April 2007 Archives

A fresh sampling of hot conversations happening all over iVillage this week:

-- "Boyfriends" in elementary school? Cute or asking for trouble? mom2cassandsteff writes: "I am personally against the idea of encouraging (or even not discouraging) 'boyfriends' for young children. I guess some people think this is cute and think, 'Where's the harm to play along?'" [on the Parenting Issues Debate message board]

-- Need some motivation and support to get ready for that summer bikini? Join The Get Beach Ready Community Challenge! The challenge kicks off on Monday and Sophie offers this tip to prep for what's to come: "Take the weekend to clear out your kitchens! Toss all the irresistible snacks which are likely to derail you and stock up on healthier options. Be prepared!" [on the Get Beach Ready Community Challenge forum]

-- Should cigarettes be banned? With all of the health issues caused by smoking, is it time to ban the butt once and for all? [on the Kick Butt: Quit Smoking Today message board]

-- If you're a mom, you may recognize yourself in this quote: "I'm due on July 10, 2007 and I am freaking out. This is my first child and I have no clue what I am doing. I'm worried about my weight gain and going into early labor." Share your on-the-job training and connect with women just like you on our social networking platform, iVillage Connect. [on iVillager ashleighhiggins' Connect blog]

-- You either love her or hate her ... Rosie O'Donnell is always a hot topic. Now that she's leaving The View are you cheering or will you miss your daily dose of O'Donnell? [on the TV Talk Shows message board]

-- Finally, atlgrrl sums up what most of us are thinking as warm weather kicks into gear: "So it's already sandal weather here. My pet peeve is women and men who wear sandals but didn't bother to get a pedicure or even wash their feet. With casual Fridays, I see tons of people in our building wearing shoes that show me icky feet that should only see the light of day in the privacy of their own homes. Come on people!! Pumice stones and soap!!! " [on the Fashion Pet Peeves message board]

... about Alec Baldwin. Yep, ever since last week's voicemail tirade tape was leaked, it seems almost everyone has something to say about the 30 Rock star. As if the tape itself weren't bad enough, we also have the classic Baldwin/Basinger verbal volleys and then AB's drop-in on The View. Because, you know, when there's just not enough drama already, involve the gals on The View. But really, who needs The View when you have the iVillage community adding their own (much more interesting) reactions and opinions about this crazy mess? The members of the Domestic Abuse: New Beginnings message board are not impressed:

"He sounded completely immature for a man of his age, and I am guessing this may be the reason Kim Basinger left him and is fighting so hard for her child."

"This just goes to show you that abuse is everywhere and has no boundaries. You don't need to be poor for this to happen, even the rich do it. (they just have better lawyers to cover it up). If Alec is this way with an innocent child, how was he with Kim?"

The custody battles, missed calls and the notion of parental alienation in this situation struck a chord on the Stepmoms/Bio Moms Debate message board:

"He had a right to be upset that his daughter did not call him, and address it with her, but he wayyy overreacted and the name calling is never acceptable. I am sure a lot of parents saw themselves in this phone call. A lot of divorced parents are upset due to missed phone calls."

"The mother and father have clearly set the stage for a poor father-daughter relationship."

"I have said things to my children that I am not proud of. I am human...the good news for me is that I'm a nobody and there isn't a soul who would care to record me and put it out in the public."

And my personal favorite summary ...

"I think they are both psycho and the only good thing is they have been so preoccupied with each other they haven't remarried and dragged more people into their psycho mess."

What do you think? Is this just one more chapter in what seems to be a never-ending ugly divorce story? Does Alec need professional help? Should he be allowed to leave 30 Rock? Why are we so fascinated with these celebrity train wrecks? Toss in your two cents about this latest round of dysfunctional celebrity family news!

