upworthy
Wellness

Is the 'cure worse than the disease?' Health stats from the Great Depression show it's not.

Is the 'cure worse than the disease?' Health stats from the Great Depression show it's not.
Photo by Sonder Quest on Unsplash

We've been "locked down" for nearly two months, and people are are understandably tired of it. Millions of Americans are out of work, which means many have also lost their employer-provided health insurance. Our economy has slowed to a crawl, businesses are shuttered, and everyone is worried about the sustainability of it all.

"We can't let the cure be worse than the disease," people say. The president himself has repeated this line, the implication being that the impact of the lockdowns will be worse than the impact of the virus. Just today in his press briefing the president mentioned suicides and drug overdoses as tragic consequences of the lockdowns, stating that more Americans could die of those causes than the virus if we fall into an extended economic depression.


Is that true, though? While no one can predict the future, death statistics and economic history in the U.S. do not support that idea at all. Not even close.

Let's start with suicides. During the two worst years of the Great Depression, 20,000 Americans per year took their own lives. That's tragic—but it's nowhere near the number of Americans that have died of COVID-19 just in the past month.

Screenshot via Worldometers

Of course, the U.S. population has nearly tripled since the Great Depression, so we can't compare that number directly. But even if we triple those Great Depression suicides to 60,000 a year to account for population change, that's still not as many Americans as have died of COVID-19 in just the past 5 weeks.

Using a different calculation, there was a 25% increase in suicides during the Great Depression. With ~48,000 suicides in the U.S. in 2018, a 25% increase would also put the annual number at 60,000. No suicide number is a good number, of course. But by no math in the universe is an extra 12,000 deaths per year anywhere near the 80,000 Americans who have died of COVID-19 in the past two months.

Our COVID-19 deaths have averaged around 2000 per day for weeks while under lockdown. At no time in our history, through bad economic depressions and horrific world wars, has 2000 Americans died of suicide per day. Even if our suicide numbers tripled—a 12 times greater increase than during the worst years of the Great Depression—that would still be less than 400 people dying of suicide per day. A terrible number, but not nearly as terrible as 2000 per day.

What about drug overdoses? Well, that's a little trickier to gauge. I've not seen any statistics about drug overdoses during the Great Depression, and we already had an opioid crisis flourishing before the pandemic hit. I imagine it's probably harder for people to get the drugs to feed an addiction right now, so I'm not convinced that there would be an enormous increase in drug overdoses. But for the sake of argument, let's say drug overdoses doubled. Highly unlikely, but let's go with it.

In 2018, the last year for which we have statistics, 184 people per day died of drug overdose. If we double that, we're talking around 370 people per day—still less than one-fourth the number of Americans dying of COVID-19 per day in the past month.

Even added together, those extreme suicide and drug overdose scenarios don't add up to our current COVID-19 situation. And once again—those numbers are with lockdowns in place.

What about starvation, though? Surely millions would die of starvation or malnutrition in a tanked economy, right? Well, no—for a couple of reasons.

1) The reality is if anyone starves to death in the U.S., a country that has the ability to produce more than enough food to feed our population, that's a mismanagement of resources, not an inevitable outcome of an economic crash.

2) Americans didn't die of starvation in large numbers during the Great Depression.

In fact—are you ready for a rather mind-blowing statistic—the overall health of Americans didn't decline during the Great Depression at all. It improved.

People lived years longer during the Depression. Life expectancy rose. Mortality rates dropped in every category (except suicide) across practically every demographic.

In fact, this pattern shows up consistently during economic booms and recessions. More people die—and die at younger ages—during economic booms. Vice versa during recessions. Counterintuitive? Yes. But that's what the data shows. (Here's the 2009 study that shows these trends during the Great Depression.)

We could debate the reasons for this, but it doesn't really matter. The point is, if the "cure" is a lockdown that results in an economic depression and the "disease" is the virus spreading unchecked, we have no evidence that the cure is or could be worse than the disease, at least not in terms of death counts.

