Talk Amongst Yourselves

I will give you a topic!!

Rhode Island is neither a "road" nor an "Island."

Discuss!!

This is the story of my life.  Making sense of is all while using pop culture colloquialisms.  I tend to use Sex and the City, Golden Girls, John Landis movies, and Saturday Night Live to fill in the blanks when I need to make an analogy.  Sometimes, I use my own life, as my mother, grandmother, and father can usually provide some fodder for figuring out the ambiguities of life.

Because of the in-your-face nature of popular culture, women's emotions are put on display quite a bit.  Like "crying at a Hallmark commercial" as an example of women being "emotional" because of that "time of the month" or whatever.  Feh. But I've become cognizant of that perception, and maybe I can poke fun at myself because of it.  No, I won't cry during commercials.  But I do cry during movies.

I can mock cry at situations that actually do mean a lot to me.  Once, my mother and I were watching a Behind the Music featuring Cher, and we both started tearing up at Cher's eulogizing of Sonny Bono.  Something so silly, that doesn't affect either of us in real life. 

Yet, I can sometimes compartmentalize my feelings on situations, to make them funny.  This may be a defense mechanism.  But when I was out celebrating our mutual birthdays with Dee, her mother (a woman I affectionately refer to as my "aunt") said that she looked on me like a daughter.

And I got verklempt.  The Yiddish substitute for "emotional" that Linda Richman, character made famous by actor Mike Myers, that I like to say from time-to-time.  Okay.  I say it a LOT.  I like to say it because in happy situations, even if you want to cry tears of joy, it's all silly.  I like to keep life light.  So even if there is a reason to be emotional, it shouldn't be too overwhelming.  By saying something in Yiddish, I can deflect a lot of it, but still get the point across that it means a lot. 

Why do I get "verklempt" to begin with?  Sometimes, I get overwhelmed with the bigger picture.  I know there is a world that's a lot bigger than me, but I can only just take care of me and those closest to me.  I've been around for over 30 years, but people come into my life whom I thought I got along without just fine until I met them.  Post-It Notes were a "happy accident" by 3M.  My "happy accident" was meeting Dee and her mother.

I don't want to trivialize our relationship by calling it a post-it, but it is truly special and unique.  It's something that even at times that I do get really verklempt about things, it's something that can make me smile.  Which gets me even MORE verklempt.   

That gets me back to the reality that maybe women are more emotional creatures, maybe bigger picture things can hit us harder because we might be more conscience of the idea that we're just little specks on Earth, really. 

But in our universe, these specks can be huge to those of us who are the world to us. 

From Day One, we know our families.  We consider ourselves lucky if we are born into a cool one.  They help craft a lot of our humor and our overall personality.  Every day after, we use that and go around in life making our own family, taking existential pieces and making an authentic existence.  The family you choose is something that you have control over, and it's essential to find people who get the real you.

As Carrie Bradshaw said in the last episode of Sex and the City, "If you can find someone who loves the you YOU love, then, that's just fabulous."  I'm lucky enough to have found those people in my life.

Now, isn't this just like buttah??  Discuss!

COOPed Up In DEEcember? Not Us!

It's no secret that I've never been thrilled with having a birthday in December.  So close to Christmas and at the start of winter, it's kinda hard to fully enjoy.

When I was a child, it was Christmas wrapping paper on my birthday gifts or one card for both my birthday and Christmas(although not from my immediate family, the ones who really mattered).  But now it's on a different level. I can't hang up my Christmas cards until after my birthday because I don't want to take anything away from my birthday (and I don't have the room).  I have to wait a whole year before getting presents (although my mother would swear otherwise, and she's kinda right).  And people are too broke from all the holiday spending to come out and celebrate with me.  (Not to mention they have other obligations this time of the year and simply can't make it.)

Being a huge Mets fan, I could never spend a day at the ballpark, watching a game and cheering on my favorite team (and hoping for a win!).  But this year, I decided to try something different.  Not only did I attend my very first Jets game (I'm a huge Jets fan too), but my first professional football game ever!


Coop and I decided to spend one of our birthday weekends at Met Life Stadium, rooting for the J! E! T! S! JETS JETS JETS!  And since they beat the Chiefs 37-10 yesterday, I'd say we accomplished our goal of seeing a victory by one of our teams (although Coop is a NY Rangers fan too, so I'm sure they've won games on or near her special day) on our birthdays.  Well, sort of.

The game was two days before my birthday, and 11 days before Coop's. Since the only other home game in December was on Christmas Eve, this was really our only option. (Besides, we'd rather do it before both our birthdays than after them.)  And up until this day, we had weekends with temperatures near or just above 60 degrees.  So goes my luck.  But as so many reminded me as the weekend approached, it's not football if it's not cold.

As I said, this was my very first football game ever.  I had no idea what to expect.  I was a little anxious -- yes, anxious -- over the whole tailgating experience.  But it turned out to be a lot of fun!  Hosted by our friends, the Chapmans, there was more food than could be eaten, and more alcohol than could be, well, eliminated.  (That's another story.)  It didn't stop there.  More tailgating after the game with our friend Alan, another December baby, who is known in the social networking world as "Woo" because of his catch phrase of the same name.

Let's rewind for a moment. Did I mention that we may be on tv?  Food Network was there filming a pilot for "best tailgate burger" something-or-other and they just so happened to be in L11, our section.  There were three "finalists" and after the taste tests, the winner was awarded the "Golden Spatula".

But again, we didn't stop there.

After a semi-annoying NJ Transit experience back to Manhattan, I had about 20 minutes to spare before my train back to Long Island.  I had been dying for hot cocoa all day. (Some people crave alcohol, I crave chocolate!)  Coop suggested heading outside to the Dunkin' Donuts about a block or two away.  I had time, but figured if I did miss that train, I'd just take the next.  And then it hit me!  How many chances do I get to be in the city at Christmastime?  And so, off to Macy's window and Rockefeller Center we went!

There really is no better place in the world at Christmastime than New York City.  Everywhere you look on Sixth Avenue, lights and fake Santas bring the Christmas joy to you.  I was like a foreigner (oops! Not supposed to use that word!) with my camera, like I had never been to New York City before. At one point, I even asked Coop and here hubby (who joined us at the tree) who was worse, me or our friend from Cali who had visited here last summer for her first time ever in New York. Without any hesitation, Ed said "You!"

But I didn't care.  I knew it was all in good fun. Besides, no one had to know that I lived a half hour from the city. No one had to know that before I became friends with Coop, I hardly went to Manhattan, except for when I worked there for a very short time several years ago, and was afraid to leave the vicinity of my building, even to grab lunch.  No one had to know that while I grew up a lot over the past few years, inside, I was still a little girl in total awe of what I was seeing.

For me, it's the simple things.  A Mets or Jets game every now and then.  The Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center. And a margarita and good conversation with Coop every now and again.  We both love to talk, which is why our blog posts are so long, you probably lose interest by this point.  In fact, blogging and sports, and blogging about sports, is how we met.  (Oh yeah, and Facebook may have had something to do with it too.)  But who'da thunk true friendship -- to the point of sisterhood -- could come out of all that?

Not only are we both December babies and love sports and blogging, but we're both only children.  We can relate to so many things that others with siblings can't.  We know the difference between being spoiled and our parents just loving us and being able to shower us a little more easily than parents with many children.  And we appreciate our alone time because we are so used to it.

So in addition to this blog, sis (that's what I call her) and I have started our own birthday celebration tradition -- the annual Coop Dee Ville Birthday Spectacular -- adding something new to the festivities each year.  This year it was the Jets game.  Next year, maybe a Jets game and a trip to Atlantic City.  Who knows.  Who cares!  I'm just so lucky to have the friend in her that I do, and the sister I never had.

Ass-Backwards

When I was a kid, I mean we're talking little, like first grade little, I chased boys around the playground.  Yeah, I said it.  I'm married now, but to deny my boy-crazy and pants-chasing self that I was a child would be to deny a huge part of my childhood personality.

