It's a topic we've debated before and the idea of lowering the legal drinking age in the US from 21 to 18 is now being raised again by what seems like an unlikely source -- college presidents from some well-known universities. In what's known as the "Amethyst Initiative", college chancellors and presidents are signing on to reopen public debate over the drinking age. The supporters of the idea say that the current drinking age sets up a scenario where younger college students are more likely to engage in binge drinking. Some feel that giving students the responsibility to imbibe in moderation and make smart decisions lets these campuses treat all students as true adults. Others think it's a deadly idea. Mothers Against Drunk Driving argues that years of statistics that say that the drinking age of 21 has saved an estimated 25,000 lives since the legal age was raised to 21 in 1984.
So what do iVillagers say about this recent hot-button issue?
On Mom & Politics, it looks like not many are in favor so far and feel most 18 year olds can't handle the responsibility:
"I think it would be a bad idea. Wow, could you imagine a high school party when most of the seniors can LEGALLY buy and consume alcohol?! That would be very scary." -- dansmom2003
"I think that the colleges want it because it takes the responsibility of enforcing the laws away from them. I even asked my 18-year-old son what he thought and he looked at me as if I was crazy... he said that it would be a really bad idea because there are enough drunken 18 year olds with the law in place without there being more." -- cl-weberdns0
The reaction is a bit more mixed in our Military Wives community, with some questioning what the real focus should be:
"I don't think that they have enough facts to support this decision on changing the age. But on the other hand, I see it as -- at age 18 you're old enough to die for your country to you should be old enough to have a beer." -- wifemegan07
"When you're told you can't drink, well then it seems that much more appealing and you'll do whatever it takes to be able to. Whether the age is 21 or 18, there will still be kids getting alcohol, they'll still drink and drive, and there will still be binge drinking." -- charmedrose86
"Underage drinking isn’t the problem, it is a symptom. You have kids going from over-protected childhoods straight to under protected, under supported adult living situations, in the matter of a car ride. You want to see a reduction in reckless behavior, then someone needs to figure out how to make that transition into adulthood more productive." -- izzynalexsmommy
"I think the drinking age should stand firm at 21. I agree with Anna. Just because people are legally considered adults doesn't mean that they are responsible enough to handle adult situations, like drinking." -- natesmom_2004
The debate delves a bit more into cultural norms and rights on Politics Today with many feeling the current laws are too restrictive:
"Far better to have 18 year olds drinking in public where they can learn to drink responsibly than to have them drinking in private where they learn to binge." -- martinisnsushi
"This is an individual state issue, but yes ... if our young people can sign contracts, marry, be drafted to fight in war, and vote, they also should have the right to drink alcohol." -- sopall1953
"This is one subject I think Europeans are right about -- drinking shouldn't be something we make into this huge taboo." -- sandybryant
But janetis40 thinks the current laws are there for a reason and should be enforced, saying:
"... let's lower the drinking age and give them cell phones to use while driving. The #1 group of people that have accidents are teenagers … Why in the world can't a law just be applied and enforced without making a set of new laws?"
On Hot Topics in Health, many also feel that the drinking age should be in line with other rights, such as voting and military service:
"I believe if a soldier is willing to fight for his country, he should be able to have a beer when he's done. Even if the drinking age is not lowered for all youth, I wish they would allow the military to lower its age limit on base. " -- cl-mrsbear
and iVillager nikkicherry gives us a Canadian perspective:
"[The drinking age is] 19 here, 18 in Quebec and I think we have all the same issues as everywhere else. I also think by having it at 21 more kids are sneaking off, binging, etc. Plus, 21 is OLD. You can drive, vote, get MARRIED, go to war, and do all the adult things ... why not have a drink?"
Meanwhile, libelulle takes a more philosophical approach to the issue, feeling that the real responsibility comes back to the parents:
"What about teaching kids the philosophy, the pleasures and the dangers of alcohol drinking when they are in their teens and before they go away from home? What about teaching them moderation before they binge?"
This issue is likely to generate some heat, especially as parents are in the midst of sending their kids back to campus. Still, I think everyone has made pretty good points so far -- where do you stand on the topic? Do you think the drinking age in the US should stay put at 21 or is it a good idea for us to reconsider? Let me know what you think in the comments below!
I'm not sure who started this trend, but over the past few years it seems that we have all become celebrity baby crazy. Absolutely bonkers. Forget when their next blockbuster debuts, we're more obsessed with when they're going to give birth, what sort of designer clothes will be in their layette, and of course, what the name of the little tyke will be. While we wait for the latest cover shot of the uber-famous newborns and their perfect parents, the reality for most moms is that the post-baby body isn't always what we hope it would be. Most every mom I know has struggled with losing pregnancy weight, not to mention coming to terms with fun stuff like stretch marks or that little pouch of belly that never seems to go away. I know you know what I'm talking about. Even though these issues (and the feelings that swirl around them) are common and normal, all of the public hype around celebrity pregnancies and the quick recovery of their superstar bodies may be creating an even bigger perception of not measuring up.
Post-pregnancy body image and losing the baby weight is a big topic in the iVillage community. rachnriley from the June 2008 Playgroup likely speaks for many new moms when she writes:
"Obviously, I am not exercising and I am eating too much and not the right things. So, it's not that I don't know why, it's just depressing because I know I won't be doing anything about it for awhile! With three kids and trying to work part time, I am just tired and hungry and don't have the mental capacity to try to either exercise or eat better."
As someone who works in front of a camera, nervous1sttimer2007 offers her fears:
"I really will have to lose this weight before I go back to work, though. I'm a television reporter, and my bosses will freak. I'm serious -- one of my colleagues came back overweight after pregnancy, and viewers actually called to chastise her about her weight gain! Seriously -- they'd tell her she needed to lose a lot of weight, and ask her how "she could have let herself go" so much. It's horrifying, so I feel a lot of pressure."
Member newlamom is close to the Hollywood action in Los Angeles and sounds off on the unrealistic expectations celeb moms and the media are putting forth. ...
It's no secret that any news of a politician's infidelity is an instant scandal that almost everyone has an opinion on. We saw a tidal wave of reaction to the Eliot Spitzer prostitution story, and the news that former Senator John Edwards had an affair with a campaign aide has set the iVillage community ablaze with commentary, disgust and some really interesting angles on this story.
On the Betrayed Spouses Support board, member carpenchri shares what many of us are probably thinking:
"Well...front page news again. Another person trying to gain our trust comes out as cheating on his family. Cheating on his wife — while she's busting her butt on the campaign trail for him — while battling cancer ... what could have been SO horrible that he had to do that to her?!?!"
For the most part, we often see some degree of distrust for political figures. But what is interesting about this case is that John Edwards, by most accounts (well, at least until now), was beyond that, with his clean image, his value-based talking points and, perhaps most notable, his wife's struggle with cancer, which has played out often on the campaign trail and in the news. It's exactly this, though, that has created such a stir in a wide variety of communities. While the outrage is predictable, some of the secondary conversations have taken a tone that is more considered and curious. Some are even questioning who knew what and when... and how much a person is responsible for their family when they're living their life so much in the public eye.
From the All Sides of an Affair board fallenstar2005 also wonders:
"I question whether Elizabeth Edwards knew about the affair in 2006. Would you agree to be part of a national presidential campaign knowing that there was someone out there who could publicly, on a whim, destroy you and your children's world? Not to mention the arrogance of John Edwards putting his political party at risk if he had actually won the nomination. Something just doesn't seem right..."
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.
