Tuesday, January 12, 2010

A Sexy Read

The Times (London)

January 2, 2010 Saturday 
Edition 1; 
National Edition

THE HAPPINESS PROFESSOR; 
Dr Martin Seligman is the unofficial father of positive psychology, the controversial study of human happiness. Alan Franks visits him to discover how the inhabitants of a depressed Britain can achieve a happier outlook - and some seasonal strategies for marital harmony


SECTION: MAGAZINE;FEATURES; Pg. 44,45

LENGTH: 1353 words

An audience with the high priest of human happiness. Or to give him his proper title, Dr Martin Seligman, director of the University of Pennsylvania Positive Psychology Centre. Let's get straight to the point. How can people be happier than they are? "Close your eyes," he answers, quietly assertive. "Now, I want you to think of someone who, earlier in your life, did something that was very helpful to you." I do so, but it's a sad thought because the people I am thinking of are dead.

"They must be alive," he goes on, "and never have been properly thanked by you… OK, open your eyes. Your assignment is to write a 300-word testimony, with a beginning, middle and end, say how it affected you, and where you are in your life now. Then phone them in Cambridge and tell them you'd like to visit them."

I'm not sure why he says Cambridge, because I don't have any significant friends there. "Wherever it is. Tell them you want to visit them, but don't say why. Show up on the doorstep, and then read out the testimonial. A month later, people who have done that are markedly less depressed, and happier."

I don't do it and there are, as he might say, three reasons for this. First, and probably most important, I don't feel at all depressed, or feel that higher levels of happiness are necessarily my prerogative. Second, my assignment is actually to write an article about him. I'm about 300 words in, but there's a long way to go. Third, I would find the exercise awkward and potentially intrusive. I'd probably be terrified that the wrong person answered the door. Or else that, while I was made happier, the encounter might have the opposite effect on him/her.

Professor Seligman, 67, rather forestalls me here by saying that, "A normal response is for most people to weep." The visitor or the visited? "Oh, both, often." Tears of joy, relief, conciliation, and not to be mocked. The process sounds a little reminiscent of one of America's other notable postwar movements under the broad heading of self-help: that is, the 12-step programme practised by the various fellowships formed, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, to combat addictions. The professor nods very affirmatively at this, and it is clearly not the first time the resemblances have been noted. One of their key principles is, like many of Seligman's, very basic: don't just sit about bemoaning your lot. Think of some strategies for improving it and then put them into action.

He has any number of strategies. That has been the signature of a career that is highly successful both academically and commercially and that has earned him the unofficial status of father of positive psychology. Although the term is not new, having first been used by the humanistic Abraham Maslow in his 1954 book Motivation and Personality, it has only come to prominence since Seligman made it the theme of his presidency of the American Psychological Association in 1998. At the core of his argument is the idea that social science has been so obsessed with "defence and damage and saying 'No'" that it was unable to "consider what we can affirm and say 'Yes' to".

The culprit was - his phrase - "learned helplessness", in which depression and other mental illnesses result from a sense of powerlessness over our own situation. We have, he argues, a "catastrophic brain", meaning that it is looking for what is amiss. This may have worked in prehistory, but it doesn't do the trick in the modern world. In other words, our ancestors had every reason to envisage a predator round each corner, but in our vastly more affluent times, it would be more appropriate for us to harbour images of plenty.

Seligman's refrain is that we are depressed.

This particular "we" includes Britain which, he says, is one of six major nations whose wellbeing, according to "surveys of life satisfaction across time", has declined. Russia is also down, further than we are, while America and France are up slightly. One of the sources he cites for these conclusions is the World Database of Happiness, an ongoing register of research on the subjective appreciation of life, co-ordinated by Erasmus University in Rotterdam.

So what's up with us? In his answer, the "we" shifts into a short form to cover all aspects of communality. "I", meanwhile, comes to signify the appetite of the individual. These two entities, he argues, are out of balance with each other. Distress, both personal and collective, is the result of that tension. "When we fail, what is our consolation?" he asks. "Our grandparents had God, nation, community, large families. Our children, by and large, have none of these things. So one of the possibilities is that the I has got very big, while the We has declined. Depression is almost surely an illness of the I. If we think that the perception of being thwarted is a necessary condition for depression, then the question is, what kind of spiritual furniture is there to fall back on? Our children's furniture is threadbare."

Seligman, with his emphasis on positive psychology, is not without his detractors. Some, like Professor Robert Reich, who was Secretary of Labor in Clinton's first term, fear that optimism, far from being the cure for our ills, is actually one of the causes. He puts it like this: "[American] optimism carries over into our economy, which is one reason why we've always been a nation of inventors and tinkerers, of innovators and experimenters. But it also explains why we spend so much and save so little. Our willingness to go deeper into debt and keep spending is intimately related to our optimism."

