Friday, June 1, 2012


First, we would like to apologize for the INSANELY long lapse in blog entries!!!  We have been working furiously on 2 Hopeful Spinsters: the web series and are prepping to launch our fundraising campaign next week!!!  More details on that soon.

In the meantime, we are getting back on the blogging train and have a GREAT series from The Washington Post that was sent to us.  A few months back, they dedicated the bulk of an issue to being single.  There are several articles and ALL are worth a gander. :)  

Happy Reading,

Heather & Dellany, Your 2 Hopeful Spinsters

Here's the link to the featured article:

The single life: Some people never find the love of their lives. And live to tell about it.  By Ellen McCarthy

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

A friend of a friend (thanks Joey!) passed along this interesting article for the NY Times, so 2 hope-ful spin-sters thought we'd pass it along to you.

Living Alone Means Being Social:  

One’s a Crowd

Riikka Sormunen

MORE people live alone now than at any other time in history. In prosperous American cities — Atlanta, Denver, Seattle, San Francisco and Minneapolis — 40 percent or more of all households contain a single occupant. In Manhattan and in Washington, nearly one in two households are occupied by a single person.
By international standards, these numbers are surprising — surprisingly low. In Paris, the city of lovers, more than half of all households contain single people, and in socialist Stockholm, the rate tops 60 percent.
The decision to live alone is common in diverse cultures whenever it is economically feasible. Although Americans pride themselves on their self-reliance and culture of individualism, Germany, France and Britain have a greater proportion of one-person households than the United States, as does Japan. Three of the nations with the fastest-growing populations of single people — China, India and Brazil — are also among those with the fastest growing economies.
The mere thought of living alone once sparked anxiety, dread and visions of loneliness. But those images are dated. Now the most privileged people on earth use their resources to separate from one another, to buy privacy and personal space.
Living alone comports with modern values. It promotes freedom, personal control and self-realization — all prized aspects of contemporary life.
It is less feared, too, for the crucial reason that living alone no longer suggests an isolated or less-social life. After interviewing more than 300 singletons (my term for people who live alone) during nearly a decade of research, I’ve concluded that living alone seems to encourage more, not less, social interaction.
Paradoxically, our species, so long defined by groups and by the nuclear family, has been able to embark on this experiment in solo living because global societies have become so interdependent. Dynamic markets, flourishing cities and open communications systems make modern autonomy more appealing; they give us the capacity to live alone but to engage with others when and how we want to and on our own terms.
In fact, living alone can make it easier to be social, because single people have more free time, absent family obligations, to engage in social activities.
Compared with their married counterparts, single people are more likely to spend time with friends and neighbors, go to restaurants and attend art classes and lectures. There is much research suggesting that single people get out more — and not only the younger ones. Erin Cornwell, a sociologist at Cornell, analyzed results from the General Social Survey (which draws on a nationally representative sample of the United States population) from 2000 to 2008 and found that single people 35 and older were more likely than those who lived with a spouse or a romantic partner to spend a social evening with neighbors or friends. In 2008, her husband, Benjamin Cornwell (also a sociologist at Cornell), was lead author of “The Social Connectedness of Older Adults,” a paper in the American Sociological Review that showed that single seniors had the same number of friends and core discussion partners as their married peers and were more likely to socialize with friends and neighbors.
SURVEYS, some by market research companies that study behavior for clients developing products and services, also indicate that married people with children are more likely than single people to hunker down at home. Those in large suburban homes often splinter into private rooms to be alone. The image of a modern family in a room together, each plugged into a separate reality, be it a smartphone, computer, video game or TV show has become a cultural cliché.
New communications technologies make living alone a social experience, so being home alone does not feel involuntary or like solitary confinement. The person alone at home can digitally navigate through a world of people, information and ideas. Internet use does not seem to cut people off from real friendships and connections.
The Pew Internet Personal Networks and Community Survey — a nationally representative survey of 2,512 American adults conducted in 2008 that was the first to examine how the Internet and cellphones affect our core social networks — shows that Web use can lead to more social life, rather than to less. “Social Isolation and New Technology,” written by the Rutgers University communications scholar Keith Hampton, reveals that heavy users are more likely than others to have large and diverse social networks; more likely to visit parks, cafes and restaurants; and more likely to meet diverse people with different perspectives and beliefs.
Today five million people in the United States between ages 18 and 34 live alone, 10 times more than in 1950. But the largest number of single people are middle-aged; 15 million people between ages 35 and 64 live alone. Those who decide to live alone following a breakup or a divorce could choose to move in with roommates or family. But many of those I interviewed said they chose to live alone because they had found there was nothing worse than living with the wrong person.
In my interviews, older single people expressed a clear preference for living alone, which allowed them to retain their feelings of independence and integrity, and a clear aversion to moving in with friends or family or into a nursing home.
According to research by the Rutgers sociologist Deborah Carr, at 18 months after the death of a spouse, only one in four elderly men and one in six elderly women say they are interested in remarrying; one in three men and one in seven women are interested in dating someday; and only one in four men and one in 11 women are interested in dating immediately.
Most older widows, widowers and divorced people remake their lives as single people. A century ago, nearly 70 percent of elderly American widows lived with a child; today — thanks to Social Security, private pensions and wealth generated in the market — just 20 percent do. According to the U.C.L.A. economist Kathleen McGarry: “When they have more income and they have a choice of how to live, they choose to live alone. They buy their independence.”
Some unhealthy old people do become dangerously isolated, as I learned when I researched my book about the hundreds of people who died alone in the 1995 Chicago heat wave, and they deserve more attention and support than we give them today. But the rise of aging alone is also a social achievement. The sustained health, wealth and vitality that so many people over age 65 enjoy allow them to maintain domestic independence far longer than previous generations did. What’s new today is that the great majority of older widows, widowers and divorced people prefer living alone to their other options, and they’re willing to spend more on housing and domestic help for the privilege. Some pundits predicted that rates of living alone would plummet because of the challenged economy: young people would move into their parents’ basements; middle-aged adults would put off divorce or separation for financial reasons; the elderly would move in with their children rather than hold on to places of their own.
Thus far, however, there’s little evidence that this has happened. True, more young adults have moved in with their parents because they cannot find good jobs; but the proportion of those between 20 and 29 who live alone went down only slightly, from 11.97 percent in 2007 to 10.94 percent in 2011. In the general population, living alone has become more common — in absolute and proportional terms. The latest census report estimates that more than 32 million Americans live alone today, up from 27.2 million in 2000 and 31 million in 2010.
All signs suggest that living alone will become even more common in the future, at every stage of adulthood and in every place where people can afford a place of their own.
Eric Klinenberg is a professor of sociology at New York University and the author of “Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone.”

