What Your Choice of Exercise Says About You
I have never been an "exercise" person, nor a "gym" person. If I walk through a park and some kids kick a football towards me, my first impulse is not to kick it back, but to get to a safe place and report it as street harassment.
However, since I hit 24 at the end of last year, I've been at the gym consistently, for reasons still pretty unknown to me. Maybe it's a sincere desire to love my body rather than fear it. Maybe it was one too many times laying on the sofa of a Sunday evening, sincerely googling "symptoms of a heart attack", an activity I once thought was reserved for people over 40.
Who knows? The point is that I can now read the gym floor with precision; I've identified my gym crushes (Tanned Man Who Rolls His Tracksuit Bottoms Midway Up His Thighs, Yoga Man with Perennial But Subtle Line of Bum Sweat). I've identified my heroes – here's to the pensioner who uses her free council membership to catch up on Coronation Street while sitting on the lower back machine, doing one rep every ten minutes.
And I can identify you, too. It's as easy as knowing which exercise you're into.
SPIN CLASS
You are the sort of millennial who lives for "experiences", meaning you have been spotted at one of those public silent discos and have apparently not removed yourself from the electoral register and self-deported to a small hamlet from the shame of it all. The "vibier" the spin class, the better. It's a no to angry instruction in a well-lit room, yes to "disco" lights and "disco" music (you haven't been to an actual club since the Freshers' Week of your final year at uni).
You are keenly interested in the recent London rollout of SoulCycle, an American-founded spinning cult with clientele so earnest and well-heeled that the studios are kept permanently dark in case anyone notices Beyoncé is two bikes away. You love Lizzo. You have never, ever explained to me how you go about this exercise without being 24/7 harrowed by the gooch-bruise you get from anything more than 30 seconds of sitting on one of those evil stationary bikes. For this, I can neither like nor respect you. Keep it up, sunshine!
ELLIPTICAL
A trusty classic. Home to the iconic woman from that viral video where she puts both feet on one pedal and yeets herself around in a nonplussed fashion – and just as popular! The elliptical is probably the least scary thing to mount in the entire gym. Its charm is that it meets most abilities where they're at, because once you grip your limbs and push a little, it just sort of gently goes with you.
And perhaps here too lies its flaw. Are you happy to just keep pushing along a little, guided mostly by a machine you can barely hope to influence, no hope of a change in rhythm or intensity, just pushing through the required time before you can go home to watch one episode and one episode only of a sensible TV docudrama, eat half an ice-cream before cling-filming the rest, and go to sleep?
It is with regret that I inform you: capitalist subjectivity has leaked into your leisure time. The saddest truth is that you're not even going to get a big ass from all of this. And if you're going to force yourself through the meat grinder of late capitalism, you should at least aspire to its only truly optimal outcome: a really big ass. Live a little!
HOT YOGA
Full disclosure: my humble council gym does not offer "hot yoga". However, I have seen it written about in no fewer than three lifestyle pieces. Sometimes I go to fairly nearby Primrose Hill and sit in a café, hoping that if I sit there long enough someone will drop £500, or that I will at least spot someone from the cast of Fleabag. There is a "hot yoga" studio on the main street, and anyone I have ever seen come out of it is unspeakably well-sculpted and self-satisfied, and also has really good teeth. This has long led me to wonder what hot yoga is. I had for a while settled on the idea that it was some sort of super-sexy hybrid-dance yoga, done perhaps to the music of Miguel or Janet Jackson. Recent research has revealed that it's actually just normal yoga, done in a really hot room. It costs £100 a month. You are a sexy idiot.
I love you. Call me.
RUNNING
You can do this for free, outside. Try it!
DEADLIFTS
You are always here. Every time I go, you are in the same place you were when I last came, four days ago, and I start to wonder if you live here, like how I used to think teachers lived in their storerooms. You live for this, and fair play, it shows. You greet each deadlifter into the gym like family, with an alluring nod or sometimes a whole body-bump-handshake, but not in a gay way. I spend most of my miscellaneous gym time looking at you, thinking to myself, 'He started somewhere too. Once, he was like me.' But I am not entirely sure this is true – I cannot imagine you have ever struggled like I do.
