Author Archives

Sari Botton is a writer living in Kingston, NY. She edited the award-winning “Goodbye to All That: Writers on Loving & Leaving NY” and the NY Times Bestselling “Never Can Say Goodbye: Writers on Their Unshakable Love for NY.” She is the essays editor for Longreads, and teaches at Catapult. She tweets at http://twitter.com/saribotton

Lurve You? Or Loathe You?

Actor, writer and director Woody Allen as Alvy Singer and actress Diane Keaton as Annie Hall in the film 'Annie Hall', 1977. (Photo by Silver Screen Collection/Getty Images)

Okay, I’m making a promise to myself to stop reading (and writing about) Woody Allen think pieces — please feel free to hold me to it.

But first let me just point you to “Unlearning Woody Allen,” a smart piece of cultural criticism by David Klion, published by Jewish Currents.

I’m at the depression stage in my grief over Allen as a source of thoughtful entertainment, having a hard time shifting toward acceptance. It’s been hard to let go of the ideas, particularly about relationships, that I picked up from Allen’s films. For example, until recently, I’d still occasionally say to my husband, “I lurve you, I loave you, I luff you,” referencing a line Allen’s Alvy Singer character says to Diane Keaton’s Annie Hall — a comment on the word “love” being insufficient to capture his feelings for her.

But Klion’s essay helps me see something I hadn’t before. He breaks down Woody Allen’s influence on the culture, romantic comedies (and Klion himself) in a way that shows the messages about love put forth in classic Allen movies like Annie Hall and Manhattan are very mixed, and carried forward by others in ways that aren’t so romantic after all.

Even if you’ve never seen Annie Hall, you’ve seen its legacy. You’ve seen Harry mansplain relationships to Sally. You’ve seen the toxic relationship of neurotic Ross and ditzy Rachel held up as a romantic ideal worth rooting for and emulating. You’ve seen Ray (Alex Karpovsky) on Girls in his 30s dating a succession of women in their 20s, passing off his insecurity over a stalled career as some kind of wisdom. You’ve seen Louis CK, who openly worships Allen, monologue about the awkwardness of being a middle-aged man, and then you’ve read about what he subjects women to behind closed doors. You’ve seen Aziz Ansari as the performatively woke smartass comedian who “gets” women in hipster Brooklyn on Master of None, and very likely you’ve read about what his actual dating life is like.

If Allen’s legacy extends through decades of popular culture, it also extends to the consumers of that culture, and to what both men and women in certain social milieus expect of each other. Not everything we’ve gleaned is harmful, and it’s easy to see why the nerdy, sensitive male archetype appeals in a culture that tends to valorize alpha males and to devalue femininity. There are plenty of scenes in Annie Hall where Alvy is kind and compassionate, where the easy intimacy Allen and Keaton presumably shared translates to the screen. Their mid-date first kiss (the subject of a blatant homage in Good Will Hunting), the first time they say they love each other in front of the Brooklyn Bridge, the lobsters – these moments and others are as charming and romantic as any ever filmed, and they’ve no doubt informed my behavior and demeanor in the most romantic moments of my own life. Separating out Alvy’s tenderness from his self-absorption, his desire to nurture Annie from his impulse to condescend to her, his genuine intelligence from his know-it-all superiority, and figuring out how to emulate what he does right and reject what he does wrong is something I’ll probably always be working on. Certainly I’ve failed at it enough times to feel a little awkward passing judgment on Allen’s characters.

But it’s not clear Allen feels as conflicted about any of this as his many disciples might.

Read the story

Decisions, Decisions

In the New York Review of Books, Russian emigre Masha Gessen has a personal essay (originally delivered as a lecture at the New York Public Library last December) that examines the idea of choice. Gessen considers choices that have impacted her life: from her parents’ decision 39 years ago to apply for an exit visa, to her preventive double mastectomy and later an oophorectomy after testing positive for the BRCA mutation that led to her mother’s early death from cancer, to her more recent decision to switch from estrogen therapy to testosterone therapy.

Gessen also ruminates on the culture’s tendency to favor those who’ve suffered for a lack of choice — whether in becoming refugees, or picking their gender.

