I have to take a moment to sound off about this Anthony Weiner scandal, not because I want to. I don't live in New York City. I don't care who they elect as mayor. I am not interested in who sends naughty pics to who. My beef with this scandal is not about his indiscretion, but about the way the media is making Huma Abedin out to be some sort of idiot doormat.
I liked Anthony Weiner as a politician. I felt that he fought for some strong, progressive legislation, was a champion for the working class, and I agreed with most of his politics. When he was busted the first time, I really didn't care about what he had done. My philosophy has always been that it's no one's business how you get your freak on, as long as it's done between two consenting adults. I didn't think it was necessary for him to resign the first time, but he did.
I thought the worst part of him getting caught the first time was that he was stupid to think that the photos wouldn't get out. In the great age of the internet, every photo and piece of info you put out there is subject to regurgitation at any time, by anyone for any reason.
When Tony decided to run for mayor, I wasn't surprised. You can never keep a good politician down. I didn't think for a second that the scandal would matter much to most New Yorkers, because they are a fairly down-to-earth group of people. Plus, after two terms of Mayor "Fee Increase" Bloomberg, they could use someone way savvier to run their city.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like Tony will get his chance to run the Big Apple, because he was busted again sending dick pics. Again, I don't care how one gets off and I don't want to hear about it. I don't want to see the twits or the pics. I don't want to hear some spin-crafted explanation from him or Huma. I didn't care when Bill Clinton screwed around on Hillary, or when Elliot Spitzer got busted with hookers, or when Mark Sanford made his trip to Argentina, or when any other politician got caught having extra-marital relations, because it is personal. It is that particular couple's issue to deal with, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people probably feel the same way.
The one thing that resonated loudly during this whole Weinergate scandal is Huma telling the press that she has forgiven him and that this issue is private. She is 100% correct, and I'm really sick of people, newspapers, pundits, and what not, bashing this woman. I realize that the whole "stand by your man" political wife thing is old and can look somewhat degrading. However, we don't live in their marriage. We don't know them, personally. We don't know what they talk about at night. I think what everyone might be worried about is the possibility that maybe Huma doesn't give that much of a damn. Perhaps she's more upset about the public embarrassment than she is about Tony talking to internet women that may or may not exist.
He is a dumbass for not learning his lesson the first time. At this point, I don't think he should be mayor, because he's an idiot, not because he did freaky things to get off. As for Huma, she is a strong, smart lady. I think she is more than qualified to make her own decisions about her relationships and family without the rest of the world sounding off.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Not All Motherhood is Created Equal
If you haven't heard by now, you are probably a deaf, mute hermit who has been living in a cave, the royal couple had a new prince. The news coverage of this has been so ridiculous, I've had to relegate my television to a "Wii-only" device, so as not to vomit a little in my mouth every time I see an aerial shot of that freakin' hospital.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy for the couple and their new baby, as I would be for any couple who eagerly awaited and had a successful, problem-free birth of a first child. The problem I have with this, aside from the disgusting level of news coverage, is the absurd idea that the prince and the duchess are going to be parents just like the rest of us.
In this amazing age of technology, we are able to have access to people like never before. If you would have told my 13 yr. old self that at some point in the future, I would be getting weekly messages directly from John Taylor of Duran Duran, I would have been on Cloud 9 and spent the rest of my early teen years anxiously waiting. On a lot of levels, this new access is cool, but the downside is believing that access is an equalizer.
Yes, I see FaceBook updates from famous people, but they are a one way communication of only the information that the person/artist wants me to see. I find them interesting, they are also helpful if it's an artist I like to see live, and always entertaining, but I don't believe for a second that if I met that entertainer in person I could walk up to them like an old pal and consider myself in their circle. However, I don't know that younger people, perhaps around the demographic of 18-25, think the same way.
This belief is re-enforced when I see op-eds penned by writers in their late 20s/early 30s giving Duchess Kate advice on late night feedings and play dates. I saw the same thing when Kim Kardashian had her baby. Does anyone with half a brain really think that these women are getting up in the middle of the night with their infants? Let's face it, I'm a dedicated mom, but if I had the ability to hire staff to deal with my infants at night, I would have done it in a heartbeat.
The truth is that Duchess Kate, Kim, and other celebrity mommies don't have the same motherhood experience as the rest of us, because they can pay someone to deal with most of the shitty parts of being a mom. The late nights, the diaper changing, the loss of sleep and personal time, having to make a choice between working and staying at home, none of these issues come up when you have people whose sole purpose is to make sure they never come up, no matter what their Twitter twits say.
