SEPTEMBER 3, 2008

Because someone in my office gave birth to a healthy baby boy early yesterday morning, and another one of my colleagues is about to become a new mom later this month, and also in honor of “Labor” Day, I thought it would be appropriate to blog about the crazy Hollywood obsession with getting the very first pictures of newly famous newborns with their famous parents.

People and OK! magazines are usually the first to release full-page spreads of sleeping babies cradled by their proud parents… and thousands of people flock to the newsstands to take a look at the tiny people.  The pictures (and the rights to the pictures) are purchased with very hefty price tags.  This raises a question of ethics.

USA Today featured a story called “The High Cost of Celeb-Baby Fever” in August that focuses on the topic of ethics in the sale and release of baby photos.  The article makes mention of the recent record-breaking $14 million deal between Hello!, a magazine based in Britain that purchased international rights to a 19-page “family album” of pictures of the Jolie-Pitt twins– Vivienne Marcheline and Knox Leon.  Before this deal, the most that was reportedly paid for celebrity baby pictures was $6 million, to Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony after the birth of their twins.

Now the ethical questions: will this crazy sum of money (seriously, I can’t picture $14 million bucks in my head) become “the norm” in the world of Hollywood now?  Will other celebrities expect money like this for their pictures?  Also, is it even right to sell your baby’s pictures to the media and essentially objectify them at such a young and vulnerable age? 

Then comes the mental health of the child later upon learning that pictures of them were sold for all of the world to see.  Will the kids resent their parents later? 

Also, where is the money going?  Does the fact that some or all of the money received for pictures may go to charity change things at all?
Everyone has a different opinion about this issue.  I personally think that if the pictures are not sold to the media in the beginning, the paparazzi will go crazy trying to pry their way into the lives of celebrities just to get the first one.  Also, the financial aspect is really not anyone’s business.  If a mother–who spent hours and hours giving birth to a child– decides to take and sell some pictures, that’s her choice.  She clearly is making the best choice she can make for her child and her family.  I also think that charitable donations are an honorable cause and it’s wonderful that a few pictures could benefit the multitude of groups receiving aid because of a few pictures. 

In the end, what does it matter?  We are so saturated with images, celebrity news, drama, and gossip that the pictures will be old news before we know it. 

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 19, 2008

It’s obvious that times are changing– in many ways.  Too many to count, actually.  I know this makes me sound old, but I was born in the 80s, so I’m not that old…yet. 

One thing that I’ve always been fascinated with is people’s strong opinions about cohabitation by couples before marriage (this reminds me a bit of the stay-at-home mom vs. the working mom debate).  Most people I know find themselves leaning strongly towards one end of the spectrum or the other– for varying reasons.  Some think that it’s never appropriate for a couple to live together until marriage; others feel that if it makes sense financially and personally, they should go for it to “test out” the relationship before they leap into something a lot more serious. 

This doesn’t even take into account the barrage of images of celebrity couples (think Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt) who are choosing to live together before marriage and even start families with no feelings of obligation to wed.  The public may start thinking, if they can do it… why can’t I? 

A July USA Today article called “Living Together Isn’t Just ‘Playing House’ ” really delves into the issue and explains why living together no longer has the negative associations and stereotypes attached to it that it did in days of the past.  According to the article, the number of opposite-sex couples who live together has jumped from less than 1 million 30 years ago to 6.4 million in 2007. 

According to Jay Teachman, a sociology professor at Western Washington University in Bellingham, while old data showed an increased risk of divorce among cohabiting couples, that’s not necessarily true today:

Twenty or 25 years ago, if you were cohabiting and then married them, the marriage was more likely to dissolve and end in divorce…today that’s not the case.  You can cohabit with your spouse and not experience increased risk of divorce.  We’re making these finer distinctions that we didn’t make before.

I personally feel that cohabitation before marriage can be a good thing.  For me, it in part came down to a financial decision.  After I got engaged I realized it was pointless to keep my apartment because I was spending all of my free time at my fiance’s house.  Why continue to pay rent when I knew we’d be living together in a matter of months, anyway? 

