Why Oh Why
About This Show
Named a best new podcast of 2016 by The New York Times, NPR, Huffington Post and iTunes. Andrea Silenzi speaks with friends, experts, and guys in bars about where love, dating and sex meets technology. The show tells the stories about relationships often blurring the lines between memoir, documentary, and fiction.Read more »
Most Recent Episode
Meet a new podcast: Bad With Money with Gaby Dunn
2 days ago
Friends, it’s been a while. I stopped by the Panoply studios to chat with our old Why Oh Why producer, Lindsey. Somehow, she's been able to fill the hole left by Why Oh Why by working on another show called Bad With Money with Gaby Dunn, and I think you'll love it. To get you started, here's an episode called Health is Wealth. Be sure to listen to the end to find out why it was harder for Lindsey to make an episode of Why Oh Why about her birth control than it was to write about what’s going on in her savings account. About Bad With Money: Join TV writer, actor, and New York Times best-selling author Gaby Dunn (aka America's Deadbeat Sweetheart) for season three of Bad With Money. After two seasons of reckoning with her own financial identity, Gaby's ready to give the American financial system an identity crisis. Every week, Gaby brings a queer, feminist, unabashedly radical point of view to conversations with celebrities, journalists, politicians, authors, activists, and fellow deadbeats. If you're sick of podcast "experts" giving you practical financial advice, you're going to love Bad With Money - the show that knows there's nothing practical about money, and isn't afraid to freak out about it. Subscribe in Apple podcasts, Google podcasts, or wherever you like to listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesRead more »
Episodes of This Show
Dec 26, 2017
Dec 17, 2017
Rated 4 out of
Increasing episode value, have recommended
A little hit or miss, especially with the earlier episodes, but entertaining enough to want to continue listening. Probably the most opinion-heavy, socially liberal podcast I've listened to. Have enjoyed listening, and it shows great promise to continue on its upward trend!
It'd good enough that I've played parts of it for other people.
Date published: 2017-03-10
Rated 5 out of
Lighthearted podcast that gives a good perspective
As a man, this podcast is an interesting glimpse into the dating experience of women. It's lighthearted and funny, good background noise for doing household chores. Don't expect to learn a ton, but enjoy the ride for what it is.
Date published: 2017-03-09
Rated 2 out of
Hard to get through.
I should begin this review by saying that I understand that other people don't have the same experiences of me. In fact, that's why I listen to certain podcasts; because I want to see if I can somehow get a taste of what it's like to see through someone else's eyes.
With that being said, this podcast is hard to get through. Andrea Silenzi seems to be using this medium as a vehicle for her personal opinions about dating and love. After trying to listen to four episodes, I found the tone of her voice particularly annoying since I couldn't pin down whether or not she was on the verge of laughing or trying to affect a "meaningful" tone. It doesn't feel genuine. Most of her input and interjections into background carry with them this kind-of "better than thou" or "above ye" implication. Especially parts concerning Randy. She invites the guest on to share his experiences, and then bags on him for being weird. The only weird thing I heard him say in the first four episodes was the thing about the rabbit (magic / talent show) situation and that didn't seem weird or creepy, but more sad and relatable as something somebody wants out of life and it simply doesn't go as planned. My point being, in the world of Creative Writing, we have a phrase that goes "show, don't tell" and all I'm hearing is her telling the listener that he's weird and creepy. He may, in fact, be weird and creepy but I don't believe Andrea Silenzi because I don't trust her judgement and she hasn't "shown" us much of anything. Especially when you consider the next episode (episode 3) where she's "meddling" with two people on a date. Her friend Kate sounds like someone to stay away from completely, and David (the guy she was on a date with) sounds like a really nice guy, but that episode sort of leaves the listener hanging as to what relief David is going to have. In fact, one can tell that Andrea does not care what his relief is, but, instead, opts for the fade-to-black with a comment about how she thinks he feels about the situation in a way that attempts to contrive meaning from a situation that ACTUALLY means something; like adding ellipses at the end of a verse to make it more "meaningful" when instead it just feels cheap. I was waiting for the host to explore the depths of what it means that David and other David met each other and how this reflects on Kate; but no, we are left with much more surface level content.
This is precisely why I don't trust her judgement, because she was hoping two people would kiss after their quiz, or interview, or whatever you want to call that awkward date/interrogation was that they were on. If she believes this was a successful date, then I'd be afraid to be romantically involved with her since I don't think she understands what love is. If she were to read this and think that I must have missed something, then the argument can be made that the podcast wasn't put together well enough for me to see what she saw, or feel what she felt.
To close out what I started with, I cannot get behind this podcast because nothing in it relates to my life or understanding of how love and romance works. This podcast scares me a little bit because I think of all of the people (and can look at reviews applauding this podcast) who seem to be able to identify with it. I can't help but think to myself "what a dark place they must live in". I can't even get a peek into places that I don't know because the podcast isn't very neutral, or inviting to listeners that have different perspectives. The recording quality is decent enough, the music and transitions are alright, and the format is good. It's not a terribly put-together thing, all things considered. However, those things can't save work that is based on a broken foundation.
The difference between great journalism and op-ed pieces is that great journalism is investigatory and neutral in nature. This podcast feels like it's trying to be investigatory, but instead comes across as judgmental and no different than any Fox News talking-head about a subject of particular interest to the creator. Back to Radiolab it is.
Date published: 2017-01-31