Showing posts with label demographics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label demographics. Show all posts

Friday, May 29, 2009

A (very) novel concept

A group of University of Chicago students think it's time the campus focused more on its men.

A third-year student from Lake Bluff has formed Men in Power, a student organization that promises to help men get ahead professionally. But the group's emergence has been controversial, with some critics charging that its premise is misogynistic.

Others say it's about time men are championed, noting that recent job losses hit men harder and that women earn far more bachelor's and master's degrees than do men.

"It's an enormous disparity now," said Warren Farrell, author of "The Myth of Male Power" and former board member of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women. He noted, among other things, an imbalance in government and private initiatives that advance the interests of women and girls.

This sounds like a fantastic idea to us. Steve Saltarelli, founder of this group which includes women, said Men in Power would host pre-professional groups in law, medicine and business, sponsor speakers as well as mentor local middle school students. And in particular with regard to mentoring, it is our belief that because of their collective life-experiences these, presumably middle-class males would provide better and wiser counseling to their young charges than would females regardless of their demographic background.

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Hillary: Reagan Democrat?


David Brooks of the NYT breaks down the cultural and educational divide within the Democratic Party. Good read. Our assessment of the voting trends during the primaries leads us to the conclusion that Hillary has experienced success in reining-in many rural whites and urban/rust belt ethnic conservatives (read: Catholic and Eastern Orthodox descendants of Southern and Eastern Europe, respectively) that voted for Reagan and both Bushes. This has been aided in no small part by the Republicans themselves tossing to the curb their brand as fiscal conservatives and social conservatives with shameful spending and a handful of highly-publicized sex scandals.

Article does include one very interesting and suspect line:

“In Pennsylvania, Obama did everything conceivable to win over Clinton’s working-class voters”

Was Brooks in a coma when Obama bowled that 37 and when he made the “bitter” comments?