If I behaved like that today, as a child who is being a "kid," I might be suspended from school.  No, that's no joke.  I read today that some nine year old child was suspended for saying his teacher was "cute."  Cute! 

Media may be over-sexualized these days, but when you're nine years old and talking about someone being "cute," it's not for being a babe-hound (although, who knows, he may be one in the making), it's because you're being HONEST.   I remember telling a female lead singer of a band that I thought she was pretty when I was five years old.  I chased boys around the playground when I was six (and probably was chased around too by the same boys).  I remember holding hands with an eight year old boy when I was seven, at a New Year's party.  It wasn't something "sexual," when I was that age I didn't even know what "sex" was.  Well, maybe I did, but when you're a kid there's no urge, no "threat."

And while we're waxing intellectual, think about what "harassment" means.  Harassment is using sex as power.  A nine year old child has "power?"  Exactly what "power" does a nine year old have over a teacher?  I could see talking to the parents or principal if there's prank calling or threatening notes...because that stuff needs to be nipped in the bud.

But hey, Mrs. Smith, I think you're cute?  Total threat.

I can see in an era of political correctness of being cognizant of other cultures, religions, races, creeds.  But where is the cut-off?  It seems like in this case, and I'm sure there are others like it around, that it's an overreaction to probably a kid who may be a bit of a "troublemaker" in class (I'm making a HUGE assumption, especially since it appears he was suspended at one point), and the teacher was wielding her power.  Suspended?  Get a grip.  Maybe they should be concentrating on making teachers AND children more tolerant of each other.  And ignore certain behaviors while encouraging others to grow, like tolerance. 

Amplified Human Behaviors

There are some human behaviors that have transcended time.  Like greed, romantic love, among others.  We talk about forgiveness and forgetting that has biblical connotations, yet holding grudges is also a human behavior that not only transcends those eras, but seems to be more commonplace more than ever.

I tend to hold total strangers in higher regard than others.  There are some folks with whom I can be emotionally attached, but if a stranger behaves poorly, I just blow it off. I am neither disappointed nor surprised.  Friends or family, though, that is a different story.  They behave poorly, I am willing to cut them off immediately.  I know this is something that is hardly unique to me, but perhaps I feel like I've become more easily disappointed as years go on, but more willing to cut someone out because of poor behavior.

I know these attitudes are nothing new like the list of human behaviors I've listed above.  I feel as though things are more amplified in this day and age, because of the advent of social media tools, where we are more connected to each other than ever.

We hear about "deleting" or "unfollowing" people on different media, but the word substitution connotes the same idea: that we're cutting people out of our lives.  Sometimes it's warranted.  As an example, my husband interacted with a fellow who was disrespectful to me on several occasions.  I won't go into specifics, but it wasn't cool and at the end of the day, this person wasn't someone who my husband was emotionally invested with so it was an easy "delete." 

But what about the folks we do have an emotional investment in?  My networks have certainly expanded as a result of social media tools, but this also increases the number of people with whom I have an attachment.  This does not mean I have a gajillion more people I hang out, but there are generally more people I care about their wellbeing and what happens to them for sure.  That said, behaviors and perceived sleights are amplified.

Take for example, the "birthday."  There's no hidden meaning there, it's just the day of your birth.  It's one of the identifying characteristics we have on most of our social profiles, most notable Facebook.  And on the day of your birth, all your "friends," first degree or otherwise, come out of the woodwork to wish you well in your rotation around the sun!

How many of these people would send you a card, text, email or call you that day?  If you're anything like me, a majority of these folks you didn't even know till these outlets were mainstream.  But how many of us take an emotional inventory of those who did or did not wish you well in the upcoming year?  We all do it, and it may take a step in determining who stays or who goes in the cleansing process we then commence after our birthdays. 

This has happened to me recently.  I became friends with someone as met through a mutual friend in real life (and not virtually...though our "virtual" friendship came later on).  This was a person who spent a majority of her day on Facebook, yet would never answer her texts or calls at times.  It was very selective.  And though I had seen her a few days before my birthday last year (which was, I'll admit, simply a coincidence because she had moved away and normally she would not have been here), I did not get a birthday greeting on my wall.

Now, in the grand scheme of things, a birthday wish isn't the be-all end-all.   Sometimes there are circumstances outside of social media that may contribute.  On the flip side though when said "offender" has about a dozen updates during the day, they can find 20 seconds to send you a greeting.

That wasn't the only thing weighing in, but I took offense to that greatly.  Now, at the root of it, clearly my issues weren't only about the perceived birthday snub.  Yet, I feel like when someone deletes you with no reason or prior establishment, this is the ultimate diss, the biggest snub of them all.

I later found out through mutual friends that this person was going through a great deal and she was going through a very rough time.  I felt, then, that it was I who was being the petty one, the snubber, and felt very guilty about it.

Chances are, if social media did not exist, I may not have had that uncomfortable "reaching out" to do after I heard some terrible news about her family.

I've been on the receiving end, believe me.  I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine whom I lost touch with over the course of a year where I told her I refused to get involved in social media "wars" because I can be more effective arguing in person or providing a devil's advocate point of view outside of it.

As much good as social media has done in the past few years, it's also amplified a lot of harm and misunderstandings and infighting.  

A few years ago, a few of my girlfriends (or my guy friends' wives) started having babies.  As a rule of thumb, I started sending care packages of baby items -- onesies, wipes, diapers, butt paste -- fun and practical stuff for my friends' foray into parenthood.  Yet, ask me if I send them all birthday cards or individualized birthday greetings on Facebook, and probably my answer wouldn't always be 100% "yes." 

But I still send "thinking of you" gifts and think of real life as my litmus test for being a good person and my behavior on networks is an extension of who I am. Yet when we're more connected than ever, there's a layer of potentially overdoing it, under-doing things or even making grudges more evident.  Think about it: there is always that person whom you know you have to go the "extra mile" for, but there's always someone who will be okay with whatever you do.  This can happen in familial or friendship situations.

It happens in real life, but I think behaviors are amplified more with social media.

The Catch-22 of Self-Promotion

Catch-22: A logical paradox arising from a situation in which an individual needs something that can only be acquired with an action that will lead him to that very situation he is already in; therefore, the acquisition of this thing becomes logically impossible. Coined by Joseph Heller in book by same name.

Twenty years ago, if someone told you about this new contraption called the "world wide web" and that your business needed a website, chances are, you would have thought that person crazy and sent them packing. Today, we all know that if a business does NOT have a website, they are anything from bogus to out of touch to secretive...all recipes for disaster in creating a successful business model.

Add the term "social media" today, and you probably get the same looks.  I can't tell you how many people I discuss blogging and Twitter, among others, with business owners in this area, and they are shocked that they need to add yet another layer of marketing/communications to their business model.  There, in and of itself, lays many paradoxes in a successful business.

A business can create a Facebook "Fan" Page, which essentially gets followers, yet the number of followers one has doesn't necessarily mean that "quantity" is better than "quality."  If you create a fan page and have a huge hoopla behind it, then neglect it, chances are your clients or "fans" will lose interest and go someplace else for their info.  Same could be said for Twitter or other social media layers in promoting one's business or self. 

But then comes the Catch-22 of business.  I mean, at the end of day, all businesses are trying to promote ourselves and our business and what other products/services we are trying to sell.  But how do you try to sound like you're not trying to do all that?

Several blogs I know and follow are guilty of the shameless self-promotion.  I have a friend, as an example, whom I adore but his Twitter antics are legendary.  Generally, when he publishes a blog post, everyone and their brother/cousin/uncle gets a link to it.  It's legendary in that I find if I get notice that it's published, I tend to read it before he can "spam" with it.  Yet, it's something I think about -- we tend to do the same things for self-promotion just to get "page views."  But at the end of the day, is it really just a glorified pissing contest?  "I get more page views than you do."  Kind of silly, especially when we are not truly selling a product.