Monday, March 5, 2012

2 hope-ful spin-sters Movie Review of the Moment... 
**spoiler alert**

Synopsis  (courtesy of Fandango):   CIA operatives FDR Foster (Chris Pine) and Tuck (Tom Hardy) are inseparable best friends and partners. Together, their good looks, covert abilities and combat skills rank them among the CIA's elite, but their longstanding personal and professional bond is put to the test when they meet Lauren (Reese Witherspoon). FDR and Tuck both fall hard for the beautiful blonde, and turn their deadly skills and an array of high-tech gadgetry against one another in an all-out battle for her love.

= rating symbol of the moment…spies.  *Ratings are on a scale of 1-5

Dellany's Review:
Genre:  Bromance  meets  comedy meets  action—sort of...
Let’s cut to the chase here:   We have co-dependent best friends Agent Tuck (Tom Hardy) and Agent FDR (Chris Pine)   who make a gentlemen’s bet with each other after meeting the beautiful Lauren (Reese Witherspoon).  They both wish to pursue her romantically.  But the reality is they are SPYING on her.  They are STALKING her.   They are using dangerous weapons targeted at each other, unbeknownst  to Lauren, while on these “romantic” dates.  May the best man win! What the heck?!? 

If I were Lauren, after finding out this has all gone on behind my back, I would have gotten two restraining orders , legally changed my name and moved to another country.  But in Hollywoodland, it’s ok that these two grown men were acting this way because they were gorgeous, rich and charismatic.   Look, I know that at the end of the day this was a movie that clearly was not trying to show a realistic point of view.  It’s great to go to a movie and forget real life when it’s properly directed with a strong execution. This film was all over the place.  Hey, I want to be an action flick, then I want to be a romance, then I want to be a thriller, then I want to have some touching moments... yada yada yada..

