Latest news with #Ferrara
Time of India
17 hours ago
- General
- Time of India
‘I'm not your therapist': What is Mankeeping, the viral trend that's leaving women exhausted
Turns out, the real reason behind her not texting back is not her lack of interest – but because that cute-looking dude went ahead with full trauma-dumping mode while treating her like his unpaid therapist! A recent study from Stanford has officially named the emotional labor sucking the life out of heretosexual (and in some cases, bisexual) women: it's 'mankeeping' — and it's driving them straight out of the dating pool. What is mankeeping ? 'Mankeeping', a clever and culturally resonant play on 'kinkeeping' (the caregiving women often perform in families), is a blend of the words man and housekeeping, recently coined by researchers at Stanford University under psychologist Angelica Puzio Ferrara (alongside Dylan P. Vergara), and refers to the growing emotional labor that women shoulder in heterosexual relationships. What does it mean? It describes the emotional labor many heterosexual women find themselves performing—unkindly unpaid yet deeply taxing. This includes being a partner's crisis hotline, mood manager, social secretary, and confidante, often without reciprocal care. From becoming a live-in therapist to taking on the role of social secretary, many women find themselves decoding their partner's moods, orchestrating his social calendar, and providing emotional caregiving without reciprocation. It's not just an occasional favor—it's a habitual, exhausting duty embedded in daily life. In a society where men often have fewer emotionally intimate friendships, romantic partners inadvertently become their primary support network. Stanford's research found that about 20% of US men report having no close friends, compared to women, who typically maintain richer, more emotionally engaged social circles. As a result, many women feel pressure to carry this emotional burden, on top of the mental load they already manage at work, home, and family. What does the study say? As reported by the NY Post, Stanford postdoctoral fellow and developmental psychologist Angelica Puzio Ferrara, during a talk at the Clayman Institute Faculty Research Fellows, 'In the US, about one in five men claim they have no close friends,' adding, 'In comparison to women's social networks, men's social networks in the US and UK tend to be thinner in depth, less frequent in emotional disclosure, and more rarely relied on for support. ' What does that mean? He has no one else to talk to, no friend to turn to — so he picks his female partner as the trauma-dumping ground. Ferrara argues this male loneliness epidemic isn't just a 'him' problem — it's a her burden. And it's pushing women to hit pause on relationships altogether. According to Pew Research , just 38% of single women are actively seeking love, compared to 61% of men. That math adds up to one blinking highlight: women are opting out of being 'therapists with benefits.' The driving force behind 'mankeeping': As Ferrara explained, 'This is the labor that women take on to shore up losses in men's social networks and reduce the burden of this isolation on families, on the heterosexual bond itself, and on men,' adding, 'The barriers that men are facing in their relationships have the potential to expand women's labor on men's behalf.' Ferrara dubs this draining duty 'mankeeping,' likening it to 'kinkeeping' — the thankless job of maintaining family bonds, which also mysteriously ends up in women's laps. And the root of it all? Stunted male friendships and toxic masculinity. The male friendship recession Studies show that men's social circles have shrunk significantly over the past few decades. Although there's ample evidence that men had close friendships at the turn of the twentieth century, post-industrially, some men see close male friendships as a threat to their manhood. For example, the AEI Survey Center on American Life found that the number of men with at least six close friends in North America and Australia dropped from 55% to 27% since 1990, while 51% of men say they lack a confidant altogether. Without strong emotional outlets, romantic partners often become primary emotional support—a shift that burdens women with additional responsibilities. Gendered social conditioning Women are culturally conditioned from a young age to nurture, remember birthdays, organize gatherings, and maintain emotional harmony. Meanwhile, men are often discouraged from expressing vulnerability, internalizing the idea that 'real men' don't need emotional support. Growing awareness, diminishing infrastructure While more men now seek mental health support, many lack male friendships or group spaces where they can process emotions. The result? Unsurprisingly, the emotional load falls on their female partners. The emotional toll on women This dynamic is far more than an emotional hassle — it has real-world ramifications: Burnout and exhaustion From comforting a partner after job loss to ensuring they stay socially engaged, many women spend hours weekly on mankeeping activities. With existing responsibilities—work, family, personal pursuits—these added hours push many past their limit. Resentment and feeling unseen When emotional labor is one-sided, women often feel undervalued. Consider the friend who consoles her husband after he lost a golf game, yet he can't reciprocate when she shares her own worries. Erosion of self-worth and identity Constant caregiving can eclipse a woman's own needs and goals, leaving her emotionally depleted, less affirmed in her own identity. Relationship fallout Research indicates that women who invest more emotional work than they receive are likelier to feel less love in their relationships and are at increased risk of divorce. Why does this matter beyond individual couples? Relationship