It's been a quiet week.
Actually, the exact opposite is true.
Blog-wise, I've been substituting articles for actual original content, but you've already noticed that.
Life-wise, I've been making more calls to Mom asking her advice than I have in a long time. I hate that there are no right answers. I hate uncertainty. I hate it when people can't communicate. So this has all been really fun. It's not one thing. It's all the things.
There is so much potential in a specific situation (which I am overjoyed about), and I'm worried that the slightest movement in the wrong direction could jeopardize everything. There's been a lot of exterior pressure on this specific situation and I can tell that it's starting to affect things. Honestly, I much prefer agonizing over my every move rather than agonizing over what else could be screwing this up. It's cloudy territory and I'm in a position where I could be really hurt. I seriously do not want that to happen and will do everything in my power to prevent it. (This is why actually liking the people you date is problematic. The potential for pain is not pleasant.)
On the plus side, tomorrow will find me driving Frank (Mike's car) up to the mountains. And then I will slide down the face of the mountain on my various body parts. It's going to be excellent. Em's going up with another group, so I'm thinking I will trade the greens for blues. Someone text me at 5am and remind me to bring ibuprofen.
I'm also going to a birthday party for one of the little girls I babysit. I'm excited. I still need to find her a present - I think I want to get her temporary tattoos. The little girls love them. Ever since we had the conversation about tattoos before I went swimming with them this summer, I've laughed every time I think about the middle one saying, "Mommy doesn't let us have the kind that stays on forever," when I offered her a temporary one from my car. I'm so lucky that I get to be a babysitter. I'm also so lucky I found this family - I seriously adore these people.
Mickey Avalon is in town tomorrow night. I have a feeling that this show will either be the biggest letdown ever or the best experience of my life. There is no middle ground. It's definitely going to be an adventure. I'm excited.
Okay, million dollar idea of the day (other than Wine-Away, which removes the horrid wine stains from your lips before your 8am meeting, I don't have much in that department): personal Google. I want to Google: "Do I own a VHS copy of Better Off Dead? Did I leave it in Chicago?" or perhaps "Where is my black mini skirt?" Both of those are seriously necessary queries. (If you've seen my black mini skirt, shoot me an email. I'm lacking sex appeal like mad and it's all with that skirt!) If Google could just index all of my things and ideas and then just know where they are or what they were, I'd be such a better person. I'd be on time for work every day because it would know where my keys and phone are.
I'm wanting to make K watch Better Off Dead tonight. We were going to go down to the Parade of Lights, but I can see how that might not materialize as a solid plan. The early morning mountain trek precludes participants from partying heavily the night before, and if I am stuck downtown, I will naturally wander into a bar and commence adventuring. (I can't help it. Adventure finds me, I swear.) So perhaps I'll suggest quiet dinner and a movie? But does that make me/us lame? (Of course not, I'm Katie Barry and this kid's got chutzpah to match - in a good way, not like traditional Hebrew-ish.)
I've been reading a website dedicated to black women. At times, I find it surprisingly boring - just like Cosmo stopped holding my interest when I was like 17 [secret confession: I bought one this month to read in the bathtub] - but there times when I can't look away. I keep thinking, why can't this be a multi-cultural site? But then I realize that most "multi-cultural" sites are totally in white-gaze and don't even take into account multi-racial perspectives. Whatever. I've been reading about what I shouldn't bring up in relationships (oops), which friends are toxic (ha, we already knew the answer to that), etc. It's addicting. I mean, who doesn't want to know the "7 Insecurities All Women Have in Relationships"? I do.
I've been being way too over-analytical lately. I can't stop trying to put sociology on everything I see. It's like my brain is turned on by the thought of grad school and so has started to work again, but instead of limiting its processing to normal work hours, I've had the urge to start deconstructing everything I see, hear, or read. If only I could channel all of this and get to work on my application, we'd be in business. I was so productive this week at work. Seriously. Overdrive. This is good.
Happy Friday, world. I hope you're all loving your beautiful selves this weekend. I most certainly am.
Friday, December 02, 2011
On Working Moms
Working Moms Multitask, And Stress, More Than Dads
Allison Long/MCT /Landov
A Kansas City family prepares a meal together. A new study finds that working mothers log more hours — and get more stressed — than working fathers while multitasking at home. (This family wasn't part of the research.)
