#Petersen Health Care

[hislop3]

Sign of the Times: Petersen Health Care Files for Bankruptcy

Mid last week, Petersen Health Care, a Peoria, IL based nursing home operator filed for bankruptcy in Delaware. SC Healthcare Holdings LLC, which operates as Petersen Health Care, in federal court filings last Wednesday said it is seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection because of ongoing financial problems partly due to an October ransomware attack and disruptions in payments from payers…

[shrinkrants]

With some hesitation, - knowing the sincere grief of so many this week, including my own, yet sharing the words of Bernie Sanders as one perspective to consider, a way to understand in part what may have happened, - and not to minimize the harms past, present and future that we grieve and deeply worry about with Trump’s election, (from Cindy Petersen-Dana’s Facebook feed.)

“It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they’re right.

Today, while the very rich are doing phenomenally well, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and we have more income and wealth inequality than ever before. Unbelievably, real, inflation-accounted-for weekly wages for the average American worker are actually lower now than they were 50 years ago.

Today, despite an explosion in technology and worker productivity, many young people will have a worse standard of living than their parents. And many of them worry that Artificial Intelligence and robotics will make a bad situation even worse.

Today, despite spending far more per capita than other countries, we remain the only wealthy nation not to guarantee health care to all as a human right and we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. We, alone among major countries, cannot even guarantee paid family and medical leave.

Today, despite strong opposition from a majority of Americans, we continue to spend billions funding the extremist Netanyahu government’s all out war against the Palestinian people which has led to the horrific humanitarian disaster of mass malnutrition and the starvation of thousands of children.

Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign? Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing?

Do they have any ideas as to how we can take on the increasingly powerful Oligarchy which has so much economic and political power? Probably not.

In the coming weeks and months those of us concerned about grassroots democracy and economic justice need to have some very serious political discussions."

~ Bernie Sanders

U.S. Senator from Vermont

[kenyatta]

Overwork culture is the ideology of the “right” to work at its most perverse. It may monetarily advantage a handful at the top, but the societal damage is tremendous. Most of our acute societal ills are directly tied to poverty, and as numerous studies and pilot programs have shown, could readily be ameliorated by the very simple step of giving people money, whether through programs like the child tax credit (a tremendous success) or UBI (read a great, nuanced explainer here). But there are second-tier problems that spiderweb around overwork — problems related to community-building, child and eldercare, community wellness, overall health outcomes and plain-out happiness and satisfaction and civic engagement. Turns out it’s incredibly hard to build community, to forge social safety-nets, to agitate for larger social change, to even give and receive care when you’re dedicated, willingly or not, to the culture of overwork. Maybe this doesn’t sound familiar. Maybe you told overwork culture to fuck off during the pandemic or a decade ago, maybe you live elsewhere and have always considered it a sort of pathology. But maybe some it — the struggle to find the time to do anything but work and raise your kids and recover from work, the philosophical support of unions but a struggle to see the need for one in your workplace, a general inurement to overwork culture — feels comfortably real. Maybe you feel like you’ve woken up and realized that you’re pretty bad at community, bad at leisure, bad at rest, bad at sustaining friendship….bad at most things, really, that aren’t work. At that, you’re an expert. And in that case, it’s worth asking yourself, again and again, until you can stare the answer straight in the face: at what cost, and for whose benefit?

The Wages of Overwork - by Anne Helen Petersen

[macmanx]

“Our members were devastated first by the pandemic, and now by the greed of their bosses,” says Kurt Petersen, co-president of UNITE HERE Local 11, in a statement. “The industry got bailouts while we got cuts. Now, the hotel negotiators decided to take a four-day holiday instead of negotiating. Shameful.”

The unionized housekeepers, cooks, dishwashers, front desk agents, servers and food service workers want an immediate $5 an hour raise with raises totaling $11 over three years. Other asks include affordable health care and manageable staffing workloads.

“85% of my income goes to rent because I just moved to L.A.," said Cristina Betancourt, who works as a housekeeper at the Ritz Carlton Downtown. "It's really hard to even find a place in L.A. that you can afford on one income."

[jessicafurseth]

Reading List, Hotter Than Ever edition.

“The question is not who influences you, but which people give you courage.” [Hilary Mantel]

[Image: Linda McCartney]

*

"I think I’m hotter than I’ve ever been and so is every woman I know. I do not look at one female friend and think they were more physically attractive ten years ago. They know their face and bodies now; what suits them and makes them feel great. They know that thinness doesn’t mean happiness and that the best parties are with the best people, not when you’re wearing the best outfit. They are more likely to go for a swim in their mismatched underwear if they forget their bikini but the water looks beautiful. They are not scared to ask for what they want in bed. They’re hotter than ever." Dolly Alderton has opinions. [The Times - PSA: if you sign up you get one free a week]

Most of us feel about 20% younger than we actually are. But why? [Jennifer Senior, The Atlantic]

How Red Rock Island became the only private island in San Francisco Bay [Tessa McLean, SFGate]

“My perspective has always been that we can out of a sense of hope and not out of a sense of fear. I’m preserving food for another day because I expect to be around to enjoy it.” Canning, a retro hobby for the end times [Anna North, Vox]

The New York Times' 'Letter of Recommendation'series is usually great, but they've been on a proper roll lately:

"And now the Shipping Forecast, issued by the Met Office.” A Secret for Falling Asleep So Good It’s a British National Treasure [Grace Linden]

"I trained my gaze toward my feet [and found] evidence of all kinds of commutes: traces of hopping birds, the soles of humans’ shoes, restless leaves that fell and sank into wet concrete at just the right moment." Why I Hunt for Sidewalk Fossils [Jessica Leigh Hester]

"An unspoken intimacy and solidarity exists among us, the attentive viewers." Why I Watch the Closing Credits of Every Movie I See [Emma Kantor]

“I love being in that place where everything is just coming in, and everything is potentially important, and I’m underlining every great sentence that John McPhee has ever written and then I’m typing it up into this embarrassingly long set of reading notes, documents, organized by books. And then when you sit down with it as a writer who has a job, and his job is to fill a little window of a magazine or website, all of that ecstatic inhaling has to stop. You realize that you’ve collected approximately 900,000% of what you need or could ever use.” Longform Podcast #506: Sam Anderson

My Parents Got Sick. It Changed How I Thought About My Marriage [Mary HK Choi, GQ]

"If you are a fast walker and the person in front of you on the sidewalk is walking slowly, do not walk directly behind them for blocks on end." OMG Etiquette Rules for Tipping, Parenting, Friends, and Work [The Cut]

"It makes me feel ridiculous to acknowledge that cutting those few hours of [weekend] life prep out of my life effectively knee-capped my plans for the week. But I guess I have to feel ridiculous, because it’s true." The Work is Not Enough [Anne Helen Petersen's Culture Study]

Menopausal hormone therapy was once the most commonly prescribed treatment in the US. But one imperfect study in 2002 incorrectly linked it to health risks, and women have been suffering ever since. Women Have Been Misled About Menopause [Susan Dominus, The New York Times]

The Mystery of Teenage Anxiety [Derek Thompson, The Atlantic]

Influencer Is a Real Job. It's Time to Act Like It. [Emily Hund, Wired]

Why on earth does anyone care what Gen Z think of sex scenes in films? [Marie Le Conte, The New Statesman]

Who gets to be messy? [Kathryn Jezer-Morton, The Cut] On restaurants as living rooms [Ruby Tandoh, Vittles]