But then apply that to business.  I am on an email distribution for a social media "university" of sorts, and I decided to sign up for a webinar.  The course was scheduled for an hour and a half, and the first half hour I guess was the real "meat" of the deal.  However, they blew through the first half hour, then spent the next half hour promoting what THEY could do to help you.

Granted, I didn't pay for it, it was a free webinar.  So one could argue that you get what you pay for.  On the flip side, they just literally came off telling us that a tool like Twitter could be used for certain things, but not for "spamming" either links to the site, or sounding like a press release.  Which is exactly what they did after telling their listening audience NOT to!

No wonder so many people/business owners are reluctant to do a social media layer.  They wonder what's in it for them!

It's not that I didn't take anything away from it.  I mean, at the end of the day, we use social media for different purposes.  This could be for education, or following our favorite actors and actresses, getting updates from our favorite media outlets, and to converse with friends and family about common interests.  I often tell business people that you get what you put into Twitter, as an example.  If you find that Twitter isn't useful and that you're wasting time on it, chances are...you are!  But it's obviously the next layer of marketing that is essential in survival in business. 

Yet, building your own buzz is a Catch-22 in social media.  You have to follow several people, and make your mark by being accessible while answering and asking several questions in the field you are promoting yourselves in.  Learning and staying abreast of the newest technologies.  At the same time, you can't overtly "self-promote" like my friend can do.  Although the people he is respected in the community take it with a grain of salt, there are others who think that self-promoting is a turn-off. 

So which is it?  Can it be both ways?  If you're in social media for whatever reason, chances are you've hit the Catch-22 of self-promotion too.  It's a pain in the ass, but a necessary evil in today's technology.  Which is in and of itself, a Catch-22.

Oy.

Happy Holidays

It's no secret that we, as a society, for the most part, have been conditioned to act and speak politically correctly.  It's the typical way of the world now. Housewives have become "domestic engineers". Mailmen have become "letter carriers".  Etc., etc., etc. But what about when it comes to the holidays?

Growing up Catholic and attending Catholic grammar school, I really only knew about Catholic holidays.  I knew nothing about Hanukkah or Kwanzaa.  Heck, I didn't even know Jews celebrated Thanksgiving until I got to high school.  (Truth!)  And because there are so many different people and cultures celebrating different holidays and seasons, is it really so bad to take the safe route when you're not sure and just wish "Happy Holidays"?

I don't think using a general "Happy Holidays" greeting is about being politically correct or taking the religious aspect out of anything.  It's about "I don't know what you celebrate, but whatever it is, I hope it's a good one!"

Think about this.  If a Jewish person wished me a "Happy Hanukkah", I wouldn't be offended.  However, I would be like, "Well thanks, but I don't celebrate Hanukkah." That's the same way a Jewish person would react if I wished them a "Merry Christmas". No one holiday is better or more important than another and we shouldn't assume that someone else has the same beliefs or interests that we do.  As long as I keep the true meaning of Christmas alive with those who also celebrate the true meaning of Christmas, what's so wrong with me not saying "Merry Christmas" to someone whose beliefs I am unaware of?

I see no harm in being "politically correct" (for lack of a better term), but that doesn't mean I believe it's okay to forget about the true meaning of your respective holiday.  As a Christian, I need to keep Christ in Christmas.  As it is, Christmas has become so commercialized, with retailers starting earlier and earlier with their decorating and big sales.  And while I, too, am guilty of getting caught up in the Black Friday hype (which now begins late Thanksgiving night), as long as when the day comes I remember why it even exists, I haven't totally fallen victim to the typical ways of the world.

Pass The Beer Nuts

"Women...Can't live with 'em, pass the beer nuts!" - Norm Peterson, Cheers

Websites are devoted to the wisdom and wit of the character that was made famous by actor George Wendt.  Yet, I remember the first time I heard that quote about beer nuts and women, and I was confused.  Wasn't the saying supposed to be, "Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em!"  Norm's situation with his wife Vera was one of convenience it was evident on the show.  After all Vera worked for a living, and Norm was constantly between jobs and hung out at a bar all day (with a large tab at that).  It was Norm, really, who was probably difficult to live with.  

There might have been a kernel of truth with Norm's insight.  Understanding female relationships and complexities is something that television, pop culture, and psychologists have analyzed to many ends, often concluding with more open-ended questions. I've even tried to analyze here the battle that women wage with each other and themselves in an effort of understanding.  It seems as though the greatest mystery of the world isn't the Chicken or the Egg or the riddle of the Sphinx. 

No, it's understanding women.

Here's the thing: women are complex.  There's no one way we live our lives.  We rule by our emotions, and perhaps maybe make more decisions of the heart or by consensus, rather than cold, calculated moves.  Yet, when women are "cold and calculated," they are known as "ice queens."  When men are business-like and driven, they are just being "men." Having worked in fast-paced corporate environment, I've seen all those stereotypes in play, and I have to admit, I might be just as guilty stereotyping myself. 

I was reading an article on Forbes the other day about working women myths.  I had to laugh because while I've borne witness to most of these, fact is because women are so multifaceted -- we can be mothers, sisters, daughters, wives, caretakers, taskers, gatherers, etc -- that it's hard to pigeonhole us.

And boy, does that piss people off.   

Women can't show emotion at work because they will be classified as too high strung and therefore, are a breakdown away from going on long-term medical leave.  Yet, if they don't show emotion, they are trying too hard to be like men.  How can it be both ways? 

Business is treated as a boys club in some industries.  So women have to wear two hats: be one of the "boys" and still try to play peacemaker in whatever deal they are trying to work out.  I remember Samantha Jones in Sex and the City, when she was trying to broker a deal being the head of PR for a chain of hotels.  The man she had to pitch her business to suggested she work with someone else -- a man -- because he didn't think she could handle the work herself.  Later, he told her he wouldn't hire because she slept with his architect.  How did a woman's sex life get involved in a hiring decision?  When she told him if she were a man, they'd be celebrating over martinis.  After she stormed out, he hired her for admiring her "balls."  How about, not apologizing for herself and standing her ground because she knew she was best for the job?  Of course, this was all fictionalized, but you see my point.  It makes me wonder how many women might be turned down for pitched business because of their outside reputation.

Think about it: women are vilified when they are not flowery pieces of sunshine, being refreshed and wholesome when their husbands come home for the day.  Being a woman, I think that a male-dominated society will only be happy when we are back IN the kitchen, because then...they've figured us out! And by "they," I mean society.  Men aren't just hard on women, women are equally hard on our own gender, as I illustrated several months ago.  Hell, I went to an all-women's college and I'm still trying to figure us out! And by "us," I mean "me!"

You may get the idea that I'm some kind of angry female writer, but I'm really not.  I am very proud to be a woman.  I may write stuff to figure things out for me, but at the root of it all, I think it's great that women are complex creatures and have the ability to multitask and make decisions thoughtfully.  In fact, I attended a Women on Wall Street event where a woman who owned one of the first women-owned-and-operated trading exchange said, "The financial crisis in 2008 would not have happened if women were making the decisions."  I thought it was very telling that a woman in her late 70s would say that, especially one so close to the industry.  Just an example of something that I remember the difference in women and business. 

Fifty-plus years since the feminist revolution, it's still quite a radical notion that women can conduct business, be mothers, be wives, write about sports or music, operate a vehicle, cook meals, and the list can go on and on.  Norm Peterson may have preferred beer nuts to living with his wife. Perhaps he should have invited her to Cheers a few times and try to understand her.  But then again, she was too busy working, running the household and fixing her car to go out with him anyway.

Halloween Whore-or

If you get the title, then you already have an idea what this post might be about...

It's funny to see the generational differences in Halloween and how it has changed over the years.  In a nutshell, HALLOWEEN IS AN EXCUSE FOR GIRLS TO DRESS LIKE SLUTS.