A new study in the December issue of the American Sociological Review comes up with some findings that lots of women may feel they already know too much about: Working mothers spend significantly more time multitasking at home than working dads. And those mothers aren't happy about it.
Researchers from Bar-Ilan University in Israel and Michigan State University looked at 368 working mothers and 241 fathers who worked outside the home. Turns out, the women were on overdrive, with some even describing the hours between 5 and 8 p.m. as the "arsenic hours."
"The first thing they had to start worrying about is getting dinner, interfacing with their kids, getting done all the housework chores," says sociologist Barbara Schneider with Michigan State University, who co-authored the study. "You could see from the data all the stresses and strains they felt as they walked in the door, and all the tasks" they felt they had to accomplish during those early-evening hours.
The working parents in the study wore watches that beeped randomly seven times throughout the day. Researchers wanted to know how much they were multitasking. So, after the beep, the men and women filled out forms that described what they were doing, what "else" they were doing, and whether they were happy, stressed or wished they were doing something else.
After gathering all the information, the researchers found that working mothers spent 10.5 more hours every week on multitasking compared with working fathers — typical chores like preparing dinner, doing laundry, maybe even doing some work brought home from the office, while also talking with their child and helping with homework.
Fathers, on the other hand, did a different kind of juggling. "When they're multitasking, it tends to be more work related — so they might be answering a work call" while spending time with the kids, Schneider says.
As a result, Schneider says, the women reported much greater feelings of stress and being overwhelmed than the men reported. The men reported feeling pleased with their multitasking.
Psychologist Russell Poldrack, of the University of Texas at Austin, studies how our brains make decisions and process information. He says there's a big difference between multitasking in the short term — answering the phone while driving, for example — versus multitasking over a number of hours, like the mothers in this study. These mothers were likely overloading their "working memory," he says.
"Our brains can only hold so much information in working memory, and when we get overloaded, a different set of systems turns on in the brain — chemical systems that are actually related to the stress response," says Poldrack. "And the neurons in our prefrontal cortex lose the ability to hold information in the same way that they can when we're not stressed out."
Understanding the biology behind being frazzled may not be much comfort to the average over-stressed working mother.
Which is why researcher Barbara Schneider suggests some big changes. While men in the study worked longer hours on the job outside the home than women, Schneider says, employers could be more creative in scheduling, giving men more flexible hours and more time at home so that child care and household chores can be more equitably divided.
Source: NPR
Thursday, December 01, 2011
On an article that made me laugh
By JOSH GONDELMAN
Guys, we all know that what women say they want is different from what they actually need. Sure they might say they want a nice guy or a chance to study yoga in India, but that’s just a cover up for deeper needs that they usually won’t admit to. Fellas, no matter what ladies say, the things they need most are food, shelter, and potable drinking water.
Seriously, women need food. Sometimes they may want to eat salad. Sometimes they may want to eat sloppy joes. It doesn’t matter. Without food, women will physically die. Literally, they will stop living. Food contains nutrients such as Vitamin C and Riboflavin that women need to survive. So when a woman says she wants a good listener, know that the subtext is that she needs potassium to live. She also needs a ton of other vitamins and minerals that she’ll “conveniently” never mention to you. There’s glucose in food that the mitochondria in her cells need to produce adenosine triphosphate so she can move around and stuff. These are things that you’re just expected to know. It’s 2011, guys, and women don’t want to be with someone that doesn’t understand that.
But food alone can’t fulfill a woman. Not kale, and not even chocolate. It’s not like the comic strip Cathy. Women in this day and age need more. Like shelter. Seriously, dudes. Women need shelter from the elements. They can’t just live on a hammock or in a pillow fort. They’ll get sick. Women need walls. They need roofs. I’m not saying you need to provide those for them, but if a woman is trying to find shelter, and you stand in her way, you’re being a jerk. It’s not the prehistoric era anymore. You can’t just drag a woman back to your cave by the hair. First of all, that’s assault. Secondly, a cave does not provide adequate protection from rain, wind, and large predatory animals. Why are you even living in a cave? That’s insane. Get with the program.
Finally, women need potable drinking water. As a guy, you’re probably like: “I’ll drink any water, regardless of the toxins it may contain. Who cares if it is radioactive or full of the ebola virus?” Women aren’t like that. When they say potable drinking water, they really mean it. If you say your drinking water is potable, and it isn’t, a woman will know. She’s not going to write off that flesh eating bacteria or radiation poisoning as fun or cute. Be a man. Face facts. It is not too much for a woman in this day and age to ask for water that she can drink that will hydrate her with little to no crippling physical side effects.
