Latest news with #LosAngelesTimes
Cosmopolitan
5 hours ago
- General
- Cosmopolitan
Data Shows That Young Women Are Just as Lonely as Men
A few years ago, my mom and I had a blowout fight. I can't recall what sparked the argument, but what I do remember is lying on the bathroom floor and sobbing as I scanned my texts for someone to reach out to who could keep me distracted from all the sadness. In my phone were the names of dozens of girls I met during my time at college, when I was rotating through late-night clubbing, brunches, and concerts in an attempt to get closer to people I hoped would one day be bridesmaids at my wedding. But truthfully? These friendships were superficial—nothing like what I watched and coveted in the TV show Girls. I couldn't rely on them during a panic attack. And if you can't call a friend at 10 p.m. on a weekday when the snot coming out of your nose has made you unintelligible, are they even a friend? I am a successful 21-year-old who is a published journalist and works a good, degree-aligned job. I live happily in New York City. I work out, love nature, and have a great boyfriend. The only thing missing? Friends. I lack them, and although this feels almost radical to confess these days, I know for a fact I'm not alone in it. Today, lonely women like me abound, and the data backs this up. About 1 in 6 Americans say they feel lonely or isolated from those around them all or most of the time, according to the Pew Research Center. The Campaign to End Loneliness goes one step further, finding that people under 30 are the loneliest age group and that women are significantly more likely to be chronically lonely than men. I have often dreaded the end of the workday when I'd find myself faced with the prospect of an evening spent alone. However, judging by recent media coverage, you'd be forgiven for thinking that loneliness is almost exclusively experienced by young men. Whether it's through stories of perpetually online Joe Rogan–devoted incels lashing out in anger over their own inadequacies or average guys who lack the tools needed to deal with their feelings, the message around loneliness is that it's affecting men at alarming rates—and we should all be concerned, especially when social isolation leads to violence and extremism in men. 'The epidemic of loneliness is hitting men hardest,' a Los Angeles Times op-ed from last year posits. 'Is the Cure to Male Loneliness Out on the Pickleball Court?' asks the New York Times. 'Are men okay?' wonders Vox. Earlier this week, the conversation on male loneliness was reinvigorated thanks to a New York Times article on 'mankeeping.' According to the Times, this is 'the work women do to meet the social and emotional needs of the men in their lives, from supporting their partners through daily challenges and inner turmoil to encouraging them to meet up with their friends.' Not only are women alarmed that the men in our lives are friendless, but it appears we feel responsible for helping them feel less alone. In pointing to a real problem, this media coverage glosses over another issue. Women's struggles with loneliness can be just as if not more severe than men's, but female isolation is rarely the topic of think pieces or trend stories. Are women okay? Some of us aren't, but when we're not occupied with 'mankeeping,' it's up to us to mitigate our own social anxiety. 'Women take on an especially high level of pressure and urgency to feel a deep connective tissue in a friendship,' Alyssa Petersel, LMSW, CEO of the therapist-match platform MyWellbeing, tells me in an interview. 'Women tend to view loneliness as a personal failure, but men, broadly speaking, are more likely to externalize the feeling (what's wrong with other people?) or not recognize it at all.' And while, according to Petersel, men may feel like 'their cup is full' after bonding with friends over concrete activities like watching sports, for women it's all about quality versus quantity. Even with a high weekly volume of lunch dates or Pilates meetups, we don't feel truly satisfied until our standard for a friendship's depth is met. 