My mom wasn’t exactly thrilled about this… but she got over it after she did the math and realized it would only be two months of living together before the date of our wedding.  She raised me with the mindset that cohabitation before marriage is a very bad thing.  Now that I am older and have formed opinions of my own, I stand somewhere in the middle of the cohabitation wars: I appreciate the idea in certain circumstances, but I also respect the perspective of my mother.

What do you think?  Is cohabitation less of a big deal today than it was in the past?  Does the new evidence make you think any differently about the concept?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 11, 2008

A few nights ago, I was up late watching the Olympics and reading through email. I checked the latest digest of emails from my neighborhood listserv, and came across a posting from a mom looking for neighborhood kids to join her son’s soccer team (we’re talking 4-5 year-olds, so I use the word “team” loosely) on Wednesdays this fall.

Score! I’ve been wanting to sign my girls up for soccer, but just haven’t gotten around to doing it yet. I emailed the woman who posted, she wrote me back about 10 minutes later (yes, this was 11:45 on a Saturday night), and by midnight the deal was done. All I have to do now is send the check.

My generation of moms has it easy. Think about it: we can do all sorts of things, at all sorts of hours, that our mothers couldn’t. Whether they worked outside the home or not – or whether we work outside the home or not – technology has made our lives a lot easier, and, I suspect, less isolated. Need fall clothes for the kids? Our moms had to squeeze in trips to the store, with squirming kids in tow, whenever their schedule permitted. Me? I go online to Old Navy at all hours of the night when the sales come along, and stock up on whatever we need. Signing kids up for activities? No waiting in line or calling on the phone – I go online to get the girls into gymnastics or ballet classes.

Think about this too – I stay in touch with my friends, those with and without kids – any number of ways, no matter where I am – via cell phone, email, texting, blogging, and occasionally in person. My Blackberry – for good or for bad – makes me instantly reachable to anyone looking for me. I bet my mom had to wait until after we were in bed so she could call her friends or take care of other personal stuff.

The list goes on… Plane tickets? Can you imagine spending your days calling the airlines and comparing fares, instead of just going to Orbitz? Sharing photos with the grandparents by going back to the drugstore and painstakingly filling out those reprint forms? And how about the connectivity that Web 2.0 gives us? When my twins were about 7 months old, I panicked – I just couldn’t figure out how to bathe these two squirmy creatures at the same time without endangering their lives. Off I went to my local Parents of Multiples Club message board, and I had 5 suggestions from veteran twin moms by the morning. (Angelina – if you need some advice, I’m here for you.) For me, my laptop has taking some of the guesswork, the insecurity, and the loneliness out of mothering.

On balance, I feel very lucky to be mothering right now. Of course, my daughters may look back at their childhoods someday and wonder how I managed under these circumstances. But I guess that’s how it always is.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

JULY 2, 2008

Is our country in danger of too much assimilation? As cities all around the U.S. diversify culturally, the process of becoming “American” becomes quicker and quicker. Not only are major cities diversifying, a growing number of immigrants are also settling in suburbia. As a result, growing up in a diverse environment, marrying outside of one’s race, and being more aware of other cultures is becoming the norm.  All of these sound like good changes, but as we become further removed from our ethnic roots, are we also becoming further removed from our individual heritages? Or are we simply breaking ties with the old and solidifying a new American culture?

According to a study using the latest Census Bureau figures, the percentage of Asian women born in the United States who marry Asian men has declined from 59 percent in 1994 to 37 percent today. The proportion of American-born Asian men who marry Asian women has also dropped, from 65 percent to 52 percent. According to this New York Times article, some Chinese-American parents are hoping to reverse these marriage trends by turning to cultural tours such as the Love Boat. These parents are sending their children on the four-week summer program, designed to strengthen young people’s connections with their Taiwanese roots, race, religion and language. The Love Boat – officially called the Expatriate Youth Summer Formosa Study Tour to Taiwan is sponsored and partly subsidized by the Taiwanese government. The tour got its nickname from the many romances that occur between the young participants.