The case for hanging out [Dan Kois, Slate]

The pandemic changed us, but we still don't know how to talk about it: "[Maybe] when we say the pandemic is over, we are actually seeking permission to act like it never happened — to let ourselves off the hook from having to make sense of it or take seriously its continuing effects. ... Each of us is consciously or subconsciously working through potentially irreconcilable stories about what we lived through — or else, strenuously avoiding that dissonance, insisting there’s no work to be done." I don't think we can fully move forward until we understand what happened - this article helped me do this a little more.[Jon Mooallem, The New York Times - unpaywalled link]

[pastorgarypetersen]

How Churches Can Support Their Local Communities

How Churches Can Support Their Local Communities https://ift.tt/foQ2imc Churches have long been at the forefront of community support and engagement. As centers of faith, compassion, and service, churches play a vital role in addressing the needs and challenges of their local communities.    Community Outreach Programs: Establish community outreach programs that address specific local needs. These may include food banks, clothing drives, or programs to provide school supplies for needy children. Identify pressing issues within your community and tailor your outreach accordingly.   Volunteer Opportunities: Encourage church members to volunteer their time and skills to support community organizations and initiatives—partner with local nonprofits, schools, or shelters to provide volunteers for their programs.   Community Events and Activities: Host community events and activities that are open to all residents. These could be cultural festivals, health fairs, or family fun days. These events create fellowship opportunities.   Crisis Response and Support: Be prepared to respond to crises in your community, such as natural disasters or emergencies. Provide support and resources to those affected and coordinate with local emergency services.   Education and Tutoring Programs: Offer educational support and tutoring programs for students in your community, particularly those struggling academically. These programs can help improve educational outcomes and build stronger ties with families.   Counseling and Support Groups: Provide counseling services and support groups for individuals and families dealing with addiction, grief, or mental health challenges. These services can be a lifeline for those in need of emotional support.   Financial Literacy Workshops: Offer financial literacy workshops to help community members manage their finances more effectively. These workshops can empower individuals and families to make informed financial decisions.   Job Training and Employment Assistance: Partner with local businesses and organizations to provide job training and employment assistance programs. Help community members develop valuable job skills and connect them with employment opportunities.   Churches have a unique opportunity and responsibility to support their local communities in meaningful ways. Engaging with the community strengthens the church’s and its members’ bonds and demonstrates Christ’s love and compassion for the world. By actively participating in community support initiatives, churches fulfill their mission to serve and uplift those in need, fostering a spirit of unity and care within their local communities. The post How Churches Can Support Their Local Communities first appeared on Pastor Gary Petersen | Philanthropy & Community Involvement. via Pastor Gary Petersen | Philanthropy & Community Involvement https://ift.tt/qHg7snO April 23, 2024 at 03:26PM

[fanelesibongeneneot3]

Mental Health is known as the Cinderella of Health Care

Have you ever heard of mental health being compared to "Cinderella" in healthcare? This term highlights a clear problem: even though mental health issues affect people and society significantly; mental health services don't get the attention and support they need. This blog will explain why this happens, the importance of mental health, the difficulties mental health services face, and how it affects individuals and society as a whole. Lastly, it will discuss some steps that can be taken to make things better.

According to Febiyani and Widiyanto (2022), Cinderella is a fictional character known for her suffering, neglect, and being unattended. She endured mistreatment from her stepmother and stepsisters, symbolizing the pain and isolation felt by those facing mental health challenges when they lack the support and understanding they need. Mental health is often referred to as the Cinderella of health care because it doesn’t get enough as much attention and support as physical health. This happens because mental health challenges can't always be seen like physical illnesses, making them easier to overlook. As a result, mental health services don't always receive the same funding and resources, even though they are crucial for the well-being of individuals and society. According to Petersen (2023), society has historically stigmatized mental health issues, leading to discrimination and underfunding of mental health services, mental health services have often been underfunded and undervalued, leaving many individuals without the support they need. Which is why it's often likened to Cinderella.

‘There is not health without mental health”. This statement emphasis the critical role that mental well-being plays in our overall health and well-being. Mental health is not merely the absence of mental illness but encompasses emotional, psychological, and social well-being. Neglecting mental health can have profound consequences on our physical health, relationships, and overall quality of life. Recognizing the importance of mental health is crucial for achieving holistic health and well-being. It highlights the need for comprehensive healthcare systems that address both physical and mental health needs to ensure individuals achieve holistic health and well-being, as these aspects are deeply interconnected (World Health Organization, 2001).

The image above illustrates the significance of mental health across all phases of our existence, influencing various aspects of our well-being. It encompasses our overall quality of life and exerts a profound impact on our daily experiences. https://www.spotlightnsp.co.za/2021/09/07/in-depth-mental-health-needs-of-children-falling-through-the-cracks-experts-say/

Mental health's association with the term "Cinderella of Health Care" draws parallels to the classic Cinderella story and the tragic real-life incident of the Life Esidimeni tragedy in South Africa. Just as Cinderella was initially neglected and marginalized by her own family, mental health services have long faced neglect and underfunding within the healthcare system. Both Cinderella and mental health services underwent transformations: Cinderella, with her fairy godmother's help, experienced a remarkable change in fortune, while mental health services have the potential to transform lives through proper support and resources. Tragically, the Life Esidimeni tragedy serves as a harsh real-world example of the consequences of neglecting mental health. In this incident, vulnerable individuals faced inadequate mental healthcare, resulting in tragic outcomes. Just as Cinderella's glass slipper represented a unique fit, mental health services must be tailored to individuals' needs. Overall, the comparison highlights the urgent need for better recognition, funding, and resources for mental health services to ensure that no one's mental well-being remains in the shadows or, worse, neglected. Trauma clinic (2023).

Mental health services face a set of challenges that can be linked to the Cinderella story. One major difficulty is the consistent lack of adequate funding and resources, similar to Cinderella's humble rags compared to her stepsisters' extravagant attire. Just as Cinderella was left behind and unattended, mental health services often find themselves understaffed and underfunded, leaving many individuals without the support they need. Moreover, the Cinderella story's time constraint, with her magical transformation expiring at midnight, mirrors the time-sensitive nature of mental health crises where immediate assistance is crucial. The search for Cinderella through the glass slipper's unique fit can be likened to the challenge of providing personalized and tailored mental health care that fits individuals' diverse needs. Ultimately, the difficulties mental health services face, much like Cinderella's trials, highlight the need for broader recognition, investment, and reform to ensure that individuals receive timely and appropriate mental health support. (Lund, Cooper, & Petersen, 2011).

Treating mental health as the "Cinderella" of healthcare, with limited attention and resources, has significant repercussions for both individuals and society as a whole. On an individual level, it means that many people facing mental health challenges may not receive timely or adequate support. This can lead to prolonged suffering, diminished quality of life, and even tragic outcomes in severe cases. Moreover, untreated mental health issues can cascade into various aspects of society. It can strain social relationships, reduce workforce productivity, and increase the burden on other healthcare services, such as emergency rooms. The ripple effect extends to communities, where untreated mental health issues can contribute to higher crime rates and homelessness. Thus, neglecting mental health not only hinders individual well-being but also undermines the overall health and stability of society. Recognizing and prioritizing mental health within healthcare systems is crucial to mitigate these far-reaching impacts. (Schneider, Baron, & Tomlinson, M. (2016).

