Am I having a midlife crisis? As I approach the big 50 I find myself thinking more and more about my life. My body is different, I’m going through peri-menapause ( what is that all about!), my children are growing up and there is a lack of direction in my life. But I was also wondering about the UK. We are now no longer a part of Europe, have a general election coming up and have just endured another terrorist attack by a British born bomber. Is the UK in the middle of a midlife crisis too?
What does midlife crisis mean?
Midlife means the middle of one’s life. Crisis means ‘a decisive time’ or ‘time of difficulty or danger’. Midlife (according wikipedia) is the time from years 45–64, where a person is often evaluating his or her own life. This makes sense. Day-to-day stresses add up but it’s not really a crisis ( as in the second meaning) but more reflecting on what has gone before and what is to come. Although the modern idea of a particular kind of middle-age malaise goes back to Freud and Jung, the term “midlife crisis” was first used by Elliot Jaques in 1965, a Canadian psychoanalyst, who described how people entering middle age are confronted with the limitations of their life and their own mortality. Continue reading Am I having a midlife crisis or is the whole of the UK?→
I think I have quite a healthy body image. I’m not saying I would do a ‘Rhys Ifans’ (ie. posture in my pants for the cameras as he did in Notting Hill) but I do find myself saying ‘Not bad, not bad’ when catching a glimpse of my reflection.
Body image has nothing to do with how you look, but how you feel about the way you look and how you embrace and accept your own body.
If you have made lots of money on the stock market, in your business or even on the horses, what should you do with it? Invest it, spend it or give it away. If you give it away then you are a philanthropist. But what exactly does that mean?
The dictionary definition of philanthropy is
“the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes”
The Sunday Times devised a ‘Giving List of 2016‘ to showcase the people who give a percentage of their worth to good causes and the list is growing. People are ranked according to the percentage of the money they give away in relation to the amount of money that person is worth or has earned. So in the UK, the number one philanthropist is Lord David Sainsbury (great-grandson to the founder of the supermarket chain). He is worth £220.5 million and has given away 40% of his family wealth. Sir Elton John at number 10 has given away 10% of his wealth. Alisher Umanov (shareholder at Arsenal football club) worth £7580 million has given away £100 million which although is a huge amount is only equivalent to 1.41%.
The Queen ranks at number 166 giving only 0.3% of her wealth away. And Richard Branson was worse at number 173 giving away only 0.28%. There were also comparisons between sporting celebrities. Colin Montgomerie (golf) is worth £35 million and has given away £0.9 million whereas Andy Murray (tennis) who has £57 million has only given away £0.1 million.
Why should people give their money away?
This may seem unfair of me to be criticising people who are after all giving away their money. They earned it, why shouldn’t they keep it all or keep a lot of it. My question is how much do you need? And do you want to make a difference? Do you want to leave behind or start creating a philanthropic footprint? Something that makes a difference to others and will be remembered in history for ever.
As a follower on Twitter of the Gates Foundation (Bill and Melinda Gates) I see them give their money and time to raise awareness of many issues like poverty, education and medicine. The Polio vaccine that they fund through their foundation has saved 18,600 lives a day since 1990. The number of polio cases around the world is now just 36! They have almost eradicated polio. That is an amazing philanthropic footprint that they have created. Yes, they have the money and yes, they can’t spend it all but they are making a difference. They have a lot and obviously that helps. Bill Gates is worth $87 billion but has already given away $27 billion and pledged to give away at least half of all his worth.
Who is the most philanthropic person in the world?
Number one is Warren Buffet. A self-made billionaire who has joined the Giving Pledge. An idea created originally through talks between the Gates, Warren Buffet and other billionaires across the world to encourage the very rich to pledge to give away a considerable sum of their money. It was once thought of as common to talk about how much money one earned or had. Now the rich seem more open to discussing it, especially if it is measured in how you are helping others rather than how many Ferraris and houses you have. It can be no coincidence that the Sunday Times created this ‘Giving List’ on the back of the ‘Rich List’ that they do every year.
Warren Buffet has pledged to donate 99% of his wealth. His pledge says
“More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime or at death. Measured by dollars, this commitment is large. In a comparative sense, though, many individuals give more to others every day. Millions of people who regularly contribute to churches, schools, and other organizations thereby relinquish the use of funds that would otherwise benefit their own families. The dollars these people drop into a collection plate or give to United Way mean forgone movies, dinners out, or other personal pleasures. In contrast, my family and I will give up nothing we need or want by fulfilling this 99% pledge.”
I love his honesty. Keeping 1% of his worth still enables him and his family to continue the lifestyle he wants. He goes on to say about how time is a more precious commodity to give up than money and how generous some people are with this. You must read the pledges these billionaires have written. It makes me optimistic for the future where wealth can be shared to benefit all not just the few.
What did philanthropy look like a hundred years ago
If you want to leave a philanthropic footprint behind you, then take inspiration from this list of philanthropists from years ago. This is compiled by the Beacon awards who highlight work in this area.