Barbara Ehrenreich, a renowned feminist of the left, goes further than this in her mordant and challenging book Smile or Die; How Positive Thinking Fooled America and the World. The idea for it came to her after she was diagnosed with breast cancer and found her hospital bed littered with pink ribbons and toy rabbits and other well-meant but, to her, enraging manifestations of Bright-Sideism. "For any non-academic motivational speaker," she writes, "it [positive psychology] was a godsend. No longer did they need to invoke the deity or occult notions like the law of attraction to explain the connection between positive thoughts and positive outcomes; they could fall back on that touchstone phrase of rational, secular discourse - 'Studies show…'"

I ask Seligman if he considers himself happy. He pauses to think before answering, as he often does, and says, "I'll tell you a story." And he does. Briefly, it concerns two Oxford philosophers with whom he dined 30 years ago, when they were the age he is now. He asked them when they thought they were at their best, and they both replied, "Now." As he now does.

He doesn't do new year's resolutions. He looks slightly dismissive of the idea, although he confesses he made one last year, to walk five million steps, which he did. I ask for one more "action exercise", and he says there is a good, and seasonal, one that has come out of marital therapy.

"You have active, passive, constructive and destructive options," he says. "Now, what most people do is passive constructive. Your husband or wife comes home and says they've been promoted and you go, 'Congratulations, dear, you deserve it.' You can also do active destructive and say, 'You do know what tax bracket that's going to put us into?' Or you can do passive destructive: 'What's for dinner?' The one that works the best is active constructive. For example: 'I've been reading the reports you've been writing for the company for the past few months, and that one you wrote on the pension plan is the best thing I've ever seen on pension plans. Will you relive that moment with me? Where were you when the boss told you you were promoted? Did you talk? Exactly what did he say?' So, it's a way of celebrating. It turns out that getting people to be active constructive is a much better predictor of increased commitment and love than teaching people how to fight each other."

So now you know.

'Think of someone who did something helpful to you. Write a testimonial saying how it affected you, show up on their doorstep and read it out'


A Sexy Read

The Times (London)

December 18, 2009 Friday 
Edition 1; 
Scotland

Middle-class women hit bottle hardest; 
Research reveals the 'hidden harm' to those drinking at home


BYLINE: Melanie Reid

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 3

LENGTH: 1079 words

Highly-educated, professional women drink more often and more heavily than almost any other female group, a new study has found. The harm this causes, both to families and to health, has until now been largely hidden as much of this prolific consumption takes place in the home.

The research, released today by the University of Lancaster, suggests that moral panic over "ladette" culture with its images of binge-drinking young women causing chaos in town centres is misplaced and is leading to them being unfairly demonised.

Instead, the study found that the higher the household income, the higher the alcohol consumption amongst women - and it suggests that there is a reluctance to address an apparent increase in the "hidden harm" from frequent drinking into middle age by educated women.

The researchers claim that society's desire to dwell on young people's public excesses also acts as a diversion, consolidating middle-class, middleaged drinking as "comparatively civilised and unproblematic". The findings, published in Probation Journal, underline an investigation, published in The Times last week, on the drinking habits of middle-class women in which stressed, working mothers revealed how they routinely drank half a bottle or more every evening.

"Like a huge number of women I am mildly drunk every single evening," said one woman. "In a tableau played out across the UK, we're climbing the stairs for bed, pretty woozy on our feet, grinning gently to ourselves."

The paper, by Fiona Measham, senior lecturer in criminology at the University of Lancaster and Dr Jeanette Ostergaard at the University of Copenhagen, argues for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between alcohol, women's changing lives and northern European drinking cultures.

The academics analysed data from both the UK and Denmark, both countries with high levels of alcohol consumption for young people and adults. Danish girls aged 16-20 are the heaviest drinking in Europe, with an average of 6.8 cubic litres of pure alcohol consumed on the last drinking day, whilst consumption by British girls was also relatively high, at 5.7 cubic litres.

The girls drank less frequently and less heavily than boys.

But evidence shows stability and decline in girls' alcohol consumption. Self-reported lifetime and past month drunkenness, frequent drinking and heavy episodic drinking amongst the young remained stable or declined moderately in both countries in the past decade.

Furthermore, fewer girls were getting intoxicated for that first time at 13 or younger.

Historically, said the study, young women are the focus for social anxieties surrounding changing patterns of alcohol consumption. But the figures show immoderate drinking peaked at 42 per cent (of 16-24 year old women in the UK) in 1998 and has since fallen to 35 per cent in 2006; while binge drinking peaked at 26 per cent in 2000-2 and fell to 21 per cent in 2006.

