Relationships Resolutions

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, there lived a girl named Coop, who was a self-proclaimed workaholic. At the time, it was a proud title she wore. She figured it was a product of her strong blue-collar work ethic, although she had worked in a decidedly white-collar world. As a result of her ambitions, she worked long hours, but relationships around her started to suffer. She and her long-term boyfriend had broken up -- for the better of course -- but friendships also were strained because they didn't understand how someone could be so devoted to a job that not only sucked the life out of her, but that could be so demanding but hold it over her head that it could be gone like *that* (snap your fingers to get the full effect).

Then the ground beneath her started to quake. In the midst of a poor economy, she lost her job -- the very thing that she felt defined who she was: a successful, urbanite independent woman. However, she took the high road, and started to follow some passions of her own. In those months, she discovered a knack for networking with people who could ultimately have her find her passion and not just a "job," found some contracting work, fell in love with a dog who changed her life, fell in love with a man who committed to her for life, spent more time with family, and developed strong relationships that may or may not have occurred had she remained blinded to just one end goal: validation at work or in her eyes, "success."

I realized one thing was important: family and friendship, and subsequently, those friends who become family. Work could wait. I have my whole life to do that.

When the clock goes from 11:59 pm on December 31st to 12:00 am on January 1st, many of you will commit to change. That could be joining a gym, counting points on Weight Watchers, taking classes, ultimately changing yourself to become a better person.

Dee and I have talked ad nauseum about relationships, virtual, real-life, or those which are virtual that become real-life. However the operative term is relationships, and if you're human, you thrive on them whether you don't think you do. We are social creatures, bound together by shared interests, ideologies, and even our differences to an extent.

The Wall Street Journal Online had an article today on how great relationships should be a resolution for anyone in 2011, whether to create new relationships, better existing ones or giving up selfish behavior in relationships to strengthen common bonds.

Back in 2007, I was a lot like these people. I tended to think poorly of myself, I surrounded myself with negative thinkers, and negativity begats negativity, I don't imagine I was much fun to hang out with. That was kind of the first little earthquake in my life, when a seven-year relationship fell apart, but again, it was for best, now that I look at it. I was at an incredible low part in my life. Yes, my career was still intact, but I had a great void. Most of my relationships were long-distance as friends were married, had children, or lived several states away. Even my family was about two hours driving distance, and it was hard for us to get together.

However, at the time I needed something to ground me, and I found a book, controversial as it was at the time, The Secret. I took to heart the chapters on the power of positive thinking and that your thoughts manifest themselves into the now. So my negativity indeed begat negativity, and I started to do more things to make me happy, thus making me a sunnier person, thus attracting more of that element. It's funny, but the dang thing worked. I started to socialize more, and even though I was still very goal and career-oriented, many of my new circles were parts of my hobbies (such as following my favorite baseball team), music (enabling me to go to more concerts and discovering new bands) and even things I didn't know I liked (such as new television shows, which I never watched much of in the past).

My point is, many of the people profiled in the article have people who love them for them, and they have character flaws that can be tough to deal with. Whether they choose to read The Secret or get involved in their faith or find something outside of themselves that can make them happy, then perhaps that positive energy can manifest into compromise in these relationships.

Relationships are about compromise. But as Carrie Bradshaw famously said in Sex and the City, if you can love someone who loves the version of you you love, then that's just fabulous.

But be sure to give some of that sugar back to the other party.

When you want to better yourself, you should definitely do it for you, but also keep in mind that there are people who love you for being you, and become a better person for that inspiration.

Here are some ways to engage that behavior...

Reach out to that person you think you click with. Who knows? You might just start a blog with them...

Don't sweat the small stuff. I hate that cliched term, but it does ring true in most if not all instances. I had a friend once upon a time who said when the going got particularly tough, that if he was still breathing, it couldn't be all that bad, now could it?

Life is a two-way street. You give, you get. It's all good.

Be ballsy. Shyness is not an option. Reach out to that neighbor you hold the door for. You might have something in common with him or her. One of the stories that stood out in that WSJ article was about the next door neighbors who would speak occasionally but it was a surface relationship, only to find they had more in common than just their address. You never know what is out there unless you open your heart.

Go ahead, honey! Take that chance!! Remember that old song from Girl Scouts?

Make new friends But keep the old One is silver And the other, gold

This will probably be my last post on CoopDeeVille for 2010, so I will see y'all next year.

PEACE BE WITH YOU!

What Say You?

If you've been following this blog since its inception, then you already know that Coop and I have discussed at length the lack of human interaction in today's society.  Whether it's good or bad is neither here nor there.  Those who still live by the old-fashion traditions will continue to do so, and those who have accepted and adapted this new way of communicating obviously have no issues.  What I'd like to discuss today is just how far the electronic/digital/virtual world has taken us.

Imagine, if you will, a text conversation between two women.  We'll call them Coop and Dee.  Now imagine they are talking -- or complaining -- about men, which we all know would NEVER happen.  Now imagine one or both of the girls become pressed for time. Here's how their conversation goes...

Dee: "omg wtf?"

Coop: "ikr! imo, pita!"

Dee: "lol ihy"

Coop: "g2g, c u l8r? lmk"

Dee: "ok sgtm ttyl"

Um, WHAAAAAAT???  These two just had an entire 12-sentence conversation without using a single word.  That's right, sin una palabra.

It seems that even our shortcuts have taken shortcuts.  I get the whole convenience factor.  I get the saving time thing.  I also understand the character limitations.  But if we have that much to say, maybe, just maybe, we should be picking up the phone to call, not to text or Kik, right?  Many smartphones make apps that let you talk-to-text.  But if you're going to speak anyway, then why not just call the person?!

To think that an entire glossary of texting terms and abbreviations exists scares me a little.  Don't get me wrong, I am guilty of taking part in the phenomenon that has taken over.  But I am in my mid-30s and obviously from this blog, you can tell that it has not affected my thinking, speaking or writing skills.  But what about the younger generation? What about the 'tweens and teens who are supposed to be learning those skills, but are being conditioned by the new language of texting?  What are their college theses going to consist of? A bunch of "LOL"s and "OMG"s?

