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.

Unplug & Reconnect: The Challenge

Put the phone down. Get off the computer. Stop looking at your blackberry.

As the "better half" in a relationship (well, that's how my husband refers to me), there's always a period of disconnect when he needs to be on the computer, or I am on my phone. Heck, I know that when we go out to dinner or go watch a baseball game somewhere, I am constantly checking updates on my phone.

I could easily be TALKING to him. I could listen to his concerns or just hear what's going on his head. Well, my husband isn't much of a talker, but that's besides the point. The point is, he could be saying something to me, and I'll be going through the motions and checking my Twitter feed or checking into Foursquare when we go into an establishment.

So this should set up the story line where as a society we are more "connected" than ever, but then when it comes to our deeply personal relationships, we may be further away on some marks conversely. As an example, I conduct a lot of personal affairs on my iPhone and it was recently stolen. I had to replace it, but it was stressful that I would have my personal information out there for someone to see if they were able to hack into my phone.

And on the other hand, those of us who are super highly connected to our jobs rarely have a day off. While technology has made some task-oriented roles "easier," the amount of stress it has added to our lives is tenfold, twentyfold, I would even guess.

The fact is, even on our days off when we are supposed to be relaxing, there's always something to be connected to and it's rarely a personal relationship. In fact, it's mostly our personal relationships that get hurt as a result of this connectivity.

Enter Unplug & Reconnect, an initiative to (as their website states) "help us find a balance between our technology-laden, multitasking selves and our creative, emotional and spiritual needs — to benefit from one while sustaining the other." Now, I will admit that it's a bit ironic to launch an initiative to break away from your technology habits and have a supporting Facebook and Twitter account to go along with it! But as U&R's (in the "short hand") mission statement suggests, it isn't saying to break away from technology entirely, just take a break from it. Take a break, reconnect with your family, loved-ones, and friends, and not depend on technology so much. It causes a buffer, and there's a certain disconnect with having it around, even if you are using it to connect with family and friends.

It sounds easy, right? Yet, when I bring up an idea of doing a technology "cleanse" for a bit, I get a lot of jokes about "Oh, I don't think I can do that!" I'm not saying it will be easy, but it will cause you think outside of the box for building existing relationships, and making them stronger, then technology can balance out the rest.

My husband probably won't like that I'm saying this, but I'm willing to take the plunge and disconnect or rather "Unplug" from technology. The irony is, my husband and I met through social media, and we both blog. For both of us to truly unplug from it all, it will be a challenge! But then again, we did an elimination diet back in January when we eschewed dairy, wheat, gluten, soy, shellfish, caffeine, nuts, sugar and basically anything fun for three weeks. I was DYING by about week two, he took to it like a fish to water. Perhaps I will be the one with the bigger technology withdrawal problem!

It's not deprivation, either one of those detoxes whether it's dietary or technology-driven, but rather has you build on your strength from within and not disconnect emotionally or physically.

Are you up for the challenge? Take a look at U&R's blog post on Managing Stress (calling it an addiction, even!). I'm hoping to take a look into decommissioning my technology addiction for at least a weekend, especially when I do this food detox again, and plan a full report when I return!

Empowerment In the Meantime

First I was afraid, I was petrified. Kept thinking I could never live without you by my side. But I spent so many nights, thinking how you did me wrong. I grew strong. I learned how to carry on. - Gloria Gaynor, I Will Survive

I may have sounded like a romantic cynic last week when I did my Valentine's Day piece, or more apt my anti-Valentine's Day piece. It couldn't be further from the truth: I not only believe that romance is still alive and well, but I also believe in true love. I found my true love when I least expected it. The difference between me and most romantic cynics is that I empowered myself to ask, believe and receive. And yes, if that sounds like The Secret mantra, then you would be correct in that assumption.

What I'm writing about today is that I have become concerned about the cynicism and sense of hopelessness from some of my sisters in the love department. And I'd like to empower them in this moment and say that love is out there for all of you, if you want it.

I was once not fully open. I had gotten out of a miserable seven year relationship where we stayed on autopilot for about half those years. I remember someone once saying that it's funny how long we put up with "just okay" because we are comfortable. But what was funny with me was that I knew I didn't love him; I was just okay with it because of what I knew about relationships. They were supposed to be functional; not fun or making yourself better. That's what I've learned about relationships: they are supposed to enhance YOU and not make you a bitter and angry person. That was what I was.