Now clearly, there are huge problems with a tanked economy. Mental health issues increase. Life is hard. People struggle and suffer and we certainly should not minimize that. BUT...

Mass death and mass illness also cause suffering and mental health issues, while also hurting the economy.

I've seen people say we open back up, shoot for herd immunity, and just accept the fact that people will die. But that notion completely ignores the economic impact of having a big chunk of the population too sick to work. As we hear more and more people describe their COVID-19 journeys, it's becoming clear that even infected people who don't have to be hospitalized can still be very ill for weeks.

Let's do some quick herd immunity math. Reaching herd immunity means 70% of the population would have to get the virus. (Some say 60%, some say 80 or 90%—let's go with the middle.) That's 229 million people in the U.S. We don't have a good enough hold on this virus to know how many people have already have it or how many would be asymptomatic, but a current guess for asymptomatic cases is 25% to 50%. Let's go with the higher.

That would mean 114.5 million Americans being symptomatically ill. It's impossible to know how severe each person's case would be, but if even half of those with symptoms got flu-level ill, that would be 56 million people too sick to work for weeks. Some would have lingering health issues afterward to boot. What would that kind of mass illness to do to the economy?

And we haven't even gotten to the people dying yet. We don't have an accurate mortality rate, but let's go with a conservative 0.5% death rate (meaning 99.5% of people who get it, survive it). We're still talking 1,135,000 deaths if we shoot for 70% herd immunity at that death rate. That basically means we'd all know people who died of this disease.

I'm pretty sure mass grieving over a huge death toll in a short period of time isn't great for the economy, either. (Perhaps instead of deciding how much death and illness we're willing to tolerate, we could take this opportunity to fundamentally rethink how our economy works? Just a thought.)

Granted, all of these numbers are based on data that keeps changing as we learn more about the virus and its impact. We don't know enough yet to say anything for sure. We don't even know if people are truly immune yet. We do know the virus is real, and that it's more contagious and more deadly than the flu. Everything else is a best guess.

Essentially, there are no good options before us at the moment that don't involve great losses of one kind or another. But by no historical or statistical measure do we have evidence that the cure worse than the disease—at least with the data we have right now.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
coronavirus
Badge
Adobe
Adobe
Technology

Here’s how one nonprofit org is using Adobe to change the world

Adobe empowers nonprofits to fundraise, advocate, and further their missions.

True

In 2024, it’s practically impossible to function as a nonprofit without the right digital resources. Nonprofits use computer systems and applications for things like education, fundraising, engaging clients, and communicating with donors. However, with limited funding and expertise, it's often difficult to get the digital tools they need to fully support their missions.

The planet needs nonprofit organizations, and nonprofits need better digital tools. For decades, Adobe has provided nonprofits with the tools they need to fulfill their mission—helping them with everything from social media advocacy to educational videos to graphic design. Now, Adobe is offering the pro version of Adobe Acrobat for Nonprofits, the most requested and comprehensive set of document and e-signature tools, for just $15 per user per year, which represents a 94% annual savings off the regular price. This will make it easier than ever for nonprofits to streamline business processes and increase their impact with engaging educational and fundraising assets – from annual reports, contracts and grant submissions to brochures and white papers.

Keep reading to hear more about how Adobe helped one nonprofit improve efficiencies and giveback potential – and how you can start using Adobe tools today for your organization.

A nonprofit success story

Albert Manero, a mechanical engineer and graduate of the University of Central Florida, founded Limbitless Solutions, Inc., as a passion project in a small lab. Today, Limbitless is celebrating its 10-year anniversary and has grown into an interdisciplinary team based at the University of Central Florida in Orlando that includes 50 interns with nine different fields of expertise. Their mission? To inspire and empower underserved communities through creative, accessible technology.

