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.

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!

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.

You’re a fuck-up, I’m a fuck-up…I think half of crowd in the independent cinema in Brooklyn where we saw the film would consider themselves fuck-ups, too.

My fiancé and I have solid full-time jobs, but we still can’t afford any of the accoutrements of adulthood, like a home, a vehicle, or, as I’ve complained about ad nauseum, a baby. Okay, so the windows in our rented apartment aren’t covered in cardboard, like those in Bert and Verona’s drafty little house -- but at least they have a house! I even spotted an extra room in there (a studio in which Verona does her medical illustrations). They also have a car, and they’re pregnant and pleased (with some reservations). By many standards, my fiancé and I are even bigger fuck-ups than Bert and Verona. That is not reassuring. That is probably why we are so freaked out about supporting a child. We can barely support ourselves.

I think the pre-parenthood stage of adulthood is ripe for further exploration in films and books. There isn't a lot out there that speaks to those of us who are past our Sex and the City, Bachelor/Bachelorette stage, but have not quite entered the period so memorably illuminated by movies like The Ice Storm, Little Children, American Beauty or Revolutionary Road.

Reading the disgusted reviews of Away We Go, I can’t help wondering why American audiences have such sympathy for lotharios trying to figure out how to have a healthy relationship, parents trying to figure out marriage and family life, teenagers trying to come of age, vampires, vampire slayers, werewolves, wizards…basically any lost, searching creatures except for young couples (especially those who shop at vintage stores) on the brink of parenthood. Maybe this is because a lot of (lucky) people just don’t have as much trouble figuring out adulthood, or they just leap first and think later, so that in-between period is viewed as more of an optional detour or a state of mind, versus a universal life stage? Or maybe it’s just too darn easy for filmmakers to slip and hit the wrong note, creating protagonists that come off as silly, lazy, immature, entitled, self-involved or whiny.

Bert and Verona aren’t whiny or entitled –- and perhaps that’s their problem. From the reviews I read, it sounded like the characters’ most off-putting flaw was not having enough foibles, not being introspective or self-aware enough, and therefore coming off as smug. But I found them to be sweet, likeable, and highly sympathetic, and their search for familial role models and roots rang true.

As freelancers, Bert and Verona aren’t tethered to any one place by jobs, and Verona's parents have passed away. The couple moved to their coldly beautiful state (it’s not named, but it looked like Colorado) in order to be closer to Bert’s parents. Considering the cost of daycare, and the difficulty in getting any work done with a baby squirming off your lap, that’s a pretty smart idea for a couple who eventually intend to start a family. My mom always says that in order to have a baby today, couples need help -- either in the form of money or family members. Verona and Bert clearly don’t have much of the former, so they were wise to secure the latter. When Bert’s flighty, immature parents suddenly decided to relocate to Belgium, the couple was forced to figure out a back-up plan.

Those of us who moved away from our hometowns after college and settled where our jobs are, instead of where our families are, will face similar dilemmas if and when we decide it’s time to have kids. And unless we have enough money to compensate for the lack of help and support (or even if we do), many of us will probably move closer to one set of grandparents. I was grateful to the movie for addressing the very real fact that it’s incredibly daunting to raise children today without financial or familial support... and that some couples, like Bert and Verona (and us!) are lacking both.

But here is where I take issue with the film -- in a big way. Despite its fresh, contemporary and relatable take on the stresses and anxieties of adulthood, Away We Go peddles a false parental fantasy, the same old-fashioned encouragement that has been fed to couples since the Old Testament. It’s what I like to call the Baby Field of Dreams Speech: If you have one, everything will work out. So even if you and your partner have lousy, poorly-paying jobs, or if you don’t even have jobs, or if you don’t have any grandparents around to pick up the slack, or you can't afford daycare or a nanny, or if the windows in your ramshackle house are covered with cardboard -- it’s okay, because once the baby’s here, everything will be fine. That’s how things end for this celluloid couple, and that’s how it will work out for you. Just have the baby. Worry about everything else later –- or hey, don’t worry at all.

No! Let's worry, people! Maybe we should try to address these problems before the baby is born-- at least we'll have more time and energy to figure out a solution.

My gripes are bigger than simply finding the characters to be lame. I think this film presents challenges that a lot of thirtysomethings are dealing with right now, but then betrays us by concluding with a dangerous lie. (I don't want to give away any spoilers, but can I just say: water view?! Come on!) Babies don't always end in perfect, happy endings. I wish the filmmakers had followed through and come up with a more satisfying solution.

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.

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???"

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."

But instead of pointing out examples of sexism that still exist, Jacquemetton chose instead to turn on young women workers. "It's surprising to me that a lot of the attitudes are kind of similar to today," she said. "I talk to young women, and it's upsetting to me sometimes how many of them want to stay home and raise their children and don't care so much about their careers."

Aha! I got it. Jacquemetton was referring to the women who desert their professional posts and ditch their careers in order to care full-time for their children. This group, first brought to national attention (obsessive national attention, I might add) by that infamous 2003 New York Times article by Lisa Belkin, have become popular whipping-girls for older feminists. I could see where this was heading.