Lauren was too smart for the situation she found herself in.  Heck, Reese Witherspoon is too smart for this.  There were a lot of cheap shots and lame jokes.   Chelsea Handler playing Lauren’s best friend got a fat paycheck to act as herself.    Even the “player” side of me (everyone has a little bit in them!)  didn’t get a pay-off--  SPOILER ALERT:  Lauren DIDN’T sleep with both guys simply because “she’s just not that type of girl”… to quote Chelsea’s character—“After all  they do it to us all the time” and "You think Gloria Steinem got arrested and sat in a jail cell so you could act like a little bitch?"  Lauren, I would have loved it if you had slept with both of them just because you could and then left them both.  I wanted to see you do it simply because I’M not that type of girl. 

For my rating, this film doesn’t even get two spies from me. I’m giving it one- and it’s Tom Hardy without his shirt on.  Whew...

Heather's Review:
I don't even know where to begin with this movie because I'm just not sure what it was.  Was it romance?  Kinda.  Action?  Sorta.  Comedy?  It thought so.  Bromance?  Yes, I suppose that is the most accurate category.  But before I devour this movie, I must mention that the eye candy alone was almost worth the price of admission (especially Tom Hardy).  

Obviously, the scenarios in this movie would NEVER really happen.  I get that.  But the movie just took it a bit too far for me.  Let me break it down:  1st off, I have done online dating and NOT ONCE has someone like Tuck (Tom Hardy) been a “match” for me.  And even if a guy like him is on Match (or the like), one would have to go out with a lot of “duds” to finally be rewarded with this gem.  2nd, they are SPYING on Lauren (Reese Witherspoon) and completely violating her privacy.  COMPLETELY.  Ewww!!!!!!!!!  3rd, Chelsea Handler.  I love you Chelsea...I really think you are hilarious.  But I don't know if you were funny in this movie because I was distracted by whatever “work” you’ve had done and I wanted to focus on your jokes...not the fact that the bottom half of your face doesn’t move.  I’m sorry, but it’s true.  That’s one of perk of being a “funny gal.”  Your looks may fade (which I doubt yours were) but you will ALWAYS be funny.  Trust that.  And lastly, it came down to which guy would “win” Lauren.  Did it ever cross their mind that maybe she wouldn’t like either of you?  Nope, it sure didn’t appear that way.  

Now, it’s time for me to get off my high horse.  Because, as I walked out of the theatre, I heard everyone around me saying, “wasn’t that a fun movie?”  “I loved it!!!  It was so funny!”  and various similar quotes.  It may me stop and wonder, am I so “in my head” that I can’t just take a movie like that for what it is: fluff with eye candy?  Did I expect more because I think Reese is adorable?  Perhaps...on both counts.  But I still think it could have done a better job of telling this story.

Bottom line:  If you want to look at some pretty people, see thing blow up and not have to think...this is a sold choice for you.  But keep the bar really low. 

I give it 2 spies...for eye candy purposes only. 

Wednesday, February 29, 2012


Watch how 2 hope-ful spin-sters spent their Leap Day!

Enjoy and pass along!  After all, Leap Day only happens once every four years. :)

Heather & Dellany

Friday, February 24, 2012

With the Oscars just around the corner, 
   2 Hopeful Spinsters
 thought it only fitting that we share with you OUR favorite Red Carpet Hopeful Spinsters...ENJOY!!!

Heather's Hopeful Spinster Oscar goes to.....    

Viola Davis as AIBILEEN CLARK.  Aibileen is a 53 year old single maid who has raised 17 white babies and lost her own son tragically when he was only 24.  By all accounts, she is a spinster who faces struggles and adversities every day that we can't even begin to imagine.  But despite all that she fears and all that she's been through, she recognizes her value, her much so that she takes extraordinary risks to make her story public.  

"You is kind.  You is smart.  You is important."  Aibileen repeats that one phrase to her "special baby," Mae Mobley.  Mae Mobley is plump, has a bald spot, and even Aibileen admits, "she ain't cute".  But "cute" isn't one of Abilieen's values. Kindness, intelligence, fairness – these are what matter to Aibileen.  She teaches Mae Mobley the most important lesson we can EVER be taught:  SELF-LOVE.  Aibileen decides to try an experiment with her:  "what would happen if I told her something good every day?"  From that point on, she continually repeats "You is kind.  You is smart.  You is important" to Mae Mobley.  But not only does she repeat it to her, she makes her repeat it back to her.   Words ARE powerful...but we tend to believe the negative words so much more than the positive.  Why is that???  Let's turn that ship around and get those affirmations going. :)  Why the heck not?