Kik: The Habit

It's become the latest and greatest addiction among smartphone users.  Kik Messenger has taken the virtual world by storm, and I am no exception to that.

It's like instant messaging and text messaging all in one.  Actually it's better than any instant messaging or text messaging application I've ever used on a mobile device.  Let me tell you why ...

You can see when your message has been sent, received and read by the recipient (text features), as well as see when the other person is typing a response (IM feature).  No messaging application that I know of does ALL that.  And not only does Kik,  give you all those great features, but it is super fast (another IM feature)!

But what's the real beauty of Kik, you ask?  You better sit down for this one ...

Unlike BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) that can only be used on a BlackBerry device, Kik Messenger can be used across multi-platform smartphones.  For example, someone using an Android powered phone can "kik" someone using an iPhone, as long as they've both downloaded the app from their respective market/store and accepted each other as contacts within the app.

Speaking of Blackberry, the maker of the smartphone and its operating system -- Research In Motion (RIM) -- has now sued Kik Interactive -- claiming that they stole their idea -- and have pulled Kik from their app world.  And who is suffering for it?  Only the Blackberry users.  They are now once again limited to chatting only with other Blackberry owners.

Kik was re-launched on October 19, 2010, and in two weeks, had over 1 millions users.  It now has over two and a half million "kiksters" and could reach over 3 million users by the New Year.

This morning, Kik updated their already outstanding application to include the ability for users to add profile pictures, as well as new ways to find friends with their enhanced search/suggestion features.  I'm hoping they will eventually add a feature that will allow users to set their status to "away", "available", etc.  Looking forward to see what else they have in store!

How Much Is Too Much?

A friend of mine recently announced that her son not only got his first acceptance letter from a university, but she bragged (and rightfully so!) about his scholarship earnings as well. Go, kid!

It made me remember what it was like when I was applying to school. The process was stressful, mortifying and expensive. I forget exactly how many schools I applied to...erm...a long time ago, but there were a few with application fees and then subsequently having to go to visit the schools, not to mention worrying about those damn SAT scores.

Although it seems like it wasn't too long ago, in the years that have passed, the millennials of this generation have a lot more to worry about. Or namely, their parents. See, my friend has three children and subsequently three college educations to worry about. Well, she and her husband. Yet, what stressed her husband and her out in school, what stressed me out and what will stress her kids out are completely different. I can't even imagine, being a parent, having to worry about that but potentially not alarming your child as to the stresses of worrying about a college education.

Hell, I thought education was expensive just in the last decade or so. Now, we hear stories about how students are financing their educations with drug dealing. And we're not even talking "kind bud" as my crazy hippie uncles called it...we are talking HARD DRUGS like Adderall and cocaine! Hey, I gotta give these students some credit: they managed to keep a 3.5 GPA and even mused aloud that they hoped a settlement was forthcoming as to not ruin their chances for graduate school.

Yet, there was some implication that the drug financing was there to supplement their college costs. Needless to say, Columbia University is one of the more prestigious schools out there, and the costs are commensurate with that reputation. But succumbing to selling drugs to pay school bills?

How much is TOO much? I am still paying off a student loan that I had while I was in school, several years after I graduated. I am fortunate enough to have completed a masters program that was paid for by an employer. Costs keep rising at for-profit institutions, and for what? So kids can enter a workforce with double-digit unemployment? Where an internship is considered an acceptable "entry-level job" -- whereas my contemporaries had internships TO get that much-needed "experience" on your resume for that so-called entry-level job?

I guess the reason I ask is because the pressure is on this next generation. My mother didn't get a college degree, and it served her just fine. However, it was her generation that started the whole college effort, the "counter-culture" if you will. Billy Joel once sang that every kid had a good shot to get as far as their old man got, but when refineries, mills and factories were closing down and setting up shop in developing economies, the writing was on the wall that college educations were the next step. Now I have a masters, and feel like that's not even enough these days! Is the higher education degree becoming saturated to the point where there is no value?

The New York Times seems to think so, asking the other day if an "elite college is worth the cost?" My friend's son got a very substantial scholarship to subsidize his education, at a very good school. This article though suggests that perhaps it does not matter whether the school is high-tier, an Ivy or just a regular ol' four-year establishment...that a degree, a completion of something, suggests that it may not make much of a difference. Or does it at all?

I guess the proof will be when we analyze how this generation fares in another 20 years. After all, my generation is responsible for Microsoft, Twitter, heck even our President is a member of my generation. And we were the ones labeled as "slackers." Go figure. If anything, it proves that we are all incredibly adaptable, even with the whole generational shift that naturally occurs.

Failing anything else, just wanted to remind you that Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard, so he managed to adapt very well.

Just sayin'.

App-y Holidays

Remember how revolutionary Internet shopping was back in the '90s? I swear that my mom, a total mallrat in her own right, probably agreed to have a computer for the sole reason that she could window shop in the comfort of her own home.

Then came the cell phone revolution. Gordon Gecko's tin can of a cell phone went from a punch line to being a necessity of life. My grandmother used to wonder about what was SO important that couldn't wait till you got home to call someone. And she ended up having a nicer phone than me at one point.

Yet, I went from having a phone I carried around for "emergencies" to having a fully-loaded phone that I need to have a handle on at every moment. If I don't have it on me, I feel naked. I guess it's replaced the watch as an accessory you can't leave the home without. Heck, I don't even have a landline phone anymore, which ha gone the way of the land-dinosaur, as we have had such a codependent lifestyle on our phones.

Now I find that with my smartphone (for the record, it's an iPhone) applciations, I gravitate towards (ta da) shopping apps. Besides being addicted to Kik, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, I have eBay as well as Amazon on my phone. Turns out, I'm not the only one.

According to the New York Times today, consumers are playing Santa using their phones. Now, we don't even need to purchase things at home. We can be in our cars, on a bus, at a sporting event, for pete's sakes, plugging away at our phone apps, buying stuff! Heck, you can even be in line at a store, and order something from another store entirely! I can attest to that. I've gotten a hankering for Chipotle, and the lines are brutal, I will put through an order on my phone and wait 15 minutes -- generally a longer wait would be on tap if I were to go the traditional route.