Plain and simple.  Attention-seeking girls in desperate need of an ego boost.  Now, one can look at my pics from today and say the same thing.  (I won't post them here, because then it'd be true.)  However, the dress to my black cat costume wasn't half as short as some of the stuff I saw today.  

Girls in respectable positions of power, showing off their boobs, their butts and their midriffs.  Unprofessional? Yes.  Unacceptable?  That depends on whom you ask.

Logically, what these girls are doing is ridiculous. However, what guy in his right mind (assuming he's straight) would oppose this?  I don't care how tacky or tasteless it may be or what responsibilities these guys have in stopping goings-on like this in the workplace.  A man is a man.  

Sure, there are your old-fashioned, goody-goodies who may not make as big a deal out of it as other blatantly disrespectful and chauvanistic pigs would.  And of course, there are only so many times you can look at the same thing -- no matter how revealing it is -- before getting bored with it.  And the only reason why other women wouldn't approve of this is A) they're jealous of all the attention, or B) their man is the one who gets a little too immature in these situations and/or makes them feel less than adequate, compared to these girls.  

It's time to face it.  Halloween has turned into the mother of all meat markets -- Today's Special: Hooch a la Spook.

I Need More UN-Reality TV

When I was in second grade, that was when I first realized what the "Year 2000" (way prior to "Y2K") represented.  We would hear that, and automatically we would think that when we went to sleep on December 31, 1999, we'd wake up on January 1, 2000, to a world not dissimilar to the Jetsons, with sky condos, flying cars, and automated lifestyles.  Many things were automated by then, but we were far and away from living in a world where George and Jane would have video conferences (which would happen later on, especially with the advent of smart phones).
Even when I was a kid, MTV (MUSIC Television) and VH-1 (VIDEO Hits 1) were new and had actual videos, which if you think about it, are nothing more than short stories told by a band in song form.

When I was in high school, a show called The Real World probably launched the dreams of small-town kids everywhere, when a bunch of people who were trying to launch some kind of artistic career (music, acting, dancing) auditioned for a conceptual new show: the "reality" show, where things weren't 100% scripted, and edited to show that real life was also as intriguing as the old form television show. 

I can't say that I watch much television these days.  Except for sporting events, I am not a person who is all OMG-I-NEED-TO-BE-HOME-TO-WATCH-MY-SHOW-ASAP.  Even with sporting events, I can follow the action on my phone and never feel as though I'm missing anything.  My husband and I are big fans of the show Dexter, and he loves the new AMC show The Walking Dead.  I can't say I am one for zombie culture, but hey, to each their own.  Another series I am a big fan of is Desperate Housewives, and I am really sad to see this will be the final year it's on television.  One of my all-time favorites is the Sex and the City franchise, and quote it like it's Shakespeare (just don't ask this former English lit major what she thinks about Billy). 

I guess my point is that I like creativity, and always appreciate good writing, and that's what keeps me returning: the compelling art of the written word, whether it's reading a good story, website or watching one unfold on television or on the big screen.

Something that has changed somewhat in television in the "aughts" is what the public wants.  Reality shows kind of take over precedence from unreality.   Shows like Survivor, X-Factor and Biggest Loser are touted as these feel good types of rewards shows, yet the public has shown that they value the voyeur factor here.  I have to admit, the reality show contests I prefer add absolutely nothing to culture (i.e. stuff people aren't talking about Monday morning at the water cooler), like RuPaul's Drag Race and Flavor of Love.  I mean, if you think about it...those shows lean towards the more unrealistic (especially Drag Race, since it's men dressing up as beautiful and glamorous women, adhering to the whole "illusion" thing). 

Look at MTV and VH-1 now.  They promote not videos (except for VH-1 Classics or MTV in the morning or late evenings) but their own scripted reality shows, like The Hills or Jersey Shore, even Basketball Wives.  I have this here bridge I'd like to sell you if you think these shows aren't the least bit scripted, but something about voyeurism comes into play that makes these franchises successful. 

A misconception people have about reality shows is that these "actors" are somewhat not as credited as those on totally scripted fictional shows, but the reality is there they do have to file with the Screen Actors Guild.  In theory, they are making the acting playing field a little bit of a thinner margin, typical to how we fool ourselves that outsourcing jobs is somewhat good for the economy. Meanwhile no one ever applauds the people who make the shows what they are: no, not Snooki or The Situation, but the editors who make the calls about what goes on for the public to see. 


Many things have changed since I was in second grade, talking about the Year 2000 and beyond.  I suppose one of the things that had to evolve was the television, which itself evolved out of radio shows and soap operas.  Now, soap operas are going the way of the dodo, and reality shows based on daytime dramas are taking over.

Call me crazy, but the idea of television and entertainment is escapism.  Haven't these reality-type shows jumped the shark yet?  Gimme more fictional shows, or don't give me anything at all. The only thing that should be reality, in my opinion, are sporting events.

Removing All Doubt

I am all for free speech.  I like being able to speak my mind without ramifications from the government.  I like that I can disagree with a policy or social mores or whatever is on the docket and not have to worry about going into a political prison.  That's what great about our country, I'm sure most of us can agree upon.

There's an old saying that goes, "Best to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."  There are some folks in the public arena who certainly subscribe to that notion, but allow themselves to be raked all over the press.  I don't necessarily agree with some of the viciousness that's spread around, but that's a drawback of free speech, that flame speech is up for grabs.

That is, unless, you are being paid by an entity who feels your comment may have crossed some invisible lines.

There is an old saying in the corporate world that if you are to do something, and mostly if that something is "visible," what would it look like to the company or entity if it showed up on the front page of the Wall Street Journal the next day?

In recent days, the recent debate about Hank Williams, Jr., "Bocephus" himself, made an inflammatory comment about President Barack Obama, wondered how far "free speech" ethics and limitation of those with a difference of opinion affects his status on ESPN's Monday Night Football.  You see, Bocephus provided the MNF intro and was incredibly recognizable to that brand.  I have no idea what the terms of his deal were, but let's imagine that Walt Disney Co, the owner of ESPN, is paying a whole bucket of money for the copyright usage and rights and all that jazz to use that music. 

Oh and what he said?  He just happened to compare President Obama to possibly the worst war criminal in the history of the world.  Other have claimed that what he said was taken out of context, the usual, or that it was "perfectly okay when someone said it about President George W. Bush."  Now, I have to admit, I was probably one of W's biggest critics.  I thought the "Hitler Didn't Need Search Warrants Either" bumper stickers were a bit much.  But you know what -- the difference here isn't that Bocephus has a difference of opinion, or that his comments were taken out of context or even that he said them on Fox News and is a Tea Party supporter.  It's that these schmoes who sold these bumper stickers or made them in their garage are folks like you and me.  They are not on a world stage.  They are trying to make a buck off a political item.  When someone like Alec Baldwin said he did not agree with Bush is another thing.  He did not come out and say, "Bush is Hitler."  There's a big difference between what Williams said about Obama.

Now Williams claims his First Amendment rights were violated here.  Here's a guy who has had the privilege of having a famous name, of being his own man and beloved by millions for his music.  I mean, this guy has made an empire out of the very things that Good Ole Boys stand for.  Not to say he hasn't worked hard to where he got, I mean I remember listening to old Hank Williams Jr songs in my dad's truck as we drove around on the weekends...but he parted ways from a private corporate entity, that had to deal with backlash from derogatory remarks that could be potentially damaging to their brand.

It's nothing to do with race, class, free speech or corporate versus private thinking.  Hank Williams Jr is no schmuck like you and me: he's not begging someone for a job or living paycheck to paycheck.  When this whole thing blows over, he'll still make out nicely, methinks.

Despite what your political or social beliefs are, what makes this world go 'round isn't just love, but also differences of opinion.  It's okay to not like the President of the United States, especially if he's your President and you've come to that conclusion yourself after careful thought, not having been told by a news organization to think a certain way. 

But that brings me to another double-standard about this whole shebbang.  Remember in 2003, when Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks made an offhand remark about how the band was ashamed that President Bush was from Texas?  This happened to take place on a stage in London, and the night before attacks were launched on Iraq.