What was more was that after that relationship ended, I felt like I was open to other relationships that could better me, but I still fell into old habits. Former Oprah Winfrey consultant Iyanla Vanzant said that when she left Harpo Productions, and started her own talk show with another company, she said she had a history of falling into relationships with people who treated her badly. When she said that, I felt that connection very deeply. I have been a devout believer in manifesting my feelings, energy and my thoughts into reality. And yet, I fell into similar emotionally unavailable traps with intimate relationships, even friendships.

I dated a few people after that significant relationship ended and prior to me meeting my husband. There were two "biggies" that I refer to in helping my girlfriends out in their relationships that I use as parables and anecdotes to try to help them in knowing that true love is out there for them.

One was a guy who I had an on-and-off, and off-and-on, and on-and-off, then off for a little while, then on-and-off again till I basically met my husband. In his views, we were friends. But here's the thing: we weren't friends. Hell, I'm not even sure we liked each other as people. And yet, I stuck around because I was "in the meantime," as Iyanla would say. "In the meantime" is seen as the period between relationships to help women and men avoid repeating unproductive behaviors of the past.

Another significant person I dated I justified that he fit the "profile." He was smart, handsome, had a good job. He treated me well by taking me out and giving into my ideas for fun. Of course, the story goes when I started to "pressure" him into a more "real" relationship, he shut down. See, when it was all fun and games, the relationship was worth being in. He used the excuse that he was going through a divorce, and yet I lied to myself and went against every single girl's bible He's Just Not That Into You excuses: he'll change and see I'm the one for him. Yet, even when I saw his true colors -- shallow, insecure and disrespectful -- I still made excuses? And you know why? Because I wasn't sure when love was going to knock on my door. That was how desperate I was for love.

Even when he disappeared, returned, and tried to get back in my good graces, I was angry. PISSED OFF. And I still gave him the benefit of the doubt. I remember talking to my friend about it over drinks. Then I smiled to myself, and she asked, "What is it?" I said, "Wow, I realized just how desperate I just sounded." After that, I stopped. I even had lost a few friends in the meantime, but they were mostly toxic relationships or relationships that neither of us really had to offer one another. So my question is: why do we stay in these relationships for too long? Iyanla says it keeps us occupied. It gives us drama. But drama begats drama. And sometimes, the drama simply isn't worth it.

And it's when you least expect it, when you get rid of toxic relationships all around you, be it friendship or love, you will open yourself to being in the relationships you deserve to be in.

So when I see my girlfriends repeating these bad behaviors for themselves, and excusing bad behaviors of others for their own purposes, it makes me so sad. Because I know these fabulous women deserve better for themselves and should be using these lessons as empowerment in life. Once you empower yourself in romance, you will open yourself up to the life you deserve and crave.

So what will it be? Drama? Or happiness? Empower yourself today!

The Hallmark Holiday

I'm going to just come right out and say it: I am NOT a Valentine's Day chick. Maybe when I was a kid I liked it, when you could give those silly little drug store cards to your classmates. And yeah, I admit, the chocolate part is pretty nice.

But I can eat chocolate any damn day of the year I want (well, except for recently but that's besides the point). And I don't have to pay such a high premium simply because they are in a silk box or heart-shaped container.

Yet, most women I know make such a big deal out the day. Nothing against that, but the whole day reeks of insincerity to me. I guess I'm just a cynic. In the popular beach read book, The Nanny Diaries, a few years back described a scene where the aristocratic mother of the child who was the focus of the book found out her husband was cheating on her on Valentine's Day...all after going to great lengths to look breathtakingly stunning and making the nanny call over the island of Manhattan to find a romantic restaurant reservation one week before (shockingly enough, most places were booked for that day, go figure).

Lucky for me, I married a guy who isn't into it either. Last year, we went away for the weekend just coincidentally because it was President's weekend (read: three day weekend). What was funny was the lady at the place we stayed at asked if we wanted to participate in their lovey-dovey prix fixe dinner special for Valentine's Day...and we were both like, Uh...no? We actually had reservations someplace else...that ALSO had a special menu (we were upset since we had no choice in the matter and wanted to try what their website had).

And yet, romance is something that doesn't lack in our relationship. I like that we can fold laundry together and just sit in silence. I like that even though he can barely boil water, he'll still try to help me in the kitchen. Those things to be are incredibly romantic and happen every damn day. In fact, I find it more sincere when the hubs comes home with a bouquet of sunflowers in June, just for the hell of it (plus, I'm not really a roses kind of gal anyway). By the way, one of the best V-Day's I ever had was doing my laundry with my then-significant other. We didn't exactly celebrate it either, but he brought us "magic lemonades" (which was basically spiked Snapple lemonade) and we looked none the lushy to those around us.