It's not even limited to books, clothes, or eBay used items on phones. According to the article, people even buy cars on their phones! I wonder what's next: can we get someone to drive that car to your home, with a full case of wine?

For someone like me, I hate commerce when everyone else is at the malls when I need to browse. I almost accosted someone at a street fair geared towards trinkets for holiday gift giving.

I love my smart phone. And I LOVE that fact that I can easily press a button, on something that is attached to my hip, and get it delivered to my mom's house, so I don't have to lug it with me on a train for the holidays.

But what is the consequence? Are we further inconveniencing ourselves out of being personal? Commerce used to be about one-on-one contact -- the buyer and the seller. And now we are eliminating the middle-man, and using our phones to further distance ourselves from others. How can I complain about that? I am a Trader Joe's fan, after all. But they have still brick-and-mortar stores, and I need to talk to people.

But those cashiers are pretty weird. Any chance I can get them to make an app?

I Want Your Sext

"There's things that you guess and things that you know/There's boys you can trust and girls that you don't/There's little things you hide and little things that you show/Sometimes you think you're gonna get it/But you don't and that's just the way it goes" - George Michael, "I Want Your Sex"

You can reside in a Twitterverse, get a virus that's not airborne but in a video form, and Kik a friend who is not sitting right next to you. It's no wonder that as advanced as we are getting in technology, that some smart phones should come with a disclaimer about use by "Mature Audiences Only." Not that it would help, but the thought certainly counts.

Why do I suggest that? Well, there is a new phenomenon on phones that goes along with texting, chatting, even talking on phones (does anyone even really call each other anymore?). Once the cell phone designing geniuses decided that every phone needed to be fitted with a camera, instant gratification was brought to a whole new level.

Of course with this fun, instant gratification was usually in the form of being daring. And when I say "daring," I mean kids who have cell phones take dares to a new level and sending parts of their respective bodies they probably should not have sent. There's a story on CNN and ABC every day about this phenomenon: that what starts off as a girl sending her boyfriend an "innocent" picture of herself to be seen by their eyes only. Yet we all know, it's quite "provocative," and suddenly he's sharing it with the Varsity basketball team. Next thing you know, her girlfriends find out about it and post it on the Internet.

It happens more than you think. When you click that "Send" button, who exactly is seeing this stuff? It's like the theory of a cockroach: if one person has seen it, chances are, a million are lurking to see it too.

It's not clear-cut black-and-white, as either gender takes their own liberties in sending provocative photos of themselves to blast to whomever. Since this is relatively new, there is no "etiquette" on this spectacle. I mean, I'm sure Miss Manners wasn't exactly thinking of writing a "How-to" book on dealing with the incidence of "sexting."

CNN's Paging Dr. Gupta blog had a piece today about "Sex Ed in the age of Snooki." I can freely admit that I have never watched an episode of "Jersey Shore" nor do I want to. Yet you see and hear about the exploits about these reality stars all over. I don't actively seek it out, but chances are if you have a Twitter account or follow any gossip columns, you're going to hear about it. The article went on to discuss how women have irresponsible and daring role models (let's not even go there with the men on those shows either -- Gym, Tan, Laundry I believe the operative term is).

When I was growing up, Madonna was the "It" Girl. She did bold things like roll around on stage in a wedding dress singing "Like A Virgin" or present herself in a provocative manner in books like "Sex." Looking back, she got a bad rap, but I looked up to her. She was (and is) a successful business woman who is in charge of her sexual destiny. If anything, she made us question our morals and beliefs and think maybe we might be too rigid and Puritan even in our belief system.

However, it might be a generational shift in that I simply just don't get this whole "Sexting" phenomenon, photographic one's intimate areas and blasting it off to your boyfriend, girlfriend, best friend. As revelers at my birthday party saw last week, I am pretty exhibitionist, but seeing how quickly pictures (especially those that are not flattering) can go viral in a short amount of time, I like to do things there are no cameras and just deny deny deny (And no, I'm not going there right now).

It's not just teenagers, as the CNN blog suggests, I know plenty of adults who engage in risky behavior. And it is. As adults, we sometimes can get swept up into a moment. Believe me, I know the power of "the moment" and emotions that belong to it. I know several successful and good hard-working people who have, ahem, certain identifying characteristics on other people's phones.

When I worked at an investment bank for eight years, reputation was the rigeur du jour. It was always implied and always at the forefront of how we conducted business. One question we would be asked in our ethics roundups would be the Wall Street Journal test, meaning: if we conducted ourselves in a certain way, would we want that blasted on the front page of the WSJ? Think about it: if your girlfriend decided to exact revenge on you for breaking up, and she had a picture of your hoo-ha, she could easily send a photo of it to Dealbreaker.com, and they can say -- hey, do you recognize this lawyer?

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'. A few months ago, a story broke about a future Hall of Fame football player, Brett Favre, sending questionable images over text to an NFL reporter, Jenn Sterger. Now, I can't say that I know the exact details since I was not in the room, but I can say this: Sterger is an attractive female who has a target audience, beer drinking and pizza eating middle-working-class men who think with...well you know. They have a good looking babe giving them football stories. Then in comes a football player, who decides to take liberties with said lady, and gets a little raunchy to say the least.

Favre is a married man, and there are tons of implications about what's "professional," and what's "sexual harassment." There is a fine line. Yet, it's a perfect example of how quickly things can get out of hand, when one believes they are in a safe and trusting environment, and how quickly things can go from flirtation to "What the hell was he thinking?"

In the late 1980s, George Michael, best known for his popularity with the pop group "Wham!", broke off from the norm and released a thought-provoking album called "Faith." The top tune that received the most airplay was a song that had in and of itself a provocative title: "I Want Your Sex."

In an incredibly uptight society where the word "Sex" is even considered dirty, but perfectly natural, this video had to be played at hours when children were not readily exposed to it (yet, there wasn't anything horrible to watch about it) and the song had to be bleeped out on certain radio stations due to complaints from concerned parents.