Manero and his team of experts create bionic, 3D-printed arms for children with limb differences. Combining visual storytelling with art and engineering, the Limbitless team wants children with limb differences to feel included and capable, while at the same time, able to express their personal identity more fully. Developing bionic arms covered in flowers or designed like Iron Man’s armor, kids with these bionic limbs can not only grip objects, hold hands and more, but can feel empowered to be themselves.

Using Adobe to make a difference

Limbitless, like many others, has utilized Adobe for Nonprofits offerings, which gives nonprofit organizations access to Adobe programs at a deeply discounted rate, including access programs like Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Express and Adobe Acrobat as well as Adobe’s 3D tools.

Adobe solutions are the oil that keeps organizations running smoothly behind the scenes. For the grant application and reporting processes, employees at Limbitless have credited Adobe Acrobat with helping the team secure funding and communicating clearly with donors and partners. With Acrobat, they’re able to create, edit, and manage PDF documents that look professional and polished. The company has also transitioned most of its internal documentation to digital formats using Acrobat. This includes everything from design blueprints, brand guidelines, intern contracts, and user manuals for bionic limbs.

Better tech for a better future

In addition to helping day-to-day operations run smoothly, Adobe has also helped bring Limbitless’ mission of inclusion and accessibility outside of office walls.

Using Adobe Express, the fast and easy create-anything app, Limbitless has been able to create quick how-to videos for young patients and their families that showcase how to use their bionic limbs, as well as a series of videos promoting STEAM (science, technology, engineering art and math) education. The company’s Operations, Advocacy, and Logistics team utilizes Express as well, developing content and visual assets for their social media accounts. Recently, Limbitless partnered with the Adobe Express’ Animate Characters team to create six unique, limb-different selectable avatar characters for their educational outreach and social media campaigns.

And Adobe is helping Limbitless empower kids with limb differences, too: Limbitless’ comic series, Bionic Kid, was created using Adobe Illustrator and features a superhero with limb differences who uses a Limbitless prosthetic arm. This inspired a fundraising concept initiated from the idea by a Limbitless prosthetic recipient Zachary Pamboukas, which has been used in fundraising efforts for more bionic arms and has already raised over $20,000.

Inside the organization and out, Adobe is enabling people to reach their full potential, contributing to better nonprofit organizations and, overall, a better world.

Learn more about the new Adobe Acrobat for Nonprofits offering and explore more ways Adobe can help your organization today.

From Your Site Articles
Innovation

Astronaut shares the profound 'big lie' he realized after seeing the Earth from space

This change in perspective could change humanity.

via Rubén Moreno Montolíu/Flickr

Our home, from space.

Sixty-one years ago, Yuri Gagarin became the first human to make it into space and probably the first to experience what scientists now call the "overview effect." This change occurs when people see the world from far above and notice that it’s a place where “borders are invisible, where racial, religious and economic strife are nowhere to be seen.”

The overview effect makes man’s squabbles with one another seem incredibly petty and presents the planet as it truly is, one interconnected organism.

In a compelling interview with Big Think, astronaut, author and humanitarian Ron Garan explains how if more of us developed this planetary perspective we could fix much of what ails humanity and the planet.

Garan has spent 178 days in space and traveled more than 71 million miles in 2,842 orbits. From high above, he realized that the planet is a lot more fragile than he thought.

“When I looked out the window of the International Space Station, I saw the paparazzi-like flashes of lightning storms, I saw dancing curtains of auroras that seemed so close it was as if we could reach out and touch them. And I saw the unbelievable thinness of our planet's atmosphere. In that moment, I was hit with the sobering realization that that paper-thin layer keeps every living thing on our planet alive,” Garan said in the video.

“I saw an iridescent biosphere teeming with life,” he continues. “I didn't see the economy. But since our human-made systems treat everything, including the very life-support systems of our planet, as the wholly owned subsidiary of the global economy, it's obvious from the vantage point of space that we're living a lie.”

It was at that moment he realized that humanity needs to reevaluate its priorities.

