In the last few weeks, a controversy has erupted over one New York City mother's decision to let her fourth grader ride the subway unaccompanied. The mom, a columnist for the New York Sun, wrote about her son's trip in a column in early April. She was surprised when most of her readers responded critically. Many were horrified that a 9 year old was permitted that kind of independence, especially in such a big city. But the writer and mom whose decision has come under fire believes that modern kids are being coddled and that as a society we're doing ourselves as well as our children a disservice. She's even started a blog, Free Range Kids, where she promotes the notion that today's kids ought to be given more of the same freedoms that her generation enjoyed. Interestingly, however, iVillagers don't agree; the overwhelming majority thinks the New York City mom made an egregious error in judgment.

Member isysmoon writes: "OMG no! It's questionable whether or not adults are safe in the city alone." Member rlch strongly agrees: "NO WAY IN HELL I would leave [my daughter] alone in a CITY TO FIND HER WAY HOME!!!!!!!!!!" Member cl-west1745 feels similarly and is happy to embrace her protective tendencies: BUT OMG -- to allow any kid to be by himself on a subway in NYC at that age -- I think that is just crazy and do not really believe that story. We are suburbia types, anyway, so a whole different world. Clean, coddled, cozy and I like it that way!"

While Member jenna_luvsher_labs agrees with her fellow iVillagers, she also explains why she think 9 years old is too young: "I feel it is my responsibility to teach [my daughter] how to be home alone. But, I would never put her outside in public like [the boy in New York City] was. Until they are 12 or 13, kids don't have the reasoning skills to avoid harmful situations in public."

One young member, missnmyarmyman, who is not yet a parent, was compelled to chime in, too: "I don't have children so my comment might not count, but I can't believe [that mother] did that. I myself wouldn't even want to walk back to my house or use public transportation alone in a big city. There are too many weirdos out there that you can't trust. Anything could have happened to him." Member navywife76 does have children, and she, too, was shocked: "ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... She did this in New York City?!!!!!! Is this woman out of her flippin' mind?!?! I think she should be turned in to CPS. No decent mother would do that. Yeah, kids are always going to want their independence. They ALL do. It's in their nature. [That mother] should feel VERY lucky that she still has a child to want independence. There are too many things that could happen to a child that young in such a large city (in ANY city, actually) for her to just let him go off on his own." Member cl-clabk had a similar reaction:  "All I can say is NO WAY!  Not unless I had an undercover cop watching his every move from point A to point B. I don't even let my 10 year old go two blocks to the high school to ride his bike by himself."

Member natesmom_2004 is equally upset, but she also points out another situation the New York City mom may have inadvertently created: "My question is where does [this mom] go from here? Most parents give their children a little bit of independence at a time, gradually increasing the luxury when the child proves he is responsible enough for more. She gave him the whole hog at one time. Now it's going to be, 'I proved I can ride the subway alone; I want to go to a rock concert in Jersey by myself.' What 'parent card' does she play then? Yes, the child did prove he was responsible enough and mature enough to handle himself in this situation, but now what?"

What do you think? Did the mom in New York City make a bad decision? Or, do you think that parents raising kids today are overly cautious? Share your thoughts.

Should patients pay several thousands of dollars a month for the medicine they need? When a recent New York Times article reported that health insurance companies are adopting a new pricing system that will drastically hike up the amount of co-payments, iVillage members were outraged.

With the new pricing system, insurers abandoned the traditional arrangement that has patients pay a fixed amount, like $10, $20 or $30 for a prescription, no matter what the drug’s actual cost. Instead, they are charging patients a percentage of the cost of certain high-priced drugs, usually 20 to 33 percent, which can amount to thousands of dollars a month.

Many iVillagers, including catwoman1977, can't help but express their disdain over the new pricing system: "We're already paying several hundred dollars a month in co-pays and now it might go into the thousands? There's no way the average American taxpayer can afford to be ill!"

And not surprisingly, members who already have medical and health issues to deal with, are doubly concerned. Says member ellamenopea: "This can't possibly be true, can it? My husband takes medication for asthma and if we had to pay more than the current co-pay, which is already $50, we'd have to change our style of living. Some of his medications are very, very expensive ... What the heck is wrong with this country that we can't provide for those who need care? And why can't the drug companies eat some of this cost?"

Member 3_lil_monkeys feel the same way: "I've been diagnosed with severe allergies as well as skin cancer, so I've had more office visits with specialists (co-pays for office visits to specialists have doubled) as well as medications that we didn't expect to have to purchase. We've already depleted our flex account for the entire year and will now need to pay any costs for the remaining 8 months of this year from out of our pockets."

It seems everyone has the same question. Asks member nightandday: "What's the point in having insurance and paying the ridiculously high premiums if we're going to have to pay for the drugs we need anyway?"