There's always something buzzing in the iVillage community ... here are just a few things women are talking about this week:

-- Forget about who wears the pants! What we really want to know is ... who buys the underwear? [on the Feminism Today message board]

-- Are all mothers-in-law inherently evil? One MIL shares her point of view. [on the Dealing with In-Laws message board]

-- So Giuliani doesn't know the price of a gallon of milk ... does this make him out of touch with the reality the rest of us are living? Is it really that surprising and does it matter when it comes to being a presidential candidate? iVillagers have been tackling this hot political topic -- and many more. [on the Politics Today message board]

-- Langston Hughes asked what happens to a dream deferred and one iVillager is contemplating the same question. "Dreams - they can motivate us, drag us down if we think we cannot accomplish them or burn at our soul as we try to fulfill them." [on iVillager luvorange2's Connect blog]

-- "I am so tired of moving things from place to place and I can't stand it anymore. I don't know how other people can keep their homes clean and organized and I can't." Sound familiar? Share your organizing pitfalls and get help from others making changes one day at a time. [on the iGet Organized Community Challenge forum]

The near epidemic of childhood obesity has hit the headlines several times in recent weeks, including a recent study that linked pregnancy weight to an increased risk of having an overweight toddler. Even outside of the womb, how do the health habits and weight of the parent affect the child, genetics notwithstanding? On the 100 Pounds or More to Go message board, they're discussing how you may not even have to give birth to your child to have your weight become a factor:

"Not that long ago China changed their adoption laws to exclude foreigners with a BMI of 40 or above. How does that strike you? I found that it really challenged my own perspectives in many areas."

"I don't necessarily think that it is discrimination. Most adoption agencies (both foreign and local) have criteria that prospective parents have to meet, not just weight requirements."

What if it went a step further? cl-pghannie speculates:

"Now, suppose a new law passed saying that child welfare agencies in your country could place children in foster care if their parent or parents had a BMI of over 40?"

What do you think? Is this BMI (body-mass index) restriction discriminatory or a good practice for health concerns? Does this prevent children from finding a loving and stable home with parents who are ready, willing and able? Sound off with your take and share your experiences with us.

On Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling that bans a procedure popularly called "partial birth abortion". The 5-4 decision marked the first time that the court has ruled on a specific procedure rather than the question of abortion overall. While most abortions performed would not be affected by this ban, the ruling has obviously added fuel to an already volatile long-running debate between pro-life and pro-choice activists. While abortion opponents see it as a major victory for their beliefs, abortion rights groups feel it's a major setback. Likely echoing their concerns, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held a dissenting opinion and stated that this ruling "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court." She went on to say that the decision flies in the face of previous decisions and procedures deemed necessary by medical organizations. I'm paraphrasing a bit there, but Ruth's not the only one with a dissenting opinion around here; this news has sparked a lot of conversation on our boards as well. From the Abortion Debate board:

"I do not wish for abortion to become illegal but I can't say I was upset to hear this procedure will no longer be performed."

"I don't know about you, but if I need medical help, it's the doctor I'm turning to, not a politician trying to look "moral."

This ban is posturing and potentially dangerous."

Of course they're also discussing this ruling -- and the politics associated with it -- on the Politics Today board:

"No surprise. I fully expected *this* court to put it's layman opinion ahead of the medical experience and knowledge of licensed OB's and gynocologists on the issue before it.

It's called arrogance."

"I believe there has been so much objection due to the fact that it is a slippery slope. Once you start limiting abortion or banning certain procedures, it is only a matter of time until they ban the entire procedure."

What do you think about this ruling? Do you feel that this is a major development in the abortion debate? Does the decision set the stage for what issues are going to be in the spotlight for the 2008 presidential race? Share your thoughts and reactions here.

Another tragic case of gun violence unfolded this morning in Blacksburg, Virginia where a gunman has reportedly killed at least 21 people on the Virginia Tech campus; the shooter is also reported dead. An additional 28 people are listed as injured. Students at the campus are stunned and many have been on lockdown in their classrooms and dormitories as authorities try to piece together exactly what happened. Details are still coming out about this developing story, but we're already seeing reaction on the In the News message board:

"Who expects to be killed in a mall, school or at work? The gun situation is out of control. Any nut case can get hold of a gun."

"This is horrendous. Will someone please tell me why we're being fed this line of BS that is supposed to make us all fearful of foreign terrorists, when our chances of being murdered by someone on our own street, in our own school, in our own shopping center is FAR, FAR greater?"

