We have 93355 hits since the website was created
July 15 2008
Quotation of the Day
"Without ambition, one starts nothing."
Statement on Senator John McCain
WASHINGTON—House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) issued the following statement on Senator John McCain:
“John McCain has always been a warrior. It’s who he is. I know John is going to fight this with the same sheer force of will that has earned him the admiration of the nation. And all of us, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans, are behind him. The prayers of the whole House are with Senator McCain and his family.”
The Pitfalls of Modern Manhood
THE MAN TRAP
Traditional ideas of masculinity persist in the workplace, even though men are now expected to do more of the household chores – and work longer hours. Emily Bobrow investigates the trials of modern manhood
EMILY BOBROW | JUNE/JULY 2017
Nathan, a successful lawyer in Manhattan, hardly seems like a candidate for sympathy. His midtown office is smart, his suit is natty and he earns a decent living negotiating contracts and intellectual-property rights for players in the city’s dynamic entertainment industry. Divorced and in his late 40s, he speaks fondly of his teenage children and is delighted with his fiancée, whom he will marry in a few weeks’ time. His life is good, he assures me, and he is thriving in his career. So it is only with some hesitation that he admits something he has never discussed before, not even with his closest friends: “In the society that I live in, as a professional in New York City, I think it is easier being a woman than being a man.”
This is not to say that being a woman is easy, Nathan hastily adds. He understands why many are frustrated by “the way they are expected to do it all, to have a career and be moms, it’s a whole contradictory bundle of things.” It’s just that few women seem to notice that men, too, are struggling with a similarly burdensome bundle. “As the man, there’s this tacit expectation that I’m going to be the earner and the person who kills bugs and fixes things around the house. At the same time, I’m going to be responsive to feelings and helpful with cooking and the children and those kinds of things.” Unlike his two long-term female partners, who pursued personally rewarding careers that offered enough flexibility to be available to their children, Nathan felt obliged to pursue work that offered a pay cheque large enough to support a family. “For the last 20-plus years I’ve been chained to a desk,” he says. “I’m in a profession that I’m happy to be in, but if I were a 20-year-old and told I could do anything I wanted with my life, I’m not sure I’d be doing this.” Nathan speaks enviously of female friends who decided to leave their professional careers when they became mothers. “They weren’t perceived as failures. If anything, they were told ‘That’s so great, you’re choosing to be a mom, that’s the most important thing in the world.’ That is not an option open to men.”
Nathan is not alone in his misgivings. Between 1977 and 2008 the percentage of American fathers in dual-earner couples who suffered from work-family conflicts jumped from 35% to 60%. The percentage of similarly vexed mothers grew only slightly, from 41% to 47%. Young men who get stuck supporting a family often report high levels of stress and sadness that they aren’t spending more time with their kids.
Because men – and especially white, professional men – occupy a uniquely privileged place in society, Nathan is reluctant to discuss his feelings openly. “I’ve never expressed this to any of the women in my life, and I think it’s best that I don’t,” he says. He is right to be wary. Most conversations about gender inequities characterise men like Nathan as part of the problem. Women around the world may be graduating from college at higher rates than men, but they have yet to achieve similar rates of success in their careers. The uneven burdens of parenthood appear to be to blame. Although men in rich countries spend far more time cooking, cleaning and child-rearing than ever before, their efforts continue to be dwarfed by those of women. In America, for example, mothers devote nearly twice as much time to child care and housework as their male partners. Even couples with grand plans for an egalitarian partnership typically revert to more traditional roles after the birth of a child. A new study of the time-diaries of highly educated dual-earning American couples found that new fathers enjoyed up to three-and-a-half times as much leisure as their female partners, as mothers who worked full time were still stuck with the lion’s share of unpaid labour.
Feminists have long argued that men see little need to help out more at home because they already enjoy all the benefits of marriage and fatherhood without having to put in the extra work. “Even though it’s shifting drastically, marriage is still a pretty good deal for men in terms of the actual labour they capture from their wives,” says Scott Coltrane, a sociologist at the University of Oregon. Coltrane has found that after controlling for variables like age and education, married American men earn significantly more than their unmarried or divorced male peers, and their earnings go up with every child they have. Marriage seems to make men more productive at work because it allows them to outsource much of the housekeeping to their wives.
Women, however, see no such “marriage premium”, and their earnings tend to go down with every new child. These parenthood effects can be seen across a variety of Western countries; they are greater in gender-conservative countries such as Austria and Germany, and weaker in more progressive countries, such as Sweden. This imbalance at home would seem to explain why the rate of female employment, after rising like gangbusters from the 1960s through the 1980s, slowed through the 1990s and has levelled off since the 2000s.
In order for more mothers to flourish in paid employment, more fathers need to pick up some of the slack at home. But, as Nathan’s frustration makes plain, this is not as simple as it sounds. Women may not be moving as fast into male-dominated worlds as feminists would like, but they have moved much faster than men have into female-dominated ones. To understand better this asymmetry, we need to look more closely at the relative value we place on masculinity and femininity.
Most people assume that gender is simply a scheme for classifying differences or a template for guiding the behaviour of children. The reality is more pernicious.
We typically prize the attributes we associate with men, such as competence, strength, virility and stoicism, and underestimate the qualities we associate with women, like warmth, tenderness and compassion. We usually see masculinity in terms of power and dominance and femininity in terms of softness and subservience. We defer to men and indulge women. In other words, gender is not merely a bunch of traits embodied by individuals, but a subtle stratification system that often advantages men and disadvantages women.
All of this means there are far more incentives for women to act masculine than there are for men to act feminine. Women who behave like their male colleagues may be disliked for being “pushy” or “bitchy”, but these penalties are offset by the fact that they are also likely to enjoy more power and greater financial rewards. When men adopt the jobs and behaviours associated with women, however, they typically experience a loss of status with fewer perks and more social sanctions, especially from other men. “It’s seen as an unknowable crisis if men want to step down,” explains Barbara Risman, head of the department of sociology at the University of Illinois in Chicago. “It’s not just being more like women, it’s seen as being less than men. Because women are seen as less than men.”
