In a new book, Send Yourself Roses: Thoughts on My Life, Love, and Leading Roles,, by Kathleen Turner and Gloria Feldt, Kathleen says:

“Before an opening performance, when I am feeling like I really need an affirmation, I’ll send myself a big bouquet of roses. Why not? Why should I wait around and hope that someone else will send me roses? If someone does, that’s delightful and I will receive them with pleasure. But if no one does, I won’t have to be blue.”

Love the attitude. Love the two women behind this book. And on that note, do check out Gloria’s beautiful new website which features the Send Yourself Roses blog, where Gloria asks us to share what we have done lately to “send yourself roses”, without waiting for someone else to tend to our needs. These two leading ladies will be in conversation tonight at The 92nd street Y in NYC, 8:15 pm, and at Barnes & Noble near Lincoln square on February 18 at 7:00 PM.

The book makes an excellent Valentine’s Day gift for the single and coupled alike. And hey, if you’re romancing an only, what better gift for your one and only than a book called, um, Only Child?! It’s a stretch, I know, but really just wanted to let folks know that on Sunday, Feb. 24 at 9pm on WKCR (89.9 FM in NYC), there will be an hour-long program (“Studio A”) airing featuring only child-ness. Everything you ever wanted to know — from a literary perspective, that is. Our host for this one, MFA student Michelle Legro, asked Daph and me some of the most thoughtful questions ever about being writers and onlies. Some fresh new writing about onlyness will be read on the show, too.

(The program will eventually available as a download, so Mom, in case you miss it….)

It’s (gulp) mine this Friday. Yep, on February 15, 1969, a day that women on the coasts were busy protesting bridal fairs, my mother crossed the street to a Chicago hospital, braved a blizzard, and pushed me out. I *just* (kinda) made the sixties.

And now, I’m celebrating the beginning of the last year of my thirties by sharing some birthday love. I know both Democratic candidates are asking for money every day. I know this because I’m on both their email lists. But regardless, I’m putting a request out into the universe that anyone who feels inclined might consider a little donation to one of my favorite orgs, Girls Write Now. To send them a valentine of support, and totally make my day too, click here!

It’s been one year since the anthology I edited with my one of my other writing halves, novelist Daphne Uviller, came out. And on Feb. 26, the paperback version of Only Child: Writers on the Singular Joys and Solitary Sorrows of Growing Up Solo debuts. To gear up for part 2 of our book’s launch, Daph and I would like to offer ourselves up as guest bloggers on parenting-related blogs. Any takers?!

I’m posting snippets from a little Q&A we prepared below, so you can see the kinds of topics we can mouth off around on this one. Interviewers are starting to ask us what’s happened in the year since we did that book–which is also of course something we’re happy to muse on. Because a lot happened. Daph went into the project loving being an only, and swearing to reproduce her experience by having an only herself. Me, not so much. I had more mixed feelings about being raised solo was always adamant that I’d have at least 2 kids. Long story short, Daph is expecting baby # 2 this April, and I’ve come to conclusion that I’d be superhappy with “just one.” The reason for our choices? Working with our anthology contributors (all onlies, of course) and taking the lessons we learned from their poignant, diverse essays to heart.

Bottom line: In addition to deepening our own sisterly bond (I’m getting married in Daphne’s backyard this summer), doing this anthology kinda changed our lives.

Excerpts from our Q&A:

Q: In the book’s introduction, you refer to “so many more onlies in this country”. How many is that?
There are an estimated 15 million only children in the US, and a recent cover story in Time magazine suggested that one-third of Americans starting families now will have only one child. In Manhattan alone—the “OC” capital—over 30 percent of all families are single-child families, compared to a national average of around 20 percent. It’s interesting that over the past 20 years, the percentage of women nationwide who have one child has more than doubled, from 10 percent to 23 percent. The reasons for that are many, but the biggest ones are late pregnancy and the fact that it’s more expensive than ever to raise a child to age 18. And it’s not just happening in the US. Birth rates are falling in Western Europe and Canada too. In Europe, the average family size is estimated at 1.4 kids.

Q: Twenty-one writers who are only children: Did you discover anything you all have in common?
A: We have “I’m King of the World” tattooed on the bottom of our feet. No, seriously, we learned from our contributors that we do all have a couple of things in common. We had intensely close friendships, and somewhere along the way, most of us learned to turn friends into family. Many of us were also very good, of course, at being alone. We related easily at young ages to adults (which is a subtler way of bragging that we were all prematurely poised). And as we wrote these essays, we grappled with the question of whether we’ve become who we are because we’re onlies, or whether we would have turned out the same if we’d grown up with siblings.

Q: Did contributors like or hate being an only?
The essays fell into both those camps. Writers in the first category, like John Hodgman, Lynn Harris, Amy Richards, and Janice Nimura, relished onliness wholeheartedly and thrived as the sole recipients of their parents’ time, attention, money, and love. Others, like Sarah Towers, Alissa Quart, and Ted Rose, found themselves struggling constantly against a loneliness that frequently overshadowed the benefits.