Remember what happened next?  These three talented and family-oriented women were thrown under the bus by the very fan base who supported them, they were called derogatory names like "Dixie Sluts" or told to get back into the kitchen.  I had to admire Natalie, Martie and Emily for taking those negatives and turning them into positives for themselves and their fans who didn't care what they thought?

The difference?  They were women who didn't agree with the President's philosophy, and their music was banned from country radio stations, particularly in the Bible Belt.  These women worked very hard to get to where they were, and were not employed by these radio stations per se.  They disagreed with them and subsequently trashed them to support their own views.

And you know what?  Maines' comments about Bush were not even a millionth as nasty as Williams' was.  Which leads to the question that Richard Roeper from Chicago Sun-Times asks, if Maines was a traitor, is Williams too?

Kind of makes you think, right?  There is a difference between working under someone's brand name and working under your own, and making a flame comment that the world can see or hear, as opposed to privately.

Better to keep you mouth shut and be thought a fool, indeed. 

It's Not About You (Sort of)

My blolleague Dee was throwing some raging bull over at the new Facebook designs.  She certainly was not the only one.  Some of the common refrains I have heard from those who were vehemently opposed to the new set up were they did not like the "rolling ticker" on the right hand side, basically allowing one to "stalk" their friend list and what they were doing (including liking, commenting and posting on their friends' walls, even if you were not on the friend list of that "other" friend), pictures in the main feed were larger than they were used to seeing, and just basic complaining about the drastic changes. 

I took a "wait-and-see" approach.  Humans are naturally resistant to change (especially for change they did not agree upon or made themselves consciously), so I tend to not jump in head first with the rest of the crowd typically. But for me, I don't mind the changes and think of it as a new way to view the people I've become friendly with over the years. 

I have not been using Google + basically because I find Facebook easier to use and more visually appealing.  This is more of a conscious I-don't-want-to-change decision, but also because I think Google is significantly more evil than Facebook is portrayed (especially with people information).  Google is a publicly traded company and has shareholders to answer to.  While Google has never charged its user base for use of basic items like Gmail and using their search engines, Facebook also has not and never plans to (despite what viral status updates you might read in your friend feed).

And don't get me started on MySpace (owned by the evil of the evil News Corp!), which I left probably before it was ever "cool" to jump from that ship.  I was always timed out on that piece of crap, and I found it incredibly tedious to use.  I knew the good it could do, but it was such a pain in the ass that I never wanted to log into the system.  Once I found Facebook, I took to it like a fish to water and never looked back.  I might be a little annoyed by some of their changes but it's a free service and it's enhanced my life for what I like to think to be the better (especially with the flow of information and people meeting I have done over the years as a direct result of it).

Since the new rollout, I haven't heard much from folks in the complaining aspects, but I don't know if that's a combination of complacency, people just not using the application as much or just getting used to things.  A few days ago I had a bunch of status updates of people requesting that I unsubscribe to their feeds.  I'm sorry...I love you people...but I have better things to do than go through each of my 400 friends and manually unclick themselves from my feed.  Not to mention, I really wouldn't know what was going on then!  My friend Matt Cerrone (who founded Metsblog and is a social media consultant) basically hit the nail on the head with this analysis on his Facebook wall:

Did Facebook fans actually forget this is a billion dollar business based on advertising and data collection? The reaction I see from non-tech people to what FB is doing is shocking... and the fact that some people think they can avoid the changes or game the system is down right hilarious...This is a savvy, aggressive company with serious goals in mind. They're an amazing organization, bordering on an institution, and to pretend otherwise is naive.

Just remember, when you post that you ate at Chipotle, or rooted for the Mets this weekend, or needed to go to Rite Aid to find batteries for your radio during the hurricane, Facebook is collecting those bits of information to have those corporations better target their audiences.  Meeting people and friending and networking is a fringe benefit we get from using the service.  

Here's my take on the ire: we get used to the changes that are made to the service over the years, and just accept them with maybe a little holding our nose and swallowing difficulty, but we do it.  We feel as though the changes are not about "us," the user of the system and essentially the consumer, but more for Facebook, a "billion dollar business" as Matt suggests above.  Well, you would be right.  Facebook doesn't give a crap about us, as people...they care about the information that we provide them that they are able to sell as advertising to MAKE MONEY and give themselves a product. 

But as the article link suggests above...we are the product, not the consumer.  And this is where our difference in thinking lies and potentially needs to change if we want to continue using the service.  If not, then try out Google + or get on the Diaspora waiting list.  But realize they use people information in the same vein as Facebook does, so don't be fooled that it somehow "gets better" or "is better." 

It's not about you, it's about them.  Them using information YOU give them, but don't be fooled it is about them. 

Raging Bull

Facebook users are outraged at the "bull" the social networking site has been pulling over the past week.  As if the changes weren't stupid enough, they didn't even give a heads up to their users as to what to expect and when.

First they gave us the "Smart Lists".  I still don't know what is so smart about them.  Next came the "Subscribe" feature, which isn't bad.  And finally, we have the improved News Feed, where you can now see your friends comments and "likes" of other people's statuses and pictures; statuses and pictures belonging to people with whom you are not even friends.  Huh?

And apparently Facebook thinks they know us better than we know ourselves, because in addition to the News Feed having "Recent Stories" and "From Earlier", there's "This blue corner marks a story we think will be interesting to you."  Oh do ye now?

Has anyone noticed the size of wall photos?  They're like three times the size they used to be.  Is that really necessary?

Hey Facebook, you know the old saying, "Leave well enough alone"?  Well the consensus agrees.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Shock Value

How far is too far?

I am an animal lover, but I am not a vegan nor do I consider myself an animal right's activist.  However, I do have two cats, and have always been around animals, so I am sympathetic to causes for animal welfare, such as supporting no-kill shelters and promoting things such as sterilizations.  I also eat organically grown animal products and support local farmers for treating animals ethically.  I stopped eating veal years ago because of my own ethical reasons.

Yet, PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, takes the prize for going a little "too" far in getting the attention for their cause. 

This foundation has made it a point to protest at large functions, throw paint on people wearing fur coats, compare World War II atrocities to conditions in animal plants, and show videos of gross conditions in farming communities in the name of "education."  But what I read today was kind of shocking, and I had to laugh a bit. 

Now, PETA has taken it to the next level by combining things to attract a new element: animal rights and pornography.  Known for using attractive women in their campaigns (such as the woman above, in a provocative photo with a rabbit...and rabbits are often used in conjunction with "sex"), PETA has come under assault for using pornographic images and videos to attract a new element.  You know, "education."

"We're hoping to reach a whole new audience of people, some of whom will be shocked by graphic images that maybe they didn't anticipate seeing when they went to the PETA triple-X site," said Lindsay Rajt, PETA's associate director of campaigns.

No one is more of a fan of free speech and freedom of expression than I am.  And if PETA were being sincere about their efforts to promote the wonders of veganism and living an animal-free existence, I'd think maybe this could help.  Let's be fair: it seems they want to promote their website rather than educate the public on healthy eating and lifestyles, which never goes out of style.  

They seem more concerned with generating web clicks and getting horny guys to "look" at the site, but not getting them to say "hey hot chicks, I'm gonna be a vegan!" 

At the end of the day, if there are women (or men) who are willing to pose nude or do things and get paid for them, not under the influence of drugs and they're being paid for it, I can't complain. 

But PETA are the biggest porn performers of them all, exploiting sex in the name of "animal activism" but mostly for their bottom line.  Seriously, has PETA ever done more good than shock?

The Bare Necessities

I hate paper. I mean, loathe it.  I have a shredder that I empty out constantly.  I get most of my bills online, and if I get a paper statement I freak out. 

So...why do I have so much paper lying around my house?