Yes, they are mothers in the respect that they gave birth to a child who will, hopefully, be the amazing focal point of their lives. They will feel love, worry, joy, frustration, anxiety, anger, happiness, and all of the other emotions that go along with the role of motherhood, but until I see Duchess Kate leaving the palace at 2:00 am in her pajamas, hair disheveled with bags under her eyes, getting into the minivan to drive her screaming newborn prince around aimlessly just to get him to go to back to sleep, I'm going to ask that we stop pretending that her motherhood experience is the same your average suburb mom's.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy for the couple and their new baby, as I would be for any couple who eagerly awaited and had a successful, problem-free birth of a first child. The problem I have with this, aside from the disgusting level of news coverage, is the absurd idea that the prince and the duchess are going to be parents just like the rest of us.
In this amazing age of technology, we are able to have access to people like never before. If you would have told my 13 yr. old self that at some point in the future, I would be getting weekly messages directly from John Taylor of Duran Duran, I would have been on Cloud 9 and spent the rest of my early teen years anxiously waiting. On a lot of levels, this new access is cool, but the downside is believing that access is an equalizer.
Yes, I see FaceBook updates from famous people, but they are a one way communication of only the information that the person/artist wants me to see. I find them interesting, they are also helpful if it's an artist I like to see live, and always entertaining, but I don't believe for a second that if I met that entertainer in person I could walk up to them like an old pal and consider myself in their circle. However, I don't know that younger people, perhaps around the demographic of 18-25, think the same way.
This belief is re-enforced when I see op-eds penned by writers in their late 20s/early 30s giving Duchess Kate advice on late night feedings and play dates. I saw the same thing when Kim Kardashian had her baby. Does anyone with half a brain really think that these women are getting up in the middle of the night with their infants? Let's face it, I'm a dedicated mom, but if I had the ability to hire staff to deal with my infants at night, I would have done it in a heartbeat.
The truth is that Duchess Kate, Kim, and other celebrity mommies don't have the same motherhood experience as the rest of us, because they can pay someone to deal with most of the shitty parts of being a mom. The late nights, the diaper changing, the loss of sleep and personal time, having to make a choice between working and staying at home, none of these issues come up when you have people whose sole purpose is to make sure they never come up, no matter what their Twitter twits say.
Yes, they are mothers in the respect that they gave birth to a child who will, hopefully, be the amazing focal point of their lives. They will feel love, worry, joy, frustration, anxiety, anger, happiness, and all of the other emotions that go along with the role of motherhood, but until I see Duchess Kate leaving the palace at 2:00 am in her pajamas, hair disheveled with bags under her eyes, getting into the minivan to drive her screaming newborn prince around aimlessly just to get him to go to back to sleep, I'm going to ask that we stop pretending that her motherhood experience is the same your average suburb mom's.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
The Bomber & The Cover
Rolling Stone's cover of Boston bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, has really pissed a lot of people off. I get why the people of Boston are angry about it, and why others are angry, too. Just a year ago, people would have looked at Tsarnaev and thought he was a decent young man. Several retailers have refused to carry this issue of the magazine, because they feel that featuring Tsarnaev on the cover glamorizes the terrible act that he is now in prison for, whereas others are crying that not selling the magazine is akin to censorship.
In this case, I think Rolling Stone could have done a story on Tsarnaev without the cover. I'm the biggest supporter of anti-censorship and freedom of the press. Right now, a New York Times reporter has been told by an appellant court to reveal his sources, and he has refused to the point that he is willing to go to jail. I'm 100% behind this guy, and I really hope this decision is overturned once it gets to the Supreme Court.
I'm not supporting Tsarnaev on the cover, because unlike the Time magazine cover that featured Charles Manson as Man of the Year back in the '70s, our culture has changed drastically. In previous decades, if you saw a bad man on the cover of a magazine, you automatically assumed that the story inside would be about how bad the guy or his act was. There was a general opinion of distain when a criminal was featured on the cover of a magazine. I know this Rolling Stone article about Tsarnaev will be a well-written account about how a seemingly good, immigrant kid went from run-of-the-mill college student to the murderer who placed a backpack full of explosives behind a child, knowing that child would be killed the moment the backpack detonated.
The problem is that we live in a culture that is now so obsessed with celebrity and reality television that why you are on the cover doesn't matter as the fact that you are on the cover. Ten years ago, Tsarnaev on the cover would have been no big deal, but now, Tsarnaev on the cover means he is being talked about. He has elevated himself from being one of the faceless masses to someone people are talking about, and it doesn't matter that none of the talk is positive. Today's culture, particularly the majority of the 18-28 yr. old population, has been so trained to think that if you are a regular person, you are nothing, that bad publicity is still publicity.