Q: Is loneliness the only downside to being an only?
A: Kathryn Harrison writes eloquently about the fickleness of memory: if you’ve got no one to hold you in check, what’s to keep you from re-inventing your past? Or, by the same token, who can help you make sense of your parents’ eccentricities, help distinguish the normal from the abnormal within your family?

Q: Don’t a lot of the advantages you mentioned – the love, the attention, the money – add up to a lot of smothering?
For some people, sometimes, yes. Deborah Siegel writes about how she struggled, even as an adult, to do grownup things for herself, like handling finances. Lynn Harris was sending her laundry home even after college. On the other hand, they had peaceful, joyful homes with a singular kind of support system that a sibling, to some degree, would have shaken up or diluted—but then again, maybe that fear in itself is a very “only child” sentiment.

Q: Well, then, aren’t the advantages offset later in life by the burdens of caring for aging parents by yourself?
A: There’s no question that being an only comes with enormous burdens. You’re the confidant, the caretaker, and the undertaker. The pressure not to fail, or even to be subpar – in your career, in your marriage, as a producer of grandchildren – is intense. But to say that those pressures offset all the benefits is to favor one half of life over the other. Think of all the people who, as children, fought with their siblings or were estranged, only to rediscover each other as adults, just in time to share the burden of aging parents. Is their adulthood more valuable to them than their childhood?

Q: You sound like you’re defending onliness.
That would be Daphne. She loved it when she thought about it at all – which was rare until Deborah brought up the idea for the book. Deborah wasn’t all that content to be an only. Both of us were onlies by default, not design, but for Deborah, somehow, the disappointment transmitted. Her mom remembers returning home after fertility surgery, to be asked by Deborah, “Mommy, aren’t I enough?”

Q: So how did you manage to do a book together?
Contrary to stereotype, we played fabulously together. Only children can be very, very good at collaboration!

Q: A lot of your readers are going to be parents looking for advice on whether they’ll ruin their child by not giving her or him a sibling. Can you give them an answer?
A: The third section, “A Sib for Junior?” addresses that quandary. First of all, both John Hodgman and Amy Richards refer to “deprivation” as depriving their multiple children of the joy of being an only. But while all our writers had varied experiences, there does seem to be one truth that emerges. Kids whose parents weren’t sure they wanted to have kids at all and chose to have a single child as a hedged bet – “one is close to none,” says one writer – seemed to be unhappier as onlies than kids whose parents wholeheartedly embraced the kid scene.

Q: So come on, admit it, aren’t you guys just a little bit spoiled?
A: Vanessa Grigoriadis, in a New York magazine cover article on only children a while back (she’s an only herself), says simply, “[T]here are no set limits on what a parent will give an only child, no pressure from other siblings to split things up. It’s not spoiling, it’s just…life.”

Q: Is there anything else you’d like us to know about onlyness, or only-tude?
A: Yes. Only Child is not just for onlies, or people close to them. Even though our criteria for contributors was that they be sibling-free, they ultimately invoked onlyness as a prism though which to examine the human experience. As one contributor asks, isn’t the only child simply the most exaggerated version of all of us, navigating life alone?

Just in time for Valentine’s Day (ugh, why can’t I seem to get off the Valentine’s Day hook this week? forgive me!), demographer Steven Martin analyzes the latest data on childbearing trends among American women. In a briefing paper prepared for the Council on Contemporary Families, Martin explains:

— Although fertility rose in 2006, we are NOT witnessing the start of another baby boom. But we have reached the level at which the population is reproducing itself without added immigration.

— Love, baby carriage, and no marriage? Almost all the increase in births was accounted for by non-marital births, although educated women and very rich women, who are more likely to be married, also increased their birth rates.

— There has been a significant rise in the proportion of 3 and 4 child families among the super-rich, but this is confined to such a small sliver of the population that it does not affect national fertility rates.

— Women are increasingly delaying childbearing, and the fertility rates of educated and uneducated women seem to be undergoing a slow convergence.

— Higher birth rates of immigrants account for only a small part of the recent fertility rise.

— American women are more successful than women in most other industrial countries in being able to pursue higher education and develop careers without foregoing childbearing.

Jeesh. That last one puts things in a little perspective. But still.

(Thanks to CCF for the heads up.)

Finally, some great commentary on the illusive nature of that much-coveted chimera — the woman voter. Check out this interesting commentary and counterpoint in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, titled “Where Do Women Voters Stand After Super Tuesday?”, and Marie Wilson’s refreshing take on the current feminist debates around the Democratic candidates this week, over at the White House Project’s blog, Change Everything. Writes Marie:

The historic candidacies of Sens. Clinton and Obama have now made it impossible to talk about the generic “woman voter”–and that alone is a triumph for women of all stripes. Now, we are learning to talk about women as they really are: individuals who differ by race, class, age and geographic location, who will make different choices in candidates based on their different experiences of and in the world. That’s good for our democracy because it bring a chorus of new voices, perspectives, and issues to the table. It creates a more robust national conversation, a more representative plate of issues to address, and a population that is encouraged and inspired to take a more active role in the political process — which is good for all of us.