'Female loneliness is often existential: I know a lot of people, but who really knows me?' echoes Los Angeles–based clinical psychologist Dr. Lauren Kerwin. That's not to say men can't feel a mismatch between the friendships they have and the friendships they want to have, but the experts I talked to say men are less likely to blame themselves for it. 'There's a persistent cultural script that women should be naturally good at friendship. Lonely men may be socially accepted, even expected, but lonely women often carry shame,' says Kerwin. This pervasive loneliness has deep roots in art and culture. Reclusive and brilliant writers like Emily Dickinson or Emily Brontë described their own isolation at a time when women often couldn't work outside the home, gain a university education, or own property. Instead of going out to a tavern with a friend (unheard of) or bonding with coworkers, most of us could be found taking care of (ahem, 'mankeeping'?) our husbands by tending to their meals, trousers, and mood swings. In the process, we learned how to hide behind the mask of a seemingly perfect life—the magna cum laude college honors, say, or the beautiful photos on social media—which is one reason female loneliness hasn't seemed like an epidemic. The media, our partners and families, and the broader culture rarely see cause for concern or theorize about how to enhance our lackluster social lives. And so we are left to forge ahead on our own. Despite my efforts, I have struggled to tolerate superficial initial connections that (I assume) would slowly evolve into the close-knit, know-everything-about-your-life bonds I've seen and envied on TV. I don't want to talk about the merits of a new facial salon downtown or what's worth getting at the Alo Yoga sale, and so I don't even try. Still, I'm not okay with being a recluse. New York's beauty lies in the fact that you can find everyone here, and it stings not to have people tuned to my frequency. I have found a solution to all this, however, and it's fittingly retro. Bella and I became pen pals in 2020, at the age of 17, as part of Rachel Syme's Penpalooza letter-writing program. At its peak, the exchange had 10,000 members from over 75 different countries. Some pairings lasted for only a letter or two and others, like ours, are still ongoing. While I long for in-person friendships, as of right now, this long-distance platonic confidante knows my heart better than any of my lackluster college connections. Bella is a month older than me and also a journalist. In our early letters, when she was living in Florida, I used my best stationery to tell her about college applications, nature walks, and Covid-era existential crises. She wrote to me about the lake outside her window and the independent magazine she helmed. Bella lives in Spain now. We've only met once IRL. We can't share the joys of post-work drinks, trips to bookstores, or getaways to the beach on the Q train. At first, because of the distance, I didn't want to burden her in darker moments, like that post-fight meltdown on the bathroom floor. Week after week though, I felt giddy when running to my mailbox. Emily Dickinson lived a solitary life. Letter writing was also great joy for her—maybe because it let her express things she could never say out loud. 'This is an ode to all the girls we've been together,' Bella wrote in a card after I moved in with my boyfriend, accompanied by roses. The gesture made it feel as if she were in the apartment with us. So, in the tradition of deep and thoughtful long-distance correspondences between women who feel like they were born in the wrong century, I have come to realize true friendship doesn't require proximity. While the digital realm can be hazardous for isolated young men who stumble onto the manosphere, for lonely women like me, it's still a lifeline. Meeting Bella taught me that sometimes the best platonic connections live over 3,500 miles away but will still celebrate your wins, offer clarifying pushback when you're being stupid, and meet every new version of you with open arms. So while the media may never obsess over the fate of lonely letter-writing girls like me, thanks to modern technology, old-fashioned modes of correspondence, and a hefty dose of female resilience, there's still hope for us.
Los Angeles Times
6 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Los Angeles Times
Hollywood, Tomorrow: Who wins, who loses and what's at stake in the age of AI?
