The Most Contentious Topic

I should not even take a stab at this topic, it’s too touchy. I have never read an article on this topic, though there are many, that I have liked. I have even hated the articles written by people that supposedly would represent my point of view. The topic is the the dreaded, “What is Better, Working Mom or Not-Working Mom?” But, from time to time I feel compelled to write my opinion about the topic because it comes up and sometimes I find myself on the receiving end of insensitive comments made by other people, or find myself reading another article on the topic that I find out of balance and written from a bizarre point of view.

Whether or not to work outside the home when there are very young children inside the home is a difficult and often painful decision for many women. I realize that many women truly do not have a choice and I support them in their efforts to build a positive home life for their families that works for them. I absolutely acknowledge that to really have the choice is a luxury and restricted to a relatively small group of women. However, I also acknowledge that all the articles representing opposing views on this prickly topic are written by women that fall within this small group. So, maybe it’s not a debate for all women, but really just a small, smoldering battle that exists in a tiny subset of society. I don’t even like to call it a battle but don’t know what else to call it, because it produces such strong reactions among almost all women in this group.

I was introduced to the idea that there was a divide, that one group of women might not respect the other group of women’s decisions long before I had children by a woman who was contemplating becoming a mother in the near future.  As a medical resident, she was looking forward to finally fulfulling her career goal of becoming a physician and medical researcher. Off-handedly she said, “I just don’t understand women that compromise their careers when they have children.” She nudged her husband and continued, condemning someone they and we (my husband and I) know mutually, “So and so has a PhD but instead of teaching at the college level she is teaching part-time in a high school.” She smirked, her look full of contempt. She proceeded to condemn another mutual acquaintance who had her masters degree, two young children, and had chosed a part-time job in her field instead of a full-time one. I was shocked, mostly by the bizarre, ugly tone she took when insulting these women. I wish I could say I defended the friends, but I had never thought about the topic before and it was later that I realized that it was really an insult and that that was why I’d felt so uncomfortable about the comments. Still, I never forgot the comments and found myself seething about them years later, when I was starting to have my own children.

As I wrote in an earlier post, my decision about whether or not to stay home was made for me as I had only been able to find contract work before my first baby was born. The job market was terrible for graphic designers in San Francisco in 2001, not exactly ideal circumstances, but I viewed them as lucky timing in a way. I knew that when I was ready I could start doing some freelance work again. But, because I was by definition a “stay-at-home mom” I felt a growing rage against those insensitive comments I had heard a couple years before, anger against anyone that could feel that it was in any way negative or disrespectful that I was an educated woman who was home caring for my own baby. It’s absurd to think it’s bad in any way, yet some people do….

My feeling is this. There is a continuum of situations for two-parent families that ranges from both parents available all the time and having nothing else to occupy them in their lives to neither parent being available much at all and being distracted by too many things. Just about everyone falls between those two extremes. However, each household is pretty different from the next. Just because two households have a working mom does not mean that they are similar, or that the children have equal access to the parents. Likewise for two households with stay-at-home moms. There are infinite variables. How much does mom work? 30 hours per week or 70? How much does dad work? How is not-at-work time spent? What kind of childcare does the child have? Is there extended family around, a community? My friend, Kita, mentioned that a columnist for the Washington Post put it simply, ask yourself the question, “are you a parent that YOU would want to have?” If you can anwer “yes,” then you are probably doing okay. 

I try to take a practical view. Children are a lot of work, they are so needy of love and time and care and they change the lives of the people that bring them in to the world. When they are babies and very little, they want their parents all the time and hopefully they were brought in to the world by people who will love them and who want to spend time with them and build a solid relationship. Parents need to adjust their lives to accomodate the children. There are obvious things that change such as the parents have fewer late nights out and they start carrying diaper bags everywhere. Stuffed animals and cute toys and books show up all over the house. Life starts to get planned around naps and feeding times. Certain other things seem logical too. For the working parent, the arrival of a new baby seems like a good time to try for flex time or reduced hours at work as opposed to taking on a new huge project that will require you to take on more hours. Any good parent I know would say that when the baby is born, it’s not all about you any more. A really selfish person generally does not make a good parent. So, if someone can’t give up the huge project at work and the golf games and nights out and other activities that would require them to be away from the family, whether or not the parent works full-time, he or she is probably a very bad candidate for a parent. 