I can't understand you. You seem to have developed an elaborate language where one nod means you are using the machine, but one nod also means that you are not using it, and I am powerless to figure out which one you mean. So I leave the machine alone and go to do some of the exercises in which I also get to lie down. You make me feel like Lana del Rey feels about men who do too much oxycodone and ride motorbikes in her songs. You perplex me, and yet I cannot do without you.
PILATES
You do not simply send emails – you "ping", "pop", "bash" or "whizz" them. You have strongarmed your flatmates into a monthly Ocado order when they simply want to spend £80 a month on oven pizza in peace, and you enforce an extremely specific cleaning rota with "kooky" punishments like having to post a "silly" picture on Facebook. Your app of choice is Bumble and you do the dates at lunchtime rather than in the evening because you feel you're at your best then. You unnervingly behave like a full-blown influencer on Instagram to your 467 followers, and thank large brands for the concealer you just bought at full price with your own hard-earned money. You have a calendar of daily "mantras" on your work desk. You produce regular amounts of serotonin and pump them into a regular brain, and are much happier than I will ever be. Leave me alone.
@seanbgoneill
Kathryn Murdoch: ‘We’re really excited to back whoever the nominee is’
When your father-in-law is Rupert Murdoch — the mogul whose media empire has fanned a brush fire of conservative populism into a global political movement and whose Fox News arguably has more influence over U.S. politics than any outlet in American history — people have preconceptions about who you are and what you believe.
And the trap is this: Because you’re a Murdoch — because whispers about your family life are fodder for endless gossip columns, your public outings are dogged by paparazzi, and any suggestion of political disagreement with your relatives is treated as evidence of some intrafamilial schism with major business implications — your tendency is to stay quiet, to avoid weighing in about what’s been said about you and what people assume you actually think.
Advertisement
Even so, if you’re Kathryn Murdoch, there comes a time when you have to speak out.
“There’s always a difference between what gets seen out in the public and what is actually happening in a family or behind the scenes,” Murdoch said in an interview for POLITICO’s Women Rule podcast. “I would say there’s a diversity of opinion on all of those things within the family, as there are in many families. There’s no line that everyone has to adhere to, or cross, or anything like that.”
Going public with her own views, however, is new territory. “I’m still learning how to navigate that,” Murdoch said, referring to herself as a “radical centrist.” At first, “I took a step back and have not been public at all. … This is the first time where I’ve really decided that I have a voice and I need to try to use it.”
The change comes at what Murdoch sees as a “make or break” moment for both American democracy and climate change, the two causes to which she’s devoting herself — and investing $100 million of her own money.
“The decisions we make in the next few years are going to have an impact on coming generations,” Murdoch said. “I need to know that I’ve done everything that I can possibly do.”
That includes getting active in politics — not only for causes, but candidates.
She likes what Democratic presidential candidates Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Mike Bloomberg have said about the need to reform government. During a recent Democratic debate, Murdoch recalled that Buttigieg “said he would do political reform because then he could get everything else done, and I stood up and whooped at that answer.”
As for the general election against Trump, “We’re really excited to back whoever the nominee is, no matter what,” Murdoch said.
Speaking with POLITICO’s Anna Palmer, Murdoch cited the lack of legislative progress on climate change, “reasonable” gun control measures and a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers — immigrants brought the country illegally as children — as examples of what she calls the “root cause” of political dysfunction: a system in which entrenched politicians and special interests force outcomes divorced from what a broad consensus of voters would like to see. Murdoch plans on spending $100 million to back political-reform proposals, with an eye toward expanding the use of ranked-choice voting, nonpartisan redistricting commissions and open primaries.
Of course, you can’t talk about the partisan divide without at least acknowledging the role Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News has played in defining conservatism and voicing an approach to politics that is sometimes unmoored from basic, agreed-upon facts, like the existence of climate change.