“We need to move from thinking economy, society, planet to planet, society, economy. That's when we're going to continue our evolutionary process,” he added.

Garan says that we are paying a very “high price” as a civilization for our inability to develop a more planetary perspective and that it’s a big reason why we’re failing to solve many of our problems. Even though our economic activity may improve quality of life on one end, it’s also disasterous for the planet that sustains our lives.

It’s like cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Actor William Shatner had a similar experience to Garan's when he traveled into space.

"It was among the strongest feelings of grief I have ever encountered," Shatner wrote. "The contrast between the vicious coldness of space and the warm nurturing of Earth below filled me with overwhelming sadness. Every day, we are confronted with the knowledge of further destruction of Earth at our hands: the extinction of animal species, of flora and fauna … things that took five billion years to evolve, and suddenly we will never see them again because of the interference of mankind."

“We're not going to have peace on Earth until we recognize the basic fact of the interrelated structure of all reality,” Garan said.

However dire the situation looks from the surface of Earth, the astronaut has hope that we can collectively evolve in consciousness and wake up and embrace a larger reality. “And when we can evolve beyond a two-dimensional us versus them mindset, and embrace the true multi-dimensional reality of the universe that we live in, that's when we're going to no longer be floating in darkness … and it's a future that we would all want to be a part of. That's our true calling.”


This article originally appeared two years ago.

From Your Site Articles
space
Science

How the woman with the world’s highest IQ silenced her critics with the Monty Hall Problem

Marilyn vos Savant took on 10,000 angry letters to prove her controversial answer.

Wikimedia Commons

Door 1, 2, or 3? Choose carefully, there's a Pontiac Tempest on the line.

A recent thread on X by @iamluismalheiro has reignited interest in a fascinating problem. In his thread, Luis recounts the 1990 controversy sparked by Marilyn vos Savant, who famously tackled the puzzle in her “Ask Marilyn” column. Before we get to the controversy, let's play the game. Ready? There are three doors. Behind one is a car—a gleaming, shiny, make-your-friends-jealous car. The other two? Goats. What happens to the goats if you win is anyone’s guess, but let’s stay focused.

Pick a door. 1, 2, or 3. Got one? Great. Let’s say you picked door 1. Now, the host opens door 3 to reveal…a goat. Now comes the big moment. The host gives you a choice: stick with your original pick, or switch to door 2? What do you do?

If you switched, congrats—you just won a brand new 1965 Pontiac Tempest! If you didn’t, well…enjoy your new goat.

But why? Why does switching lead to victory twice as often as staying with the original door?

The puzzle that stumped millions

This is the Monty Hall Problem, named after the host of the classic game show Let’s Make a Deal. It’s simple enough to explain, but the math behind it has baffled people for decades. Even PhDs and mathematicians have gotten it wrong.

via GIPHY

The question boils down to this: When Monty opens the door to reveal a goat, does switching increase your odds of winning the car? The answer is yes—switching doubles your chances of winning.

Marilyn’s bold answer—and the backlash

In 1990, Marilyn vos Savant, recognized for having one of the highest recorded IQs, confidently declared, “Yes, you should switch.” Her answer was based on solid math, but it provoked a storm of criticism. She received over 10,000 letters, including nearly 1,000 from PhDs. Many accused her of misunderstanding the problem or even being incapable of basic logic. Others resorted to personal attacks:

"You are the goat!"

— Anonymous critic

Some critiques veered into outright sexism:

"Maybe women look at math problems differently than men."

— Anonymous critic

But Marilyn stood her ground, unwavering in her confidence. Over time, her answer was proven right by computer simulations run by MIT, as well as by experiments conducted by MythBusters. Eventually, many academics who had criticized her publicly apologized for their errors, acknowledging her insight and logic. The ordeal transformed Marilyn into a symbol of intellectual resilience, and her calm persistence in the face of hostility continues to inspire people today.