dynamics: Women increasingly 'opt-out' of dating or marriage, as according to Pew Research , with only 38% of single women pursuing love versus 61% of men. Gender norms: Frankly naming and addressing mankeeping challenges, outdated expectations that women should be emotional caregivers. Societal health: By identifying and acknowledging male loneliness, it raises questions about mental health, friendship, cross-gender interdependence, and what sustainable balance looks like. The way forward: As per Ferrara, naming this invisible labor is a first step toward equity. Recognizing and naming this form of gendered labor may be important for making women's emotional work more visible — and hopefully, more equal, she stressed. Acknowledge and name the labor: Simply naming mankeeping makes invisible work visible. It opens space for honest conversations about fairness and partnership. Set clear boundaries: Women learning to say 'I can't process this tonight' are reclaiming emotional capacity. Empathy doesn't mean unlimited availability. Encourage male emotional networks: Men building support through therapy, men's groups, or male friendships—such as Gen‑Z 'good night calls'—shift emotional reliance from romantic partners. Share the emotional load: Couples should identify specific emotional tasks—check‑ins, organizing social engagements, mood‑monitoring—and balance them intentionally. Create broader support structures: Workplaces, communities, and policy-makers can uplift mental health infrastructure—making emotional work less limited inside the periphery of romantic relationships. Katrina Kaif gets emotional, opens up on her break-up with Ranbir Kapoor One step to a healthier you—join Times Health+ Yoga and feel the change
New York Post
2 days ago
- General
- New York Post
‘Mankeeping' is ruining dating for women who are tired of relationship burnout: ‘I'm not your therapist'
Turns out the real reason she's not texting back might be because you treated her like your shrink. A recent study from Stanford has officially named the emotional labor sucking the life out of straight women: 'mankeeping' — and it's driving them straight out of the dating pool. The term refers to the exhausting, unpaid gig of managing men's moods, stress and social lives — all while trying to keep their own mental health afloat. Advertisement From decoding their partner's emotional constipation to playing middleman with his buddies, women are being cast as live-in therapists, social secretaries and emotional scaffolding. And they're over it. 'In the U.S., about one in five men claim they have no close friends,' said Stanford postdoctoral fellow and developmental psychologist Angelica Puzio Ferrara during a talk at the Clayman Institute Faculty Research Fellows. Advertisement 3 A Stanford study has put a name to the emotional drain plaguing straight women: mankeeping — and it's pushing them to ghost dating altogether. bongkarn – 'In comparison to women's social networks, men's social networks in the U.S. and UK tend to be thinner in depth, less frequent in emotional disclosure, and more rarely relied on for support.' Basically, he has no one else to talk to — so he trauma-dumps on you. Advertisement Ferrara argues this male loneliness epidemic isn't just a 'him' problem — it's a her burden. And it's pushing women to hit pause on relationships altogether. According to Pew Research, just 38% of single women are actively seeking love — compared to 61% of men. That math adds up to one thing: women are opting out of being 'therapists with benefits.' 'This is the labor that women take on to shore up losses in men's social networks and reduce the burden of this isolation on families, on the heterosexual bond itself, and on men,' Ferrara explained. Advertisement 3 Mankeeping is the thankless, unpaid gig where women juggle men's moods, stress and social lives — while barely staying sane themselves. JustLife – 'The barriers that men are facing in their relationships have the potential to expand women's labor on men's behalf.' In other words, it's not just one needy boyfriend — it's a system. Ferrara dubs this draining duty 'mankeeping,' likening it to 'kinkeeping' — the thankless job of maintaining family bonds, which also mysteriously ends up in women's laps. And the root of it all? Stunted male friendships and toxic masculinity. Ferrara says that naming this invisible labor is a first step toward equity. Recognizing and naming this form of gendered labor may be important for making women's emotional work more visible — and hopefully, more equal, she stressed. Advertisement Until then? More and more women are swiping left on mankeeping. Another possible solution? Men could be calling their buddies more often. As The Post previously reported, some say it's just a wholesome fad — others are calling it a remedy for the male loneliness epidemic. 3 Slapping a label on this emotional heavy lifting could finally shine a light on the invisible work women do — and maybe even help even the score, Ferrara said. bongkarn – Advertisement In a surprisingly sweet new trend, bros — mostly Gen Z, but not exclusively — are picking up the phone and dialing their dudes just to say: 'Good night.' And the waterworks are flowing. One viral TikTok, with over 3 million views, shows a user filming her husband ringing up a pal. 'Hi — what's up, man? … I'm about to go to bed, and I'm just calling you to tell you good night,' he says, without a hint of irony. Advertisement Cue the collective swoon. His friend, caught off guard, replies, 'Why? Are you thinking of me for real?' After the man sweetly says he loves him, the surprised pal answers: 'God damn I love you too […] I don't know what to say; you caught me off guard.' Advertisement Viewers were all in. One commented: 'In all seriousness, this is how you fight the male loneliness epidemic, just be friends with each other.'
