July 2008 Archives
Remember when Marilyn McCoo sang about her Wedding Bell Blues with The 5th Dimension back in the 60s? No? Ok maybe I wasn't around in the 60s, but I listened to the tune recently and think Marilyn and Co. may have been onto something. While she sang about wanting to end her long engagement and have her wedding post-haste, I've been thinking more about a different kind of wedding bell blues -- the kind that comes after the I dos have been said, after the cake is cut and the rice tossed. The kind that comes with the excitement and stress of planning such a big day for months, sometimes years on end, and then suddenly that rush of excitement is over, leaving you returning to paying off that wedding, returning to work and all the mundane tasks that are just simply fact of life.
Of course I'm speaking from experience here -- as some of you know, I recently got married (about 3 weeks ago, in fact). The wedding was really quite perfect, a touching and fun celebration with all of our family and closest friends; there's nothing about it I would do differently and I'm absolutely happy being married -- my husband is a true doll. (Lest you all come out with your marriage counseling guns a-blazing!) But I do admit that there was a bit of a letdown after the big day came and went and we returned from our honeymoon, easing back into the daily grind, far away from the gussied up superstars we were at the wedding. Perhaps it's just an imbalance of excitement or a predictable crash that can come after planning any big event or going through a major change. I thought it might be just a case of me being spoiled, but even my groom felt it a bit, saying that after we left the wedding it was a little strange to think we'd just go back to being ordinary people and no one would be the wiser to our heretofore superstar status. I think this might have been right around the time that we pulled into Taco Bell for a quick lunch the next day.
Apparently we're not the only ones.
The sage advice of "don't worry, be happy" is apparently a lot harder than it sounds, especially for women later in life, according to this latest take on the differences between men and women. Researchers studying decades of data found that U.S. women start off happier than their male counterparts, but later in life it's the men who feel more satisfied. Well there's something else to look forward to. I was going to guess that this shift along gender lines had a lot to do with women being asked day after day where the remote control was ... years of this have got to suck the happiness right out of you, I think. However, the researchers say it has more to do with money and marriage. Anke Plagnol of the University of Cambridge explains, "In later life it is men who come closer to fulfilling their aspirations, are more satisfied with their family lives and financial situations, and are the happier of the two." Hmm, ok... but what does this really mean? Do we really see this bearing out in our lives? Over on GardenWeb's Kitchen Table forum they're kicking this topic around with some very interesting thoughts:
"I'm assuming it's the changes that take place in our lives that affect our level of happiness. I gave birth to my three children in my thirties, and loved that whole decade. For me, that was the best! My life is quite different now, and requires effort on my part to stay positive.
I read recently that our seventies are supposed to be particularly happy. I have a hard time buying that, although maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised." -- alisande
"When I was very young I was happier because I didn't have the worries I do now. And when I was first married it was happier, not as many responsibilities or burdens. We were blissful young lovers. I guess I was very naive and innocent. I didn't really understand the world and how cruel it can be sometimes. I am less happy now then I was then because I know more." -- aptosca
"I don't know if I was happier but when I was younger, but I was more hopeful for the future. I could dream big and there seemed to be plenty of time to make those dreams come true and the possibilities were limitless." -- paula_pa
For many women, like those talking on our Lipstick Lounge community, happiness was a concept more identified as an internal peace rather than something attained by achieving a relationship status or financial goal.
"I get happier each year! I learn from my mistakes and learn how to connect better with other people (and myself). I have become more at peace with myself." -- pbhunter23
"I am happy and I don't think I'll not be happy as I age .. I think we control our own happiness so if I'm not happy it will be my own fault ... if I'm not married it doesn't mean I can't still be happy.
Final answer ... I disagree with the article. I think we create our own happiness. That's my story and I'm sticking to it." -- leaping_lizzards
Others think it is a little more basic, such as chic04 on the Sand Box message board:
"I think it is because their kids get married and they move out, so women who have made taking care of their kids their career don't know what to do with themselves because they spent at least 18-21 yrs helping their kids."
So maybe it comes down to traditional gender roles, but also what our own definition of happiness is. When it comes to happiness, are you less happy now than you were in your younger days? Or is it just a matter of a different experience? Tell me what you think about this latest research and how it applies (or totally misses the mark) to your life and those around you.