Share your thoughts on this issue, how will you be affected by the rise of co-payments?

It’s no secret that thin is in, and overweight people have long felt condemned because of their size. Now, a new study from Yale University confirms that weight discrimination, or “fatism,” is indeed rampant in America. The researchers found that discrimination based on weight occurs frequently in both professional and social settings.

Not surprisingly, the study opened a floodgate of perspectives and emotions within the iVillage community. Many members welcomed a scientific acknowledgement that the discrimination they feel in their daily lives is not a figment of their imagination. Member ladyirish317 shared her experience, “People who wouldn't dream of putting me down for my religion, age or gender think nothing of trampling on me for my weight … I had a little girl tell me once, ‘You're not my friend; you're fat!’ Guys in cars have sped past me yelling insults. Once a boy on a city bus leaned out of the window and shouted at me that I should lose weight because ‘You really are ugly.’ I've been turned down for jobs because of my weight, too, though it's never phrased that way.” Another member, mom_rileymm, who has been thin as well as heavy, agreed. “I do notice a difference in how people treat me; it is night and day. One time I got a flat tire, and I had 4 people stop and help. Another time I was crying waiting for AAA for 45 minutes on the side of the road without a single person stopping. Guess what? The second time I was heavy.” Interestingly, mom_rileymm goes on to admit that not only has she experienced weight discrimination, but she herself has also judged overweight people harshly, “And I have to say that I’m even guilty of [weight discrimination, too] when I’m skinny.”

But she’s not the only one. Many members say that they look at heavy people differently than thin people. While member upanddownunder believes that cruelty towards overweight people is wrong in a social environment, she believes that sometimes employers should consider a potential hire’s weight. “In the job market there are definitely grounds for discriminating against fat people, and by that I mean obese people. There are many health problems related to obesity, which can mean that a fat person will need to take time off work or be unable to do their job to the highest level—putting a strain on the employer's business.”

Member jenl703 writes that she also judges people by their size. “I will admit that I DO judge people before I know them based on their appearance (weight, cleanliness and clothes). I am not proud of it, but I know I do it. I have many friends who are very overweight, and it doesn't bother me with them at all.... I don't even notice it. However, if I see someone I don't know and notice that they are very overweight, my first thought is that they probably eat the wrong food and don't exercise.” Several members acknowledged that, like jenl703, they have heavyset friends who they’d never judge, but they don’t hesitate to be critical of overweight strangers. Member esita writes, “I do get annoyed when I see someone who is obviously overweight, gorging on greasy takeaway. I get annoyed when a fat person sits next to me on the train, and I'm squished against the window … I certainly don't hate fat people. I mean, I have a couple 'fat' friends. I don't see them as fat, though. I just see them as my friends.”

Weight discrimination appears to be acceptable in part because many believe that heavy people are choosing to be fat. Member leeya98 says, “I think it sucks that someone could potentially not get hired because of her weight, but like my grandmother used to say, ‘Don’t give people a stick to crack you over the head with!’ Very few people that struggle with weight do so because of medical conditions; usually, it’s a choice!” Member lv2breathe feels similarly, “It is something you can do something about, and it's a reflection of your values and lifestyle. It can be a reflection of eating too much and not exercising. These things aren’t appealing and so no one should be surprised if others don't react positively to them [because they are unfit].” Member mama_lah, however, disagrees. “I totally think that there’s a huge problem with weight-ism in America. I am overweight, and … I think the thing people need to understand is that people don't want to be overweight. It is an eating disorder, just like anorexia or bulimia.”

What do you think? Do you believe that weight discrimination is a problem? Have you experienced it or seen it  happen to someone else? Share your thoughts.

Concern (and debate) over sex education is still alive and well in the country—and on the iVillage boards—especially in light of a recent government study which revealed that one in four teen girls has a sexually transmitted disease. But further fueling the sex-ed debate is a U.S. survey that revealed comprehensive sex education that includes discussion of birth control may help reduce teen pregnancies, while abstinence-only programs seem to fall short.

Even before the results of the sex education study were released, some iVillagers already have objections to abstinence-only programs, which receive $176 million in government funds annually. Member beaches59 on the Parenting Issues Debate board says, "My objection to abstinence-only health education is that I'd much rather have my children get the scientific information and [be able to] make knowledgeable choices."

Many iVillagers, such as member lyn0905 from the June 2006 Playgroup, feel schools should have a comprehensive sex ed program: "While I think teaching abstinence is so important... we also need to help protect those that don't choose abstinence. I'm not sure how I feel about schools handing out condoms but I do think it's important for parents and sex ed programs to not only teach abstinence as a form of protection... but also how to use condoms correctly!"