Once we see masculinity as an elite fraternity that confers special privileges, it becomes clearer why its membership is so strictly policed. Not every man qualifies. The hazing begins early. We teach girls that they can be whatever they want to be, and wipe their tears away when they struggle. But we teach boys that they need to toughen up, shake it off and take things “like a man”. Parents are often charmed when their young girls eschew dolls and dresses to play sport and build things, as if their daughters are already learning how to “lean in” at the playground. But many find it unsettling when their young boys want to trade a football for a tutu.
As these children grow older, boys will often go to punishing lengths to prove their masculinity to each other, whereas girls enjoy a much wider gamut of acceptable behaviour. “If we’re keeping score about who has it worse, girls actually have it much better when it comes to the definition of femininity,” says Lisa Damour, a psychologist who works closely with adolescents. “You can be a tomboy and that’s cool. You can be into make-up and that’s cool. But boys operate in an exceedingly narrow margin for what’s considered masculine.” When boys stray from this script, they typically get bullied or abused. Their status as men is at once so valuable and so precarious that it must be won over and over again.
Anyone who presumes that grown men get to leave these schoolyard taunts behind did not pay enough attention to America’s recent presidential election. Alas, the definition of manliness is hardly less strict for grown-ups. For many men, the workplace is merely the latest proving ground for waging a zero-sum defence of their alpha status. “Many professional workplaces involve a constant negotiation among men to establish a pecking order,” says Joan Williams, a feminist legal scholar and the founding director of the Centre for WorkLife Law at University of California Hastings College of the Law. “If working long hours is the way to prove that yours is longest – we’re talking schedules here – then most men are going to feel pressure to do that.”
Among professionals, fathers report being just as frustrated with their working hours as mothers, and are often just as distressed about not spending enough time with their children. But uncertainty over how other men will view them makes them less likely to take advantage of child-friendly policies, and far more resistant to becoming stay-at-home parents themselves. In a recent survey of millennial men, Sarah Thébaud of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and David S. Pedulla of the University of Texas at Austin found that men were more inclined to use flexibility benefits when they believed their male colleagues would do the same. Other studies of paternity-leave policies have found that men take the benefit only when it is clearly meant for men and other fathers are using it too. A study in Norway, for example, found that men were far more likely to take leave if their brothers or male co-workers had taken it already.
Otherwise most men assume that even gender-neutral flexibility policies are meant for women, and that if they take advantage of them, they will incur their colleagues’ disdain. Many are haunted by the views of colleagues like Chase, a father in his late 40s who is a partner at an international law firm in Chicago. “When I see a woman who has children and I know she and her husband are working like crazy, that concerns me for the sake of the kids,” he says. “But when I see stay-at-home dads, I don’t think very highly of them. Call it sexist, call it whatever you want, but I think it’s kind of wimpy to do that. It’s checking out, not being in the game, not fighting for success. Those are the traits I value.”
Basically, when mothers pull back from work for child-care reasons, they may earn less money but they are still seen as good women. When fathers do the same, they are often seen as lesser men. “The masculine mystique has receded less than the fem mystique,” observes Stephanie Coontz, a historian of marriage and the family at Evergreen State College. “Men are still dealing with tremendous pressure to be a man.” And, in the workplace, the pressure has been increasing.
Eric, a corporate litigator at a big law firm in Philadelphia, says the hustle to make partner keeps him at the office around 50 hours a week. “The goal-posts keep moving,” he says with a sigh. With a mortgage, two young children in private school and a wife who decided to stay at home to raise them (her own salary as an attorney barely covered the cost of a nanny), he admits he feels a bit “stuck”. “No one tells you how these things work out in real life. Then you suddenly find yourself on the treadmill and you just gotta keep going.” In an ideal world he would split the parenting and housework evenly with his wife, he says, but his job makes this impossible. He recalls having to miss a recent parent-teacher conference because of a scheduled call with a client. “I didn’t even bother to say I had a conflict because I knew I would get a scowl or an eye roll, as if I was high-maintenance.”
Many jobs have grown more demanding in recent decades. Low earners often juggle just-in-time schedules that change weekly and with little notice. High-earning professionals are expected to put in longer hours than ever before, toiling in offices long into the night. In 1979 16% of salaried American workers punched in at least 50 hours a week. By 2014 that number was 21%.
Research from Youngjoo Cha of Indiana University and Kim Weeden of Cornell has found that since the 1990s the workers who stay shackled to their desks the longest tend to be rewarded with the highest wages and the most promotions. Previously, those who worked long hours tended to be low earners; now, the reverse is true. An average man in a typical full-time job made around $26 an hour in 2014; those working at least 50 hours a week earned nearly $33.
Increasingly punishing expectations at work reinforce a more gendered division of labour at home. They encourage women to shift into part-time employment, and men to rely on women to look after the children. Many employers also presume from the outset that mothers will – and should – put their families first, and that sprogs invariably deter women from climbing the corporate ladder. This helps explain why economists have found that in America having one child reduces a woman’s earnings by roughly 6%; having two depresses them by 15%. By contrast, fatherhood spurs men to work around 80 more hours a year, on average, which bumps up men’s earnings by around 6%; this bonus is largest among highly educated professionals. It hardly seems to matter that between 1965 and 2000 men doubled the time they spent changing nappies and keeping house. Mothers often work fewer hours than they would prefer, and fathers work longer hours than they would like.
Many fathers feel obliged to live up to their bosses’ demands in part because breadwinning, and being a good provider more generally, is still often seen as a fundamental feature of fatherhood. Even couples who meet at Harvard Business School can find themselves navigating an awkward and unspoken expectation that the man will earn more. Sean Grover, a therapist in Manhattan who is writing a book about the bumpy transition into parenthood, says that “very traditional ideas begin to resurface” when some career-minded young women start to think about settling down. “When we scratch the surface, they confess they want someone to take care of them, someone who can provide for them. It’s something we really wrestle with.”