I guess that's a rhetorical question (especially since my husband is the opposite, and he saves EVERYTHING).  But it's funny because I checked the mail, where I still get my paper magazines (oy), I got a postcard in the mail. On one hand, it's funny these haven't been rendered obsolete, direct mail campaigns (though I have a friend who is a marketing genius who swears by them). But I saw that I had a coupon, and since I love saving money, I decided to look at it, see if it's something I would use.

Turns out, the family of diapers.com and soap.com is offering a pets-centered necessity site, wag.com.  Since I have two cats, this is another thing I took pause to keep around, and take note.

Why is that?  Well, basically, I live in a city, and since I have to walk and take mass transit mostly everywhere, buying stuff in bulk generally doesn't make much sense.  Petco opened a smaller scale store about four blocks from my apartment; however, they stopped carrying the items I went in there specifically to buy (even Petco-centered items, go figure).  The closest Petco that carries the items I need is about 20 blocks away.  But the biggest pain is that we need to figure out a way to get it back. My husband found out that the cat litter we buy is now heavier by five pounds!  I know, such is life of a crazy cat lady.

Anyway, I got to thinking about the bigger picture, of online store formats like drugstore.com, soap.com or wag.com.  I feel like many of these places are invented to make my life easier, and I'm sure others feel that way.

On one hand, I see that there is a need for a tangibility of going to stores, looking at items, especially clothing to judge material, to try them on, etc.  But stuff that we KNOW we are going to use, like moisturizers (I'm a girl, get over it), pet items, diapers for the kids, is it necessary to have to make the trip to the store, hope they have it in stock, and then make it back with said items?

Another thing?  I find it eliminates the "impulse purchase."  Like, if I go to a store, I might buy a pack of gum or treats for the cats, or see if they have a new toy.   Plus, free shipping and not having to schlep this stuff up stairs or across avenues...what's not to love?

The bare necessities of life aren't becoming obsolete, but the means in which we pursue and consume these items is becoming easier and eliminating the brick-and-mortar ways in which we are used to conducting commerce. 

Whattya Think?

I overheard a woman at the store on her cell phone, talking about getting a haircut.  I'm guessing she was speaking to another woman, because she kept referring to the the person on the other end of the phone as "Barb". She was trying to decide if she should cut her bangs or not.  From what I gathered, Barb was saying  yes, because she kept asking her, "Are you sure they will look good on me?"  It got me thinking about how friends react in these situations.  And not just female friends, but male friends too.

As women, we tend to be jealous of other women. It's not a conscious decision we make.  We just are.  Even if we don't want to be, we are.  So we unintentionally intentionally give the wrong advice to other women.  We say we like something we don't.  And we say we are happy for them even if we're not.  Not that this girl wouldn't have looked good in bangs (I really didn't get a good enough look at her to form an opinion), but do you honestly think ole' Barb was giving her honest opinion?

What really caught my attention was this girl's determination in getting Barb's approval.  What ever happened to making your own decisions?

As women, we can insist that we don't care what other people think, and that as long as it makes us feel and look better in our own eyes, that's all the matters.  But who are we kidding?  Human beings thrive on the attention from and acceptance of other human beings.  What good is thinking I look good at the club if not a single guy checks me out?  That's just an example, but you know what I mean.  This girl's dependence on Barb's opinion may be considered a fault, but the truth is, we all do care what others think.

Now, I don't know what this girl's relationship status is. But she needs to be with or find someone who likes the fact that she wants to please others.  A guy who wants an independent-thinking, "I don't give a shit what other people think of me" kind of girl, won't appreciate someone like her.  And all that is fine.  This is just one of the many personality traits that must be compatible with your partner's.

It's not that this girl is unable to make her own decision.  It's more like there is an underlying desire for acceptance, likely caused by having led a sheltered life.

But I digress...

What this girl needs to do, in my opinion, is find a platonic or gay male friend and ask him what he thinks. This guy would have absolutely no stake in the results of her new haircut and would most likely give his honest and unbiased opinion.  Of course, everyone's perception is different and no one person's opinion is law.  But that's where forming her own opinion comes into play.  Not Barb's.

The Heart of the Matter

For-give (verb \fər-ˈgiv\) transitive verb

1 a : to give up resentment of or claim to requital for <forgive an insult> b : to grant relief from payment of <forgive a debt>

2: to cease to feel resentment against (an offender): Pardon <forgive one's enemies>

I am not a native New Yorker, and I certainly identify in my Jersey roots; however, I have adopted New York City as my home and the place I love being most in the world. (Okay, MAYBE San Francisco is a very very close second). Today is September 9, but if you were in this region of the country or just a regular person in Whatever, USA, it's hard not to think about how the world changed on a beautiful end-of-summer day in 2001, when two jet liners were used as weapons to attack the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan.

I worked a majority of my career on "the Street," but I was not there at the time of the attacks (I was expected in the office later that day). In fact, the last I remember of the towers were early that very morning, 2 am to be exact, as I left my office (I was a bit of a workaholic those days...ah, to be in my 20s again). The car service took me up the West Side Highway to return me to Jersey City, and I always looked at the Towers as I drove past them. I know it sounds cliche, but I'll always remember how they looked eight hours before they no longer existed.

In 2011, however, we are approaching the solemn 10 year anniversary of the attacks. Of course, no year is complete without a "credible threat" to our national security. What people outside of New York don't realize is that according to the Federal "Terror Levels" (remember, those color-coded schematics) is that we are always at a heightened level of vigilance. Just now, the police presence is more visible, and we see more machine guns. We're used to this by now. At least, I am. Having worked downtown, and most notably by the New York Stock Exchange and the Federal Reserve, I am used to seeing police presence with their machine guns at the ready. A little excessive? Perhaps. The thought is to give us a secure feeling (though to be honest, seeing those guns out in the open doesn't really make me feel secure, it scares the crap out of me).

As I said earlier, we're approaching the 10 year anniversary, but New York City is faced with the reality of this absence and that day every day. Even if you don't live or work downtown, the void still surrounds us, and something changed that day in New York. Maybe innocence. But as avant garde artist Art Spiegelman called that area, it's the "Shadow of No Towers."

Now I don't know if it's this year that's different, but it seems more people are prominent with either displaying their patriotism...or perhaps it's something I've just seen and was acutely aware, but didn't pay any mind to it TILL now, the 10th anniversary. However, I was walking around midtown Manhattan this morning, and a few things caught my attention. For one, there was a lot of foreign news vehicles around the area. Some Argentian television station asked me for my opinions about the city, and I gladly gave them (I'll discuss them in a minute). But when I walked away, I noticed that someone walking into an establishment (clearly, a union worker based on his gear) was wearing a shirt commemorating 9-11. The back of it was a design of the towers, with the American eagles around it and a flag, with the following slogan:

"Never Forget...Never Forgive."

Which led me to this question, the "heart of the matter." Being in this region, and being an American, I know that I cannot forget 9-11. Not only did the city change, everyone changed and the country changed too. We see things that we accept as normalcy now, such as restrictions of liquid on passenger flights, full-body scanners, taking off our shoes as we walk through the detectors (I often joke that some day soon, we'll just have to be buck naked walking through those things). I was reading about a class based on September 11th at Rutgers University has students interviewing families who were directly affected by the events and their stories resulting from their projects, and the overall knowledge that 9-11 is a part of their lives that they are forced to carry, but they have to also make a conscious decision to make it a part of them, and not define them. I think that goes for all of us, whether we were directly impacted by it or not. September 11th is a part of us.

Yet, what I saw on this guy's shirt, he probably didn't think too much about it. It's still weighing on me, though. As the saying went, "Forgive and Forget," but one does not forget but one can forgive? I've been trying to look for who, if anyone, would be worthy of forgiving?

I'm not sure. Things have changed. Osama Bin Laden was assassinated in the spring. Downtown Manhattan has changed considerably, some for worse, some for better. The "Freedom Tower" has made a lot of progress in the last year, and the development commission made it a point to make the area a hub. A memorial is going down there, but at the same time, a push was made to make Lower Manhattan more of a place to congregate and live/work/eat/breathe. For better or worse, LoMa was not pushed to be a residence.

