"Grow up as good revolutionaries."
Above all, always be capable of feeling deeply any injustice committed against anyone, anywhere in the world. This is the most beautiful quality in a revolutionary.
The jury for the architecture prize declined to retroactively honor Ms. Scott Brown for work she did alongside her design partner and husband, Robert Venturi, who won the award in 1991.
“Insofar as you have in mind a retroactive award of the prize to Ms. Scott Brown, thepresent jury cannot do so,” said Peter Palumbo, the Pritzker chairman, in a letter to the two students. “Pritzker juries, over time, are made up of different individuals, each of whom does his or her best to find the most highly qualified candidate. A later jury cannot reopen or second guess the work of an earlier jury, and none has ever done so.”
“We should like to thank you for calling directly to our attention a more general problem, namely that of assuring women a fair and equal place within the profession,” he wrote. “To provide that assurance is, of course, an obligation embraced by every part of the profession, from the schools that might first encourage students to enter the profession to the architectural firms that must facilitate the ability of women to fulfill their potential as architects.”
Amazing kid. Turn on the caption on bottom right corner.
ITS activists have dressed as policemen and sex workers in Kiev; as marathon runners and Muslim men in London; and as nuns and maids in Paris. Femen, a Ukrainian women’s movement, mostly fights against pornography and prostitution—yet all its protestors demonstrate topless. Why are some feminists going bare-breasted?
Part of the reason is that most legal avenues have already been pursued, with marked success. British women gained the Equal Pay Act in 1970; their French sisters won the right to abortion in 1975; and by 1980 American women could sue for sexual harassment. Yet women’s bodies have become objectified on a scale “as never before”, says Kat Banyard, co-founder of UK Feminista, a British feminist movement. The female body is the new battleground, from campaigns against Page 3 girls and “lads’ mags”, to the SlutWalk marches, during which women claim their right to undress without insult.
Femen forms part of this fresh wave of feminist protest. Its early demonstrations targeted Ukraine’s sex industry and macho culture. Topless protests are intended to ridicule (mostly) male voyeurism. By stripping, Femen says, women expose their vulnerability but also use their naked bodies as weapons. Its grand aim is to give new meaning to the nude female, as a political tool instead of a sex object. “It no longer works to promote yoghurts and cars”, says Inna Shevchenko, the leader of Femen’s Paris branch and training centre. When the group first protested in 2008, activists dressed provocatively, but did not show their breasts; when one did on a whim in Kiev, Femen realised the media attention that nudity could garner. Alice Schwarzer, a leading German feminist, thinks that the protests work so long as the message gets more attention than the flesh.
This view is not universally held. Hind Makki, a Muslim feminist blogger, balks at their methods: “It is regressive to make yourself look like a sex toy,” she says. Others predict that media interest in protests by topless feminists will wane. That seems unlikely.
(One in a series of love letters to Amy Poehler)Amy Poehler was new to SNL and we were all crowded into the seventeenth-floor writers’ room, waiting for the Wednesday read-through to start. There were always a lot of noisy “comedy bits” going on in that room. Amy was in the middle of some such nonsense with Seth Meyers across the table, and she did something vulgar as a joke. I can’t remember what it was exactly, except it was dirty and loud and “unladylike.”Jimmy Fallon, who was arguably the star of the show at the time, turned to her and in a faux-squeamish voice said, “Stop that! It’s not cute! I don’t like it.”Amy dropped what she was doing, went black in the eyes for a second, and wheeled around on him. “I don’t fucking care if you like it.” Jimmy was visibly startled. Amy went right back to enjoying her ridiculous bit. (I should make it clear that Jimmy and Amy are very good friends and there was never any real beef between them. Insert penis joke here.)With that exchange, a cosmic shift took place. Amy made it clear that she wasn’t there to be cute. She wasn’t there to play wives and girlfriends in the boys’ scenes. She was there to do what she wanted to do and she did not fucking care if you like it.I was so happy. Weirdly, I remember thinking, “My friend is here! My friend is here!” Even though things had been going great for me at the show, with Amy there, I felt less alone.I think of this whenever someone says to me, “Jerry Lewis says women aren’t funny,” or “Christopher Hitchens says women aren’t funny,” or “Rick Fenderman says women aren’t funny…. Do you have anything to say to that?”Yes. We don’t fucking care if you like it.I don’t say it out loud, of course, because Jerry Lewis is a great philanthropist, Hitchens is very sick, and the third guy I made up.Unless one of these men is my boss, which none of them is, it’s irrelevant. My hat goes off to them. It is an impressively arrogant move to conclude that just because you don’t like something, it is empirically not good. I don’t like Chinese food, but I don’t write articles trying to prove it doesn’t exist.So my unsolicited advice to women in the workplace is this. When faced with sexism or ageism or lookism or even really aggressive Buddhism, ask yourself the following question: “Is this person in between me and what I want to do?” If the answer is no, ignore it and move on. Your energy is better used doing your work and outpacing people that way. Then, when you’re in charge, don’t hire the people who were jerky to you.If the answer is yes, you have a more difficult road ahead of you. I suggest you model your strategy after the old Sesame Street film piece “Over! Under! Through!” (If you’re under forty you might not remember this film. It taught the concepts of “over,” “under,” and “through” by filming toddlers crawling around an abandoned construction site. They don’t show it anymore because someone has since realized that’s nuts.)If your boss is a jerk, try to find someone above or around your boss who is not a jerk.* If you’re lucky, your workplace will have a neutral proving ground—like the rifle range or the car sales total board or the SNL read-through. If so, focus on that.Again, don’t waste your energy trying to educate or change opinions. Go “Over! Under! Through!” and opinions will change organically when you’re the boss. Or they won’t. Who cares?Do your thing and don’t care if they like it.
