Recently in Favorites Category

Speaking of, uh, buzz ... the debate over the use and legalization of medical marijuana often comes up on our message boards, spanning a wide variety of communities. cl-karen292 brings up the topic on the Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue board, where the subject often takes a more personal angle:

Montel Williams was at our state capital yesterday making a pitch for the medical use of marijuana to help with pain for people having debilitating diseases such as cancer, HIV/AIDS and Multiple Sclerosis. Williams was DXed with MS in 1999. He related that he has tried to manage his pain through prescription medications such as OxyContin to morphine only to damage his kidneys, leaving him incapacitated for awhile and still not managing his pain.

She goes on to say:

"I am for the use of marijuana for medical purposes, but believe that it becomes a prescription medication prescribed by a doctor. I have read where they want to allow the patient to be able to grow their own. I think that is opening a can of worms."

Other iVillagers share their opinions:

"I think it's sad that some of the current methods of pain control that we currently have available are much more dangerous and addictive than marijuana."

"I heard in the past that they were trying to produce a pill form of marijuana. That would be ideal if it actually works.

I believe inhaling smoke of any kind is not healthy. I know that marijuana fries brain cells. I've seen it."

"I used to be against this until I developed FMS. I am allergic to marijuana, but if I wasn't I would definitely try it. I do think it would need to be monitored very closely."

Another member offers this interesting theory:

" I don't think marijuana will be legalized in any form. The (illegal) drug syndicates stand to lose too much money. I bet they fund lobbyists to campaign against legalization."

What do you think? Should marijuana be a legal option for those patients in need of pain relief? Should it be a prescribed and controlled substance, or should patients just be allowed to grow their own? Is this just asking for trouble? Jump in and share your thoughts and concerns on this hot button issue!

Now really ... When will people learn to not mess with breastfeeding moms? I mean, haven't we gone through this song and dance before? Apparently the folks over at MySpace didn't get the memo. Amanda tipped me off to this story about moms who are outraged over the removal of photos depicting nursing infants. The pictures are reportedly considered "indecent" or "sexually suggestive". This is supposedly against the social networking site's "policies". Really? Tell that to "^~2Sexy4U~^" who, along with her leather-thonged bottom, is constantly asking to be my "friend". Plenty of iVillage moms are not amused, and you know the women posting to our playgroups and breastfeeding boards have a thing or two to say about this:

"How is breastfeeding sexual??!! Um, they need to take down all the girls showing their cleavage then and the other trampy pictures I see on there all the time."

More than one mom finds the double standard unacceptable: "It just doesn't make any sense, ESPECIALLY when they allow plenty of skin when the context is clearly sexual." Another writes: "Some people are so sensitive. I'm more covered up when breast feeding in public then some teenage girls out with their families, esp. in summer. I have a right to feed my child however I choose and I always cover up, in fact I probably have more cleavage showing when NOT nursing." Good point. More reaction:

"I can't even believe that there could be a debate about this! Some of the pictures they put on there are disgusting! I've seen more boobs on that board from women and cartoon pictures than you would ever see while breastfeeding! "

Many of the moms talking on our parenting message boards are also taking part in an online petition against the photo removals. One posted the letter she wrote to MySpace in protest. Here's a portion:

"Some of them show the crudest pictures or cartoons, but yet, you have the nerve to take on nursing mothers, calling us offensive and inappropriate. Well, shame on you.

YOU are now part of the problem that us nursing mothers face everyday. YOU are now part of the reason that we have to fight for the right to feed our children the way God intended without being harassed. YOU are now part of the reason women are being asked to leave planes for trying to feed their child."

Seriously, MySpace? You want to mess with these women? Do you not realize that along with being passionate moms they are also, in many cases, sleep-deprived?

What does everyone else think about this controversy? Have we still not come to a point where breastfeeding is a common, natural, everyday non-sexual occurrence? Or, do you think moms should cover up and keep their breasts offline? Give it to me straight and let me know your thoughts!

