Coffee Break: Manhattan Medium Leather Tote

99 Comments

1. I grew up attending catholic church, and enjoyed the community. Since leaving for college, I haven’t attended and am now agnostic. But as I think about raising kids, I’m sad that they will not grow up with that same sense of community (or maybe not any sense of community since we live in a large urban area). Has anyone found another organization with that same sense of community? Or has any started attending church again for that purpose? There is no way I’m returning to the catholic church. Ideas for other denominations to check out?

   1. Unitarian-Universalist churches can be a great source of community for agnostics or mixed faith families.

   2. I think Unitarian Universalist might be more up your ally as it is a “spiritual” church where members may be of multiple different faiths or of no faith. It’s more humanist + accepting of other beliefs.
      Some Methodist churches are similar to Catholic Church in terms of some rituals, but very different in terms of the belief system (much more liberal). I don’t encourage Methodist for you though, mainly because I think it’s incredibly disingenuous to join a faith community and pretend when you don’t have share even similar beliefs. It’s one thing to go when seeking answers about your faith or spirituality, but another thing to fake it for the bake sales and friends. You aren’t a part of that community because it is a faith community.

      1. My current faith community definitely encourages and even celebrates doubt. There are definitely agnostics that are members, and probably more than one atheist! Granted, we are Episcopalians, not Methodists, but the attitude that you are a Big Bad Faker if you come for bake sales and Sunday School was one of the many things that drove me out of the more conservative church where I grew up. I don’t believe, every day, in every word of the Nicene Creed. I always feel like I’m lying when I tell a street preacher that yes, I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior. But I’m welcome in my church and that is where I go.

         The concept of the three-legged stool is my very favorite (https://www.episcopalchurch.org/library/glossary/authority-sources-anglicanism) and I’m pretty high on the reason and tradition bits, not so much on Scripture.

         1. What do you mean by a street preacher? I don’t understand.

   3. I am an Episcopalian — the service has the same / similar rhythm as a mass and there are lost of ex-Catholics. You don’t need to convert or anything (although you can be confirmed / received as an adult if you wish) and you can take communion if you could in your church.

      1. When I joined my Episcopal church I took a new members class. Here was the breakdown of new members’ prior denominations:

         Former Catholic
         Former Catholic
         Former Catholic
         Former Catholic
         Former Catholic
         Former Lutheran
         Former Catholic
         Former Catholic
         Former Catholic
         Former Presbyterian (me)

         Check it out!

   4. I think the thing about church being a community is that you get out of it what you put in. My church is my community. I attend nearly every Sunday, contribute financially, and participate in volunteer activities. I do these things because of my sincere important genuine faith. It’s a real commitment, and without the faith aspect I think it’s hard to maintain the kind of investment that results in true community. If the church part doesn’t matter, you just won’t go. Sports will come up and birthday parties and beach days and it’s cold out etc etc.

   5. Episcopalian is a nice mix of the ceremonial and community aspects that will familiar to someone who grew up Catholic, but with progressive social values. My congregation has many, many ex-Catholics among the parishioners.

      1. This. My super catholic MIL even attends with us when she visits.

   6. I grew up in the SEUS in smaller city where you really had to be a member of a church or people thought you were weird. (Don’t really think people cared which church or what faith you were, just as long as you went to something.) Neither of my parents were religious, and we went to the Methodist church. Never felt uncomfortable and always had a great sense of community. I think this depends on the Methodist church– the one we went to had people ranging from ex-Southern Baptists to borderline agnostics– but it may be worth looking at.

      Also- -yes, I have not been a member of anything as an adult but am actually joining something currently so that our kids can have that type of community.

   7. I also grew up Catholic (including Catholic school from preschool through Freshman year of college). I left the church when I had my son and we joined an Episcopalian church that we really like and has a great community (and much better positions on women, reproductive rights, homosexuality, etc.).

   8. Another vote for the Episcopal Church. And I, too, belong to a congregation full of “Catholic refugees” as they call themselves. Many young families who joined for the same reasons you describe.

   9. I always say I gave up God but I couldn’t give up church, so I joined my local Rotary Club. We meet once a week, we sing songs, we do good works (our motto is “service above self”), and we have great parties. My Rotary Club is definitely my community.