With women taking more than half of the country’s new bachelor’s degrees, many of them should be the chief breadwinners in their families. They’re not. How come?
In a cool new paper, Marianne Bertrand, Jessica Pan, and Emir Kamenica pose a theory that some people might find controversial but others might find intuitive: What if there’s a deficit of marriages where the wife is the top earner because — to put things bluntly — husbands hate being out-earned by their wives, and wives hate living with husbands who resent them?
If this were true, we would expect to see at least
threefour other things to be true. First, we’d expect marriages with female breadwinners to be surprisingly rare. Second, we’d expect them to produce unhappier marriages. Third, we might expect these women to cut back on hours, do more household, or make other gestures to make their husbands feel better. Fourth, we’d expect these marriages to end more in divorce. Lo and behold (as you no doubt guessed), the economists found all of those assumptions borne out by the evidence.
“There simply aren’t nearly as many relationships with women out-earning men as we would expect [through random pairing],” Kamenica told me. “And women who should out-earn their husbands based on their education and other demographics are more likely to stay at home [and not work] than the similar women who don’t out-earn the husbands,” Kamenica said.
But that’s not the most surprising finding from their research, he added. The most surprising thing was that wives who earn more from paid work also report doing significantly more chores around the house. This doesn’t make much sense, intuitively. For women and men at all income levels, more work in the office usually leads to less time spent doing chores at home. But suddenly, when a wife earns more than her husband, her hours spent on chores and childcare go up.
“Classical economics can’t explain that increase,” Kamenica said. “The only way to make sense of it is compensatory behavior.” In English, please? “Maybe the husband feels threatened, so she does more of the cooking, even though she earns more.”
The economists found the exact same trends living in Canada. Not only did they find a “sharp decrease in the number of couples once the wife’s income exceeds the husband’s,” but also they found no correlation between divorce and income … except when the wife earned more than her husband.
One hundred years ago, husbands and wives specialized. He worked for pay. She worked at home. But with married women working more and more, this paper suggests gender norms are changing slower than gender economics, and many women still aren’t comfortable out-earning their boyfriends — and many men still aren’t comfortable earning less than their wives.
Well, they’d better get comfortable! Women are going to be the primary breadwinners in more and more families for so many reasons — (1) the shift from brawn economy to service economy; (2) women’s growing share of college degrees; and (3) sexism softening among male-dominated industries as women establish themselves in more positions of power. A national aversion to successful wives is a really bad recipe for economic growth and family formation. Get over it, guys. It’s a woman’s world, now.
Bossypants, Tina Fey.
In the latest development in the showdown between Taiwan and the Philippines over the death of a Taiwanese fisherman at the hands of the Philippine coast guard, Taiwan is holding military drills near Philippine waters. The Philippines — its apology having been rejected by Taiwan — is also standing firm, saying it won’t “appease” the Taiwanese, while the United States is urging cooler heads to prevail. The standoff is just the latest in a string of geopolitical showdowns in which fishermen have served — sometimes unwittingly and sometimes wittingly— as lightning rods in East and Southeast Asian maritime territorial disputes.
How has the fisherman — a seemingly unassuming practitioner of his ancient craft — come to play this vital role on the international stage? There are a number of factors at play. For starters, Asian waters are running out of fish— which means more fishing boats are straying into foreign waters in search of good hauls. Then there’s the growing nationalism in many of these countries, which raises the stakes in these disputes and allows one arrested fisherman to take on national significance.
In addition, there’s the suspicion that some countries — notably China— really do use fishermen as proxies in their ongoing disputes with other countries — that these fishing boats are not the innocent bystanders caught up in forces greater than themselves that they seem. At the height of last year’s tensions with Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, it was reported that China was sending an “armada” of 1,000 fishing boats to the islands with the goal of overwhelming the Japanese coast guard — though the reports later proved false.
via Foreign Policy
(Source: , via explore-blog)