I’m not sure everyone will agree with me, but I do think that parents should make a huge attempt to spend time with their babies, even if some self-sacrifice is needed in the early years. The idea of needing two incomes is a fuzzy-gray area. I do know many families where two incomes are absolutely required and the parents are creative to maximize their time together. Some of these families have the kids in childcare three or so days per week instead of five, or the kids are in day care five 1/2 days per week, but not full days. I know parents that juggle their schedules so the kids go to day care at 10am, not 7am, and go home at 3pm, not 7pm. These same families will drive one old car if need be to make these arrangements work, or live in a smaller home, or go on fewer, simpler vacations. I also know families who claim that they need the two incomes, yet they have two brand-new cars, a huge, new home and a lavish lifestyle. They may claim to need the extra income but really they are just unwilling to give up the objects of status they have acquired. These parents weigh the desire for a new Rolex with the desire to spend time with the kids, and the Rolex wins. I think the kids will be able to tell the difference.

I feel the need to address a couple of the bizarre views I have heard expressed. The first is that a nanny or daycare for tiny children (infant to age 3) is BETTER than mom. Give me a break, these people are PAID, they are not doing it out of love. Even if they grow to love your child, they don’t love that child as much as you do and probably won’t be in your child’s life forever. I think day care for very young children can be good for socialization, but two hours a day would accomplish that goal. Siblings, play dates, time in the sand box and social activities with mom and other children also accomplish this goal. The second bizarre view I’ve heard is the idea that parents that don’t see their children often have ”quality time.” What? Quantity is quality when it comes to very little kids. How can you pack a relationship with a small child into a 15 minute snuggle session and a few stories? What do you think available parents do with their kids all day? The whole day IS quality time. Even grocery shopping and vacuuming can be when you are pointing out the different kinds of vegetables to your child or letting them “help” with cleaning. And in between other tasks is time spent reading stories, playing with playdough or puzzles, going for a walk, eating meals or simply being together.

It’s true that some careers don’t allow people to work reduced time or flexible schedules, but that is very unfortunate. Those careers are not really compatible with family life, so those families must do the best they can to make it work, but it can’t be argued that it’s ideal or better than an arrangement where the family gets to see eachother. We received a Christmas letter this year that included a blurb to update the readers on the activities of the family members. We read about mom’s career and activities, dad’s career and athletic accomplishments, the six-year-old son’s school and after-school care activities, and the four-year-old son’s preschool and after-school care achievements. Christmas letters from this family have been like this for years, meaning that even when the kids were still babies each person in the family had very separate lives–kind of like they get up and everyone heads out early to a day at the office and they regroup a bit at night, five days per week. It strikes me that these kids don’t see much of mom or dad and also don’t seem to be having much of a childhood, with almost no unstructured time.

It must be frustrating for the two-working parent families to hear that childcare will hinder their children from thriving. Obviously there are good nannies and day care centers out there, and most children seem to do just fine with good child care. As long as the child has lots of access to mom and dad, I’m certain that good-quality childcare is a fine option.

The truth is, most mothers seem to change from either “working” or “non-working” to the other and back again. I know women who tried staying home full-time and didn’t like it and so went back to work. I know women who were working full-time with a baby and hated it and quit their jobs. Many non-working moms become working moms when their kids go to school, and many working moms finally get to stay home with their second or third baby. Each family needs to find the balance, and I think that as long as the decisions being made are not selfish ones, then that is good. Each group has its own issues. Working moms seem to feel more guilt, and non-workers worry about future career prospects. I know many, many people (myself included) who work part-time or do freelance work. We are not really working moms, but we do work sometimes and have some income, sometimes more and sometimes less. 

What is the divide then? My general belief that if someone needs to strongly attack the way someone else does something, it’s because they feel defensive about the way they are doing that same thing. I also think that those attacked feel defensive and feel the need to retaliate. It seems that every time I start to feel pretty settled in and happy with my choices and how I am raising my children, I am at the receiving end of another comment that makes the hair on my arm bristle, and hence this blog entry.

The other day, with no conversation on the topic preceeding it, a mother who works full-time said to me, “I could never stay home with my kid. Plus, I like my job too much.” Although it may simply be a true sentiment for her, I would never say to a full-time working mom, “I could never leave and go to my job every day, plus, I really just love my kids too much.” I didn’t say anything, but still felt it was an insensitive comment. She didn’t seem to want a discussion, nor did she ask about my experience, but she did imply that she would never want to do what I’m doing. Also, I don’t know if she was implying that perhaps I don’t like my job. I really love what I do and look forward to doing more of it, but I also feel a little self-sacrifice is well-timed right now when my kids are tiny.

My five-year old will be heading to kindergarten next fall, and in our school district it’s a full day. From 8:30am to 3:15pm or so every day he will be with his teachers and peers, and the influence of his home life will become more balanced by the influence of the outside world. I think he will be ready, and I know the change is inevitable. I am really happy to have spent this precious and ultimately brief period with him as from here on in he will be gaining more independence, developing his own interests and be increasingly influenced by the values and opinions of people outside his immediate family. I feel that we have given him the best foundation we can. I look at our two-year old and realize he’s not a baby any more. I have a few years left with him at home, before he too will be gone most of the day. We haven’t made perfect choices, but I do think I’d be happy to have my husband and I as parents.

Beauty

I was watching an old episode of “Desperate Housewives” last night and was reminded of the timeless topic of beauty. Every now and then I am so impressed with the occasional biting and very funny line thrown in the dialog in that show. In a particular scene, Gabrielle is visiting her husband, Carlos, in prison. As usual, they were having a power struggle and conducting a negotiation. After several contentious back-and-forth rounds, Gabrielle says, “Why are all rich men such jerks?” and he retorts, “for the same reason all beautiful women are such bitches.” Yesterday I was also listening to a new Putamayo CD called, “Paris” and there is a song on this CD by Carla Bruni, an Italian “super” model. I recognized her name (see my column on vices and celeb gossip) and looked her up on the web. She has been credited for being the woman that came between Donald Trump and Marla Maples, and Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall. She is a beautiful woman who is obviously drawn to very wealthy and powerful men. I guess I understand why wealthy men might be attractive to high-maintenance women, but I am truly always baffled a bit too. I find Donald Trump and Mick Jagger both, for lack of a better term, icky. Carla Bruni, as a highly-paid model, has her pick of rich guys. Why would she, and so many other women like her, only be drawn to the wealthiest and most powerful ones who are actually kind of gross and clearly not available?

Beauty is a huge industry. Many women would pay anything for big breasts, perfect legs, puffy lips and whatever else would make them look perfect. It seems that it’s something so many women strive for, and will kill themselves for whether through elective surgery or anorexia. But when you really think about it, what difference does it make? In my little world, I know mostly normal-looking people. I have some beautiful friends, but their lives are about other things, not about being beautiful. These people have happy, healthy relationships and great marriages. They set and accomplish goals. They have the important things in life. I read about some of the most beautiful people in the world, about their failed marriages and never-ending quests for happiness. I would never want to be know as the “beautiful woman that broke up other people’s marriages.” Why would that sort of accomplishment, knowing you could have anyone you wanted, be an accomplishment at all? The quest for the holy grail of beauty just seems a fruitless waste of time, with unintended negative consequences. 

Ironically, I have also read that for many cases of infidelity in marriage, the “other woman” is almost never a total babe. She is almost always a very average-looking woman. I have no idea how researchers compiled that information, but it’s interesting. A woman’s worst nightmare rarely happens. The average-looking woman fears that her husband will leave her for the Victoria’s Secret model that actually paid attention to him, but he really leaves her for the average-looking woman from the grocery store.

I have often thought that it must be weird to be in the realm of beautiful people, because they all find each other. Imagine, after all the plastic surgery there you are, looking like a wax figurine of Jessica Simpson, sitting somewhere in LA. And everyone around you looks JUST THE SAME. So, although you’re almost perfect, so is everyone around you and in that environment you’re really just average again. That must hurt. Also, is it just me, or is beauty a nebulous, moving target? I have often been surprised to learn that the kind-of-cute chubby girl is the one that all the guys are after or that the girl I thought looked like a model many guys just find “kind of weird looking.”

I completely understand why people want to look good and I also pay way too much for hair cuts and make sure I get my workouts in. But I do try to keep in mind that it’s a goal that is never acheived. And if it is, and you land in the world of beautiful people, what then? The last thing I would want to do is hang around with people for whom beauty was the most important quality someone could have. Carla Bruni and Gabrielle Solis can keep Donald Trump, Mick Jagger and Carlos Solis, and keep the regular guys for the rest of us.

