Men and Women are Completely Different

It is obvious that men and women are completely different.

For instance, women love dressing up and reading horoscopes, and men love drinking beer and watching sports. But there are many other ways that men and women are different, and all of them are scientific fact.

The below well-known examples prove beyond doubt that men and women are very different.

How To Find Out About Anyone: Great Questions!

One of my favourite sites is Quora, where people pose questions and others post answers. It's a great different kind of social media, even if these days it is more overrun by marketers and promoters than it used to be (welcome to any social media platform, right?)

Tonight I was happily browsing my feed while procrastinating doing some work, and came across a set of really great 'meme' style questions, in response to a question that asked, "What 10 questions can tell you the most about a person?"

Tupperware

Today I went to a Tupperware party, the second one I have been to in my life. The first one was about 15 years ago when, if I remember correctly, I came to my cousin's house, drank some wine and admired some plastic stuff, and didn't buy a thing.

I Stand With Adam

I'm not a joiner, usually. I wholeheartedly support marriage equality, but I didn't rainbow my Facebook profile. There were enough of those that mine wasn't needed - and that's usually the way I feel about protests and public acts of support once they get a big enough following.

But I actually feel quite strongly about this one, and I do agree with Fairfax that this is an important turning point for our country. These days where anything public is drawn out and carried on to exhausting length thanks to social media, there is also the need to manage and direct the momentum to make sure it is carried in the right direction.

So I stand with Adam.

The attacks on Goodes in recent times have reached such a level that they are reflecting poorly on our entire nation. We all have a duty to help end this travesty – and prevent repeats – by having the courage and decency to call out such behaviour as a racist disgrace. It certainly has no place in a nation that would pride itself on being diverse, multicultural and, above all, fair. 

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/booing-adam-goodes-australians-must-unite-against-racism-20150731-giosk2.html#ixzz3hX6fcc00

We know now, these days, the damage to a person's psyche and future that bullying causes. We know the damage it is causing Adam Goodes. No reasonable person, surely, can still argue that constant, sustained booing doesn't do any harm. We might have thought that once. We might have believed that sportspeople have to accept this and that they tune it out. We know differently now.

I know that many of the people booing Adam Goodes aren't racist. And I know that not everyone likes Adam Goodes, and public figures can be annoying in all sorts of ways. But the level of ugliness and vitriol flying Adam Goodes' way daily is beyond anything that white players ever get, and is beyond anything reasonable.

Adam Goodes is a bloody legend.  He's a great footballer obviously, having won TWO Brownlow medals and kicked 454 goals; he is loyal to his club, and he's racked up an impressive amount of community work especially for young indigenous sports. He's been a big name in football and in his community for more than 20 years.

So why the hatred?

What's he done wrong?

Staging for free kicks? I'm not a footy person so can't speak to this, but others have - like here (the Herald Sun!), and here and here.

Aboriginal war dances? If so, so what? Celebrating your own culture is not the same as attacking others.

Refusing to celebrate Australia Day? It's time Australians realised that the majority of indigenous Australians feel this way, and this is not news, nor is it surprising.

Using his Australian of the Year award to call for action on racism? An absolutely appropriate use of the platform I'd say.

'Bullying' a 13-year old? Hardly. Firstly, the 13-year-old had to learn that she couldn't racially vilify. She did learn that, justifiably. The humiliation and horror she felt after this incident must have been awful, but she also had plenty of love and support around her, and the public aspect was over fairly quickly. The media didn't drag it on, and Adam Goodes himself, once he knew the girl's age and accepted that she didn't know she was being racist, was reasonable. He didn't let it go - why should he? But he was not cruel, and he talked to her to help her understand.

When she called to apologise the next day, he got the word out:

Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme #IndigenousRound

— Adam Goodes (@adamroy37) May 25, 2013

From the beginning, he emphasised the impact of her slur on him (it was 'devastating' and he was 'gutted').  Which was necessary for Australia to hear.

Check out his words after the event:

Goodes said the fan's offensive remarks had shocked him."I was just like, really? Wow could that happen?""I don't know if it's the lowest point in my career, but personally I've never been more hurt."It felt like I was in high school again being bullied. I don’t think I’ve ever been more hurt by someone calling me a name. Not just by what was said, by who it came from."

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/adam-goodes-gutted-after-13-year-old-girls-racial-slur-who-called-the-sydney-champion-today-to-apologise/story-fni5fan7-1226650256245 

I can't know what racism feels like. I have an idea, but I can never feel the kick in the guts that Adam Goodes feels, when despite being successful, loved and respected in the community, a single racist epithet - and from a child, meaning she has learned it from the community around her - can bring it all down.

Australians overall are fair and inclusive. Most Australians now have grown up in a multicultural environment and are not overtly racist. In my years travelling I loved seeing Australians overseas interacting with people.  Australians treat everyone the same in a relaxed natural way that stood out for me observing it.

But there is an unmissable ugliness to the vitriol being pumped Adam Goodes' way, and in the anger with which people are defending their treatment of him. I understand people who don't like him and who are not racist, being angry at being made to feel racist. But you have to examine the underlying feelings and beliefs behind your reactions, especially when they are disproportionate.  Waleed Aly is right when he says that Australia likes its minorities happy, grateful and quiet - when this is the case we adore them. When they are not, we find it too confronting, and we kick back, hard.