To stop relating mental health to the role of "Cinderella" in healthcare, we must prioritize several key actions. In the Cinderella story, her transformation from a life of hardship to a successful and happy one was possible due to several factors: recognition, support, and opportunity. Similarly, in the mental health, we need to recognize its significance by reducing stigma and raising awareness. Adequate funding and resources must be allocated to mental health services, ensuring they have the tools needed to support individuals effectively. Just as Cinderella was provided an opportunity to attend the royal ball, individuals must have access to timely and affordable mental health care. Moreover, tailoring services to individual needs, much like Cinderella's glass slipper, is crucial. Ultimately, a comprehensive approach to mental health, combined with societal understanding and support, can break the cycle, and ensure that mental health no longer plays the role of "Cinderella" in healthcare, leading to happier and healthier lives for individuals and society as a whole. World Health Organization. (2022).

Comparing mental health to Cinderella reveals a significant problem. Mental health issues deeply affect people and society, yet mental health services often lack the necessary attention and support. This blog highlighted the reasons for this issue and the importance of mental health. It outlined the challenges faced by these services and how it impacts everyone. To move forward, we must ensure mental health gets the recognition and resources it deserves, ultimately integrating it fully into healthcare for a healthier future.

Reference list

Febiyani, B. & Widiyanto, M. (2022). An Analysis of Moral Values in Cinderella Movie and Its Contribution in Narrative Text.

Lund, C., Cooper, S &., Petersen, I. (2011). Challenges facing South Africa's mental health care system: stakeholders' perceptions of causes and potential solutions. International Journal of Culture and Mental Health, 4(1), 23-38.

Petersen, I. (2023).  "Mental health stigma experiences among caregivers and service users in South Africa: a qualitative investigation."

Schneider, M., Baron, E., & Tomlinson, M. (2016). Integrating mental health into South Africa's health system: current status and way forward. South African Health Review.

Trauma clinic (2023). ‘Mental health the Cinderella of health care’ ‘Mental health the Cinderella of health care’- President of the South ...

The picture: https://www.spotlightnsp.co.za/2021/09/07/in-depth-mental-health-needs-of-children-falling-through-the-cracks-experts-say/

World Health Organization .(2001). (www.who.int)

World Health Organization. (2022). "World mental health report: transforming mental health for all."

[childabusesurvivor]

True Self-Care Is More Difficult Than We Make it Out to Be

New Post has been published on https://www.childabusesurvivor.net/reviews/2023/02/22/true-self-care-is-more-difficult-than-we-make-it-out-to-be/

True Self-Care Is More Difficult Than We Make it Out to Be

Note – As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

The recent issue of Anne Helen Petersen’s Culture Study is an interview with the author of Real Self Care (Affiliate Link), Dr. Pooja Lakshmin.

The topic, if I may be so bold as to try and describe it in a short sentence or two, is how there is an entire self-care industry that sells us more “things,” bath bombs, massage, wellness apps and retreats, designed to tick off the “self-care” box on our to-do list that never get to the root of the problem because the probles is systemic.

To quote Dr. Lakshmin from the interview:

And, going further, real self-care is an internal decision making process that can be layered into everything you do. As opposed to thinking of it as carving out self-care for a 15 minute pocket of the day, self-care needs to be threaded through the way we make decisions and design our lives.

There are several important reminders in the article about how a good walk in nature won’t solve for the 30 million Americans who don’t have health insurance or that 25% of Americans can’t take a day off with pay. That option isn’t available to them. Let alone the millions of people who can’t afford a massage, or who must work multiple jobs to afford housing where they live or single parents who struggle with having available childcare to work in the first place. Telling these people to take a relaxing bath isn’t solving anything.

I talk about this in the context of work often. A company culture that demans 60 hours of work per week but also says they encourage employee work-life balance doesn’t value work-life balance. They’ve made it another thing for the employee to be responsible for. Employers who offer PTO but see no problems with calling people on PTO or simply piling up work until they return are punishing people who take time off. This week, for example, Monday, was a company holiday. Tuesday was a day I chose to take off because it’s a state holiday where I live, MArdi Gras, even though I work remotely for a company that does not close for the day. That leaves me with a three day week. In many organizations, I would be expected to fit five days of productivity into those three days. For example, law firms often have a billable hour requirement per month. (Lawyers, and some staff members should be billing “x” number of hours per week/month/year.) Taking a day off means having to make up those hours somewhere. It’s a disincentive to self-care, even as those same firms will encourage people to use their PTO.

But, even in those situations, I have to acknowledge how privileged they are because many jobs in the US don’t have any of that, and many people wind up using their PTO not on self-care but child and elder care.

As much as I can talk about the benefits of taking a break, doing something nice for yourself, or having a hobby, we all need to acknowledge where self-care involves much harder life decisions. Yes, I do have a massage therapist that I see regularly and she is excellent at helping treat symptoms of my stress and anxiety. I can talk about that. I also need to talk more about the times I’ve made significant life changes as a form of self-help. Changes like leaving a job that was bad for my mental health, moving across the country, disconnecting myself from certain relationships, and having difficult conversations with people.

We also need to talk about how to change the systems that make it impossbile for other people to make those same kinds of decisions. We need to talk about the fact that no amount of self-care will make the world non-racist. There’s no self-care that women can do that will make the world safer for them, and no time spent relaxing will eliminate hatred towards LGBTQ people. Neuro-divergent people, those with disabilities, and countless other groups don’t have fair access to make an income. An extra hour of sleep isn’t going to fix that.

Yes, I believe in the importance of self-care. I will encourage it for everyone. It helps. But it can only help so much. Until this becomes a society that equally cares about everyone and actively seeks to offer care for everyone, self-care can only go so far. We need to recognize that and spend as much time promoting that as we do self-care.

Go back and read the entire interview.

#Insurance, #LGBTQ, #MentalHealth, #Nature, #SelfCare, #Stress

[renbennett]

Week 2 reading response

Write

I chose five very different sources for my research because I believe it will give me a broad scope for my map materials. Two sources document the timeline of the concentration camps, one through objective documentation and the other through the story of a woman who was sent to the camps at age 13. One source documents the extensive studies that have been done to gauge the long-term health impacts of Japanese-Americans who were forced to live in these conditions. The study mostly focuses on young children who had undergone very traumatic experiences at such a young age. Obviously putting any person into a concentration camp is inhumane and wrong, but the fact that families with such young children were forced into these camps, by a nation that supposedly supports the family unit above all else is baffling and I believe it is important to point out the damage that was done to their health because of this. Another source I chose was referenced in some of our readings and I thought it would be interesting to give it a look. An article by the New York Times, published in 1966 called Success Story, Japanese-American Style attempts to belittle the struggles of the Japanese-Americans by saying it ‘made them better’ while simultaneously disregarding the years of chattel-slavery and subsequent systematic racism faced by the black community. Finally, I chose a book that added an entirely new set of understanding for me in how the concentration camps affected such a large variety of people. I had not realized before reading this that Japanese people living in Latin American countries were affected. People of Japanese descent living in countries like Peru were located and deported to the United States so they could be sent to concentration camps and after the fact were denied re-entry. Not only had the US nearly forgotten about them after the war, the countries they had come from: used this as a way of keeping them out of their countries, while they were lenient with German immigrants.

