May 14, 2008 1:49

Rx for pregnant moms: chocolate

I don't usually read the Journal of Epidemiology. But I will when it publishes findings entitled

Chocolate Consumption in Pregnancy and Reduced Likelihood of Preeclampsia

From the abstract:

Background: Preeclampsia is a major pregnancy complication with cardiovascular manifestations. Recent studies suggest that chocolate consumption may benefit cardiovascular health.

The methods I won't reprint, as they're a load of mumbo-jumbo to science dummies like me. But the findings are oh, so pure:

Conclusions: Our results suggest that chocolate consumption during pregnancy may lower risk of preeclampsia.

Now hand over that Kit-Kat. It's for my health.

May 14, 2008 11:20

One in three military women sexually abused

I'm digging TheWip.net, the website of Women's International Perspective, a compilation of thoughtful, surprising blogs from women around the world. There's a "byline portal" that collects articles in newspapers and magazines on global news (check out this fascinating International Herald Tribune story on the courtship of young Saudi women).

But what caught my eye today is this blog entry by Nancy Van Ness on the sorry way our military treats servicewomen. Denied equal treatment and training as men, nonetheless

the greatest danger that military women in Iraq and Afghanistan face is from their male peers and officers. More women there are the victims of sexual assault than of injuries from hazardous military duties. Reuters reported as far back as 1995, “Ninety percent of women under 50 who have served in the US military and who responded to a survey report being victims of sexual harassment, and nearly one-third of the respondents of all ages say they have been raped.”

Imagine volunteering for a dangerous, exhausting, difficult job no one else wants—and being rewarded with atrocious treatment just for being a gal. Read Van Ness's whole post; it's horrifying, but worth your time.

May 14, 2008 10:12

Professor fails students, loses job

From InsideHigherEd.com:

Who is to blame when students fail? If many students fail — a majority even — does that demonstrate faculty incompetence, or could it point to a problem with standards?

Here's what allegedly happened: Steven D. Aird lost his job teaching biology at Norfolk State University because he failed too many students. To make things murkier:

A subtext of the discussion is that Norfolk State is a historically black university with a mission that includes educating many students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The university suggests that Aird — who is white — has failed to embrace the mission of educating those who aren’t well prepared. But Aird — who had backing from his department and has some very loyal students as well — maintains that the university is hurting the very students it says it wants to help. Aird believes most of his students could succeed, but have no incentive to work as hard as they need to when the administration makes clear they can pass regardless.

Yikes. According to The Virginian-Pilot, 22 of the 24 students in his biochemistry course got Ds, Fs or dropped the class during his first semester of teaching in 2002. School officials told him his pass-fail rate was "unacceptable." But here's what else seems unacceptable: according to U.S. Education Department data, only 12% of Norfolk State students graduate in four years, and only 30% graduate in six years. As for the school, spokeswoman Sharon Hoggard tells InsideHigherEd, “Something is wrong when you cannot impart your knowledge onto students. We are a university of opportunity, so we take students who are underprepared, but we have a history of whipping them into shape. That’s our niche.”

Should a teacher lose a job because he refuses to pass underperforming students? Or is his abominable pass-fail rate a result of his lousy teaching? Hard to say. But I suspect the problem is bigger than this one guy and his biochem class.

May 13, 2008 9:00

In the U.S., maternity leave isn't a right

"So when exactly are you going on leave?" That's a question I'm getting a lot these days from managers and colleagues. That's usually followed by: "...and you're coming back when?"

I don't have an answer yet. I'm 35 weeks pregnant, and most people, according to my doctor, stop working at about 36 weeks. But I'm squatting in a management job for one more week, and then I have a couple of writing assignments I'd like to complete before pushing off. As for post-baby leave, I'll have to weigh many factors in deciding when to come back to work, including finances, health and childcare.

But this I recognize: pondering the length of my maternity leave is a luxury. In our country, taking a paid leave from work after delivering a child is not at all a right. No law mandates that an employer must allow a woman paid time off from her job. The Family and Medical Leave Act guarantees workers at larger companies 12 weeks off, but that time is unpaid. Notes the Economic Policy Institute (bolds mine),

In a selection of 19 countries with comparable per capita income, the United States provides the fewest maternity leave benefits in both length of leave and paid time off (see chart). This is considered separate from any disability insurance for which one may qualify. In fact, the United States falls two weeks short of the International Labor Organization's basic minimum standard of at least 14 weeks general leave. It is also the only country not to guarantee some amount of leave with income.