An American caller to ABC 774 yesterday also was not in doubt. A resident here of 20 years, he found the booing racist without a doubt. I'm paraphrasing from memory here, but he said, "Australia is a wonderful society, and there is not the overt racism we have in the US, but there's something about this, what's going on now... This thing is putting me off."

#IStandWithAdam. Australia should learn from this and grow, but with no further negative impact to Adam Goodes.

Adam Goodes - Wikipedia CC BY-SA 4.0

Belt-tightening 101: the answer

I've been thinking about the question I posed yesterday: why don't politicians trying to convince the public on the need to cut spending cut some of their own salary or allowances to win hearts and minds?

And I think I know the answer.

In a parliamentary system one of the hardest jobs the leaders have is to rally, control and maintain unity among their MPs. These may include members who've worked very hard to win marginal seats, members on the back bench not earning big bucks, members already getting disillusioned or embittered and members on the rise looking for any excuse to either jump ship or try and take your job.

Most governments try and do the cost-cutting early in their term, aiming to get the pain - and public anger - out of the way early and betting that the electorate will have forgiven and moved on by the time of the next election.

So the most important hearts and minds the leaders need to win during this sort of program are those of their own MPs.

And of course, from a purely budgetary standpoint, cutting MP allowances won't deliver the same millions or billions beckoning them temptingly from the list of public benefits and subsidies, so they probably don't see it as worth the pain, considering the factors above. To sell a belt-tightening program and help you through all the hard work of your pet reforms, you need your MPs on-side and energetic, not bitter and angry.

Politics, eh?

Let It Go

Adrian ImpalaMata

Parenting, as many have said before me, is an ongoing series of lessons in learning to let go. With each stage as your child develops and grows, you let go of something. And sometimes it's hard.

Sometimes you have to let go of something else: an opinion you held dear, or a view you had of yourself.  That's not just true of parenting - it's part of life. But parenting is one of the catalysts that will do this for you. (Anything from "You should never bribe children" or "I'm going to be an earth mother and do everything natural" or "I love kids and would like to have lots of them!" to your beliefs on gender, nature and marriage, or your personal view of your place in the world and how the universe works).

Sometimes it's a relief to let something go. A long-cherished hobby or life goal can be good to let go when it impedes joy in other areas of your life. (Read: 'The Upside of Quitting' at Freakonomics)

Sometimes it can take awhile to let go of something you really cherish or want. It took me a long time to accept that I could never give my kids the Stay at Home Mum lilfestyle, It took me too long and too many stressful mornings and nights before I let go of the idea that I had to be the one to take the kids to daycare every day, or that all our evening meals had to be a traditional plated meat and two veg. When I let go of those ideas, which did not fit our lives, our lives became better. Y did the daycare run more often, and the picnic dinner and the bento box dinner became our friends.

Sometimes, when a thing won't work despite all best intentions and hard work, letting go and moving on is the only option.

When my kids were little, I made delicious milkshakes. I made them with banana, a spoonful of ice-cream, milk and a couple of drops of food dye. Their favourite colour was pink, but we also had blue, green or orange milkshakes. Sometimes instead of ice-cream I used Greek yogurt and honey. My kids LOVED my milkshakes. When the daycare centre compiled a book of favourite family recipes, our contribution was Pink Milkshakes.

I loved my role as HEALTHY FUN MUM WHO MAKES AWESOME MILKSHAKES. I might have loved that picture of myself more than my kids loved the milkshakes.  So when my kids got a little older and tasted actual milkshakes and started to go off mine, I wasn't ready to give that up.

I upped the ante to chocolate and banana shakes. I increased the proportion of ice-cream. I made smoothies: fruit, yogurt, honey, juice, ice and milk, blended up with a couple of drops of food dye to make them look as great as they tasted. But despite many attempts over the years and Y and I loving them, the kids have never really bought in.

Yesterday I cut up some kiwifruit for the girls and saw a smoothie recipe on the inside of the container: kiwi, banana, honey and juice. I immediately made plans to make a yummy smoothie for tomorrow's breakfast, but when I mentioned it both kids said "NO! Mum! We DON'T LIKE SMOOTHIES!"

Then they happily gobbled up their bowls of kiwi and banana.

I considered my options. I could make my smoothie, which Y and I would like and the kids would not. I could use up all that kiwi and banana in the process, which the kids will not consume in smoothie form but will happily eat cut up in a bowl.

Or I could give them the fresh fruit and let it go.

I LET IT GO.

And it felt good.

What have you let go? What took you too long to accept?

Serial is interesting for many reasons

So did you listen to Serial? Were you hooked? Did you find it compelling? Frustrating? Awful? Entertaining? A bit of all of those?


In case you don't know (unlikely) Serial was a weekly podcast - now finished but you can still listen to it - examining the murder of a high school girl in Baltimore in 1999, for which her 17-year-old ex-boyfriend was convicted and is still in jail.  He has always said he was innocent, and the story is compelling because he seems like a nice guy and everyone who knew him is sure he couldn't have done it, so the reporter investigates the story, and feeds out the details and her evolving thoughts, each week.