Marilyn’s lasting legacy

Marilyn often reflected on her experience, noting how the backlash revealed deeper issues with how we approach learning and problem-solving. She attributed much of the confusion—and the vitriol—to flaws in the education system. “Our schools teach us to memorize answers, not to question them,” she argued, advocating for an approach to education that encourages independent thinking.

Despite the loneliness that sometimes accompanied her intellect, Marilyn saw her gift as a blessing. “It’s not easy being this smart,” she admitted, but she never shied away from using her platform to challenge conventional thinking. Her Monty Hall response remains one of the most famous examples of sticking to the truth in the face of overwhelming opposition.

Today, her story is a reminder that being right doesn’t always mean being popular—but it’s worth standing firm. As Luis Malheiro’s viral thread shows, the Monty Hall Problem continues to fascinate people, thanks in no small part to Marilyn’s courage and conviction.

Here’s the math

Let’s break it down. When you first choose a door, you have a 1/3 chance of picking the car and a 2/3 chance of picking a goat. If you’ve picked a goat (which happens 2/3 of the time), switching after the host reveals another goat guarantees the car.

It's a numbers game backed up by MIT supercomputers and the Mythbusters alike:

  • Pick the car (1/3 chance): Switching loses.
  • Pick a goat (2/3 chance): Switching wins.

So, by switching, you win 2/3 of the time.

"Switching wins 2/3 of the time."

— Luis Malheiro

Why is it so hard to grasp?

The Monty Hall Problem messes with our intuition. Most people reset the odds after the host reveals a goat, assuming it’s now a 50/50 choice between the remaining doors. But the math doesn’t work that way—the odds of your initial pick being correct stay at 1/3.

via GIPHY

In her defense of the solution, Marilyn criticized the education system for fostering passive learners who lack the tools to think critically. It’s a critique that feels just as relevant today.

The thread blowing up on X

Luis Malheiro’s thread has reignited the debate, drawing millions of views and sparking conversations about math, intuition, and education. Many users shared their disbelief at the backlash Marilyn endured, while others admitted they’d initially gotten the problem wrong themselves.

"It’s not easy being this smart."

— Marilyn vos Savant

Why it matters

The Monty Hall Problem isn’t just a fun game show puzzle—it’s a reminder of the importance of critical thinking and the courage to stand by the truth, even when it’s unpopular. Threads like Luis’s help bring these lessons to a new audience.

So, the next time you’re faced with a tough choice, consider the Monty Hall Problem. Sometimes, the smartest move is to switch.

From Your Site Articles
Family

Researchers studied kindergarteners' behavior and followed up 19 years later. Here are the findings.

Every parent wants to see their kid get good grades in school. But now we know social success is just as important.

Image from Pixabay.

Big smiles in class at kindergarten.


Every parent wants to see their kid get good grades in school. But now we know social success is just as important. From an early age, we're led to believe our grades and test scores are the key to everything — namely, going to college, getting a job, and finding that glittery path to lifelong happiness and prosperity.

It can be a little stressful. But a study showed that when children learn to interact effectively with their peers and control their emotions, it can have an enormous impact on how their adult lives take shape. And according to the study, kids should be spending more time on these skills in school.

Nope, it's not hippie nonsense. It's science.

Kindergarten teachers evaluated the kids with a portion of something called the Social Competence Scale by rating statements like "The child is good at understanding other's feelings" on a handy "Not at all/A little/Moderately well/Well/Very well" scale.

The research team used these responses to give each kid a "social competency score," which they then stored in what I assume was a manila folder somewhere for 19 years, or until each kid was 25. At that point, they gathered some basic information about the now-grown-ups and did some fancy statistical stuff to see whether their early social skills held any predictive value.

Here's what they found.

1. Those good test scores we covet? They still matter, but maybe not for the reasons we thought.

Back To School GIF by IFC - Find & Share on GIPHY

education, research, competency, kids

Meeting high expectations...

Billy Madison GIF from Giphy

Traditional thinking says that if a kid gets good grades and test scores, he or she must be really smart, right? After all, there is a proven correlation between having a better GPA in high school and making more money later in life.

