Freelancette

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.

Posted by Corrie at 4:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

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.

Posted by Corrie at 6:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

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!

Posted by Kerry at 11:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A fellow Battlestar Galactica fan brought this awesome cake to the Season 5 premiere party we attended on Friday night. Perhaps he's trying to say something here about the direction in which the show is going? "Cylons 4ever???"

Posted by Corrie at 12:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Image courtesy of AMC.com

While waiting for Battlestar Galactica to return in January, I've become obsessed with another cable show that, on the surface, also appears to take place in a completely alien universe. Mad Men is set on the Madison Avenue of the early 1960's, and the creator, designers and producers go to impressive lengths to ensure that the show remains firmly rooted in the past: every crystal decanter, every Wheel-O children's toy, every Chip 'n Dip are carefully chosen for period accuracy. This throwback world is ruled by huffing, puffing, slick-talking suits and their harems of pencil-skirted secretaries (at the Sterling Cooper ad agency), coiffed wives (at home) and sultry mistresses (everywhere else). Beneath the cloud of cigarette smoke and the haze of 11am martinis lies a pervasive chauvinism and near-misogyny.

It can be easy for modern career gals like me to dismiss the craven office politics of Mad Men as an anachronistic blast from the past, and to breath a sigh of relief that the show's blatant and infuriating sexism belong to bygone days. But while I may be lucky enough to work at a women's magazine where the male-female ratio of top execs is the inverse of Sterling Cooper's, it's still a mad, mad world out there in the industries of law, finance, science and yes, advertising.

I was reminded of this the other night while listening to some of the Mad Men behind-the-scenes commentary for Episode 6: Babylon (that's one of the nice things about watching a show for the first time on DVD: you can totally gorge on the special features). This episode, in which several characters reveal a secret longing for some unattainable conquest (Don for Rachel, Rachel and Betty for Don, everyone for personal fulfillment) while the agency pursues an account with the Israeli Tourism Bureau (hence the beautifully metaphoric title), was written by the husband-and-wife team of André and Maria Jacquemetton.

During the writers' voiceover, Maria Jacquemetton provided historical context and led us on a tour of the gender landscape of the time. "Women were forced back into the home largely by advertising," she said. She explained that advertising made women feel like they had to be the perfect housewife, with the perfect house and the perfect children, and still be able to "cook dinner in a crinoline skirt." She blamed the 60's for forcing women back into the straightjacket role of homemaker. Jacquemetton then went on to observe that what was happening in the 60's "is very similar to what is going on today."

Continue reading ""Mad Men" writer thinks today's young women are all a bunch of Bettys" »

Posted by Corrie at 1:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

My essay about the cost of kids is in the October issue of ELLE. There's no online link (yet?), but it's on page 414 (Jennifer Lopez is on the cover, looking classy). A tease:

Cradle Robber?
Women aren't supposed to think about the childbearing decision as an economic one. But how does a young couple factor the cost of a kid into an already paycheck-to-paycheck existence? One would-be mother stares down the crib sheet.

I’m everlastingly grateful to my wonderful family (especially my mom) and my fiancée, K.O., for encouraging me to write honestly about my experiences -- and for being so supportive and understanding when I went ahead and did just that.

Curious to hear reactions to this one...

UPDATE: My story is now available online at elle.com
http://www.elle.com/featurefullstory/14629/cradle-robber-rising-childbearing-costs.html

Posted by Corrie at 5:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last Tuesday night, I attended the Sci Fi Channel upfront presentation in the newly-renovated Morgan Library. Women's magazine writers don't usually top the invite list for this network's annual dog-and-pony show upfront, but I was on Sci Fi's radar after writing a short item about their marquee show, Battlestar Galactica, for the April issue of ELLE ("A Woman's Space", p. 224). I brought K.O. as my "VIP Guest" (after all, he's the one who introduced me to the show), and we had a total blast.

The event began with a one-hour press Q&A with the men responsible for Battlestar, Ronald D. Moore and David Eick, Sci Fi's head of programming, Mark Stern, and all of the major stars of the show. We scored great seats, and were eye-level with Katee Sackoff (Starbuck), Mary McDonnell (President Laura Roslin), Tricia Helfer (Number Six), Grace Park (Boomer/Athena), Edward James Olmos (Admiral Adama), Jamie Bamber (Apollo), James Callis (Gaius Baltar), Michael Hogan (Colonel Tigh) and Aaron Douglas (Chief Tyrol). Bestill my heart!

After taking a little while to get comfortable (the reporters seemed as nervous as the stars wriggling awkwardly in their director's chairs), there was a comfortable back-and-forth. Most of these actors, save for McDonnell and Olmos, were basically unknown before Battlestar. That means they haven't yet had time to develop celebrity-sized egos and still seem like really nice, down-to-earth people. They're also genuinely (and justifiably) proud of their work on the show –- they don't take this for granted. As they sat there on stage answering questions about the fourth and last season of BG, which starts April 4, you could tell that they've all enjoyed working on such a smart, progressive show, and they're going to miss the experience. Edward James Olmos was pretty frank about what a "helluva ride" it's been, and expressed how emotional it will be when the season draws to a close –- whenever that will be (the writer's strike means that there are still about ten unfinished episodes).

The big news of the night for hardcore fans was that Sci Fi has green-lighted a BG spin-off prequel called Caprica that take place 50 years before the period covered in Battlestar. Caprica, which is the name of now-destroyed planet, will explain the creation of the Cylon robots, will focus on the struggles and conflicts of two important families. Ronald Moore compared Caprica to a sci-fi version of Dallas -- a good, if unconscious, hook for female viewers (and Sci Fi could certainly use more of us).