July 31, 2025 3 AM PT The biggest entertainment stories Get our big stories about Hollywood, film, television, music, arts, culture and more right in your inbox as soon as they publish. You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
Chicago Tribune
6 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: No, the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art is not a loss for Chicago
The editorial 'Lucas museum amps up. The LA excitement could have been happening in Chicago.' (July 29) is a disappointing opinion from the editorial board of this fine paper. Nowhere in the editorial is it mentioned that George Lucas and his Chicago-native wife, as if that should make a difference, wanted the museum — 300,000 square feet on 11 acres in Los Angeles — to be built on the lakefront. I would hazard to guess that most Chicagoans will not miss a spaceship-designed cultural attraction housing paintings, comic book art, comic strips, comic book covers and a life-sized Naboo starfighter that takes up open lakefront space and blocks the view of the lake. And is the fact that we don't 'routinely' see Lucas, Guillermo del Toro, Doug Chiang and Queen Latifah strolling down Michigan Avenue supposed to be a negative? If the editorial board is suffering from a lack of star power, go work for the Los Angeles Times. Lucas calling his decadeslong endeavor 'a temple to the people's art' is laughable. It is a temple to his outsize ego. Drop the 'Lucas' moniker, and I will stand corrected. I also doubt that A. Montgomery Ward or Daniel Burnham would consider this a 'colossal missed opportunity.' Lastly, Chicago did not fail to understand what Lucas meant by 'narrative art.' Lucas failed to understand that Chicago's lakefront is not a theme park like Disneyland, which is more aptly suited for his namesake as the Tribune editorial indicates, the loss of the Lucas Museum is incalculable in terms of revenue, philanthropy, tourism, culture and prestige for the city. Thanks to the intransigence of the Friends of the Parks group, George Lucas threw up his hands and left. No matter what compromises Lucas and our farsighted mayor at the time, Rahm Emanuel, offered, there was no compromise from this group. Instead, there were costly, time-consuming lawsuits and roadblock after roadblock.. No understanding of the incredible value to our city and the joy it would bring to its residents. Lucas understood and respected the importance of our parks as a setting for the museum and also that visitors would be in that setting and free to enjoy it before and after museum visits. Clearly, this group is not a friend of the city, and we will never recoup the loss it caused.I couldn't disagree more with the editorial lamenting the loss of the Lucas Museum. The arrogant billionaire wasn't interested in other proposed sites. George Lucas wanted what he wanted — the most prized parcel. The editorial fails to mention that the lakefront was declared 'forever open, clear and free' more than 100 years ago for the benefit of citizens. Had businesses been allowed to build on the lakefront, it would resemble the dismal waterfronts of Boston and New York City, and by now, there wouldn't even have been space for the museum. Good riddance. Chicago dodged a bullet.I could not disagree more with the editorial on losing the Lucas Museum, and I commend those who opposed the monstrosity. Do we really want that on Chicago's beautiful lakefront? I'll take an open parking lot with a view any Weinshel's argument against reducing parking requirements along transit corridors misses the mark and clings to a 20th century urban planning mindset ('Cutting parking requirements while upzoning Broadway will create a crisis,' July 20). It is not utopian to imagine a Chicago where most people do not own cars. Many of us already live that reality. My spouse and I moved to Edgewater because we can live here without a car. We walk, bike and take transit because that is what a city should offer: the freedom to get around without being forced into car ownership. Cars are deceptively expensive. In 2024, AAA estimated the average cost to own and operate a car is $12,297 per year. That figure is likely even higher in Chicago. The cost to build off-street parking is also prohibitively high. According to Elevated Chicago, an underground spot costs $42,000 to build. That cost gets passed on to renters and buyers, whether they own a car. This city cannot be affordable if every household needs to own a car and every car needs its own house. Removing parking mandates is not 'urban planning malpractice' — it is smart policy. Requiring parking increases car ownership and traffic. Each car needs multiple parking spots throughout the day, fueling demand for wasteful surface lots that contribute to flooding and the heat island effect and make neighborhoods less walkable and bikeable. But eliminating parking minimums is just one step. We must invest in walking, biking and public transit to support both future and current residents. The $2.1 billion Red-Purple Line modernization is a great start. We also need protected bike lanes, camera-enforced bus-only lanes and fully funded transit. That is why Springfield must pass the transit reform and funding package already approved by the state Senate as soon as possible. Let's build a more affordable, healthier and sustainable city. More housing, more transit, more bikes and less parking are the future Chicago deserves. Cities all over the world from