In his second-to-last State of the Union address last night, President Bush called for legislation addressing energy consumption, immigration, health care, education and other needs; reiterated his new strategy, including increased troop deployments, for Iraq; and, interestingly, called for reduced gas consumption. (And you wanted to watch American Idol instead? Ha!) So, what did you think of his speech?

Before President Bush’s State of the Union address, “nearly two-thirds of Americans appear to have given up on success in Iraq and also on his presidency,” according to this article by NBC news. And when we asked you all about Bush's plan for increased deployments in Iraq a few weeks ago, you responded in droves, leaving comments ranging the spectrum from “The president doesn't know what he is doing" to "Our president has a tough job... He is doing the best that he can."

Did the president's speech last night make you feel differently about the course in Iraq, the economy, healthcare, or the state of the union in general?

Can a marriage survive without romance? This is the topic of one of our newest boards. On it, nmsweetie posts: “I've been reading a lot about relationships lately...especially regarding the idea that women's expectations are wrong. We shouldn't EXPECT to be "romanced" once we’re in a long term-relationship. They say things like the initial romantic stage transitions into something else...but what is wrong with needing a little romance!!?”

What follows is an outpouring of personal stories, and some of these are real heartbreakers. Whenever there is a post having to do with romance-less marriages on one of our message boards, what surprises me most is the tone of the responses, which by and large tend to sound something like, “Oh yeah, of course. I don’t love my husband that way anymore, and he doesn’t love me that way either.” The resignation, the “of course.” It’s sad! I mean, of course a marriage mellows out from the initial lusty business… but do we really have to live our whole lives without romance?

Here are some of the stories.

“I was married before I met [my current husband], and by all accounts that marriage was successful. We had two perfect children together, we bought a house and made a home, we did things together as a family every weekend, he brought me flowers on Valentine's Day, even bought me a beautiful diamond ring... he did all the right things to make me feel good, but none of it worked because I didn't love him romantically. I felt like I was numb- I should be feeling so happy and alive and fulfilled, and I just felt sad and lonely. Leaving him was the best thing I ever did for myself and for my family. It was the hardest and worst thing, too, but I don't regret it for even a second. We were too young to understand how important it is to be true to oneself, and once I got the courage to lovingly let him go and free myself, I knew it was the right thing to do.

Here's the thing- in my first marriage, even when things were going GREAT and we were *happy*, I still felt so sad and lost. In my second marriage, when things are horrible and I feel like the world is ending because of financial or health issues or whatever... when we hit those horrible low spots that happen in a normal marriage, I still feel so blessed to be with my husband. I just don't feel lonely or lost, ever.”

“I talked to DH yesterday about it. He was adamant that ‘things change’ after a while, and that's just how it is. I asked him why that had to be. I reminisced about how nice it was when we were dating, and how nice it felt to be wanted and loved, and I asked him what romance meant to him. He said ‘flowers, limo, lots of money being spent!!!’ I told him he was NUTS if he thought that my feelings about romance were the same. He said that he only said it because he thought that's what I wanted. Strange, we never rented a limo when we were dating! LOL Why would he think that???”

“His idea of romance is us having sex every few days, which is basically the only time he touches me or shows me affection…He doesn't even tell me he loves me anymore. His thing is ‘well you know that already so why should I keep repeating myself?’ I feel stifled and honestly, if it wasn't for our 8-year old son, I'd be long gone.”

“I don't think a marriage can survive without romance. I've been married over 40 years, and have never been touched except during sex…As other posters have said, it doesn't take money, for heavens sake. Just holding hands in the mall, or a kiss now and then. I get nothing, and it has made me so lonely I really wonder how I can stand it.”

Some posters suggest therapy or talking to the husbands in question. But, as one woman writes, “After telling my husband what I need (affection, touches, kisses, kind words..) he is beginning to give them to me slowly. And part of me is thrilled and another part wonders if it's too little too late.”