The video and message of the song was very simple: monogamy and making love can be sexy. In an age where AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases were creating news by themselves, the fact was Michael's message was revolutionary at the time since casual sex was the norm but NO ONE talked about it.

And we have tons of people talking about this whole sexting phenomenon...and no one is questioning the moral values of those who partake in it, namely reality television stars who get paid to make a spectacle of themselves or future Hall of Famer football players when they promote their own perversion?

I think it raises an interesting question about all this repression we've had over generations about the very notion about sex. All it's going to do is create new generations of daring and more risky behavior.

Decembers to Remember

You can be lucky enough to meet a special someone that you not only connect with on a deep level, but also share a common bond. Dee and I have many common bonds, including being baseball chicks and only children.

We are also December babies. Not just December, but literally very close to Christmas. A common question we get is if we get one gift that's your Christmas AND birthday gift? I've personally never had that problem, but it's tough to celebrate the most fabulous version of you when there are other festivities that take precedence in your family's and friend's lives due to the holiday season.

CNN just had an article today on December babies getting the short end of the proverbial stick. I can't say that I ever felt I got the short end, but I do think that it's hard to be a December baby who wants to have a normal birthday, and it's so not.

And it totally sucks that we can't do anything outside. At least on the East Coast.

That's What Dee Said

I don't know about Coop, but I always felt a little slighted as a child when it came to my birthday. Not so much by my parents or grandparents, but by my extended family and friends.

When December rolled around, the focus would always turn to Christmas. And understandably so. But what did that mean for me? It was almost as if those around me acknowledged my birthday only because they had to, not because they wanted to, because there was just so much more for them to be looking forward to that time of the year. I sometimes felt like my birthday was an inconvenience for them. Sorrrrrry!!!

So what else did it mean for me?

Christmas wrapping on birthday gifts. "I hope you don't mind. " Nah. No problem!

"I can't make it to your birthday party because it's too close to Christmas." Really? Did 'ya even read the invitation? My party is not ON December 25th!!!

It's just the attitude that some people take when it comes to December birthdays. Like they're not important enough because there's so much more going on that time of the year.

But you gotta understand something -- I didn't ask to be born in December. In fact, if I was born any other time, it wouldn't have been ME. But I've met a lot of people over the years and have many family members who were also born in December. Conclusion? March was a hot month??? My point is, don't take it out on us!!!

I guess I shouldn't really complain. After all, sadly, our Savior's birthday is forgotten in all the commercialization that Christmas has become. So I have some nerve, right?

View From The Coop

I grew up at the Jersey Shore, so safe to assume that I spent many a summer on the beach, baking in the sun and swimming in the ocean. That's what Jersey Girls do. What Jersey Girls DON'T particularly like is digging your car out of the snow and having to deal with crazy people at the supermarket on snowy days, buying up every gallon of milk in the dairy aisle simply because you think you're going to be snowed in for a month.

I am also a proud baseball chick. Baseball chicks love warm weather because that means...going to baseball games. The days are longer and dark hours are shorter, and it means I'm drinking beer in a stadium somewhere. Life is swell.

So I find it completely ironic in my identity as both a baseball chick and a Jersey girl, that I was born in December. Not just December, but the shortest daylight hours of the year day. Three days before Christmas. So I got a double whammy there. Luckily, like Dee mentioned above, I didn't get a forgotten birthday a la Molly Ringwald, but it was hard to rally the troops together for a party.

Like when I was a kid, I rarely had birthday parties or gatherings ON my actual birth date. Rather, I was used to celebrating within the first two weeks of the month. I guess on one hand, my friends' folks were already at the mall, they could buy a quick gift while there already. On the other, trying to gather as many of my friends together was always a tough assignment.

It's still like that today.

Dee and I decided that we are going to grab the bull by the horns this year and do something about it. We hosted a joint birthday party but here's the beauty part: because of year-round sports at our favorite baseball team's stadium, we can party at the site itself. Of course, we are rallying the troops earlier this year, but again. It's still a task in and of itself to get people together around the holidays. I think it's even worse when you are an adult because you have so many other places and things to commit to.

One of my favorite songwriters once wrote: Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans. I can't ever say that I've received a "birthday AND Christmas gift" (unless it was something really big and expensive, like baseball season tickets...but I've never received them as a gift so there). However, I think I might mess with someone with a birthday in like May and say that.

So just remember folks: if you're friend is a December baby, just remember, it's not been easy for them to ever have a day just for THEM, since there are many other outliers and life events that are happening beyond their control. Remember, the holidays are a time to spread a little cheer and gather with friends and family. And December babies could use some leeway there.

Battle of the Sex

View from the Coop

If you ever watched the show Sex and the City or even Golden Girls, you would assume that all women have tight-knit relationships. Save the occasional "blow out," or even minor disagreement, you would assume that a woman's worst enemy was men, specifically those who have broken their hearts. In the end, the girls always had each other's back.

Then you read books like Odd Girl Out, specifically about the hidden aggression in girls (and subsequently women) and you know that usually the opposite happens. We hear about the "Battle of the Sexes" so often that we truly believe that Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, when the reality is, we are all earthlings, so deal with it.

Men and women have their differences, of course. I just find it mind boggling that women have it out for each other. When I read Odd Girl Out several years ago, I cried because I had lived it. Turns out Dee did too. As kids we were bullied and picked on during school. There is a distinct difference between girls bullying and boys bullying. Girls are more emotional, they know how to get to you. As we get older, it becomes less trivial, but I find that women still have a way of "getting" to one another. It may not resort to physical nature, but boy it digs deep.

One of the biggest arguments we hear as adults about women and families. "Women should stay home with their children" or "women who work shouldn't have children or put their children in day care." Who the hell are people to judge other women's lifestyles and choices?

Dee's mom, whom I refer to affectionately as my "aunt," managed their household. My mother stayed home during my younger years, but was an exception to the rule in working her way up (with no college degree, by the way). She always worked close by, for sure, but even today, the unspoken in Corporate America is that many women take pay cuts or demotions when they leave to tend to their families or are punished for the so-called work/life balance.