Barney Hughes 1808-1878 (Belfast) Bernard Hughes worked as a bakers’ boy for 6 years and in 1870 was recognised as the cities’ leading baker. He was the owner of the largest baking enterprise in Ireland. His production supplied Belfast’s poorer population with much-needed cheap bread, particularly during the harsh years of the Great Famine. He gained the respect of the community as a municipal politician and industrial reformer, donating the ground for St Peter’s Cathedral.
George Cadbury 1839 – 1922 (Birmingham) George Cadbury, son of the founder of the chocolate factory, was driven by a passion for social reform. He wanted to create clean and sanitary conditions for his workers in contrast to the reality of factories in Victorian Britain. He set new standards for living and working conditions and gave the Bourneville estate to the Bourneville Village Trust in 1901. The trust was founded to develop the local community and its surroundings.
Sir Montague Maurice Burton 1885 – 1952 (Leeds) A Lithuanian immigrant with just £100 to his name, founded Burton, one of Britain’s largest clothing shop chains. He started a tailoring business with the philanthropic aim of clothing the entire male population in good quality, affordable suits. He enforced an unusually short working day for the time of 8 hours, and became one of the first to instill formal welfare provisions in the workplace, introducing food halls, leisure groups and activities such as theatre, dance and sports teams. The company works closely with Cancer Research UK funding research into bowel cancer. It has supported the Movember Prostate Charity Campaign with the ‘Burton’ moustache, modeled on the moustache of their founder.
It was a culmination of these points that sparked this blog.
Let me set the scene. It was half term last week and Friday was a glorious day. With the kids in tow, I met up with three of my close friends (we have our own acronym so we must be close or mad!) As always, when we get together, we begin to chat, forget about the kids and generally have a lovely time. We discussed Valentines day which we all decided should just be called Tuesday (normal day, no romance) and the film ‘Hidden Figures’ which focuses on an amazing group of black American women who helped the US win the space race.
Whilst gossiping away, my daughter who was eavesdropping, pulled a face when I mentioned my ‘girlfriends’. When questioned, she said the word was like ‘lesbian’. Now there is nothing wrong with the word ‘lesbian’ apart from that it describes a friendship which generally involves sex. I love my friends very much but have never (to my knowledge) ever wanted or tried to initiate sex with them.
But they are my girlfriends. They are the friends I talk to, the friends I turn to, the friends who I need to get through life, who happen to be girls. My daughter said we could rename ourselves as ‘besties’ (too similar to beasties) or G’s. Apparently shortening the word ‘girlfriend’ to a single letter makes it all ok. Who knew!
It made me wonder what word best describes the relationship I have with my close friends.
Most of us have heard of the word ‘bromance’. The concept of the bromance really took flight with the success of the Hangover trilogy films. And it’s been around for quite a long time. David Carnie, the editor of skate mag Big Brother first coined it – a portmanteau of “bro” and “romance” – in the ‘90s to describe the close friendships between pro-skaters.
There are many stories fictional and real of great male friendships: Sherlock and Watson; Lennon and McCartney; Ant and Dec; Batman and Robin. The Blues Brothers shows a great male friendship, while Reservoir Dogs shows what happens when they go wrong.
The word ‘bromance’ is in the english dictionary.
‘A bromance is a close but not sexual relationship between two men.’
The word ‘romance’ is also in the english dictionary. There are a few definitions.
‘A close, usually short relationship of love between two people.’
‘A feeling of excitement associated with love.’
So there must be a word for a close female friendship. There is but I bet you’ve never heard of it.
Yep, never heard of it until yesterday and then all of a sudden, like buses all arriving at once, there it is screaming out from the Sunday Times. It’s been around for a while but never really taken off which is probably why it’s not in the english dictionary. Maybe women are luckier than men. We can show our feelings and be tactile with our girlfriends without everyone thinking we are actually ‘girlfriends’. I’m not sure men can do the same.
We have a cultural problem, I think, where we’re scared by male friendship. A truly great friend feels like a brother or sister, someone you have actively chosen to be joined to and love no matter what they do. If two men love each other like that, we get all uncomfortable. Hence, the need for a word like ‘bromance’. This helps all men to know that they can describe their ‘non-sexual male friendship’ without reverting to mumblings and red faces or god forbid, having to talk about their feelings.
This still doesn’t help me though. I need a word that doesn’t belong to the pre-pubescent community or make my daughter and her friends pull sickening faces. Not ‘womance’. Anything that starts with the sound ‘wo’ can’t be good. We use it to tell an animal or person ‘woah’ (stop) or my life is full of ‘woe’. Neither define how I feel about the special women in my life.
But the words ‘soul sister’ do. Sisters because they are my family. And ‘soul’ because of the things we talk about at a deeper level, emotionally and intellectually. A love of the whole person, including the hidden part you can’t see. That is the essence of a ‘soul sister’. And it’s also in the dictionary.
‘A woman whose thoughts, feelings, and attitudes closely match those of another; a kindred spirit.’
Our quote is so much nicer than the men’s. Don’t you think?