Busy

I am a very busy person. Maybe it’s not necessary to mention that as I am an American and probably busy by definition. Everyone around me is busy, and from all I read in newspapers and magazines, I think that everyone else is busy too. The thing is, I can’t figure out why. I believe in simplicity and try to not do too much. I stay home with my kids. Sometimes I do freelance work but I generally arrange a babysitter when I do that. Beyond that, it’s not like I spend hours playing the cello or arranging flowers or working in a homeless shelter. All I’m doing, really, is cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, paying bills, taking care of the car, making dental and doctor appointments, dealing with insurance companies or the termite inspection people or whatever else it is that needs taking care of. Of course I am feeding and spending time with my children and there are always holiday decorations to put up or take down. There are gifts to buy and thank you notes to write and birthday parties to plan. There are library books to return and necessary trips to Target for extra food storage containers and a new strainer, and I try to squeeze in workouts when I can so I don’t turn into an obese person, another very American trait. What can I possibly cut out?

The worst part, for me, is that I often think of words like “manic” and “frantic” when I think of my days. I say things like, “hurry up” or “we’re running out of time” frequently with my kids. And here I am someone that would love to be able to say I’m laid-back. I know I’m not laid-back and never have been. There was a brief spell in my twenties when I tried to change my personality and turn myself in to a laid-back person. I did okay, considering I had a low rent to pay, no possessions worth anything and no real responsibilities other than showing up for work on time. But I gave that up and resigned myself to my true, prone-to-worry nature. I used to be capable of relaxing though. I was very good at it. If there wan’t much to do, I have memories of spending whole days reading on the couch, only getting up to eat. That’s never an option now, but I’m not sure I could do it. I would have all these thoughts racing through my head about what else I could be doing.

Every now and then I will admit that I overcommit, and take on more than I can reasonably do. Sometimes I can acknowledge that the fact that I have a husband that travels a lot and that that adds significantly to my load. But then I wonder, is there something more than all that? Was everyone always so busy? Always so stressed out? I have always been under the impression that life was calmer half a century back, and that this crazy pace is a modern one. What has changed?

Maybe I’m kidding myself, but I think Martha Stewart has had a negative overall impact on our culture. She has elevated every mundane task in to an art form, so that now even cupcakes with sprinkles on top are not good enough. Why not create antlers out of licorice sticks and gum drops and have adorable moose cupcakes? Now a gift simply wrapped in some paper with a bit of ribbon is not good enough. It’s so much nicer if you expertly decorate the gift with raffia and clever, colorful charms dangling from the neutral swirls. The bar has been raised on table-settings and holiday decorations and lots of other things I don’t know about because I don’t even read the magazine. I know nobody really seems to ask anything extraordinary of me, but I feel some weird pressure, pressure to go that extra mile for everything.

So maybe our expectations have changed. Maybe people today put more effort in to everything: entertaining, getting involved in activities. Email is great but you can spend a lot of time keeping in touch with people. We have so many choices that taking advantage of what is around us eats up a lot of time. For example, to really get the variety of groceries I want, I have to go to 3 different grocery stores. One store has the best meat, the other the most organic items, and another cheaper bulk items. I feel the need to take advantage of seasonal activities whether it’s a trip to the farm or to the lake. Maybe we do more of these than necessary. Maybe I need to lower my expecations.

What if I decided that it’s okay for my kids to go a day without fresh vegetables? That it’s okay to stay in on a beautiful day? Could I feel okay serving my family non-organic apples when the organic ones are just one errand away? What if I read fewer stories to my kids? What if the toilet has an ugly brown ring in it or I don’t change the sheets on the bed for an extra week? What if I don’t decorate for the holidays? What if we skip the trip to the science museum and watch videos instead? What if we miss a dentist appointment or I change the oil in the car after 6,000 miles? What if I don’t do sit-ups for one month? Would everything still be fine, or would there be some negative consequence? I don’t know the answers. But if someone is brave enough to try these things, and has success making their life calmer and simpler, please let me know!

The Problem with Christmas Letters

I understand why people send Christmas letters. It’s so hard to stay in touch with people, even those you care a lot about, when they live far away. If you’ve moved a few times, you may have friends and family scattered all over the county, maybe even all over the world. Life gets busy with jobs, families and other obligations and suddenly you realize that you haven’t spoken to a dear friend for months. Recently my friend, Jenny, called me. We had a great conversation and she said, “do you realize that we haven’t spoken since May?” I hadn’t. In fact, she seemed like someone I was keeping in pretty regular contact with and I would have believed it had been two months, but not six. And so much had happened in that time for both of us.

