Rachel’s Musings

The ink on Bella DePaulo’s new book is barely dry, and we’re again bombarded with matrimanical, scientific sounding articles. MSN asks “Can Love Be Unhealthy?” And they’re oh so surprised that it can be! (Maybe they should’ve talked to a battered woman…). Their scientific sounding – 88%! – bites are linked to studies. Well, not really, the studies aren’t cited, the link doesn’t bring me to a citation page but rather to a page that has the exact same sound bites. And no citation either. A quick search shows a lot of UCLA studies that found 88 percent of something – nothing about singles dying on the first results page.

Let’s stick with the benefits of marriage page for a little longer. Take a look at the first benefit: Married men earn more than single men. That’s a benefit of marriage?!? Leaving out for now the usual correlation is not causation mistake, replace “married men” with “white men” and “single men” with “African-American men.” See my point? They aren’t documenting a benefit – they are documenting blatant discrimination! What about that correlation thing? People who drive BMWs tend to have higher pay than people who don’t drive BMWs but nobody in their right mind would suggest to increase our pay by buying a BMW! Somehow with marriage they manage to make just that suggestion… Benefit #2 is similar to benefit #1: Discrimination of single people. Benefit #3 is debunked by DePaulo in her book. Number 4 mixes up correlation and causation again (sigh; how about requiring any journalist to take a stats 101 class?). Ditto #5. That leaves number 6 that pesky 88% higher likelihood of death for single folks. I bet this claim will fall apart when I actually look at the study but I can’t find the study! I have asked for a citation in the comments. Let’s see what happens… So far my comment hasn’t even shown up yet.

Back to the MSN article. Aside from all the data problems, the article also implies that love = marriage. Well, it doesn’t. Just ask that South Carolina governor you’re talking about…

For more myth busting, please read DePaulo’s excellent work!

I am reading two books right now that are touching on the ideas of machines in modern society. The first book is by Erich Kästner: Als ich ein kleiner Junge war (when I was a little boy). In this autobiography, Kästner describes how in his father’s lifetime craftsmen, like his father, lost their livelihood and ended up working in factories with machines to create more, cheaper goods. Or maybe they worked like machines. That is where the second book picks up. Bruno Bettelheim suggests in his book The Informed Heart that the existential struggle of our time is the balancing act between technology/science and autonomy. One of the dangers of the modern age is that we turn into machines. Kästner’s father turned from a craftsman who was more similar to an artist to a piece in the factory machinery who no longer produced a piece of art he was so proud of that he didn’t want to sell it.

I thought about all this as I was trying to convince myself to get out of bed this morning for my walk, which has become part of my early morning routine. Routine. I get up at almost the same time each morning. Get out of my bed on the same side. Put on my clothes for the walk in the same order. Warm up the same way. Is this routine turning me into a machine? But aren’t routines a necessary part of modern life? I decided to ponder this during my walk – with a slight twist: I would walk a new route and see how I’d react to that.

As I was leaving, I already noticed that putting my cell phone into my pouch the other way was creating some anxiety. This was going to be interesting! My new route would have to be about 30 minutes long. Why? Well, if I’d take longer, I would get home later, I would get ready later, and miss my bus and would be at work 10 minutes later. And what would be bad about that? Nothing really since I don’t have to punch in. I had been early a few days this week, so it would probably a wash anyway. Yet, it was clear that here was one reason for my routine: It would allow me to fit in; to not rattle the work boat by showing up slightly late because there was something on my walk that needed exploring. So, routines are part of modern life because they enable us to fit in, to abide by the status quo.

The thing I noticed on my non-routine walk: It was more fun! I felt more alive. I felt excited to see streets I’ve been on before from a different angle, a different side. And I decided not to worry about taking a few minutes longer, realizing that I’d either make up the time or just take a later bus.

The other thing I realized on my non-routine walk: Bettelheim argues to avoid becoming human machines, we cannot go back in time (become the craftsmen again) instead we need to find ways to utilize technology/science to our advantage while at the same time preserving our autonomy. And what exactly is this autonomy?

[Autonomy] has to do with man’s inner ability to govern himself, and with a conscientious search for meaning despite the realization that, as far as we know, there is no purpose to one’s life. It is a concept that does not imply a revolt against authority qua authority, but rather a quiet acting out of inner conviction, not out of convenience or resentment, or because of external persuasion or controls.” (75)

It means that we’re true to ourselves, that we don’t date just because everybody else is doing it but embrace being single if that is what makes us happiest. That we don’t marry because everybody else does it or because it’s more convenient to get the 1,300+ benefits in one package but rather refuse to marry in order to get this package because we’d be giving up our conviction that marriage is an outmoded, patriarchal institution we’d rather shun. It means that we go back to school if we’re tired of being an automaton at work even if that creates much anxiety around real and imagined issues. Essentially, it means being authentic to ourselves. The challenge is to do that despite all the societal pressures to conform (including those 1,300+ benefits or the subtle and not so subtle suggestions that there’s something wrong with us if we’re single). And at the same time finding ways of living autonomous while enabling the existence of a society because living in a social network does provide us with many benefits (including police and fire protection).