These expectations are shifting rapidly: only 28% of respondents to a 2013 Pew Research survey in America agreed with the statement, “It’s generally better for a marriage if the husband earns more than his wife”, down from 40% in 1997. But few are completely impervious to centuries of socialisation. Steve, a screenwriter in his early 40s in Brooklyn, says it was “definitely weird” when he earned half what his wife made during their first years of marriage. “We’re all modern and progressive and we want our marriage to be 50-50, but in times of stress she’d sometimes say, ‘You’re supposed to be taking care of us.’” This tension was subtle, he adds, and they never had real money problems. “But whenever things got to her she’d play a card that it wasn’t supposed to be her problem because she’s the wife. For a man there’s no card like that.”
Many men also worry that their appeal to their partners is wrapped up in their professional success. Robert, a 32-year-old digital-media entrepreneur in San Francisco, says he envies friends who are a bit more frugal with their money. “If we were more prudent, then maybe I wouldn’t have to work so hard,” he says. “But it’s hard to communicate that when your fiancée sees you as a great success who’s providing for us.”
Women rightly complain that they are often shunted onto a mommy track with lower wages, fewer promotions and less prestige, whether they like it or not. But many men are just as frustrated by the elusiveness of a daddy track. Brian, a TV presenter in his late 30s in New Jersey, says that when he wanted to take time off after the birth of his second child, “it was a nightmare just trying to figure out what I was entitled to. It’s so rare for anyone to take any kind of paternity leave that no one knew how it worked.” He finally discovered he could use some of his sick days. He suspects few men take advantage of this policy “because they think it’s somehow frowned upon”.
His colleagues are right to be cautious. Research shows that parents who take family leave or request a flexible schedule to tend to young children often face harsh penalties, like lower long-term earnings, fewer promotions and poorer performance reviews. Mothers suffer from this too, but fathers often get an extra hit for defying cultural expectations. Studies show that both men and women tend to see fathers who ask for paternity leave as weak and inadequate. A survey of professional workers in Australia found that men are twice as likely as women to have their request to work flexibly rejected. One man recalled a manager telling him that “part-time is traditionally only something we make work for women.” Research on middle-class workers in America found that fathers who are open about their child-care responsibilities are often bullied and harassed by their colleagues for not being manly enough. More than a third of 1,000 American male respondents in a recent Deloitte survey said taking paternity leave would “jeopardise their position” at work. Given this stigma, it is perhaps unsurprising that nearly three-quarters of the workers who have taken advantage of California’s law to provide paid leave to new parents are women.
Patrick, a broadcast journalist in Atlanta in his early 40s, learned early in his career not to expect his employer to make allowances for his domestic duties. His wife, an obstetrician-gynaecologist, was working a double shift at the hospital, so he had to shoulder much of the child care for their three young children. When he tried to explain to his producer why he wasn’t able to work over the weekend, he received a chilling response: “He said ‘Patrick, everyone has a family. Nobody cares about yours.’” It’s hard to imagine a male manager saying that to a woman.
Some fathers privately admit that their long hours at the office leave them unsure of their role at home. “If I’ve been travelling or I’ve been on trial and working 7am to midnight every night six days a week, my wife says it’s actually more stressful when I’m back because she has her routine,” says Eric. “Sometimes you feel like a visitor in your own house.”
Most women think that men cling to traditional male roles because it benefits them. Certainly ascending a professional ladder offers more money, power and status than chugging along on a mommy track. But these perks come at a price. In a recent 15-year survey of married American men and women between the ages of 18 and 32, Christin Munsch of the University of Connecticut found that men typically reported being in the best health during the years they split the burdens of breadwinning with their partners. As these men assumed more financial responsibility relative to their wives, their health and wellbeing declined. Often they suffered from the worst health and the most anxiety when their wives were out of the labour force entirely.
More egalitarian marriages seem to work better. A recent study of data gathered in 2006 found that couples with a more equitable approach to housework were happier with their marriages and reported having more and better sex than those who divided things along more traditional lines. Fathers who take on more caregiving responsibilities not only tend to be more content and feel closer to their partners and children, but also appear to live longer. A study of over 72,000 Swedish men who had a child between 1988 and 1989 found that fathers who took between 30 and 60 days of paternity leave had a 24% lower risk of dying by 2008 than those who took no leave. The Swedish authors speculate that fathers who were more involved at home were less inclined to engage in risky behaviour to prove their manliness.
All this suggests that men, like women, are happier in more balanced relationships. Yet they are not, by and large, getting them. Outmoded notions of how people should behave, combined with the pressure to spend long hours in the office, seem to be getting in the way. This will be no surprise to the many mothers who have long complained about the difficulty of “having it all”. But the pressures faced by fathers are a less familiar topic. Indeed, most men are wary of discussing these things publicly. This is partly because they know their gripes are often eclipsed by those of women. But they also keep mum because complaining about the burdens of manhood breaches an unspoken code of manliness. “It’s such a taboo subject, like talking about affirmative action,” says Jesse, a writer in his late 40s with two sons. “In my bubble of cosmopolitan Minneapolis, the focus is on female development. We don’t talk about men.”
But such talk is necessary if couples hope to defy cultural and economic expectations to forge more equal partnerships. “Women are asking for solidarity and empathy from men, and they deserve it,” says Patrick in Atlanta. “But I wish there was a little more solidarity and empathy for men.”
Emily Bobrowis a regular contributor to The Economist and 1843, based in New York
Soy and Breast Cancer: What You Need to Know
Kris Carr <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To eat soy or not to eat soy? Breast cancer and soy have had an “it’s complicated” type of relationship over the years, even though most minimally processed organic soy foods are considered safe and healthy to eat. Luckily, there’s a brand new soy study and it’s filled with great news! Today I’d like to walk you through it (and link you to it!) so you can take a look for yourself.