As expected, Jacquemetton then launched into defense of the Women's Movement, which quickly turned into a rebuke (albeit mild one) of my peers. "[These women] see their mothers and my generation, women like us fought really hard, we fought to make inroads for people to have something for themselves.

"I'm not diminishing children --I'm a mother: I have two children. But at the end of the day, who are you as a person and what do you have for yourself…that's what matters. I see young women stepping back into that role [of housewife] now and it's scary how similar it was to back then."

Oh, Mary. A catfight? Really?

I agree that advertising created impossibly high standards for feminine perfection, and that not only drove many well-off women back into the home in the 60's, but also led to a national epidemic of female low self-esteem (this is classic Women Studies 101). I agree that there's more to life than cooking, cleaning and kids, and that women need to pursue meaningful work outside the home – hey, I read The Feminine Mystique.

What saddens me is Jacquemetton's desire for intergenerational antagonism. I think it’s a bit of a hyperbole to make it sound like today's young women emulate the housewives of the past, like we're all marching off to some "scary" Stepford Wives future. At that NY Times piece has been endless criticized for overstating the situation and focusing on a narrow subset of women. Why are older women so stuck on that article?! There are so many more of us who have absolutely no intention to leave our careers when we have kids -– but we still don't have a clue how we're going to do both.

It's a bummer to hear highly successful First Wave feminists--our mentors--turn around and blame younger feminists for failing to reach similar levels of success, or for defining success differently. We all agree that young feminists owe their moms and aunts and big sisters a grand debt of gratitude. But I get frustrated when I see women in my mom's generation adamantly refuse to sympathize with the challenges faced by their daughters who want a family and a career. I'm sure it wasn't easy for Jacquemetton to become a hugely successful writer and producer and to raise a family. I have no doubt that she faced all kinds of insurmountable-seeming obstacles. Perhaps one of the ways she dealt with them was partnering professionally with her husband (or marrying her writing partner). She clearly found a solution that worked for her, and she's happy and fulfilled, and has two kids and a long list of impressive writing and producing credits--not to mention a shiny new Emmy for Mad Men. In fact, as an aspiring writer (and maybe an aspiring mother, as well), and someone who is feeling great stress and despair over how to do both, I'd love to learn more about her choices.

I assume that Maria Jacquemetton figured she was giving female viewers a little shake, and embarrassing some of them for entertaining pathetically retrograde ambitions of housewifehood. But if you were contemplating or embarking upon a life path that everyone else agrees is "challenging" at best and madness-inducing at worst, her jibes probably wouldn't provide much comfort. And if you were already a stay-at-home mom, hearing your choices referred to as "scary" and the first step towards a return to the stifling, repressive past probably won't compel you to make any bigger decision than to turn off the DVD commentary and return to the main menu.

On second thought, that may be the best and most effective plan of all. Because Mad Men constantly reminds us that while all women were treated second-class citizens back then, the stay-at-home-moms ranked the lowest. Housewives like Betty Draper have little power and no autonomy, and their empty lives are micro-managed by philandering absentee husbands (who are always running around with more independent, successful working women!). Poor disillusioned Betty is bored and lonely, in denial about her crushed expectations, and can barely control her frustration (remember when she slapped her single-mom neighbor in the supermarket? Or when she shot the neighbor's pigeons with her son's BB gun?). No thinking viewer could ever envy Betty's situation. The lesson best and most persuasively expressed in the episodes (not the commentary) is that the world of Mad Men is not a world we'd ever want to return to.

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

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.

As homework, I just started reading the novel on which the film is based. It’s a surprisingly modern feminist fairy tale about a dowdy, down-trodden spinster who shrugs off the bonds of virtue and propriety for one day in order to experience how the other, non-virtuous, half lives. Miss Pettigrew finds herself suddenly thrust into a world she thought only existed in the movies, involving lots of indiscriminately jolly sex, cocaine, seedy nightclubs, dangerous gentlemen, foxy ladies, and dubious cocktails with names like “Snake’s Venom.” Acting as a de facto lady-in-waiting to a glamorous starlet named Delysia LaFosse, Miss Pettigrew gambols about London to the tune of lines like this one: "She was a gentlewoman ranker out on the spree, and, oh shades of a monotonous past, would she spree!" But beneath the candy floss, this novel contains golden nuggets of wisdom concerning the beauty of female solidarity and the importance of self-actualization. Simply irresistible!

My friend Priya Jain recently wrote an interesting feature for Film in Focus about the story behind the story behind the movie. In it, she explains that the author of Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, Winifred Watson, was popular English chick-lit writer who wrote just six books about love and marriage (sound familiar?). Miss Pettigrew (published in 1938) was a bit of a departure for Watson, and its representation of life in London's fast lane made it almost scandalously racy for its time. When her publisher balked, Watson swore that the book would be a winner (she also agreed to churn out another of her standard bodice-rippers as collateral). She was right, and the book's charms endure today. Unfortunately, Watson's writing career was one of the many casualties of WWII, and these six books (and now this one movie) are all that remain of her legacy.

I’m off to finish the book. I’m lapping it up, "as the vulgar say, with eager gulps!”