Some, however, such as member momathome91041, feel abstinence-only sex education is effective because it disregards what may be confusing information: "I favor abstinence-only because it is the only thing that is both safe and effective. I believe that [sex] education that includes birth control teaching can only confuse some kids and lull them into believing that birth control equals 'safe sex' equals infallible--which it's not. It's not 100% fool-proof, it's not 100% safe, either."

Member susananderek has an opposing view, and believes it's important to give as much information as possible: "The fact is, teenagers are making the decision to either have sex or to not have sex. I know that any decision I make is best made with all the available information. And this is such an important decision. So I think that yes, let's teach them about abstinence—give them the tools they need to say no, if that is what their choice is going to be. But lets also give them the birth control and STD information. Demystify it, teach it, and hopefully the kids will learn enough to make good decisions."

Another member, thatyank, agrees and also thinks that teaching responsibly means teaching a comprehensive sex education: "Teaching ONLY abstinence is, at best, negligent,and at worst, criminal as this generation appears to be sadly ignorant of how [sexually transmitted] diseases are transmitted, of how vulnerable they are, and of what to do when symptoms are noticed..."

Share your thoughts. Are you in favor of abstinence-only sex education? Do you think it's effective? Leave your comments below.

News that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has spent thousands of dollars on a high-priced prostitution service had the iVillage message boards buzzing with expressions of shock, outrage and disappointment.

Now, there's another revelation that has the community talking: "new" New York governor David Paterson admits he had marital affairs with several women, one a state employee.

Spitzer's Successor: Also a Cheater?

Gov. David Paterson's confession came a day after he took over from former Gov. Eliot Spitzer. Paterson said the affairs happened during a rough patch in his marriage, and that the employee did not work for him. He insisted that no campaign or state money was spent on the affairs.

An Beehive commenter has this to say: "Watching this thing unfold I'm beginning to think that ALL men cheat. But why? Why marry the woman, pledge to her your faithfulness and then cheat?" But cl-nwtreehugger think more people should applaud Gov. Paterson and his wife: "This couple learned from their mistakes. They went for counseling and saved their marriage."

Member mkatherine thinks he did the right thing by admitting his affairs: "I think he did the smart thing... admit to what happened and get it done with. He didn't abuse power, he didn't break any laws, he had a difficult marriage and they both went astray and found their way back."

Honesty may be the best policy in the new governor's case, but if you cheated would you tell your significant other even if the admission tears you apart?

Reactions to the Spitzer Scandal

The whole scandal still leaves a bad taste in many iVillagers' mouths. Members, such as raskolnikov_pliskin, have harsh words for the former governor—a staunch advocate of ethics reform—calling him a disgrace and a hypocrite. "I hope he is prosecuted for breaking the law and has to live with the consequences like any other John." Member susandoris also expresses her disappointment over the actions of Spitzer, a 48-year-old married man with three teenage daughters: "I'm sad for his family and disappointed by his own lack of responsibility towards me and all New Yorkers."

Members are also commenting on the governor's wife, Silda Wall Spitzer. Her appearance by her husband's side as he made his apology on Monday launched dozens of conversations. Why is she there? Should she be there? Several members, such as navygal06, don't think she should be at her husband's side. "I don't see how you could stand next to your husband while he apologizes for cheating on his family. In reality he's really only sorry because he got caught."

Member pamela.r.simpson also wonders why Sptizer's wife is standing by him. "I just wonder why political wives go along with it so consistently ... to save her [husband's] career, I suppose. Only, I wonder why there aren't more wives who decide that hubby—and his career—can go jump in the lake at that point."

Why do betrayed political wives stand by their man? Member fallenstar2005 thinks it's part of the "business arrangement" that constitutes most political marriages: "It's supposed to be sort of subliminal. See? He isn't so bad. His spouse is still supporting him. If she can forgive him why can't the voters? I really don't know how the spouses stand up to the pressure." She adds: "Actually, I do. When you first find out you have been betrayed, you are enveloped in a numbing confusion. My husband confessed to me on the morning of my son's graduation. I had to sit next to the man I loved and hated more than anything else in the world and deal with friends and family and the appearance of a normal happy event. You become numb. You know you are in no state to make any decisions, yet, and you just live minute by minute. It's horrible."

cl-vahalla31z from the Betrayed Spouses board says she would give Silda Wall Spitzer the same advice she gives on the support group: "[I'll tell her] to make sure she is putting herself and her children first. To think about what she wants out of life, a partner, and a marriage, and then look at her husband to see if she believes he is willing and able to give that to he. If she wants to remain married, then she should be looking to see if he is showing true remorse for the pain he has caused her, if he is taking full and complete responsibility for his choice to cheat, if he is showing through his actions that he will make changes in himself and his lifestyle, and that he will put in a lot of effort into working on the marriage."

Share you thoughts on the governor's resignation and fall from power. Should his wife Silda stand by him? Leave your comments below and watch the video: what to tell your children when a parent cheats.