The most prominent theme I can think of is the theme of dehumanization which I believe pairs with the notion of performative citizenship for POC. What I mean by performative citizenship is that most of the people in concentration camps were citizens, but the US has a history of not fully providing the rights of citizenship to POC. In William Petersen’s tone deaf article he completely neglects the fact that many Japanese-Americans were displaced and forced out of their home countries, their assets having been sold, while he dumbs them them down to a caricature. Tokisho Aiboshi explains her hopes that her patriotism as a young child could prove that she was not a spy, not understanding that the US did not care about her the way she cared about them. There was no understanding at that age that this was not about spies but about a fear of a rising immigrant population in a country that is made of immigrants. Having grown up in the US, Aiboshi had an understanding of what America claimed to stand for but was unaware of its white supremacy. Another strong theme would be betrayal. Young children were betrayed by the government that always promised freedom, adults were betrayed by their “citizenship” when they were stripped of all financial assets, homes and lives, and Japanese immigrants in Latin American countries were found, deported and rejected by the countries they called home. My questions I’d like to uncover in my research would have to relate to how the US has responded so far in relation to rectifying these mistakes. I am also very curious about the extent to which young children of these camps had their life altered in ways that deviated from the model minority myth. 

In response to reading: Introduction of Design Justice 

Which of the design justice principles listed in the introduction resonates most with you? Why?

I could not find the reading on this so I am not sure what principles were listed but I did research on the matrix of domination and will talk about it.

What is the Matrix of Domination? Why is it important to understand the Matrix of Domination for this course?

The Matrix of Domination serves almost as a map for race, class and gender and everyone falls somewhere different on it, and it can either benefit or harm them. It’s important to our class because as designers it is necessary to understand the matrix when incorporating specialized variations to a design for the purpose of accounting for different people. For example, since I couldn’t find the reading I read about a trans non-binary experience with TSA. The writer explained that because they do not fall perfecting into the gender binary, they are required to be searched because of a design flaw in the machine. The TSA agent is required to use their own judgment to decide if a passenger is female or male, and for certain trans people, whichever one is chosen will cause their genitals or chest to light up, forcing them to be searched just for the TSA agent to invasively understand their anatomy. The design flaw here is that the machine only accounts for cisgender passengers, which relates to the matrix of domination because it excludes non-cis people.

In response to:  A Love Letter

Williams is referring to the phenomenon that occurs when people take large scale problems that are rooted in long-standing systems and act like they can just put a bandaid on it. An example of a bandaid from the reading would be when Bianca talks about how people tried to make jackets that could turn into tents for homeless people as opposed to addressing the huge homeless population and what the cause of this might be. Plus, these band aids are usually given out by the systems promoting the issues so that they can act like they care without taking any real responsibility.

In response to: The Model Minority Myths

The model minority shows up as satire in television, as evidence on “News” channels, and in the mouths of conservatives who refuse to take accountability for the challenges faced by the black community. The readings explained that evidence for the model minority myth has been skewed by the fact that there is a huge wealth gap within the Asian-American community, and the bottom end of that gap is ignored. The model minority myth is mostly used against black people, but is also harmful to Asian-Americans because it completely discounts Asian-American struggles such as long term-unemployment and a lack of healthcare. We see the Model Minority Myth  being used to ignore huge systematic issues like the disproportionately funded public school system, housing and more. This myth allows for people to ignore all the adversity people are faced with by simply placing the responsibility on the individual to “buck up” and “work harder”.

[gecko-s-greenhouse]

updated list of topics:

my own timeline of events.

how to create a healthy work environment. (the short version: consume any/all media that anne helen petersen puts out)

dating among the c-suite.

"i'm not here to make friends."

qualities of a good manager.

respecting time off.

i regret not taking more time off.

what does giving employees an honest chance look like? (related: performance reviews in a tiny company)

valuing humans over success; failure is always on the table.

who takes the blame when the right people aren't hired in a timely fashion?

and others that i'm sure will spring to mind.

today's topics:

my timeline of events.

Nov: I interviewed and was fed (what ultimately turned out to be) lies about company culture and how they value employee well-being.

Dec: work offer extended and accepted. ski retreat invite extended and accepted.

Jan: I start. on my first day at work, I was informed that the CEO and (eventual) COO are dating (see below). CSO is let go from the company within my first 2 weeks, leaving the CEO to manage both the business/funding side of the company as well as managing all the scientists.

Feb: the first sprint week and ski retreat (see prior post). I check out from caring about the company.

early Apr: negative negative negative performance review. ultimately what i took from it was: 1, don't let my manager see me doing anything non-work related (even though breaks are necessary), and 2, my manager doesn't like my data and wants me to fix it (of note: the technique was new to me when i joined the company and no one else has the skills either). it becomes immediately obvious that she's starting to leave a paper trail so that she can fire me in the near future.

mid Apr: candidate for Director of Science is brought in to interview. this person would take over managing the scientists from the CEO. candidate makes some comments that makes me realize that the way that my manager handled my performance review (sending me off on my lonesome to carry her criticisms without any other clear direction other than "you're bad") is not the strategy a good/experienced manager would take.

also mid Apr: a field trial starts. each batch of samples (3/week in the first several weeks) demands that my team of 2 scientists processes 100's of samples at a time, taking us hours and hours of constant go-go-go time. we're exhausted when we get to work in the morning before 9am and exhausted when we go home well after 6pm. it's all we can do to just keep up with the influx of samples; much less even think about about 70% of the downstream processing. of note: the other teams at the company are "in" the office 10am-4pm, and one of them even has the gall to comment on how the other companies in the shared incubator space keep those kinds of hours. she says this (judgmentally) multiple times, and each time, i respond to her, "i wish i could keep those hours and get everything that needs to be done, done."

early May: i am exhausted, burnt out, depressed, self-medicating. i have described the thought of going to work during this period of my life as equivalent to the idea of jumping off the balcony from my 7th-story apartment. work stress is taking a massive toll on my romantic relationship. my partner eventually loses patience with how unsustainable this work is for me and forces me to start making moves to plan for next steps. i was worried that having a short-short-short employment on my CV would be a bad thing, but it's becoming clear that i might not even live to see one year at this company. i start talking to a recruiter to look for other jobs, and applying for master's programs in mental health counseling, because i needed to be seeing a therapist, my teammate needed to be seeing a therapist, and my manager DEFINITELY needed (needs) to be seeing a therapist (and not those stupid executive coaching camps in sonoma that she kept going to).

also May: i start looking for a therapist. the shitty health insurance coverage from this tiny startup doesn't cover my previous therapist who i really liked, and it's taking a lot of time and energy to screen therapists, and i have neither.

D-Day minus 3 (end of May): i ask my manager if we can reschedule an upcoming 1-on-1 to accommodate a dental appt that i had scheduled. radio silence.

D-Day minus 1: i submit an application to one of my master's programs.

D-Day: i reschedule my dental appointment. i am (and my field trials teammate are) laid off, effective immediately (i canceled an analysis order i had put in literally 20 minutes earlier). of note: intense crunch period for the field trials where we were processing multiple batches of samples per week is over, the outlook looks pretty bleak, and now samples will come every other week. thanks for using us and discarding us like a soiled tissue. also, would it have killed you to say something/anything/lie to me about the dental appt? i know full well that you're never-ever-ever disconnected from work (which is its own problem) also of note: i had requested several days off starting the next day to walk at my own commencement ceremony (and entertain my parents; i know i will have to fight my father to convince him that my getting laid off was not my fault but rather an effect of poor management) and attend my partner's college reunion. i am great company at these social events! (<- sarcasm. i am a salty b!tch.)

