqualified positivity, acknowledged some concessions between motherhood and career. Collins believes the sacrifices should come at home: She told me that working hard and raising kids is doable if people are less particular about the parenting part. 'If I spend the afternoon with the kids, the house is cleaner than it was before. The kids are well behaved. They're fed. They're all dressed. They look neat and tidy,' she told me. 'If Malcolm spends the afternoon with the kids, I come home, they're naked, their faces are smattered with candy smudges.' Many women, she said, don't accept this more anarchic brand of 'dad parenting,' so they cut back at work to do it themselves. 'If we revised that and made it more normalized to have kids more chaotically parented or parented in a more chill way,' she said, 'then I think women would be more comfortable not leaning out.' Johnson said with some regret that she has missed key moments with her kids—for instance, witnessing some of their first steps—to keep up her travel-heavy schedule. Despite this, she said, 'I'm a better mom because I am not at home 24 hours a day with my children.' Women, she added, 'have this feminine genius within all of us that I believe is essential in the workplace.' Others said they'd made compromises at work: Hamrick said her career has 'ebbed and flowed,' and for years she worked part-time. Hawkins said she often tells young women that being a mother and working full-time 'does require sacrifice.' But the women I spoke with seemed especially concerned about the drawbacks that come from not having kids. They want more people to enjoy the fulfillment and sense of meaning they believe children bring to life, and to not regret missing their chance. Research suggests that a small number of Americans without children have regrets, but most do not; at the same time, some parents experience regret that they chose to have kids. Still, some women I spoke with worried that those who don't become mothers may live to lament their choices. At some point, Hawkins told me, women who focus on 'making as much money as you can, climbing the corporate ladder so then your boss can fire you at any moment, and going on great vacations that you put on Instagram' may well look at their life and think, Wait a minute. What is this really about? Hawkins hopes that when they do, 'it's not too late' for them to have children. So she tells women they can have it all—even though for many women, that's much harder than it sounds.
USA Today
10-06-2025
- Entertainment
- USA Today
'With a Vengeance' by Riley Sager is a tense mystery on a train: Review
'With a Vengeance' by Riley Sager is a tense mystery on a train: Review Justice is best served cold — after a luxury overnight train ride, of course. That's the premise of "With A Vengeance" (Dutton, ★★★ out of four), the newest novel from bestselling author Riley Sager. It's is a locked-room mystery that takes us back to 1954 as a trap is being set. Anna Matheson's plan was simple, and she has put all her energy — and money — into every last detail. Get the people responsible for her family's downfall during the war onto a train where there's no escape, confront them and find out why they did what they did and then deliver them right to authorities waiting at the train's destination. But her meticulous plans are, well, derailed shortly after the train departs Philadelphia. Anna has managed, through anonymous invitations (and mild threats), to lure the six people who were behind destroying her family onto the luxe, and suspiciously empty, Phoenix train for a nonstop overnight ride bound for Chicago. More: USA TODAY's best-selling booklist She's prepared for this moment, prepared to face them all with what she's uncovered about their crimes, but she's unprepared for what comes after. Anna might want justice, but someone on the train apparently wants them dead and is killing Anna's captives, one by one. Now, she is in a literal race against the clock to not only figure out who's behind the murders, but also help protect the people she despises so they can be alive to face the justice they deserve. Sager's novel, which takes readers through each of the 13 hours from the train's departure to its arrival, brings easy comparisons to Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express" and "And Then There Were None." But there's also familiarity from Sager's previous novels: the panicky main character making messy moves, hints of romance past and present, uncovered family secrets and many twists. The journey through "Vengeance" almost loses its way along the tracks setting up some of those twists. Like real train trips, initial excitement can wane as the adventure gets underway and you settle in for the ride. Will it remain fun, or will the repetition rock you to sleep? There's plenty, though, to capture a reader's interest along the way. The tension between the characters, the tightness of the quarters on the train are visceral and sharp. You might not understand why Anna makes some of her choices, but you can understand her grief for the loss of her family and her desperation for closure and justice. That along with the story's short timeframe factor add to the urge to find out what happens next as the mystery deepens and the action escalates. More: Celebrate Pride Month with one of these 10 new books, from romance to nonfiction And Anna is surrounded by characters with more interesting backstories than her own: Her Aunt Retta, glimpsed through flashbacks, who had little patience for weakness, or her late beloved brother, Tommy, the kind and charming youth who joined the military and the war effort both seem worthy of novels of their own. "Vengeance" is not merely the final destination — the answers to whodunit or how — but the whole journey: observing the passing scenery, the setting, the passengers and seeing where the ride takes you.