But what that test score doesn't tell you is how many times a kid worked with a study partner to crack a tough problem, or went to the teacher for extra help, or resisted the urge to watch TV instead of preparing for a test.

The researchers behind this project wrote, "Success in school involves both social-emotional and cognitive skills, because social interactions, attention, and self-control affect readiness for learning."

That's a fancy way of saying that while some kids may just be flat-out brilliant, most of them need more than just smarts to succeed. Maybe it wouldn't hurt spending a little more time in school teaching kids about the social half of the equation.

2. Skills like sharing and cooperating pay off later in life.

Adam Sandler Pee GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

friendship, movies, GPA, emotional maturity

Adam Sandler helps out a friend dealing with a stressful situations.

Billy Madison GIF from Giphy

We know we need to look beyond GPA and state-mandated testing to figure out which kids are on the right path. That's why the researchers zeroed in so heavily on that social competency score.

What they found probably isn't too surprising: Kids who related well to their peers, handled their emotions better, and were good at resolving problems went on to have more successful lives.

What's surprising is just how strong the correlation was.

An increase of a single point in social competency score showed a child would be 54% more likely to earn a high school diploma, twice as likely to graduate with a college degree, and 46% more likely to have a stable, full-time job at age 25.

The kids who were always stealing toys, breaking things, and having meltdowns? More likely to have run-ins with the law and substance abuse problems.

The study couldn't say for sure that strong or poor social skills directly cause any of these things. But we can say for sure that eating too much glue during arts and crafts definitely doesn't help.

3. Social behaviors can be learned and unlearned — meaning it's never too late to change.

social behavior, social skills, learning, positive social traits

Adam Sandler GIF of getting his groove on.

Billy Madison GIF from Giphy

The researchers called some of these pro-social behaviors like sharing and cooperating "malleable," or changeable.

Let's face it: Some kids are just never going to be rocket scientists. Turns out there are physical differences in our brains that make learning easier for some people than others. But settling disputes with peers? That's something kids (and adults) can always continue to improve on.

And guess what? For a lot of kids, these behaviors come from their parents. The more you're able to demonstrate positive social traits like warmth and empathy, the better off your kids will be.

So can we all agree to stop yelling at people when they take the parking spot we wanted?

But what does it all mean?

This study has definite limitations, which its researchers happily admit. While it did its best to control for as many environmental factors as possible, it ultimately leans pretty heavily on whether a teacher thought a kid was just "good" or "very good" at a given trait.

Still, the 19-year study paints a pretty clear picture: Pro-social behavior matters, even at a young age. And because it can be learned, it's a great "target for prevention or intervention efforts."

The bottom line? We need to do more than just teach kids information. We need to invest in teaching them how to relate to others and how to handle the things they're feeling inside.

Ignoring social skills in our curricula could have huge ramifications for our kids down the road.


This article originally appeared nine years ago.

From Your Site Articles
Joy

Why do cats 'make biscuits'? 6 reasons your cat likes to knead on you and your stuff.

Those kitty massages aren't just leftover breastfeeding instincts.

Photo credit: Canva

Kitty making biscuits, of course.

As soon as our cat steps onto one of the soft, fluffy blankets in our living room, her eyes go half-mast, her head hangs low, and she starts rhythmically kneading on it. Occasionally, she'll hover her nose just above the blanket while she kneads for minutes at a time, as if she's been sucked into a trance of some sort.

This kneading behavior, colloquially known as "making biscuits," is known to cat owners but always funny nonetheless. Like, what a bizarre instinct for an animal to have. It's not a survival instinct, nothing to do with keeping themselves safe or alive, just "Ooooh, I'm feeling the urge to massage something with my paws right now."

via GIPHY

What makes cats want to knead like this? What's this "making biscuits" business all about for them?

