About the writing team of Proulx, Ossana, and McMurtry...which one got the Oscar?
Regarding women CEOs...I challenge you to name even 10 female CEOs in the Fortune 500!
Maybe things have changed among the places of accomplishment. But, what about the everyday world of poor women? Women are still pretty much in the same place they've been for 20, 30, 50 years. Supplying cheap or free entertainment for men via coerced sex, and they have to pay the ultimate price...children and the continued cycle of poverty.
I am not going to browse google looking for female CEO's, when we all know that they exist.
On second thought yes I am, as I am tired of hearing the Feminist party line on the "glass ceiling" go uncontested. And as I am also equally tired of hearing the Feminist party line about how women "suffer in the educational system" go uncontested, so I will link again to "The War Against Boys" Women CEOs for FORTUNE 500 companies
There are more women running FORTUNE 500 companies this year than there were last year. Currently, 10 FORTUNE 500 companies are run by women* (up from 9 last year), and a total of 20 FORTUNE 1000 companies have women in the top job (up from 19).
CEO Company Rank
Claire Babrowski RadioShack 423
Brenda C. Barnes Sara Lee 111
Dorrit J. Bern Charming Shoppes 641
Mary E. Burton Zale 715
Patricia Gallup PC Connection 992
Susan M. Ivey Reynolds American 280
Andrea Jung Avon Products 281
Kay Krill AnnTaylor Stores 786
Linda A. Lang Jack in the Box 692
Kathleen A. Ligocki Tower Automotive 551
Anne Mulcahy Xerox 142
Janet L. Robinson New York Times 557
Paula G. Rosput Reynolds Safeco 339
Patricia F. Russo Lucent Technologies 255
Mary F. Sammons Rite Aid 129
Marion O. Sandler Golden West Financial 326
Stephanie A. Streeter Banta 940
Margaret C. Whitman eBay 458
Mary Agnes Wilderotter Citizens Communications 768
Dona Davis Young Phoenix 666
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/womenceos/
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This we think we know: American schools favor boys and grind down girls. The truth is the very opposite. By virtually every measure, girls are thriving in school; it is boys who are the second sexby Christina Hoff Sommers
The War Against Boys It's a bad time to be a boy in America. The triumphant victory of the U.S. women's soccer team at the World Cup last summer has come to symbolize the spirit of American girls. The shooting at Columbine High last spring might be said to symbolize the spirit of American boys.
That boys are in disrepute is not accidental. For many years women's groups have complained that boys benefit from a school system that favors them and is biased against girls. "Schools shortchange girls," declares the American Association of University Women. Girls are "undergoing a kind of psychological foot-binding," two prominent educational psychologists say. A stream of books and pamphlets cite research showing not only that boys are classroom favorites but also that they are given to schoolyard violence and sexual harassment.
In the view that has prevailed in American education over the past decade, boys are resented, both as the unfairly privileged sex and as obstacles on the path to gender justice for girls. This perspective is promoted in schools of education, and many a teacher now feels that girls need and deserve special indemnifying consideration. "It is really clear that boys are Number One in this society and in most of the world," says Patricia O'Reilly, a professor of education and the director of the Gender Equity Center, at the University of Cincinnati.
The idea that schools and society grind girls down has given rise to an array of laws and policies intended to curtail the advantage boys have and to redress the harm done to girls. That girls are treated as the second sex in school and consequently suffer, that boys are accorded privileges and consequently benefit—these are things everyone is presumed to know. But they are not true. n.b. this article in the Atlantic is 4 pps long, to read it in its entire (not that I expect doctrinaire victimized feminists to do so, but there are some men on this site WHO WILL READ IT AND NEED TO READ IT) go to :
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200005/war-against-boys_________________________________________________________________
Wasn't there a 2005 Oscar given best "screenplay"? And wouldn't the award have been given to both Ossana and McMurtry? Proulx did not write the screenplay, so she would not have been considered.
The world of "poor women". IMO I think that to offer FACTUAL REFERENCED information about how "women" are being used for
"coerced"? sex is a bit more useful than subjective unreferenced hearsay. I would suggest that information about the widespread family planning assistance and public welfare assistance that is being offered to those same single mothers might also be important.
And could there POSSIBLY be a correlation between
FREE FOOD + FREE HOUSING + FREE MEDICAL CARE AND MORE BABIES? As far as men knocking the women up and abandoning them when they get pregnant and refusing to help support the kids, I suggest prison farm vacations for those men - work and work under the careful supervision of the prison system in order to pay for their children's support.
I think the link between poor education, babies and poverty is well known. If some women are choosing to follow that foolish route, then how is that anyone's fault but their own? We make our own choices in life, and coloring everyone with victimhood crayolas certainly doesn't solve the problem of poverty. It it did, it would have worked long ago, in Lyndon Johnsons' "War on Poverty" in the 1960's. Since then we have taxed producing working people to the tune of TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in order to support what has essentially become a class self perpetuating baby factories - a permanent underclass of nonproducing people. I think that it is time to change tactics.