The holidays are a really nice excuse to send cards and re-establish connections with our friends and family. Christmas letters offer a way to bring everyone up to date on life changes and accomplishments and tidbits about what our lives are like, right now. However, it’s almost impossible to write a good one. Since most people are likely to just include the postive events and highlights, it’s hard not to make the letter sound boastful. And, what voice do you use? Formal? Conversational? Funny? Chances are if you wrote individual letters to people, you would use a different voice depending on your audience, for example more formal for Aunt Martha and funny for your college roommate. But, you’d probably include different information too. Maybe you’d write more about your life as a parent to other parents. Maybe you’d write more about your job and professional affiliations to an old colleague or about political concerns to a friend with whom you’ve had these types of discussions. A really close friend would receive more personal details, and a looser acquaintance would receive an overview, just to get the general picture of what’s happening in your neck of the woods.

I almost always read a Christmas letter and then don’t know how to react afterward. I feel in touch with the person, a little, but I never forget that the letter wasn’t just to me. The person that wrote the letter is almost always trying too hard, so the letter seems forced. Some letter-writers seem to want to boast more than anything, and some boast but try to seem like they’re not boasting. Most years we get one that is fashioned as a news article, with a reporter writing about the family’s life this year as though it is late-breaking news, with dynamic headlines, “John Gets a Promotion to Head Up a New Department!” And then there is a paragraph telling us how honored he is to be given this incredibly high distinction for his hard work and brilliance. They try to make it sound humble….but….it doesn’t work. It’s disconcerting knowing that the author is your acquaintance writing about him/herself in the third person. This year we received a baffling holiday letter where the authors mentioned their job promotions, and then happily announced the imminent arrival of their third baby. Then they added, “don’t worry, the baby will have mom or dad home for the first four months.” I think I glanced over my shoulder right after I read that. I mean, who was the comment directed to? It’s not a personal letter, do they think every single person has the same concern? I also just find the whole idea of reading someone’s yearly letter as though it’s front page news a tad odd, do they really think we’re reading it and thinking to ourselves, “oh gosh, can you believe they did that? Whoaa, that’s amazing, I need to breathe a minute before finishing the letter!”

We have also received holiday letters that are peppered with photos. I have been amused by some where one acquaintance in particular always inserts photos of herself glancing at the camera just so. The photos never really look like her, and in one, I am not making this up, she added, “some people think I look like Meg Ryan in this photo!” It was, well, startling. I think you can learn an awful lot about the person writing the letter from what they write, and it might not be what the author intended.

My husband and I once toyed with the idea of sending an “anti-Christmas” letter. We were going to have a picture of us taken where we looked dirty and down-trodden and then tell made-up, exaggerated tales of woe. Of course, we quickly realized that was in really poor taste and we would have offended people, so we didn’t do it.

I do think some Christmas letters are probably okay. I do have recollections of reading a few and finding them funny and informative, but those are few and far between. Probably they were written by people for whom I feel such affection that I am willing to overlook a multitude of sins, and so just read the letter, absorb the relevant information, and then throw it away. So what is the solution? A dry, bullet-point list of updates with no details? Is it possible to really make a connection through a form letter?

I don’t know the answer. But I do think of real, personal letters where the author not only shares details of his or her life, but also asks questions about the recipient’s life. Usually the author will make connections between her experience and the reader’s experience and maybe make a reference about how you both know what that means. For instance, in a personal letter your friend might say how she went to visit her cousin, Faye, and then your friend will give you details about how the visit was the same as usual–the TV was on 24 hours a day and Faye and her husband argued and smoked non-stop but they all got to go hiking and had good weather which was great. The form letter will only tell of the “fabulous visit and great hiking with cousin Faye in Colorado.” So, if you read that form letter from the same friend you know you’re not getting the real story. It’s just not as good, and not the same thing, as a real letter.

If someone has the answer, please email me!

Vices and the Lure of Tabloids

For a while I was thinking that I’ve done okay in the vices department. I thought, I love coffee, but pretty much manage to keep it at one cup a day. I love a drink in the evening, but I also usually manage to keep that in check, and when I over-indulge it’s often accidental, maybe because I started drinking before eating, or was thirsty so pounded my drinks too quickly or was just at a really loooong party, but not because I need to drain a bottle of vodka when I’m stressed out or anything. I don’t smoke, and don’t need sugar/chocolate fixes that regularly. There didn’t seem to be anything that I indulged in while knowing it’s bad for me, or that I have to indulge in to excess. Then I realized that there is something: Celebrity gossip. I am a junkie.