According to Cornerstone Veterinary Hospital in Clifton Park, New York, there are multiple reasons cats knead:

Your cat feels happy and safe like they did with Mom

The most obvious explanation for the kneading is that it's an extension of kitten behavior. If you've ever seen a kitten breastfeeding, you may have witnessed them kneading as they suckle to help express the milk. Those cozy, comforting moments of being nurtured and nourished by their mothers may cause cats to engage in similar behaviors as adults when they're happy and content.

Your cat loves you

We all want to believe that our cats adore us as much as we adore them, and kneading is one way they show us affection. Think of it as a way of them saying, "Hey, thanks for making me feel happy, safe and content like Mom used to." Even if we don't have definitive proof that that's what it means, we'll go with it. They make biscuits out of love.

via GIPHY

Your cat is preparing their 'nest'

Sometimes kneading may be an instinct that stems even further back than kittenhood. Our domestic feline friends' ancestors would soften the grass to prepare a comfy place to sleep. Kneading to prepare for a nice rest—all that wandering around the house gets exhausting—can be a throwback to that feral cat behavior.

Your cat is oh-so-relaxed

There are different modes of kneading that cat owners may notice. Sometimes it may almost seem frantic, like they're so happy they just can't stop themselves from doing it. Other times, they're super duper chill and the kneading is more like a slow meditation. The latter mode may be their way of expressing relaxation or of stretching their muscles before drifting off to sleep.

Your cat is leaving their scent to mark their territory

Cats are known for marking their territory with scent, which they do in several different ways. (Rubbing their cheeks on things and kneading are the cute ways. Spraying and peeing, not so cute.) Cat paws have scent secretors in them, so kneading is a way to signal to other cats that the spot they're kneading on is theirs. That includes you.

via GIPHY

Your cat is in heat or labor

Not a cause of kneading for spayed pets, but if a female cat is in heat she might knead as a signal that she's ready to mate. Additionally, if she's pregnant, it might be a sign she's in labor.

"If your cat was in heat about two months prior, became more prominent in the belly, and they are now making biscuits in their bedding, they may be in labor," shares Cornerstone. "One of the first signs of feline labor is a mother cat preparing comfortable bedding for her soon-to-be-born babies." Makes sense.

What should you do if a cat is kneading on you? “Some cats might want to be petted while they’re kneading on you; some cats might just want to be talked to; some cats might just want to knead and have no other interaction with you,” certified applied animal behaviorist Kristyn Vitale tells Scientific American. “There’s so much individual variability.”

Of course there is. It's cats we're talking about here. Individual fickleness is the name of the game.

via GIPHY

What if you don't want your cat to knead on you? Too bad. There's not really anything you can do to stop it. Just make sure their claws are trimmed if it hurts or put a thick blanket between you and your little biscuit-maker.

Most cat owners love this behavior, though, as it's such a curiously delightful tendency. So enjoy your kitty massage when you get one and know that unless your cat is in heat or pregnant, it's a positive sign that they feel happy in your care.

From Your Site Articles
pets
Family

This innocent question we ask boys is putting more pressure on them than we realize

When it's always the first question asked, the implication is clear.


Studies show that having daughters makes men more sympathetic to women's issues.

And while it would be nice if men did not need a genetic investment in a female person in order to gain this perspective, lately I've had sympathy for those newly woke dads. My two sons have caused something similar to happen to me. I've begun to glimpse the world through the eyes of a young male. And among the things I'm finding here in boyland are the same obnoxious gender norms that rankled when I was a girl.

Of course, one notices norms the most when they don't fit. If my tween sons were happily boy-ing away at boy things, neither they nor I would notice that they were hemmed in.

But oh boy, are they not doing that.

In fact, if I showed you a list of my sons' collective interests and you had to guess their gender, you'd waver a bit, but then choose girl.

Baking, reading, drawing, holidays, films, volleyball, cute mammals, video games, babies and toddlers, reading, travel, writing letters.

I imagine many of you are thinking at this point: That's awesome that your boys are interested in those things!