This awful incident is hitting a bit too close to home for some iVillagers, as cl-3boysandkrista's latest blog entry illustrates.

Our thoughts are obviously with the students and the families of the dead and injured, but this horrible news also brings up questions of gun control, violent trends and the safety of schools and workplaces. Are tragedies like this one preventable? Is gun control the answer? What do you think? Share your reactions here.

It seems almost inevitable, doesn't it? Radio shock jock Don Imus kicked up a firestorm on his April 4 show with racist and sexist (and, if I may say, outright dumb) remarks made toward players on the Rutgers University women's basketball team. While Imus is no stranger to controversy, this latest move has already cost him the support of several sponsors, earned a two-week suspension from his show and now many are calling for him to be fired. The incident and the resulting debate has also sparked outrage and questions all over our message boards. Even Al Roker is speaking out. Pretty much everyone has something to say about Imus' comments, but some are questioning the subsequent apologies, society's double standards and where this all fits in with free speech concerns. From the Morality Debate board:

"I find what he said reprehensible and completely ignorant. I wouldn't support him by listening to his program (long before the recent slur) nor a station that broadcast him.

But I will support his right to say it, in whatever forum he chooses.

I do not believe he should be fired for what he chose to say."

"I also refuse to support his program or any station that would broadcast him. But I couldn't stand him to begin with. ;-)"

What do you think? Should Don Imus be fired? Or will he just pull an Isaiah Washington and have a summit with community leaders to emerge a changed man? Are we creating a double standard in society by accepting the use of slurs by some and not others? Let's hear your take on this issue and what you think about the resulting "free speech" debate.

Is opting to be a stay at home mom a risky business? Of course there are the day to day struggles and the dangers of being eternally exhausted - not to mention ending up on the receiving end of projectile vomit, stray Legos and mountains of laundry. But are there bigger issues lurking under the surface for women who put their careers on hold for motherhood? Just when you think there couldn't be more to add to this long-running debate, enter The Feminine Mistake. Ostensibly a sardonic twist on Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique, The Feminine Mistake offers a grave warning to moms who leave the breadwinning up to dad: by choosing to shelve your career, you are also shelving your ability to provide financially for your children in the event of being widowed or divorced. Author Leslie Bennetts discussed her book last week on the Today Show, and as you can probably imagine, it's stirred up quite a bit of discussion on our message boards.

Of course they're talking about this on the Feminism Today board. There's no shortage of opinions or side debates here:

"I'm so happy to see someone brave enough to publish this information. I've been saying this for years, it's a very unpopular position. I think every woman should know the economic risks to both herself and her children should she choose to be a stay at home parent."

"I think both parents ought to be capable of caring for their child(ren) (financially, physically, emotionally, etc.) on one's own should the other spouse suddenly be out of the picture for whatever reason."

"I'm grateful that my mother continued working so she could fund my college education, and so she could retire at age 57 and care for my ailing father, rather than having to continue to work and putting him in a nursing home. I'm failing to see how funding one's children's education and preparing for retirement so one's children don't need to support their parents in their old age can be considered selfish. If my mother had chosen to SAH, I certainly would have paid the price -- literally."

"Too many kids are being raised by outside forces such as daycare programs and after care. Kids end up away from home more than they are in it. If this can be avoided society as a whole will benefit. Kids are worth the risk and sacrifice. "

The responses on the Current Debates board tend to be less forgiving to Bennetts, but the reactions vary:

"As far as what I've read so far in that book, I find it very fear based and "what if" based and I don't think that's anyway to live your life. There are many benefits to staying at home and although she might cringe at the idea it works well for a lot of families."

"After seeing the interview with Ann Curry, I have no doubt author Bennetts is simply trying to hit the best-seller list. She has to be aggressive and closed-minded to SAHMs."

"Every mother has to make those kinds of choices for themselves and if you are happy working outside the home then do it, if you want to be a SAHM and can make it work, that's wonderful. To say that Motherhood is a Feminine Mistake is very offensive to me."