      1. I really like that.

      2. I think that’s a great idea, but it doesn’t involve kids the way church does.

         1. I can see this working for someone who doesn’t want kids or who has grown kids, but it doesn’t fill the community feeling for a family.

            1. That’s true.

               Some people do kids’ sports of dance or scouting or similar as their community. When my son was young we were really into our martial arts school.

   10. I was in the same boat you are, after the 2016 election I realized I could no longer keep going to Catholic church and shrugging off the differences in their beliefs with my own.

       The Episcopal church has proved a perfect alternative. The services feel very Catholic, in that they are structured with the liturgy first and communion second, with hymns, prayers, and an hour-long service. But they’re much more socially and politically in line with my beliefs including: (1) permitting female clergy (2) supporting marriage equality (3) clergy can be married and have children and (4) generally having an attitude of, what you do and believe is between you and god. And yes, as others have said, there are many former Catholics.

   11. This thread (and the earlier question of birthday parties on Sunday mornings) is such a reminder that I live in a complete bubble. Apart from my Catholic in-laws, who live in another country, I do not know a single person that goes to any type of religious service outside of weddings and funerals. Am I a total outlier?

       1. Nope. We don’t know anyone who goes to church regularly, and I mean no one. I’m in the Desert Southwest.
          We found a sense of community and belonging at, of all places, the karate school my son and husband go to. The school has regular events for students and their families (potlucks and movie nights); we participate in belt tests and black belt weekends and tournaments, etc. and we get to know other families in the school system (which spans multiple states) and spend time together. The school has a common credo all the students agree to live by and a code of conduct they have to follow. There are songs the students sing together; classes involve philosophical talks about topics like “what does it mean to be an ethical person,” etc. My husband is a complete and total atheist (was raised Catholic) and I was raised with no formal religion but a strong sense of spirituality and a belief in God, which I still have. We did not want to raise our son in any religion but wanted to teach him ethics, morals and a strong sense of right and wrong. Our karate school has been instrumental in that for us. Just wanted to give the example to show, it doesn’t have to be a church that provides those things.

       2. Nope, I’m not sure I do either

       3. Not a single person? I’d say, yes, you’re probably an outlier. I don’t go regularly (at all, actually) and most of the people in my close circle (the circle doesn’t all know each other, it’s just MY random collage of people ;) ) don’t go regularly either. But one family (except dad) does and plenty others go on major holidays. There are definitely some that have quit going in the past few years because of the politics around women and the LGBT community, not to mention the various atrocities coming out of the Catholic church.

          1. I am Anon at 6:09 and didn’t mean that snarkily at all, by the way!

          2. If they do, they’re really quiet about it. I know some people who go more than a couple of times of year, but most of my circle is high holy days/Christmas/easter types. Sunday mornings are spent at brunch or with the paper.

             1. That’s me. I go to church often but I don’t talk to people about it

          3. Oh I read fast & missed the not on major religious holidays in my initial answer, but even then I’d say people are appeasing relatives more than they’re actively going. I’m also in a very liberal bubble where church going isn’t the dominant culture at all.

       4. Any type of religious service besides a wedding or a funeral… any religion… and you don’t know a single person? I believe you (at least if you mean people you know know), but it’s still hard for me to imagine.

          1. Not everyone lives where you live or has the friends you have.

             1. I’m from Boston and went to a very liberal, not religious university there, and even then knew a lot of people who went to church.

       5. I think you’re not in the US? But in the US, 80% of people identify as members of a religious faith and I think pretty much everyone who identifies as part of a religious faith has attended a non-wedding/funeral religious service at some point in their lives. So it seems kind of hard to me to know NOBODY who attends services at least occasionally.
          To give you one data point, I am upper middle class, very educated and my friends are almost 100% liberal and I’d say probably half of my friends attend religious services at least on holidays. If it matters, many are members of non-Christian religions and the participation in religion is more about culture than belief in God.

          1. Well, if I were asked on a poll if I’m a member of a religious faith, i would say yes. But if I were asked by someone if i attend church services regularly, I would say no, because I’m Wiccan and I don’t want to talk about it due the ridiculous way people react. and I doubt my services are what Christinas mean when they say “religious services” anyway.