There's more. One loves comics and graphic novels but gravitates to stories with strong female protagonists, like Ms. Marvel and The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl.

Cool! I love it.

And sports. They are thoroughly bored by team sports. They don't play them. They won't watch them. They will up- or down-arrow through any number of sporting events on TV to get to a dance contest or to watch competitive baking.

So? Nothing wrong with that.

Those are the kinds of things all my progressive friends say.

But it's often not the message my sons themselves hear from the other adults in their lives, their classmates, and the media.

For example, the first get-to-know-you question they are inevitably asked by well-meaning grown-ups is, "So, do you play sports?" When they say, "No, not really," the adult usually continues brightly, "Oh, so what do you like to do, then?"

No one explicitly says it's bad for a boy not to play sports. But when it's always the first question asked, the implication is clear: playing sports is normal; therefore, not playing them is not.

The truth is that one of them does play a sport. He figure skates, as does my daughter. When people find out that she skates, they beam at her, as if she suddenly has possession of a few rays of Olympic glory. In the days before my son stopped telling people that he ice skates, most of them hesitated and then said, "Oh, so you are planning to play hockey?"

But it's not just what people say. It's all those pesky, unwritten rules. When he was in second grade, my younger son liked the Nancy Drew and the Clue Crew series. But he refused to check any out of the school library. He explained: "Girls can read boy books, but boys can't read girl books. Girls can wear boy colors or girl colors, but boys can only wear boy colors. Why is that, Mom?"

I didn't have an answer.

An obvious starting point — and the one that we have the most control over — is to change the way we speak to the boys in our lives.

As Andrew Reiner suggests in a spot-on essay, we should engage boys in analytical, emotion-focused conversations, just like we do with girls. In "How to Talk to Little Girls," Lisa Bloom offers alternatives to the appearance-focused comments so often directed at young girls: asking a girl what she's reading or about current events or what she would like to see changed in the world. I could copy-paste Bloom's list and slap a different title on it: "How to Ask Boys About Something Besides Sports."

And with a few more built-in nudges, we might expand the narrow world of boyhood more quickly. Boy Scouts could offer badges for developing skills in child care, teamwork, and journaling. Girl-dominated activities like art, dance, gymnastics, and figure skating could be made more welcoming to boys, with increased outreach and retention efforts. My son could write his own essay about trying to fit in to the nearly all-girl world of figure skating, including the times he has had to change clothes in a toilet stall at skating events because there were no locker rooms available for boys.

I used to think that the concept of gender — of "girl things" and "boy things" — was what was holding us back.

Now I see it differently.

The interdependent yin and yang of gender is a fundamental part of who we are, individually and collectively. We need people who like to fix cars and people who like to fix dinner. We need people who are willing and able to fight if needed and people who are exquisitely tuned into a baby's needs. But for millennia, we have forced these traits to align with biological sex, causing countless individuals to be dissatisfied and diminished. For the most part, we've recognized this with girls. But we have a long way to go when it comes to boys. As Gloria Steinem observed, "We've begun to raise daughters more like sons … but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters."

I acknowledge that young boys feeling pressured to be sports fans is not our country's biggest problem related to gender.

Transgender individuals still confront discrimination and violence. The #MeToo movement has revealed to anyone who didn't already know it that girls and women can't go about their everyday lives without bumping into male sexual aggression.

But if our culture shifts to wholeheartedly embrace the whole spectrum of unboyishness, it may play some small role in addressing these other issues, too. Male culture will be redefined, enriched, and expanded, diluting the toxic masculinity that is at the root of most of our gender-related problems.

Boys and girls alike will be able to decide if they would rather be made up of snips and snails, sugar and spice, or a customized mix. And my future grandsons, unlike my sons, won't think twice about wearing pink or reading about a girl detective at school.

This story originally appeared on Motherwell and is reprinted here with permission.


This article originally appeared six years ago.

From Your Site Articles
Trending Stories