Economic Policy Institute

Maternity leave is a hot topic on a lot of working-mommy blogs, including this one on WSJ.com. But it's mostly an argument confined to those of us lucky enough to hold professional, salaried positions where the main worry is about how the length of absence will impact our careers. What's interesting, though, is that even in countries that mandate paid leave, moms (and dads) fuss over the same thing. In the U.K., according to SmallBusiness.co.uk,

Research commissioned by Citrix Online shows that there are still concerns over government plans to extend parental, leave and parents and employers would prefer to introduce flexible working options. Parents also voiced worries over government plans to extend maternity leave from 39 to 52 weeks and give fathers the right to up to 26 weeks paternity leave with statutory pay, if the mother returns to work. Almost half of all dads (46 per cent) and 44 per cent of mums believe that taking extended leave would negatively impact their career.

Your thoughts? What's an appropriate length for maternity leave? Should the government force all employers to offer some paid leave? How long did you take off, and why?

May 12, 2008 2:12

Are stay-at-home moms worth more?

Salary.com released its annual Mother's Day findings on what it thinks moms ought to be paid. (Figure out your own worth on the site's Mom Calculator.) From its release:

For 2008, Salary.com determined that the time mothers spend performing the 10 most popular "Mom job functions" would equate to an annual cash compensation of $116,805 for a Stay-at-Home Mom and $68,405 for a Working Mom, down from last years calculations of $138,094 and $85,938.

Whoa. Stay-at-home moms merit more pay than working moms? How'd that compute? The website says it used proprietary software and these parameters:

The job titles that best matched a mom's definition of her work in both countries are (in order of hours spent per week): housekeeper, day care center teacher, cook, laundry machine operator, computer operator, psychologist, facilities manager, van driver, chief executive officer and janitor.

And:

The primary driver of mom's six-figure salary, however, remains the amount of overtime worked. This year, mom's overtime averaged 54.4 hours per week. According to the Salary.com survey, Stay-at-Home Moms work a 94.4 hour "workweek" - over half her time spent on the job is overtime. The Working Moms reported an average 54.6 hour "mom work week" in addition to their paying jobs.

Okay. I have no problem with the job of mom being highly valued, if only by some b.s. survey designed to garner the website some press. But what sticks in my craw is the devaluing of working moms and dads. We too perform those other roles—housekeeper, cook, shrink—but on top of schlepping off to bring home the bacon. I just can't figure out how a stay-at-home parent pulls more overtime than a working one. Someone help me out with this math.

May 12, 2008 11:56

In job interviews, the handshake counts

Hair combed? Check. Suit lapel free of latté dribble? Check. Resumé in some form of English? Check. Firm, strong handshake? Uh.

For many women and Donald Trump, the weird practice known in the Western world as the handshake is something we never master. Who cares, right? A friendly wave will do in most situations—and what with business going global, we may as well learn the art of the bow. But according to new research by University of Iowa business professor Greg Stewart, the grip is key to winning over a job interviewer.

"We've always heard that interviewers make up their mind about a person in the first two or three minutes of an interview, no matter how long the interview lasts," said Stewart, associate professor of management and organizations in the Tippie College of Business. "We found that the first impression begins with a handshake that sets the tone for the rest of the interview."

The as-yet-unpublished research was conducted with 98 students in the business school who were participating in mock job interviews with representatives from Iowa City–area businesses. The students also met at various times during their interviews with five trained handshake raters (!) who introduced themselves and shook hands—but otherwise did not participate in the interviews.

Stewart said the researchers found that those students who scored high with the handshake raters were also considered to be the most hireable by the interviewers.

Why is the handshake important?

Stewart suspects it's because a handshake is one of the few things that provides a glimpse into the person's individuality during the first few minutes of an interview. "Job seekers are trained how to act in a job interview, how to talk, how to dress, how to answer questions, so we all look and act alike to varying degrees because we've all been told the same things," he said. "But the handshake is something that's perhaps more individual and subtle, so it may communicate something that dress or physical appearance doesn't."

May 12, 2008 10:59

TIME 100 party gets someone fired

From TVNewser:

A 24-year-old Fox News Channel production assistant was fired this morning for something she said during the red carpet arrivals at the Time 100 Gala last night.

Insiders tell us the assistant, identified as Jennifer Locke, was on assignment with a camera crew to cover the entertainment angle of the event. When Sen. John McCain walked by, the assistant said, "I voted for you in the primary, you're going to win."

McCain was overheard saying to her, "You're not supposed to reveal that." Locke apparently continued to explain that she is the daughter of a Vietnam veteran.

Insiders who were at the event were surprised and shocked to hear the disclosure, which was recorded on videotape. A Fox News insider called it "journalistically unacceptable." An FNC spokesperson would not comment on the personnel matter but did confirm Locke is no longer with the company, where she'd worked for a couple of years.

May 12, 2008 10:10

Best gifts for Mother's Day

On Sunday morning, I got:

• to sleep in;
• a dozen red roses;
• a card featuring a drawing of a mama rabbit vacuuming raisins from the carp—hey, those aren't raisins!
• a message inside the card from my three-year-old featuring noun, verb and accurate punctuation;
• a big box of Godiva truffles.