But in speaking about immigrants we tend to privilege choicelessness much as we do when we are speaking about queer people or transgender people. We focus on the distinction between refugees and “economic migrants,” without asking why the fear of hunger and destitution qualifies as a lesser reason for migration than the fear of imprisonment or death by gunshot wound—and then only if that wound is inflicted for political or religious reasons. But even more than that, why do we assume that the more restricted a person’s choices have been, the more qualified they are to enter a country that proclaims freedom of personal choice to be one of its ideals?

Immigrants make a choice. The valor is not in remaining at risk for catching a bullet but in making the choice to avoid it. In the Soviet Union, most dissidents believed that if one were faced with the impossible choice between leaving the country and going to prison, one ought to choose exile. Less dramatically, the valor is in being able to experience your move less as an escape and more as an adventure. It is in serving as living reminders of the choicefulness of life—something that immigrants and most trans people do, whether their personal narratives are ones of choice or not.

Read the story

The Dangers of Renting While Black in Gentrifying Cities

Photo by Tom Arthur via Flickr

In another excellent piece written with support from the Economic Hardship Reporting Project, Joseph Williams investigates the increasingly deft mechanisms at work leading to the eviction of lower-income apartment dwellers in rapidly gentrifying cities. He does this while also chronicling his own descent from white-collar Politico reporter living in a luxury apartment, to jobless, homeless man.

In the essay, for Curbed, Williams considers various factors making renters at the lower end of the economic spectrum vulnerable — rampant gentrification; rents rising despite stagnating and declining incomes; the job insecurity of the gig economy — and adds that people of color, like himself, are even more vulnerable. It’s a painful truth that’s driven home for him on his court date.

When I got there, the assigned courtroom, number 303, was locked, and the hallway was crowded with my fellow scofflaws. Nearly all of them were people of color; judging by clothing and accented English, most seemed to be immigrants, blue-collar workers, or both.

That shouldn’t have been surprising: “Evictions disproportionately impact the most vulnerable members of our society,” according to the Apartment List report. Renters whose education stopped short of college, Apartment List says, are more than twice as likely to face eviction than the college educated—unless you’re black, like me.

Property managers and large real estate companies have professionalized the forced removal of residents.

Apartment List found that “black households face the highest rates of eviction, even when controlling for education and income.” African Americans with at least a bachelor’s degree are around twice as likely to face eviction as whites, and about three times more likely than Hispanics to get evicted.

Read the story

Reclaiming Our Rage

(Raquel Minwell/EyeEm/Getty)

There’s a lot being written about women and anger right now and I am here for all of it.

Rebecca Traister, who is writing a book on the subject, recently posted a thread on Twitter pointing to a number of recent articles on women’s anger: “Does This Year Make Me Look Angry?,” by Ijeoma Oluo in Elle; “#MeToo Isn’t Enough. Now Women Need to Get Ugly,” by Barbara Kingsolver in the Guardian; “We are Living Through the Moment When Women Unleash Decades of Pent-Up Anger,” by Katha Pollitt in The Nation; “Most Women You Know Are Angry — And That’s Alright,” by Longreads columnist Laurie Penny in Teen Vogue.

But one piece she included resonated with me on a deeply personal level: “I Used to Insist I Didn’t Get Angry. Not Anymore,” by Leslie Jamison in The New York Times Magazine.

Jamison examines women’s long-standing conditioning against owning and expressing anger, instead sublimating their rage in sadness, which has historically been more acceptable. I know this mechanism all too well. It long ago became second nature for me to respond to affronts and offenses of all kinds by bursting into tears and withdrawing deep into sorrow rather than raging or even just speaking up for myself in a firm and reasonable way. In my 50s, I’m only first learning how to do the latter, and usually only after first defaulting to the emotional bypass toward crying instead. For so many of us — maybe for most women — this is a conditioning that is difficult to root out because of a culture that taught us our anger makes us threatening.