How can a marriage survive the slumps? When is it too late? I get that you talk to your SO, you try to work it out. But what happens when one or both of you isn't willing to put in the work it takes to keep that spark alive? Staying in a loveless marriage seems harder to me than leaving one, but I see how fear and inertia could take hold.

So, what do you think?

Do not mess with breastfeeding moms.

Seriously. Our boards do not like it.

See also:
May Blossoms 2005 Board:
"I read this on another board, and wanted to share it...A New Mexico woman who was kicked off an airplane departing from Burlington International Airport after she breast-fed her 22-month-old daughter has filed a complaint against two airlines with the Vermont Human Rights Commission.'"

The June 2007 Expecting Club: "GRRRR!!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe this happened in my town!!!!"

September Sprites 2005 Board: "That is totally absurd!"

July Fireflies 2004 board: "Breasts have been so sexualized by society that we no longer view them as what they are. They are intended for feeding babies. That's why we have them. How on Earth can that be offensive????!!!!"

People, look at that punctuation. These are some strong feelings.

So what exactly happened? According to the article: “Gillette said she was seated in the second-to-last row, next to the window, when she began to breast-feed her daughter. Breast-feeding helps babies with the altitude changes through takeoff and landings, Gillette said. She said she was being discreet -- her husband was seated between her and the aisle -- and no part of her breast was showing.

Gillette said that's when a flight attendant approached her, trying to hand her a blanket and directing her to cover up. Gillette said she told the attendant she was exercising her legal right to breast-feed, declining the blanket. That's when Gillette alleges the attendant told her, 'You are offending me,' and told her to cover up her daughter's head with the blanket.

…Gillette said she didn't raise her voice -- not wanting to make a scene in the current jumpy air travel atmosphere -- and complied with the ticket agent, crying as she exited the plane.”

I don’t know about you all, but I am so glad that our airlines’ employees are working so hard to protect us from these nefarious moms feeding, soothing, and possibly SNUGGLING their babies! Thank you, flight attendant! I, for one, feel much safer. There is nothing more menacing than the bond between a mother and her child, and certainly nothing that makes me feel more offended than a calm, well-fed, and beloved baby. Oh, and nothing that makes me feel better than a crying, shaken young mother.

Um, no, not really.

This is buzzing all across our boards. What are people around you saying?

As you know, here at the Beehive we bring you the most important buzz of the day – what women are talking about, and what you need to know.

That’s why today I’d like to call your attention to a very important issue.
These shoes:

This is not okay.

At least not according to cl-lisacap21, who writes: “When did wearing gardening shoes become a fashion??? I am seeing more and more people wearing these hideous (in my humble opinion anyway) bright colored clogs.”

biores reports that this trend has not hit her area yet, but lovesfashion30 confirms sightings in Arizona. pvilleprincess shares the virtual shudder-in-disgust: “deadly ugly.” ohiogin chimes in: “I agree UGLY UGLY UGLY... They are all over Ohio...” And I hate to be the one to say this, but I’m seeing them all over New York City. (Fashion capital, my eye.) What are these things and why are they taking over the country?

And then finally an honest poster confesses. “I agree, they are ugly,” admits offuttmom – “but I tried on a pair and fell in love with the comfort.”

Mmm-hmmm.

Admit it – you’re wearing them right now. You said you wouldn’t; you thought they were totes ugs…and then you tried them on and gosh darn were those things comfortable. But is it worth it? Please, help me to understand!

Ever read something on the message boards or blogs and think, "Hm! What the heck did that mean?" Here's a brief glossary of common abrevs. Uh, that's abbreviations.

Say, ladies, have you heard that poodle skirts are back in style? Why don't you meet me at the five-and-dime in for some egg creams and then maybe we can work on embroideries for our hope chests! Peachy keen! Because apparently it’s 1950. Which explains this article I just read that began: “Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.”

This Forbes.com article (on some crazy newfangled thing called the “Inter Net”) goes on to say that marriages with one breadwinner are happier and less stressful than marriages with two (especially if – gasp – she makes more money than he does). After all, ambitious and confident career gals are just too darn picky – they expect so much of a guy! Plus they won’t always be as willing to have kids or stay home with said kids.