As New Audiences rise in our country, will they long to rekindle their connections to their countries of origin? The success of the Love Boat suggests that more programs like this one will pop up as new Americans find it harder to meet others of the same descent.

[Comments(6) »] [TrackBack »]

JUNE 9, 2008

This article in today’s BrandWeek made me wonder — are Americans pretending to care about the environment, or do they really care?  People seem to be talking the talk…but will they walk the walk when effort is required?

We love to divert blame when it comes to underlying reasons for things like global warming, environmental efforts, pollution, and practically everything else that has become a problem.  Younger generations blame the baby boomers for many of these issues they are forced to deal with, saying that the boomers are the ones that created a huge mess for us to solve.  Baby boomers, on the other hand, like to blame younger generations for the carefree attitudes they have about supporting causes that aren’t intrinsically selfish.  Either way, pointing fingers gets old, and it’s counter-productive.

The section of the article titled ”Looking for Earth Mothers” is fascinating.  I was especially intrigued by the argument that people are more concerned about the environment when they have children that will be impacted by environmental issues –parents are partly willing to sacrifice some convenience because they feel that their children are scrutinizing their actions.  So in actuality, it’s not the sake of the cause, it’s the desire to set an example because of underlying feelings of obligation.  To me, that just seems a bit backwards!

I think that we are all wrapped up in our own stressful lives and living the classic “American dream” we have grown up striving for.  Do I think we are selfish?  No.  I just think we are designed as humans to instinctively do what is easiest and best for our lives and time-line.  Although we are drawn to what’s new or trendy, the simple and routine seem to always overshadow anything that requires us to change our habits.  I don’t think we are doomed — but I do think we’ll be forced to adapt.  This whole environmental panic thing is new to us… we’ll get the hang of it eventually.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

MAY 9, 2008

Because Mother’s Day is coming up this Sunday (and because we have a couple of expectant moms in our office now), I thought this would be a great opportunity to blog about moms!  Last week, my colleague Jenn pointed out a great section in an EPM Communications newsletter titled “Facts About Moms.”  The stats cover a wide range of mothers – and nowhere is that diversity better represented than in the blogosphere.

So in celebration of Mother’s Day, next to each U.S. Census Bureau statistic below is a link to the blog of a mom who fits that demographic. Take time to celebrate these mothers by clicking through and checking out what they have to say.  

• There were 82.8 million moms in 2004 (the latest year for data).

Heather writes Dooce (one of the most highly trafficked mom blogs).

• 55% of women between the ages of 15 and 44 are mothers.

Tracey writes Sweetney.

• 81% of women aged 40 to 44 are mothers.  In 1976, 90% of women in this age group were mothers.

Joanne writes PunditMom.

• Average number of children each mom has in the U.S.: 2.1

Sarah writes Sarah and the Goon Squad.

• The average age of first-time moms: 25.2 (that’s up 3.8 years since 1970!)

Vicky writes The Mummy Chronicles.

• Number of stay-at-home moms: 5.6 million

Gretchen writes Bananas and Toddlers.

• Number of single moms: 10.4 million

Kat writes My Single Mom Life.

• The percentage of first-time mothers in the early part of this decade who were working by the 6th month after they gave birth: 55%.  In the early 1960’s, the corresponding percentage was 14%.

Nicole writes Not Just a Working Mom.

• The percentage of mothers who went back to work within a year of their child’s birth who returned to the same employer: 83%

Kristin and Erin podcast at Manic Mommies.

• 7 in 10 of these women returned to jobs at the same pay, skill level, and hours worked per week.

Isabel writes at Alpha Mom.

Even though the “typical” American family and the role of mothers across America continues to change, we need our mothers more than ever.  Our moms work hard, make sacrifices, and do everything they can to make our lives the best they can be. We should always remember to take the time (more than once a year in May) to let them know they are appreciated. 

So, in case I haven’t told you lately… I love you mom!  See you Sunday!!

