Prince Charming in a modern world?

 

For my girls, this is for you….

Most of us (if not all of us) grew up in the era of the Disney Princesses. You know, the fairytales, where every time things went bad, Prince Charming rushed in and saved the day. I don’t know about you, gals, but I haven’t really had that experience yet. I’m not saying chivalry is dead—I went school in the South! But, I will say to my girls, don’t count on Prince Charming…. Instead gain some independence!

As a child, I grew up IN LOVE with Cinderella. In fact, when my mother announced the birth of a sibling before we knew the sex of the child, I even proposed the name Cinderella! I loved the idea of a girl with a bunch of bad things in her life, going to a ball (made over) and finding a handsome Prince to fix everything.

Fast forward nearly 23 years later, and I am starting to have these doubts about this Mr. Prince Charming who fixes it all. Sure, I have fascinations with celebrity Princes and feed into that whole idea of a princess, but I also have reality.

The reality is simple. Ladies, if you want it, you have to get it. Don’t wait for Prince Charming to make you a lovely Stay-at-home-Mom. Have goals, find them, and achieve them. Yes, men SHOULD hold the doors for you—but you should hold the door to for them. It’s called courtesy. Yes, men SHOULD offer a seat to someone they see flailing around the subway, but you should also for an elderly man/woman or a lady who is expecting. It’s called common decency.

An important lesson I was taught from a young age was “depend on yourself” and “don’t let anyone tell you—you can’t because you’re a girl.” I think I was 6 years old on a car ride with my Mom when I heard that. I remember having an argument with a boy in my 1^st grade class, when I told him I wanted to be a doctor one day. His response? “Girls can’t be doctors!” Oh, yes, I could.

In fact, I think with a vigor and subconscious passion, my entire life I have pursued mostly male dominated fields just to prove that point. I played soccer during my adolescent years while most girls took dance and cheerleading. I played aggressively and in a contact sport. I would gladly take on ANY neighborhood boy in a challenge. I was often asked by the neighborhood boys to play in ball games, and almost always accepted.

In school, I didn’t join organizations that were “society clubs”—I went again for competitive groups such as Mock Trial and Model United Nations. I enjoyed competition.  When it came time to major in college, I chose Political Science. Post-9/11 most girls went a different route, and I quickly found myself surrounded by mostly male colleagues. Eventually, I pursued law school.

The point of the story is, ladies, don’t wait for Prince Charming—make it happen for you.

Looking for a Prince Charming to Love

Most girls at a young age fall in love with the fantasy. You know the fairytale… maiden/princess in distress, in search of a Prince Charming to right the wrongs… go to a castle and live happily ever after. Why are they feeding this to young girls, seriously?

I admit, I fell for the fantasy. I loved Cinderella—I was enthralled with the Royal Wedding this past Spring, but I take a different look at relationships.

I think many women may settle a lot more than they should. Your next question will be: Well, if there’s no prince, why should we wait?” I’m not saying to WAIT for your prince—I’m just saying it’s an equal partnership.

I’m approaching my marriage in this way, and here are some things I think are helpful. Believe me, I’m NOT giving advice here, just perspective:

You’re going to fight…. Yeah, you’re going to. I sometimes think it would be a fun sit-com, or romantic-comedy idea to feature “Prince Charming: The after years…” etc. But yeah, you’re going to fight. You’re going to cry. It’s not going to be perfect. But through the fights, is where you learn when it’s real. So embrace the fighting as a chance to grow. But seriously, when you’re fighting, that seldom happens.

Equal Partnership! So, you want flowers and chocolates everyday… and romantic love letters. Sounds perfect, right? Total Prince Charming? Yeah, well, I’m sure Prince Charming has a list of “perfect mate” ideals too. And I’m willing to venture the guess you’re missing his goal marks too. I’m looking at my marriage as an equal partnership. Basically divide it in half (work load), trying, etc. But one very IMPORTANT thing is this: sometimes, you can’t give 50%; and sometimes you’re only giving 20%. Life is hard. You have to look to your partner to give that extra percent. And this is where love comes in. Sometimes you can’t carry the whole relationship by yourself, and sometimes you have to carry for your partner. Just look at it that way.

If you want the romance and the flowers, seriously, get real. Think about the PERSON behind it first, and then figure out the flowers and romance every day. Sometimes romance comes over a glance at dinner, or when you’re doing so much in your life and stop to take a breath, and then realize they’re there. Just perspective.

It’s NOT perfect… it’s not perfect, and here’s why: YOU’RE not perfect. None of us are perfect. You’re never going to get the guy who says ALL the right things. You’re never going to get the guy you NEVER fight with. And if you do, there’s probably a problem. You should fight—that’s communication. The one thing you have to look at is if you grow from it. You should be able to come back to it based upon the reason you love that person. If you can’t then there’s the issue.

Back to the Real World

So Prince Charming may not truly exist. But I’m willing to guess that a person who stands next to you through everything can come pretty close. Chivalry is not dead, but it’s a two-way street, Ladies. I think in a modern era, when we are not necessarily looking for a man to “take care of us”, we should also look with equal eyes to the relationship. I think this and by this, it’s the only way to figure it out.

Reality is that most women work (and some have kids), and see their significant other here and there. Most women have goals, dreams, and desires.  So in this modern world, it’s only natural to ask for equal approach to the Cinderella/Prince Charming dream.

This is probably the worst topic to write on because I’m not qualified to give advice, but these are my views. So, Cinderella, love the story, but we have to think in the real world terms these days :)

*PS The first google search image for “princesses” was Disney. So special thanks to Disney for the image :)

Here's to you, Mrs. Robinson....

This is a tongue and cheek look at the “cougars.” I have no idea why I decided to do this article, but it’s relevant with how much I hear it in celebrity news on TV, so here’s something for fun. A bit of mind candy for the blog readers!

I recently watched “The Graduate” a couple weeks ago, and it made me begin to question “cougars.” I had been seeing news articles relating to “IT” couples. Then, I just happened to start opening my eyes a bit more. Women nowadays, who are older, are seemingly wanting to look younger—a lot younger, and then I began to question the mystique of the “elusive” Cougar…

“Here’s to you Mrs. Robinson…”

Cougars are defined by UrbanDictionary.com as “An older woman who frequents clubs in order to score with a much younger man.” But in society’s definition it’s a woman who is with/seeks out a younger man, her “cub.” It kinda sounds creepy and almost overly maternal, and possibly Oedipus Complex, but whatever.

It all began I think with the 1970s film, “The Graduate,” featuring a young Dustin Hoffman falling for the mother of his soon to be love. Creepy, right? She was at least 18 years his senior, and she carried on an affair with a younger guy. Perhaps, this is the first time mainstream media picked up on the younger males’ fascination with the older, experienced “Mrs. Robinson.”

Today’s world seems to embrace the mystique of the older adult seductress. Years prior women seemed to look for a provider—men had the opportunity and means to seduce a younger woman, and now the tables are turned. Think about today’s celebrity couples—Ashton and Demi (the “IT” pop culture couple), Dinah Shore and Burt Reynolds in the 70s (he was 20 years younger); Madonna’s last husband, Guy Ritchie was 17 years her junior—and let’s just say she’s even gone YOUNGER now. I’m sure the list goes on… Then there’s popular culture songs, such as “Stacy’s Mom,” by Fountains of Wayne, discussing the crush on a peer’s mom.

There are even popular TV shows on primetime such as “Cougartown.” So what’s with society’s fascination with cougars? There are websites where cougars can meet “cubs.” What’s next? What IS the fascination? The allure?

The Rise and Fall of the Cougar?

Some may say the taboo was alluring for most men, but in the decade since “cougars” burst onto the scene, the term seems passé.

Take Ashton and Demi, the popular couple of our time. It SEEMED to be working. Now there are reports of otherwise… one must now look at the downside of cougars. Sociologically and biologically, some men to desire to have a family, and possibly their “cougar” may not. That’s become an issue for some. Other times, it’s realizing there is a lack of maturity, understanding, or things in common with their spouse.

One might question, why the woman as a cougar would seek out a younger person. Some look at it as age blindness. Others feel it will keep them young. And others look at a conquest. Some look to it as liberation—if a man can do it—so can I!

And for some, it honestly, does not matter.

So without a judgment call—this is NOT a judgment call—take a look at the mystique of the cougar… 

So did it all begin with The Graduate, or were cougars always on the scene? Is it that our society seems more tolerant towards the idea than the 1970s? Is the taboo really making it that more alluring?

A new era's "Hippies"?

 

Check out the pictures from today (2011)'s Occupy Wall Street to an anti-war protest picture I got offline--looks a bit similar?

A new era’s “hippies”?

Everywhere you look on the news you hear about “OccupyWallStreet”, which is now becoming “OccupyAnytown.”  Frustration is growing in America’s traditional working class, but frustration is growing in the youth movement. On my way into New York these days for interviews, I often walked past Zuccotti Park, which has now become home to OccupyWallStreet. Go look at the news, and you will hear them referred to as “hippies.” If you listen to some of my family or friends, they call them “dirty hippies.”

So rather than make this my political view on OccupyWallStreet (I agree and disagree)—I want to analyze today’s hippies.

Hippies of the 1960s

I was not around for the 60s, but my parents were kids in that time. I often liked hippies, and my friends sometimes even refer to me as a “hippie.” I prefer to be a hybrid, but that’s another story. This is my generation's first glimpse at a movement we weren't apart of fifty years ago, yet it seems to be eerily similar now.

Hippies of the 1960s were protesting “everything,” my parents told me. But the most commonly associated with the 1960s era hippies, was anti-war and Vietnam protests. But who can forget the Civil Rights Movement? Women’s Liberation Movement?

The hippies of the 60s preached peace and love. Something we can all feel good about. But then again, I digress, we go into the whole drug culture of the 60s. The 60s era were utopian idealists. They lived in communes—in idealistic societies of sharing. This idea as sociologists and political scientists always fails because our society is capitalistic. People fight—people want more. People give less and take more. Therefore, the model usually fails.

Fast forward 50 years to lower Manhattan

These “hippies” are a bit different. You probably would not see them as tech savvy in the 60s as now. You’d see them on bull horns—well, you see that now. The movement on Wall Street has protestors with a corner of computers and other tech devices to BROADCAST to the world what is happening. Not bad for people, whom many label as next to homeless living in tent communities.

There’s a library in the park—bet you didn’t know that. Dozens of people have donated books to help those on Wall Street better plan the movement.

There’s morning Yoga! This was actually a beautiful picture in a New York paper of people stretching with the view of the sunrise in Manhattan. You can see skyscrapers, the morning sun, and a circle of a dozen or two people doing morning Yoga.

There’s a kitchen. No one PAYS to get into the Park. Everyone is free to enter (and leave) whenever. There are designated meal times where people are fed, and share the food. The money is largely donated from people in the grassroots movement.

So can utopia and utilitarianism live in the Park? For now… yes. Perhaps, the movement is not what is being done, but perhaps how they are living in the Park…. Maybe we should take a look at this model.

Last night I was listening to the Lion King soundtrack, go ahead and laugh. There’s a line in “The Circle of Life” that got me… “You should never take more than you give.” Perhaps, that is the mantra. 

A JD's view on the economy

A JD’s View on the Economy

Prepare for some laughs. I am a Political Science major, and far from an economist. I took several Political Science/Economics classes in college, but for the most part I’m rather raw. Sometimes it takes a person who has no inside knowledge to question a bigger problem, and so I give you… a JD’s View on the Economy.

Gloom and Doom

Everywhere I look I see protestors  jamming the streets with protest signs, and shouting against corporate America. When I look at the job market, I see failing America—a broken nation. And when I look to the stock market on most days, I cringe. How did we get here?