At iVillage, we love talking about baby names. Whether it's what our expectant moms are planning to name their bundles of joy, or what unusual monikers celebrities have come up with for their tykes, we can't seem to stop commenting about them. I think we're obsessed with names, especially when they're a little ... crazy. The more outrageous the better, I say. But how outrageous is too outrageous? It seems like we all know someone (or know someone who knows someone's cousin) with a really outlandish name we wouldn't wish on our worst enemy. Would a rose by any other name *really* smell as sweet? Maybe not in New Zealand, where a judge has placed a 9-year-old girl under the guardianship of the court until she is renamed. The name in question? Talula Does the Hula From Hawaii. Seriously. Let that sink in a bit. Not only does Talula do the hula, but let's not forget it's from Hawaii. Yes, that entire sentence is the name apparently given to her by her parents, who are now in the midst of a custody battle. I admit I was a little taken aback when I read this story and thought that perhaps some people in New Zealand are even more out than I thought -- or maybe they just have a better sense of humor than the rest of us? (Remember last year's case of "4real"? Also from New Zealand.) Then again, maybe I'm being too harsh; after all, no one had a problem with "Dances with Wolves". And then, after I thought, "Well it's really none of my business what they name their kid..." I thought, "I wonder what the folks on our boards have to say about this?" And here we are.
From Playgroups and Expecting Clubs to debate boards, everyone has a little something to say about the latest round of the name game. Most, like those on the Frugal Families board, think the name is way overboard, but had a few interesting names to share that they'd run across over the years.... like "Candy Barr" or "Shanda Lear". Wow. And to think sometimes I'd get upset that my relatively-common-but-alternatively-spelled name never showed up on those racks of personalized pencils or keychains at the discount store during back-to-school time.
On the Current Debates board, the sentiment is much the same, but they're also concerned that the government dictating what names are allowed is a little too intrusive. One member, sisfox, sums it up:
"I think this is a case of the government WAY overstepping boundaries."
Then she goes on to say:
"I'm not saying that parents should purposefully give their kids awful names. But I don't think it's the government's place to take custody of the child and rename it.
Where does it stop? I think Prudence and Horace are pretty awful names. Should the government remove children with those names from their homes because it's "abuse"?"
However, karin_n counters:
"While I agree that Prudence and Horace are pretty awful names, I'd hardly call it abusive to give someone such a name. They are, after all, names. Talula does the Hula from Hawaii sounds more like a bad porn movie."
Just for the record (and especially for clarification of any of our readers named Prudence or Horace), I think those are lovely names and the above comments don't reflect how *I* feel about these names. Ahem.
Moms of the March 2005 Playgroup are split about the right of a court to change a name. From sunnysocalmom:
"I may be in the minority here - but I don't think the government has, at any point or any time - the right to tell us what to name our children."
imadesphousewife agrees, saying:
"Although I feel *awful* for the poor kids that get stuck with hideous names, I don't think it's the government's place to step in and change it. I'd much rather see that effort go towards kids who are being neglected or abused."
Another March 05 mom, cara2178, points out an important distinction in this particular case:
"This child was involved in a custody battle. At the age of 9, she was probably interviewed regarding the custody situation and then also asked about her name. She was said to be terribly embarrassed. Should she have lived with the embarrassment until she was 18 so that she could legally change her name herself then? I don't think so. The judge made the right call in this case IMO."
What do you think? Was this name over the top enough to warrant judicial intervention? Is there ever a name so awful it should be changed no matter what? Have you ever changed your name or wished you had? I want to know what you think -- and of course am dying to hear what odd names you've encountered in your life.
Here we go again ... you know that any time a celebrity or media personality comes out with an outrageous statement -- especially when it involves kids (Imus anyone?) -- there's going to be a firestorm of reaction. In the latest foot-in-mouth fiasco, I'm not sure the word "firestorm" even comes close to describing the disgust echoed by just about everyone within earshot. This time it's radio host Michael Savage who's in the hot seat for his recent remarks about autistic children, most notably: "In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out," Savage went on to claim it's more likely that the child in question just needs stricter parenting, "They don't have a father around to tell them, `Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up."