[Comments(3) »] [TrackBack »]

MAY 8, 2008

Answer me this: What do the Lionel Corporation and Neil Young have in common?

If you’re one of the 68 million baby boomers alive today, you’ll probably remember that Lionel was, as its peak, a celebrated 1950s model train maker and that Young was – er, is – a 1970s rock’n'roll legend.  But would you have guessed that the 62 year-old rocker is also a lifelong fan of classic toy trains – or that he once owned a 20% stake in the Lionel brand?

If you’re of my generation - Gen Y - you probably haven’t played with a Lionel train or put on a Neil Young album in your entire life.  Why would we, after all, when we’ve got the likes of Guitar Hero and Rock Band - when we can play the rock stars ourselves?  Over the past 25 years, we’ve grown bored with merely creating and controlling model environments; these days, we want to interact with our surroundings.  But in the process of spending more money and more time on these stimulating simulations, we almost killed the Lionel train.

Yes, I said we almost killed the Lionel train.  According to an emotionally-charged press release from Lionel Chief Executive Jerry Calabrese, May 1, 2008 marked the end of “one of the most dramatic and difficult” periods in Lionel’s 108 year history: bankruptcy.  Especially touching was Calabrese’s statement that “all model train fans are, by nature, students of history, which offers no greater lesson than the fact that desperate times create opportunities for heroic deeds.”  Indeed, 108 years and two World Wars later, Lionel remains a case study in consumer loyalty, a lesson in what hobbyists are willing to sacrifice to save a treasured pastime. 

So don’t go retiring your engineering caps just yet; those toy trains are still chugging along.  In the past three years, Lionel’s sales have grown dramatically.  The Wall Street Journal recently reported that sales of Lionel starter sets – kid-friendly systems that range in price from $129 to $300 – have more than doubled since the company entered bankruptcy three and a half years ago.  In fact, the company sold close to 200,000 sets last year, with much of that growth coming from sales at department stores and big-box retailers.  It would seem, then, that Calabrese has discovered how to break out of the hobby shop and into the broader pop-culture marketplace: through big retail outlets, movies, and television.

As for me, I’m not so confident that a company can successfully reinvent a product that is so deeply steeped in nostalgia with absolutely no digital dazzle.  However, Terry Brennan at the Dealscape blog  thinks there is still hope.  He writes, “Just like hearing the train whistle in the distance has comforted many an insomniac in the middle of the night, so too has the miniaturized version inspired a few generations of model railroaders.  And while video games assimilate so many things, one thing they can’t do is emulate the fun of creating towns, or putting up trestles or having smoke come out of a little locomotive.” 

Funny thing is, despite my own doubts, I know exactly what he means.  When I was three, a real live train used to whistle by less than a mile from my house at least ten times a day, every day, for nine years.  Then, when we moved into a new house, I helped my Dad build a 15ft x 18ft model train set complete with little people, plastic buildings, a golf course - even a baseball field.  Our efforts - well, mostly my Dad’s efforts - earned the train set a spot on the cover of the July 1997 issue of Classic Toy Trains magazine.

So I’m incredibly torn.  I may have grown up with trains living in my basement, but I, like everyone else from age 6 to 96, just can’t get over the Nintendo Wii.  And, eerily telling of the times, that train whistle that put me to sleep for 9 years?  It was shut off last spring as a result of a hard-fought community association campaign.  Apparently, people just got tired of hearing it.

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

MAY 6, 2008

At TMG, we track the impact that faith and values have on our society.  For example, consider that more than 40% of U.S. adults have changed their faith since childhood.  What does this mean to us as a society?  Or how about gay marriage?  Or the creation versus evolution discussion?  Faith and values play a very important role in shaping our positions on these very controversial issues. 

For a moment, let’s talk about paternity. 