America was once industrious, hard-working, and the land of opportunities. My great-grandparents came to America because they felt the streets were paved with gold—and dreams can happen here. They sought work in failing economies of their own overseas—a famine in Ireland, no work in Hungary or Poland. They took whatever they had and left. I, on the other hand, now a third generation American do not have that luxury of setting sail on a boat (or going on a plane) and seeking out a new life in another country. Why, you ask? Well, for one, I invested myself in AMERICAN law by attending law school in the US. So, that for one limits my job prospects in some ways. So, as a Juris Doctor, who invested in my country—I feel betrayed looking at the job market.

I’m sure this is a similar argument being made by many frustrated recent graduates, however, there is a lot of talk with little to do by way of solutions. So I give you…

What’s up with that?

Many of our world’s economies are failing. For instance, take the European Union (EU) and the failing nations within it. The EU is faced with a difficult task of countries such as Germany growing, and nations such as Greece facing a possible economic bailout. Spain, Ireland, and other nations are also thought to be in trouble as well.

So, now I am going to ask a really stupid question, who’s got the money? Now hear me out this probably sounds REALLY stupid, but if our countries are all going bankrupt or failing economically, the money that was put into these governments—well, who has it??

Think about this like a game. Each country has X amount of dollars. If their “X” dollars are each exhausted and no country has excess money—then where did it go? So, this leaves a question of is there a manipulation of the market by one nation, or is there one nation hiding its wealth? It’s a fair question….

And I’m curious to see what my blog readers think. Feel free to comment!

Authoritative Environmentalism... from Conservatives... say whaaaat?!

Authoritative Environmentalism… from Conservatives… say whaaaat?!

This piece is actually just a question posed to all of my blog readers who share my environmentalism views… Does this method work? Let’s examine it. Surprisingly from me this will be an objective article.

The other day, I was stumbling through several articles on MSNBC. I came across several different articles on NJ Governor Chris Christie’s possible bid for the White House. We all know today, that this was not to be. However, the article MSNBC showed was about a new breed of environmentalist conservatives. Chris Christie is coming from a state notorious for its industrial pollution, but one must question whether his method can actually work.

I am not by any means labeling myself as a conservative or a liberal in this article. I am merely questioning the normally liberal leaning green to now the conservative lean on environmentalism? It’s a new look, and some may feel it’s the twilight zone —but here we go: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44719797/ns/politics/t/christies-conservative-record-under-close-scrutiny/.

Repeal of RGGI?

RGGI for all of my non-environmental law people is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. It is a non-binding agreement among the Northeastern US States (with several out of state supporters merely as look-ins). Basically, in a nutshell, RGGI basically has energy companies (usually coal-fired power plants) bid on greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions into our atmosphere. Each state is given a certain amount, and energy companies then pay for their emissions. At the same time, the penalty money, or the amount to pollute the air (which is costly) will be donated to the state to invest in green technologies. However, most of the time, as in the case of NJ, the money was used to balance the budget (or in other states other non-green or clean technology programs). So, the question now posed is does RGGI have teeth? Is it a good program? There is no “Big Brother” if you will looking over state spending to insure it is used for green technology.

Gov. Christie decided recently to pull out from NJ’s role with RGGI citing that it was too costly to companies, and really didn’t do any good. In his usual terse tone, he basically said that he will enforce green goals, and the states will comply--an authoritative position for the governor to make. Gov. Christie has already spoken out in favor of offshore wind projects and solar panels.

As a NJ resident, I can say there are solar panels currently being used around the state. The question as to whether it was Gov. Christie’ idea or through RGGI is another issue.

What does Authoritative Environmentalism mean?

In a philosophical way,  the term “authoritative” has negative connotations. It’s being told “this is it—follow it or have consequences.” Authoritative is a way of dictating an order. Should environmental technology be mandated? Is this the only way that we can actually achieve greenhouse gas emission goals? What penalties would be faced since we already have financial penalties?  Gov. Christie has not elaborated, but one begs to question, "Will energy company CEOs face legal implications as a result of pollution?" Highly unlikely, but then, how can one be told this is the law and you must follow it?

 States can legally mandate stricter environmental provisions than provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but will NJ do that? And how will this effect conservatives’ views on environmentalism if at all?

These are important questions to address, and I really hope my readers will comment --curious to see your views too!