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How Nerds Gummy Clusters became the candy aisle's biggest hit
This story was originally published on Food Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Food Dive newsletter. When Nutella maker Ferrero purchased Nestlé's candy business for nearly $3 billion in 2018, the acquisition added popular brands such as Butterfinger, Baby Ruth and 100 Grand to its enviable roster of sweets. But while much of the attention went to these iconic offerings, it may be Nerds, a product largely seen as an afterthought by its prior owner, that could turn out to be the sweetest brand of them all. Nerds is on track to hit more than $900 million in sales this year, a more than 1,700% increase from the $50 million in sales the brand was generating when it was first incorporated into Ferrara, which is owned by a Ferrero-affiliated holding company. The unprecedented surge is directly attributed to the widely popular Nerds Gummy Clusters, which represented the first meaningful innovation for the once-sleepy brand in years. Nerds Gummy Clusters are now the top sugar confection on the market, overtaking Mars Wrigley's Skittles, according to Ferrara. 'We knew we had something that was kind of special, but we really, truly had no idea how special it was or that it would grow as fast or as big as it has become,' said Katie Duffy, vice president of global brands with Ferrara. But the success of the clusters, which are a gummy ensconced in crunchy Nerds candies, wasn't a given. Initial tests weren't particularly encouraging, Duffy recalled, with consumers struggling to comprehend the multi-textural eating experience. 'We looked at the scores that came back from the concept and it was not all sunshine and rainbows,' Duffy recalled. 'We were really trying to understand, okay, why are they not getting it.' Ferrara remained hopeful that Nerds Gummy Clusters would catch on with consumers, especially after the treats proved to be an early hit with its own employees. After tweaking the visuals and language around how they showcased the treats, Nerds Gummy Clusters finally started resonating with testers. When Nerds was acquired, Ferrara observed that the 35-year-old brand had a high level of consumer awareness but went years without meaningful innovation and minimal marketing, Duffy said. Nerds also were not viewed as a market leader in candy because of their small size and the fact that they were messy. Nerds Gummy Clusters solved many of these problems. The candy has proven to be a hit at movie theaters and airports. Nerds Gummy Clusters also have helped attract older consumers and new snacking occasions to the brand. Most surprisingly, some distance runners and endurance athletes have used them as a booster in place of supplements such as Gu Energy Gel, Duffy said. Despite the recent sales boom, Duffy said there is plenty of growth left for the Nerds brand. Ferrara is rolling out more seasonal Gummy Clusters varieties in the U.S. and has expanded the brand into overseas markets such as the U.K. and Canada. At the same time, the company is hopeful Nerds Gummy Clusters can grab more shelf space at existing stores to better match its product velocity. Ferrara also is planning its next big launch under the Nerds banner later this year with Nerds Juicy Gummy Clusters. The snack contains juice in the center and is three times the size of the Gummy Cluster. 'Nerds Juicy Gummy Clusters is going to give us an opportunity to continue to build momentum that Nerds has already established,' Duffy said. 'It's a different eating experience.' Recommended Reading Leftovers: Nestlé sweetens game day with Cookie Nachos | Godiva doubles down on gourmet chocolate Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Chicago Tribune
02-06-2025
- Health
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: The Tribune Editorial Board should give RFK more credit in his campaign against sugar
In reference to the editorial 'As sugar is attacked, Chicago candymaker Ferrara keeps the Nerds coming' (May 27), the Tribune Editorial Board should do more research and also admit some harsh realities concerning sugar consumption. Is the board aware that about 1 in 5 children are classified as obese, some severely so? Sadly, many parents don't have the heart to deprive their children of something considered by society (and the board) as a 'treat.' But as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy so accurately pointed out, it is a form of poison and an addictive one at that. Just examine the percentage of people suffering the effects of Type 2 diabetes. That one disease alone accounts for enormous health care costs — costs that the government must absorb when a patient is on Medicare or Medicaid. So, the government indeed has a vested interest in controlling the manufacturing and consumption of sugar. Ferrara Candy Co. CEO Katie Duffy stated that 'everything we produce is safe to eat.' That does not mean it is 'healthy' to eat! The board states that it has 'long recoiled against Uncle Sam telling Americans what to eat.' And that 'if a food product is safe from a scientific standpoint, the government has no business blocking it from the marketplace.' Again, that ignores the fact that the government shares some of the burden for the cost of medical care for the health disorders caused by sugar consumption. And just to enlighten the board further, pay for the government. So, it costs us all as a whole. The board further states that 'armed with that information, we believe people are smart enough to make their own decisions without Nanny State intervention.' The board has to be joking. It gives people far more credit than they deserve. Sugar is being consumed in quantities that most people are not likely aware of. And that is what I think Kennedy is trying to address. I appreciate what he is trying to achieve, and the board should as well. Keep in mind that a country is only as strong and as healthy as its people. We have an epidemic of