D-Day plus 1 week: i sign my severance agreement despite qualms about the non-disparagement clause. i conclude that it means i can b!tch about my shitty manager to my friends and family, but can't go to the local news outlet or funding agencies and say that the company is doomed to fail because of specific data/problems with the tech (it is, but i've not told you specifics, so there.).

Jul: i reconnect with two other former employees of the company, one who left of his own accord and one who was also laid off. we form an ex-company club (loosely) where i learn lots of gossip about how much of a dumpster fire cult of personality around the CEO the company has become. lots of stories from this too, mostly not mine to tell, but what i take from the gossip is that the company is doomed to fail under the leadership of the current CEO, which is really a shame b/c we need more women CEOs. the consensus is that she is too inexperienced and scared and isn't making the right decisions for the health of the company.

dating among the c-suite.

on my first day of work, i am informed that the CEO is dating the Director of Business Ops, that they have been dating for 6+ years, and that they "like to keep things professional at work."

i don't think much of it at the time, because i am young and this is my first foray into a startup, but in retrospect, why was this information withheld from me until i set foot on campus? why is it company policy to withhold this essential piece of information until the employees have no easy out?

it quickly becomes clear to me that the boyfriend is on a fast track to COO. he had been quickly promoted from Head of Business Ops to Director in the span of a year, despite not having any experience in this field. it smells strongly of nepotism, but also of trying very hard to not look like nepotism. (it's nepotism.)

honestly their dating didn't really affect me much while i was there, but i will never again knowingly join a company where the C-suite is incestuous, for the obvious reason that when the CEO wants to make a decision, whether it's motivated by reason or by personal feelings, there will be no pushback from the boyfriend and this effectively doubles the weight of her decision-making.

the interesting story here comes up around the time the 3rd person gets laid off. the boyfriend (who is the friendlier of the pair) reaches out to me with a lunch invite. i don't really want to go to lunch with him, but i know that he is the kind of friendly person who, if i say, "i can't this time, another time," will actually follow up with the another time. so i bite the bullet and get it out of the way. at lunch, we are awkwardly shooting the shit. the boyfriend asks me if i am still with my partner (they met at ski retreat, isn't it funny that my partner is in the company picture that i'm not in?) and if we're still living in the same place. i say that we just* signed our lease for another year.

...

this next bit used to make me really mad, but now i just feel pity.

the boyfriend then goes, "oh, what a big vote of confidence in your relationship! i'm surprised that you would tie yourself down to this location when you could go anywhere for your next job."

i honestly don't remember what i said specifically, so let's just say i laughed awkwardly and changed the subject.

however, inside, i was fuming. how dare he make that kind of judgement on my relationship, when HIS girlfriend is the unhinged one who's running the company into the ground!

(also, just* re-signed the lease happened before i got laid off.)

but now, after having b!tched about this incident extensively to my friends, i feel like the most generous and sad explanation for his comment is that he was projecting. this happened shortly after the 3rd person got laid off, a decision that i've come to understand was entirely irrational. maybe he didn't agree with his girlfriend's decision, but couldn't say anything about it because that would indicate a lack of faith not only in her business decision making, but also in their relationship. couple this with my prior knowledge that he doesn't especially fancy being tied down to this location for the long term, and i think i've got a case here.

do the funding agencies know that they are dating? if so, how did they convince the funding agencies that their relationship could stand the test of time when the previous company that they "worked on together" was a little passion project fashion retailer? how does that translate to running the kind of tech company they're in charge of now?

to be continued.

a thread about my shithole job

when i asked my therapist about workplace trauma and how to move forward from it, she suggested setting some time aside to feel my feelings and journal about it. so that's what i'm going to do, because i'm determined to move on from all the ways that i was mistreated at that shithole job now that it's been 5 months (lol).

for context, my first job out of my PhD was at a tiny startup of fewer than 10 employees. i felt lucky to land the job because the biotech job market was in a bad place at the end of 2022 (it's worse now at the end of 2023), and luckier still because the company sang a (lying) tune about company culture that i bought into. the job ranged from okay to a total dumpster fire and i'll get into the details below, and then after 5 months, i was unceremoniously laid off. (alternately, my entire team of 2 was unceremoniously restructured.)

and because i signed a non-disparagement agreement to get my severance, i can't tell you the company's name. i assume not all of these issues occur at other companies,

topics that i want to cover:

my own timeline of events.

company retreat.

what i wish i had said to my shitty ex-manager when she fired me.

cult of personality.

how to create a healthy work environment. (the short version: consume any/all media that anne helen petersen puts out)

dating among the c-suite.

"i'm not here to make friends."

qualities of a good manager.

respecting time off.

i regret not taking more time off.

what does giving employees an honest chance look like?

valuing humans over success; failure is always on the table.

and others that i'm sure will spring to mind.

today's topics:

company retreat.

for context, about 2 months into my time at this company, we went for a 3 day/2 night ski retreat.

the invite went out after i had accepted the position, but before i had started, so i felt like this was "mandatory fun" and forced team bonding time that i had to attend (even though the text of the email said no pressure!), so i accepted, but made clear from the beginning that i am not a skiier and would not be joining the downhill skiing activities.

come the week of the event, work was a flaming shitshow. we were in our first sprint week at this startup, and two new hires were visiting from oot so we had to entertain them and make it seem like work was chill even though we were working overtime.

actually being on retreat was fine, i guess? we did cabin activities, they went skiing and i did other snow stuff. it was awkward but manageable. the CEO covered activity fees for only the downhill skiiers, so i, notably not in this group, had to pay my own way for tubing, skating, and snowshoeing all by my lonesome.

i now regret not asking for my activity fees to be covered also.

we get home, and the CEO sends out a group photo. that was taken at the top of the ski mountain.

let that sink in for a moment.

ask yourself, who was not included in the picture?

and to make matters worse, i was never, at any point during this retreat, invited to be in a group photo.

that was the first time i cried over this shithole job, and the first time that i told myself that i wasn't going to care anymore. (first time? because i wasn't good at holding myself to it.) startups want their employees to be part of a shitty family, and i was no longer having it.

to make matters worse, when i was being hired, the CEO had fed me a lying story about how "we're not like other startups" and want to focus on employee well-being over the other cultish aspects of stereotypical startup culture.

what i wish i had said to my shitty ex-manager when she fired me.

i don't appreciate being patronized. the first thing she said to me was, "this may come as a surprise, but..." haha no, this was not a surprise in any way, shape, or form. i've known that you wanted to fire me from that joke of a performance review* (more on this later) a month ago, right up through this meat grinder of a so-called "second chance" you've given me. i guess i am only surprised that you fired me right in the middle of a field trial where i'm a member of the team of two that handles every sample that comes through.

just because you don't like what my data says doesn't mean it's bad data. 'nuff said.

if you're restructuring, why can't i be absorbed into another function of the company? why do you have to look me in the eye, lie to me and tell me that you think i'm a great scientist, but apparently not one who can learn how to contribute to other functions that i am fully capable of doing and you know it?

what's this bullshit about "effective immediately"? (don't @me about MA at will employment, i know the law but i'm talking here about decency, which i guess is a foreign concept to you.) shouldn't i be given a couple days to tie up loose ends, tell you how to find my shit, and say a non-rushed goodbye to those of my colleagues who i did come to like? and ESPECIALLY because i had requested several days of pto THAT YOU HAD APPROVED starting literally the next day? this feels like a move for YOU, so you don't have to look at me any more than you have to after you made this decision.

