Bookworm

“Julie & Julia”

". . .has there ever been a romantic comedy in which the climax comes when not one but two women land book deals (instead of Prince Charmings)? Granted, they both already had Prince Charmings, but a lot of the romance in this rom-com had to do with the relationship between a gal and her writing. . ." [Second “Julie & Julia” Post of the Day: The Book Bench : The New Yorker]

The Ten-Year Nap (finished it!)

The Ten-Year Nap
by Meg Wolitzer

The four women at the core of the novel, Amy, Jill, Roberta, and Karen, are women whose ages are not specified, but whom I presume to be in their mid-to-late thirties or early forties, since their children range in age from 6 to 10 and they all had careers before motherhood.  All four have stayed at home with their children and are now wondering whether they will continue to do so, or whether they will go back to work.  By the end of the novel, two of them are back in the workforce and two are not, but the possibility is left open that they, too, will eventually do so.  

""That world could be absorbing yet was also pulled along by a current of tedium, and everybody knew it." (328)

". . . like so many people she knew, she'd sought satisfaction around the edges, and time had slid past, and until recently she rarely had been idle and often in fact had been very busy. That life could be so boring, of course, she thought, not unlike the way a job could easily be boring." (pg. 323)

I started out thinking this was a "women's novel" or a "mommy novel," but now that I've finished it I think it's not quite as quantifiable that way.  It poses, in some ways, middle-aged "what am I going to be when I grow up" questions that are not gender specific.  Through the examples of the women's husbands and fathers (in short flashbacks), we see that they either enjoy work or don't, get a big "break" or don't. 

One of the women has the epiphany that just having a job doesn't make you interesting -- having an interesting job makes you interesting. We see that both men and women might have the desire to stay home or might wonder if the things that were important to them when they were in school are still their passions. 

This passage made me laugh a bit.  I do think my husband would think of boots, eventually:

"On the morning of the first day back to school after Christmas vacation, the first snow fell upon the city.  From the windows of their financial and legal towers, men and women peered out upon the natural phenomenon.  The men thought of sleds and of their children and of being a child. . . more than a few of the women wondered if their children's boots from last year still fit."

Be Perfect, or Else

EW article is spot on, with regard to the impossible standards expected of actresses:

". . . the rules actresses must obey. Among them: Have a ''positive body image,'' but also a killer body. Stay within the two-pound weight range that will not reveal you as either anorexic or a pig. Age gracefully, but never get older. Don't have wrinkles, but don't use Botox. Be modest, but when you win an award, weep as if a gold statuette is a personalized gift from heaven. If you get pregnant, be prepared to let a dozen news outlets act as your ob-gyn. Express concern about your carbon footprint, but don't be ''political.'' Talk about how living a normal life is important to you, but smile while every aspect of it is scrutinized. Criticize no one. Never speak off the cuff. Smile for the cameras. Don't cross those women on The View. And above all, maintain a stance of deep gratitude for everything while expressing opinions about nothing. My God, do we really want our stars to be that boring? Are we that boring?"  [Entertainment Weekly]

Hillary Clinton, 2008 presidential election, concession

"Language fails us when we say that Clinton "ran for president." Hillary Clinton didn't just run for president. She hustled and jumped and slogged and cried and ate and drank and didn't sleep and put up with her nutty underminer of a husband for president. She lit herself, and everything around her, on fire for president. Clinton behaved with the kind of naked drive and aggression and mercilessness we revere in, for example, football greats, wrestling stars and military heroes. Her political ambition and ruthlessness are qualities native to anyone putting themselves up for the job of running the country. That includes Barack Obama, who is an inspiring leader I fervently hope will be our next president, but who is not, despite what some of his supporters seem to believe, built entirely of altruism and hope and, I don't know, puppies. One of the great things about our history of ambivalence and resentment toward Clinton was the almost sweet relief we could take in knowing from the start that her raw will to power was going to grate on and enrage us." [Salon; will require viewing an ad or some such in order to read the full article]

Women's Voices

"We have to remember: There is nothing wrong with women writing about themselves, their youth, their indiscretions, their habits and values and personal development. Men have been writing about this stuff for thousands of years; they call it the canon. And like their male contemporaries, a lot of this writing disappoints. When it does, there is nothing wrong with criticizing it. The thing that is wrong -- really wrong -- is when we forget that these kinds of stories are not the only ones that women have to tell. So rather than being troubled by the fact that Gould -- or Bushnell, or Bradshaw, or whoever -- has the spotlight, why not question why so few other versions of femininity are allowed to share it?" [Salon Life; emphasis mine]

Traister's timely piece discusses the Sex and the City movie and a young woman's lengthy article in the NY Times magazine and what they say and don't say about women.

Why I Enjoy Brijit (and response to Barbara Kay piece)

What makes Brijit worth reading?

• Brijit abstracts and reviews nonfiction content -- from newspapers, magazines, a few top tier blogs, radio, and television -- in no more than one hundred words.  It also rates the piece from zero to three "dots" (including half dots), with three dots being the best.
• Brijit reviews some content that isn't available online for free.  This is helpful if you're trying to decide whether to pick up the newest New Yorker or New York Review of Books, or can even help you target the choicest pieces in your slithery stacks of O magazine and Entertainment Weekly. 
• You can subscribe to RSS feeds for individual sources or particular subjects.
• The red, white, and black design is crisp and the interface is clean with a few Web 2.0 touches (for example, you can click to open or close the top headlines on the main page without a page refresh).

