Friday, December 02, 2011

On Working Moms


Working Moms Multitask, And Stress, More Than Dads

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.)
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


DEC. 1, 2011
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

Related Topics

Members of a family receive treatment at a hospital after being attacked with acid at their home by unknown gunmen in Kunduz November 30, 2011.   REUTERS-Whadat
KUNDUZ, Afghanistan | Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:08am EST
(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. 



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
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. 


On the "Love Hormone" Gene - from Time Magazine


Telltale Signs You've Got the 'Love Hormone' Gene?

By Maia Szalavitz 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.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

On Art. and Expression.

I can never decide what to write when I'm staring at the blank screen. It's so....empty.

Sometimes I want to write what I'm thinking; mostly, I feel the need to catalog my day. It's as though I can tell my state of mind simply by remembering what I did, where I went, what I saw. 

Tonight is a little bit of both. There's so much happening, not happening, swirling around. And there are so many thoughts, too. And a rant, if you're lucky. 

Ike, my cousin in town for the holiday weekend, and I went to the Art Museum today. I spent a lot of time trying to think of something that he might like to do; I didn't want to disappoint him. We had a good time, checking out all of the art as we chatted. As we got back to Grandma's door, we were talking about how we've never hung out as adults (we were born two weeks apart but are separated by so much - experience, space, time, etc). "It's nice to meet you," he said. It's nice to meet you too, Ike. 

Foxes. 



This painting was fabulous, but strange. I liked the way that Ike melded chromatically into it. 

This painting caught my eye. It was painted in 1898, yet the colors are still so vibrant. 

Jesus. 


Lately, I've been hearing a lot of mixed opinions about the fact that I blog so much about my life. First of all, this is hardly scratching the surface. This doesn't serve as a diary. It's not my every thought or feeling. Trust me - what you see is not always what you get here. Sometimes, yes. 
This is my place to collect things. I love reviewing it. Sometimes I'm struck by my insight, other times I disagree with my past self entirely. Sometimes I use this a marker, to see how much I've grown as a person. Sometimes it's just purely nostalgic. To be honest, there are moments when it's downright embarrassing. 
Either way, the same thing holds true now that has always held: If you don't like it, don't read it. There are other blogs. But there are no other Katie Barry's. (Actually, there are. I'm Facebook friends with most - many - of them. They're a fun bunch.) 


I'm going to spare you the rant I'd decided I wanted to throw here. Hopefully when I sleep on it, it will turn into something more beautiful than the angry ball it is right now. It's about honesty. Honesty with yourself and with everyone around you. It's one of the things I value more than anything else in this world. I live by full disclosure (mostly). I believe that the truth of our reality lies in our experiences. If you can come to terms with events and realizations as they occur, you're more able to process, cope, understand. The understanding that comes from honesty beats anything kept hidden by a shroud of secrecy. 

Sleep sweet, world. 


On Simon's Back Bumper

Yesterday, Mom's five-year old neighbor Avery came over.
"Katie," she told me. "Your car is all smashed." (Simon's been lacking his normal duct tape lately. I really do need to do something about this.)
I tell her that it happened a long time ago, when I lived in Chicago.
"You should just take your car back and get a new one," she said.
Good advice.
Too bad the insurance company doesn't see it the same way.

Friday, November 25, 2011

On Pictures from Mom's phone


Assorted pictures from Mom's phone - since it's dying and we had to do a data swap, I ended up with all of them. I thought I'd share a couple with you: 



Grandma Mary and Uncle Mark, Vermont
I so very much love this picture.



Mike and Lola


I have more, but I desperately need to get to a computer charger. So those can come later.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

On Tuesday, fondly

Jumbled thoughts, collected below: 



I am pleased to report that I have successfully returned all six books to the Denver Public Library, one day before their due date. No fines! 

Your song for the day is Regina Spektor's Us. I'm starting to get nostalgic - this week last year was the beginning of the end of South Africa. I remember so badly wanting to get out of the tangled mess that was the end, but I knew even then that an impermeable love for that place had settled in my soul. Every time I hear this song, I think about my commute to and from work. It reminds me of the jangle of the chain as I closed the front gate at Priscilla's; the hustle of Wynberg market; the way the street smelled in the morning; the narrow, slanted sidewalks. I wish I had a jar of South African sand. I would open it right now and dig around, letting the sand slip through my fingers. I would think about wine, and the waves, and looming mountains. I would be home. 

I'm happy. I woke up this morning and I was utterly content, all the way to my bones. I didn't want to get up; I didn't want to leave; I just wanted to roll over and shut out the day. I wanted to nuzzle in, close my eyes, and pretend that the alarm wasn't going to ring obnoxiously in another nine minutes. 
But of course it did, as alarms are wont to do. Even though I'm not nesting happily somewhere, there's a constant current running through me. I can dig this. 

It's too bad we couldn't have just ray-gunned the Jackson 5 so they would have stayed in those childhood moments forever. Much better than their later selves, less creepy. 



Monday, November 21, 2011

On Monday, quickly

As a rule the purchase of books is mistaken for the appropriation of their contents.
-Schopenhauer
I found this quote after I'd decided that I'm going to buy everyone I know books for Christmas. Okay, back to square one. 

I love that this is a short week! I'm so frazzled right now, trying to get everything done. M is in town tomorrow night with her boyfriend, P, so I'm going to meet up with her and the family for dinner. I am so excited - I didn't think I was going to be able to see them before they headed up to the mountains for Thanksgiving.

Tonight was supposed to be cleaning night, but instead, it's throw everything around in an attempt to make organization piles. Instead of actually dealing with these piles, I think I'll just leave them and get around to them later, as per usual.
I'm also facing the wrath of Carlos at the moment; I got home and he'd gotten into something he shouldn't have, and consequently, he had to have a bath. Great. Now I have damp cat sitting on everything but his blanket. He's furious at me. Instead, I'm practicing excellent escapism and going out to dinner with K. I think I'm making a much better choice. He's more fun than laundry and wet cat any day. 

Sunday, November 20, 2011

On the Weekend



Don't ask. We didn't take any good pictures that night. I tried. But know that these two people are the two most beautiful people I know.  

apparently, I'm too pale for cameras. 

All ages shows make me feel old. 

Friday. Really fun night. The owner of the PS Lounge remembered me and K from last week and bought us drinks while Em and J ate at the Thai place, so that was nice. Then the concert happened. Em and J danced, K and I danced. I was blissfully happy. I love my friends. I love my life.  

Saturday. We ran errands - made a Costco run, ate burritos, washed the car (not mine, of course). I babysat. The little girls are always such a delight. 

Today. Woke up at 5. Made some muffins. Snowboarding with K, K, and E, Friends-giving in the evening. Cranberries turned out alright! 

Can you tell I'm too tired to actually type words? Going to bed early. Going to be a productive human being tomorrow. (maybe)

Day three. We're going to get this by the end of the season, I promise. 


I guess I enjoy standing in front of people and blocking them in pictures. 
Em, K, me, K, day 3, Breckenridge