Kathryn Murdoch can relate to the proverbial family arguments between those who acknowledge climate change is real and those who, fed a steady diet of climate science denialism, rebut its existence. The difference is that instead of simply watching Fox News, her family owns a major portion of it.
“Nothing has changed,” she said of political disagreement within the Murdoch clan. “Our views two days ago are exactly the same as they were when I first started to learn about climate change 14 years ago.”
Even so, Murdoch emphasizes that within her family, there’s a “wide diversity of opinion and agreement on many things.”
Earlier this month, Murdoch sat down for a candid and wide-ranging interview with Anna Palmer. What follows is a transcript of their conversation, edited for length and readability. For more, listen to the interview on the newest episode of Women Rule.
Anna Palmer, Politico: Since November, you’ve been pretty public with your plans to invest a lot of money to reform politics in America — things like open primaries, independent redistricting and rank-choice voting. Why now?
Katheryn Murdoch: Right now is a moment where we’re going to make it or break it on a number of different issues. I think that’s true for our democracy, and I think that’s true for our climate. The decisions we make in the next few years are going to have an impact on coming generations, and I need to know that I’ve done everything that I can possibly do.
We’re told that there’s a huge amount of polarization in our country — and certainly, it feels that way if you read the news, [or] if you’re on Twitter. But if you actually look at the polling, there’s a huge amount of consensus around even the most contentious issues.
So polls on reasonable gun reform: There’s anywhere from 90 to 94 percent agreement on that. Even things like immigration, which are hot-button issues: 80 percent of Americans believe that we should have a path to citizenship for the Dreamers. So there’s all of these contentious issues, and a lot more consensus than we think, but we’re not getting the results out of politics. And the question is why?
So we look at the root cause and say, “OK, it’s partly because the politicians are no longer representing the people — they’re representing generally the extremes of their party and special interests that put money there.”
None of the things that you mentioned — rank-choice voting, open primaries, vote [at] home — none of these things are silver bullets. It’s not going to be, “Oh, we change that, and then it’s going to change everything.” But if you add them all together, it adds up to something much more representative — so that the people’s will is actually shown in the legislation.
Palmer: $100 million is a lot of money, and, obviously, there are no shortage of things you could be spending it on. Why politics? Why these specific proposals? These are kind of long-term changes that you’re talking about, really structurally changing the way that the system is governed. Is there a short-term win that you’re hoping for in the next couple of years?
Murdoch: Well, we did get some short-term wins in the midterms. We had a number of anti-gerrymandering reforms that passed. We just recently passed ranked-choice voting for New York City, and that will have a really big impact. That triples the number of people under the ranked-choice voting system. So even though it was a city, it’s a big city.
Palmer: Do you invest in candidates as well?
Murdoch: Yes, and we’re really looking for reform candidates — candidates who are interested in the same type of thing we are and candidates who are interested in working across the aisle to get stuff done.
Palmer: Is there any presidential candidate that you think is the “reform” candidate you’re looking for?
Murdoch: Well, I’ve actually been thrilled to see how many candidates have mentioned reform in their platforms. Certainly, Pete Buttigieg has done that. Amy Klobuchar has done that. Mike Bloomberg has done that. I’m sure several of the others have as well, but those are the ones that I’ve seen that have specifically said, “We think that this is job one.”
There was a debate where they asked all of the candidates, “What’s the one thing that you would do?” And I thought it was actually a very good question because there is limited political capital that you have to spend. So what’s the one thing you’re going to focus on? And Buttigieg had said he would do political reform because then he could get everything else done, and I stood up and whooped at that answer. [Laughter]
Palmer: Do you plan on supporting or backing one of the candidates?
Murdoch: I think there are so many great candidates, and we’re really excited to back whoever the nominee is, no matter what.
Palmer: Do you think there is a double-edged sword of having the Murdoch last name? That you have this platform, but at the same time, no matter what you do on these issues, it’s always going to be in comparison to Rupert Murdoch?
Murdoch: There is, but I’m also very aware that I’m in charge of me, what I do. I’m in charge of our foundation. I’m in charge of the work that we choose to support, and that is what I can control and that’s what I’m going to wield to the best of my abilities.