The phenomenon of female anger has often been turned against itself, the figure of the angry woman reframed as threat — not the one who has been harmed, but the one bent on harming. She conjures a lineage of threatening archetypes: the harpy and her talons, the witch and her spells, the medusa and her writhing locks. The notion that female anger is unnatural or destructive is learned young; children report perceiving displays of anger as more acceptable from boys than from girls. According to a review of studies of gender and anger written in 2000 by Ann M. Kring, a psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley, men and women self-report “anger episodes” with comparable degrees of frequency, but women report experiencing more shame and embarrassment in their aftermath. People are more likely to use words like “bitchy” and “hostile” to describe female anger, while male anger is more likely to be described as “strong.” Kring reported that men are more likely to express their anger by physically assaulting objects or verbally attacking other people, while women are more likely to cry when they get angry, as if their bodies are forcibly returning them to the appearance of the emotion — sadness — with which they are most commonly associated.

A 2016 study found that it took longer for people to correctly identify the gender of female faces displaying an angry expression, as if the emotion had wandered out of its natural habitat by finding its way to their features. A 1990 study conducted by the psychologists Ulf Dimberg and L.O. Lundquist found that when female faces are recognized as angry, their expressions are rated as more hostile than comparable expressions on the faces of men — as if their violation of social expectations had already made their anger seem more extreme, increasing its volume beyond what could be tolerated.

Read the story

Fast or Slow: What’s the Best Way to Die?

Silhouette of death with scythe.Lighting info: one flash with cells behind model and rain from sprayer between the flash and the model

The grim reaper is fickle, inconsistent, and unpredictable.

To wit: This past weekend a 55-year-old childhood friend of my husband’s died suddenly and unexpectedly from a massive coronary, leaving everyone around him stunned.

Ironically, at the moment my husband looked up from Facebook to express his shock, I was in the middle of reading “My Father’s Body at Rest and in Motion,” Siddhartha Mukherjee’s scientific personal essay in the New Yorker about his octogenarian father’s excruciatingly slow demise, after suffering a few falls.

Mukherjee, a physician, considers the body’s proclivity toward homeostasis, which kept his elderly father’s failing body alive for months — much longer than seemed to make sense.

“Old age is a massacre,” Philip Roth wrote. For my father, though, it was more a maceration—a steady softening of fibrous resistance. He was not so much felled by death as downsized by it. The blood electrolytes that had seemed momentarily steady in the I.C.U. never really stabilized. In the geriatric ward of the new hospital, they tetherballed around their normal values, approaching and overshooting their limits cyclically. He was back to swirling his head vacantly most of the time. And soon all his physiological systems entered into cascading failure, coming undone in such rapid succession that you could imagine them pinging as they broke, like so many rubber bands. Ping: renal failure. Ping: severe arrhythmia. Ping: pneumonia and respiratory failure. Urinary-tract infection, sepsis, heart failure. Pingpingping.

Those feats of resilience surrendered to the fact of fragility. And, as the weeks bore on, an essential truth that I sought not to acknowledge became evident: the more I saw my father at the hospital, the worse I felt. Was he feeling any of this? Two months had elapsed since his admission to the geriatric ward.

I read Mukherjee’s piece on the heels of revisiting “A Life Worth Ending,” a similar 2012 New York Magazine piece by Michael Wolff (yes, that Michael Wolff) which I’d been reminded of on Twitter, about his mother’s “dwindling” in a miserable, expensive, endless-seeming purgatory in the year before her death.

(In my early 50s, about the same age both my grandmothers were when they died, I’m mildly fixated on death.)

Wolff — who includes the same Philip Roth quote in his piece — writes of his frustration witnessing his mother’s last years, when she seemed caught precariously and unenviably between life and death; not well enough to live on her own without tremendous intervention from her family and doctors, but not sick enough to quickly die. He makes a convincing case against the medical establishment’s endeavors to keep the dying alive long past such time as they are able to thrive on their own, leading to painful, slow deaths that deplete families and taxpayers.

Age is one of the great modern adventures, a technological marvel—we’re given several more youthful-ish decades if we take care of ourselves. Almost nobody, at least openly, sees this for its ultimate, dismaying, unintended consequence: By promoting longevity and technologically inhibiting death, we have created a new biological status held by an ever-growing part of the nation, a no-exit state that persists longer and longer, one that is nearly as remote from life as death, but which, unlike death, requires vast service, indentured servitude really, and resources.

This is not anomalous; this is the norm.