I wonder what our society would look like if we’d stop being human machines and would break out of our routines more often. Clearly, there is some use for routines – they do give us a sense of security but what price do we pay for this security? And could we have routines that also allow us to remain alive rather than turn into machines?

Yupp, I mean exercise. To me, the most important question is: How much and how hard should I work out to live a good life? That wasn’t always the key question for me. A couple of years ago, I got wrapped up in the San Francisco overachiever exercise madness. “What are you training for?” seemed to be the key question then. And you better not answer that with anything less than a 10K! 5Ks are for losers – and not the weight-loss kind of losers… At least that’s the message. It never quite jived with the anecdote from my mom’s experience: She was on medication for arrhythmia. Then she started walking almost every day for about half an hour. She’s off the medication now. She’s not walking all that fast. But she is consistent. Then the first research clue came in. Jennifer Michael Hecht in her wonderful “Happiness Myth” made a side comment that there is little research that supports the idea that harder work-outs are better than simple walking (she calls gyms “halls of mirrors”). Getting off the couch is where the exercise benefits lie but beyond that, we don’t know – or, worse, we know that it’s not that good for you because the risk of injury is increasing dramatically. Again, that matches another anecdote. I just about burned myself out those couple years ago! I was training for who knows what by being in the gym almost every day for at least an hour. On the weekends longer. I didn’t get enough sleep and worked my body too hard. I couldn’t possibly be overtraining, I told myself when I started feeling tired all the time, because I wasn’t an athlete. It probably was a combination of a not quite under control hypothyroidism and, well, overtraining. At least, after a few months of doing this and breaking up with my gym-rat boy friend, I was able to accept that. And now I feel vindicated that my low-dose walking is all I really need. Research presented in Time magazine supports the idea that more, harder exercise isn’t better than regular every day walking (big hat tip to Bella DePaulo).

John Cloud, the article’s author, began to ask himself, too: “Why am I doing this?” His answer, in part: To lose weight.

One of the most widely accepted, commonly repeated assumptions in our culture is that if you exercise, you will lose weight. [...]

The conventional wisdom that exercise is essential for shedding pounds is actually fairly new. As recently as the 1960s, doctors routinely advised against rigorous exercise, particularly for older adults who could injure themselves. Today doctors encourage even their oldest patients to exercise, which is sound advice for many reasons: People who regularly exercise are at significantly lower risk for all manner of diseases — those of the heart in particular. They less often develop cancer, diabetes and many other illnesses. But the past few years of obesity research show that the role of exercise in weight loss has been wildly overstated. [...]

The basic problem is that while it’s true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight-loss benefits we just accrued. Exercise, in other words, isn’t necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.

Of course, exercise isn’t a total waste of your time. There are many other benefits to it, as Cloud outlines, just weight loss isn’t one of them at least not automatically, especially with high-intensity work-outs in “halls of mirrors.”

In addition to enhancing heart health and helping prevent disease, exercise improves your mental health and cognitive ability. [...]

But there’s some confusion about whether it is exercise — sweaty, exhausting, hunger-producing bursts of activity done exclusively to benefit our health — that leads to all these benefits or something far simpler: regularly moving during our waking hours. We all need to move more [...]. But do we need to stress our bodies at the gym?

That is my question! Is it worth spending all that money – according to Cloud $19 billion per year – to go to the gym or can I just lace up my shoes and walk, like my mom?

Well, the research suggests that regular low-intensity exercise is just as beneficial as short bursts of intense exercise, like the gym-type stuff. As Cloud puts it

Many obesity researchers now believe that very frequent, low-level physical activity — the kind humans did for tens of thousands of years before the leaf blower was invented — may actually work better for us than the occasional bouts of exercise you get as a gym rat.

So, if you’re sweating in the gym to lose weight, you might want to reconsider. It’s better for your wallet (no gym membership) and the environment (no driving to the gym to work out on machines that require electricity) to simply go out and walk – and we now know that the research, too, shows that it’s better for our waistline.