I want to unpack this new research specifically for breast cancer thrivers—both current patients and anyone who is post-treatment—and then uncover what this means for breast cancer prevention too. If you’re curious about whether or not you should consume soy, then this is for you—knowledge is power, my friend!
Are you a #breastcancer thriver? Check out the latest research on #soy—you may even add it to your diet! @Kris_Carr
Personally, I’ve made the choice to keep and enjoy organic soy in my diet. If you take a peek in my fridge, you’ll find a variety of whole and minimally-processed organic soy foods, such as edamame, tempeh, miso and tofu. These foods land on my plate 2-3 times per week. I made this choice because I’ve taken the time to understand the benefits of soy, I see they’re working for me, and my medical team has given me the green light. I’m also vegan and including organic, minimally processed soy in my diet (not the processed crap) provides more variety and protein options. There’s also just so many great dishes and recipes you can make that include healthy soy options!
Exploring the research and debunking common misconceptions can help you decide whether or not minimally-processed, organic soy is a good fit for you. As always, it’s important to follow your doctor’s advice. But if you’re wanting to include some soy in your world and your MD has given it the kibosh, you might want to alert your medical team to the new soy and breast cancer research (check it out below!) Just because your doctor is a fabulous smarty pants, doesn’t always mean that he or she is up on the latest nutrition studies. So let’s dig into these beautiful new findings, thriving and prevention…
Breast Cancer Thriving and Soy
If you’re currently a breast cancer thriver, you may be feeling some confusion around soy. Many oncologists have been on the fence about whether or not women who have had breast cancer should consume soy foods. To play it safe, they’ve discouraged breast cancer thrivers from consuming soy.
The reason behind this is that soybeans contain weak estrogens, and these estrogen-like properties have raised concerns of potentially making the cancer grow in women with breast cancer. This is because in hormone receptor-positive cancer—the most common form of breast cancer—there are some worries that high estrogen levels help cancer cells grow and spread. But this remains very controversial. Oddly enough, most people are more fearful of soy than they are of dairy, which doesn’t have protective phytoestrogens and contains estrogen (with full-fat dairy products having the most estrogen).
In 2012, researchers took a look at the diets of nearly 10,000 breast cancer patients and what they found was worth noting—the women who consumed the most organic soy (at least ½ cup of edamame per day) had a 30 percent less chance of having a cancer recurrence compared to women who consumed little or no soy (study). But people and oncologists have still been on the fence….
Enter the new study blessing soy for breast cancer thrivers
The latest study on soy and breast cancer (study abstract) included 6,235 American and Canadian breast cancer patients from the Breast Cancer Family Registry, a National Cancer Institute-funded program that has collected clinical and questionnaire data on participants since 1995. By looking at this diverse population of over 6,000 breast cancer patients, the researchers specifically analyzed their soy intake. And the results were pretty amazing. Here’s a summary of the top takeaways…
Higher Survival Rates
Eating foods rich in isoflavones (the specific phytoestrogens in soy foods) is associated with reduced all-cause mortality. More specifically, researchers found a 21% decreased risk of death among women with the highest versus the lowest intake of soy foods. This was especially true in women with hormone-receptor-negative breast cancer (which is typically the more aggressive kind) and women not treated with hormone therapy.
Women in North America could benefit from increased organic soy consumption
Even though women living in North America had an overall low consumption of soy in their diet, they may still benefit from increasing their isoflavone intake to a higher level. This benefit may be for those thrivers who are not currently receiving hormone therapy, but there’s also no negative impact shown for those who are.
Increasing soy may increase survival rate after a cancer diagnosis
Here’s the absolute BEST news: recent diet is important! If you’ve been diagnosed with ER-negative breast cancer, soy may play a significant role in your survival, and may even matter more if you start eating it now than if you ate it way back when. So not only did this study find that soy wasn’t harmful for survival, but it actually may improve it. And while this study only found these specific perks for ER-negative survivors, previous research has found soy to be beneficial for ER-positive survivors and for both users and nonusers of hormone therapy (study). Happy dance!
Get more insight on how to live a healthy & vibrant life straight to your inbox:
HOOK ME UP!
Breast Cancer Prevention and Soy
In addition to all these wonderful new findings for breast cancer thrivers, here’s some more good news for prevention! Eating soy can help prevent breast cancer in women of all ages. In a recent meta-analysis (that’s a study analyzing all the research on a particular topic—in this case soy consumption and breast cancer prevention), researchers found that soy consumption cut breast cancer risk by 41 percent (study). But here’s the catch––it can’t be just any type of soy.
Most of us actually consume lots of soy, but unfortunately, most of it is highly processed—which isn’t good for our health and doesn’t allow us to reap the benefits of prevention. To eat soy for its preventative benefits, it has to be the less processed versions, such as tempeh, miso, edamame, tofu, and soymilk (always organic and non-GMO too!).
Now, this is where things get really interesting: prevention is also linked to how long you’ve been eating minimally processed soy for. For instance, Asian populations typically eat minimally processed soy, like tofu, miso, tempeh, and edamame, throughout their life. And Asian women have the lowest incidence of breast cancer, most likely from eating soy during puberty when breast tissue was forming. While this might explain why Asian women in general have less cancer, it could be worthwhile to add some unprocessed soy foods to your diet, even if you’re past puberty.
It’s ultimately your choice whether you decide to incorporate soy into your diet. Do whatever feels right for you and don’t forget to check with your doctor—and let your MD team know about the latest news on soy and breast cancer. Hopefully you’ll be able to make a better choice with this new insight. Also, keep in mind that this article is not geared toward people with soy allergies, if that’s you, then soy may still not be the right choice. But a plant-based diet without soy can still be very beneficial. Knowledge is power, baby!
Peace and happy thriving,
Life's not about waiting for the storm to pass... It's about learning to dance in the rain." ~ Viviane Greene
We create our reality by choosing our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. For that reason, when we have bad days sometimes we might wonder what we did to bring it upon ourselves.