Paternity is an interesting topic in our society.  Normally, it only makes the news when: (1) a male celebrity is involved in a jerky-guy-doesn’t-take-responsibility-for-his-child-way (e.g., actor Eddie Murphy denying paternity  of then-girlfriend (and Spice Girl) Melanie Brown’s claim that she was pregnant with his child) ; (2) a new stat about child support is particularly astonishing (for example, in 2005, $23 billion was collected by agencies working with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Office of Child Support Enforcement); or (3) or paternity fraud becomes public (New Hampshire reported that as many as 30 percent (!!) of those paying child support were not the biological fathers of the children being supported).  

But think about this: in Kentucky, a man who wants to establish paternity because he has fathered a child with a married woman has no legal rights to go forward with his claim, no matter what DNA evidence he presents, because the biological mother “was, and remains, a married woman.”  Last week, a 4-3 decision by the Kentucky Supreme Court divided the court as justices debated the intersection of law, science, and society.  Even the majority was split, with one side holding that no “stranger to the marriage” can ever attack the legitimacy of a child’s birth and the other side holding the biological dad may have stood a chance if it was proven that the “‘marital relationship had ceased at least 10 months’ prior to the child’s birth.”  Concurring opinions added strong statements like “[a]s long as marriage is on the books, it must mean something” and “bold declaration[s]” were needed to be made about “the marriage circle[.]”

Let’s go over Paternity Law 101: a child born during a marriage is presumed to be the husband’s child, establishing complete duties and obligations to the child.  Moreover, “[a]n unmarried father has the right to request genetic testing to prove that he is the father and he can establish the legal right to a relationship with his child.”  The U.S. government even promotes responsible fatherhood as a “national priority[.]”  So if, as in the Kentucky case, we have a father who wants to be responsible but the law disagrees, what is the national priority?

What do you do when, as Time’sMichael Lindenberger notes, “nature’s law isn’t the law of the land[?]”  Is this legal presumption of paternity still appropriate in today’s day and age?  How can law and science be reconciled in today’s society? 

[Comments(2) »] [TrackBack »]

APRIL 30, 2008

I’m conflicted.  My 9 year-old daughter has seen every Hannah Montana episode at least twice and can sing every song.  I even waited outside in the cold so she and her best friend could attend the sold-out Best of Both Worlds concert tour when it was here in Washington D.C. in January.  I also have a 14 year-old daughter who, much like Miley Cyrus, is in that “awkward and random” (her favorite words) tween zone marked by rapid changes in her body and emotions. 

We are also a family of faith, attending church weekly, and no matter how little I really knew about Miley Cyrus before last week, I was at least comforted by the fact that at her concerts and in other appearances she openly mentions her faith. 

The issues that arise out of Ms. Cyrus’ recent Vanity Fair photos or the web-flashed green brassiere photo play out in my household in real time.  I don’t have time to think through the right response to these developments… it’s just boom! and it’s there.  And to underestimate the influence that Ms. Cyrus has on my 9 year-old (not to mention my 7 and 6 year-olds) would be a big mistake on my part.   So what am I supposed to say about these photos?  Accept them as art and “beautiful”, as some have suggested?  Please.  Tell my daughter it is the way of the world, that she should accept it and grow up?  Ahh… that last one… that’s the issue from my parental perch. 

The brouhaha over Miley Cyrus was sadly predictable, but not for the reason you might think.  Yes, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan were also Disney-created franchises that, in dramatic fashion, shed their “good girl” images, only to have their lives often described as tragic disasters.  No, the reason this was predictable is directly related to an underlying force that we track in New Persuasion.  We call it “Aging Younger/Maturing Later” and it is a cornerstone insight in our constant assessment of American culture. 

Did you know there are deodorants that are specifically marketed to 7 year-olds? Or that up to 50% of youngsters at summer camps take prescription medications?  Youth marketers have even given this phenomenon its own acronym: KAGOY – Kids Are Getting Older Younger.  No kidding.

Go to YouTube and do a search for “Hannah Montana” and you can find any number of videos of kids made up to look like the pop star.  Club Libby Lu, a mall based chain, will do it for your kid, complete with the blond wig, the lip gloss and the heavy make-up.  So who’s to blame? Rosalind Wiseman, author of Queen Bees & Wannabes, was recently quoted in The New York Times on this phenomenon saying, “Mothers and fathers do really crazy things with the best of intentions.  I don’t care how it’s couched, if you’re permitting this with your daughter, you are hyper-sexualizing her.”