What if I want to write for Brijit -- how does it work?

1. Register as a writer.
2. Choose an open assignment (but make sure you can access the content first). Most assignments can be claimed by up to three individuals; a few sources call for only two submissions and one source (The Onion) calls for as many as five.
3. Read the article, listen to the audio, or watch the video.
4. Write the abstract, include relevant tags, and choose your dot rating.
5. Submit your work prior to the deadline.
6. The Brijit editors choose the best submission, edit it, and publish it on the website.
7. You can (obsessively) check the status of your submissions within your profile pages, haunt the main page for a familiar headline, or (for the more Zen among you) simply wait for the congratulatory email telling you of a published abstract.
8. Writers of published abstracts of print sources earn $5 for each; published abstracts of audio and video broadcasts earn $8.  Brijit pays by PayPal or check once a month.

Response to Barbara Kay's article

Yesterday I read an article on canada.com by Barbara Kay, who expressed her distaste for the competitive nature of writing abstracts for Brijit.com.  Her son, Jonathan Kay, gets a thrill from competing against a few other writers (in one particular case, a co-worker) for the prize of getting an abstract published, whereas Kay "shuddered at the very thought of exposing myself to such humiliation," and began talking about gender differences with regard to competition. 

1. First of all, presumably most people aren't making a game out of it the way Jonathan did (although it is very satisfying when your abstract is chosen).  Therefore, in most cases no one but you and the Brijit staff know when your lovingly crafted abstract was not the chosen one. So, really, how humiliating is that?
2. Also, we live in a world where, for better or for worse, we all find ourselves in competition for places on a sports team, for acceptances to the college of our choice, or for our dream job.  I can't imagine a safer environment than the Writers Area of Brijit.com to embrace a little private humility (when someone else writes a better abstract) and deserved, earned pride (when yours is selected and hits the front page). 
3. You can even benchmark yourself against the most successful writers to try to improve your skills.  Brijit is really an English major's dream -- you can get paid for reading and writing.
4. Kay calls the pay scale "nugatory".  Sure, most of us wouldn't be able to afford to work full time for this rate of pay or with this degree of uncertainty.  But perhaps there is sufficient benefit if you think of it differently.  Writing for Brijit causes someone to read, listen to, or watch high quality nonfiction, and hone his or her skills of critical thinking, synthesis, and concise writing.  And, if the skill is sufficient, some extra cash can be had (which is no small thing in the current economy).
5. Finally, Kay states: "Just as most war gamers are male, I bet this Brijit website has been inundated with male “reviewers” and very few women writers." I'm not privy to the overall statistics, but she might be surprised to know that, as of today's date, five of the top ten most prolific and successful writers on Brijit are women.

[Disclaimer: I am a Brijit writer.  But even if I wasn't, I'd be reading the content on the site.]

When Is Thin Too Thin?

"Last week the organizers of Madrid fashion week, usually an overlooked event in comparison with the major shows in New York, London (this week), Milan and Paris, said they were banning models with a height-to-weight ratio below what the World Health Organization considered normal. In effect, models who weigh less than 125 pounds are prohibited from working the runways. Organizers of the event said they wanted to project “an image of beauty and health.”

Complaints about the idolization of role models who suggest unhealthy lifestyles are culturally endemic. Celebrities like Nicole Richie, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton and Mischa Barton have all been subjects of tabloid headlines asking, “Are they too thin?” In all likelihood, the answer is yes, but that does not stop magazines from displaying their pictures or, likewise, designers from casting thin models in their shows." [NY Times]

Forbes hankers for the '50s

Forbes published an article wherein the author, a man, tells other men they'd be better off not marrying career women.  Boing Boing blogged it, lots of people commented on it and/or parodied it, Forbes took it down for a while and then reposted it alongside a counterpoint article by a woman. 

Link: Boing Boing: Don't Marry Career Men: Forbes hankers for the '50s.

Link: Boing Boing: Don't Marry Career Women: Let the remixes begin

Link: Boing Boing: Forbes Kills Article?

Go forth and propagate?

"Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.

Alarmingly for the Democrats, the gap is widening at a bit more than half a percentage point per year, meaning that today's problem is nothing compared to what the future will most likely hold. Consider future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020--and all for no other reason than babies." [OpinionJournal]

Of all the many reasons to have a child, making a new Democrat/liberal is among the most lame I can think of (and I know that's not what the above article is truly advocating).  But it expresses an interesting take on why we might be seeing fewer liberals out there.

Societal Change

"Most college women want a high-powered career that they are passionate about," Ms. Smyers said. "But they also want a family, and that probably means taking time off, and making dinner. I'm rushing through here, taking the most credits you can take without paying extra, because I want to do some amazing things, and establish myself as a career woman, before I settle down." [NY Times]

I found this very interesting.  I don't think I would have thought of this when I was just out of high school.  But it's smart for a woman who eventually wants children to be really focused in her late teens and twenties.  She could do a lot careerwise and still have time for children without waiting until her mid-to-late thirties.