          2. Once again:
             Not everyone lives where you live.
             Not everyone is like the people you know.
             The myopia here is astounding.
             Also, since we’re throwing out statistics? Only between 20 and 40 percent of Americans report going to church regularly; even church officials admit the number is probably closer to 20%. https://churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/139575-7-startling-facts-an-up-close-look-at-church-attendance-in-america.html

             1. “Attending church regularly” is completely different from “attending culturally important religious service on less than annual basis on major holiday.”

       6. I don’t know anyone that does either!

2. What is the general wisdom on iPhone insurance? It’s $12/month and then you still have to pay some amount as a co-pay to get anything fixed.

   1. I’ve always voted no. I’ve cracked screens a couple of times, but I’ve always just left it, or paid out of pocket to replace (which is less than $100 generally). I’m normally a big insurance proponent, but not for this situation.

   2. I got AppleCare (+ I think?) and then just counted on the fact that I’d have to replace my phone if I lost or broke it. AppleCare was great to replace a couple of cracked screens (yes, I finally changed cases) and the battery (though I think that was a warranty thing, not AppleCare coverage).

      1. Edited to add: I used to love SquareTrade but the last couple of times I’ve looked at it the pricing doesn’t make sense compared to AppleCare or going without. Definitely check it out if you’re looking at insurance, though.

   3. I do it, but I’m not sure it makes sense. My husband insists that it doesn’t and says he’s self-insured for cellphones. He’s also a responsible grown up who doesn’t constantly break things. Unlike me.

   4. If you’re careless with your things and can’t save money, go for it.

      1. Wow way to be an ahole.

         1. Eh, it’s kinda correct…

3. My team has to wear branded shirts to a meeting next week. We have a lot of flexible to order whatever shirts we want, and then have them embroidered/screenprinted with our company logo. We’re in a place where it’s going to be 85+ degrees tomorrow – so no quarter zips, which is my usual go-to. What would be your choice- do you have a specific flattering polo shirt or cardigan or something branded that you’ve received that’s your favorite to wear?

   1. If it’s going to be 85 plus just order any old polo. You can think too much about things.

   2. 100 percent Egyptian Cotton Polo (3 button) with loose fitting arms, KK!!!! You do not want to sweat your tuchus off (and you do want dry arm pits on a day like tomorrow, at least if you will have men at the meeting).

   3. I loathe branded clothing in all its forms, so I’d be profoundly tempted to wear the fleece I have, especially if I were going to be indoors. But if you’re outside and sleeveless is appropriate, I’d probably pickup a sleeveless button up or popover blouse in a technical fabric. Columbia and LL Bean both have some options.

   4. At that temperate, I would just want a t-shirt. But make sure that you can order in fitted women’s sizes, and not just the unfitted men’s sizes

      1. So much yes. My husband has more shirts with my firm logo on them than I would care to admit.

   5. For the love of God just try to order something that fits each person. If you can’t gather their sizes, at least take the time guess. I wear a women’s medium in real life. That XLarge Mens tee shirt that is often ordered as the default size is going to be too baggy around the shoulders and bunch up around my hips, making me look sloppy and feel gross.

   6. Brooks Brothers non-iron button downs are my go to for this type of event. I hate wearing logo wear, but at least the shirts are well made and fit well.

   7. I like my half-zip better than any other logo item. If it’s hot, I wear a solid color tshirt topped with the half zip. Then take the half-zip off and tie around my waist or over my shoulders.

   8. Women’s fitted nike golf – dry fit

4. Went and got my first round of the HPV vaccine today. It’s worth considering if you haven’t had the vaccine and are <45. I hesitate to say this because it sounds a little Debbie Downer, but being in a monogamous relationship/marriage now doesn't mean you will be at 46.

   1. Thanks for the PSA. Although I will add that the vaccine is available to women over 45, it’s just not covered by insurance. So in a situation where you find yourself divorced or widowed at an older age, you can still get the vaccine before gardening with a new partner, you’ll just have to pay out of pocket.