And that brings me back to my daughters and the flap over the Vanity Fair photos .  I don’t think they are ready to grow up so fast, and like any father, I hope, the idea of adding a sexual element into this combustible mix is frightening to the point of paralyzing.  And that’s why I’m severely disappointed with the photos of Ms. Cyrus. Because, before my daughter is done eating Happy Meals, the Vanity Fair photos have just super-sized the pressure to grow up fast.  Are the photos “artistic”, as Ms. Liebovitz argues?  Sure they are, but that hardly seems the point, and I might argue that “artistic” is lost on the 6, 7, and 9 year-olds that adore Ms. Cyrus in my house. 

I recently read a quote from Billy Ray Cyrus saying he has always tried to be his daughter’s “best friend.” Far be it from me to criticize another parent’s style especially in the cauldron of Hollywood.  But I have learned there are times when I can’t be a best friend.  And while I guess I don’t expect Ms. Cyrus to have all the perspective and life lessons to be a perfect role model for my daughters, I do have an expectation and hope that her parents would be there to add judgment even if it cost temporary loss of “best friend” status.   Maybe then they could have saved the embarrassing apology and the loss of that something that neither Ms. Cyrus, Ms. Liebovitz, Disney or her parents can seem to define, but which we all know is gone when we see that photo.

For me it comes down to this: Can I be in the twin worlds of parent and best friend?  Yes, I think I can but to have the “Best of Both Worlds” may be nigh impossible and probably for all the right reasons.  

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

OCTOBER 2, 2007

Here at McGinn MS&L we find it important to keep track of the first time important things occur in our society.  These changes tell us a lot about things that may be surprising or even overdue, and are a great indication of where we stand.

Some recent firsts that are significantly important are:

Ø      On July 25, 1978, Louise Joy Brown, the world’s first successful "test-tube" baby was born in Great Britain.

Ø      For the first time at least since World War II, there were more failed marriages than lasting ones at the 25-year mark: Slightly more than half of the men and women who got married in the late 1970s were separated or divorced — or widowed — before they reached their 25th anniversary.

Ø      The 2008 edition of “ America’s Best Black Colleges” marks the first time U.S. News & World Report has released a stand-alone ranking of historically black colleges and universities.

Ø      John Edwards appeared in the first MySpace/ MTV candidate forum. The Democratic presidential hopeful was the first in a string of candidate dialogs planned by those two stalwarts of modern culture.

Ø      The number of violent crimes increased by a larger amount than expected last year, extending the first significant rise in murders and robberies in a dozen years.  Robberies surged by 7.2% and murders rose 1.8%.

Ø      The number of people living past 100 in England and Wales reached almost 9,000 last year for the first time ever.  The number of Centenarians had increased ninety-fold since 1911 when there were only 100 total in the country.

What does this all mean?  Well, advances in technology have made things like the "test-tube baby" and the record number of Centenarians possible.  It also is the main factor behind the MySpace/ MTV political influence which signals a huge shift in society and the things that we emphasize as a nation.  Technology is changing everything about our world and we are taking notice.  It’s great to see that we are taking advantage of our ability to communicate to mass audiences and political leaders are taking the time to speak to these audiences– young and old.

The rise in the number of murders and robberies could be because of a larger issue, such as Hurricane Katrina or the terrorist attacks on September 11th.  We are starting to realize that we should stop and enjoy life, and how important is really is to remember that everyone is an individual with their appreciation for the world around them.  This could be the reason for the record number of failed marriages as people begin to explore what they find most important in life.  We are encouraging individuality and uniqueness, as well as embracing positive changes such as the first edition of U.S. News and World Report releasing a ranking specifically for the nations Black Colleges and Universities.

As new firsts emerge and these changes continue to become an integral part of the way we live, it’s important to just stop and take in these shifts before years go by and we never even realize they occurred.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]