2020年4月8日 星期三

Crying in Your Car Counts as Self-Care

Ways to find headroom and even joy right now.

Crying in Your Car Counts as Self-Care

Tatjana Prenzel

One highlight of my week was crying in the car on my way to the grocery store. That sounds bleak as hell, but let me explain. I was alone, with no one asking me to do anything for 15 solid minutes, listening to music of my choosing that was in no way affiliated with Disney.

But perhaps more crucially, I have family members who are sick with the coronavirus, and I had been presenting a smooth, cheerful surface to my kids. I needed that car-cry for catharsis, and I felt better afterward.

Here’s a short list of other things I have done to carve out a place for emotions other than faux cheer: purchased pedicure socks at the grocery store; eaten a cookie in the bathroom so that I didn’t have to share it; sat outside, alone, in the cold at dusk while staring into the distance; purchased Season 4 of the yacht-based reality show “Below Deck” and watched it while folding laundry; played a rousing, middle-of-the-day game of “What Time Is It, Mr. Fox?” with my kids.

Let’s not pretend that everything isn’t terrible right now. It is! So while the details of our self-care may have only a passing resemblance to what we used to do before the pandemic, that doesn’t mean we can’t find ways to access some headroom, and even some joy.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Finding places where you can have space for yourself to reflect and think and feel” is crucial in this moment, said Dr. Pooja Lakshmin, M.D., a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences. Dr. Lakshmin pointed out that all of the “in between transition times” we used to have to ourselves — like during our commutes, and after we dropped off our kids at school — are gone. So it’s important to create those spaces for yourself in new ways, she said.

Dr. Lakshmin mentioned meditation as a great option. And in fact, parents with children under 18 at home are more likely to meditate than the general population right now, according to a new report from the American Enterprise Institute, a public policy think tank. Thirty-six percent of these parents “say they have meditated to cope with stress in the past week,” the report said, compared with 30 percent of Americans overall. If you want to receive the full benefits of meditating, Dr. Lakshmin said, “consistency is the most important thing. Five minutes every day is a lot better than 30 minutes every week.”

One excellent self-care idea was sent by a reader named Anne Diss. “To mark the end of a good day, my husband and I have started having cocktails on some evenings: We sort through our drinks cabinet and pull out the things we never drink (like a bottle of Martini Bianco that has been with us, unopened, for decades) and try to find a nice online cocktail to make with it,” Anne emailed us. Anne lives in France, obviously. “We look for nice glasses, garnish them with whatever we have around and set out a few nibbles too. Our kids have a soft drink and we all gather around and toast to confinement,” she wrote.

Another ritual Dr. Lakshmin suggested is keeping a gratitude, or “silver lining,” list, which you can either do yourself or as an activity with your family. “You can put it up on a white board or on the fridge, for everyone to keep track of unexpectedly fun things that have come up during this time,” she said.

ADVERTISEMENT

To be honest with you, in normal circumstances, meditation and gratitude journals are distinctly Not My Bag. But I am genuinely finding succor in talking to my kids about their favorite part of the day at dinnertime, and by chatting with my husband about what we’re most thankful for every night before we fall asleep.

I’m grateful that my family members are not in the hospital. I’m grateful that I have a job. I’m grateful that my children are safe with me, and grateful for their teachers, who are working so hard to make distance learning possible. I’m grateful for all the medical workers, delivery people and everyone else risking their lives to do their jobs. I’m grateful to have a car to cry in, and to be writing this to you.

P.S. Click here to read all NYT Parenting coverage on coronavirus. Follow us on Instagram @NYTParenting. Join us on Facebook. Find us on Twitter for the latest updates. Read last week’s newsletter for four ways to help your anxious kids.

Want More Distraction?