The proportion of young British women drinking more than 14 units of alcohol a week has fallen from 33 per cent to 20 per cent in 2006. And while young women remain the heaviestdrinking age group, they are only slightly higher in consumption than older women. Those aged 16-24 consumed an average weekly 11.3 units, with 25 per cent drinking more than 14 units, compared to 24-44 year olds who drank an average of 10.2 units a week, with 24 per cent drinking more than 14 units. Women aged 45-64 drank an average of 9.9 units a week, with 22 per cent drinking more than 14 units.

However, national statistics show that it is women in managerial and professional occupations who report drinking both more frequently and more heavily. Such women are more likely to drink at home than those in routine and manual occupations.

"Given that professional women's alcohol consumption is more likely to be within the home - with less acute health and crime related consequences - their drinking has received less attention and has only recently been recognised as a 'hidden harm'," said the researchers.

British women drink more wine than men, and consumption increases with age.

A recent Danish health survey suggests immoderate drinking is more prevalent among 45-65 year old women (15 per cent) compared to 16-24-year-old girls (10 per cent). Furthermore, the older women's trend was increasing, while the younger trend decreasing.

The researchers say a key factor fuelling the trend has been the falling cost of alcohol - which in 2007 was 69 per cent more affordable in the UK than it was in 1980.

They also query whether the UK's policy of encouraging 'sensible', supposedly civilised European café bar and home-based drinking, whilst demonising working class adult 'problem drinking', has been the right one.

"It may be that it is this idealised Mediterranean model of more frequent wine drinking within the home which presents less acute but possibly more chronic alcohol related problems when overlaid on traditional British and Danish drinking cultures," say the researchers.

They also highlight the point that the problematising of young people's public excesses also functions to consolidate middle-class, middle-aged drinking as comparatively civilised and unproblematic.

Dr Measham said: "Current alcohol trends challenge some of these enduring stereotypes of problem drinking and lead us to question why we are so eager to demonise young people yet so reluctant to recognise that drinking trends can go down as well as up."

Turning to drink

Men are still the heavier drinkers but women - especially teenagers - are catching up fast

Women are advised by government health officials to drink no more than three units on any day and not to exceed 14 units per week

Following a recent reclassification a small 125ml glass of wine counts as 1.5 units, a medium 175ml glass as two units and a large 250ml glass as three

Under the new measurement system women now drink an average of 9.4 units a week 6 13 per cent of women consume alcohol on at least five days a week

In 1992 girls aged 14 in England drank an average of 3.8 units a week; by 2004 that had risen to 9.7 units

The highest proportion of people who drink "hazardous" amounts - 15-35 units a week for women - are found in prosperous areas such as Surrey and Harrogate

British women aged under 25 drink more than their peers in other European countries

Sources: Office for National Statistics; Liverpool John Moores University; ICM; Datamonitor

Online The latest news and analysis from Scotland

A Real Sexy Read: I Wanna Grow Old, but Look 8

The Times (London)

December 19, 2009 Saturday 
Edition 1; 
National Edition

Should we fight for our right to a facelift?; 
Society expects women to look forever young. So American feminists have a point: a Bo-Tax on plastic surgery is sexist


BYLINE: Janice Turner

SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 19

LENGTH: 1083 words

Whatever the subterfuge and super-size airbrush applied to Twiggy's crows' feet on that banned Oil of Olay ad, the words were 100 per cent true.

"Younger-looking eyes," read the copy, "never go out of fashion." No, sisters, they certainly don't, not in this unforgiving era when ageing is no longer seen as a natural process but a dereliction of duty. When even men - great, growly alpha bears such as George Clooney, Lord Sugar and General Sir Mike Jackson - take their scrotum-textured upper eyelids off for a snip.

The damn potions don't work. We don't need the Advertising Standards Authority to tell us. We're not dumb, but we do need to dream. We figured out all by ourselves that it wasn't Age Re-Perfect Pro-Calcium Moist - aka "cream for crones" - that meant the L'Oréal spokesmodel Jane Fonda looked pretty good for 70, but the busy scalpels of Beverly Hills.

Anyway, Cindy Crawford herself has 'fessed up. "I'm not going to lie to myself: past a certain age ... all I can really count on is vitamin injections, Botox and collagen." And there speaks a woman who made millions from her own skin care range - a brand called Meaningful.