Don’t go crazy trying to meet these needs for a woman right away. If you just met someone and all of a sudden you’re digging her a well or building her a wigwam, you’re probably coming on a little strong. Start small. Maybe with a sandwich (food) or a glass of water (water). Plus, given that women under thirty are now earning as much as men of the same age, they are likely to have addressed these needs on their own. Don’t just assume that a woman is lacking a sturdy residence. Listen to her. Just know, that there are certain things that may go unsaid.
Look, when you meet a woman, and she tells you that she wants someone to build a future with or to find an internship in San Diego so she can be near her family, be aware that there are some deeper issues she’s not addressing. On a basic level, if you’re standing in the way of her ability to secure food, shelter, or potable drinking water, then all the backrubs in the world aren’t going to make this work.
Sorry, bros. That’s just how it is.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
On Afghan Acid Attacks...
One of the biggest issues facing our planet is women's rights. It won't stop being an issue. We can't stop the fight for education; independence; equality.
This goes beyond women's rights - which are often neglected after revolutions. Globally, we need to redefine our definitions of masculinity. We need to reinforce that violence (in all forms) has negative consequences. We need to start discussions about the negative impacts of violence on our communities.
I applaud the parents of this young woman for making the choice to refuse the man who asked for her hand in marriage. It's a shame that their strength was answered with violence. I hope that they find the support they need in their community.
Afghan woman attacked with acid after refusing marriage
KUNDUZ, Afghanistan |
(Reuters) - An Afghan family who refused to give their daughter in marriage to a man they considered irresponsible were attacked at home by unknown gunmen who beat the father and then poured acid over both parents and three children, officials said Wednesday.
Eighteen-year-old Mumtaz, the oldest daughter, had been pursued by a local gunmen who the family considered a troublemaker and bully. With her parents support, she turned him down and instead got engaged to a relative.
A few weeks later, six or seven armed men burst into their home in the Bulk Awal area of the northern Kunduz city -- the largest in the region -- in the middle of the night.
"First they beat her father and then they attacked with acid," said Mumtaz's mother, who asked not to be identified.
All five are now receiving medical treatment, said Abdul Shokor Rahimi, head of the Kunduz regional hospital.
"The father and oldest daughter are in critical condition as they have been attacked all over the body," Rahimi said.
"Their mother and two daughters who are 14 and 13 have some wounds only in hands and faces."
Ghulam Mohammad Farhad, the senior police detective for Kunduz, promised to track down the attackers, who he called immoral and irresponsible.
"We have started an investigation and those who have attacked them will be prosecuted," he told reporters.
Acid is used intermittently as a weapon in Afghanistan, but not always against women. In the conservative, and Taliban influenced south and east, it has been thrown at girls attending schools.
With foreign combat troops set to return home by the end of 2014, some activists inside and outside Afghanistan fear that women's rights may be sacrificed in the scramble to ensure the West leaves behind a relatively stable state.
Men have also been targeted with acid.
In January, veteran Afghan journalist Abdul Razaq Mamon, a presenter, commentator and author, was left with burns to his hands and face after acid was thrown at him in Kabul.
Officials said that attack may have been politically motivated.
(Reporting by Mohammad Hamid, Writing by Mirwais Harooni; Editing by Emma Graham-Harrisonand Yoko Nishikawa)
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
On Dear Margo and other things...
"Dear Margo" really pissed me off today. (Great, Katie, now even mature women are offending you? Actually, yes.)
It deals with the word "slut" (among other things). While I don't particularly care for the word itself, and thus I have no desire to in any way "reclaim" it, I do see the word as one of the biggest obstacles to overcoming the stigmas surrounding female sexuality.
Margo reminds the writer that this is not a new behavior - a reminder for which I am grateful; this is in no way new behavior and shouldn't be treated as such - yet she reinforces the negative connotation of words such as "loose" and "sluts," going so far as to imply that these woman who are participating in "friends with benefits" relationships have venereal diseases.