Sure, that's one way to look at it...
But what if we just choose, from that moment on, to look forward?
Each moment is a new opportunity to choose our internal experience of reality, regardless of all the moments that came before it. So when you're feeling stuck in a rut, remember that one secret to turning it all around is gratitude.
And when you're needing to make that reminder feel more real, watch this movie:
What happened to Amelia Earhart?
A newly unearthed photo shows Amelia Earhart survived her final flight, investigators say
By Amy B Wang July 5
That question has captivated the public ever since her plane vanished over the Pacific Ocean in 1937 as she attempted to become the first female pilot to fly around the world.
Now, investigators believe they have discovered the “smoking gun” that would support a decades-old theory that Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, were captured by the Japanese: a newly unearthed photograph from the National Archives that purportedly shows Earhart and Noonan — and their plane — on an atoll in the Marshall Islands.
“I was originally skeptical until we could get the photograph authenticated,” Shawn Henry, a former FBI assistant executive director who is now helping privately investigate the Earhart disappearance, told The Washington Post. “The fact that it came out of the National Archives as opposed to somebody’s basement or garage somewhere — that to me gave it a lot more credibility.”
Photographic evidence of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan in the Marshall Islands has been found in the National Archives. pic.twitter.com/sCcJoGx4fK
— HISTORY (@HISTORY) July 5, 2017
The photograph was rediscovered a few years ago in a mislabeled file at the National Archives by a former U.S. Treasury agent named Les Kinney, who began looking into Earhart’s disappearance after he retired, according to previews for a new History channel documentary, “Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence,” that airs July 9.
The 8-by-10-inch black-and-white photograph went ignored in a stack of 20 or 30 other pictures until Kinney took a closer look a few months later, Henry said.
In the photo, a figure with Earhart’s haircut and approximate body type sits on the dock, facing away from the camera, Henry points out. Toward the left of the dock is a man they believe is Noonan. On the far right of the photo is a barge with an airplane on it, supposedly Earhart’s.
Henry, who was asked to join the investigation about a year ago, said two different photo experts analyzed the picture to ensure it had not been manipulated. It had not been, they found. The experts also compared the facial features and body proportions of the two figures in the photograph with known pictures of Earhart and Noonan.
For the man on the left, “the hairline is the most distinctive characteristic,” Ken Gibson, a facial recognition expert who studied the image, told the “Today” show. “It’s a very sharp receding hairline. The nose is very prominent. … It’s my feeling that this is very convincing evidence that this is probably Noonan.”
The figure seated on the dock is wearing pants, much like Earhart often did, Henry noted.
“I’m looking at her sitting on the dock and thinking, ‘This is her,’ ” he said.
Investigators believe this is photographic evidence of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan in the Marshall Islands found in the National Archives. (Courtesy of Les Kinney/U.S. National Archives)
Though they can’t be sure of when the photo was taken, there is no record of Earhart being in the Marshall Islands, he added.
Henry said he traveled to the Marshall Islands and interviewed the son of a man whose father repeatedly told others he had witnessed Earhart’s plane land at Mili Atoll in 1937. He also spoke with the last living person who claimed to have seen the pair after their emergency landing.
“But again, for me, those things are all somewhat suspect until you have that photograph, which corroborates that she was there,” Henry said. “To me, that’s just proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Gary Tarpinian, executive producer of the History documentary, told the “Today” show that they believe the Koshu, the Japanese merchant ship in the photo, took Earhart to Saipan, where she died in Japanese custody.
The team thinks the photo may have been taken by someone spying on the Japanese, he added. Other questions, like when and how Earhart died, remain a mystery.
“What happened to her then? Was there a coverup or not? Did the U.S. government know? What did the Japanese government know?” Henry said. “I think this actually opens up a whole new line of questioning.”
[Amelia Earhart didn’t die in a plane crash, investigators say. This is their theory.]
Over the past 80 years, three prevailing theories about Earhart’s disappearance have emerged.
Some speculate that Earhart’s Lockheed Model 10 Electra crashed and sank to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, killing her and Noonan.
Local Headlines newsletter
Daily headlines about the Washington region.
Last year, a Pennsylvania-based group called The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) repositioned the spotlight on an alternate theory: With their fuel rapidly depleting, Earhart and Noonan used celestial navigation to land on a remote coral atoll named Gardner Island, about 400 miles south of Howland Island, their original destination. It was there, TIGHAR says, that the two tried to send out frantic radio calls for help but eventually died as castaways.
Just last month, the group launched an ambitious expedition to try to prove its theory, sending researchers and a pack of forensically trained border collies to Gardner Island, now called Nikumaroro. The mission: For the dogs to sniff out human bones that, through DNA matching, would confirm Earhart and Noonan landed and then perished on that island.
Henry said he isn’t bothered by other explanations of Earhart’s disappearance.
“I’ve listened to some competing theories,” he said. “When you look at the totality of what we put together and then hold that photograph … I think that photograph is as close to a smoking gun as you’re going to have in a cold case that’s 80 years old.”
Did Amelia Earhart die on a remote Pacific island? Bone-sniffing border collies may find out.
The D.B. Cooper case baffled investigators for decades. Now, scientists have a new theory.
Two French aviators vanished a decade before Amelia Earhart.
Amy B Wang is a general assignment reporter for The Washington Post. Follow @amybwang
The Post Recommends
Amelia Earhart reality check: The Japanese helped the U.S. look for the famed aviator
While a History Channel documentary argues the Japanese held Earhart prisoner, that country's ships actually joined the search for her, a senior U.S. archivist explains.
A ‘bogus photo,’ decades of obsession and the endless debate over Amelia Earhart
For those who have spent decades trying to figure out what happened to Amelia Earhart, her disappearance is more than just history.
Investigators believe this is photographic evidence of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan in the Marshall Islands found in the National Archives. (Courtesy of Les Kinney/U.S. National Archives)
ProntoBev:Chill Beverages in 30 seconds
How Does Your Net Worth Compare to the Average American's?