Palmer: I’m curious: When did you personally start getting interested in politics? What piqued your interest?
Murdoch: It was the root-cause issue, really. No matter what big issue you are working on: If you’re working on education, you’re dealing with the government. If you’re working on immigration, you’re dealing with the government. If you’re working on climate change, you’re dealing with the government. And if the government isn’t functioning properly, you just can’t get those things done. You can’t be as effective at helping people as you want to be. And I’m not alone in finding that.
Palmer: One of your other big causes is climate change. I understand that your involvement started after you heard a speech by Al Gore?
Murdoch: Yes.
Palmer: What did he say? Take us inside that room. Well, I’m sad to say that I’m somebody who does respond to a PowerPoint. [Laughter.] And that’s what he had. It was compelling data, and it was put together things that I hadn’t put it into one place before. And I decided, after watching that, that I wanted to change everything. I was running a business. I wanted to figure out how to make that business sustainable. I wanted to focus on science, communications and try to help in that fight as much as I could. And I really changed my whole life around it.
Unfortunately, [Gore] was a good messenger for me, but not for others. And that was sort of the beginning of the polarization and the politicization of climate change. And it’s a bittersweet thing, because he opened a lot of eyes and he closed a lot of minds.
Palmer: You’ve said that there hasn’t been a Republican answer on climate change. Why do you think that is?
Murdoch: I think that the environmental community has been really terrible about telling our success stories, and so, for example, really similar situations that we’ve actually won, [like] the hole in the ozone layer and acid rain.
They’re two big global environmental problems that were actually solved. But if you ask most people about acid rain, they say, “Oh, yeah. I remember that in the ’80s. I remember people talking about that. It went away. It must not have been true; it was the environmentalists making up a story.” And the same, to a certain extent, with the hole in the ozone: “Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, the hole in the ozone — it went away.” No, we solved it.
To me, those are really great examples that we can do it. Climate change is more complex than either of those issues and it’s been more politically sort of stultified, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do exactly the same type of thing that we’ve already done. We’ve solved the hole in the ozone layer. It’s closed up. It’s pretty incredible, actually, but those stories are not out.
Palmer: Well, let’s take a step back. You are part of one of the most famous families in America, maybe the world, but you weren’t born into it. Tell us about your life before becoming Kathryn Murdoch. You grew up in Oregon, right?
Murdoch: Yes. So long ago I can barely remember. [Laughter]
Palmer: What did your parents do?
Murdoch: Well, when I was very young, my parents had a health food store. My mother then worked at Hewlett-Packard — [she] was a single working mother. We didn’t have a lot of money, but [I had] a very nice Oregon sort of upbringing. I’m sure being in Oregon impacted my views on the environment.
Palmer: So you’re in Oregon. How do you end up in New York?
Murdoch: I mean, the truth is, James [Murdoch, my husband].
Palmer: You met him in 1997.
Murdoch: I went through a big charade about, “Well, do I go to San Francisco? Do I go to New York?” And funnily enough, I ended up in New York, where he was.
Palmer: As we often do. So talk a little bit about that: Was it a difficult adjustment from being kind of a private citizen to being a family that’s dogged by paparazzi, fodder for gossip columns? How did you deal with that adjustment? How did you navigate that?
Murdoch: Well, I would say I’m still learning how to navigate that right now. We reacted by being very private the whole time. And certainly, I took a step back and have not been public at all, really, until now. So this is the first time where I’ve really decided that I have a voice and I need to try to use it.
Palmer: There have been a number of articles over the years describing your political views in context [of] Fox News and your in-laws. How would you characterize [it]?
Murdoch: I have used the term “radical centrist.” Sometimes when you say you’re a moderate or you’re a centrist, there’s an assumption that that means it’s a little bit mushy. I don’t think that necessarily has to be the case. I feel very strongly that we can have big change, but also look at all sides of a problem and think, “Where does the data lead us? Where are the best solutions?” And that’s the best way of expressing it. But I don’t know that there’s a perfect word.
Palmer: It’s not a neat little box that you fit into?