So my point is, I was reading some articles on how group buying sites like Groupon and Living Social have figured into the Valentine's Day realm by offering deeply discounted chocolates (damn them when I was on a chocolate fast), romantic dinners for two specifically for the day (I actually just participated in a Yelp promotion for a dinner for two that I will be redeeming for our anniversary...and the fine print said - not redeemable on February 14), and even half-price flowers. And the gist of the article was that the buyer (read: male) had another thing to worry about by going Groupon. After all, would he be considered "cheap" or "spending wisely" by his significant other? Chances are, if they've been together for a while, they'll appreciate each others spending habits and the thought behind the gift anyway.

But the theme of the piece was that when you've been together for a long time, the gift becomes less important. It's the whole "wooing" part of the relationship that you really need to make a difference in what you purchase. Take for instance, in Cincinnati, a big tradition for some folks is going to White Castle, where they actually have to take reservations and eat their sliders by candlelight. I'll tell you what: I think that was possibly the most romantic thing I've ever read in my life. I'd rather do something like that on my anniversary than make my husband dress up (which is a feat in and of itself). Anyway, my point is, why the pressure? It's a made-up holiday to get people to give cards, for crying out loud!

But that begs a good point and why I usually lay up front my whole aversion to the day when I was dating. See, my husband is very anti-tradition, much like me, which is why we're a good match. When I was out and about on the dating scene though in my 20s, I had to put it out there that I didn't like it. Usually, they didn't listen. But they were out the door when they didn't. I hope that doesn't make me sound bitchy. Trust me, there was more underneath the surface, but not listening to my rules on V-Day, you'd think they'd oblige. Anyway, I have some stories that should make you laugh as to why I don't like the day all that much...

1) Back to that whole "wooing" period, I was a freshman in college (read: poor) and I met a guy who worked by the supermarket where I had a part-time job. We started hanging out in January but knew each other before then, plus I liked him. I mean, whatever. He was a boy, and we had fun together which basically consisted of us going to movies together and then to Dunkin Donuts afterwards. Anyway, I didn't want to go all out for Valentine's Day. I knew even then it was a Catch-22: if you went crazy this early in the relationship, you would be seen as "crazy needy chick;" if you didn't acknowledge it all, you are a "crazy selfish bitch." Needless to say, we had plans on the day before...I believe the holiday was on a Friday, so it was plans for a Thursday.

I bought a simple card, that was basically a cutesy funny card that I thought was perfect. Not over the top, not stupid. I put a lot of thought into it SO I wasn't construed as crazy needy chick. But I even was going to give it conditionally: he would have to give me something first, so that I didn't a) look like an idiot giving him something, even just a card and b) I didn't look like crazy needy chick. The other part was if he didn't give me anything, depending on how the night went, I would give it to him as he dropped me off at my dorm. Again, if he just didn't think to do anything, that's fine, but I didn't want to make him feel like a jerk for not getting me at least a card (because I didn't even really care that much about that).

Well, guess what? Not a phone call, not a word from him about our "date." I remember ripping up the card (not that I was that upset, but because I basically didn't want evidence that I even got him anything), and getting drunk with my friend in her room (also dateless). So then I get a call about two weeks later, about how he "got sick" and was out of commission. For what? Two weeks? Unless you were hit by a truck or something, I don't want to hear it.

It may have a 19-year old's overreaction but make no mistake: it left an imprint on my psyche about how much men don't want to give the wrong impression on Valentine's Day, especially if they are not 100% into you or the relationship is still relatively new.

But I wasn't done yet...

2) I was dating a guy for about eight months and make no mistake: we were into each other (him more so than me, but I was a bored 23-year old...don't judge). He asked me if I wanted to do anything for Valentine's Day. He hadn't heard my dislike of the day yet (surprisingly but that's another story). I told him, oh don't make a big deal out of it, flowers really aren't my thing but chocolate is and I can eat it whenever. Anyway, as fate would have it, I had to work late that night so we didn't do anything. So I stopped by his place on my home and guess what? He got me something all right: Balloons.

I. HATE. Balloons. If there's anything I dislike more than Valentine's Day, it's balloons. Getting balloons on Valentine's Day takes the prize. And it's not even that I thought they are thoughtless: I am just afraid of them. When I told my husband this story, he asked, "Did he actually want you to break up with him?" Because even hubs knows, if I am on a train with someone carrying balloons, I have to get off the car. Trust me, I'm bad.

We broke up a month later. I won't disclose if balloons was a reason...but there was a laundry list and that might have broken the list. Just sayin'.