To me, sitting in my podcast-listening chair on the other side of the world, with no journalism, legal or sleuthing experience whatsoever, it doesn't seem implausible to me that the convicted person committed this crime. I'm on board with what the podcast says about his conviction being wrongful given the slim evidence at the time, but whether that makes him innocent is a completely different question.

Serial has its detractors, who have criticised Sarah Koenig's naive-sounding spoken style, the lack of focus on the murder victim, packaging a murder as entertainment, and more. Fans love the compelling narrative, the sleuthing, the character studies, the details about the life of a group a high schoolers 15 years ago, and the phone interviews with the convicted subject of the podcast.


I found Serial really compelling and I found Sarah Koenig to be thoughtful, fair and a great narrator. But I found it a bit frustrating as well, for the same reasons I found it really, really interesting.  In short, these are:

• Sorry, but WHY are you so convinced this guy is innocent? because he is likeable and well-spoken?

• Did everyone have pagers back in 1999? 

• The girl killed comes across as just a lovely, wonderful person. So awful her life was just taken. It's horrendous and terrifying that this is even possible.

• The idea of the psycopath or sociopath is overused I think. People who think this guy is guilty posit that he is a charming psychopath. I don't think you have to be a psycopath to kill someone, and then steadily talk yourself out of having done it, for years after. I can imagine this happening to a fairly normal person. I'm not saying this is what happened, but just that the only possibilities are not innocent, crime of passion or psychopath.

• How much store can we set on people's memories of events 15 years ago? Studies have shown again and again how fallible - and changeable - memory is. Memories of events so long ago are next to useless, I would think.

• Our ideas of motive and wrong-doing might be shaped too much by crime shows like Law and Order, where everything makes sense. In real life, it seems people do things for stupid or hazy reasons, and have contradictory impulses.  

• I would not make a good detective. I kept being underwhelmed by key pieces of Serial sleuthing like "the Neisha call" and whether or not there was a phone booth at Best Buy. Details, details, I kept thinking. Faulty memories, incidental lies, whatever? I'd be a terrible detective. 

• People are strange and at times ridiculous. Was Adnan a nice guy or a killer? Was Jay a good guy, a thug, an innocent over his head, or a career criminal? Why would people get involved to the extent they did, or lie, or help bury bodies, or kill people without motive (depending on who is telling the truth)? 

• Everyone does it - we all do it all the time - but trying to analyse what sort of person someone is, whether or not they "could do it" and whether or not they are lying, is pretty impossible. The times I felt most uncomfortable listening to Serial were listening to people theorise on these things, when really no one can actually know by analysing

• Is this a particularly weird and messy case, or are many murders, when looked at in detail, like this? (Interestingly though, there is one episode where a detective asked precisely this question said no, this case is particularly weird/messy. Which makes sense, as this is the one that ended up as a podcast). It's fascinating how absolutely none of the theories and timelines put forward quite add up - no matter who you think committed the crime, none of the possible versions (that we know about) quite makes sense. 

• It's interesting how some players remember so much, and others so little, 15 years later. (I find memory really, really fascinating).

• This was quite a brave project. Sarah Koenig really laid herself bare throughout this, and it's easy to make fun or criticise, but her honesty on her thought processes and opinions is really likeable, even when you don't agree with her.

Did you listen to Serial? What did you think?

Young, Female, Talented, Hated

People don't like show-offs, or arrogance. I get that. I agree with them. Justin Bieber is understandably lambasted for his antics. Kanye West attracts (gentle) mockery for his attitude and lifestyle.

But other than Justin Bieber, I don't really see young famous guys attracting the level of hatred and mockery landed on young women. Young female stars are not lauded much for their talent, even when they are very talented.

Miley Cyrus is almost universally reviled now. For some bad taste dancing and probably a touch of arrogance. But listen to her songs: she has some great arrangements, and her voice is incredible. She may be young, and she may be annoying - but better get used to her, she's going to be around for a long, long time. I fact, I think she will be a HUGE star, and will last. She reminds me a bit of Madonna in her early years, but with the difference that unlike Madonna back then, Miley Cyrus can really sing.

Taylor Swift is someone everyone loves to make fun of, for her supposedly too-many boyfriends, her bad dancing, and her heart-on-her-sleeve lyrics. But how brave, to write and put your teenage poetry out there, and to develop and mature along the way. Apart from the early 'Love Story' which is pretty 'young' in its outlook, I have liked almost all Taylor Swift's songs. Shake It Off, her latest, tells how she intends to deal with "haters". It's probably all bravado but kudos to her. She's young and she's dealing with a lot for someone so young. It's not nothing to create stuff and put it out there and have every aspect of your persona so publicly mocked.

Lana Del Rey has been mocked for her "fake" image, and her past as a wannabe vanilla pop star. But she's a performer, and performers mostly want to be famous. Why wouldn't they try different ways to get there? Most of them have changed their image and their style at some point along the way. (Granted, perhaps not as much as Lana Del Rey). And whatever - it seems she has managed to find the style that really, really suits her. Rock on, Lana.

Katy Perry is mocked for, as far as I can make out, being a sex symbol but not a good enough one. I like some of her songs and don't like others, but I'm pretty fond of Katy Perry for embracing her pre-teen girl audience and treating them with respect and responsibility.