Yet the backlash I think that occurs is that your children will be messed up or lacking in values if the mom doesn't stay home. On the other hand, I know plenty of kids where a parent may have stayed at home and are messed up too. There's no distinct formula.

Needless to say, Dee and I are both heavy into recreational drugs and complete degenerates of society. I kid, I kid. My point is, you can't judge other women's decisions for what is best for THEIR family. If you want to stay home to raise your family, good. If you want to work and balance that life, good too. It's a personal decision that should not be judged by anyone else. Nothing is gained from this behavior, especially when we are all trying to do the right things with our families.

I can't help but think this is some kind of competitive back from the days-of-the-cave where women were the gatherers, and they could only show how well their families were by the size of the buffalo carcass their cavemen brought home. It's all about status. And it pisses me off.

Even women who are experts in their respective fields have minor digs at other women, and their life choices. A common occurrence in today's world is that women will put off childbearing in order to be financially stable (and you know, have insurance, etc) household. A study came out about the stresses linked to this, and I don't doubt it. I mean, it's gotta be stressful at any time of your life, right? However, there are trappings in managing a household with dual incomes, and wanting to provide a comfortable lifestyle for your family as well.

So it's a balance, but I had to laugh when I read the following line in the article. Barbara Schneider, who is a sociology professor at Michigan State, poses a question about "why so many mothers work full time if that makes them more stressed and means less time to be with their children?" I guess my question is does it really matter?

Not for nothing, Schneider is just as guilty in making women specifically feel bad for working outside the home AND raising a family. Why isn't more being asked of the men in the household? Why aren't we asking more of a social responsibility of others and workplaces to make accommodations for working families (of course without putting out those who are single and don't have families).

And most importantly, why are women giving a damn about how other women handle their households? It's none of their freaking business!! Look, I'm married. I have two cats. That's the extent of my responsibility right now. I have good benefits, a retirement package and insurance. My husband...not so much. Chances are, we will both have to keep working if we choose to start a family with kids that don't have four legs and fur. And you know what? That's will be my freaking decision. And if one of us stays home, again it's a very personal decision that shouldn't be judged by other women, whatever their lifestyle choices lead them.

That's What Dee Said

I didn't realize how much Coop and I had in common until we did this piece together. Yes, we are both only children. Yes, we were both bullied in school. Yes, our moms stayed home to raise us for the majority of our childhood years. And while we may have many similarities, then and now, we have still grown up to be our own individual and unique person, different from each other as well. As mutual friend Fred "Solly" Solomon said to me yesterday, we each bring something different to the table. Which goes to show you that not everything we discuss in this piece will pertain to everyone reading it. There are exceptions to every rule, truly making life unpredictable and exciting. Our word is not law; it is simply honest observations based on experience.

I have met many women over the years who absolutely refuse to be friends with other women. Sure, they have female "acquaintances" and co-worker relationships. But when it comes to real, close, whole-hearted friends, they choose men over other women. Their reasons are simple; their intentions are not malicious. They feel women are too jealous and catty (and we can be at times) and don't want to be hurt. But if and when you find that true friend, you won't have to worry about those things. No one is saying you need to have tons of girl friends. I don't. I have two or three best friends and that's all I need. Besides, can men and women really be friends anyway? Isn't there always one party involved that ends up having feelings for the other that aren't felt in return?

Another gender battle takes place when it comes to our sexuality. I guess you can say this is literally a battle of the sex. Why is it that the more partners a male has, the more of a "stud" he is? But when it comes to women, we should remain wholesome and pure? Who said a man's needs are more important than a woman's? I don't think that's exactly equal rights, but no matter how far our society has come -- or how much men expect of the women they're just having a good time with -- they still want that "good girl" as their wife.

Then there is the single mom debate. Many women are now intentionally choosing to have children -- whether via adoption or biologically -- in order to fill the void in their life of not being a parent. I happen to be one of these women. Though I have not gone through the process and may not be financially ready to do so just yet, I agree with these women 100%. Just because they haven't found Mr. Right (or maybe don't want to), does that mean they should be deprived the opportunity to be a mother, a true gift in this life?

What works for one woman, may not work for another. But it's not for us to point fingers and judge anyone else. Too many times I've come into contact with people who were only my friend when they agreed with me. That's not how it works.

Hmmm, maybe it is best to only have male friends...

From the Coop again:

We are all guilty of it, judging others and forming an opinion, when we have no idea what goes on behind closed doors. And I think that women judging other women, harshly I might add, does not promote the ideals of feminism. And feminism was all about CHOICE.

Relationship Status: In A Textlationship

That's what they're calling it -- 'textlationships".  Translation?  Relationships via text message.  And we all have them.  And not just romantic ones; we have the strictly friendly ones as well. 

Coop and I have spoken about the lack of human interaction in today's society, and this is just another bit of evidence to support that.

I am a texting whore.  And when I say "text", I mean all forms of conversing with another individual via my mobile device -- text messaging, instant messaging and the new "kik" messaging (similar to BBM, but it works across all wireless platforms simultaneously).

Always on vibrate, my phone rarely leaves my arm's length.  I can't miss that important text from you-know-who.  And I can't miss that important "kik" from Coop about our next blog post! 

But are these types of relationships healthy?  Are they even real?

Well, they're real in the sense that they do exist and we are communicating with others, although I'm not sure how healthy they are for us.  If you already know the person pre-texting era, it's not so imperative.  However, this type of communication can be both beneficial and harmful when meeting and interacting with new people. 

You can get learn a lot about a person through a text conversation, both good and bad.  For example, some people have this unprecedented sense of confidence behind the 4.3 inch touch screen of their smart phone.  They say things they normally would not have the courage to say to someone's face.  Whether it be a naughty, flirtacious comment or a mean and sarcastic one, they become someone they might not be if not for the security blanket of the text message. 