Well, golly.

Deciding whether to focus on career or family – because that’s what this ends up being about, isn’t it? – is one of the hardest choices a woman has to make. See also: this impassioned debate on the Stay-at-Home vs Work board. It’s gotten almost 1500 responses in just a few days. Uh, hit a nerve much?

Of staying home with the kids, traderjodie writes, “I have always said that staying home is so important to me that I would give up many things to be able to do that. I know that if I went back to work, we could afford more. But I would never trade being at home for a larger house or more luxuries.” Innocent enough statement, right? Of course not. Tons of you have been jumping in with thoughts on career vs. family, the effects working has on the marriage and kids, and the effects not working has on the marriage and kids.

Of staying in the work world, kbmamm writes, “The cost to a woman taking time off are lifelong. That break in her career is echoed throughout the rest of her career when she returns to work. A woman who takes time off can expect to make about 60% of what she could have if she'd never taken a break. It's way more than just the lost wages from the years not worked.”

What’s interesting is that many women would actually like to stay home – but can’t afford it, either financially or experientially, and/or feel like they would be giving up too much of themselves in order to have that “one breadwinner” marriage. And if staying at home means giving up financial independence and/or self-confidence…how one earth is that going to make a marriage happier and more stable? What do you think? Do you think a marriage is happier when only one person works? Join the conversation.

You know a thread is going to be good when it begins, “I just have to rant a bit.”

And rant they do – about the extremely rant-worthy topic of women “starving to be thin.” The latest epidemic of skeletal celebs has women starving themselves in imitation, and, most disturbingly, has teens and preteens hating their bodies. We’ve heard it again and again – women, and even (increasingly) little girls, feeling like they have to be Nicole Ritchie-thin (see also: the gruesome cover of this week’s In Touch), which is in no way healthy. (Sorry, Nicole.) The more celebs get crazy-skinny, the harder it will be to figure out “what normal means” – for us and for young girls.

So cl-shywon starts us off: “I have two colleagues/friends who are on this near-starvation diet at the moment, and it's really getting to me. It's really just the one "friend" because she's doing it to lose THREE pounds. THREE!!! She's admitted it's not about health, it's about the number on the scale…. I guess I'm just frustrated at all the pressure there is to be that "right" size or weight.”

As amazing as it is in this crazy, mixed-up world of ours, iVillage has been around for over ten years. Do you even remember what the Internet was like ten years ago? Remember chat rooms and America Online and dial-up modems? Remember how the word “spam” referred to a kind of canned meat? Remember how you would try to invite someone into an online dating chat room, or send a friend a picture of you with your new Jennifer Aniston-circa-Rachel-in-Friends-hairdo and your whole darn computer would crash? IMs would pop up on the screen and you’d jump and go, “What is that?” And even lo those many years ago, iVillage had a vibrant and vociferous community of those crazy new things called message boards.

Back then there was all this talk about how emailing would make us all illiterate and how it would separate people from one another. How message boards and IMs would truncate our language into unreadable, crazy abbrevs. (Totes ridic, right?) Turns out we’re more connected to others than ever. Online discussions have become, for many of us, a community, a lifeline, a place we visit every day, and a place we can’t imagine living without.

Maybe that’s why the thriving community that makes up the over 1,000 message boards at iVillage is alive and buzzing after all this time. In fact, we’ve gotten bigger and better than ever. But with literally hundreds and hundreds of different boards on different topics, where’s a busy gal to start? We know everyone doesn’t have time to sift through all these threads. Heck, we don’t even have time to sift through our own email half the time.

That’s why this blog will pull the hottest conversations from all the different areas of iVillage and bring you the buzz of the day. That way you can always be on top of the things that matter most to you – from the newest developments in the work vs stay-at-home debate to the latest news stories from around the world (and much, much more) -- you’ll find out what women everywhere are saying.

Now, about that old “Rachel ‘do” of yours…