We live in a society where it's common to compare ourselves to others. (We can thank social media for that.) As such, it's natural to wonder how our individual net worth compares to those around us.
So let's cut to the chase: According to the Census Bureau, as of 2013 (the last year for which this level of data is available), American households had a median net worth of roughly $80,000. But that number alone doesn't tell the whole story.
Where's our net worth coming from?
Before we go any further, let's get on the same page about what the words "net worth" really mean. Net worth is defined as the value of your assets once all of your liabilities have been factored in. As a very basic example, if you have $10,000 in savings and no debt whatsoever, your net worth will be $10,000. This assumes, of course, that you don't own any non-cash assets, like property, with assignable value.
While many factors come together to establish net worth, the single greatest contributor to that $80,000 figure is none other than home equity. In fact, 63% of households have equity in their homes, and as such, it represents one-third of that median $80,000.
Surprisingly, the next-largest contributor to net worth is retirement savings, and the reason that's surprising is that the bulk of Americans are considerably behind on savings. The Economic Policy Institute reports that almost half of Americans have yet to start socking money away for the future, and many of those who are saving are only managing modest yearly contributions to their retirement accounts -- but we won't knock the numbers.
Other factors contributing to Americans' net worth include investments like stocks and bonds, as well as life insurance plans. And there's always cash to consider, though most Americans don't have much of it: An estimated 69% of U.S. adults have less than $1,000 in savings, while 34% have no cash savings at all. But cash reserves aside, the typical American household still has enough assets to reach the $80,000 mark.
We owe a lot of money, too
Of course, net worth is a measure of assets and liabilities, and while that $80,000 figure might seem respectable, we can't ignore the fact that if it weren't for our collective borrowing habits, that number might be much higher. More than half of U.S. households are on the hook for unsecured debt -- namely, credit card debt. Meanwhile, Americans owe a collective $1.4 trillion in student loans, which, believe it or not, may be the single largest factor in bringing average net worth down. In fact, a recent New York Federal Reserve study found that over 16 million households actually have a negative net worth. The biggest culprit? Egregious loads of student debt.
How do you compare?
Now that you know how much net worth the average household has, you can look at your own number to see how it holds up. That said, keep in mind that the $80,000 figure we keep throwing around represents the median net worth by household, not individual. In other words, it stands to reason that a two-income family might have a higher net worth than someone who's single, so make sure you're really comparing apples to apples.
Furthermore, while knowing how your net worth stacks up against that of the general population might give you a sense of how well (or poorly) you're doing financially, rather than fixate on everyone else, you're better off focusing on ways to build your own assets and reduce your liabilities. For example, if you're behind on savings (both emergency and retirement), making lifestyle changes to free up cash can help beef up that asset column.
Retirement plan contributions can be exceptionally helpful in building net worth, because you'll get an opportunity to grow that money on a tax-deferred (or in some cases, tax-free) basis. Currently, workers under 50 can put up to $5,500 a year into an IRA and 18,000 a year into a 401(k). If you're 50 or older, these numbers climb to $6,500 and $24,000, respectively.
But eliminating debt is just as important as increasing your assets, so if you're carrying a costly credit card balance, now's the time to start chipping away at what you owe. Similarly, if you're among the millions of U.S. adults with student debt, accelerating the repayment process will not only save you money on interest, but help you boost your net worth sooner.
Here's one final thing you can learn from all of this: Though there are plenty of situations where it pays to rent a home rather than buy one, under the right circumstances, homeownership can be a smart financial move that not only increases your net worth, but provides a number of long-term tax benefits. Or, to put it another way, a home that you own can serves as an asset, but a home that you rent will always be nothing more than an expense.
Finally, no matter what steps you take to build your net worth, remember that accumulating wealth is a process. If you're 25 years old and living on a modest salary, you almost can't be expected to match the net worth of a 50-something at the peak of their career. While knowing the average household's net worth might give you a number to aim for, be sure to keep things in perspective and set your own goals.
SPONSORED: The $16,122 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook
If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets" could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. For example: one easy trick could pay you as much as $16,122 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Simply click here to discover how to learn more about these strategies .
The Motley Fool
There is much we can learn from the ocean as we have a similar inner landscape within us as well.
To begin, gather together any ocean artifacts you may have on hand. Seashells, a vial of sand, beach glass, stones rubbed smooth by the pounding surf, or a recording of ocean sounds can help you slip more deeply into this meditation, but they are not necessary. Sit quietly and visualize the ocean in your mind's eye. Allow all of your senses to participate in your mental journey. Feel the tiny grains of sand beneath your feet and the cool spray of mist; hear the sea's rhythmic roar as the waves meet the beach and retreat; smell the tang of salt in the air. Watch the sun's rays play over the ocean's surface, creating shifting spots of teal, cerulean, cobalt, and green. Don't be surprised if you see dolphins or whales frolicking in the waves--they are there to assist you. Spend a few minutes drinking in the ocean's beauty and appreciating its vast splendor.
Once you are fully engaged with the setting before you, visualize yourself sitting on the beach, facing the ocean, and watching the waves advance and retreat. As each new wave of seawater approaches, imagine it carrying healing energy toward you. The magnificent ocean in your thoughts is sending you light and love while the sun supports your healing efforts and Mother Earth grounds you in the moment so healing can occur. When you feel you are finished, grant the ocean your earnest gratitude for the aid it has given you. Thank the sun, the sand, and any other elements of your visualization that offered you guidance. Perform this meditation daily or monthly in order to rid yourself of negativity and reestablish emotional equilibrium. Just as the ocean's tides sweep the shores free of detritus, restoring balance, so can the waves in our mind's eye cleanse our souls of what no longer serves us.
Having a Baby at 65
With all the new technology regarding fertility recently, a 65-year-old friend of mine was able to give birth. When she was discharged from the hospital and went home, I went to visit.
"May I see the new baby?" I asked.
"Not yet," she said.... "I'll make coffee and we can visit for a while, first."
