Writer in New York, NY.
Can he be equally fired for using "repress" when he meant "suppress?"
On Ad Sad
The subtext of this ad is that you can rescue the clinically depressed loved one/friend/family member in your life who sleeps a lot by spending a lot of money on Christmas this year.
While I've always thought tipping should be optional whenever you aren't getting sit-down service at a restaurant, if I worked in FINANCE, man, I would want to tip ALL THE GODDAMN TIME. It feels GOOD! How did not one person look around, take responsibility and think to themselves, hmmm, I make six figures, I think I'll put a ten in the jar?
this is incredibly good
I do think using "spoiler alert" as an of-the-moment idiom sort of retains a certain respectibility, as long as it's used with some irony, for example, to answer a rhetorical question with sarcastic emphasis: "Are people on Reddit as funny as they think they are? (Spoiler Alert: Nope.)"
Your reply to the first letter was on point and inspiring: I'm already a few years out of college, but... thank you for all of that.
As someone who works at another major foundation, I can confirm that philanthropic impunity from criticism is too common. It's nearly impossible to turn to another foundation to tell them what or what not to do, let alone call them out, especially since foundations work very hard to maintain a public appearance of political neutrality (lest the right-wing unleash and put you in its fundraising letters like it does to the ACLU).But many grantmakers are aware of a lot of the issues you raised, and I hear lots of whispers about how to acheive an "impact/results" model that is explicitly NOT like Gates, since many people we work with, especially in Africa, express concern about Gates' "we know how to do it best" attitude.
Rule number one should be that foundations need to show independence from their namesakes and benefactors (even if they're still alive). The current fad to emphasize results and impact, similarly, needs to be independent of this new worship of for-profit partnership, as you so eloquently described it. Sure, many foundations have been "throwing money" at certain things for so long, that obviously shifts in strategy and result tracking is neccessary (I think, for example, Rocco Landesman's controversial comments about supply/demand in the arts from last year were an admirable attempt to jumpstart that kind of discussion). But hopefully, major foundations can develop a definition of "results" that would be markedly different than how a corporation might envision it: that is, results being projects that have a multiplicative, "spiraling out" effect on social action, rather than, say, counting malaria cases and then counting mosquito nets.
Developing a clear idea of how philanthropy can trascend its origins is still a work in progress, but if foundations focus on root causes of inequality and injustice, and combine that with a hearty dose of shutting up and listening, they can stay relevant and do a lot of positive good.
@Shane Truax@facebook I do appreciate your point about how the author applied the Bechdel test, you're right, but I don't really think it's necessary to think of the pursuit of love as gendered. If Hollywood said to me, "all women want is a mate," I'd say, bullsh*t, but if Hollywood said to me, "all anybody wants is love," to me, that's harmless. I mean, heck, the civil rights issue of our decade revolves around the right to get married, around love! It's in this context this movie has been made, a context that specifically suggests love/partnership transcends gender. To apply an old construct that men are narratively "fixing" women at the end of movies with relationships, I think, is a mistake, if only when it comes to this movie.
I'm a little disturbed by how quickly and cynically you dismissed the "women speaking exclusively to each other" requirement of the Bechdel Test, which is merely a framework that points out the tremendous gender disparities in stories written for the screen. How suspicious and particular does one have to be to believe that merely having women in all the leading roles is not "female enough," to basically implicitly accuse them of being puppets on strings?
And to do it in the same breath while building insidious sexist straw-men out of what seem like innocent and (gasp!) positive movie reviews, as you said: "Eek."
I also think it's an unhelpful misreading of the movie to suggest that the spectre of the "male realm" of marriage haunts this movie. To say that is to take our outdated WWII era ideas about marriage and just slap them onto this movie without so much as the admission that the idea of marriage has changed since The Women came out (the original, not the remake). As if people in their 30s don't spend plenty of time going to their friends' weddings: why not just see the premise as the commonly-understood backdrop it is? The movie may be being marketed as an ensemble comedy, but this movie is really about Kristen Wiig's character, who is at sea for plenty of complex reasons, not simply because she doesn't have a man. What, are we not allowed to have women fall in love in movies now because it seems like a man is solving their problems?