Lady Gaga, with her avante garde persona, gets a bit more respect, or at least is gently mocked rather than vilified. Maybe people are scared of looking as if they don't "get it", or maybe people think they can't figure her out enough to truly dislike her, whereas they think they have the others figured out.

In contrast to all the above, Lorde is universally admired. She is also very talented. But I guess it's much easier to love an "indie" star than the pop stars whose efforts to reach fame are probably much more visible and easier to mock.

Disclosure:
I don't have any Miley Cyrus songs, but my iPod contains a few Taylor Swifts, Katy Perrys and Lana Del Reys, and a whole Lorde album. I have Lady Gaga's The Fame Monster on CD as the kids used to love it. Oh, and I've got one Justin Bieber song too (it was requested by my daughter but I don't hate it).

12 Resolutions: July (and June recap)

This year I'm playing along with #12Resolutions on Twitter and Facebook. The idea is to set yourself short-term, achievable goals, one each month. 

For June my goal was to save money by taking the train to work 3 days a week, and bringing a packed lunch at least 3 days. (I work 4 days a week).

Well, I'm chalking this one up as a success. I didn't take the train 3 days - more like an average of 1.5 days out of 4. But that's 1.5 days more than I had been taking it before.  And lunch...well, I brought in a packed lunch EVERY DAY! How's that!

The benefits were as I expected: I did save a bit of money, and my days were moderately more active for the extra walking and standing that public transport forces on you.

The disadvantage of making and bringing lunch: virtually none. I had had cynical thoughts that it wouldn't be much cheaper by the time I bought extra sandwich stuff and snacks at the supermarket (not true - it's still cheaper) and I thought packing a lunch every night would be a major drag, based on the fact that I find making my kids' lunchboxes a drag. Not true - making my own lunch is much more interesting than making my kids', because as I do it I'm thinking "ooh yummy" and looking forward to each bit. 

The disadvantage of public transport is just as I remember it: the commute takes longer, and is more tiring. But hey, that's life. I can't afford to drive into work every day, so it's back to the rat race for me.

Tokyoform/Flickr

So, on to July.

This month I am concentrating on my emotions and reactions. 

Sometimes, I feel a bit like this:

mar.al/Flickr

And when I am overly-stretched, or tired, or I haven't been taking care of myself, my emotions can get the better of me and I can react badly - the whole time scratching my head and wondering why.

'Exploding Harbor' by Justin Gaurav Murgai /Flickr

At my age my  emotional states should not be a mystery to me. And when I slow down and really listen to myself and pay attention to what's going on, I can usually figure myself out. 

So this month I'm resolving to pay attention to my moods and feelings, and to take a moment to consider them, before I react.  I will keep my commitments manageable, know my limits and my needs, and NOTICE my feelings before they get to the stage where I am going to explode with rage or get all weepy and want to retire to a dark room and feel sorry for myself.

I don't do either of those things all the time, by the way. But I can get frustrated/angry/anxious too easily and can get better at managing myself, keeping things on an even keel so that stress, anxiety and over-reactions are at bay.

I think I know what I need to get this done. And I anticipate, as I go through this month and do all my noticing and listening to myself, that maybe other things will come up too.

So, this month should be interesting. I'm pretty psyched for this resolution. It's not as concrete or measurable as the others, so it doesn't let me slide in on statistics. This one is going to take some real work.

Oh, and I have a mini goal to add as well: Pandora has challenged me to complete a unit in my course, and she'll do the same. So, I'll work on that as well.

Here's to July (even if I'm a week late). Have a great month!



#12Resolutions:

January: walk 5 times a week (done - I now walk daily)
February: write 2 short stories (failed - wrote none!)
March: write 1 short story, and start Project Management course (done)
April: visit GP and complete or schedule the follow-ups (done)
May: complete one module of Project Management course (failed)
June: working day money savers: public transport and packed lunch (done)
July: pay attention to needs, moods and emotions to manage reactions 

Why do we need stories that ask why do we need scary stories?

The feature article in the 'Life and Style' section of the paper today was this:

Be afraid.... The enduring power of ghost stories.

THE HAUNTING From ancient tales of mythical creatures to the unspeakable crimes of modern cinema, the ghost story holds us in thrall.In this spectral world where sorrow dwells, why are we unable to look away?

I love scary stories and I love anthropology, cultural history and mythology, so hooray, even though I think this topic has been well and truly covered. It's actually a promotion for new Australian film The Darkside, but still, I feel like this is the fifth article I have read in the last couple of years asking "why do people like scary stories?"

Do a Google search for "why do people like scary stories" and most of these articles will come up, along with a good bunch of blogs and forums answering the same question.

I don't actually think it's that mysterious, is it?  Stephen King answered the question in On Writing, and all these articles, blogs and forum posts answer it too.

People like (or are drawn to) scary stories because:

• they are cathartic, allowing us to feel and release pent-up tension and fear
• they help us manage our fears of the unknown and death
• they allow us to rehearse scary situations
• they provide the adrenaline rush of the 'fight or flight' response which we need to keep us safe
• this adrenaline rush, as a by-product, provides a thrill which is (kind of) pleasurable
• or, encapsulating all of these: as Older Single Mum commenting on this post of mine so succinctly said, they "still the mind".