Hoo boy. It sure didn't take long for this one to catch fire on the boards. On our Hot Topics in Health community, the controversy is burning strong. Just a sampling of the reactions:
lillybell30: "There is a serious lack of understanding from people ... about what it means to have autism. And it seriously does not help things (whether it's his RIGHT to say it or not) when "famous" people say completely idiotic and uneducated things about a very serious disorder that affects so many people."
breezy1031: "I have to agree that the man that made such a judgmental statement about the Autistic children should be fired. I think that part of the problem in this world today is that people, especially public figures, voice their opinions and forget how it can affect others. We should all be more careful on what we say and how we say things."
brensticker: "... no one is saying bad parenting has caused Autism. It's suggested though, that many people are blaming Autism for bad parenting."
brandi_mom_of_2: "I have a seven year old son who has autism and I find Michael Savage's comments appalling. My son does have behavior problems and is on medication to help. When we are in public and he has a meltdown people look at us like 'why can't you control your kid' or 'he just needs his tail tore up'. Our kids have a hard enough time being accepted in our society today without ignorant people like Michael Savage telling the nation that autism is a fraud. If Don Imus was fired for making racial comments, why isn't this man fired for making these comments about autistic kids? What Michael Savage has said is just as bad, if not worse, than Imus."
Almost a week later, Savage's syndicated radio show "Savage Nation" is now feeling the effects of the offense, losing some notable sponsors. At the same time, individuals as well as those organized by support or advocacy groups vow to continue to boycott not only the show, but the syndication network Talk Radio Network and remaining sponsors of the broadcast.
In an effort to try to find some value in Savage's comments, some on the Stepmoms vs. Bio Moms Debate message board are delving into what it means to have a right to express an opinion.
zippinpippin: "I think this was a slimey thing to say, and in NO WAY do I agree with it. It does a disservice to all autistic children, their parents, and their caregivers.
But, for the sake of argument, doesn't he have to right to say what he wants? I mean, he could very well have said something like "99% of old people are smelly", or "99% of blondes are ditsy", or "99% of [stepmoms] are bad."
If you disagree with what someone says in a public forum, then, by all means, boycott their sponsors, write letters, etc., but do we start taking away people's right to give their opinions now, in our increasingly PC world?"
little_lou: "I feel everyone has the right to an opinion...but that means the 'other side' also has the chance to answer that opinion in the public forum as well.
And let's face it...this man is simply repeating what many uninformed people truly believe about Autism, as sad and disturbing as that may be."
Some moms in the July 2006 Playgroup are torn between their dismay of Savage's approach, but see some possible validity in the idea behind the statements.
cl-luvmycpack: "I am not saying I agree or disagree with him or any of you, but I just want to say Savage is not saying autistic children are brats. He IS saying children with behavioral problems are being misdiagnosed with autism."
ellieonthemove: "I disagree with how he said things but at the same time Autism is becoming the new catch all since they've defined it as a 'spectrum' disorder now. I think by broadening the definition they've done a huge disservice to kids with the more severe forms of autism ..."
In much the same fashion, recent comments made by actress Amanda Peet (in which she called parents who choose not to vaccinate their children "parasites") drew criticism from many in the community, prompting Peet to follow up with an apology that some feel was almost worse than the original statement. This was the topic of a lively discussion on our Vaccination Debate board. Apologies aside, I'm betting Amanda Peet is breathing a sigh of relief that Michael Savage came along quickly and took some attention away from her by making what appears to be an even bigger outrageous statement.
What do you think about these statements made by those in the public eye? Are they done just for publicity or shock value? Should we give so much attention to these incidents? Are you interested in their opinions or are they misusing their celebrity? Share your reactions here!
It's no secret that the poor economy is doing a number on most all of us -- but after years of struggling for equality in the workplace, the realization that women are suffering from layoffs, downsizing, outsourcing and flatlining wages in much the same way as men is disheartening. What's more concerning is that according to a recent study from the Joint Economic Committee of Congress women are also dropping out of the workforce as a response to these tough times. While some women have opted to stay at home to raise the kids or for other family reasons, the study showed that many are taking a break from work because they are unable to find jobs comparable to the ones they've lost, impacting not only their bottom line, but likely their emotional well-being, too.