After the Q&A, members of the press (and our VIP Guests) headed upstairs to join the crowds of advertisers and execs to eat, drink and mingle. There were more announcements about other new Sci Fi shows, one involving anime, and something about a tech web site called dvice.com (sorry, I wasn't really listening to this, as I was too busy worshipping Mary McDonnell from across the room). After the suits had left the stage, the stars were let loose to pose for photo ops and chat with everyone. The cast of one of Sci Fi's other shows, Eureka were also there, working the room. When I asked Mark Stern and Sci Fi/USA president Bonnie Hammer if they had any other programs that might appeal to women, they reflexively mentioned Eureka. However, I haven't had a chance to check it out, and at the upfront, I only had eyes for the Battlestar crew. My conversations from that night:

Mary McDonnell: It's hard not to get chills watching Mary McDonnell play Laura Roslin, former schoolteacher turned Leader of the Free Universe. Any aspiring candidate, black or white, male or female, could learn a lot from President Roslin's pragmatism, humanity, and ability to make tough decisions quickly and decisively. During the Q&A, a reporter asked Mary if Barack Obama had asked her to be his running mate. "Actually," she responded with a twinkle in her eye, "Hillary has." Can you imagine a Clinton-McDonnell ticket? Talk about experience: Mary's been doing the job for four years)! And, Mary's wit and charisma would be a nice balance for Hillary's aggressive opportunism. Later that night, Mary admitted to me that she was actually a fan of both candidates, but that Hillary was the "right candidate for right now." "She could "pave the way for Obama," she said. Time will tell if "President Roslin" has paved the way for "President Clinton"… In the meantime, wish I had a "Clinton/McDonnell '08" T-shirt.

Katee Sackhoff: In her role as Starbuck, the fastest, toughest and possibly craziest fight pilot in the Galactica fleet, this woman can make a drab cotton racer-back tank (part of the pilot's standard uniform) look sexier than a black lace g-string. She's fit, she's sassy, she's gorgeous, she completely fearless -- she's my hero. Sounds like I'm not the only woman who has a crush on Katee, though: she told me at the party that she "keeps getting offers from The L-Word." I personally think that with her up-for-anything grin and confident swagger, she could give slutty Shane a run for her money...but Katee said that while she has nothing against the L-Word, she wants to convince audiences that she's without-a-doubt straight (proof: she's got a director boyfriend in New Orleans), and fears that her roles in Battlestar and Bionic Woman may have given them the wrong idea. I don't get this, as everyone knows Starbuck has slept with just about every dude on the ship (she's never dating less than two men at a time) and is as hetero as they come. In person, Katee is beautiful and feminine: she was wearing a cute sleeveless black trapeze dress with gold patent stilettos, and her makeup looked great. I guess some people automatically assume that short hair + shameless sexuality + muscles = lesbian. What a shame. I also think it's a bit of a shame that Katee is growing out her hair, as it's still a little unusual to see sexually powerful women on TV or in the movies with short hair. Anyway, Katee was really fun to talk to, and devoted a lot of her time to us. The only time she tried to break away was to grab her dad (!) and ask him to tell her mom (!!) that Mrs. Sackhoff simply must try one of the little chocolate dessert tarts because she'd really like them. I love Katee -- platonically speaking, of course.

Tricia Helfer: Stunning (and tall -- she towered over me) Tricia had a successful career as a model before switching over to acting. In fact, she's posed for ELLE many times, and one of her covers from the mid-90's is still hanging in our main hallway. I look at her every time I walk down to our executive editor's office. She has caramel-colored hair in that photo, but has since gone white-hot-blond for her role as a cyber-babe Number Six, and is almost always shown wearing skimpy little outfits that look like they came from Victoria's Secret "Space Angels" collection. Honestly, Tricia is almost too gorgeous for her own good. Every time I've heard her speak (on last year's ComicCon panel, in interviews), she comes across as exceptionally sharp and pragmatic. Even dressed in the kind of second-skin minidress she was wearing Tuesday (my Spanx covers more surface area), she's also cool and likable, the kind of girl you'd totally want to get drinks with -- if only she didn't attract so much unwanted male attention. I was absorbed in our conversation at the upfront, and thus didn't realize that no fewer than five men were circling around the two of us like pinstriped sharks. Tricia chatted with me about how female viewers seem to really appreciate the complexities of her character (a robot with a preternaturally developed sense of morality, also surprisingly spiritual and empathetic. She sympathizes with the humans even though she is programmed to destroy them). However, Tricia said, men don't seem to pick up on that as much, and see Number Six as more of a sex object. Sigh. I'm not surprised, but I am a little dejected. Six is a profoundly conflicted character, and I think Tricia expresses that very well, with subtle facial expressions and anguished glances. I do hope that more producers and directors take note of her work on the show. I asked Tricia what else she had coming up, and she told me that one of her recent projects was a direct-to-DVD movie called Walk All Over Me. Tricia starred alongside Leelee Sobieski (cool!), but played a dominatrix (boo!). She sounded pretty excited about it (was it genuine?), but I'd love to see her in a role that makes takes more advantage of her acting talents than her model figure. She's had enough of that kind of exposure already. Tricia informed me that she looks a little more regular-girl and a little less blond in this season of BG, so perhaps that will be a little less distracting for the guys.

I also spoke briefly with Jamie Bamber (this Brit's dad is from Detroit, and that's why he's able to nail Apollo's American accent) and fawned over Ronald Moore (that man is brilliant. I could listen to him talk about writing for television forever). Such a great group. I'm looking forward to watching them in this season of Battlestar, and beyond.

Posted by Corrie at 12:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)