A few years ago, a group of teens were breaking into celebrities' homes and robbing them. When they were finally nabbed, all the ringleader cared about was the fact that the celebrities, whose homes she robbed, knew her name and who she was. It didn't matter that she was facing a heavy prison sentence, she was on television and in magazines.
The brilliant artist, Andy Warhol, once said that everyone would be famous for 15 minutes, and thankfully he didn't live long enough to see that day. I imagined when he said that, he might have been thinking that everyone would do something fabulous that would make them famous, even for a fleeting second. I don't think he ever envisioned a time when doing the most vile acts would make one eligible for celebrity status.
The majority of the reality "stars" add nothing to our culture. From the Kardashians to Spencer and Heidi to Courtney and her geriatric hubby to Honey Boo Boo, reality television is the bottom of our cultural barrel. Not only does it glorify the worst traits of human beings, it celebrates them, and makes others think that vile, ignorant and repugnant behavior is the quick way to success and celebrity. Forget talent, creating art, bettering society or doing something meaningful, just be the worst and most negatively outrageous,
and you too, can be on the cover of the magazine.
In this case, I think Rolling Stone could have done a story on Tsarnaev without the cover. I'm the biggest supporter of anti-censorship and freedom of the press. Right now, a New York Times reporter has been told by an appellant court to reveal his sources, and he has refused to the point that he is willing to go to jail. I'm 100% behind this guy, and I really hope this decision is overturned once it gets to the Supreme Court.
I'm not supporting Tsarnaev on the cover, because unlike the Time magazine cover that featured Charles Manson as Man of the Year back in the '70s, our culture has changed drastically. In previous decades, if you saw a bad man on the cover of a magazine, you automatically assumed that the story inside would be about how bad the guy or his act was. There was a general opinion of distain when a criminal was featured on the cover of a magazine. I know this Rolling Stone article about Tsarnaev will be a well-written account about how a seemingly good, immigrant kid went from run-of-the-mill college student to the murderer who placed a backpack full of explosives behind a child, knowing that child would be killed the moment the backpack detonated.
The problem is that we live in a culture that is now so obsessed with celebrity and reality television that why you are on the cover doesn't matter as the fact that you are on the cover. Ten years ago, Tsarnaev on the cover would have been no big deal, but now, Tsarnaev on the cover means he is being talked about. He has elevated himself from being one of the faceless masses to someone people are talking about, and it doesn't matter that none of the talk is positive. Today's culture, particularly the majority of the 18-28 yr. old population, has been so trained to think that if you are a regular person, you are nothing, that bad publicity is still publicity.
A few years ago, a group of teens were breaking into celebrities' homes and robbing them. When they were finally nabbed, all the ringleader cared about was the fact that the celebrities, whose homes she robbed, knew her name and who she was. It didn't matter that she was facing a heavy prison sentence, she was on television and in magazines.
The brilliant artist, Andy Warhol, once said that everyone would be famous for 15 minutes, and thankfully he didn't live long enough to see that day. I imagined when he said that, he might have been thinking that everyone would do something fabulous that would make them famous, even for a fleeting second. I don't think he ever envisioned a time when doing the most vile acts would make one eligible for celebrity status.
The majority of the reality "stars" add nothing to our culture. From the Kardashians to Spencer and Heidi to Courtney and her geriatric hubby to Honey Boo Boo, reality television is the bottom of our cultural barrel. Not only does it glorify the worst traits of human beings, it celebrates them, and makes others think that vile, ignorant and repugnant behavior is the quick way to success and celebrity. Forget talent, creating art, bettering society or doing something meaningful, just be the worst and most negatively outrageous,
and you too, can be on the cover of the magazine.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
The Mommy Dilemma
There are a million dilemmas you end up with when you become a mom, but the one that's been nagging me as of late is a doozy, and has me questioning my purpose in life.
Nine years ago, when I had Rachael, I tried my hand at being a stay-at-home mom, and I nearly went crazy. I got depressed, started this blog, and felt like I had lost my identity. I remedied that feeling by going back to work full-time. Yep, the stay-at-home mom gig is so difficult, I only lasted 24 months at it.
I worked full-time up until my sixth month of pregnancy with Shayna. The job I had at the time had not turned out to be what I wanted, and my boss was an extreme micromanager, something 99% of the workforce hates, so I quit. I thought I would be home for a year or so, and then would go back to work full-time, again. However, no one told me that the more kids you have, the more complicated the schedule becomes. About two seconds after I gave birth, it became clear to me that resuming a full-time work schedule may have to wait.
