Group items tagged

That’s the question behind the two main criticisms of “Girl.” One is that neither Dhont nor his co-writer, Angelo Tissens, nor the young actor who plays Lara, Victor Polster, are transgender

The other objection, the one that has prompted foes to label the film “traumatizing” and “sickening,” involves scenes near the end.

The outrage has played out ferociously online. The film critic Oliver Whitney wrote in The Hollywood Reporter that “Girl” is the “most dangerous movie about a trans character in years.” Whitney, who identifies as trans masculine, told me that seeing a trans girl mutilating herself suggests “it’s part of her survival, and that’s harmful.” He said he was most upset that the film “sends a damaging message to all audiences, but especially to trans folks suffering from dysphoria who may not have access to medical care or information about medical transitions.”

Three trans women who saw the film at a screening in Los Angeles said it was the film’s dark territory that made it compelling. Crystal Stull told me “Girl” was “the closest that cis people in society will ever get to understanding just how bad dysphoria can really get.

Ann Thomas, the founder of Transgender Talent, a talent listing service for trans people, chastised the campaign against it.“The message these arrogant trans activists are saying is that Nora doesn’t have the right to tell her story,” said Thomas, who also defended “Girl” in an opinion piece for The Advocate.

“We’re worried about harm reduction,” said Elena Rose Vera, the deputy executive director of Trans Lifeline, who has not seen the movie. “We just want to protect our community.”

Monsecour told me she hoped the trans community knew that “Girl” was a beginning, not an end.“I have a platform to speak with ‘Girl,’” she said. “Without ‘Girl,’ I wouldn’t have that. There’s a lot of work to do, but I’m confident that more trans people will tell their stories.”

“Bernie’s still being given a bit of a free pass by the national media,” he says. “I do not believe that he would be a strong candidate for our party in the fall. And, except for three months out of every four years, he’s not even of our party.”

Some such stories, he says, feature in another manuscript, written with the guidance of the late Richard Ben Cramer, the author of What It Takes, “the definitive book about the 1988 presidential race” in which Hart flew so high then fell. Its title is Baltimore: A Memoir and a piece of it is out there on the web. Some want O’Malley to rewrite it, he says, to tie his own story more closely to the idea he was the model for the mayor of Charm City played by Aidan Gillen in The Wire, David Simon’s groundbreaking HBO series. He’s not keen.

Of course, much of the energy that delivered such victories was determinedly progressive, akin to or directly supportive of Sanders and his transformative effect on the liberal cause. But O’Malley is as much a pillar of the party as Sanders is not.

e smiles. “Do you want me to speak more frankly?”

Here’s a guy who has been a kind of stalwart of the National Rifle Association, a man who said immigrants steal our jobs right up until he ran for president,

Such focus seems timely: with the federal government in Trump’s sclerotic grip, cities in particular have begun to take a lead. On climate change, for example, some US mayors have reacted to Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris deal by saying they will simply pursue its aims themselves.

The Gonzaga gathering, O’Malley says, is a friendly one, a chance for the old boys “to ask, ‘Hey, how are you doing? How’s your wife? How’s your kids? What are you up to?’

“We recognized each other from the Sunday shows and having served together. We shook hands … but it was not a moment for me to simply say, ‘Hey, how’s work?’ I know how work is with him.

om Perez, once the Maryland secretary of labor, ended up in the role but O’Malley supported a young mayor from the Republican heartlands: Pete Buttigieg, now a challenger in the presidential primary.

But in an echo of the frustrations of 2016, O’Malley criticises the way the DNC has run the primary, particularly the way debate qualifications based on polling data and donor numbers – changed this week – have kept the likes of the former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick (“a friend” to whom O’Malley has donated) and the Montana governor Steve Bullock firmly out of the spotlight.

I was out there rattling the tin cup, from county square to county square.”

“All of that’s part of the process. But at the end of the day, we have to nominate someone who can defeat him and who can bring our country together and govern.”

This creates an effect that should be familiar to any economist: the laws of supply and demand raise the value of women’s erotic capital, in particular their beauty, sex appeal and sexual competence. It is happening in Scandinavia as well as Mediterranean countries, in China and the US. The pattern is confirmed even in countries that are sexually “liberated” such as Finland and France. Men are two to ten times more likely to have affairs, buy pornography, seek lap-dancing clubs and erotic entertainments. And call girls’ earnings can exceed wages in nearly all the professions, despite working shorter hours.