New Scientist, in its recent Night issue, had a great article called The night: Things that go bump... which says the paralysing terror we feel at noises in the night (and during horror stories) is our animalistic fear of predation, of being hunted and eaten.  That gives me a shiver just re-reading it (and reminds me how horribly stressful the life of many animals must be).

So that's pretty well explained, from my point of view.

10 ways humans and dogs are like each other

Dogs are great company, because we GET each other. That's because we're similar. All the things we love about dogs are things we enjoy in other humans, too. And the things we make fun of dogs for, we are guilty of as well.

Here are ten ways that dogs are like humans, or humans are like dogs:


1. We can't handle economic surplus.

Most humans can't, and you know it. How often, when you got a better paying job, did you think "I'm going to save the extra money". And how often did you actually do that?

Dogs also are of the "If there's extra, eat it all now!" life philosophy.  Sure, they'll bury a bone sometimes, just as humans will save money sometimes. But it doesn't happen every day.


2. We live for love.

We love our cats, but we kind of know they don't really love us back the same way. We love our dogs BECAUSE they love us back.


3. We get overly attached. But we can also (usually) move on when things change.

Dogs LOVE their owners. They will be very upset and will pine for their owners if they lose them. But in most cases, they will get over the loss and will form a new bond with a new owner, just as strong as the last. When I was a kid we had a black Labrador called George. He was the Best Dog Ever. He was loving, gentle, and smart. He loved us, especially my dad. When we moved to LA we had to give him away. He went to live with another family. A year later my dad went to visit him. He was overjoyed to see my dad, and gave him a warm slobbery welcome - and then went happily back to sit at the feet of his new dad.

Humans too, by and large, get over losing a partner and form an attachment to a new one. Which is as it should be.


4. We get jealous.

Another part of being suckers for love. We both get jealous when our special people cosy up to someone else.



5. We love ball games. (Well, when I say "we" I mean other humans, obviously)

Photo: invalid_argument/Flickr

Photo: NCReedplayer/Flickr

Mongolian ball game by Jeanne Menjoulet & Cie / Flickr

Photo: Jeff Shapiro / Flickr

Photo: Karah Levely-Rinaldi /Flickr

Photo: Russ Anderson / Flickr

Incidentally, there is a whole subset of photos on Flickr of people playing ball games next to signs that say NO BALL GAMES. I didn't realise so many public places banned ball throwing.


6. We like routine. 

Yes we do. Even though we also love adventure and recklessness, we crave and get comfort from routine. Whether we get up at the same time every day, sit in the same carriage on the train every morning, frequent the same few cafes, have a favourite chair, or read the same newspaper/visit the same sites every day, we are all attached to some level of routine.

Routine is a big part of what helps kids feel secure.

Routine is part of dogs' lives too.

When I get up in the morning, my dog Harry is a coiled spring, watching my every move and jumping up at me, until I put on my shoes and say "Do you want to go for a walk?" Then he goes briefly mental, cries with excitement, shivers in anticipation, and bolts for our very short (very short) run, and settles into our walk. When we get home he waits for his chewy treat, eats a mouthful of breakfast, laps up some water and flops down on the ground while I sit on a chair outside.

This morning routine is good for us both.  (And it's also keeping me on track for my January resolution).


7. We love the wind in our hair.

Photo: Anniruddha Sen Gupta/Flickr

Photo: Ko:(char*)hook/Flickr

8. We have been warped by our environments.

Humans have adapted very successfully to a range of environments, from the African steppes to the suburb-and-7-11. Unfortunately, we adapt in ways that don't help us, getting fatter and less fit where our environs allow it, unless we exert a lot of very difficult effort. And our canine friends get fat right along with us.  We have also bred our companions into all sorts of weird, wonderful and grotesque shapes, some of which are maladaptive (bulldogs that can't breathe, Alsatians with bad backs, tiny dogs that are too nervous to go out, huge dogs with short life spans). Our dogs now are further removed from wolves than we are from our hunter-gatherer ancestors. But we haven't had our best friends manipulating our gene pools for centuries; we've gone a bit slower on that on ourselves.



9. We both have a shame face.

You know that face politicians and sports people make in the news when they've been caught doing something wrong. Always this face:

Source unknown; thank you Internet!

That's not really a dog's shame face of course.

This is:

Photo: dogshaming.com

10. We both like trampolines!

Keep this video handy for next time you are feeling down.

The Antidote

I've just started reading The Antidote by Oliver Burkeman. Mr Burkeman writes a column for The Guardian called This Column Will Change Your Life, which is one of my favourite reads.

In one of those columns he recently said: "Happiness is reality minus expectations."

There's been a bit of resistance to the "pursuit of happiness"/positive thinking paradigms in recent years, with books such as The Happiness Trap reminding us that trying to be happy seldom makes us happy and studies demonstrating the value of pessimism.  Work-related articles on the internet are finally starting to look beyond the whole "follow your bliss" theme we've been fed for some time. The only self-help book that I like, Maurice Seligman's Learned Optimism, espouses realistic strategies using cognitive behavioural therapy to combat depression and anxiety, and rejects the more common positive affirmations and mantras that tend to irk people like me.

I'm less than halfway through The Antidote, but I like it a lot.