Thirty minutes had passed, and I asked, "May I see the new baby now?"
"No, not yet," she said.
After another few minutes had elapsed,
I asked again, "May I see the baby now?"
"No, not yet," replied my friend.
Growing very impatient, I asked, "Well, when can I see the baby?"
"WHEN HE CRIES!", she told me.
"When he cries?", I demanded. "Why do I have to wait until he cries?"
"BECAUSE I FORGOT WHERE I PUT HIM, O.K.
CARMELA ARIZONA CORRESPONDENT
First off… A dumb joke:
Three Yogis are meditating in a remote cave. One day a sound is heard from outside the cave.
After about six months, one of the yogis says, "Did you hear that goat?" Once again, there was silence.
About a year later, one of the other Yogis says, "That wasn't a goat; it was a mule." Again, there was silence.
About two years later the third yogi says, "If you two don't stop arguing, I'm leaving."
Ha! I told you it was dumb! :)
But I know it got a chuckle out of you. Dumb jokes are generally guaranteed to give you an “awww-chuckle”.
This silly joke paints an old picture of meditation as something that yogis do in silence in a cave.
In fact, as you might well know, meditation is used by some of the highest performers in the world, and by many of the happiest people in the world. Not in a cave, but within the hustle and bustle of daily life.
Chicago's Cardinal Cupich: Saying gay, lesbian and L.G.B.T. is a step toward respect
Michael J. O'Loughlin America Media
July 18, 2017
Cardinal Blase Cupich waded into a debate about how the Catholic Church should interact with gays and lesbians, telling a crowd in Chicago that at minimum they should be called by the phrases they use for themselves.
“We have always wanted to make sure that we start the conversation by saying that all people are of value and their lives should be respected and that we should respect them,” Cardinal Cupich said in response to a question following an address he gave at the City Club of Chicago on July 17.
“That is why I think that the terms gay and lesbian, L.G.BT., all of those names that people appropriate to themselves, should be respected,” the Chicago cardinal continued. “People should be called the way that they want to be called rather than us coming up with terms that maybe we’re more comfortable with. So it begins with that.”
The cardinal’s comments come at a time when some Catholic leaders are considering how to engage the L.G.B.T. community. America editor-at-large James Martin, S.J., argues in his new book Building a Bridge that gay and lesbian people should be referred to by those names, noting that Pope Francis himself has used the term gay.
But critics have said that using those terms in place of phrases such as “individuals who experience same-sex attraction” is a capitulation to secular culture.
"I think that the terms gay and lesbian, L.G.BT. should be respected.... People should be called the way that they want to be called rather than us coming up with terms that maybe we’re more comfortable with.”
Cardinal Cupich, who has emphasized a pastoral approach to questions of sexual morality in a way that mirrors Pope Francis, said that the church teaches that marriage is a union between a man and a woman who bring new life into the world and that “society has a role, it seems to me, in supporting that in a different and qualitative way.”
Later that evening, Cardinal Cupich appeared on WTTW’s “Chicago Tonight” to discuss gang and gun violence in the city. He declined to comment on anewly promulgated document in nearby Springfield, Ill., in which Bishop Thomas Paprocki told priests that gays and lesbians in same-sex marriages should not receive Communion or be given Catholic funerals.
“That is not our policy,” Cardinal Cupich said, adding, “as a matter of practice, we don’t comment on the policies of other dioceses.”
During the City Club event, Cardinal Cupich touched on a number of issues, including Chicago’s ongoing problem with gun-related violence. Last weekend, at least 11 people were killed in Chicago, including a local anti-violence activist and a 10-year-old boy. The cardinal pledged to continue pushing for “sensible gun restrictions,” including the banning of assault weapons, as well as pledging increased financial support for programs that provide food assistance, after-school programs and job training.
He said the “the destructive force of racism, this great sin, underlies much of what is wrong with society today” and contributes to the city’s woes; he urged an end to segregation in Chicago’s neighborhoods.
When asked about “a crisis of leadership” and how to elect political leaders with “humility and a love of humanity” at the local and national levels, the cardinal said voters have no one to blame but themselves.
“I’ve always said, we’re a democracy; we get the leaders we deserve because we elect them,” he said. “If people have difficulty with those who govern, there is a way in which they can respond and change that. It means let’s not sit back, let’s get involved. Read, get to know the issues and take action.”
(The Chicago Tribune reported that following the event, when asked specifically about President Trump, the cardinal referred to his previous answer.)
Cardinal Cupich, who serves as co-chair of a Catholic-Muslim dialogue initiative sponsored by U.S. bishops, was also asked about Catholic outreach to Muslim communities in the United States.
“Members of the Muslim community here in Chicago and around the nation are afraid,” he said, noting that some parents fear their children could be “easily radicalized” because their faith is not respected in mainstream society.
“This business of demonizing or pre-defining people by the way they look, the religion that they practice or where they came from is not only un-American but it’s going to hurt America,” he said.
Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, Texas, touches the hands of people in Mexico through a border fence following Mass in Sunland Park, N.M., in this 2014 file photo. (CNS photo/Bob Roller)
El Paso bishop: Stop deportations until immigration is fixed
Michael J. O'Loughlin
During the TV interview, Cardinal Cupich also answered questions about internal church matters. He was asked about “conservatives in Rome who are not happy with the pope,” and he responded by saying that reports of Pope Francis facing resistance from some church officials are overwrought—though he acknowledged there are “voices out there who have a difficult time with the fresh approach that [Francis is] taking.”
A group of four cardinals has publicly challenged the pope for months over a document he wrote that some bishops are using to welcome more people to Communion, including divorced and remarried Catholics. But Cardinal Cupich told Chicago Tonight that the vast majority of cardinals stand with the pope.
“I would say that every pope has had people within his administration who have had difficulties one way or another with his administration,” he said. “The Holy Father knows that he has the support, however, of the vast majority of the people who work in the Holy See and of the cardinals.”
