September 2009

Internet Addiction: Does it Exist?

by MomGrind

internet addiction The first U.S. rehab center for Internet addiction has opened its doors last month near Seattle, Washington. The 45-day treatment, which includes a forced break from Internet use in addition to re-enforcing social skills and other interventions, costs 14,000 dollars.

The question is, do we really need such a center? Does Internet addiction exist?

While Internet Addiction Disorder is not currently included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), many argue that addictions to the Web do exist.

Addicts describe symptoms that are very similar to other addictions, such as an overwhelming impulse to use the Internet, experiencing withdrawal symptoms when not using it, continually increasing the amount of Internet use while withdrawing from other activities, denying the harmful effects of the behavior and continuing it despite those harmful effects.

In severe cases, Internet addiction can lead to the loss of a job or marriage, to car accidents for those who can’t stop texting while driving, or even to death – some people have died after playing video games for days without a break because of a blood clot associated with being sedentary.

Researchers have been warning us for a long time now that obsessive internet use poses risk of isolation and depression, so even if excessive Internet use does not become an addiction, it could still be harmful.

It’s interesting to note that the Chinese government recognizes Internet addiction and treats it harshly. I’m sure the posh American rehab center is heaven compared with China’s treatment centers for Internet addiction, although the harsh Chinese methods might prove to be far more effective long-term than the gentle American methods.

What do you think? Do you think Internet Addiction exists? Do you know anyone in real life who might be suffering from it? Do you think milder forms of excessive Internet use (which most us professional bloggers are probably guilty of!) can be harmful as well?

Update: A new study says that Internet addiction does exist and is linked to ADHD and depression in teens.

Jennifer Aniston’s Perky Assets

by MomGrind

aniston

According to Life & Style Weekly magazine, the best way for a woman to “land” a man is to obtain the following:

1. Perky boobs

2. A tight butt

3. A flat belly

Unable to obtain these “perky assets?” You’re obviously destined to stay single.

A Warning Label for Retouched Photos

by MomGrind

winslet

Photo retouching in magazines is becoming more and more outrageous. Remember the GQ cover featuring Kate Winslet? The actress was shocked and angry to discover that the magazine used photoshop to make her legs appear longer and leaner than they are in reality.

The problem is that extremely thin, airbrushed photos of models in magazines can cause serious body image issues and even trigger eating disorders, especially in tweens and teens.

As part of a campaign against eating disorders, French lawmakers are now considering a law that would force women’s magazines and other publications to disclose whenever a photo has been airbrushed.

The disclosure would state, “Photograph retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person.”

I generally like the idea, but I wonder about enforcing it – I assume they won’t be able to enforce it in foreign magazines, so French women and girls would still have access to magazines that do not disclose the fact that they retouch photos. Plus, how will they know for sure if a photo has been retouched?

An amusing thought – since as far as I can tell all magazine photos are airbrushed to some extent (even the Lizzie Miller Glamour photo seems somewhat retouched to get rid of cellulite or otherwise make the skin look smooth), it will be interesting to see each and every magazine photo having a little caption under it with the disclosure. Or maybe they’ll get away with a general disclosure, which won’t be very helpful anyway.

What do you think about this initiative? Important? Ridiculous? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Control a Woman Remote Control

by MomGrind

control_a_woman_remote

From the product description on Amazon:

“How many hours have you spent puzzling over the mystery of the wonder that is women? Now you need waste no more time understanding the strange phenomenon of the female species when you can control them, and all from the comfort of your arm chair.

Such life essentials as beer, sex and food are all available at a touch of the button. Not forgetting the all important mute button, because if she looks good why ruin it with those pesky opinions.

Our Control-a-woman is a truly life-enhancing gift, if only it worked. No batteries required – powered by positive thinking!”

—
Yes, it really does say that, right there in black and white on the Amazon page. And no, I don’t care if this is “just a joke” and I am in no way going to “lighten up” and laugh about it.

In contrast, the Amazon page for “Control a Man” remote does not feature insulting promotional text, and if you think it makes things “equal,” think again: while the “Control a Woman” remote is aimed at making a woman serve you, have sex with you and shut up, the “Control a Man” remote is aimed at making him propose, talk about his feelings, and buy you chocolate and flowers. This is easily one of the most stereotypical, gag-inducing products I have ever seen.

control_a_man_remote

One of the things that bothers me the most about humans, after their inherent cruelty, is the “gender wars.” It bothers me because I don’t see why we can’t see beyond each other’s sex and focus on each other’s humanity. The “female species?” How about the “human species.” We are not that different and as I said before on this blog, women are no mystery. The answer to the question “what do women want” is quite simple actually. We want exactly what men want. We want justice, equality and respect.