Here are some excerpts that grabbed me:

That we yearn for neat, book-sized solutions to the problem of being human is understandable, but strip away the packaging, and you'll find that the messages of such works are frequently banal.

There are good reasons to believe that the whole notion of 'seeking happiness' is flawed to begin with. For one thing, who says happiness is a valid goal in the first place? Religions have never placed much explicit emphasis on it, at least as far as this world is concerned,; philosophers have certainly not been unanimous in endorsing it, either. And any evolutionary psychologist will tell you that evolution has little interest in you being happy.

This last reminded me of what a psychologist told me, when I told her about the anxiety I felt every day when my children were little, terrified something bad would happen to them; how I couldn't watch them play in the park without visualizing them falling off things. I was not terrified all the time, and I didn't stop them doing normal things, but I would have these constant intrusive visualizations and then feel annoyed with myself, or anxious. While I expected her to counsel me on how not to worry, she told me instead that my worrying was what was keeping my children safe. "Your brain is not interested in keeping you relaxed or making you happy," she said. Once I accepted that this worrying was there to stay, I was able to accept it.


On positive thinking:

...once you have resolved to embrace the ideology of positive thinking, you will find a way to interpret virtually any eventuality as a justification for thinking positively. You need never spend any time considering how your actions might go wrong.

And when bad things happen ("and such things will happen"):

Trying to see things in an exclusively positive light is an attitude that requires constant, effortful replenishment. Should your efforts falter, or prove insufficient...you'll sink back down into - possibly deeper - gloom.  

On 'positive visualization' as a way to achieve goals (a la The Secret):

...focusing on the outcome you desire may actually sabotage your efforts to achieve it.

...as the brain "subconsciously [confuses] visualising success with having already achieved it."


On outcomes:

[W]e habitually act as if our control over the world were much greater than it really is. Even such personal matters as our health, our finances, and our reputations are ultimately beyond our control

I think when it comes down to it, almost every philosophy we espouse is a way of convincing ourselves we can control what happens to us. We can do some things of course, and there's no benefit in being totally pessimistic and defeatist - but so, so much of what happens to us is down to luck.

That's no justification for inaction, just a way of looking at things and not shrinking from the bad:

'The cucumber is bitter? Put it down,' Marcus [Aurelius] advises. 'There are brambles in the path? Step to one side. That is enough, without also asking: "How did these things come into the world at all?"'

Of course, these philosophies are all easy from our part of the world, and when we're talking about the usual gamut of everyday trials and losses.   There are few among us who cannot ask "WHY?" when bad things happen. But I'm not a person who can totally embrace "positive thinking" and the type of philosophy this book promotes is indeed, for me, a good antidote.

What do you think?

What makes little girls creepy?

I recently watched the pilot episode of The Walking Dead. Or I should say the first half, because I found it a little creepy and am not sure if I'll continue. (Hey AMC, I don't think this will be the show to replace Breaking Bad for me).

At the very first scene, you know things are going to be bad when you find yourself walking behind this silent, shuffling little girl:

You seriously don't want her to turn around, do you?


The Shining had the creepy ghost twins.  I was going to put a picture here, but honestly, I just don't want it on my blog. You can see it here if you want to get that sick thud heart-in-your throat reminder.

Poltergeist had that little girl's sing-song voice saying "They're heeeere!"

Dawn of the Dead: the daughter zombie right at the beginning

Firestarter: Drew Barrymore being not-so-cute

A Nightmare On Elm Street: the little girls playing skipping rope outside, and chanting "One two, Freddy's coming for you..."

The Others: a bit different in that the "ghost" was a little boy - but the scene with the little girl with the gauze over her head during the seance is the scariest bit in the whole thing

The Exorcist: Forget the head turning and the still-shocking swearing, I have one scene for you: young girl in nightgown scuttling down the stairs backwards. Good God, it still freaks me right out.

The Cabin in the Woods has a ghost girl in a classroom of Japanese schoolgirls, which is a creepy scene all round. It also has zombies, knife-wielding clowns, werewolves and a rabid unicorn - but is the scariest monster of them all perhaps the little twirling pink ballerina girl? (Yes).



And then there is the scariest of the lot.....

I used to love horror films. I kind of still do - sometimes. Then in 2002 I saw the scariest film I had ever seen in my life: The Ring.  Just as Stephen King's "It", many years ago, traumatized me for horror novels forever, The Ring cured me of horror movies for years. And yet, no longer enjoying them but unable to stop myself, I returned for The Grudge and Dark Water. This makes the terror trilogy of stringy-haired ghost girl movies that are so completely, utterly scary. They are scary because of the style and cinematography. They are scary because of the vengeful ghost who punishes completely innocent people (instead of misbehaving teens). But mostly, they are scary because the monster is a dead little girl with long dark hair!

Why are little girls so scary?
Or at least, what makes them a good trope for scariness?

I have two little girls. They are not in the least scary.  But I'm as freaked out as anyone by a scary dead girl-child in a horror movie. They are scary in a way that little boys are not scary. Why is that?

If you Google "scary movies with little girls" you get a lot of stuff. You get a million movies with scary little girls in them, you get a heap of "top ten lists of scary movies with little girls in them", and you get some theories and commentary on why little girls are scary (like here, here, here and here).