In a society where SO much emphasis is placed on the perfect partner, the perfect size, the perfect hair, the perfect skin, the perfect outfit, etc..., it's refreshing to see a character like Aibileen.  She makes me step back and look at the big picture.  My worth and value are not defined by the relationships I have or don't have.  My worth is defined by who I am...on the inside.  How great is that?  

Thanks, Aibee...I needed that.

Dellany's thoughts on the matter...

Why Melissa McCarthy played one of my most favorite spinster characters this Oscar season:  First of all, I want to say Oscar (which is a man's name interestingly enough) needs to show more women some love- especially SPINSTER women.. I took a good, hard long look at the actresses nominated and out of the films ( that I did see) most of the nominated actresses played either married,engaged, under the Spinster age of 27 or HOPELESSly committed gals of all ages to their beaus..(pronunciation of beau- also sounds like the man name BO, hmmm).

That being said, Melissa McCarthy's MEGAN stood out immensely. MEGAN was loud, over the top, crude, plain in looks, heck by Hollywood's standard not desirable in any way shape or form.  But look a little deeper- what did she have that a lot of women struggle with and can't seem to obtain? Confidence. MEGAN believed in herself. Who cares that she is surrounded by size 0-4's who dress better, look prettier and come across more socially inclined. She carried herself as if she had the looks of Angelina Jolie, brains of Hillary Clinton and wit of a crass Steve Martin. She lived her life as if nobody was watching, and even if they were, SHE DIDN"T CARE.  She got food poisoning in a hoity toity wedding boutique shop- did she hold it in to cause herself more pain? No. She was the most honest about her "ailment" and found a quick solution. When MEGAN was on the plane to Vegas she flirted shamelessly with the undercover air marshall next to her- who really thought he was going to go for her? She didn't question it - not one bit. Finally, as Kristen Wiig's character was at the lowest of lows, feeling sorry for herself it was MEGAN who led her to see the light. She made you think in that scene no matter what you are going thru any woman could do anything, especially if you are a spinster!

My HOPEFUL SPINSTER award goes to... Melissa McCarthy as MEGAN. Thank you for showing me at the end of the day it's not good looks, style or  a need to settle for a man to make one feel "complete". A positive attitude, big heart, confidence and a vehicle full of puppies will suffice :)

Wednesday, February 22, 2012


We wanted to share some great articles that were sent to us.  They offer two unique perspectives on the single life.

The 1st discusses America's obsession with single people:

Singled Out

Why are Americans still so obsessed with single people—and so scared by them?

By Katie Roiph  
Check it out HERE

The 2nd offers an interesting method of attracting your soul mate:

Shiva: Matchmaker God

A time-honored Hindu practice yields powerful romantic results

BY: Lavina Melwani   
 HERE you go...

And DON'T forget to enter our contest!!!  Only 1 week left to submit those tales to!  We've already had some UNBELIEVABLE submissions!!!

Happy Hump Day!!!

Heather & Dellany

Monday, February 20, 2012


Hello Everyone!

We are gearing up for our upcoming, scripted web series, 2 Hopeful Spinsters!   We're brimming with ideas but would LOVE to hear your stories too! 

  • Have any crazy & unbelievable dating stories?
  • How about some insane and cringe-worthy spinster stories?
  • Have you witnessed a dating experience that makes you glad you're off the market?
  • Any tales of family dating pressure that make you wish you were adopted?

Fellow hopeful spinsters, spinsters-in-training, married friends of spinsters, man friends of spinsters...start submitting those stories NOW!!!  And if we use your story, you'll get  a writing credit AND a cameo in that episode. *must live in LA or be willing to travel to LA...uh...on your own dime.  Sorry, no sponsors yet. :)

Please email all stories to no late than February 29th.  Nothing beats a Leap Year deadline for a spinster tale.  Sure beats asking a man to marry you, eh??? (Click HERE to read about that Leap Year tradition.)

We look forward to hearing your stories!!!

Heather & Dellany