  • I am loving Samantha Irby’s hilarious new essay collection, “Wow, No Thank You.” Parul Sehgal, a book critic at The Times, wrote that Irby “might be our great bard of quarantine — with an unimpeachable daytime pajama look.”
  • Easter and Passover are approaching. The holidays might not look like what they did before, but Catherine Newman has suggestions for how to make them “feel warm and special and connected, without the extra shopping and prepping that would surely push you over the edge.”
  • Because there are no new red carpet looks to review, the fashion criticism site Go Fug Yourself is going through the photo archives. I particularly adored this ultra-low-rise lamentation. The site described the very low-rise waist as never a good idea and mostly requiring extra sunscreen for your pelvis.
  • I was charmed by this interview with the only full-time resident of Gothic, Colo., from NPR. Billy Barr has tips for social distancing because he does not see anyone in person on many days. My favorite tip is to embrace your grumpiness. “You get older and you start saying, ‘OK, I’m not going to necessarily be pleasant when I don’t feel pleasant,’” Barr said.
  • This is a video of a baby penguin chick.
  • Here are video games to play with your kids that won’t drive you crazy.

Tiny Victories

Parenting can be a grind. Let’s celebrate the tiny victories.
Set up a home office in our attic. My 4-year-old still hasn’t found it!— Amy Carnall, Newton Square, Pa.

If you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us.

ADVERTISEMENT

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for NYT Parenting from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

|

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your Email|Privacy Policy|Contact Us

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

2020年4月7日 星期二

And now for something completely different

Kudos to economists willing to rethink their prior views.
Erin Schaff/The New York Times
Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

Many people, predictably, have reacted to the Covid-19 pandemic by insisting that it makes the case for whatever policies they were advocating before. Conservatives who believe in the magical power of tax cuts insist that we should respond to a pandemic by, you guessed it, cutting taxes. Anti-immigrant groups insist that it shows that we must stop immigration. Bernie Sanders supporters insist that for some reason it means that Democrats should turn away from Joe Biden. Advocates of a universal basic income insist that it shows why we need U.B.I.

So it’s kind of impressive, amid this orgy of confirmation bias, to find many mainstream economists — and, with a slight delay, the Democratic leadership in Congress — acknowledging that coronavirus economics really is different, that it calls for policies that are different from the usual recession-fighting playbook.

For the record: even if you believe that cutting taxes would greatly increase Americans’ incentive to work hard (which you shouldn’t), tax cuts aren’t the answer when millions of workers are necessarily idle because of a lockdown meant to limit viral infection.

And the coronavirus slump actually makes the case against universal basic income, even though part of that $2 trillion not-a-stimulus bill did involve sending everyone a check. What’s happening now is that a large number of American workers — maybe as many as one in four — have lost their income because of social distancing. These workers have bills to pay; they need replacement income close to what they were making before. The rest of the work force doesn’t need anything comparable.

ADVERTISEMENT

And if you just send everyone a check, it will be either grossly inadequate for the newly unemployed, impossibly expensive, or both. Universal income, independent of circumstances, won’t do the job.

So what should our economic policy be? Over the past week or so mainstream economists have largely converged on the view that we should focus not on economic stimulus — we want part of the economy shut down for the time being — but on disaster relief for those losing their incomes.

What’s striking is that this is the answer coming even from Keynesian economists like Larry Summers, Olivier Blanchard, and yours truly, who generally favor fiscal stimulus in the form of spending to fight slumps, and have been urging the U.S. to take advantage of low interest rates to do a lot more public investment. You might have expected this gang of nerds to use the current slump as an excuse to pursue their (our) favorite policy.

But hard thinking about the nature of the current crisis says that infrastructure spending, however desirable it may be, doesn’t address the immediate issues. Enhanced unemployment benefits and aid to small businesses do get at the heart of the current problem. So that’s what serious economists are recommending, and Democrats in Congress have mostly come around to the same view.

ADVERTISEMENT

Making your policy recommendations contingent on what’s actually happening in the world may not sound like a terribly hard test of intellectual integrity. But given the political world we live in, I’m actually impressed and gratified to see so many economists rising to the challenge.

Quick Hits

Mathematical models of the economy may seem abstruse, but they help clarify our thoughts. Here’s the state of the art on pandemic economics modeling.

My informal take on the issue, done before I saw that lovely model (which, FYI, has a definite Krugman 1998 feel.)

But unemployment insurance is creaking under the strain; in New Jersey it relies on programs nobody knows how to write anymore.

Economists overwhelmingly support the lockdown.

ADVERTISEMENT

Feedback

If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week’s newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Facing the Music

Come for the music, stay for the catYouTube

Video performances from home are solace in these times.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

|

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your Email|Privacy Policy|Contact Us

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018