I have finally implemented my plan to follow my mother’s routine and walk half an hour every morning even if that means I have to get up at the dreaded hour of 6 AM. I used a week off to get started with that routine. So far, it has at least one of the hoped for benefits: I sleep better!

Even though my official walks for this uphill battle fundraiser are done I did another walk today! It was gorgeous weather here in San Francisco, even in the Outer Richmond, where it was very foggy this morning. We’ve raised $808 so far ($40 more since week 8)! Can you help me reach my $1,000 goal? I am only $192 short of this goal! I very much appreciate the support I have already received both financially and otherwise! It’s not too late to donate either – I will appreciate the reward for a walking goal met! You can either donate online (just click on the button to the left), send a check to AtMP (P.O. Box 320151, Brooklyn NY 11232), or give me a check (or cash) next time you see me. We’re almost there! It’s like having to walk up the last 192 inches to reach the top of the hill!

To go back to my weekly updates please click here where you also can find out what all this walking is about…

My bed was rather sticky this morning. No, not the kind that comes from eating breakfast in bed. The kind that comes from not wanting to get up. As my vacation is winding down, I am noticing the brewing of what Eric Maisel has called a meaning crisis. Some might call it a low grade depression. Either way, it’s making it more difficult for me to get out of bed. I managed to get up half an hour late and still go out for my morning walk. During the walk I realized what I was telling myself: I spent part of my vacation in Germany visiting family and I realized that I felt that my cousins are so much more successful than I am. Are they making more money than me? Probably not. But they are enjoying what they are doing and they are contributing something to society that is valuable. I feel like I am doing neither – after all that’s why I am changing gears – so I feel unsuccessful! On top of that I am not even successful based on “traditional” standards. While I earn a decent amount of money, at this point in my career, I probably should start moving up the ladder. Or maybe already have a few people reporting to me. I certainly shouldn’t be a little peon anymore shuffling papers. And I don’t drive an Audi, own a house, or – gasp! – have a spouse. I do have a child but sans spouse that doesn’t count. Obviously, there is something wrong here!      Continue reading this post » » »

Although I am happily unattached, I realize that unmarried couples face another set of prejudices: Primarily the “you’re not serious until you’re married” myth. Just like David Letterman’s relationship of decades wasn’t serious in the eyes of many until he married his long-time partner. Amy Williams describes on AlterNet some of the things she has been facing along those lines when the simple act of not marrying became subversive in the eyes of others.

I wanted to blame films like Twenty-Seven Dresses and My Big Fat Greek Wedding for brainwashing my friends and family into believing that a wedding is (of course!) the climax of a sexual relationship. But I knew that my aversion to marriage was uncomfortable for everyone else because it blurred the lines between “legitimate” and “illegitimate.”

Williams’ observations are echoed by Stephanie Coontz:

While marriage is associated with a positive vocabulary and public image, other familial arrangements remain undefined, if not ignored. “Arrangements other than marriage are still treated as makeshift or temporary, however long they last,” Coontz writes. “There is no consensus on what rules apply to these relationships. We don’t even know what to call them.”

Only marriage provides us with the vocabulary of legitimacy – hardly a sign of progress given the patriarchal and sexist history of marriage. As if social stigma isn’t enough, there are real costs to choosing not to be part of this institution. Writes Williams:

The cost of a “nontraditional” relationship status is great because it directly impacts the economic, and even physical, well-being of many unmarried partners. Cohabitating, heterosexual partners are still excluded from protections like partner sick leave, hospital-visitation rights, automatic inheritance, and a slew of other incentives afforded to married couples.

Williams decided that she didn’t want to continue to face the discrimination and stigmatization.

[American Prospect author and Feministing editor Courtney] Martin hit the nail on the head with her observation that for many, the desire for marriage is about a desire for inclusion.

Rather than fighting for her right to have her relationship recognized – as Alternatives to Marriage Project founders Dorian Solot and Marshall Miller did, for example – Williams takes the personal route: She gets married in a simple ceremony. Disappointing but totally understandable. And she clearly is still struggling with this decision because, at least in part, it was not based on a choice. She was forced to marry by a society that values only one type of relationship: Marriage to the exclusion of any other relationships, which is short-sighted and socially detrimental, plus discriminatory.

Women no longer forfeit their individuality when they say “I do.” Even so, marriage is problematic because it is still conflated with moral “purity” and notions of stability; meanwhile, relationships that exist outside of the single-married dichotomy are viewed as a threat to moral order and are penalized as such.

Just like no one shouldn’t be kept from the right to marry, no one should be forced to marry simply to protect themselves. As long as marriage remains something other than a commitment – it is now a socially sanctioned institution heavily rewarded – getting married (or not) is not a choice. It should be.