March 2, 2010

New Yorkers: get your folk on with Garfunkel & Oates

folkyahFW.jpg
Isn't this photo fantastic? It was taken for BUST by Verity Smith and styled by Jazzi McGilbert.

Although they sing like angels, these ukelele-toting cuties put the f*ck back in folk. Check out my interview with the sweetly sardonic Garfunkel & Oates in the Oct/Nov issue of BUST, and then go see them live. They're coming to NYC this month to do their thing at Comix (March 19 and 20). I saw them perform last year at Gotham Comedy Club, and they were a hoot.

Ladies Man: Matt Bomer

Matt-Bomer-Catch-Him-If-You-Can_articleimage.jpg
photo from Getty Images, via ELLE

My interview with White Collar star Matt Bomer is in the March issue of ELLE. Mr. Bomer is lovely! Considerate, nice, funny -- a real pleasure to talk to. And if you think he looks good in this mug shot, you should see the photo in the magazine. Wowza!

August 11, 2009

Word of the decade: philoprogenitive

philoprogenitive
\fill-uh-proh-JEN-uh-tiv\
adjective

*1 : tending to produce offspring : prolific
2 : of, relating to, or characterized by love of offspring

Example Sentence
As we move through our thirties, it has become abundantly clear that my female friends, colleagues and family members are more philoprogenitive than I am.

antonyms: phoboprogenitive, progeniphobic, freaked-out, indecisive, ambivalent

Did you know?
"Philoprogenitive" (a combination of "phil-," meaning "loving" or "having an affinity for," and Latin "progenitus," meaning "begot" or "begotten") can refer to the production of offspring or to the loving of them. Nineteenth-century phrenologists used the word to designate the "bump" or "organ" of the brain believed to be the seat of a parent's instinctual love for his or her children. Despite the word's scientific look and sound, however, it appears, albeit not very frequently, in all types of writing — technical, literary, informal, and otherwise.

Definition, pronunciation and etymology provided by Merriam-Webster Online.
Example sentence and antonyms provided by me.

July 5, 2009

We need more movies like Away We Go -- but with better endings

Critics’ reviews of Away We Go made the film sound as enjoyable as eating a pint of curdled yogurt. Variety called it an “an oddly sour, unappealing road-trip scenario” that will appeal only to true fans (“fans” here obviously meaning “silly hipsters with questionable literary taste”) of the screenwriters, Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida. NPR’s Kenneth Turan dismissed it as “a self-satisfied film about insecure people… not as special as it tries to be.” A.O. Scott at the NY Times was personally offended by the film: “Verona and Burt, played with passive-aggressive winsomeness by Maya Rudolph and John Krasinski, are manifestly superior to everyone else in the movie and, by implication, the world…it’s clear that they are acutely, at times painfully, aware of their special status as uniquely sensitive, caring, smart and cool beings on a planet full of cretins and failures… Away We Go is about the flight from adulthood, from engagement, from responsibility, even as it cleverly disguises itself as a search for all those things…Does it sound as if I hate this movie? Don’t be silly. But don’t be fooled. This movie does not like you.”

Ouch! It’s clear to me that A.O. actually did hate this movie. And I trust his opinion, so I figured that I’d hate it, too. I dislike “smug” and “self-satisfied” and quirkily annoying films (see also: Garden State) as much as the next moviegoer. But despite the negative comments I’d read about the execution of the film, the premise still sounded pretty irresistible: an under-employed, under-compensated, cheerfully clueless couple in their thirties goes on a road trip to try to find the best city (and by extension, the best support system of friends and family) in which to raise their daughter.

As someone who obsesses over parenthood and babies and figuring out this whole adulthood thing, I was very curious to see how Eggers and Vida, with director Sam Mendes, would handle this subject. So in the name of research, I sweet-talked my fiancé into watching the film with me, and away we went.

Continue reading "We need more movies like Away We Go -- but with better endings" »

June 10, 2009

Cameron Diaz bravely speaks out against public shunning of ambivalent women

Now that she’s 36, I'm sure that the giddily gorgeous Cameron Diaz is constantly fending off questions about husbands and babies. When, with whom and even how women reproduce are no longer taboo subjects -- in fact, they're what Enquirer-minds want to know. And stars, even young, single ones, are always more than happy to wax enthusiastic about “someday” having children (or more children) of their own. You rarely hear an actress admit that she's just not that into babies, or that she’s still waiting for that maternal instinct to kick in, or that she seriously worries about fitting children into her jet-setting, movie-shooting, project-promoting schedule.

While remaining vague about her own family plans (but perhaps dropping some hints?), Diaz recently defended child-free women everywhere when she told Cosmo that it's okay to just say no to kids. According to The Independent, Diaz told the lady mag, “I think women are afraid to say that they don’t want children because they’re going to get shunned...But I think that’s changing too now. I have more girlfriends who don’t have kids than those that do....And honestly? We don’t need any more kids. We have plenty of people on this planet.” Good for Diaz for speaking her mind and reminding us that not everyone needs to breed.

This doesn't mean that Diaz herself is ready to swear off kids -- at least, not publicly. When asked about having children of her own, the Face that Launched a Thousand Shreks said, “I never say never. I don’t know what’s going to happen. I could end up adopting half a dozen kids, or I could end up being the next ’octomum’.” Never say never...and maybe say maybe. A new and improved answer to the inevitable kid question.

