Skip to main content

Maybe communicate that at some point you would care

actually says that this is "the first generation in which more women than men have college degrees" and that women outearn men in less than a quarter of American heterosexual couples. If gender inequality that favored men hadn't been the norm for so long, such modest advances for women wouldn't be news at all. (Kate Harding, “College gender gap levels off,” Salon, 26. January 2010)

Apparently it won't be worth a worry until enough women have entered college that they equal all those generations of men who've been given degrees, even though most of them are now dead, or getting there. Of the now, and of the subsequent future, how many women are getting degrees? and how many men? And why? Is it because college now favors those more weighted to do as they’re told? Who can please enough, stay within parameters enough, to ensure everything is steady-enough to carry them quietly but assuredly on through? Is it because girls actually experience a less traumatic upbringing than boys -- who are viewed as disobedient, and expected to take it -- and therefore are able to keep steady through the climb while guys fall this way and that? Is it "Gran Torino"? Or was that just part of the backlash of men who are uncomfortable when women prosper and grow?

According to Morris Dickstein's new book, "Dancing in the Dark," the depression was terrible for sex, 'cause most men felt emasculated as they saw their wives become the primary breadwinners. He doesn't go into it much, but he certainly doesn't suggest this was a good thing, a way for men to experience some of the inhibition of power women have historically felt, for instance.

Link: College gender gap levels off (Salon)


Popular posts from this blog

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …