Summary of “Elizabeth Warren Is Waging a Full-Body Fight to Defeat Trump”

Watching Warren this steamy summer as she works to move her party through the perilous wilderness of the Donald Trump administration, through the midterms and her own reelection to the Senate, and then perhaps toward a run for the presidency, she appears to have committed her whole body to the effort.
In the absence of a clear favorite to challenge Trump and the Republicans, Warren has emerged in just the past few weeks as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, and accordingly, the candidate-of-the-moment for 2020.
The battles have burned hottest with Trump himself; it’s clear that Warren scares the president nearly as much as that other 60-something white grandma did, and he devotes an inordinate amount of energy to insulting her.
There are those – often political reporters and longtime Democratic denizens – who remind me that she was a weak candidate in 2012, that her politics are too far left, and that she’d activate the Trump base; an early 2017 poll showed Trump losing to a generic Dem but winning against Warren.
Warren’s style – her competence, precision, and practicality – combined with the apparently endless thrill of hating Hillary Clinton, along with stories pushed by the right to maximally alienate the left about her purportedly cozy private relationships with the bankers she publicly assails, plus the fact that she is the same age, race, and gender as the former Democratic candidate, mean that Elizabeth Warren basically is Hillary Clinton – or could be cast as smudgily indistinguishable from her within about five minutes of entering a presidential contest.
Notwithstanding all this, Warren has already been described, in her 2012 race, as “Hectoring” and “Schoolmarmish”; in 2016, Mika Brzezinski, that great advocate for women’s “Value,” suggested that Warren was “Shrill unmeasured and almost unhinged.” In a 2016 story about the senator, the New York Times characterized Warren as “Imperious” and “Never short on confidence” as she swept through congressional hallways in her “Jewel-toned jacket” – a frame absolutely chilling in its familiarity.
After the indictment of 12 Russian nationals for hacking the DNC server in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 election, Warren tweeted to Trump that he should “Cancel your ridiculous Putin summit and get your butt on a plane back to the United States.” In a pep talk with her state campaign staff in June, Warren baldly declared, “This is an administration that is rife with corruption, with favoritism, and with just outright stupidity.”
When in the fall she told her own #MeToo story on Meet the Press, about back when she was a “Baby law professor” and a senior faculty member chased her around his desk trying to grab her, she recalled thinking, “If he gets hold of me, I’m going to punch him right in the face.” And Warren is so proud of her Twitter takedowns of our president that she actually published many of them, in Twitter format, in her recent book, This Fight Is Our Fight.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How the BBC Women Are Working Toward Equal Pay”

Equal pay is easily confused with the gender pay gap, which is a measure of the difference between men’s and women’s average earnings.
A law firm can pay equally and still have a gender pay gap, if most of the women it employs are associates and most of its partners are men.
It wasn’t until 1963 that the Equal Pay Act enshrined into law the principle of equal pay for men and women.
While women of Asian descent earn eighty-seven cents on the white-male dollar, black women are typically paid sixty-three cents and Latina women fifty-four.
On the last day of January, 2018, Carrie Gracie appeared before a parliamentary committee that, prompted by her resignation letter, had called a hearing to examine the issue of pay at the BBC. The company had released the results of an “Equal pay audit,” which found that, for on-air talent, “There does not appear to be any form of systemic discrimination against either men or women.” The pay gap at the BBC was nine per cent.
Last year, the U.K. began requiring organizations with more than two hundred and fifty employees to make an annual report of four measures: gender pay gap in hourly pay, gender pay gap in bonus pay, percentage of men and women receiving bonuses, and proportion of men and women in each quartile of the pay scale.
According to BBC Women, by July more than a thousand women had asked the corporation to look at their pay.
Some were in the early stage of discussions; some were taking settlements and moving on; others were holding out to see if anyone would achieve what one of the founding members of BBC Women described to me as “The holy grail”-pay parity, full pension restitution, and up to six years’ back pay.

The orginal article.

Summary of “He Cooks, She Cooks. He Elevates, She Relates.”