Murdoch: There’s not a box. I’ve always hated being boxed. [Laughter]
Palmer: How do you manage when you have [political] differences [with the Murdochs]? We often, all of us, have differences with our family, right? But you’re doing this in the public realm.
Murdoch: I would say that I’ve always had a very respectful relationship with everyone in the family. I’ve had very frank and factual conversations about all of these types of things for many, many years. Nothing has changed; our views two days ago are exactly the same as they were when I first started to learn about climate change 14 years ago.
There’s always a difference between what gets seen out in the public or what’s on the surface and what is actually happening in a family or behind the scenes. There’s a diversity of opinion on all of those things within the family — as there are in many families. There’s no line that everyone has to adhere to, or cross, or anything like that. There are lots of conversations that can be had, and they are had.
Palmer: Do you expect any of the other Murdochs to join in your efforts here on kind of what you’re doing in politics?
Murdoch: I think that there will be. I don’t know if there will be joining on politics in the sense of — James’ sisters are overseas and, therefore, not involved in American politics. But, like I said, there’s a wide diversity of opinion and agreement on many things, so what’s public and what’s actual is often different.
Palmer: We came off of a historic midterm election where there were more women elected than ever before. Oftentimes you hear people like Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi — and Republican women leaders — say, “If there are more women, more things get done. The tone changes. There’s more civility.” Is that something that you agree with? Are you supportive of trying to get more women into positions of power in government?
Murdoch: Absolutely, yes. [Laughter]
Palmer: On that note, last question: Do you have any interest in running for office yourself?
Murdoch: Definitely not! [Laughs]
Palmer: Why not?
Murdoch: I think it’s difficult for someone in the position that I’m in to be able to go out and expect people to relate to what my ideas are, I suppose. Oh … and I’m going to stumble through this one.
What I do think is that we expect a lot of women — we expect a perfection level out of women that is basically impossible to meet. We need to look good and kick-ass, but not too kick-ass, and don’t be shrill, and be smart but not too smart. Make sure you cook, but take care of the kids. There’s sort of all of these incredible conflicting things. And my hat’s off to the women that are running right now. They’re doing an amazing job of actually being able to do all of those things.
But the skill sets needed to win elections are often separate from the skill sets needed to govern. And that’s something that I think is a fundamental issue that we need to figure out — and that one I don’t have an answer for.
To hear more from Kathryn Murdoch, listen to the full podcast here. Women Rule takes listeners backstage with female bosses for real talk on how they made it and what advice they have for women looking to lead.
'We’ve had enough': Pro-life Democrat blasts Mayor Pete
Washington D.C., Jan 27, 2020 / 10:30 am (CNA).- Pro-life Democrats are “fed up” over the party’s staunch support of abortion and need to let the presidential candidates know it, the leader of Democrats for Life of America said on Monday.
“We’ve had enough,” Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, told CNA.
Day spoke to CNA after Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg told her at an Iowa townhall event on Sunday that he would forego the support of pro-life voters to maintain his absolute support for legal abortion.
Pro-abortion presidential candidates “are so afraid of the abortion lobby, and even making any inroads to Democrats for Life, pro-life Democrats, they’re afraid that they’re going to lose all their money and support,” Day said.
Pro-life Democrats throughout the country are frustrated over the party leadership’s increasingly staunch support of abortion, she told CNA.
“We need pro-life Democrats all over the country to go to these [presidential] candidates and ask the question: Do you want pro-life Democrats in the party? Because if not, we won’t vote for you,” Day said.
On Sunday evening, Day asked Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, about the party’s tolerance for pro-life Democrats, at a Des Moines, Iowa, townhall event moderated by Fox News’ Chris Wallace.
“I am a proud pro-life Democrat. So, do you want the support of pro-life Democrats—pro-life Democratic voters?” Day asked. “And if so, would you support more moderate platform language in the Democratic Party, to ensure that the party of diversity, of inclusion, really does include everybody?”
Buttigieg responded that “I am pro-choice. And I believe that a woman ought to be able to make that decision [on abortion],” to applause from the audience.