also, in the state of massachusetts, it would be polite to lay people off with enough lead time that they can acquire health insurance in a timely manner. assembling the necessary documents takes time, and the last day to sign up for the next month's coverage is the 23rd day of the prior month. lesson learned: negotiate a severance package that includes health coverage. again, i understand that decency is a foreign concept to you.

what gives you the right to play games with people's lives? this thought really took shape as my nutbag ex-manager continued to arbitrarily fire people, including one on an O1 visa. consider my situation: i had been at this company for 5 months and got laid off. any decent manager looking in would see this and immediately recognize that the problem is with the company (funding?) and the management rather than with me, a young scientist who hasn't even been given the standard amount of time to fuck up learn the ropes (1 year) before being shown the door. alternately, what gives you the right to brand me as someone who behaves poorly? (because that's the only other reason a stranger would think that i was laid off so quickly?) for example, my friend and former colleague, upon finding out that i lasted only 5 months at the company, immediately asked if the company was having money problems, but he's someone who knows me and knows that i'm not a jerk, but that's not immediately obvious to a stranger. what gives you the right?

you are running your company into the ground. i don't care if your science is impeccable (it's clearly not based on my data), but it's clear to me that your company is going to fail if you keep treating your employees like this. the consensus among former employees of the company, both the ones who were laid off and the ones who left of their own volition

i hope you fail. i will gleefully eat my popcorn WHEN it happens.

also, i want my stuff back. (i wouldn't have forgotten it if you'd given me more notice!)

to be continued.

also, am i supposed to talk about my feelings too? overwhelmingly angry that at an incompetent inexperienced and scared manager treated my life/career/future as a gigantic joke to her, but also disappointed in myself that i signed on in the first place, and sad to have lost a year that i could have otherwise spent building my career to this total nonsense. bad times all around.

[archivlibrarianist]

Anne Helen Petersen breaks down why librarians are not okay. She's talking to academic librarians here, but a lot of problems she describes in her third point-- continued cuts to necessary services-- apply to public libraries, as well.

"First: You work passion jobs, and passion jobs are prime for exploitation... The second thing I want to acknowledge: you’re working a passion job that is feminized and, by extension, devalued....

The third thing that makes your jobs hard? You’re working for higher ed...

The fourth thing that’s making your job really, really hard? You just worked through a pandemic, and an ongoing reckoning with systemic racism, and a contested election, and an insurrection, and several climate catastrophes. Plus, we are still in a pandemic. Some of you were asked to be present in situations that felt unsafe every day. Some of you had to deal with people who were butts about masks. Some of you got sick or are still sick, many of you have spent the last twenty-four months in various cycles of fear-based adrenaline pushes through the week followed by debilitating crashes..."

[dwellordream]

“In the 1910s and 1920s, some people took particular offense to short skirts. Others were more disturbed by the sleeveless tops, delicate fabrics, and sheer stockings that young women fancied. Still others judged short hair the most troubling of fashion innovations. Yet no matter which aspect of the new styles they found more provocative, critics shared one fundamental conviction: They believed modern fashions to be part of a broader rebellion against conventional gender arrangements and therefore inextricably linked to the issue of female emancipation. Whether they talked about short skirts or short hair, they generally agreed that the new styles made women "much freer" and "more independent," both physically and psychologically, and that the reason for their enthusiastic embrace of the modern fashions lay in this fact. 

In the years since then, both popular and professional historians have tended to reproduce this belief. With few exceptions, they have presented postwar fashions as a sign of young women's refusal to accept the constraints of nineteenth-century femininity and as evidence of their insistence on new physical freedoms. Like commentators at the time, they have emphasized the ease and practicality of the new styles, assuming that it was these qualities that held particular appeal to young women in general and working women in particular. Such claims are not without merit. When asked why they liked the new styles, many women who embraced modern fashions in the 1910s and 1920s pointed to their simplicity and convenience. 

In retrospect, Henny Nedergaard, for example, explained that "old-fashioned dresses were so complicated. I remember in my childhood, it took forever for my mother to get dressed. The modern dresses were much easier. You just slipped them on—that was it." Charlotte Hansen also described the older styles of female dress as confining and appropriate only for a sedentary existence. "Our generation was different," she explained. "We were not content to just sit still and do nothing. Corsets and stays, that was not for us. We did not want to wear all those heavy clothes. They just did not fit us." According to Edith Jensen, the new styles "made it easier for women to move."

"Short dresses were much more practical," added Lily Enevold, "especially if you had to work. You couldn't really work in those long dresses." Some women endorsed short hair for the same reason. "Who in the world had time to comb and brush and put up long hair," Henriette Marie Markfeldt wanted to know, "when you had to be at work at seven o'clock in the morning? No, short hair was a lot easier." To deny that the new styles were in fact easier and more comfortable than the restrictive, corseted fashions and the elaborate coiffure of the nineteenth century would be pointless. 

But to argue that the new fashions freed women from physical restrictions and eliminated time-consuming grooming would be equally untrue. Short, narrow skirts did not exactly promote free and unrestricted mobility. Neither did the high heels that became so popular in the postwar era. Silk stockings may have felt more comfortable than the older wool stockings, but they were also more fragile and more frequently in need of mending. Similarly, short hair may have required less daily attention, but it demanded regular trimming, and when curls and waves became the new fashionable norm, most women had to spend considerable time, not to mention substantial sums of money, at the hairdresser. 

In addition, the new fashions demanded a slenderness that had not been a requirement for older generations of women. As fashion historian Valerie Steele has pointed out, stylistic change applies to bodies as well as clothes, and with the new, slimmer lines in women's clothing went slimmer female bodies. From the beginning of World War I, when the new fashionable styles first gained popularity, the "tyranny of slenderness" thus began its ascendancy over all women who wanted to be in style. In the postwar decade, this led to an unprecedented emphasis on dieting, a phenomenon still unfamiliar to most women in the early 1910s.

Yet already in the mid-1910s when the new styles were first introduced to broad audiences, advice on how to obtain a slender body became a regular feature in women's magazines. At first, such advice was rather infrequent and not particularly demanding. "The most efficient method is to eat minimally," one newspaper advised in 1915, acknowledging, however, that "this is of course not entirely convenient when one has a good cook." As a solution to this dilemma, the journalist recommended standing up for twenty minutes after each main meal, an exercise that supposedly would counteract the unfortunate effects of (too much) good food. 

Gradually, dieting became more rigorous and sophisticated, and by the mid-1920s beauty experts were prescribing strict diets of grapefruit, fish, and raw vegetables "not just for a few days at a time, but. . . day in and day out, year in and year out." Other recommended ways of acquiring the slender body were equally taxing. In addition to dieting, women were encouraged to engage in various forms of physical exercise, not for the pleasure this might entail but for the results it would produce. If both of these strategies failed, a variety of commercial products promised shortcuts to a slender body. 

From the early 1920s, a multitude of remedies, including oils, drinks, salts, and tablets, promised female consumers instant health and gradual thinness. Finally, women aiming for a sleek-looking body could—and very often did—turn to modernized versions of the traditional corset. Most famous for being discarded during the 1920s, corsets were in fact simply remodeled to suit the new styles. Replacing whalebone and canvas, tough elastic material flattened breasts and stomachs and eliminated the visible curves of hips and thighs. 