      1. Actually a lot of insurances won’t cover it for older adults who are under 45, either. I was just researching it, and there really aren’t clear recommendations about who should bother getting it, but I saw one doctor saying that she wouldn’t recommend it for older adults who had had any more than 4 lifetime s3xual partners. Beyond that, it’s just assumed you have already been exposed–which is why so many insurers won’t cover it.

         Out of pocket I saw quoted $250 per shot, and you need 3 total.

         1. That’s interesting – I’ve had more than 4 partners (although I always used cond0ms with all but my husband) and am 34 and married, but my doctor encouraged me to get it (and it was covered by insurance) based on the fact that my HPV tests have all been negative. I don’t know if the test is perfect or not (I definitely thought it wasn’t) but my doctor seemed to think the tests strongly suggest I don’t have it, so the shot was worthwhile. It does seem to be very dependent on your doctor and insurance though.

            1. My understanding is that the tests are not reliable. That’s why they’ve been using age and number of partners as a proxy for exposure rather than just going by test results. Overall it seems frustratingly unclear.

               Also, the vaccine does not protect against all dangerous strains of the virus.

            2. HPV can be transmitted with condoms and typically paps do not check for HPV unless you have an abnormal result.

            3. At least in the US, after age 30, it’s standard to do a pap + HPV test, even if the woman has never had an abnormal pap. Most doctors do it every five years (assuming results are always negative/normal) but I think insurance covers it every three. I’ve never had an abnormal pap and have definitely had two (negative) HPV tests so far.

         2. There are actually some new guidelines from the CDC: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/06/26/new-hpv-vaccine-recommendation-people-through-age/?utm_term=.228cdf29e38b. While it’s not the right decision for everyone in every circumstance, I would push back on a doctor who said she wouldn’t recommend it for anyone with more than four sexual partners. That seems pretty arbitrary since, while it wouldn’t protect against strains you’ve already been exposed to, it would still protect against the other strains (it protects against 9 total).

            The vaccine may be available to women over 45, but it’s only FDA-approved for individuals up to 45.

            1. +1 Basically everyone who is sexually active has HPV of some sort. But not basically everyone has the ones that are bad for cervical cancer. I’m almost sure (because I am regularly screened for all sorts of things and because I am sexually active but not married or currently coupled) that there is not a test for whether you have HPV at all and certainly not which strains of it UNTIL you have an abnormal pap. There is no guarantee you’ll ever get an abnormal pap from which to diagnose it. Bottom line: if it were me, I’d get it if I were insured, even if I were married. (I had the first shot when it came out and I was 26.9, so, covered! Yay!) I have since had abnormal paps but none have come back positive for the problematic HPV strains.

            2. Wait, wait. I’m Anon at 5:48 and just reread that. It seems impossible that one could get cervical cancer without an abnormal pap. I think the basic point and logic still applies, though.

            3. I am tested for the problematic/cancer related strains every year at my pap. So yes, there is a test. You don’t have to wait for an abnormal pap.

   2. I am under 40 and did not know this. I will request my OBGYN to get me these shot’s. Unfortunately, I thought I was safe b/c all the men who I had s3x wore condoms at my insistence but now I am reading that this does NOT help?!? I wish there was someone who told me b/c I would have done things differently with these guys who I had s3x with. FOOEY!

   3. And even if you stay in one faithful relationship until you die, HPV is an alarmingly hardy virus and can be transmitted by some medical equipment. Get your shots! :)

5. Thoughts on last night’s debate?

   1. Who even is Tim Ryan? Are we sure he isn’t Paul Ryan in disguise?

      1. Ha!

   2. Ugh I thought it was a trainwreck. Beto especially was so unimpressive (I wasn’t a big fan going in though, admittedly). The only person who really impressed me on stage last night was Elizabeth Warren and I think she’s incredibly unelectable in a general election (IMO, she has basically all the same factors against electability that HIllary did, with the additional downside of being too far left to appeal to moderate Rs who dislike Trump). I am personally most enthusiastic about Kamala and Pete, so I’m excited for tonight’s debate.