He said that public officials should not be making decisions for women on abortion, and that if Democratic voters would not support him for his stance, “I understand.”
“The best I can offer is that if we can’t agree on where to draw the line, the next best thing we can do is agree on who should draw the line. And in my view, it’s the woman who’s faced with that decision in her own life,” he said.
Day told CNA on Monday that she hadn’t actually asked Buttigieg about his abortion stance because “I know where he stands.”
In May 2019, when asked by Fox News’ Chris Wallace if there should be any limits on abortion at any stage of pregnancy, Buttigieg responded “I trust women to draw the line.”
Day said on Monday that “I just wanted to know if he [Buttigieg] thought there was room for us in the party. And he doesn’t.”
She told CNA that pro-life Democrats have been asking his campaign staff since December for a meeting, but no meeting has been offered. Instead, she decided to ask him in person at the townhall.
Buttigieg’s comments came two months after Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was asked at a Nov. 20 debate if there is room in the Democratic Party for a pro-life politician.
Warren said the party is “fundamentally” about preserving abortion access and that “abortion rights are human rights,” but added that “I’m not here to try to drive anyone out of this party.”
Day followed up her first question on Sunday evening by asking if Buttigieg if he would at least support language in the Democratic National Committee platform for 2020 that would recognize “diversity of views” on abortion within the party.
“Would you be open to language like that in the Democratic platform that really did say that our party is diverse, and inclusive, and we want everybody?” she asked the candidate on Sunday.
Buttigieg declined to support that language, instead calling abortion “medical care” that should be universally available.
“I support the position of my party, that this kind of medical care [abortion] needs to be available to everyone,” he said.
While he said earlier Sunday evening that abortion should be left up to women, Buttigieg eventually said he did back limits on late-term abortions in line with the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe decision.
“I support the Roe v. Wade framework that holds that early in pregnancy there are very few restrictions, and late in pregnancy there are very few exceptions,” he said.
He expressed his hope that pro-life Democrats will be willing to support him despite their disagreement on abortion.
“And again, the best I can offer is that we may disagree on that very important issue, and hopefully, we will be able to partner on other issues,” he said.
“I cannot imagine that a decision that a woman confronts is going to ever be better, medically or morally, because it’s being dictated by any government official,” Buttigieg said.
The president of the National Abortion Rights Action League, Ilyse Hogue, tweeted on Sunday evening that Day’s question and the applause Buttigieg received for his answer “is a good reminder to differentiate between people who feel personally pro-life and those who are anti-choice like Kristen Day.”
“The latter category believes it’s fine to force their beliefs on others through law. The former does not,” Hogue said.
Day told CNA that despite the applause for Buttigieg’s answer, people sitting around her at the event supported her question to him and expressed disappointment in his response.
A 2019 CNN poll of likely Iowa Democratic Caucus attendees showed around 80% of respondents saying that a candidate’s support for a “woman’s right to abortion” was a “must-have.”
Day said that support for abortion increases among Democratic activists, and that pro-life Democrats need to become more active within the party.
Many voters, Day told CNA, say they support a woman’s choice for abortion, but when it comes to the details of abortion policy, they can not be classified as "pro-abortion."
“A lot of people think that that [abortion] choice should still be there,” but when they learn of detailed policy positions such as legal abortion for all nine months of pregnancy, or the removal of safety regulations of abortion clinics, “when it comes right down to it, most people agree with me,” Day said.
“The abortion extremism,” she said, “this is not going to be a good long-term strategy for them.”
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, on Monday pointed to a recent Knights of Columbus/Marist poll showing “44% of rank-and-file Democrats want to vote for a candidate who supports common-ground limits on abortion.”
Dannenfelser is also the co-chair of “Pro-Life Voices for Trump,” the campaign’s outreach to pro-life voters.
“The modern Democratic Party is the party of abortion on demand through birth, paid for by taxpayers, and even infanticide. President Trump, in stark contrast, has championed popular legislation to stop late-term abortion and protect babies who survive abortions,” Dannenfelser said.
No comments:
Post a Comment