I'm not sure how it came to be that moms across America receive this standard—if lovely—lineup of gifts on Mother's Day. As for what moms actually want, Parenting magazine polled readers on its website and found that 72% want "a self-cleaning house" (those raisins don't vacuum themselves).

Too bad dads think different. Check out this list of Top 10 Mother's Day gifts, according to AskMen.com. Perfume? A heart pendant from Macy's? A Monet print? What am I, a decor-challenged undergrad in a cinderblock dorm room? No. 2 is a watch, and No. 1: diamond earrings.

Fellas...seriously. We can buy our own earrings. Just scrub the lasagne pan, and we're yours for another year.

May 9, 2008 2:52

The meaning of my tattoo

I've been thinking a lot lately about life. I am not saying this to sound deep. I am many things, but I am not deep. I say many things, and few of them are deep. I have many thoughts, and most are shallower than a puddle of Kool-Aid in a desert.

I think about life because it is the name of the magazine section that I will be editing for another week. I think about life because, in another few weeks, I will be giving it. Most of all I think about it because the person who gave me life is clinging to hers, and I hope that my willing it means my mom will cling for long enough to see her eleventh grandchild.

You can probably tell that the approach of Mother's Day this year is making me a bit wobbly. Yesterday, the obstetrician asked how I was doing, and I burst out crying. I tried to bail on the spa-and-brunch day my sisters are organizing because I couldn't handle the logistics.

Way back in one of the dinosaur eras, when I graduated from college, I got a very small tattoo of a Japanese character. Today I see kanji on the napes and biceps of all manner of non-Asians, but back then, the Indian dude in the second-floor Chinatown tattoo parlor had to peer carefully at the character I'd written out. As a result, the calligraphy kind of sucks. I'm not at all sure why I chose it, but the character is translated as life. If I thought more about it, it might have occurred to me that it could be interpreted as some sort of tacit support for the anti-abortion movement. It's not even an attractive character. It looks like a house with a slanty roof and a broken front door.

I've got nothing particularly deep to add to this story, except to say happy Mother's Day, friends. We're here because someone bothered to give us life. You can't return the favor, at least not to her. But you could pony up a box of See's.

May 9, 2008 10:13

TIME 100 gala: I so didn't go

For five years now, my employer has thrown an all-star, red-carpet, glitterati-packed extravaganza to honor the people it selects for its annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world. Last year, I attended for the first time, and posted these pics. There were stars! Up close! Tina Fey, Matt Lauer, the guy who dived onto the subway tracks to save a stranger! Cocktails! Canapés! Grubby journalists in black tie!

This year, I patiently awaited my invite. And waited. And waited. Finally, on Wednesday, it arrived via e-mail. It said:

I'm pleased to let you know that you're invited to the Time 100 gala on Thursday. This has turned into a hot ticket, and it has become more difficult for Time staff to get into the cocktail reception, let alone the seated dinner. This invitation is for the cocktail reception and for dinner, though not in the main room. This dinner will be served in the atrium and it will be possible from there to watch the proceedings on a big screen. And of course you're also invited to stay for the after-party drinks in the same space.

Okay, so it was a qualified invite. An "all right, all right, you can come, but only if you stay in the background and don't eat too many wontons." Also, the event was on Thursday. As in the following day.

If you're invited to mill in the general vicinity of Robert Downey Jr., Mariah Carey and John McCain, some of you might drop everything and go. But weeknights out take meticulous planning when they involve arranging the care of a little one. Not to mention the black-tie outfitting of an enormously pregnant woman to whom Angelina Jolie has not loaned her personal stylist.

Still, I thought about it. The truth is I love a party. And there are few occasions in my work life to hang with my colleagues, whom I enjoy seeing scrubbed clean of ink and fatigue. My "mom," Marlene Kahan of the American Society of Magazine Editors, needed a date. I sent a "maybe" RSVP.

Here was the automatically generated response:

Thank you for your interest in the TIME 100 Gala. The Gala is at capacity. If you have not already responded, we will place your name on a wait list. If you have additional questions, please feel free to call us at 212-522-xxxx and leave you name, phone number and brief message, we will return your call as soon as possible.

!!! Oh, and:

Thank you and have a great day.

I was disinvited from my own employer's party! How about that! So you'll have to read MediaBistro's FishbowlNY instead for an account of who all was there. I wasn't one of them.

(Oh, all right, an addendum to appease my bosses: in truth I didn't remember the gala was coming up until I saw colleagues from far-flung locales convening at headquarters this week. And my staff status would have overridden the disinvitation. And besides my childcare and wardrobe issues, I had a doctor's appointment I couldn't move. But the rest is true.)