The traditional exits, of a sudden heart attack, of dying in one’s sleep, of unreasonably dropping dead in the street, of even a terminal illness, are now exotic ways of going. The longer you live the longer it will take to die. The better you have lived the worse you may die. The healthier you are—through careful diet, diligent exercise, and attentive medical scrutiny—the harder it is to die. Part of the advance in life expectancy is that we have technologically inhibited the ultimate event. We have fought natural causes to almost a draw. If you eliminate smokers, drinkers, other substance abusers, the obese, and the fatally ill, you are left with a rapidly growing demographic segment peculiarly resistant to death’s appointment—though far, far, far from healthy.

A few nights after their friend died, my husband and his brother attended the funeral. Afterward, the three of us got into a discussion about how strange it is that for the most part, none of us have any idea how or when we’ll exit this world, and no control over the matter. We debated whether those faster “traditional exits” Wolff identifies are better or worse than slower routes, which afford loved ones time to prepare and say goodbye.

We ended the evening as mystified as we’d been begun it.

 

How Are There Still Beauty Pageants When Feminists Have Been Protesting Them for 50 Years?

A protest against the Miss America Pageant on the boardwalk at Atlantic City, 1969. (Santi Visalli Inc./Archive Photos/Getty Images)

Progress can sometimes be infuriatingly slow. Take the continued existence of beauty pageants. For most of my adult life, I’ve tried to forget they exist. It’s not quite as easy to do that now that the President of the United States is someone who once owned three pageants, and we’re often reminded that he allegedly sexually harassed contestants. Still, I find the perpetuation of this anachronistic tradition hard to believe, especially when you consider that feminists have been protesting them for 50 years.

In the January issue of Smithsonian, Bad Feminist author Roxane Gay writes about one of the earlier protests, when radical feminists from New York descended on Atlantic City in 1968, to protest the Miss American Pageant. The article appears in the wake of a recent sexist email scandal that has led to new management of that pageant — the #MeToo moment having its effect on Miss America, but not enough of one to shut down the whole enterprise.

Gay reports on the sexist and racist history of the pageant — for which only white women were initially eligible as contestants — and of the 1968 protest.

The 1968 uprising was conceived by a radical feminist named Carol Hanisch, who popularized the phrase, “The personal is political.” Disrupting the beauty contest, she thought, in the summer of that year, “just might be the way to bring the fledgling Women’s Liberation Movement into the public arena.”

She also puts the protest into greater context, shedding light on its lasting impact.

While the 1968 protests may not have done much to change the nature of the Miss America pageant, they did introduce feminism into the mainstream consciousness and expand the national conversation about the rights and liberation of women. The first wave of feminism, which focused on suffrage, began in the late 19th century. Many historians now credit the ’68 protest as the beginning of feminism’s broader second wave.

Read the story

What It Means to Be ‘The First’

Kristi Yamaguchi at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. (Joe Scarnici/Getty Images for USOC)

For Shondaland, Nicole Chung interviewed figure skater Kristi Yamaguchi. The two discussed many things, including Yamaguchi’s experience being the only Asian-American Olympic gold medalist in figure skating, and what her win meant for the representation of Asian-Americans in sports and the media.

NC: Before you, there’d been Tiffany Chin and Debi Thomas, but overall very few women of color in U.S. skating. You were the first and are still the only Asian American Olympic Champion in figure skating. The sport was expanding in terms of who did it, who it was available to. Do you remember thinking about any of that as you came up the ranks?

KY: When I competed, I wasn’t thinking about that at all, I was just focused on skating. I had grown up a California girl; we were fortunate to live in a diverse community. After the Olympics, I think my eyes were opened by the incredible amount of support from the Asian American community, and in particular the Japanese American community. It was a little intimidating at first. At first I didn’t really understand it; I was just grateful. The gold meant so much more than I had ever thought it would to other people.

I began to appreciate other things even more — like the journey my own family had to become American, to let me pursue the American dream . . . My grandparents’ internment [during World War II] was not talked about much when we were kids. There were references to “camp,” and we were old enough to know when reparations happened. My paternal grandfather received his U.S. citizenship two years before he died. He just believed in this country so much, and wanted his family to be here. My mom was born in an internment camp, and my dad’s family were there, too. They all had to recreate a life for themselves — you just look back and think, Wow, that was only one generation ago. It’s amazing how far they’ve come. There were so many sacrifices that went into establishing themselves here in this country so I could be an ice skater.