I'm guessing the same as most people, that little girls in scary movies are scary because they invert how we see little girls. We invest A LOT, culturally (or perhaps psychologically - maybe this crap is universally human) in seeing little girls as sweet and pure and passive. It freaks us right out when we suspect that maybe they are not all those things. If we lose control of our little girls, we lose control of women, sexuality, reproduction, society, the lot!


Or maybe we suspect little girls hold secrets, or we fear the power they'll have as they grow.


Here's a comment on a "why are little girls scary" thread on a gaming review message board:

"Damn, I could be playing Quake 4 and see giant monsters and not have any reaction at all but a little girl in the right situations creep the **** out of me."

People respond as above, about how we don't expect little girls to be dangerous and it's about subverting our expectations etc, but he replies:

"Its not like she even does anything scary…she just appears and scares the crap out of me."

Then there's this post:

I think that would scare me too.

What do you think? 

Sadness

Today's post is a bit of a downer, and I'm sorry about that. I'll probably regret posting it. But I just cannot shake the sadness right now.

I have two beautiful, funny, loving, interesting daughters. One of them is pretty and funny and clever but is going through her own battles with anxiety and self-loathing (which naturally I feel guilty about - I don't think I model these [really!] but she did get my crappy DNA). The other is happy and resilient and popular and is also tall and thin and lovely; this makes her shorter sister jealous and her father go on and on to me about how gorgeous she's going to be, both of which things irk me no end. But at the same time sometimes all I feel too is an overwhelming anger at the world's treatment of young girls and their egos, and I worry how I can protect her and how she can preserve her happy confident self in a world so threatening and unsafe.

I know, glass half full, right?

I'm not normally like this, I'm really not. I know I can't keep my children safe from all harm, and I also know they are not likely to meet it. I know parents project their own worries, regrets and failures onto their children. I know kids are their own special people and have strengths and abilities we underestimate, and that kids are not just the sum of their parents.

But the past week has contained this:

• Syria
• Our corner milkbar was robbed in daylight and the lovely woman who runs it with her husband was attacked and stabbed - she is unable to work and will need multiple operations and plastic surgery to recover. She had to run into the street, bleeding and crying, and flag down a car for help. Her attacker was caught, but she and her family are traumatised. Her husband is manning the milkbar alone, and their lives are changed. These are good, lovely, excellent people. I cannot get over the fact this has happened.
• Vandals spraypainted all over the school. I know it was just high school kids who used to go there and it's no big deal, but it's still an ugly thing.
• My daughter A had a big old meltdown at school and required an intervention from two teachers and the visiting psychologist to help her. They did help her, and she's OK, and all is OK, but still.
• Another horrible, horrible gang rape in India. While it's been only 4 months since the gang rape of a 5-year-old there, and the countless other rapes happening every day
• Miley Cyrus getting attacked all over the internet with the usual vicious ferocity that rains down on any twenty-year old trying to shake off a cutesy childhood past and try on the sexy.

 I heard Colleen McCulloch on radio once talking about her life, when her autobiography was published, and she talked about the different feelings she had when her son and her daughter were born. With a son, she said, you felt his life and future were so full of promise, that he could do anything and be anything. With a daughter though, you feel a bit like, well, here's someone else who's going to go through all the same shit.

It keeps seeming like things are getting better, and then it seems obvious they are not. These are times when seeing any gorgeous, happy young girl makes me anxious, protective and angry. I know that's not right or helpful, but it does. When I see grown men salivating over girls in their teens, or children playing games where the girls self-censor or are censored by their playmates for being tough, strong or heroic; when I see my girls, and all girls, in all their beauty and promise about to step up into a huge, exciting, wonderful and dangerous world, I am overcome.


How do you shake off sadness?

Spaghetti with love

When I met Y in Santorini many many years ago, he was working as a cook in a friend's restaurant. He used to make us pizza for lunch with feta, kaseri and cheddar cheese, oregano and spinach. In Thessaloniki he cooked us beautiful stews and soups and made wonderful salads - just as he does now. He always joked (but also meant it) that you had to put love in your cooking.

If I made a new dinner and it didn't turn out well, he would say, You forgot the love!

Tonight I'm making spaghetti bolognese, on request for M. 

We don't eat spag bol very often, because A hates mince meat. In fact she is not keen on red meat at all, and never has been. When we have spaghetti she has hers plain with oil and cheese, and will not even try a mouthful of meat sauce, though every time I give her a bit in a separate bowl and hope that one day she will.

M loves spaghetti bolognaise. 

Lately we've all been sick and M has been hit the hardest, with headaches and sick tummy coming and going. I kept her home one Monday, and then on the Tuesday after I did reading help in her class, I took her home with me again, just an hour into the school day.

We spent the day relaxing and chatting and she watched TV while I got on with some of the household admin that had lapsed while I'd been sick (do not leave an overdue electricity bill unattended for two weeks).

Since then she's been spending a lot of time in the sick bay and I know there's nothing really wrong; she is trying to get the school to call me to come and take her home. Her teacher confronted her gently and so did I, and last night she came clean and hugged me and cried and said she wanted to stay home with me again "just the two of us."