West Australian
06-06-2025
- Entertainment
- West Australian
Peter O'Brien heading to His Majesty's Theatre in Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None
The desire to live a nomadic existence has been the motivation behind a great many decisions Australian actor Peter O'Brien has made throughout his life, especially on his career path. Raised in outback South Australian, O'Brien was studying a Bachelor of Science and Teaching degree at Adelaide's Flinders University when he discovered great creative joy in the university revue scene. 'It wasn't like I showed some extraordinary aptitude or gift for it, but I found it a world that was really interesting; the collaborative process and the creativity,' 65-year-old O'Brien says. 'There's a similar thread that runs through it like preparing for a game of sport. It's that preparation, and then out you go. That's something that I understood quite well, and every few months there was a possibility of a new job, and travel with it. 'I certainly wasn't seeking to go and be famous or anything, but it was a great chance to find somewhere in that industry that I could fit in, whether it was in front or behind the camera, or on stage or off-stage. 'From my original desire to be creative and travel, it certainly has fulfilled that and scratched that itch.' Film and television roles — from Neighbours, as original cast member Shane Ramsay, and The Flying Doctors to Halifax f.p. and White Collar Blue — have seen O'Brien travel back and forth to Australia for work as he has spent the past 30 years living everywhere from the UK and US to stints in China, Canada, and South America. He and actor wife Miranda Otto have temporarily moved back to Australia while their daughter Darcey studies at university in Sydney. 'We put the pets on the plane and brought them back, but we didn't do a Johnny Depp, we brought them through the right way,' he chuckles. The move has seen O'Brien reunite with director Robyn Nevin for Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None, having worked with her on Sydney Theatre Company's 2003 production of A Doll's House, and knowing Nevin's previous success directing Christie's The Mousetrap. Intrigued by the stage adaptation of Christie's bestselling crime novel, O'Brien signed on for the challenge of character William Blore, also eager for the chance to tour the Australian production to Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and Adelaide. Considered one of the greatest edge-of-your-seat thrillers Christie ever wrote, And Then There Were None follows 10 strangers who are invited to a solitary mansion on an island off the English coast. After a storm isolates them from the mainland, the real reason behind their gathering starts to emerge, taking on a grim reality. 'Agatha Christie always puts these complicated and veiled characters into shows in a way that you are intrigued,' O'Brien says. 'There's a lot of intrigue about William and his involvement in the story. He's a lot of fun, sometimes to his and my detriment. 'Every time he walks into the room, he changes the course of the play where there is an energy or a situation that he either creates, or is involved in, that relaunches or pivots the play in a way. 'There's a tapestry to Agatha Christie's works as she weaves them. It's not that characters are deliberately being deceptive, trying to deceive people, but there's always an area of intrigue about them, of 'why are they doing that?'. It's in her writing of dialogue and situations.' The production premiered in Melbourne in February, where it has been captivating audiences night after night with all the elements of mystery, suspense and humour expected of a Christie narrative. Alongside O'Brien in the 11-strong cast are Nicholas Hammond, Jennifer Flowers, Grant Piro and Anthony Phelan, plus WA Academy of Performing Arts graduates Tom Stokes, Mia Morrissey and Eden Falk. 'The response has just been unanimous rapture,' he says. 'I guess you're only as good as your audience reaction, and that's been enormous. I've really enjoyed it. It takes you along with it from the moment the curtain goes up, and you've just got to keep up. Tell Perth audiences to put their running shoes on when they come.' And Then There Were None is at His Majesty's Theatre, June 8 to 29. Tickets at
New Indian Express
17-05-2025
- Entertainment
- New Indian Express
Orange Juice: A hilarious puppet twist on Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None in Delhi
On a mysterious, lonely island somewhere across the seas, someone has been murdered— and one by one, many more follow, until there are none. The synopsis sounds eerily familiar to anyone who has devoured a murder mystery or two. This is none other than Agatha Christie's world-famous And Then There Were None. But in this version, the bodies aren't human — they're orange-headed puppets. A puppetry trio in Delhi takes Christie's dark classic and spins it into a comical, chaotic puppet thriller, replacing people with felt, foam, and a whole lot of introspection. Titled Orange Juice and written by Anamika Mishra, this glove puppetry production is helmed by puppeteers Anurupa Roy, BV Shrunga, and Anirbaan Ghosh. The play opened to a full house this weekend at Delhi's OddBird Theatre. 'We called it Orange Juice because all the puppets are oranges,' says Roy. 'In the show, it's fruits that are being murdered. It's a metaphor. Fruit is ordinary, common, disposable — much like people. We're trying to explore the idea that death, while tragic, is also deeply mundane. It happens all the time.' Roy has long wanted to stage a murder mystery, and as a Christie fan, this adaptation felt like the perfect fit. 'It's one of Christie's darker works,' she says. 'The novel's darkness lends itself well to dark humour. But at the end of the day, our puppetry show is still a comedy.'