Paris to Tokyo have done this. Why can't Chicago?The opposition to sensible housing policy along Broadway reveals an uncomfortable truth about how some view community membership. Opponents tout their credentials as longtime residents and neighborhood saviors. But I must ask: Does living here longer grant them veto power over decisions affecting thousands of current and future residents? These longtime residents deserve credit for their community investments, but I fail to see how seven-story buildings along a busy commercial corridor next to the city's highest-ridership 'L' line will ruin anything. The increasing demand to live in Edgewater and Uptown is testament to the success of these investments. Denying potential residents the ability to benefit from these successes hurts everyone — we're depriving ourselves of economic growth while denying housing to thousands who want to live in these amazing neighborhoods. These opponents are going against broad community support for more housing. Hiring lawyers to block development through technicalities isn't democracy — it's using procedural tricks to override community will. This is provincialism: putting narrow interests over the well-being of not just current residents, but also the entire city. Change is difficult, and protecting one's community from perceived threats feels natural. But upzoning Broadway isn't a threat — it's an opportunity and a long-overdue investment needed to keep our communities affordable and accessible. Who are we to deny others the right to live here simply because you got here first?'Has there ever been a matter of such consequence so hastily rushed through the Chicago City Council than the recent exemption of off-street parking requirements for new housing development? While Jake Sheridan's July 29 story noted that there was broad ideological support for the plan from bike activists and libertarians, conspicuously absent was the lived reality of those countless thousands of us living in Chicago's densest neighborhoods where street parking is already as scarce as hen's teeth. I ride the CTA, bike and walk far more than I drive, but I still own a car for those situations in which I have to transport people or things or go to places otherwise not readily accessible. This is also the situation of many of my neighbors. For the bike advocates who like to point to empty parking spaces in new housing developments, please note that this is not an indicator of how many cars are actually owned by the people living in those buildings. Rather, it shows that many of those tenants are avoiding the $150 or more rental fee for parking and instead competing for the increasingly limited number of street spaces. I have a slew of neighbors who can testify on this matter. As a block club leader, I am now in the midst of trying to negotiate a developer's plan to turn a large church-school complex into as many as 40 units of housing with only four off-street parking spaces. When the developer was asked if he would only rent to people without cars, he chuckled as if I must be joking. I wasn't. Worst are the bike/housing advocates who are pushing for the elimination of parking requirements. When I have asked a number of them at community forums whether they also own cars, they sheepishly acknowledge they do. Talk about the ultimate in 'do as I say and not as I do.' If this City Council is going to push these ever more drastic 'solutions' to Chicago's affordable housing woes, perhaps aldermen should be the first to sign the 'I'm giving up my car' pledge.I applaud the Tribune Editorial Board for its editorial asking Gov. JB Pritzker to veto the unnecessary Tier 2 pension bill ('Pritzker needs to veto this pension bill. Chicago can't afford it.,' July 29). The editorial leaves the impression that the compliance with the Internal Revenue Service Code still needs to be addressed. This matter was definitively addressed for the big state retirement systems in the most recent big budget bill that the governor did sign. Here is what the bill said: 'If, after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 104th General Assembly, any enforceable determination concludes that the benefits for a Tier 2 member or participant under Section 1-160 or 15-111 of the Illinois Pension Code do not provide the minimum retirement benefits required under Internal Revenue Service regulations or other provisions of federal law such that the wages of such member or participant would be subject to tax under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, then moneys in the Tier 2 SSWB Reserve Fund may be used by the State Employees' Retirement System of Illinois, the Teachers' Retirement System of the State of Illinois, or the State Universities Retirement System to pay the difference between benefits otherwise available and benefits that would constitute minimum retirement benefits under applicable federal law or regulation. This subsection shall constitute a continuing appropriation of all amounts necessary for such purposes.' What is needed is identical wording for the Chicago systems. Much less expensive than the current proposed you have a state congressional map as gerrymandered as ours is in Illinois, it takes a certain amount of audacity for Gov. JB Pritzker to then criticize Texas for gerrymandering. Talk about those in glass houses not throwing stones. What hypocrisy. Our map was drawn by now-convicted felon Michael Madigan as House speaker to benefit the Democrats.