So how are women supposed to age these days? Once, the path was clearly marked: a dress size gained per decade; grey hair pepped up with a wash of blue; breasts fused into that mighty single entity, a matronly bosom; what to wear at parties solved by a mélange of velvet scarves. Short skirts, fancy pants, the more edgy diktats of fashion were discarded with a comfortable sigh. And that is still a feasible course of action if you are prepared to risk being invisible, irrelevant, maybe even unemployed.

In America, during the debate about Obama's healthcare reforms, facelifts have turned into a feminist issue. The Senate has been discussing a proposal that cosmetic surgery operations should be taxed at 5 per cent, and that the proceeds - $5 billion (£3 billion) over a decade - be fed back into state healthcare to treat people who are actually sick. It sounds a nifty plan to me, evoking that scene in Fight Club where vats of yellow fat extracted from rich bellies by liposuction are turned into useful soap. An excise duty on vanity, how beautiful is that? A small- change reminder that good health in America has long been a privilege.

But this so-called Bo-Tax has the most unlikely of opponents. Terry O'Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women in the US, has called it "a tax on middle-aged women in a society that devalues them for being middle-aged."

Yet it is galling to remember that NOW was founded by that Old Testament feminist prophet Betty Friedan, and is the largest women's rights organisation in America. NOW practically invented feminism, or at least the saucy urban myth that women's libbers burn their bras. This started in 1968 outside the Miss America beauty contest, when its members filled a "Freedom Trash Can" with restrictive undergarments, false eyelashes and painful heels, then torched the lot. And it is NOW whose website has a downloadable PowerPoint presentation - entitled Love Your Body - on how the evil beauty and fashion industries make women feel ugly, old and inadequate, and illustrated by ads even more mendacious than Twiggy's.

But can we ever love our bodies enough to override the bombardment of messages stating that they are unloveable? Or has the right to plastic surgery become a feminist demand, like abortion and fairer dibs of housework? What Ms O'Neill, 57, demonstrates, in fact, is a new real body politic: raging against the ageist machine ain't working; if women want to remain heard, to continue to participate in society, to have incomes that don't tail off in their fifties, they must remain youthful. Television in America, unlike in Britain where it has a menopausedetecting ejector seat, features many high-profile older women, but they all understand that in order to work, they must have work done.

But, Ms O'Neill insists, in the current job market, waitresses are having anti-ageing surgery as often as anchorwomen and, given that 92 per cent of cosmetic procedures in America are bought by women, this is a sexist tariff. One commentator even railed against Bo-Tax's double bind: having suffered the pain and risk of having their boobs enlarged to titillate men, they are also expected to subsidise their healthcare.

Since America lacks our safety nets, feminism has always been solidly welded to monetary gain achieved through a perpetual and ruthless self-improvement. Refusing to be a has-been, Gloria Steinem had a facelift decades back. Our own Susie Orbach is used when lecturing abroad to being told (often by fellow psychotherapists) that she'd look better with "something done".

Only recently in Britain did plastic-surgery rates rocket: last year, 34,187 operations were performed (91 per cent on women), up 5 per cent on 2007. But that was an astounding three times more than in 2003. In just five years, fuelled by such TV programmes as 10 Years Younger, which makes cutting up your face seem as inconsequential as a new lippie, plastic surgery has changed its image from freakish to banal.

Well, you might think, let foolish women throw their life savings into the ski holidays and school fees of Harley Street surgeons. Except, increasingly, it's you who is paying. This year, the NHS spent £5.7 million on giving 471 patients liposuction and more than 1,600 patients nose jobs, tummy tucks and breast reductions. Unless there is a deformity or disfigurement, a patient must prove her offending body part is giving her great psychological distress. But a study of a typical NHS clinic showed that almost half of the requests for nose jobs were treated, along with a quarter for tummy tucks, half for breast reduction and a fifth of those who wanted breast enhancements.

So, are these patients exaggerating their misery and trauma over small breasts or a binbag-like post-baby tum to blag free surgery? Perhaps. But it could be argued that in a society fixated with the perfectibility of every body part, from fat ankles to enlarged labia, body dismorphia is not now a mental illness but an entirely sane and logical response.

And what of today's generation of thirtysomethings, primped, groomed and raised to monitor every celebrity for the first sign of liverspots. Will they, like the pragmatic broads of NOW, grow to believe that eternal youth should be delivered (perhaps by the NHS free) as a right?

This year, more than 1,600 people had nose jobs on the NHS

Sexism in my own life

Today, I was sitting around with a bunch of guys just minding my own business trying to accomplish my work. Suddenly, out of nowhere some random said, "why is it easier for women to get away with stuff"

all the boys nodded in agreement.


this might not be as sexist as it reads, but the way he said it and the way all the boys chuckled made me feel sad for me.

FMG

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Hey guys, Just started it. Interesting Posts Coming Soon!!