Over recent months A has had some iss-yoos, and we've been working through them and she's going well. But I always knew we ran the danger of neglecting our resilient, capable and confident M. She is so together and independent and mature that this is easily done. I am always mindful of it and I don't think we do neglect her at all - but I think she's been feeling a little squeezed out of the parental energy supply just lately.

Last night she asked me to make spaghetti bolognese, so tonight I am. We'll have it for dinner tomorrow.

You won't usually catch me cooking the night before Y's day off. His days off are my days off housework and cooking, yay!

But tonight I am cooking the best goddamn spaghetti bolognese I can make. I am cooking it slowly from fresh whole ingredients and minding it well as it simmers and reduces to just the right consistency and rich tomatoey goodness.

And it is FULL of love.

A Quick Happiness Test

OK, so we're all past that whole "seeking happiness" thing, right?

We know life is hard, the human condition includes suffering and despair, and our brains aren't interested in making us happy, only in ensuring we survive? And that life is difficult and absurd with fleeting moments of bliss?

Cool.

Even so, every now and then comes a reminder that, during times not marred by horrible circumstances, it is indeed possible to choose to be happy, or at least not to be miserable.

Professor Ed Diener is one of the founders of positive psychology and a leading researcher into happiness and well-being. He is profiled in The Age today in 'The Happy Medium' (Michael Short, The Zone).

It's not really news to read that "Happiness is caused by relationships, goals and habits –and not by lots of money", that "happy people are healthier", and that "one of the best ways to be happy is, paradoxically, to not worry too much about being happy, but to focus instead on a goal".

We generally already know that "happiness" (in the sense of contentment or fulfillment), is a combination of a positive outlook, good relationships, having a purpose or goal and/or skill, and acceptance of circumstances.

But even if most of that is fairly familiar to us now, what I liked about this article was the reminder that we can and should seek these things - even while we know, of course, that awful circumstances can and do prevent happiness, and life can be cruel and unfair. But for most of us, life is a combination of good times and bad, so we do have the ability to seek contentment in some form.

The other thing I liked was this quick test to measure how happy you are (in case you are not sure):


Quick happiness test suggested by Michael Short and Ed Diener:

It's this: ask yourself or someone else what are the top 10 things you like to do. Then ask when you last did those things. While there can be compelling reasons why we are not doing what we like - caring for someone, investing time in study or other intensive projects - it's often the case unhappiness is caused by neglecting to do these things.  Crucially, almost without exception those lists contain an overwhelming majority of pastimes that do not require money.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/life/the-happy-medium-20130721-2qcrg.html#ixzz2ZlwGJKg9

For example, if you were me your ten (or eleven) things might look something like this:

• walking
• reading
• writing
• art
• talking with my kids - especially ideas, theories, how people are, how life is, etc
• cartoons / humour
• family gatherings
• coffee/dinner with friends
• spending time with or watching animals
• sitting on grass
• looking at the sky / stars

I do about half of these often, and the rest quite rarely, though I used to do them often.

It's an interesting point.

Personally I think being "happy" comes from relationships, having enough money so that life is not constantly stressful, being busy without being overly stretched, doing a job you don't hate, and having enough room/time for some hobbies. Sometimes, with luck, we may even manage all those things at once.

There's not much else. We're animals seeking to live, accumulate resources, and if we want to, to procreate. Everything else is a bonus.

What do you think about the happiness test?

maen_cg/FreeDigitalPhotos.net

If Your Kid Gobbles the Marshmallow, Take Heart

If you have ever watched a video of kids being given the marshmallow test and had the feeling your kid would not pass, you're not alone. I have too.

The marshmallow test was devised in the 1960's and is one of the most well-known experiments in psychology. A child is offered the choice between one marshmallow now, or two if they wait. The researcher explains the test, places one marshmallow in front of the child, and leaves the room for 15 minutes. Children will either succumb to the "now" and eat the marshmallow, or will wait (most with much difficulty, providing extra amusement for viewers of the experiment on YouTube videos). Those who wait are rewarded with two marshmallows when the researcher returns.

This test has been thought to hold ramifications for life success. Successive studies and theories have posited a biological basis for delayed gratification, with correlation between how well children delay gratification and how well they do in life; longitudinal studies showed the children who waited for the two marshmallows had less obesity, higher academic performance, better relationships and more successful careers.

Cue uncomfortable feelings of parents like me watching these tests and just KNOWING their kid would fail.

Thankfully for us and our kids, more recent studies have put a different spin on this test.

A study last year concluded that kids who have experienced upheaval or unpredictability in their lives tended to eat the first marshmallow, and that this was for them the most rational choice - nothing to do with will power.

A study published last month has concluded that most examples of the marshmallow test were flawed, because the children did not truly understand how long it would be until the researcher returned. Therefore, with the timing of the two-marshmallow payoff uncertain, it made rational sense to eat the marshmallow available now.

And we all know how terrible children are at estimating time. Whether a child is told "15 minutes" or "in a little while" little kids have no idea how long that is going to be.

I'm pretty sure some kids are born with better self-control than others. Some probably also like marshmallows more than others. Some have more of a desire to please. And some get hungrier faster.

I guess the real take-away here is not to worry too much about these psychological tests. They are fascinating and can tell us something, but they don't tell us everything.


Here is a clip of kids doing the marshmallow test.
And be warned: it is not very scientific to do this test on your own kids!