      1. I’m curious as to why you think warren is unelectable but Harris isn’t? I don’t want to discount the role of sexism generally, but I thought part of Hillary’s problem was an undermotived left and white working class that saw her as the corporate/institutional status quo. I’m not sure you get that particular problem with Warren. To put it another way, I can see warren’s message resonating with the blue collar working class AND Bernie bros, which seems like it would make her better off than Hillary. If it’s just sexism, I’m not sure how Harris is electable either. Unless you would argue that Harris’s prosecutorial experience lends a sort of toughness that serves as a proxy for “masculinity.” Which is an idea that’s really interesting to me.

         1. I think the white working class that didn’t vote for Hillary wasn’t “undermotivated” – I think it voted for Trump. Finding a way to get the WWC past a reflexive dislike for “socialism” and strong social conservatism is very hard, and personally I don’t think it’s a winning strategy. Biden could make headway with that community because he’s not viewed as being super left, but I don’t believe that Bernie or Warren can. And I don’t think that there are enough undermotivated lefty voters to outweigh the WWC in any case. I think that Warren and Bernie are ultimately going to be classic examples of candidates that have strong appeal to ideologically committed voters in the primary, but can’t win a general.

            My view is that Harris is significantly more electable. I was thinking about why, and I do think it’s (as you put it) that I think her history as a prosecutor is sort of a proxy for masculinity in the mind of a certain type of voter. I think it also helps her avoid some of the racist assumption that a black candidate will be “soft on crime.”

         2. I don’t know that Harris the most electable choice, but I do think Harris is way more electable than Warren.

            1. The African American vote is really important to putting a D in the White House and she would presumably turn that out way better
            2. She’s younger and way more conventionally attractive (yes, this is wildly sexist, but so is America)
            3. And yeah, basically what you said about prosecutorial toughness being a proxy for masculinity. Not saying Warren (and Hillary) aren’t tough, and they are both attorneys too, but I think Trump sort of gets under their skin, or at least appears to, in a way he wouldn’t with Harris. I really don’t like that Warren already sort of engaged with him on the Pochantas thing by doing the DNA test. I don’t see Kamala doing something like that. I also think Trump would be way more flustered by her (probably in part because of the prosecutor thing) than he is by either Warren or Clinton.

            You’re probably right that Warren would do a better job at turning out progressives than Clinton did, although I’m not even sure about that. Most dedicated Bernie supporters I know have already viciously turned on Warren, probably because they see her as the biggest threat to his candidacy. Whether that would change if she became the nominee, I don’t know. Probably if he endorsed her without looking like someone was holding a gun to his head, his supporters would be more enthusiastic about her than they were about Hillary but that’s kind of a low bar.

            1. Trump will also be way more flustered by her because of the conventional attractiveness.

            2. Yes, that too. And I think young attractive women can better get away with behavior (eg, snarky facial expressions, biting retorts) that would make people label an older, frumpier women as a hag or a b word. Again, I hate all this language and am aware how sexist this sounds, but I believe it’s the truth.

            3. Thank you anon and cbackson. You both make great points. I will confess that I’d love to see Harris debate trump and that’s a good point about how he doesn’t rattle her.

               There is also something to sexism where a baby boomer generation female politician “feels”like Hillary part 2 even if her policy and her message differs. It’s awful but I get it.

               Also I guess I discounted the African American vote because i thought that while aa women turned out for Hillary, aa men didn’t. And I’m somehow skeptical they’d turn out for Harris, but I can’t articulate why. Maybe because an aa president is no longer a historic event?

            4. Harris’s prosecutorial experience may help with racist whites who think that she would otherwise be soft on crime, but there is a non-insignificant amount of backlash in black communities and on black media that she is part of the prison industrial complex that has intentionally imprisoned large swaths of the black community in service to white supremacy. Her path forward in black communities is not a lock — while she is good looking, she is only half black and we have already done the half black presidency thing, so her blackness does not make her a lock.

               I say that as a black woman who aligns with her on a number of positions — reading the discussion of her candidacy in black spaces, her candidacy is not bulletproof…

         3. I thought Hillary’s problem was that people have been hating on her hard since the 90’s. It was a pretty big hurdle to overcome. It wasn’t just sexism.

            1. Yeah, people have been hating on her hard since the 90’s for overwhelming sexist reasons.

   3. I was offended that candidates spoke in Spanish. Hate on me all you want, but I found it pandering,,rude, and insensitive.