In order to not go crazy, I started my own business, and for a few years, it went gangbusters. It was during the height of the Great Recession, and organizations needed to do their major fundraisers, but couldn't afford to hire full-time staff to do it, so they hired me. I swooped in, gave them good results at a set price, and only made them commit to one year at a time. All was well until the economy turned and the organizations were able to hire full-time again. Now I only have half the business I did in previous years, and way too much time on my hands.
Ideally, I would love to go back to work full-time, and enjoy the full-time schedule (and full-time salary) that comes with an actual job. I like working, always have. I'm great at what I do, and I love helping the organizations I'm with reach and exceed their goals. Unfortunately, I live in the real world where my soon-to-be 4th grader gets out of school everyday at 2:00 pm, except for Wednesdays when she gets out at noon. That's right, I said noon. Wednesday gives you enough time for a quick workout, a shower without leg shaving, and right back in the car for pick up.
Through my own business, I pull in the equivalent of a part-time salary, and although my husband would go out of his mind if he heard me say this, it's not the money that matters the most. I find myself with an abundance of time on my hands. I have tried to fill it with exercise, revamping certain internal items for my business, and other activities, but nothing comes close to the fulfillment of getting up everyday to go to work.
Now, I face the dilemma of working full-time and subjecting my 4 yr. old and 9 1/2 yr. old to full-time daycare, or giving them the mom who is at home for them at the expense of potential earnings, professional development, and my sanity. I suppose every mom faces this unless they have to work in order to pay bills, so staying at home isn't an option, or they've structured their lives specifically so they can stay home. I envy those women with their clearcut direction.
I know my Fall will be far busier than my Summer. I will be working on two events, one of which is my biggest event of the year. Perhaps I will look into obtaining that Master's degree that I've been considering doing for the past 10 years. Either way, it doesn't relieve my present boredom, but at least by the end of the summer, I will have some killer abs.
Nine years ago, when I had Rachael, I tried my hand at being a stay-at-home mom, and I nearly went crazy. I got depressed, started this blog, and felt like I had lost my identity. I remedied that feeling by going back to work full-time. Yep, the stay-at-home mom gig is so difficult, I only lasted 24 months at it.
I worked full-time up until my sixth month of pregnancy with Shayna. The job I had at the time had not turned out to be what I wanted, and my boss was an extreme micromanager, something 99% of the workforce hates, so I quit. I thought I would be home for a year or so, and then would go back to work full-time, again. However, no one told me that the more kids you have, the more complicated the schedule becomes. About two seconds after I gave birth, it became clear to me that resuming a full-time work schedule may have to wait.
In order to not go crazy, I started my own business, and for a few years, it went gangbusters. It was during the height of the Great Recession, and organizations needed to do their major fundraisers, but couldn't afford to hire full-time staff to do it, so they hired me. I swooped in, gave them good results at a set price, and only made them commit to one year at a time. All was well until the economy turned and the organizations were able to hire full-time again. Now I only have half the business I did in previous years, and way too much time on my hands.
Ideally, I would love to go back to work full-time, and enjoy the full-time schedule (and full-time salary) that comes with an actual job. I like working, always have. I'm great at what I do, and I love helping the organizations I'm with reach and exceed their goals. Unfortunately, I live in the real world where my soon-to-be 4th grader gets out of school everyday at 2:00 pm, except for Wednesdays when she gets out at noon. That's right, I said noon. Wednesday gives you enough time for a quick workout, a shower without leg shaving, and right back in the car for pick up.
Through my own business, I pull in the equivalent of a part-time salary, and although my husband would go out of his mind if he heard me say this, it's not the money that matters the most. I find myself with an abundance of time on my hands. I have tried to fill it with exercise, revamping certain internal items for my business, and other activities, but nothing comes close to the fulfillment of getting up everyday to go to work.
Now, I face the dilemma of working full-time and subjecting my 4 yr. old and 9 1/2 yr. old to full-time daycare, or giving them the mom who is at home for them at the expense of potential earnings, professional development, and my sanity. I suppose every mom faces this unless they have to work in order to pay bills, so staying at home isn't an option, or they've structured their lives specifically so they can stay home. I envy those women with their clearcut direction.
I know my Fall will be far busier than my Summer. I will be working on two events, one of which is my biggest event of the year. Perhaps I will look into obtaining that Master's degree that I've been considering doing for the past 10 years. Either way, it doesn't relieve my present boredom, but at least by the end of the summer, I will have some killer abs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)