As someone who came to the women’s movement during the “second wave,” I know how our differences can be a source of pride as well as contention. And I’m happy that women aren’t being seen or acting as if we are all alike, because it’s our prerogative to be the authentic individuals that we are. Further, I see it as a privilege that we women can now feel comfortable disagreeing with each other on the public stage. In the past, disagreement was something we felt we couldn’t afford, so we had these conversations mostly behind closed doors and behind each other’s backs.

Nowhere are we seeing a more dynamic picture of our newfound comfort with discussing our political differences than in the online universe, which has most recently been a launching point for some passionate debates concerning our first female candidate. Renowned leaders of women’s causes are vocally disagreeing, and for every well-known feminist who offers commentary on this historic election, hundreds of lesser-knowns are contributing too, with often eloquent and moving language about why they are supporting Obama or Clinton. When it’s all over, the women’s movement will have a trove of spirited, intelligent, and diverse debates documented as part of our rich, evolving history. This, too, is a good thing — though you might not know it from reading the press coverage.

Men disagree often. It is seen as the natural order of things, and no one gets alarmed. When women have open disagreements, it’s different. The press revs it up, exploiting the healthy ritual of debate as hostile, destructive, divisive. But we know better. At the heart of the matter, we know that we are jointly committed to the causes that have always been women’s issues — we just have differing views on how to get there. What we are seeing is the maturing of a movement and the ability of its members to thoughtfully disagree. Let’s resist the urging of the media to divide and conquer what we hold as true — and instead celebrate this monumental year as we continue to move the women’s movement into the 21st century.

Amen to all that I say.

Some amazing get-out-the-vote work going on this season:

I may be late to this one, but I just learned about CitizenJanePolitics, the “modern girl’s guide to picking leaders of the free world. If that doesn’t merit a “go girl” holler, I don’t know what does.

Meanwhile Women’s Voices, Women’s Vote just launched a national voter registration drive aimed at the 15 million unmarried women who are not registered to vote. The nonpartisan org is dedicated to increasing the number of unmarried women participating in our democracy and is mailing voter registration forms to more than 4.1 million homes in 22 states.

Finally, ya’ll know that Thursday is Valentine’s Day, but did you know it’s also the 88th birthday of the League of Women Voters? The nonpartisan org continues to do great work, providing trustworthy and balanced resources to citizens and lawmakers and getting out the vote. To send them a valentine of continued support, you can click here.

P.S. U.S. Census data shows unmarried women now represent more than 26 percent of the eligible voting age population. In the last presidential election in 2004, of the 20 million who did not participate, nearly 15 million were not registered and another 5 million were registered but did not vote. Compared to married women, single women are 9 percentage points less likely to register and 13 percentage points less likely to vote.

(Image cred)

If you haven’t already, do check out this, um, response? to Obama’s “Yes I Can” video. It rocks.

(Thanks to Paul Raeburn for the heads up!)

Harvard-educated attorney and vice president at the University of Chicago Michelle Obama is appearing on Larry King Live tonight – ! CNN’s Soledad O’Brien recently sat down for a one-to-one with Michelle too.

There is just TOO much must-see election tv on these days for a girl to get any writing done around here. Ah well. At least I can blame it on good ole civic distraction.

Some quick stats on “the youth vote” on Super Tuesday, culled from various sources:

More than 3 million voters under the age of 30 flooding the polls on Super Tuesday, turning out in record numbers in more than 20 states.

Exit polls showed that in almost every state, youth voter turnout increased significantly from 2000 and 2004.

In Tennessee the number of people between the ages of 18-to-29 who voted more than quadrupled.

In Georgia, young voters tripled their turnout this year.

In California, more than 850,000 voters under 30 cast ballots.

Obama won the youth vote in 19 of the 22 states that voted on Super Tuesday.

Nationwide, Obama netted 59 percent of voters under 30 years old, while Clinton was supported by 38 percent.

Young men supported Obama by a margin of 64 to 33 percent over Clinton.

Young women supported Obama by 53 to 45 percent.

It’s this last stat I’m most interested in. But believe me, not in the young-women-who-don’t-vote-Hillary-are-traitors kind of way.

(Image cred – Rock the Vote)

In a race where two candidates share much on the policy front, we continue to be much more focused on personality and who’s reaching who than issues. To that end, I’ve heard lots of odd yet funny comparisons going around and it all makes me think of Cookie Monster’s song, from Sesame Street (video above, in case you’ve forgotten, or are up for a blast from the past this dreary Monday morning).

Now, I know we humans like to think in dichotomies, and I get that we’re seeking novel ways to compare two similar opponents. But still, I wonder a great deal about the larger purpose these descriptive divisions ultimately serve. Not that I have a clear answer yet, but just something I think about these days. Chris Lehane, a former aide to Al Gore, spoke to the apparent class divide in support by noting that Hillary’s got the “Dunkin Donuts” Democrats and Obama’s got the “Starbucks” Democrats. And I’m sure you’ve also heard the one by now about how Obama’s a Mac, and Hillary’s a PC. Have you heard others? Would love to hear them in comments! As well as your thoughts about the ultimate consequences of labeling our candidates in these ways.