3) A few years, I was in an on-and-off relationship with a guy. During those "off" periods, I'd date, and I managed to make a few good friends with those dates. One guy I dated happened to live on the West Coast, we enjoyed each other's company but knew it couldn't be anything more. That's cool: I was aware of it at least.

Another guy I "saw" during the off-periods was a friend-of-a-friend, actually she used to date HIM and encouraged me to hang out with him because he always thought I was so "cool." Fine. That was another relationship that was better off as friends and we both knew it.

So February 14th rolls around, and who do I hear from? The two guys who were "friends" and not that on-off guy. Did I mention we were back "on" at that point?

Now I know it might seem hypocritical for me to call that "on-off" guy on that behavior, when I didn't even send him a message or anything. Do I need to pull out the "needy crazy chick" card again? Maybe not. But honestly, I wouldn't have even given his non-message a second thought if the two more thoughtful friends of mine who happened to be guys I had dated at one point hadn't reached out either. Maybe they were sending these messages to other chicks, but they sent one to me, and that was all that mattered. See? Valentine's Day is even giving me a reason for WHY people should send me messages...that's bad.

4) This last one isn't even mine, but it's a good one: my friend had met a guy one night when she and I went out drinking. I thought he was nice, and even called her when she had vomited on the side of his car that first night (I can't even use the excuse that we were young...we were in our early 20s, but stuff happens). Anyway, they were seeing each other regularly, and she makes a big deal out of V-Day, buying just little gifts and putting a lot of thought. They had even talked on the phone the day before, solidifying plans for the night, where she had made reservations for a nice-ish restaurant...I mean, we're not talking TGI Friday's...it's a place that needs reservations (and not White Castle...she's a vegetarian).

Short story long, she calls me and says, "I've been trying to call him for the past hour, and no answer. I have a feeling he's not coming."

Me, in the role of "supportive friend," tries to cheer her up. "Don't be silly! He likes you...he's probably on his way right now."

She says, "No, he was supposed to be here already, like a 1/2 hour ago...I might even need to postpone our reservation."

I said, "Well do that -- he might be stuck in traffic..." Yeah right! It was a Sunday night, and preceding a Monday holiday (it was also President's weekend that weekend...I should also mention this was before cell phones were really mainstream so he couldn't even call her to let her know if there was traffic, so it very well could have been a reason).

She said, "Well if he's not here in an hour, I'm going to cancel them and just go into the city."

I said, "What's going on in the city tonight?"

She tells me that not only is her friend's band playing (I'd seen them a couple of times and liked them), but that they were opening for one of HER favorite bands at her favorite club. I was actually surprised she didn't try to get this guy to go with her to that.

I had a great idea. "I don't have a date tonight. Why don't I drive up to your place, which will be in less than an hour. If he's not there 15 minutes after I get there, we go into the city together. If he gets there, and you guys have left, I'll just chalk it up to that I had nothing else going on tonight."

I hung up, and did the drive...I'm sure you can guess. We ended up being each others "dates" and had an awesome night. So I guess there's a silver lining. Charlotte York said it best on Sex and The City when she said that the girls can be each others "soul mates" and men can be just these little play things. I totally got that line.

I know I sound cynical. I know there are going to be some people who vehemently disagree with me and think Valentine's Day is the best thing since heart-shaped chocolate. Well, I will always think heart-shaped chocolate rules the day...but anything chocolate rules to me.

I just think there's an incredible amount of pressure for showing your love for your significant other, or making someone "your Valentine." And for what? So people can complain and be like, "Oh my boyfriend is such an idiot and can't even give me a good Valentine's gift." Or making you feel bad because YOU don't have a significant other, while the person sitting next to your desk is chattering away because she thinks that with the 5 dozen bouquets her boyfriend has sent, she's pretty sure he's going to propose? Oh, gag me with a purple Twinkie. 'Cause let me tell you something: those flowers, those chocolates, those cards? Most of your boyfriends or husbands or significant others are buying them for you at the supermarket 10 minutes before they come home, and barely even read the card...they just want to make sure it doesn't say "Happy Valentine's Day to a Special Grandma" before giving it to you.

Think of that next time you are seeing a guy you like, going insane over setting the tone for the "perfect" card when you don't want to sound like crazy needy chick but don't want to be an insensitive bitch for not getting anything at all. Screw that! Appreciate the little things, ladies, and stop putting pressure on ourselves to outdo the whole Valentine's Day scam.

Oh and waiter...my husband and I would like a 20-pack of sliders, half French fries, half onion rings, two cherry cokes. Kthxbye. Love, the Coop

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!

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!

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.