Patrick Swayze Can Finally Rest in Peace

by MomGrind

210247289_a06a2724cd_mPatrick Swayze died today.

I couldn’t stand the way tabloids and magazines showed photos of him over the last few months. Recent photos of the sick Patrick Swayze, battling pancreatic cancer, sunken faced and hollow eyed. Next to them, photos from his Dirty Dancing days, young and strong and vibrant and on top of the world.

Every time I stood at the supermarket checkout line, I would turn away from those photos, and wish that the media would JUST LEAVE HIM ALONE. But they didn’t, just like they didn’t leave Farrah Fawcett alone, just like they wouldn’t leave any of them alone.

Just like vultures, circling around the almost-dead, waiting patiently.

And social media wasn’t much better – rumors about Patrick Swayze’s death started circulating on Twitter long before he passed away.

Some argue that celebrities must accept this treatment by the media – that their fame and fortune must come at a price, and a big part of that price is loss of privacy. Perhaps they have a point. I still cringe whenever I see the typical media coverage of struggling celebrities – whether they struggle with illness, with weight gain, or with other personal issues such as betrayal or divorce.

Patrick Swayze cannot be hurt by the media anymore. May he rest in peace.

Photo by Alan Light

Obama’s Speech to Kids

by MomGrind

barack-obamaA couple of parents I know in real life have decided not to send their kids to school today, so that they won’t be subjected to the radical, shady content of Obama’s speech to school children.

They were not alone in this decision: many conservative parents were enraged over the idea that the president would use the back to school speech to “press a partisan political agenda on impressionable young minds” and to “spread [his] socialist ideology.”

I’m carefully reading through Obama’s speech to kids right now, looking for the “socialist,” “partisan” content that scared parents so much, and I just don’t see it.

Perhaps I’m naive, or maybe I need to work on my ability to better read between the lines, but all I see are important, encouraging messages about the importance of education, of personal responsibility and hard work; about how you need to learn from your failures and not let them define you; about asking for help when you need it; never giving up on yourself; and about your individual success being part of the nation’s success – wait, is that the radical part of the speech?

Even if you worry about what the president might say, how about taking this as an opportunity to teach your kids about critical thinking and free speech? How about telling your children that the president will give a speech, and they may be required to listen to it at school, and they may agree or disagree with the things he says and should politely express their opinion once the speech is over and the teacher opens it for discussion?

From Obama’s speech to kids: “Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.” And may I add, you are not afraid of other people’s opinions, because regardless of who they are and of who you are, you always get to form your own opinion and are entitled to freely express it.

Photo by marcn

Lizzie Miller in Glamour Magazine

by MomGrind

lizzie-millerA women’s magazine shows a non-airbrushed photo of a young, beautiful, size-12 woman, whose rounded belly looks just like an average woman’s belly, and the entire world holds its breath.

Women flood the magazine with tearful, grateful letters and emails, newspapers and blogs cover the story, and everyone is genuinely amazed: a women’s magazine printed a non-airbrushed photo of a non-skeletal woman and the world didn’t come to an end!

I’m glad they printed the photo. I’m glad women were able to see someone who looks like them presented as beautiful. I’m just as tired as anyone else of the crazy photoshopping going on in women’s magazines.

I’m also glad that women’s reaction to Ms. Miller’s photo, their huge relief and teary gratefulness upon seeing someone who looks like them, demonstrates once and for all that images in magazines do affect us and our expectations of ourselves and how we are “supposed” to look. Whoever claims that women should “know better,” and should ignore media portrayal of women, is either naive or stupid. We can’t ignore these images. They have power over us. They are poisoning us.

I can’t help but wonder, though. How did we allow ourselves to get to a place where a photo like this is so unusual, so extraordinary? How did we allow women’s magazines (by buying them and thus supporting them) to continue to feature page after page filled with skinny, young, perfect-looking models who are made even more “perfect” than they already are by ruthless photoshopping? And the thing that bugs me most: how did we allow the media to decide that an “attractive” woman must be stick thin, but have large breasts?

How did we allow all that to happen?

If we stopped buying fashion magazines, and women’s magazines, if we started sending angry letters the moment they started showing those ridiculous images, perhaps things wouldn’t have gone so out of control in the first place.

Obviously, this photo is just a start. A tiny step in the right direction. But this is all about money, and the huge publicity Glamour received from this photo pretty much guarantees that we are going to see more images like this one in the near future.

It’s about time.