I used to be really embarrassed. I’d love to say that when I’m at the doctor’s office waiting for my turn I pick up the National Geographic or a copy of the Economist and devour the articles. But the truth is, if there is a People Magazine or some tabloid, I pick that up first. In fact, if there is more than one pile of magazines to choose from I will sit next to the pile with the most tabloids. I read them in the Supermarket and buy them for myself as treats if I am feeling tired or stressed or sad. I look at the gowns the actresses and models are wearing and I can’t wait to find out who’s cheating on whom or who just got arrested for wrecking a hotel room. I read about fancy parties where expensive champagne is downed like cheap beer by people wearing $15,000 outfits who arrived in fancy limos. I look at paparazzi photos taken of the rich and famous strutting in tiny bathings suits showing off tanned, muscular abdomens and surgically enhanced boobs and butts.

What never fails to amaze me is how glowing and happy they look, despite whatever horrendous scandal the particular star is embroiled in. They just don’t seem like real people. They don’t really look like real people. They are much, much shinier than real people. Their hair glistens, their teeth shine, and their skin glimmers. Their eyes twinkle. The bodies on celebrities amaze me. It doesn’t seem possible how muscular the men are and there’s not a pot-belly to be seen. How can so many women be so long and lean with giant breasts and not a drop of cellulite? Of course, I do wonder what these celebrities would look like without personal trainers, stylists, botox, collagen, cosmetic surgery, expensive coiffures, spray-painted tans and lots of money to spend on their appearances. And I wonder what people I know would look like with all these procedures done. But, that’s besides the point. They shine while frolicking on tropical beaches just days after getting out of rehab.

I inevitably start thinking about the reality that must be behind the facade. The image radiates perfection. But the “facts” (such as they are) show a throwaway culture where millions of dollars are thoughtlessly spent on clothes, cars and hotel suites, marriages rarely last a few years or even months and children are treated as casually as pet hamsters. I am attracted and repulsed at the same time by an actor who makes millions of dollars per movie and is greeted by world leaders as an old friend, but who also. let’s say, was recently arrested for beating up a photographer right after his divorce from his 4th wife (and he has children by all the wives AND some girlfriends) and he’s only 32. The image and the reality just don’t mesh. As a parent, I can speak with some degree of certainty that their kids suffer tremendously when every eight months mom or dad brings home a new love interest. And I don’t imagine that the adorable Prada for kids outfits take away any of the pain. I have no interest getting to know people with such sloppy and irresponsible personal lives, so why do I want to read about the celebrities?

So then I wonder, why don’t the tabloids ever criticize the behavior? Other than delighting in revealing each sordid story first, the Tabloids and their devoted readers–other than me of course–seem to wholeheartedly condone the selfish and egotistical acts that are reported. For instance, I just don’t understand why the reaction to the Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston/Angelina Jolie mess was generally one of gushing support for the new uber-couple. What about the fact that Brad was MARRIED and he left his wife? And why was Brangelina suddenly the couple that represents the higher ideals of humanity, saving the world and all its children? My bet is that they part ways within in a few years. And for the record, I knew that Britney Spears and Kevin Federline were doomed from the start.

I think about these short Hollywood relationships and do the simple math and figure that the average celebrity relationship only lasts as long as the passionate, crazed, spontaneous sex phase. He probably hasn’t seen her without makeup yet, and he still sucks in his gut when walking around the bedroom in his undies. Are they so superficial, and so used to glamour and perfection that they can’t bear it when they actually get to really know one another? Why bother getting married at all if all they’re interested in is the falling-in-love part? Why can’t they figure it out? I mean, if you don’t want any responsibility in your life, why take it on?

I’m not as embarrassed to admit to my addiction to the tabloids any more. I have recently met lots of women whom I respect and admire that also admit to reading them. I am however troubled by my desire to read them. Maybe it’s because they’re so darn shiny. There is the aesthetic pleasure that comes with ogling beautiful gowns and exotic locales, but it is usually followed by a vaguely sick feeling like I just at too much junk food and there’s a little guilt about the time I wasted. Is there a ten step program to get rid of Tabloid addictions? Like any vice, they’re hard to give up. Maybe I’ll just pour a cup of coffee and take just a quick peek at the new People.