This irks me for multiple reasons, but let's start with the most obvious. Saying that a venereal disease is a price to pay for loose behavior is way off the mark. Sex does not equal disease. More sex does not equal more disease. Sexually transmitted infections and diseases have existed for most of history. They don't just belong to women (who get screwed, literally, because their anatomy is more receptive to diseases). They are spread by any number of people in any number of different ways. While people who have a higher number of sexual partners may have more opportunity to come in contact with more diseases, that is not always the case. Anyone engaging in sexual activity should regularly take the responsibility to seek medical attention (including preemptive care like obtaining birth control pills and STI testing). Some people contract something the first time they have sex. Some people never do. Having a casual sex relationship - "friends with benefits" - does not imply dangerous sexual practices. The rates of sexual infection are through the roof in so many demographics. Someone you know has one, and, for all you know, so do you. The only way to be sure is to be tested regularly and be honest with your partners. Trust me, they'll respect you for it. (While you're at it, don't forget to get your HIV test!)
Secondly, Margo focuses on the women. It is interesting to me that both the writer and respondent think that the issue of "friends with benefits" implies a lack of morals on the woman's part, yet not on the man's. So it's perfectly fine for men to engage in this sort of behavior while women are shamed for doing exactly the same? Are we socially regressing? Seriously? Did this year's SlutWalks teach you nothing? Women walk this terrifying line between progressive sexual freedom and the social sanctions they face for embracing and "owning" their sexuality. Trust me, I get a lot of flack for being so outspoken. There are a lot of incorrect assumptions made about who I am as a woman because of it. Just because you're pro-sex or sex positive does not make you a floozy. It means you're informed (hopefully).
Finally, I take issue with Margo saying that this behavior is sanctioned, when in fact, it isn't. Her tone proves that much. Again, the double-standard for sexual behavior is still alive and well. Men are allowed to have certain desires and act on them, yet women are shamed for either having desires or acting on them. As far as I see it, there's no reason to walk to the purity line if my husband/future partner won't be expected to do the same. That said, there's nothing wrong with making any of those choices - for purity, for modesty, etc. Sexuality is a gift, and it shouldn't be used recklessly. There is something to be admired about the sanctity of any sexual relationship; many of those "friends with benefits" relationships also contain the elements of respect, admiration, and companionship that are mutually satisfying for both partners involved.
But are those relationships socially sanctioned? No, at least not for the female participants. We still use derogatory language when referring to girls exploring their sexuality; we still put men down by calling them feminine names; we still objectify women; we reinforce beauty as a means of success. We are doing nothing but reinforcing antiquated power structures through our subtle expressions of disapproval of what acceptable female behavior can or cannot be.
When the writer of the letter says, "It sounds wonderful. I can have sex and do nothing for her in return," he is completely forgetting that any "friends with benefits" relationship is a relationship just like any other. Things that keep relationships alive? Mutual satisfaction. Trust. Respect. Communication. Things he doesn't seem capable of providing.
It deals with the word "slut" (among other things). While I don't particularly care for the word itself, and thus I have no desire to in any way "reclaim" it, I do see the word as one of the biggest obstacles to overcoming the stigmas surrounding female sexuality.
Dear Margo: I often see references in your column (and elsewhere) to "friends with benefits." Where can I find a woman like this? It sounds wonderful. I can have sex and do nothing for her in return. When did this "friends with benefits" start? When I was a young man, we used to call those women sluts. So today we rename the sluts, and they fall for it. I wish I were 30 years younger. I could use a friend with benefits. —John from Essex
Dear John: Thanks for the laugh. Your sly take on this subject is most likely shared by everyone who is middle-aged. My guess is that this new casual approach to what used to be something meaningful is post-sexual revolution, if not post-post-sexual revolution. Somehow the kids went off the rails and decided sex was just something to do ... you know, like a video game or playing darts. The women you call "sluts" I would call "loose," and they have been around forever. That behavior, however, was not sanctioned, as it is now; there was usually a reputational price to pay, if not a venereal disease. (Those are still possible, by the way!) Around the 1780s, Count Talleyrand observed: "In order to avoid being called a flirt, she always yielded easily." So you see, dear, the activity has remained the same; only the name has changed. —Margo, historically
Read more:Dear Margo - The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/dearmargo#ixzz1f7enXBCX
This irks me for multiple reasons, but let's start with the most obvious. Saying that a venereal disease is a price to pay for loose behavior is way off the mark. Sex does not equal disease. More sex does not equal more disease. Sexually transmitted infections and diseases have existed for most of history. They don't just belong to women (who get screwed, literally, because their anatomy is more receptive to diseases). They are spread by any number of people in any number of different ways. While people who have a higher number of sexual partners may have more opportunity to come in contact with more diseases, that is not always the case. Anyone engaging in sexual activity should regularly take the responsibility to seek medical attention (including preemptive care like obtaining birth control pills and STI testing). Some people contract something the first time they have sex. Some people never do. Having a casual sex relationship - "friends with benefits" - does not imply dangerous sexual practices. The rates of sexual infection are through the roof in so many demographics. Someone you know has one, and, for all you know, so do you. The only way to be sure is to be tested regularly and be honest with your partners. Trust me, they'll respect you for it. (While you're at it, don't forget to get your HIV test!)
