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)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...