The terrorists certainly did not win if people are willingly living down there now.

I think the most important part of this day is to not forget. To honor the victims and their families. And to honor our country. George W. Bush once said that freedom was attacked, and freedom will be defended. As we see, this ongoing "War on Terror," whether you agree with it or not, still defends that freedom daily.

But the forgiveness thing got to me. I mean, who exactly would we forgive if that's the case? The men who carried out the attacks are dead. The masterminds are being brought to justice. Bin Laden is no longer around. And his henchmen are being brought to justice too. Not one of them ever showed remorse for that loss of life. That, to me, is not worthy of forgiveness.

Perhaps there are those who look for a scapegoat who want to blame something, someone, an ideology, an abstract ideal that one cannot put their finger on but know it was the center of the ethos of carrying out such a hideous attack. We know, though, that these extremist belief systems are not indicative of the whole belief system. Perhaps it's part of the healing process to understand that people of all walks of life died as a result of these attacks. Assessing blame is not enough. To move forward, isn't forgiveness a part of that healing?

Forgiving may be the wrong word. We won't forget, and justice is still being served. THAT is what is important about that day: honoring those we have lost and making sure their honor is preserved by pursuing those who masterminded the evil behind it. I may process this whole forgiving/forgetting quotient, but honor is the most important part of this day and going forward.

Things Dr. Roman Taught Me

Being an opinionated, intelligent and articulate woman, even in this day and age, is not something that's encouraged. I have a feeling that a lot of this is due to generational shifts where it was presumed that women had a place and a slot to belong to in society.

I suppose that some people didn’t get the memo that the Constitution was actually amended once upon a time to protect the rights of women. But I digress.

I went to an all-women’s college, and the underlying theme of feminism was prominent along with leadership roles of women. Around the time I started, there was a study that identified a weakness of girls in math and sciences, and that boys were typically pushed to go into those careers. I thought it was hogwash, but then again, I was in an all-women’s college. To me, there was no question of who was a leader. We were encouraged to speak up and debate and have it be healthy and energizing and supportive as well. As with human nature, it didn’t always go like that, but I did manage to enter the work force as a confident young woman who was not afraid to speak up or keep up with the boys (which I later did see first-hand in investment banking, but I’ll get to that later).

Dr. Roman was one of my English literature professors, and a common theme in many of the works she chose were women-focused, such as reading Charlotte Bronte, the Odyssey but focusing on Penelope’s role while Odysseus was out nailing the sirens while on the open seas, and having a better understanding of mythology in popular culture. Yet, I’ll never forget when a young woman in class made sort of a bitter comment about feminism, and said, “I don’t know what woman had the idea to open her big mouth. But I would have been perfectly happy staying at home and taking care of the house.”

To which Dr. Roman looked at all of us, shook her head solemnly and said, “Oh no.” The response got a laugh from the classroom. She told us that feminism wasn’t just about staying at home or working full-time or choosing a career over family or vice versa (though again, I will point out, I’ve seen that happen in the working world). No, she told us, feminism was that women could be whatever or whoever they wanted to be. So contrary to popular belief, if a woman wanted to be a stay-at-home mom, or wanted to have an outside career, she did not need to be penalized for it by other women. In fact, feminism made that choice possible.

I never forgot that.

Yet, I see the struggle first-hand with women against women, especially in social media settings. It’s made people more vocal with a larger soapbox from which to preach, but also has an underlying notion of negativity and even violence infiltrating these threads.

I think about how Dr. Roman defined feminism, and it’s something I hold to a high standard of how I conduct myself. Yes, it makes me angry when I see a perfectly able woman go on maternity leave, and then come back to find her job chopped up between three analysts, just so in a few months they can let her go. It makes me upset when a woman with an opinion who may be running for public office is accused of being “too male,” and yet when she displays emotion, “isn’t ‘fit’ to be President” or whatever office she may be running for. It’s a double-standard, and yet, most women do the same things themselves within their own population.

I’ve had my own problems with differing views of feminism, those contrary to my own. I guess when I see a woman working at H00ters or Hawaiian Tropic Zone, I see two things going on: one is that these women are adults and if they want to flaunt themselves to make a buck, more power to them. The other is that they are kind of exploiting men with bank accounts who spend a lot of money objectifying women. Yes, I could get upset about the objectification. But on the flip side, if these women were not drugged or exploited to do get jobs there, I see no problem with it. Plus, these places also hire men, so it’s not an issue to me.

Yet, I’ve been called out for not being “feminist enough” for simply disagreeing with viewpoints of what feminism could and should be. I’ve been harassed because I pick and choose my battles as far as women’s rights go. In an ideal world, of course I’d like to see women on an identical pay scale for men in equivalent roles and no glass ceilings. I’d also like to see women not be penalized by their own gender and the male aristocracy for taking time off to be with their families or wanting to balance their work-family. I don’t see anyone calling men out for taking time to be with their children when they are little.

It’s only become more prominent with social media tools such as Twitter. In fact, I was recently chastised by someone I considered a very good friend of mine outside of these forums, because she felt I was not taking her side enough in little Twitter wars. Yet, someone who is a proponent of free speech is penalizing me for simply not keeping up with whoever is her enemy this week, I felt this was a cop out for simply feeling under attack. I also have it on authority that she took this behavior with other mutual friends. Let me just state that this was not an isolated incident. It was cold and calculated.

It’s just Twitter, sure, but at the end of the day, if this person is cognizant of my social interactions in an open forum that’s free for anyone, chances are they are disapproving of my social interactions outside of them as well. And if I need to censor myself for fear of being attacked by this person, that kind of takes the fun out of these forums, right?

But at the root of it, I feel as though women are under attack by other women and if they are not immediately on their side, it’s seen as a liability. It’s only then I take solace in the words that Dr. Roman spoke about that day in class, when she enlightened by saying that women could be or do anything they wanted to be.

And isn’t that the very definition of feminism?

Who Killed The Radio Star?

Kinda like "Who shot J.R.?" but not as important.

As MTV celebrates its 30th Anniversary, I thought it would be fun to take a look at how video killed -- or at least changed -- the way we enjoy music.

MTV, formerly an initialism of Music Television, is an American network based in New York City that launched on August 1, 1981.  At one time, MTV had a profound impact on the music industry and pop culture.  Slogans such as "I want my MTV" and "MTV is here" became embedded in public thought, the concept of the VJ (video jockey) was popularized, the idea of a dedicated video-based outlet for music was introduced, and both artists and fans found a central location for concert events, news and promotion.  

On August 1, 1981, at 12:01 a.m., MTV launched with the words "Ladies and gentlemen, rock and roll,"spoken by John Lack, and played over footage of the first Space Shuttle launch countdown of Columbia (which took place earlier that year) and of the launch of Apollo 11. Those words were immediately followed by the original MTV theme song, a crunching classical tune composed by Jonathan Elias and John Petersen, playing over photos of the Apollo 11 moon landing, with the flag featuring MTV's logo changing various colors, textures, and designs. MTV producers Alan Goodman and Fred Seibert used this public domain footage as a conceit, associating MTV with the most famous moment in world television history.

The very first video that aired on MTV was "Video Killed the Radio Star" by The Buggles.  But if you think about it, isn't the more modern technology what really killed it?  I'm talking, turn-of-the-century stuff here?

Remember folks, when MTV first swept the nation with their all music, all the time idea, there was no internet. There were no iPods, no cell phones, and no tablets.  If you wanted music videos on demand, you had to sit in front of your television and watch what MTV showed, not necessarily the ones you wanted to see.  

But that doesn't mean that radio was dead then. If you wanted music in the car, at the office, at the beach, etc., you still needed your radio.  And it was like that for a good many years until fairly recent times. Just like advances in outer space have occurred, so too have advances in music and our access to it.