June 4, 2009

Why the long faces, ladies?: Researchers stumped by data that shows that women are grumpier now than they were in the 70’s

As much as I like to gripe about how much easier it was for my parents to afford stuff (like a mortgage, property, health care, and most importantly, a baby) when they were my age, I’ve never actually wanted to trade places with them. Even if I had a time machine (or a ticket for LOST's Ajira Airways flight 316), I wouldn’t want to transport myself back to the sexist seventies, when women still hadn’t gotten a foot in the door--never mind broken the ceiling--in most industries, when women still shouldered the overwhelming bulk of housework and child-raising and when family-minded moms like mine still believed that they had only two viable career options: teacher or nurse. As a loud n’ proud feminist, I’m hyper-aware and hyper-appreciative of how far we’ve come since then, and how there’s never been a better time to be a woman. I always assumed that regardless of how stressful and overwhelming my life seems now, things are still a helluva lot better than they were thirty-five years ago, and as a result, I’m probably a helluva lot happier than those women who came before me.

Well, according to a paper from two economists at the University of Pennsylvania, while a woman’s lot in life has objectively improved over the past three decades, her mood hasn’t. Professors Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers analyzed several different studies conducted from 1972 to 2006 and found that women’s happiness has actually declined over time, especially in relation to to men. This happiness gap emerged in the 1990's, and reversed a long-standing trend of women reporting greater levels of happiness than men.

Of course, our cultural, religious and political beliefs will inevitably influence how we interpret these findings. Conservatives will be eager to malign feminism for tricking women into putting their jobs before marriage and children; liberals will spout off about our country’s family-unfriendly policies and look longingly towards Europe. But hold the blame: it turns out that this decrease in satisfaction holds true for women regardless of age, marital, fertility or employment status (although women with some college have shown a sharper decline in happiness than others). It even crosses borders: despite “socialist” Europe’s enviable maternity and paternity leaves and childcare subsidies, their women have grown unhappier, too! Money does have something to do with it, but it isn't the root of all problems. The data showed that today's women are less satisfied with their family's financial situation than their mothers and grandmothers were (that would apply to me), but that this disturbs them more than it does men.

So what gives? What’s bumming us out? Unfortunately, Stevenson and Wolfers don’t really know, although they do plant some seeds for thought. One hypothesis is that women aren’t actually less happy, they’re just measuring their happiness by different—stricter—standards. As the study authors put it, “Women may now compare their lives to a broader group, including men, and find their lives are more likely to come up short in their assessment."

In other words, women were happier when they compared themselves to other women. But now that they are comparing themselves to men (who, let's face it, are still the more powerful sex), they feel like they're even worse off than they were before -- even if the inverse is true.

Another of Stevenson’s and Wofer’s theories relates to high expectations: “The increased opportunity to succeed in many dimensions may have led to an increased likelihood of believing that one's life is not measuring up.” So women who have grown up thinking that modern society treats men and women as equals are extra-disappointed when they inevitably realize that this isn't true.

This "paradox" may actually be more of a corollary than a contradiction. In her insightful 2000 book, "Flux," Peggy Orenstein called ours a "half-changed world" -- and almost a decade later, that's still true. Opportunities for women have greatly increased over the past fifty years, but society hasn't changed enough to allow us to take full advantage of them -- and that's a huge letdown. The study authors say, "Women may simply find the complexity and increased pressure in their modern lives to have come at the cost of happiness."

Ah, the perils of complexity. Gender inequality isn't black and white anymore; we know that women aren't really from Mars and men aren't really from Venus, but we're still not sure if we came from the same planet. As I'm constantly complaining, it's easy to putter along, thinking men and women are equal, until we slam into parenthood. Then the inequalities become undeniable and unavoidable. Women are told that we can be anything we want to be, but we can't have anything we want to have, especially if what we want to have is a happy, fulfilling professional life as well as a happy, fulfilled family. "Women today are more likely than men to believe that their opportunities to succeed exceed those of their parents," Stevenson and Wolfers say -- so what happens when we fail? The world rewards ambitious girls who want it all, but I think it punishes ambitious women (especially mothers) by forcing them to make great sacrifices. The fact that we haven't yet resolved this certainly makes me want to cry.

But you know what? I'm going to try to buck trends and take an optimistic view of these findings. All things considered, this happiness gap is a pretty good problem for women--and especially, for feminism--to have. This could be a wake-up call for the decreasing number of young women identifying as feminists, a rallying cry for the girls who have been lulled into believing that we live in a post-feminist society where everything's coming up roses for the ladies. The reason that women of the past may have considered themselves happier is because they didn't know what they were missing. If we're generally less satisfied with our lives now because we expect more for ourselves from our society (and our lives have grown "more complex," as Stevenson and Wolfers put it), then that just proves that our work isn't done. We still need to push for equality and fairness in all areas of life (personal, political, professional), and to continue to create public policies that address the increasing complexity of modern life, and make life easier for women and men. Let's get serious about addressing our unhappiness.

March 11, 2009

Amy Poehler UNCUT!

There's a teaser of my interview with the hilarious Amy Poehler in the April issue of ELLE, but the online version at ELLE.com is much longer, funnier and, if I do say so myself, more interesting. Here, the SNL veteran and long-time improvista has more room to talk about women and comedy, and how while she doesn't necessarily see her comedy as a feminist act, she has other awesome projects that help her feel "connected to the movement." Good stuff!