Are great chefs also great artists? They could be-if being “Great” is taken as read. Food has appeared in art since time immemorial.
The program defines the “Great” chef on these terms, just as the canon of fine art defines the great artist.
Greatness even becomes pedigree; male chefs can even call their own work great while knocking women’s down.
RĂ©ne Redzepi reclaiming Nordic ingredients and identity is great; Alex Atala reclaiming Brazilian food as elevated is great; Christina Tosi reclaiming childhood nostalgia is relatable.
Whether a great male chef, a great male author, or a great male filmmaker, Kennedy is certain that greatness breeds premature forgiveness: “The idea of greatness, of course, is so deeply tied to white, patriarchal, capitalist notions of worth. I suspect that’s what makes it so difficult for us to let go of the heroes we’ve built up, such as Batali. If he was a great chef, someone who succeeded in all the ways we are taught are significant, then surely there must be some way to forgive him his trespasses?”.
Cooking together is radical; eating together is revolutionary; the chefs and restaurateurs who support the communities around them are great; the people who ask if everyone is OK before service are great; white chefs can still be great.
First, asking whether “Great” chefs can be “Great” artists perpetuates the public reproducibility of one kind of greatness.
Perhaps great chefs can be great artists, and perhaps food can be nourishment and art, without cleaving a distinction that alienates entire demographics and cultures.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Are Male and Female Brains Biologically Different?”

There’s no doubt that whatever their brains look like, behavior and school performance differences between men and women are strongly shaped by socialization.
Eliot said that Damore has a deep misunderstanding of neuroscience and that his letter grossly overstated the role of testosterone in male and female bodies.
While testosterone is linked to aggression, it doesn’t offer a universal explanation for male behavior.
Eliot also said that everyone, regardless of sex, can be competitive or aggressive, but males and females might have different ways of expressing those traits based on social norms.
She said that even scientifically indisputable differences, such as the oft-cited statistic that male brains are 10 percent bigger than female brains, don’t mean anything.
If scientists and academics were to begin with the premise that men and women are equally capable, Eliot said, their studies would result in radically different conclusions.
“People said brilliance in math is a male phenomenon,” Eliot said.
“The default assumption is that these differences are hard-wired … But male and female brains are not much [more] different from each other than male or female hearts or kidneys.”

The orginal article.

Summary of “‘Ndrangheta mafia: more powerful, and scarier, than it’s ever been.”

As well as providing a window into the worlds of three very complex women, Perry’s book is a journey through Italy’s horrifying, still-powerful underworld.
It’s got itself to a point now where it’s indispensable to the functioning of the modern world and it’s very difficult to root out.
Well, yeah, that’s actually a very good question, and one of the reasons why it’s so kind of elusive and slippery.
These very closed, traditional families where, in the ‘Ndrangheta families, women are essentially viewed as chattel, as property.
Up until these women spoke, you know, the state really knew very little.
Maria Concetta Cacciola is very much sheltered and a victim and perhaps the most sort of one-dimensional character, but Giuseppina Pesce was a gangster.
Did you ever feel in danger reporting the story? Because I know that the different mafia organizations have gone after journalists for that.
There’s been a lot of chaos in Italy politically for a very, very long time.

The orginal article.

Summary of “‘Brooklyn Nine-Nine’ and the Gift of Amy Santiago”

As Joanna Robinson notes in Vanity Fair, the pair appreciates each other’s flaws, with Amy enjoying Jake’s “Juvenile frat-boy humor” and Jake valuing her “Obsessive need for organization.” Their connection allows the show to emphasize Amy’s vulnerability and Jake’s supportiveness.
When Amy is nervous about an exam, Jake sets up a mock test for her.
Perhaps one reason that well-written, smart female characters in network comedies-like Amy Santiago, Rory from Gilmore Girls, and Leslie Knope from Parks and Recreation-resonate so strongly is because audiences rarely get to see them.
Another Amy over at CBS’s The Big Bang Theory, Amy Farrah Fowler, is a neurobiologist who fits the socially-awkward-smart-woman archetype despite having the potential to be a better developed character.
In a recent episode, Brooklyn Nine-Nine allows Amy to break down this dichotomy while recognizing its cultural pervasiveness.
Soon after she’s promoted to sergeant in Season 5, Amy finds herself juggling the dual demands of wedding-dress shopping and being a leader in the historically male world of law enforcement.
In a sobering moment, asks Amy why she’s “Being such a nutjob” about the whole process.
So Amy tells her, “Because being a female sergeant is difficult. I have to work twice as hard to gain my officers’ respect and looking at girly dresses isn’t going to help.” In order to become a worthy leader, Amy feels she must abandon her “Girly” side and become the type of emotionless female boss that people expect.

The orginal article.