"Even women who choose to stay home should know the possible consequences, and take steps to minimize their impact on their families, and their own future lives. Unfortunately it has become taboo to bring up any possible negative consequences of choosing to stay home. It's "an attack on the family"."

Family finances are a big topic on the Frugal Living message board and the moms there offer their own experiences and worries regarding staying at home and planning a future:

"I think everyone must take into account her own goals. I agree that completely relying on a husband (or anyone) to take care of you forever is a mistake."

"I think ultimately it's extremely difficult when divorce, death or disability happens and it doesn't matter whether you are at home or working full-time."

"Don't come into being a SAHM or an adult for that matter without a plan for the things in life that can take us by surprise."

"I think every mom needs a back up plan. I have a graduate degree and I worked full time before my daughter was born. The plan was for me to stay home full time. Then our financial situation changed and I had to go back to work part time when our daughter was 18 months old. A short time later DH and I separated and I had to go back to work full time. It's not what I planned."

For even more on the book and the debate, you can catch an exclusive interview with Bennetts right here on iVillage. What are your thoughts? Is The Feminine Mistake an important wake-up call for moms? Or just a superfluous missive of doom and gloom? Chime in here with your reactions and share your own experiences on this issue.

As someone who will be planning a wedding soon, it was probably only a matter of time before this discussion caught my eye on The Bride-to-Be message board. It's no secret that weddings are big business and can cost a small fortune -- or in some cases, a large one. One iVillage bride-to-be offers her opinion:

"I really don't like big weddings. My best friend in college had a huge 30 thousand dollar wedding and I thought it was just ridiculous. I am morally opposed to spending so much money on one day, on one party, just because society and the wedding industry tell women that they should. I have no fantasies about being a princess or anything like that. If it were entirely up to me, we would just get married on the beach on the first day of the honeymoon, or at a JOP so our parents could be there."

Are huge weddings getting out of control? Between the showers, the rehearsals, the wedding itself and the reception -- it's expensive to even be in the outer realm of a wedding party, let alone to be the bride or groom. Is this just a matter of personal preference or are extravagant weddings a big waste of money? Does a pricey wedding start a couple off on the wrong foot? Let me know what you think -- and feel free to share your own outrageous wedding experiences.

It's tragic enough to hear about kids being victims of violence or being raised in violent environments. There's another level of disbelief when the kids themselves are the perpetators of extreme violence. A recent story about two 10-year old boys who, along with a 17 year old, severely beat a homeless man in Daytona Beach, Florida has generated a lot of reactions on the In the News message board. How does a 10-year old boy get to the point of committing such an act? Can violent kids always be traced back to violent parents? Neglect? Peer pressure? Or are some kids just predisposed to violent behavior? iVillagers respond:

"... over-indulgence is a huge problem. It causes kids to grow up feeling entitled. Whether that explains what was going on with these kids, I don't know. Frankly, I tend to doubt it. I suspect rampant neglect was to blame. Why were these 10-year-olds hanging out with a 17-year-old?"

"I'm sorry, but too many of today's parents have the nurturing skills of a thumb tack. They are more concerned with their own personal lives than in raising children. Many women have a revolving door on their home when it comes to men. Too many mothers and fathers are using drugs, often times right in front of their children."

"I agree that monsters can be created, however, one has to pay attention to a child's behavior from the time they are in kindergarten for disturbing acts like animal cruelty, or just plain violent behavior."

"Who's to blame? The parents. If you can't control a 4 yr. old, there is a problem with the way they are raising the child. It's not working. Parents don't follow thru with punishments."

"I get annoyed whe people cast a halo over children. Their personalities are set at a certain age, and then those obnoxious, self serving adults who offend everyone, were that way as a child. If you can dislike an adult's personality, then you can dislike a child's personality."

"What we are witnessing today is the effects of sick children being raised by neglectful parents - the outcome is astounding."

It's a sad situation, whatever the cause, but what do you think? Are bad parents breeding a new wave of young criminals? Or are kids more predisposed to violence in our culture of death and destruction? Weigh in with your thoughts here.