So to my soul sisters everywhere. Below is a list of films which celebrate close female friendships and are fab films too! Get some of your soul sisters round and celebrate the romance. And maybe do it on a Tuesday.
Your name is an important piece of information about you. Something you are given at birth and (usually) keep until you die. Your name can have a profound effect on you as you grow and can influence how you feel about yourself and how others feel about you. If you don’t like your name or are embarrassed, it could damage your self-esteem and affect your future success. Which is probably why most parents take such care when they choose a name. Or do they?
How do parents choose their baby’s name?
There are a lot of traditions and customs across the world which are used to help choose the baby’s name. Many years ago sons and daughters were often named after their fathers and grandfathers. This tradition still continues. Johny Depp is actually John Christopher Depp II and his son is John Christopher Depp III. Donald Trump named his son Donald Trump Jr and his son is named Donald Trump III. This naming can carry on in some families for a long time. Usher (the American singer songwriter) is actually Usher Raymond IV and he named his son Usher Raymond V.
Other traditions include naming babies after family members, saints, people from holy books and historical Greek and Roman stories. In Indian mythology there are 330 million gods and goddess names to choose from. Some countries use the horoscope and the map of the planets and stars at the time of birth of their child to choose a name. In Indonesia the order of your birth determines your name. For instance, if you are the first-born, your name will be Wayan or Putu and if you are the second, it will be Made or Radek. American red indians would observe the nature or events around their teepee when their child was born. Names included running water, sitting bull and little dear.
Sharing a name with a famous person
These traditions continue but the rise of the ‘celebrity’ and their baby name choices influence many more parents these days. On the ‘Humans of New York’ Facebook page, ordinary ‘not famous’ people tell stories of how they share their name with a famous celebrity. They include Donald Trump, Beyoncé, Serena Williams, Victoria Beckham, Julia Roberts, Kate Middleton. Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney to name just a few. I’m reading ‘Charlotte Street’ by Danny Wallace (see Book Recommendations page) where the main character is Jason Priestley (remember Beverly Hills 90210). The story illustrates this point perfectly and although the humour adds to the read, I’m sure it wouldn’t feel quite so funny in real life.
These people talk about how annoying it is to share a famous name. You can’t be found on a website and for those with their own businesses they often have to change their name. It can be embarrassing when people meet you for the first time and repeat the same comments you have heard many times before, either singing the songs of their famous moniker or saying lines synonymous with a character. There is also the disappointment factor when the person hearing your famous name, meets you for the first time and realises you’re not them.
Some of the ‘sharing a famous name’ people spoke about how it can be an ice breaker and for the lucky Bill Clinton Gates who works in HR, it’s actually a big selling point for him and he attracts people because of his name.
Other ways of choosing a name
And then we get to the other ways of choosing a name. We may choose a name because it’s unique or it’s actually a mistake. My husband’s grandmother was called Estranna. A very unusual name for a child born in Wales at the turn of the century until you hear how she got that name. Her father went to register the birth of his daughter but not before he had celebrated in the local public house. In his drunken state he mouthed the words which sounded like Estranna but should have been Esther Anna.
A British study undertaken in 2010, Bounty.com, asked 3000 parents about the names they had chosen for their children. 20% regretted the choice they made, either because it was unusual or because it was spelt differently and it made it hard for their child and others to spell. It is obvious from a few forums that I looked at recently that there are quite a lot of people who don’t like their name and I can’t say I blame them. This list included Merry Christmas, Mayo Naise, Macarena Diab, Jack Haas and God Gazarov. Unique names, yes, but at a price.
Yet it seems that a lot of parents still want their child to have a name different to everyone else. Trying to find that unique name, the name no-one else has is not easy and even when you think you have found it, the chances are so has someone else. My sister-in-law named her son, Bailey. Very unique eleven years ago but even she commented that as soon she had named him she heard of another parent who had named their child the same. I wonder if this true for all names?
As I researched this, I found a list of ‘celebrities’ that have recently given their children unusual names. We have all heard of Apple and North West but what about these.
Bear – Kate Winslet (actress)
Sailor – Liv Tyler (actress)
Cricket – Busy Philips (actress)
Fox – Mark Owen (singer)
Sparrow – Nicole Ritchie (daughter of Lionel)
Striker – Nicola McClean (glamour model)
Audio Science (I’m not joking!) – Shannyn Sossamon (actress)
So is it true that you can name your child something unique and no-one else will have thought of the same? Well, it seems even the celebrities can’t make this happen. Sam Worthington (actor) and Jamie Oliver (chef) both chose the same name for their sons. What was it? Rocket. Either the lettuce variety or the thing that goes into space. You decide. After all it’s only a name.
The words ‘alternative facts’ are everywhere at the moment but a Washington Post reporter, Karen Tumulty, who is one of CNN’s reliable sources, said the words ‘alternative facts’ is a George Orwell phrase.
I would like to educate the Trumptons and reliable sources at CNN that the words ‘alternative facts’ is not a phrase that George Orwell has ever said. It does not appear anywhere in George Orwell’s novel ‘1984’ or his classic essay ‘Politics and the English language’.