Read the story

The High Cost of Becoming a Writer as a Single Mom

graffiti on a wall showing a monkey holding a can of red spray paint, with the words "follow your dreams"
Photo by Ale, via Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

Stephanie Land has a sobering personal essay in the New York Review of Books about her struggle to support herself and her two small daughters while attending college and trying to break out as a writer. The essay, written with support from the non-profit Economic Hardship Reporting Project, details Land’s series of difficult choices: attending college in her 30s as a single mom of one child; cleaning houses for a living; living in a homeless shelter; going through with a second pregnancy after a one-night-stand; and relentlessly sticking with her commitment to learning, writing and publishing — even at moments when becoming a writer seemed a frivolous ambition.

Every time my car broke down during those years, or I had to fill out renewal forms for our food stamps, my stomach clenched in selfishness and guilt. We were struggling like this because I had chosen to get an art degree instead of work. Being on government assistance, that didn’t seem like an option for me, let alone one to accept, even though it never felt like there was any other option but that. I was a writer. I had to write.

As a full-time student (and mother), I could only work ten to fifteen hours a week, shuffling around half a dozen housecleaning clients on my own. I took out the maximum amount of loans to give us something to pay all our monthly bills, which I managed to keep around a thousand dollars. A Pell Grant and a small scholarship for survivors of domestic violence paid my tuition for the fall and spring semesters, but they didn’t cover the classes I took during the shorter winter and summer study periods. The tuition for those usually went on a credit card.

Since we’d moved away, Mia’s dad had declined to take her for the summers, leaving me to scramble to pay for child care. Eventually, I decided to do something that I’d promised him I wouldn’t—petition to double the amount he paid in child support. As a result, by the time I neared the end of my required classes, I’d racked up almost $1,000 in legal fees. Plus, I had $50,000 in student loan debt, and about $12,000 in credit card debt. My minimum monthly payments on the credit cards alone hovered around $300. I wasn’t sure what I’d do when I’d have to start making the $500 monthly payments for the student loans once the six-month grace period ended after the commencement ceremony.

Coraline came only a month after I graduated college in June of 2014.

Read the story

Fake It Till You Make It

Photo by Stan Wiechers via Flickr.

As part of the Awl’s excellent “Fakes” series, Kelly Stout chronicles her life as an ACOD (adult child of divorce), in the wake of her parents’ acrimonious split when she was in her early 20s, and tries to make sense of the lie her parents and family are no longer living. As an ACOD myself, even though my parents split when I was much younger, I relate so much to Stout’s experience, especially the pressure she feels to fake being okay.

The main project has become convincing others that the pain I’m feeling deserves sympathy. To hedge against that plan’s failure, I pretend that I’m fine. These feelings are paradoxical and I achieve nothing. I live my life as if I’ve waded halfway into a river and neither side looks appealing. I haven’t drowned yet, and from the banks, I appear to be waving.

I encounter people—many people—who are joyful about divorce. I am instructed again and again to be glad my dad has found happiness. I am chastised for my selfishness by people whose parents sleep in the same bed.

My mom moves into a new apartment and we toast to the fact that her new life is an honest one, where nothing is fake. Neither of us believes we are better off, but what choice do we have? The healthy dog looks on approvingly.

Read the story

When Will the Auto Industry Succumb to the #MeToo Revolution?

(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Over the past few months, the #MeToo revolution has brought down men in Hollywood, in media, and in the food world who have harassed or violated women. Other even more male-dominated industries have been slower to respond to this watershed moment, including the auto industry — where violating women has long been tolerated and part of the culture.

The New York Times Magazine has a multi-media expose of the ongoing sexual harassment and misconduct toward women at the Ford Motor Company. Despite numerous lawsuits filed and settled in the 1990s, a threatening culture has persisted and led to a new round of litigations. Reporters Susan Chira and Catrin Einhorn investigate whether that culture can survive the #MeToo revolution. What will it take to bring down male auto workers, managers and union leaders? Read more…