During a "textlationship" you are basically writing your own little screenplay between yourself and the other person.  You have time to sit and think before responding and can stear an entire scenario exactly the way you want it to go.  So not only can getting to know someone this way be extremely misleading, but it can be very disappointing as well.  You sort of create an image of someone in your mind based on your interaction with them over text.  But exactly how close to reality is that image?  You can't read their body language or look into their eyes to see how sincere they are.

So if the person ends up being fake, is so too the relationship?

No wonder it's so hard to date these days!

Anti-Social Media

Picture it: New York City, 2010. A young professional urbanite woman runs on the city street, phone in hand, busily tapping away at the screen of her smart phone. She stops in front of the movie theater, presumably her destination as she walks in the door. What happens next?

She taps on a phone app and "checks in," before meeting up with her friends to go into the movie theater.

I guess the real question is...is she the mayor?

We're all guilty of it: using our smart phones as busy-time, kind of replacing the old tapping of our foot or even reading a book on the bus or train these days, providing some sort of personal entertainment be it videos, music, texting, Facebooking, Tweeting or most importantly, the new hip application of Foursquare, which is yet another social media app that allows you to check in at establishments or events. As an example, the annual Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade took place in New York City, and there was a special "badge" one earned when you checked in. Because of the amounts of people checking into the venue (which could have theoretically been anywhere), I truly thought I was part of something unique...until I saw friends of mine from Ohio checking in on their Foursquare apps, just to get the badge (sorry for outing you guys).

Although I have to admit, Foursquare is cool. I'm the "Mayor" of several of my favorite establishments, which include my frequent watering holes and bakeries...On second thought, maybe it just shows how pathetic and a creature of habit I am.

Anyway, I have to say that the publication Time Out New York had a superb article detailing whether these applications enhance the New York City (or any city, really) experience in the aptly titled "Is Social Media Bad for NYC?"

I have to say, Dee and I are just as guilty of it. Whenever we go someplace, she and I are automatically on our Foursquares, telling the world (or rather, our little universe on Twitter and/or Facebook) where we are having dinner or meeting for drinks. We are letting people into our lives, willingly, but at the same time, we are taking time away from actually talking and interacting with each other, face-to-face. Not that either one of us complains. Sometimes, the feedback we get from our mutual friends is enough to give us ammo to talk all evening. Not that we need that anyway.

I thought the article was a bit pretentious, more about the idea that those who live in the Greater New York area label themselves as "tourists" when they are active users of these apps. Perhaps Foursquare (or Facebook or Twitter to a lesser extent) was making what used to be clandestine behavior very out in the open, at least in your sphere of influence.

Then again, it brought up some significant issues. Social media is changing the way we socialize, and what's more, is that we want EVERYONE to know about it.

Most importantly, these devices might take away from the actual experience and take away from New York City, in general. Now, New York City is a big place, and it will take a lot to change the dynamic here. But how many times is the first thing we do is grab our phones and shout to the world -- Hey everyone, I'm HERE!

Personally, if checking in someplace makes me "uncool," then so be it. As for being clandestine, I am very selective to where I tell people my whereabouts. After all, do I really need to be THAT available?

ADD: Attention Digital Disorder

I'll probably get in trouble for this, but I believe Attention Deficit Disorder to be a myth.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think ADD is interchangeable with, say, learning disabilities. I suffer from mild dyslexia and non-verbal learning disorder. So far be it for me to diminish or discount these factors.

However, you better know that when it came to subjects I didn't enjoy studying -- physics, geometry, computer programming -- I totally had...wait, what was that? Oh, right, I was making a point about Attention Deficit Disorder. Anyway, why was it that I excelled at creative subjects like English literature, creative writing, or history, and that I sucked at math? Because that's the way my brain is wired, that's why!

We're living in an age where everything is overdiagnosed and overprescribed. According to a New York Times article on Sunday, kids are pointing-and-clicking since birth. With all of these distractions today, who's to say that we're not going to see more diagnoses of ADD and even the demise of true social relationships (You know, like talking. Um, that's it).

"The worry is we’re raising a generation of kids in front of screens whose brains are going to be wired differently."

Isn't adding a layer of technology bringing people closer together but also making divides even more prominent. Take for instance some of these high schoolers profiled in the article. Think back to when you were in high school. It was awkward enough, and very easy to withdraw into yourself. Yet, even with levels of social gaming and social networking, it appears as though the "shy" and "quiet" kids aren't becoming more outgoing and social but LESS so.

What is causing this disconnect? Well, I think plain and simple it's a distraction, we're making ourselves less social and putting off what we can do tomorrow to the day after tomorrow. Is technology really doing all that good?

Technology use clearly cannot be curbed, as we are in an eat-or-be-eaten world with computers. However, whatever happened to being active? Going outside to play? Whether you are an adult or high schooler or even a tween, this always stands true.

Yet Dee and I have talked about this ad nauseum: is this the new "busy?" (You'll probably see a post on that soon too) We claim to be "busy." We just add another layer of these complex relationships and technology, and the before we know it, the day has gone by and we've passed the time, how? Writing on people's walls and sharing pictures!

How did this become the new "normal?" Going back to when I was in school, I didn't pay attention in biology class because I found it boring. Are we reduced to mundane lives because of our new addictions to voyeurism and being reduced to never talk vis a vis in real life, stunted critical thinking skills and becoming recluses?

If you have seen a running theme here on Coop Dee Ville, you will see that we notice that unless you are a sociopath, we crave human contact, social and fulfilling relationships.

Our attention to digital media may be causing another level of social dysfunction. I don't know about you, but I'd rather go to boxing class, and not do boxing on Wii at this point.

Only: The Lonely?

En francais, the term is "Fille Unique." A loose translation would be a "unique girl," but that was the term attached to me, the Coop, by my French teacher in high school. When I said, "Je n'ai pa des soeurs ou freres," that red-flagged moi.

That meant, I have no brothers or sisters. Turns out I found a kindred spirit in Dee, in that she is also "une fille unique." (And no, I don't know what the term is for boys...maybe homme unique?)