The Herald Scotland
11 hours ago
- Climate
- The Herald Scotland
Tsunami threat fizzles in Pacific: 'A great relief to us'
Then, hours later, after thousands braved gridlocked evacuation routes and displaced residents bedded down on hard shelter floors, came the relief. "So far, we have not seen a wave of consequence, which is a great relief to us," Hawaii Gov. Josh Green told reporters as he lifted some evacuation orders. More: Tsunami evacuation orders lifted in Hawaii, threat to West Coast eases Modest tsunami waves 'a blessing' More: Sirens blare, traffic gridlocks as Hawaii braces for tsunami threat The tsunami spawned by the quake turned out to be modest. Amid flooding and some injuries in Russia's Kamchatka region, the earthquake and seismic sea wave caused no reported loss of life. Tsunami waves of 5.7 feet reached Kahului in Hawaii, while the highest waves to hit the U.S. mainland were 4 feet in Crescent City, California. "It's kind of a blessing to not be reporting any damage," Green said. "This is not going to be a 1964 event that we're looking at, destroying several blocks of the town," Crescent City Manager Eric Weir told reporters, according to the Los Angeles Times. "However, it is going to be an event that creates a lot of disruption in the ocean, a lot of strong currents. We're asking people to stay away from the beaches, stay away from the mouths of the river and any low-lying area." Traumatic memories in Japan Memories are more recent - and much more raw - in Japan, where the March 11, 2011, Great East Japan Earthquake struck with a force of 9.0 off the northeast coast of Japan, triggering a tsunami that caused widespread destruction and a meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, killing more than 20,000 people. Tsunami warnings were downgraded in parts of Japan on July 30, as officials reported no injuries or damage as waves higher than 4 feet reached the Kuji Port. Contributing: Reuters
USA Today
a day ago
- Climate
- USA Today
Tsunami fears ease following 8.8 earthquake: 'A great relief to us'
Waves spawned by a massive earthquake in Russia's Far East turned out to be modest. In Hawaii, the governor calmly told residents to head for higher ground and warned of heavy damage. In Japan, where residents are still scarred from a 2011 tsunami and nuclear disaster, a normally staid TV newscaster screamed at his viewers: "Do not be glued to the screen. Evacuate now!" A wave of dread moved at lightning speed across the Pacific Ocean after one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded hit Russia's Far East early on July 30, churning up instant fears of a tsunami with the power to devastate communities from Alaska to California and as far away as French Polynesia and Chile. Then, hours later, after thousands braved gridlocked evacuation routes and displaced residents bedded down on hard shelter floors, came the relief. "So far, we have not seen a wave of consequence, which is a great relief to us," Hawaii Gov. Josh Green told reporters as he lifted some evacuation orders. More: Tsunami evacuation orders lifted in Hawaii, threat to West Coast eases Modest tsunami waves 'a blessing' More: Sirens blare, traffic gridlocks as Hawaii braces for tsunami threat The tsunami spawned by the quake turned out to be modest. Amid flooding and some injuries in Russia's Kamchatka region, the earthquake and seismic sea wave caused no reported loss of life. Tsunami waves of 5.7 feet reached Kahului in Hawaii, while the highest waves to hit the U.S. mainland were 4 feet in Crescent City, California. "It's kind of a blessing to not be reporting any damage," Green said. 'This is not going to be a 1964 event that we're looking at, destroying several blocks of the town,' Crescent City Manager Eric Weir told reporters, according to the Los Angeles Times. 'However, it is going to be an event that creates a lot of disruption in the ocean, a lot of strong currents. We're asking people to stay away from the beaches, stay away from the mouths of the river and any low-lying area.' Traumatic memories in Japan Memories are more recent – and much more raw – in Japan, where the March 11, 2011, Great East Japan Earthquake struck with a force of 9.0 off the northeast coast of Japan, triggering a tsunami that caused widespread destruction and a meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, killing more than 20,000 people. Tsunami warnings were downgraded in parts of Japan on July 30, as officials reported no injuries or damage as waves higher than 4 feet reached the Kuji Port. Contributing: Reuters