obesity in this country. Don't gloss over the facts in the name of some false sense of sovereignty over and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is absolutely correct about the American diet. There's too much salt, sugar and bad fat; not enough fiber; and too many additives. The consequences are substantial: obesity, diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, cancer and more. He is dead wrong about vaccinations, 'dead' not being just an expression: People are going to die, needlessly. During a measles epidemic in Samoa, Kennedy campaigned against vaccination; too few people were vaccinated, thousands got sick and dozens died. Almost all healthy individuals who get measles completely recover. About 1 in 1,000, however, will have serious complications or die. Great odds in a casino but not for a preventable disease. In contrast, there have been no reports of the measles vaccine causing death in healthy people, and the incidence of permanent harm is less than 1 in 500,000. Kennedy's efforts to restrict the messenger RNA-based COVID-19 vaccine is not based on credible evidence of significant harm. Worldwide, at least 5 billion people have received COVID-19 vaccinations, including hundreds of millions of Americans. Many have sore arms, and some, brief flulike illness. Very rarely does serious short-term illness occur. In contrast, more than 1 million Americans have died from COVID-19, and 20 million Americans have been diagnosed with long COVID-19, sometimes with debilitating symptoms. People who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 have dramatically lower rates of hospitalization, death and long COVID-19. Kennedy proposes a clinical trial against a placebo to test the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. In any clinical trial, when the drug being studied against a placebo is found to be safe and effective, the trial is stopped. The safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine has already been proved; there is no need for a trial. Kennedy's proclamation restricting recommending who should receive the vaccination is medical idiocy. Infants have poorly developed immune systems and are very vulnerable to infections, including COVID-19. If pregnant women are vaccinated, their babies get some protection against COVID-19. Being under 65 is no guarantee against COVID-19 causing hospitalization or death, and the incidence of some forms of long COVID-19 is actually higher in young people. It is worth noting that Kennedy made these recommendations on his own without input from recognized experts. There is a new COVID-19 variant, and the need for vaccinations is still great. When the Senate confirmed Kennedy, it failed the American J. Medley's letter ('What our nation needs,' May 29) regarding President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' which has been passed by the House, is on point but misses one very important issue. This bill contains a buried provision seeking to limit courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, from enforcing their rulings or orders. In short, it states: 'No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued.' What I have read says that this means the courts cannot enforce decisions unless the plaintiffs have posted a bond. Federal courts do not require plaintiffs to post bonds; therefore, this provision would mean that the courts would not be able to enforce their rulings. And Trump and his administration could proceed to do anything they want to, regardless of whether it is unconstitutional. When setting up the federal government, our Founding Fathers did not feel any one person should have all the power. Therefore, they set up a government of three equal parts: executive (president), legislative (Congress) and judicial (Supreme Court). Trump has already taken over the legislative aspect — with no pushback from the Republican majority — by overturning many aspects of the government and funding that had previously been put in place by Congress. Now he wants to make judicial rulings unenforceable. If Trump does that, he will be king. This country was developed as a democracy, and I believe the majority of Americans do not want a king. Readers should call their senators and demand this bill not be passed with this provision in it. Save our democracy and our Constitution!I'm thrilled National Public Radio has legally challenged the administration's misguided executive order targeting its appropriately sourced federal funds and relationships with local stations. I've grown accustomed to the measured objectivity and factual analysis of the reporting through daily programs such as 'All Things Considered' and 'Morning Edition.' We financially support NPR's frequent funding drives, the real lifeblood of its operations, not only because its revenues significantly rely on voluntary contributions by listeners, but also due to its prize-winning journalism that opens our eyes to hard-hitting domestic and international news analysis. The president's bizarre claims that NPR fails to provide 'fair, accurate or unbiased' programming can be summarily rejected by those who actually listen to the variety of viewpoints included. NPR routinely covers important events like it did with the president's speech to a joint session of Congress in March and even presented rare audio of Supreme Court oral arguments about the birthright citizenship case, followed by riveting independent coverage. Cutting this funding is more than just a violation of free speech. America should refrain from emulating autocratic leaders in other societies that deliberately silence views it does not Public Radio is suing President Donald Trump's administration because it stopped taxpayer funding to the network; NPR contends that curtails its free speech. What nonsense. NPR remains free to utter what it wants, but the public does not need to pay for it. NPR can fund itself and say whatever it pleases. Its reflexive lawsuit is frivolous and vexatious without merit.