Growing up in the suburbs in the '80s, and I'm sure Dee can relate, baby boomers were trained to have large families. Today, with Generation Xers starting families, big families are not necessarily better in their views. Needless to say, growing up, Dee and I were indeed "unique" in not having at least one sibling, especially in the towns in which we grew up.

This could pose issues in some respects. One is socialization. I can speak for myself when I say that I was socialized with adults and learned to please my elders at a very early age. When it came time for school, I never had any friends my own age (it wasn't until I was older that I started to have friends of all ages, all walks of life). I remember being in second grade and being thought "weird" that I did not have any brothers or sisters. Then again, my play dates' parents all loved me because I was a little suck up who learned to please adults at a young age.

There were also other people's perceptions of what an only child is, or stereotypes behind it.

If you're an only child, you're SPOILED.

I have nothing to compare it to, but I can say I was raised with an independent spirit that my parents nurtured (especially my mother, who proudly told other parents that me saying NO was expressing my individuality).

That's what DEE said: Right away, people think you are/were spoiled. And maybe I was a little bit. But it wasn’t because I was an only child. My parents would have treated me – and any other children – the same way they did, no matter how many of us there would have been.

The special part is who you become as a result of being the lone offspring of the family, Dee relates. Only children, while definitely feeling a void in their lives at times, tend to be stronger and more in touch with their own selves. At least, they should be.

So there’s no one to blame for the vase that YOU broke.  There’s also no one to have to share your clothes and toys with.  But once you get past a certain age, those things -- spoiled or not -- don’t matter anymore.

View from the COOP: If cultivating our personality and not just TELLING us we are unique (like everyone else, ha ha), perhaps parents of only children are able to nurture those personalities more so with attention. So if that means we're "spoiled," so be it. However, being spoiled is technically interchangeable with getting lots of "stuff." Dee and I can both attest that anything we have, we've earned. That we can blame on our individualistic personalities.

We don't like to share or play well with others.

That's a gigantic crock. This is quite possibly the biggest misconception of only children. Dee and I may be the only offspring in our immediate family, but our extended families are quite sizable. Hello, our mothers are Italian-American: a big family is usually the rigeur du jour in that culture! So we have a ton of cousins. We were never at a loss for events to share. In fact, I remember some little girl I wasn't even friends with lost one of my dolls in the ocean when I was four after allowing her to play with it. My mother was the one who told me that I needed to be more selective in who I allowed to share my toys. Maybe we were too nice, that people would take advantage of us.

That's what DEE said: I was once told by an ex co-worker – after not offering her a stick of gum – that I don’t know how to share because I am an only child and never learned how. Um, did you ever think that maybe I just didn’t like you?

Maybe it’s not that only children are spoiled and "don’t know how to share." Maybe they just want what they want, and want to hold on to what they have, because they fear it’s all they’re ever going to have.  And it's subconsciously that we do it.  Of course, the gum now becomes symbolic here. But I think you get my drift.

View from the COOP: I don't know why only children get pigeonholed like that. Perhaps it's because we are not born with that innate relationship or built-in "sibling rivalry". However, if what Dee says above is true -- that we want what we want and want to hold on to what we have -- sounds to me like a PEOPLE thing, regardless of birth order or how many siblings one has.

Lastly, there is something that Dee and I have talked about ad nauseum in the tenure of our friendship, and has been reiterated over the years:

You must have been really lonely growing up with no brothers or sisters.

This is a convoluted message. There may have been times, personally, I wished to have those built-in relationships, and even as an adult, I can say it's a "relationship" thing. However, I had nothing else to compare it to. Well, maybe I could listen to my mom talk about how loud her house always was, and the nightmarish wait for the bathroom, and be thankful for the fact we had two bathrooms between the the two of us and the quiet nights to do my homework.

I can say there have been times I've felt alone, and well, quite frankly, who hasn't in this life? On the flip side, I can say I rarely get lonely, and that only children as a rule of thumb, tend to handle the "alone time" better than others who may have been surrounded by family members for as long as they remember.

On the flip side, craving relationships -- friendship, intimate, acquaintances, even familial relationships -- is something Dee and I have talked about in our many heart-to-hearts. There are times both of us have experienced relationships that we may be afraid of letting go. Now, this, THIS I wonder if this is something only children experience as a general rule.

Dee openly wondered if the void and fear an only child may experience influence their choices when it comes to relationships? Do we look for more because we lack it elsewhere? Or do we look for less because we don’t know any better?

I can say this: I think that's a human quality, and what human doesn't crave relationships or isn't afraid to lose people who may bring something to the proverbial table? However, perhaps because we didn't have that innate quality to break loose from toxic relationships. That could be based on anything, though. However, I've experienced almost the opposite. I've pushed people away because I'm so ingrained with "I can do it myself, dammit," which I blame COMPLETELY on my status as an only child.

There's a great episode of Sex and the City where the girls are discussing over brunch how "cute" firemen are. Charlotte then makes the observation that "Women just want to be rescued." The four women prided themselves on being strong, independent women who found their strength with their careers and one another. However, Miranda, the prototypical woman who wanted to be in charge, had surgery and realized that she needed help afterwards, and her "not-quite-yet" boyfriend was willing to help.

I had a similar experience. Earlier this year, I had minor outpatient surgery, and the staff neglected to tell me I needed someone to "escort" me home. I am from New York City, babe, we have cabs and buses. I don't drive here. However, my now-husband offered earlier to escort me to and from the hospital, and I had turned him down. My independence and strong sense of self made me think I could do everything on my own, and not accept help when I actually did need it.

That's what DEE said: You take your happiness from wherever you can get it, even if it means making wrong decisions and doing wrong things. Only children may feel slighted and have this type of mentality. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule ... but ... who made the rules up anyway?

And the View from the COOP? There are several misconceptions about any person depending on their birth order (middle child syndrome, anyone?), your appearance (dumb blonde? I hate that especially, because as a blonde I am not dumb, but I am also not blonde), your speech (southern accents = uneducated redneck?). However, why only children get a bum rap is beyond me. We are ambitious, driven, independent, get along with all walks of life and work just as hard if not more than people with a single sibling or 19, like that family in Arkansas.