I want to make clear the fact that I was never an MTV junkie to begin with.  I love music, I didn't need to see the videos as much as I needed to hear the songs.  Not that I am not a visual person or didn't appreciate the mini epic movies that a lot of videos ended up becoming. I had friends who ran the channel 24/7 but I just never got into it.  So why would I start now?

All the reality and behind-the-music shows that air now are simply because MTV has no other choice.  In order for the network to stay afloat, they need to adapt to the changes in society and give people what they want, today. We can get music anywhere, any time. But for whatever reason, we can't get enough Jersey Shore. (I have never seen a single episode, or a single minute of an episode.)  

Despite the return of music video programming to MTV in March 2009 as AMTV -- an early morning block of music videos that aired from 3 a.m. to 9 a.m. on most weekdays -- MTV is not and has not been "music" television for a while.  And when people say they want their MTV, it doesn't mean what it used to.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Having a huge background in customer service related jobs (I used to be one of those "courtesy desk" gals at a supermarket when I was in college, and was a client service rep at one of my first jobs out of college), I do believe in the old adage "The Customer Is Always Right" but within reason.

I hate to admit it but when I was working the courtesy desk, if I had a "repeat offender" (a multiple-time complaining customer who just wanted to whine about the quality of the air she breathed, and would leave chicken in her car overnight expecting a refund for HER mistake), I would be less apt to help them than say, someone who was genuine in what they were asking -- not that they expected it per se, but it was a legit gripe like getting twice billed for the same thing.

For me, though, when I wronged as a consumer, look out! I take to the airwaves for anything. I am firm believer in the written word -- that is, in the right hands of course. There was one year for instance where I got a lot of free stuff simply for airing my grievances in letter form to CEOs of companies. Now, I know that the CEO of the chain of Best Westerns isn't going to care much about little me...but if a letter shows up on his desk, I like to think that the executive office takes it seriously and escalates it to the proper people. I've gotten free weeks at hotels, free flights, free months on my phone bill, gift cards, etc, simply by complaining about what I feel to be legit gripes to people who can take action.

I guess what companies do believe in is that the squeaky wheel will certainly get the grease.

Here's the thing though: when I would write my letters, I would take the high road, not implying I would take my business elsewhere, but that I would like to continue to do business with them, as it would hurt me more to not conduct business there.

Today, though, there are multiple channels to voice one's complaints, and not to mention one...the millions.

A few weeks ago, the mail-order online video rental company, Netflix, had some very bad PR when they announced they would be raising prices for their service. To be honest, I have never used the Netflix service. I can understand though the impact of raising prices to what their customer base may deem as unreasonable. Especially since there are many different ways to get these items for free or streaming for a fraction of the cost.

Yet, their vocal customers took to social media tools like Twitter to express their discontent. The vocal mob, though, didn't do much to distract Netflix. In fact, they are not coming out contrite saying, "OK OK we'll lower our prices, just come back." The fact is, Netflix must think they have a loyal enough customer base to justify raising prices.

Then I started to think about times I've publicly flogged a place I've patronized, only to get a response from their marketing department or customer service reps. It's funny, because they not only care but they do want to ensure the happiness of their base.

I once flogged McDonald's for forgetting to put sausage in my husband's sausage biscuit. Yeah, that happened. I then got upset at a Dunkin Donuts I was at because they kept screwing up my simple coffee order, and their marketing folks wanted to make sure everything was all right. I was making fun of a ferry ride I was on, saying their boats had not been updated since 2001 yet I was paying like quadruple the price I did back then. And they asked me if there was something that happened and how they could change it for the future (unless they drop their prices and/or get newer boats, I don't see them taking my advice to heart).

Mostly, though my newest outlet to use my voice as a means of consumer change is on Yelp. I know it's been around for awhile, but I just came around on it recently. Yes, I was slamming a service that I really wanted to change, and they never reached out to me. Yet, I gave not-so-favorable reviews and have gotten gift cards and an offer of free drinks for my "experience" at another place (though truth be told, I didn't leave THAT bad of a review, but I guess they want to make sure they get repeat customers).

I guess my point is, with the two-way feedback that is social media, consumer complaints are not only heard instantaneously practically, but they are dealt with so long as they are reasonable complaints so that they can get a favorable review.

And here I was, thinking that true customer service has gone out the window. True, we may get that gum-snapping bored-looking kid behind the counter who would rather play video games than help us...but the highers-up may be hearing something...and that might promote change on the front-end.

Organized Chaos

When I was a kid, I could guarantee that every around the holidays (where my birthday and Christmas falls conveniently together), someone would get me a day planner or organizer of some sorts.

These old dodo-like things were leather-bound, had a daily planner (where you could input your appointments) and a monthly calendar to effectively plan your life.

Even as a teenager, I had homework and places to be and things to do, I liked the rigidity of it, to plan things ahead. As I got older though, my life became predictable, boring almost. I clocked in at a 9-5 gig, my tasks didn't differentiate from one day to another. It seemed a waste of paper, trees, resources, etc to schedule anything. Especially with the advent of Microsoft Outlook and email applications that you could easily say "Hey, get on my calendar," was easier than calling ahead and trying to find a mutually convenient time to schedule something -- even a coffee! -- and deciding against it because it was too difficult.

I had to chuckle today, though, while reading the New York Times Sunday Styles section. Seems like paper calendars and day planners are fighting the extinction route, with the devotees having a tough time letting go of them even if they have a smartphone like a Blackberry or iPhone which were created for busy people like us.

Why, exactly, was I chuckling? Well, a few reasons actually. One was, I, too, had that dilemma, probably at my first "real" job, when I had a class on Time Management and they gave us the old school Franklin-Covey planners. Funny thing was, I had my own planner. To tell the truth, I'm surprised this place still exists, especially in this day and age with paper planners. I suppose there is still a market.

Anyway, my dilemma back then was the advent of Microsoft Outlook. After awhile, it didn't make a ton of sense for me to double-book, so to speak, by jotting down a meeting or a class when it pings me on my calendar. It had to though for a few reasons, namely because I didn't have a Blackberry for work at that time. When I did, it didn't make a ton of sense then.

The other thing I chuckled at was something I noticed the other day. I had to fill out some paperwork, yet another thing that I rarely do anymore since mostly everything is automated or online forms. I used to care about my handwriting. Yet since I can type pretty quickly, and I am usually behind a computer or on my phone, texting away, I feel like even handwriting is going the way of the pterodactyl. Heck, even a school in Indiana is no longer teaching cursive!

So I have to think that those things are contributing to the automation of our culture, using more electronic means of scheduling such as Google calendars or iCal on your Mac or iPhone, and writing is obsolete. Whoda thought, right? But according to this article, it's a hard habit to break where people still like to manually write out their schedules. I suppose there is something admirable in jotting it down. However, I'm getting to the point where I'm cranky to even write out an appointment card at my dentist's office (You know, the one they send you a postcard to your home address a month or so prior to your scheduled visit?).

I have to admit that my iPhone has been great. I mean, we're pretty much attached at the hip, I might as well use it to my advantage besides Tweeting during a sporting event or texting my friends. I have a busy week anticipated, and I know this on Sunday night because I can bring up my calendar at home. The focal point of the article in the Times today was a woman who left her physical planner in her office one weekend, leaving her clueless as to what parties her children may have had to attend, any appointments she may have had or other life events. Which I find hilarious because we've become so regimented as a culture that we are lost without these guides. Yet, I'm just as bad, because I have to constantly look at my phone's calendar.

Sometimes, you know how you feel like you are forgetting something or you should be somewhere but can't figure it out? I know, for me, that if something doesn't show up on my iCal, that I am in the free and clear.

Yet, this organization can be chaotic at times with double-booking and having to schedule time with your family. I know, from working in investment banking, that some wives needed to make appointments to see their husbands. This is not just a rumor but a fact.

It's nice to see that there are those out there still holding on to what could be deemed as a dead technology (though paper calendars are hardly a "technology"), but sooner or later, I'd have to believe they'll come to the dark side once they've upgraded their phones.