This is an implicit rebuttal to feminist thinkers (like Sylvia Walby, Mary Evans, Monique Wittig or most recently Kat Banyard) who argue that men and women are “equal” in their sexual interest, as in everything else. This is obviously not true, which is why it should not surprise us that some women do use sex, and their erotic capital more generally, to get what they want.

The economic benefits of being physically and socially attractive can be substantial, especially in marketing, public relations, television, advocacy in the courts, as well as for actors, singers and dancers. But it’s broader than this: people working in the better-paid parts of the private sector are more attractive than those in the public and non-profit sectors. Tall and attractive people are more likely to be employed in professional jobs, like law or banking. For the ugly and short, it gets worse. Good-looking people can earn 10 to 15 per cent more than the average-looking, who in turn can earn 10 to 15 per cent more than the plain or ugly. The tall earn more than the short; the obese have earnings 10 to 15 per cent below average. Statistical analysis shows this beauty premium is not really just about cleverly disguised differences in intelligence, social class or self-confidence. Studies of lawyers reveal that there is always a premium for attractiveness that varies in size, but is not due to employer discrimination. The most attractive can earn 12 per cent more than the unattractive, and are 20 per cent more likely to achieve partnership in their firm, because they are more effective at pulling in customers.

there is a 25 percentage point difference in average earnings between unattractive and attractive minorities. This impact can be as big as the gap between having a degree and no qualifications at all—although it ranks well below intelligence as a determinant of life outcomes.

erotic capital—if seen as an economic endowment—is an especially important asset for people with few intellectual abilities and qualifications. In Brazil, investing in cosmetic surgery is seen as a sensible way of getting ahead in a culture where looks and sensuality count. In Britain, too, a 2009 survey of teenage girls found that one-quarter think it is more important to be beautiful than clever.

The head of the Church, the Pope, had been the most august witness of the coronation of the usurper; and Pius VII retained, to his dying day, a weakness for Bonaparte.

Hence, the attempts to restore what was left of confiscated church property, to endow the Church and not merely carry its expenses on the budget; hence the unsuccessful effort to replace the Concordat of 1802 by that which Francis I had made in 1517

Neither Louis XVIII nor Charles X fell into the fatal mistake made by Louis XV and Louis XVI, of barring promotion to roturiers—no commoner bishop was appointed after Massillon down to 1789. But efforts were made to “décrasser l'épiscopat”; and, by 1830, most bishops were nobles and legitimists

The great problem of the restored Church of France was the pastoral clergy. All through the years of the Consulate and Empire, the old priests, ordained before 1789

In some regions, faith was lively. But in others the thread of Christian life had been cut; a generation had grown up that knew little of the old faith. Churches had been pillaged, destroyed, secularized

There might seem few follies left to commit; but Charles X was a true kinsman of James II.

Yet Louis XIV and even Bossuet were irrelevant to the new situation of the Church of France. The parallel with James II was close. High church and Dissenters were alike alienated. So were less serious bodies of opinion. The zealous Sosthene de la Rochefoucauld was busy putting fig leaves on statues and lengthening the skirts of ballet dancers and, belatedly, the Prefect of Police was suppressing illegal brothels. Both measures alienated the studious youth of Paris, as did the attack on the Empire promenade in London their kin some half-century ago

the House of France now had an heir; for the birth of the enfant du miracle, the posthumous child of the Due de Berry, cut out the hated Due d’Orléans, on whose accession so many “liberal” hopes had been quietly placed. The birth of the Due de Bordeaux, better known as the Comte de Chambord, repeated the history of the English restoration

But the easy, legal transition from the elder to the younger branch, from the Bourbons who had learned nothing to the Bourbons who had come to terms with the modern world of the Revolution, was made impossible

Charles X, to universal surprise, showed in the first few months of his reign a talent for winning popularity that had been hidden while he was a chief of a political faction. Chateaubriand, Scott, Byron himself, and the efflorescence of new literary taste that we call the romantic movement, all worked to reconcile the young to the traditional monarchy

But, even in 1825, the ritual of the anointing aroused anti-clerical suspicions, as the royal mourning for Louis XVIII had aroused absurd suspicions that the new king was a “secret bishop” because he wore violet, the mourning colour of the House of France. Worse still was the impression made by Charles X’s walking in a jubilee procession, submissive to the clergy.

The conquest of Algiers, with all its immense and, at this moment, undecided consequences, is a great event in French history, even if the successful intervention in Spain is only remembered because the storming of the Troca-dero brought a new name into the nomenclature of French architecture

The faults and follies of the Restoration, serious enough even under Louis XVIII, were intolerable for the intelligent observer under Charles X. But, under these kings, France had a government that was “digne et probe.” Not many French governments since then have been able to claim as much.