CNBC
31-05-2025
- Business
- CNBC
Travelers are taking ‘a more frugal approach' to summer vacations this year, expert says
Earlier this spring, consumers were feeling good about their summer vacation prospects. More people were planning to take a trip compared to last year, and summer travel budgets were up, too, according to a new report from Deloitte. But just a few weeks later — after President Donald Trump announced widescale tariffs and the stock market dropped precipitously, bubbling up recession fears — some would-be vacationers abruptly scaled back their spending plans, a second round of the survey found. About 53% of respondents plan to take leisure vacations this summer, up from 48% in 2024, according to a new report by Deloitte. The report is based on two surveys: one was conducted between March 26 and April 1, 2025, and another between April 7 and April 9. The first survey reached 1,794 travelers and 2,132 non-travelers while the second reached 1,064 travelers and 880 non-travelers. Initially, Deloitte found, the average summer travel budget was set to grow 21% year over year, to $4,967. In the second round of the survey, travelers expected to spend just 13% more than last year, or about $4,606. When looking at budgets for their longest trip of the season, respondents initially planned to spend an average $3,987, 13% more than 2024. That anticipated budget declined to $3,471 in the second poll, an increase of less than 1% from a year ago. More from Personal Finance:Trade tensions drive consumers to cut backStudent loan borrowers brace for wage garnishmentHouse Republican tax bill favors the rich — how much they stand to gain, and why Deloitte conducted a second poll because the firm noticed "softness" in consumer spending across other areas of their research, said Kate Ferrara, the transportation, hospitality and services sector leader at Deloitte. "We still see a strong summer travel season, but perhaps with a more frugal approach," said Ferrara. Broadly, travel costs have declined, which may help travelers looking to stretch their budget. Hotel room rates are down 2.4% from a year ago, according to a recent report by NerdWallet. Rental car costs are also down 2.1% in that same timeframe, while airfares are down 7.9%. Round-trip domestic airfare for this summer is averaging $265 per ticket, according to the 2025 summer outlook by Hopper, a travel site. That's down 3% from $274 in 2024 and down 8% since 2019, the lowest level in three years. Travel costs for international travel are generally down, said Hayley Berg, the lead economist at Hopper. The average round-trip airfare between the U.S. and Europe, the most popular international destination, costs $850 per ticket this summer, down 8% from 2024, Hopper found. In spite of slightly lower prices for travel, people are generally spending more due to inflation, and might have less leftover money to spend on non-essential items like travel, said Deloitte's Ferrara. Of those who reduced their summer travel budgets, 34% of respondents plan to cut back on their in-destination spending activity, such as food or paid guided excursions, Deloitte found. About 30% plan to stay with family and friends instead of paying for lodging, and 21% chose to drive instead of flying to their destination. You can also save money this summer if you can be flexible with things like when you take the time off, your destination, what you do while you're there and your mode of transportation, experts say. "The root of all of our hacks for saving this summer is flexibility," said Berg. Airfare tends to spike or be higher during federal holiday weekends like the Fourth of July and Labor Day, Hopper found. This year, prices on these weekends will be about 34% higher compared to other weekends. Instead of flying in the middle of the summer, consider delaying trips toward the end of the season, in late August or even early September, Berg said. Both price and travel demand will typically drop off by then as the new school year starts and employees go back to regular work schedules, she said. What's more, flying in the middle of the week can help save as much as 20% on airfare, per the site's report. Traveling on a Tuesday or Wednesday can also help vacationers save about $67 on a round trip domestic flight this summer, Hopper found. That flexibility can help travelers save over $100 on international trips to Europe or Asia.