Summary of “My Visit to the World’s First Gym for Your Face”

A few weeks ago I received one that announced the arrival, in New York, of “FACEGYM, the world’s first gym for your face.” Face gym, I said out loud to myself.
FaceGym, a British company, promised to “Tone, tighten, and sculpt the face,” with the help of a “Trainer,” who would perform face exercises such as “Knuckling, faceballing, high-speed hand whipping, flicking and pinching.” The face workout would consist of a warmup, a cardio portion, a sculpting portion, and a lengthening cool-down.
FaceGym, the world’s first gym for your face, is located on the new second floor of Saks Fifth Avenue-a futuristic, white-lit, thirty-two-thousand-square-foot enclosure.
One sign hawked an “Anti-aging manicure.” Another encouraged me to “Unlock the perfection.” I walked around with sunglasses hiding my face bloat: I had spent the previous four days studiously poisoning myself at a music festival in Gulf Shores, Alabama, and had gone straight from a party to the airport, where I immediately fell asleep on the floor outside of security.
Beauty, Widdows writes, used to be a stand-in for goodness: in fairy tales, you can tell the morality of a character from the look of her face.
Friendly woman named Catherine led me to a chair, where she explained the motto of FaceGym-“Muscles first, skin second”-and showed me the tools she would use to exercise the apparently forty-plus muscles in my face.
To “Sculpt” my face, Catherine engaged in a vigorous, near-excruciating massage that she said would further release the toxins between my face muscles, and make the muscles sit higher on top of the bone.
The right side of my face looked noticeably different.

The orginal article.

Summary of “The Hidden Women of Architecture and Design”

Like a pioneer woman on the modernist frontier, Belew had to design what the architecture lacked: improvisation.
Mostly women like Ruth Belew: handy, empathetic, often educators, ready to step in where they saw design with a capital “D” falling short.
These women may not be listed as “Inventors.” They may not have had the training to be “Architects.” But they were the driving professional forces behind the beginnings of modern childhood and kindergarten education.
As children gained their own spaces, their own toys, and their own diminutive furniture, beginning in the nineteenth century, refining, proselytizing, and testing designs meant for children was women’s work.
Froebel himself thought women were better at teaching small children-an early example of gender essentialism that was both helpful and hurtful.
A separate set of women brought educational opportunity to African-American youth, often through the National Association of Colored Women’s Clubs.
“Young men learning skyscraper design from this woman was powerful and transformative.” Women are now recognized as toy inventors and have top billing as architects of children’s spaces, which is great, but raising children, like architecture, also requires collaboration.
Is it the man who invented building blocks who has the influence, or the hundreds of women that got them into children’s hands-and tinkered with their shapes and sizes along the way? The answer, of course, is both.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Jane Fonda: ‘I’m 80! I keep pinching myself. I can’t believe it!'”

Fonda isn’t even hugely interested in Cannes these days, not like back in the day “When people wore their own clothes and went there to talk about movies”.
If Book Club is a sort of geriatric Sex and the City, then Fonda plays the Samantha character, a leopardskin-clad businesswoman who schedules sex and won’t commit.
Jane Fonda was born in 1937, the daughter of the actor Henry Fonda, and while her life was socially privileged, her home life was agony, and her mother, Frances Ford Seymour, killed herself in a psychiatric hospital.
Fonda wants to produce a new version of the film, with younger actors, who now find their work life even more precarious on zero-hours contracts.
I have to say it: Jane Fonda looks stunning, immaculately coiffed and made up, and with the poise and elegance that has always been hers.
In the States, there are still people who boycott Jane Fonda’s films because of how deeply involved she got in protesting against the Vietnam war.
Having been married several times and lived with various partners, and recently split up with her last boyfriend, the music producer Richard Perry, Fonda now lives in a gated retirement enclave with her own house, but a shared community centre with a pool and tennis courts “Where I always see one or two other residents who seem infinitely older than I am, but they probably aren’t. I never thought I would ever live there, but it’s great.”
Fonda is unimpressed by the romance in many modern films.

The orginal article.

Summary of “‘Everybody was telling me there was nothing wrong'”

Women, as well as low-income patients, experienced longer delays.
“We want to think that physicians just view us as a patient, and they’ll treat everyone the same, but they don’t,” says Linda Blount, president of the Black Women’s Health Imperative.
After following up with 85 patients who’d been diagnosed with ‘hysteria’ at the National Hospital in London throughout the 1950s – including by Slater himself – he discovered that, nine years later, more than 60% had been found to have an organic neurological disease, including brain tumours and epilepsy.
Women have long been considered the typical patients with psychogenic symptoms, so it’s no wonder that they are especially likely to find their symptoms dismissed as “All in their heads”.
There is particularly robust evidence showing that US patients of colour, black patients especially, are undertreated for pain.
Experts point to a stereotype – widely held by healthcare providers yet utterly false – that black patients are more likely to abuse prescription painkillers.
Consider the experience of patients with rare diseases, who go more than seven years, on average, before being correctly diagnosed.
While being misdiagnosed with the wrong physical disease doubled the time it took to get to the right diagnosis, getting a psychological misdiagnosis extended it even more – by 2.5 up to 14 times, depending on the disease.

The orginal article.