Time Out
12-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Time Out
And Then There Were None
Hold on to your alibis, dear readers. Hot on the heels of the recent national tour of The Mousetrap, another classic from Agatha Christie's playbook of murder mystery mayhem lands on the stage at Sydney's Theatre Royal. *** Time Out Melbourne reviewed And Then There Were None when it played at the Comedy Theatre in February. Read on for that three-star review: Somewhere off the coast of Devon is a dreary little island with high cliffs, higher tides and no way to escape. It's Soldier Island: a lovely place to put your feet up, take a dip, meet nine strangers and watch as you all get slowly picked off one-by-one. This is the wickedly thrilling premise of Agatha Christie's 1939 classic And Then There Were None. A favourite among Christie fans (and Christie herself), it arrives in a production that once again proves that the master of the whodunnit can still thrill us nearly 100 years on. Yet, this revival from director Robyn Nevin – her second of Christie's following 2023's The Mousetrap – rests on the laurels of its author too often, offering a passable but ultimately thin restaging that I think might signal the end of the recent resurgence of British classics in our theatres. It's 1939. Ten people have been invited to Soldier Island under suspicious pretences. They have little in common apart from the skeletons in their closets. For much of the show's bloated first act, we're watching this motley crew of potential victims introduce themselves to each other. Christie is famous for her ability to construct a complete impression of a person in one short phrase. But here, these characters have a tendency to over-explain themselves, and it can get a bit tedious. You can feel Nevin trying to amplify comedic beats or attempt more creative blocking to avoid this exposition-heavy first half from getting too stale. For this, she has an incredibly talented cast at her disposal. As the ex-soldier Philip Lombard, Tom Stokes keeps things moving with witty jabs and arrogant take downs that strike the perfect balance between Hugh Grant-style arrogance and charisma. His sparring matches with the entitled Cambridge student Anthony Marston (Jack Bannister) and condescending love for the dowdy cop William Blore (Peter O'Brien) inject a much-needed liveliness to these on-stage relationships. Eden Falk is perfect as the authoritative Dr. Armstrong; and Grant Piro is suitably frenetic as the panicked servant, Rogers. Meanwhile, Jennifer Flowers lends a much-needed gravitas to the crocheting traditionalist, Emily Brent. Watching her butt heads with the strong-willed Vera Claythorne (Mia Morrissey) over ideas of feminine modesty stands out as one of those breathtaking moments when you feel an audience suddenly in awe of Christie's enduring relevance. But while her humour comes easily to this cast, the deeper themes that elevate her novel are given short shrift. This is one of Christie's most psychological thrillers. We're watching people unravel at the hands of their guilt and fallibility, as much as the threat of their demise. Without Miss Marple or Detective Poirot, our investigation is weighted with a near-existential hopelessness. Nicholas Hammond doesn't quite land the tragedy of the absent-minded General Mackenzie, Anthony Phelan seems more comfortable performing Sir Lawrence Wargrave's stoicism than his anger, and Morrissey doesn't have enough of a handle on the complex twists and turns in Vera's mental state. Set and costume designer Dale Ferguson situates us in the play's interwar context beautifully by dressing the cast in a well-chosen mix of high-waisted pants, three-piece suits and silk blazers. Their navy blues, beiges and egg-shell whites are brought out by Trudy Dalgleish 's preference for bright white washes and sunny tones in her lighting design. But I wish more was done to amplify the horrors of the show's final act. Occasional glimpses of severe lighting, and ominous shadows are ultimately too tepid to contribute much to any overall atmosphere, leaving us with an emotional climax that feels frustratingly stale. Reviewing an Agatha Christie play can sometimes feel like you're critiquing a Christmas classic. This is hallowed ground, and familiar to many. Some might call it unfair to expect so much. It's a museum piece; a time capsule that should be evaluated as an intriguing glimpse into our past. In recent years, this idea has become the bankable logic that has driven many of the revivals seen in Melbourne's larger venues. Nevin's production of The Mousetrap is one example. But 2024 also saw revivals of A Woman in Black, Gaslight and the annual A Christmas Carol carve out a little West End corner in our nation's stages. Economically, this trend makes sense. These aren't spectacle-heavy productions that require big budgets, and they still have enough cultural clout to ensure good ticket sales. Producers of plays don't have a pool of jukebox musicals or film adaptations to choose from like their musical counterparts. If they want to bring a play to one of our larger venues, it seems they have two options: an Arthur Miller revival or a classic British thriller. With this production of And Then There Were None you can feel this trend nearing its end. It's not that we expect modern takes of these slices of theatrical history. But we can tell when fidelity is used as a crouch to avoid doing more with them. Reverence doesn't need to be an excuse for laziness. This is Christie's best novel, but for all its thrilling twists and still enlivening themes, you won't come out of this show thinking it's her best play. I came out of it feeling nothing but the sense that an opportunity to do something more with it had ultimately been wasted.