Obviously, then, the fashions that made women more mobile and less physically restrained also made them more self-conscious about measuring up to the new "look." And no matter which strategy women chose in order to obtain the desired shape and weight, they had to engage in the immensely demanding process of self-surveillance and self-disciplining that the American historian Joan Jacobs Brumberg has labeled the twentieth-century female "body project." But if the new styles were neither as easy, simple, nor carefree as they have often been described, why did young women so eagerly embrace these fashions? 

At the time, answers to this question were rarely articulated by the women who adopted the new styles, especially not in writing. After all, fashion is, as Mary Louise Roberts has pointed out, "something to wear, not [something] to write about," and even though journalists were fond of querying their readers about virtually any topic under the sun, they apparently never thought to ask young women to explain their enthusiasm for the new styles. But when asked several decades later, most women had an answer at hand. "It was what was fashionable back then and of course you wanted to be fashionable," said Dora Ingvardsen.

Lily Enevold gave a very similar explanation. "I guess it was just what was in style, and you know how young girls want to be stylish." Others, including Stine Petersen, explained that "for me, it wasn't really a big deal. I just wanted to look good." Had contemporaries heard such explanations, they may well have been less perturbed than most of them were. For some women, the new styles clearly had no significance beyond being the prescribed fashion. Their reason for liking the new styles was not that they permitted women new physical freedoms, and they did not associate short dresses or short hair with any kind of rebelliousness against the status quo. 

As Marie Hedegaard poignantly remarked, "I belonged to Conservative Youth, but being politically conservative had nothing to do with that. Of course, we wore short dresses, and most of the girls [who belonged to the organization] had short hair." Still, the women who recalled their stylish appearances as merely the result of fashion prescription constituted a minority. Far more frequently women gave another explanation. In general, they claimed to have liked the new styles neither for their practicality nor for their ease, but because they were a particularly effective way of displaying their difference from older generations of women and asserting a distinctively "modern" female identity. 

As Agnes Nyrop explained, "We were young and gay and full of life, and we wanted to look like that, look modern." Voicing the same sentiment, Louise Ege explained, "Those dresses did not just make you look stylish, they made you look modern." "Having short skirts and short dresses, that was part of being modern," added Gertrud 0st. "It made you feel free and young and modern. Stylish, you know, glamorous, and that was what we wanted," according to Amanda Christensen. Whether or not the new styles were in fact easier, more practical, and more convenient, this was obviously not the only factor in determining these women's fashion choices. 

The fact that the new styles set young women visually apart from an older generations whose confining lives they did not care to emulate was at least as important. As Thora Smed recalled, "My mother, she never had a moment of ease in her life. It was always toil and moil for her. I think most of us dreamed of a life that would not be like that." For her, and for many other women who were young in the 1920s, sporting the new fashionable styles was simultaneously an expression of this desire and part of its fulfillment. In her words, "We wanted something more, something better, and I guess [wearing fashionable clothes] was in a way part of that."

Simply wearing the new fashions certainly seemed to provide many women with a sense of glamour and style that lifted their existence into a "modern" realm of luxury, pleasure, and indulgence unfamiliar to most of their mothers. As a result, even the stringent requirements for slenderness and the laborious aspects of other forms of beauty care seemed well worth the effort. In fact, engaging in such beauty care was in itself a privilege that many young women treasured. "I have to admit that [we] spent a lot of time on looking good," confided Vera Thorsen. "But it was fun. Trying different things, trying this and that. No, it was fun."

But the new fashionable styles did not only play a role on the individual level. They also signaled young women's collective embrace of a new identity as "modern" women and their commitment to creating a life for themselves that would be "modern" in a much broader sense. Ingrid Kristensen's answer to the question of why she liked the new styles was therefore less a non sequitur than it first appeared. After a brief pause, she explained that "young girls had a lot in common back then. We wanted something different." After yet another pause, she added pensively, "I think that was why we liked [the new fashionable styles]. It was like— like that was what you let people know when you looked like that."

Clearly, then, young women did not consider the new styles emancipatory in and of themselves. Still, to dismiss the women who wore them as merely clothes horses and fashion plates would be mistaken. Their pursuit of the modern look may have been informed by mass-produced images of female glamour and style, and the acquisition of a fashionable appearance unquestionable tied young women into elaborate patterns of consumption and individual beauty care. 

But to the extent that the new styles provided young women with an individual and collective identity as "modern" women, fashion and appearance were part of young women's rebellion against the past. While they did not define themselves as feminists in any way, they were certainly not willing to accept the restricted, joyless lives they believed their mothers and grandmothers to have lived, and in their own understanding, this was exactly what they signaled through their adoption of the new fashions.”

- Birgitte Soland, “The Emergence of the Modern Look.” in Becoming Modern: Young Women and the Reconstruction of Womanhood in the 1920s

[pastorgarypetersen]

Why Pastors Need to Prioritize Rest

Why Pastors Need to Prioritize Rest https://ift.tt/JH5X7mx The role of a pastor is demanding and often comes with a heavy workload that includes preaching, counseling, administration, and community engagement. Amid these responsibilities, it can be easy for pastors to neglect their own well-being and neglect rest. However, prioritizing rest is a luxury and a necessity for pastors.   Spiritual Renewal Rest provides pastors with the opportunity for spiritual renewal and growth. Taking time away from the demands of ministry allows pastors to deepen their relationship with God through prayer, meditation, and study. Pastors can recharge their spiritual batteries and find fresh inspiration for their ministry in these moments of quiet reflection.   Emotional Health Ministry often involves dealing with the emotional burdens of others. Pastors listen to the struggles, sorrows, and joys of their congregants. To maintain emotional health and avoid burnout, pastors need regular rest periods to process their emotions, seek support, and regain emotional balance.   Physical Well-being The demands of pastoral work can take a toll on physical health. Irregular schedules, long hours, and leadership stress can lead to physical exhaustion and health problems. Prioritizing rest, including getting adequate sleep, exercising, and eating well, is essential for pastors to maintain their physical well-being.   Creativity and Innovation Rest fosters creativity and innovation. Taking a break from the routine allows pastors to think outside the box, develop new ideas, and find creative solutions to challenges within their ministry. Fresh perspectives often emerge when the mind is at rest and not constantly preoccupied.   Better Decision-Making Exhaustion and burnout can hinder pastors’ ability to make sound decisions. Rest enables pastors to think, make well-informed choices, and lead their congregations effectively. Rested pastors are better equipped to handle the complexities and challenges of ministry.   Setting an Example Pastors play a crucial role as spiritual leaders and mentors to their congregations. By prioritizing rest, pastors set a positive example for their church members, emphasizing the importance of balance and self-care in the Christian walk. This can inspire congregants to do the same in their own lives.   Rest is not a sign of weakness but a source of strength for pastors. It is a biblical principle rooted in the concept of the Sabbath, which God established for rest and renewal. Pastors must prioritize rest to maintain their spiritual, emotional, and physical well-being, ensuring they can serve their congregations effectively and avoid burnout. By taking time for spiritual renewal, emotional health, physical well-being, creativity, and better decision-making, pastors can lead by example and create a healthier and more sustainable ministry for themselves and their congregations. The post Why Pastors Need to Prioritize Rest first appeared on Pastor Gary Petersen | Ministry & Missions. via Pastor Gary Petersen | Ministry & Missions https://ift.tt/0LF9vq6 March 14, 2024 at 11:17AM

[childabusesurvivor]

True Self-Care Is More Difficult Than We Make it Out to Be

New Post has been published on https://www.childabusesurvivor.net/reviews/2023/02/22/true-self-care-is-more-difficult-than-we-make-it-out-to-be/

True Self-Care Is More Difficult Than We Make it Out to Be

Note – As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

The recent issue of Anne Helen Petersen’s Culture Study is an interview with the author of Real Self Care (Affiliate Link), Dr. Pooja Lakshmin.