      1. Me too. Especially since their Spanish was pretty terrible and sounded like they’d memorized some sentences to say, not like they were actually conversing in the language.

         1. Julian Castro is fluent in Spanish. What are you talking about.

      2. Did you feel the same about Castro? Beto and Booker, yeah, totally.

6. So cute, this tote but frugality is the name of the game for me these days, b/c I need to show men that I have a head on my shoulders and am not a spendthrift, Grandma Trudy says, and I will follow her advise! YAY!!!

7. I just want to say thanks to whoever started this morning’s childhood books thread – it was so fun reading everyone’s responses!

   1. Agree! That was a fun one to just go through. For those who mentioned the American Girl books, there’s a now a podcast out (American Girls) of two women who are going through the book and discuss them contemporaneously. They just started on the Josefina series, so they’re only about 6-8 episodes in. They’re a little irreverent, so be aware, but they made some connections between Josefina Learns a Lesson and Full House, so that’s a clue about the kind of discussions happening haha

      1. This makes me feel so old because Josefina was not even a doll when I was kid. The podcast sounds interesting though.

      2. Oooh, that sounds super interesting actually! Thank you for the rec!

   2. Yes! Very fun!! Thank you!

8. I’m genuinely terrified by how Trump has brainwashed his supporters into believing the situation at the border is Democrats’ fault. I know a lot of Republicans (mostly Catholics) who are as horrified by what’s going on as I am, but they have bought the Trump/Fox party line that Democrats alone are responsible and poor Trump is helpless about the whole thing, even though he’s the President and head of the executive branch which includes CBP and ICE. I know it’s not news that his supporters are basically a cult but this feels like a different level of brainwashing to me. I feel like he could literally start gassing people like Hitler did and his supporters would still find a way to blame Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

   1. What are you expecting in response to this?

   2. I’m sorry but I agree with you. The other scary part is that every republican is on board with it. Not a single one will speak up. Oh and Supreme Court just said Republicans can cheat in elections so they’re never going to go away.

   3. It would behoove you to understand why conservatives think (actual thinking, not brainwashing) that Democrats own this. I’m not going to explain it to you; it’s your job as a voting adult to figure out why tens of millions of thoughtful, rational adults have a different viewpoint.

      If they are wrong, then you can articulate why without resorting to childish insults. If they have a point, then you can either effect change on your own side, or you can better explain to them how this should have been handled.

      1. Nope. Even if you believe Democrats need to be tougher on illegal immigration (which I don’t necessarily disagree with, fwiw) it is fact that Trump and Republicans are putting children in concentration camps as a negotiating tactic. Trump could change this situation in an instant with the lifting of a pen, therefore he owns this is in a way Democrats don’t. And I understand perfectly why you refuse to acknowledge that. Tens of millions of Americans are wildly racist and/or incredibly stupid.

      2. There is no good faith argument for torturing children and you know it. 45 campaigned on cruelty and towards these people and he delivered it in spades. That is in no way the fault of the people who tried to stop him.

      3. The Democrats “own” the immigration problem because the Republican Party refused all attempts to resolve it when Obama was President. Remember the bipartisan Gang of Whatever that tried to do immigration reform? I believe John McCain was on it.

         But the Republican Congress squashed that attempt. So yeah, it’s the Democrat’s fault. It’s also their fault that currently, Mitch McConnell is pretty much refusing to bring to a vote in the senate any legislation that the House (majority Democratic) has passed.

         When the republicans refuse to do their job, it’s always the Democrat’s fault. Interesting how that works. I guess it’s also the Democrat’s fault because they refuse to consider “solutions” that include punishing children because you don’t like what their parents are doing.

         1. Preach

      4. Thank you for trying to be the adult in the room ?
         I must admit I’m very disappointed to see this post become so horribly dysfunctional. I enjoy a good political debate but this has turned into a series of name-calling and insults which is beneath the typical corporette crowd. Impassioned debates do not have to include such nonsense and shouldn’t when among intelligent, well-educated women.

         1. Thanks for the tone policing.
            Maybe consider that others don’t necessarily care, or have to follow, your opinion about what constitutes “nonsense” or poor debate.

Comments are closed.