Only children, the lonely children? Not so. It's brought us a bond with other only children, that we may feel alone at times, but we'll never be lonely in this world in the relationships we choose.

Virtual Reality

A View From The Coop:

Growing up, we’re taught various “rules” by our parents, family, friends, or any significant people in our individual lives about how to live and get along with others. 

Don’t look.  Don’t point.  Don’t judge. 

Yet we all do it.  It’s not that I think it’s right or wrong, I just think it’s human nature to crave relationships, even with strangers.  It may not seem polite, but honestly, there’s an element in all of us to be naturally curious about other people.  I mean, if you are wearing a cotton candy colored frock with a rainbow wig in Wal-Mart, chances are, you want some kind of attention.  Or validation.

Perhaps it is more amplified now that most of us are figuratively and literally putting ourselves “out there” in social media tools such as Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr. 

Is there a difference between being nosy and being naturally curious?  Is there an element of voyeurism that is considered “acceptable” these days? 

These may seem like odd questions.  But myself and Dee, co-author of this blog, were talking about experiments in social media, mostly to see how many people would respond to a simple “relationship status” update.  However, this experiment (to be headed by Dee) was cancelled because, well, I basically lived it. 

A few months ago, I got married.  The funny thing was, it was sort of an elopement, as very few people actually knew beforehand.  We went to City Hall and believe it or not, telling our folks was the easy part.  How to inform people we considered our “friends” on Facebook (who constitute those we consider family, friends, and acquaintances purely on Facebook shared interests) was the hard part. 

See, it occurred to me that while no topic is considered off limits or taboo to me, on networks like Facebook it’s hard to be truly “private.”  No matter how hard you try to keep your private life private, there is an element that you feel like you sort of owe an explanation.  Well, forgive me for wanting to keep my relationship to ourselves and special for as long as we could.  Needless to say, when we changed our relationship status to “married,” our virtual lives blew up.  And not in a bad way, either, but still, when it all died down, it really wasn’t that bad. 

I should not have been surprised though.  After all, about a year prior, I had a friend who simply changed her relationship status from “single” to not being on her Info page at all.  Within minutes, a bunch of people had commented, wondering what the occasion was.  Well, my friend (a friend I had made the old-fashioned way, THEN became Facebook buddies) simply said she didn’t want to be reminded of her single life.

Which brings me to why Dee and I are constructing this post today.  See, Dee and I have a unique relationship.  We connected because of a shared interest (baseball, if you must know) but it turns out we were kindred spirits -- sistas from another mista, as I like to call us.  We were discussing Facebook fallout, and it led to Dee calling some folks “nosy,” while I believe them to be “curious.”

We share some aspects of our lives on these media forms, albeit it’s at our own limitation.  If we change our relationship status to single, to married, to divorced or even just take it down, wouldn’t it be hard to keep that business part of ourselves away from those we communicate with on Facebook?

It’s really questioned the limits on what relationships are.  There is a fine line between nosiness and natural curiosity…there is also getting to be a fine line between virtual and reality relationships.  For me personally, I find there are several people I care deeply about, but I may have met once or twice in my life.   And you know with the advent of “Unfriend Day” in the media, many virtual and real feelings get hurt over a perceived slight because of mannerisms and suggested “tone.” 

Yes, it’s an interesting social experiment to see virtual reality kick in on these forms of media.  And yet, even if we get the reaction we expected, sometimes, it’s more than we bargained for.  We still feel things as we used to, and virtual relationships add yet another complex layer to human interactions.


That's What Dee Said:


While some people are in fact naturally curious, you can't deny the fact that others are blatant busy-bodies.  And for that reason, I find no need to wait for an official/unofficial National Unfriend Day to get rid of the dead weight.  However, because of mistakes I made in the past -- one that almost cost me this moment right here and now -- I have to be careful and really think before I act when it comes to hitting that delete button!

The difference between curious and nosy is quite easy to explain.  Curious is just that -- curious. It's not obvious and there is usually a sense of sincerity behind the inquiries of the person.  Nosy is when someone comes out of the woodworks when you have something big going on, and not necessarily something good either. At least this has been my experience.  But for others, including Coop, it may not be the case, in which case you start to wonder if it's not you causing your own privacy issues.

It's unfortunate that along with the things that Coop mentioned, we aren't all also taught to have respect for other people's privacy.  Behind the computer screen, we don't know what someone is really thinking or saying, and that allows people to be cowards, where they may not be directly to one's face.  We have to use covers, such as "lol" and "lmao" to make something harsh seem, well, not so harsh, but also get our point across at the same time.

My mother always told me "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."  More people, including myself, should listen to my mother.

Coop and I indeed have a special relationship.  Our love of baseball (particularly, the Mets) and blogging brought us together, but our friendship has kept us together.  And it grows more and more every day.  Both being only children, we have definitely become the sisters we never had.

Coop has over 500 friends on Facebook.  I have 71.  Neither of us is right or wrong in the way we choose to conduct our online/social media business.  But I found myself creating lists specifying who can or can't see certain information about me on Facebook.  Then I thought, if I have to do that, why am I even friends with these people?  If I have to "hide" information from someone because it's "too personal for them to see", then what is the point?

I started knocking off names left and right.  I could easily have 500 people on my friends list today, but would they all really be "friends"?

I even "unliked" a ton of pages because I didn't want to be connected in any way to people I did not know and/or trust with my personal information. After all, behind each and every page is a real live person.

The truth is, while I enjoy the social media part of life, I don't need something like Facebook to keep in touch with the people I want to keep in touch with.  And while Facebook certainly enhances the experience of my relationships, it sometimes restricts them as well.

Social media sites are a great way to keep in touch with friends and family and are excellent networking tools if you are in "the business".  But how much is too much information to be shared?

Take Foursquare, for example.  I use it occasionally.  But is it really that important that all of Facebook knows where I am at any given time? Plus, is it really smart to announce when my home is unoccupied?

Sometimes I think people try too hard to maintain relationships online.  But the ones who do may also be trying to fill a void in their "real world".  For some, it's all they have.