In most of the stories posted on our message boards, it seems that iVillage women find it necessary to take part-time jobs or freelance work to supplement their income while they look for another job. For some, this may be a long-term solution as they try to wait out the economic downturn. After reading through the comments from our users, I'm not sure that leaving the workforce altogether is a practical option for many women, especially those who are the sole provider for the family and those who are single with no other source of income. Many families are also finding themselves in debt and seek out advice from our Debt Support Group, where colomom99's story is becoming a frighteningly common refrain:
"I am a journalist and newspapers have lost thousands and thousands of very talented people in the past year who have nowhere to go. My lay off was not completely unexpected -- we knew it was a remote possibility -- but that did not make it any easier when I got the tap on my shoulder the day we returned from vacation.
Our family is really struggling, losing money every month but still hanging on. We have a terrifying amount of debt which I am trying to tackle as I can. I write from home now and have had some luck in freelancing but it is sporadic and nowhere near what I was making before. The scary thing is my husband is also a journalist. His job is secure for now but who knows."
Throughout the iVillage community many women are struggling with the choice of working to earn money for their family -- or staying at home to avoid the rising cost of childcare. This is not an entirely new conundrum, but in light of has raised this conversation to a new level our Stay at Home vs. Work Debate message board, where some moms are saying the income from their jobs and the price of daycare is practically a wash. Member mm05 shares her experience:
"In June I quit my job. After returning to work from [maternity] leave and having to pay $600 every two weeks for 3 children, I said NO WAY! My pay cheque was only $645-$650 every 2 weeks. That left me with $50. It made absolutely no sense."
In a recent poll, 56% of iVillage users felt that childcare should be a benefit offered by employers. With more families facing hard choices, it may be critical for many companies to work with their employees to come up with a solution that works for everyone.
Still, in other cases, women from our communities are deciding to go back to work -- even if only part-time, to help the family's bottom line -- either due to rising costs or, unfortunately, due to a partner's loss of work.
While the Congressional study of women in the workforce has uncovered an interesting trend, the reality for many women (and men) is much more complicated than just "dropping out". How are you coping with the poor economy -- both financially and emotionally? Have you suffered from a layoff or pay cut -- or are you sensing your job is in jeopardy?
What if mankind had to leave Earth, and somebody forgot to turn the last robot off? Fast forward 700 years and imagine the planet has become overrun with trash and abandoned by humans. Your mother certainly isn't going to clean up after you, so the task is left to a rusty little trash compactor named WALL·E. He trundles through his daily tasks clearing away the mountains of garbage and collecting curious artifacts. Throw in a little robot lurve and you have a story for the ages.
It's receiving almost universal praise from critics, but how does the story of the little-robot-who-could stack up with iVillagers?
On the Garden Party forum, pidge says:
"I've never met a Pixar film that didn't fascinate me, but this is the best one yet. At 103 minutes, it's a little long for a kid...but that said, it's a wonderful film for anyone who is dismayed at the mountain of trash our planet is on its way to becoming. This is NOT a polemic, I hasten to add, but an eye-opener nonetheless."
Member caliclimbergrl, from the Lipstick Lounge, also loved it. "The movie was eerie, sad, beautiful, cute, funny, and then some. It was truly amazing and I don't think I'll like any movie that comes out this year better."
The idea of the movie being a positive teaching tool was very appealing to klc_rktgrl. "I like the premise of it! It could be such a great teaching mechanism to kids about trash and exercise and just lifestyles in general!"
But, not everyone fell head over heels in love. Member flybabychris found it 'depressing to see the world as a giant trash dump and people too fat to stand up or walk.' In fact, she wasn't the only one who was concerned about the portrayal of overweight people being lazy and dull. On the Military Wives board, debtfreefirstofficer agreed: "I was surprised that fat people are not protesting it. In the lazy spaceship everyone is so fat they can barely walk and they are constantly entertained or eating."
But, perhaps, prdarmywife03 sums it up best:
"I walked away almost feeling lectured - in a good way...I will not lie, throughout much of the movie, I felt some pretty profound sadness as far as where we are taking our Earth. Where we are heading with it. Makes me want to go out and recycle! And never shop at Wal-mart again!
So, is this the must-see family movie of the summer? Or does the preaching turn you off? As always, we want to know what you think!