There was at least one question on Monday that Cardinal Cupich refused to entertain, employing a diversion tactic favored by President Trump. At the City Club, the cardinal was asked about a front-page story in Sunday’s New York Times, in which Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark and Cardinal Cupich were described as “breathing fresh air into the American Catholic Church.”
When asked his thoughts on how his goals differed from “the old guard,” the cardinal simply smiled and said, “Fake news.
Lourdes California Correspondent
Donney Scotland Correspondent
If you can answer yes to all below, then you must be …???
Go all the way down to know the answer.
Your middle name is your mother’s maiden name.
Your parents call each other “Mommy” and “Daddy.”
You have uncles and aunts named “Boy,” “Girlie,” or “Baby.”
You have relatives whose nicknames consist of repeated syllables
like “Jun-Jun,” “Ling-Ling,” and “Mon-Mon.”
You call the parents of your friends and your own parents’
friends “Tito” and “Tita.”
You have four or five names.
You greet your elders by touching their hands to your forehead.
You always kiss your relatives on the cheek when you greet them
You follow your parents’ house rules even if you are over 18.
You live with your parents until and at times when you’re married.
You decorate your dining room wall with a picture of the “Last Supper.”
You keep your furniture wrapped in plastic or covered with blankets.
You have a Santo Nino shrine in your living room.
You have a piano that no one plays.
You keep a “tabo” in your bathroom.
You use Vicks Vapor rub as an insect repellant.
You eat with your hands.
You eat more than three times a day.
You think a meal is not a meal without rice.
You think sandwiches are snacks, not meals.
Your dining table has a merry-go-round (lazy Susan) in the middle.
You bring baon / brown bag to work every day.
Your pantry is never without Spam, Vienna sausage, corned beef, and sardines.
You love to eat daing /fried fish or tuyo.
You eat your meal with patis, toyo, suka, banana catsup, or bagoong.
You love sticky desserts and salty snacks.
You eat fried Spam and hot dogs with rice.
You eat mangoes with rice–with great GUSTO!
You love “dirty” ice cream.
You love to eat, yet often manage to stay slim.
You put hot dogs in your spaghetti.
Everything you eat is sauted in garlic, onion, and tomatoes.
You order a “soft drink” instead of pop.
You hang a rosary on your car’s rear view mirror.
You get together with family at a cemetery on All Saint’s Day to eat,
drink, and tell stories by your loved ones’ graves.
You play cards or mahjong and drink beer at funeral wakes.
You think Christmas season begins in October and ends in February.
Your second piece of luggage is a balikbayan box.
You feel obligated to give pasalubong to all your friends and relatives
each time you return from a trip.
You use paper foot outlines when buying shoes for friends and relatives.
You’re a fashion victim.
You can convey 30 messages with your facial expression.
You ask for the bill at a restaurant by making a rectangle in the air.
You cover your mouth when you laugh.
You respond to a “Hoy!” or a “Pssst!” in a crowd.
You’ll answer “Malapit lang!”–no matter the distance–when
asked how far away a place is located.
Goldilocks is more than a fairy tale character to you.
You refer to power interruptions as “brownouts.”
You love to use the following acronyms: CR for comfort room, DI for
dance instructor, DOM for dirty old man, TNT for tago nang tago,
KJ for kill joy, OA for over-acting.
You say “rubber shoes” instead of sneakers (or trainers as the British
calls it), “ball pen” instead of pen, “stockings” instead of pantyhose,
“pampers” instead of diapers, “ref” instead of refrigerator,
You use an umbrella for shade on hot summer days.
You like everything imported or “state-side.”
You have a relative who is a nurse.
You wave a pom-pom on a stick around the food to keep the flies away.
You always ring a doorbell twice, assuming that the first ring was not heard.
You let the phone ring twice before answering, lest you appear overly eager.
You use a pumice stone or bath stone to scrub yourself in the bath or shower.
You must be a Filipino
If you only get half right you must be a Pinoy.
Why You Should Stay in Debt
By Tripp Prince
Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. Romans 13:8
Consumer debt is a significant problem that threatens our economic system year by year. Whether it’s student loans, maxed out credit cards, or mortgages that we can’t afford, we as a society have overreached our financial limits in countless ways. As such, there are entire industries built around offering debt relief and counsel on how to, as we say, “find financial freedom.”
To be financially free is to be financially autonomous, owing nothing to anyone. Quite literally, it is the ending of a relationship. When you pay off your car loan or your student debt, you are more than happy to free yourself from a relationship with that institution! While financial freedom may be wise and healthy, St. Paul reminds us today that relational freedom is devastating to the heart and soul.
“And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity” (Colossians 3:14).
Genuine love binds us together with our friends, families, and neighbors, and this relational debt can never be repaid. To exhaust the debt of love is to end a relationship, to cease to live for the good of others and simply concern yourself with your own personal needs, wants, and desires. In many ways this is the root of all sin. In the garden, Adam chose to remove himself from a life of dependent intimacy with God and instead chose autonomous self love, and we have suffered from this sickness ever since.
To grow into the woman or man God is calling you to be, you must be willing to allow his Spirit to heal you from an inverted love of self. You must see the relational complexities in your family and the brokenness in your community not as a burden to cast off but as an inexhaustible opportunity to model the self-giving love shown to us on the cross.
As we learn to walk in this way of love, we learn to view the world through a different set of lenses. If love is an inexhaustible debt, our question isn’t just “Is this a good school for my child?” but it becomes “Is it a good school for my neighbor’s children?” We pursue education and careers not based on their promised level of income and affluence but on their ability to free us to work for the flourishing of others. Instead of saying “Why did they get that promotion instead of me?” we are able to rejoice in their success and share in their joy.
If we truly believe we are bound to one another in love, and that love can never be exhausted, it has the potential to radically change the way we view the world and our place within it!
Prayer: Father, thank you that your love for us is inexhaustible. As you conform us to your image, may that same inexhaustible love define our own lives, we pray through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.