The topic, if I may be so bold as to try and describe it in a short sentence or two, is how there is an entire self-care industry that sells us more “things,” bath bombs, massage, wellness apps and retreats, designed to tick off the “self-care” box on our to-do list that never get to the root of the problem because the probles is systemic.

To quote Dr. Lakshmin from the interview:

And, going further, real self-care is an internal decision making process that can be layered into everything you do. As opposed to thinking of it as carving out self-care for a 15 minute pocket of the day, self-care needs to be threaded through the way we make decisions and design our lives.

There are several important reminders in the article about how a good walk in nature won’t solve for the 30 million Americans who don’t have health insurance or that 25% of Americans can’t take a day off with pay. That option isn’t available to them. Let alone the millions of people who can’t afford a massage, or who must work multiple jobs to afford housing where they live or single parents who struggle with having available childcare to work in the first place. Telling these people to take a relaxing bath isn’t solving anything.

I talk about this in the context of work often. A company culture that demans 60 hours of work per week but also says they encourage employee work-life balance doesn’t value work-life balance. They’ve made it another thing for the employee to be responsible for. Employers who offer PTO but see no problems with calling people on PTO or simply piling up work until they return are punishing people who take time off. This week, for example, Monday, was a company holiday. Tuesday was a day I chose to take off because it’s a state holiday where I live, MArdi Gras, even though I work remotely for a company that does not close for the day. That leaves me with a three day week. In many organizations, I would be expected to fit five days of productivity into those three days. For example, law firms often have a billable hour requirement per month. (Lawyers, and some staff members should be billing “x” number of hours per week/month/year.) Taking a day off means having to make up those hours somewhere. It’s a disincentive to self-care, even as those same firms will encourage people to use their PTO.

But, even in those situations, I have to acknowledge how privileged they are because many jobs in the US don’t have any of that, and many people wind up using their PTO not on self-care but child and elder care.

As much as I can talk about the benefits of taking a break, doing something nice for yourself, or having a hobby, we all need to acknowledge where self-care involves much harder life decisions. Yes, I do have a massage therapist that I see regularly and she is excellent at helping treat symptoms of my stress and anxiety. I can talk about that. I also need to talk more about the times I’ve made significant life changes as a form of self-help. Changes like leaving a job that was bad for my mental health, moving across the country, disconnecting myself from certain relationships, and having difficult conversations with people.

We also need to talk about how to change the systems that make it impossbile for other people to make those same kinds of decisions. We need to talk about the fact that no amount of self-care will make the world non-racist. There’s no self-care that women can do that will make the world safer for them, and no time spent relaxing will eliminate hatred towards LGBTQ people. Neuro-divergent people, those with disabilities, and countless other groups don’t have fair access to make an income. An extra hour of sleep isn’t going to fix that.

Yes, I believe in the importance of self-care. I will encourage it for everyone. It helps. But it can only help so much. Until this becomes a society that equally cares about everyone and actively seeks to offer care for everyone, self-care can only go so far. We need to recognize that and spend as much time promoting that as we do self-care.

Go back and read the entire interview.

#Insurance, #LGBTQ, #MentalHealth, #Nature, #SelfCare, #Stress

[mostlysignssomeportents]

PE's three kids in a trenchcoat fraud

Remember when the Small Business Administration rolled out the Payroll Protection Plan and it was drained of trillions almost instantly by giant companies pretending to be small businesses and we shamed Shake Shack into giving the money back?

Just the tip of the iceberg.

Writing for Propublica, Paul Kiel and Jack Gillum use the PPP data to reveal private-equity backed companies that applied for PPP dozens of times each, claiming to be multiple companies all headquartered at the same address and using the same bank.

https://www.propublica.org/article/different-names-same-address-how-big-businesses-got-government-loans-meant-for-small-businesses

Vibra Healthcare, a PE-backed chain of hospitals, was eligible for $10m in free PPP money. The $1b/year company got around $97 million, by claiming to be 26 separate entities.

Petersen Health Care made 52 different PPP claims - up to $52m - by claiming to be 52 different companies.

Mariner Health Care - owned by National Senior Care - pretended to be 19 different companies, netting up to $31m.

Hedge-fund-owned Maverick Gaming, a casino owner valued at $1b, got more than $46m through the same pretense.

Some of these companies got to triple-dip: Vibra didn't just get 26 different payouts from PPP; it also got $13m in health care grants and $41m in loans as advance on Medicare payments.

Vibra does not deserve ANY public money. It is a repeat-offender fraudster that paid $33m to settle its Medicare fraud in 2016 and $6m in 2019 for another round of Medicare fraud.

[fairfieldthinkspace]

Advance care planning — we can take control

Gina Petersen, MSN, RN, CHPN

Kanarek Center for Palliative Care Leadership Team at the Marion Peckham Egan School of Nursing and Health Studies:

Robin Kanarek, BSN, RN

Eileen O’Shea, DNP, APRN, PCNS-BC, CHPPN

Diana Mager, DNP,  RN-BC

Donna Coletti, MD, MS, FACOG

As the global pandemic impacts every aspect of our lives, we experience an array of emotions. While we distance from one another physically, a tangible fear lives within each of us; yet, just as strongly, we feel a sense of hope.

Since its founding in 2017, the Kanarek Center for Palliative Care (KCPC) has been dedicated to advancing the knowledge, behavior, and skills of our students, faculty, staff, and broader community about quality care for individuals with serious illness. Our purpose has not changed despite the changing times; instead, it remains clear. The necessity of advance care planning has surfaced in headlines in light of the pandemic. This may seem unnatural, as our innate skills of survival now demand our attention to protect us from our mortality, rather than plan for its arrival.

Uncertainty brings a unique struggle to each of us, often accompanied by existential questions: How can I contribute to society? What brings my life meaning? What do I value? What does a good day look like for me – today? How do recent events change how I would want to receive care? How does it change how I would like my life honored or remembered?

Viktor Frankl affirms that in even the most unfortunate of circumstances, humans can find meaning. This crisis calls for us to redefine the meaning and experience of survival: we must prioritize self-care today, as well as plan our future self-care to guide our loved ones if we become unable to speak for ourselves. We can take control.

As you stock your pantry, the new norm — consider how you can stock your loved ones with knowledge of your values and wishes if your personal stores become inaccessible. Create space to reflect on these questions and discuss them – in person, over the phone, or by video chat. How you want to be cared for matters and should not be an assumption or a guess. The Conversation Project guide lists three things you can do right now to start or continue the conversation about your future care. It will allow you to take control and provide you with comfort knowing you are making a valuable contribution to yourself, your loved ones, and your community.

Understanding the difficulties, we are engaging in these conversations alongside you with our own loved ones. The KCPC is committed and here to support you in your efforts. COVID-19 has brought profound suffering, but it has also allowed our skies and water to clear. As we plan to celebrate Earth Day as intended this year, join us in supporting National Healthcare Decisions Day on April 16, by completing a living will and appointing a healthcare proxy. Here are two options; choose whichever document speaks to you: Connecticut Advance Directive or Five Wishes. Let us all take responsibility for our present and future self-care, together. One day, our loved ones will thank us.