Secondly, Margo focuses on the women. It is interesting to me that both the writer and respondent think that the issue of "friends with benefits" implies a lack of morals on the woman's part, yet not on the man's. So it's perfectly fine for men to engage in this sort of behavior while women are shamed for doing exactly the same? Are we socially regressing? Seriously? Did this year's SlutWalks teach you nothing? Women walk this terrifying line between progressive sexual freedom and the social sanctions they face for embracing and "owning" their sexuality. Trust me, I get a lot of flack for being so outspoken. There are a lot of incorrect assumptions made about who I am as a woman because of it. Just because you're pro-sex or sex positive does not make you a floozy. It means you're informed (hopefully).
Finally, I take issue with Margo saying that this behavior is sanctioned, when in fact, it isn't. Her tone proves that much. Again, the double-standard for sexual behavior is still alive and well. Men are allowed to have certain desires and act on them, yet women are shamed for either having desires or acting on them. As far as I see it, there's no reason to walk to the purity line if my husband/future partner won't be expected to do the same. That said, there's nothing wrong with making any of those choices - for purity, for modesty, etc. Sexuality is a gift, and it shouldn't be used recklessly. There is something to be admired about the sanctity of any sexual relationship; many of those "friends with benefits" relationships also contain the elements of respect, admiration, and companionship that are mutually satisfying for both partners involved.
But are those relationships socially sanctioned? No, at least not for the female participants. We still use derogatory language when referring to girls exploring their sexuality; we still put men down by calling them feminine names; we still objectify women; we reinforce beauty as a means of success. We are doing nothing but reinforcing antiquated power structures through our subtle expressions of disapproval of what acceptable female behavior can or cannot be.
When the writer of the letter says, "It sounds wonderful. I can have sex and do nothing for her in return," he is completely forgetting that any "friends with benefits" relationship is a relationship just like any other. Things that keep relationships alive? Mutual satisfaction. Trust. Respect. Communication. Things he doesn't seem capable of providing.
On the "Love Hormone" Gene - from Time Magazine
Telltale Signs You've Got the 'Love Hormone' Gene?
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Can
you tell at first glance if someone is likely to be a good partner or parent?
New research suggests that observers can identify the most nurturing and
socially sensitive people, just by watching their behavior for 20 seconds — and
that these highly empathetic people are more likely to have a gene variation
associated with trust and caring.
The genetic variation affects the receptor for oxytocin,
often referred to as the "love hormone" or "cuddle
chemical" because it plays a role in social bonding, trust, empathy and
generosity. Levels of oxytocin increase during orgasm and childbirth, and it
helps the formation of bonds between friends, lovers, and parents and children.
Research has shown that people with two G variants of
the gene are more empathetic and "prosocial," showing more
compassion, cooperation and positive emotion. In contrast, those with the at
least one A version of the gene tend to be less empathetic, may have worse
mental health and are more likely to be autistic.
In the new study, researchers videotaped 23 romantic
couples while one person listened to his or her significant other describe a
time of personal suffering. Then, 116 strangers were asked to watch silent
20-second clips of the videos and rate the listeners on how supportive and
trustworthy they seemed.
People who were rated as most empathetic based on their
body language and behavior — things like keeping eye contact, smiling and
nodding while their partner spoke, and having open body posture — were also
more likely to have the GG genotype, researchers found. Of the 10 people rated
the most trustworthy, six had the GG variant; of the 10 rated lowest on trust,
nine had two copies of the A gene variation.
"We were floored by how strongly significant the
results were by genotype for such a small number of people evaluated,"
says Sarina Rodrigues Saturn, assistant professor of psychology at Oregon State
University and an author of the study.
Men who carried the GG genotype were also more easily
identified as being sensitive, compared with the women.
Read more:http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/17/telltale-signs-youve-got-the-love-hormone-gene/#ixzz1f771xSk5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)