题目内容
First there was a Washington Post article published shortly after the elections on the presumptive new House speaker, "Muted Tones of Quiet Authority: A Look Suited to the Speaker." It offered the information that "Pelosi’s suit was by Giorgio Armani -- the Italian master of neutral tones and modem power dressing- and she wore it well."The article at least appeared in the newspaper’s Style section, but was chock--full of psychoanalytic forays into Pelosi’s wardrobe choices, asserting that an Armani suit, for a woman, is a tool for playing with the boys without pretending to be one. I would wager that Pelosi is one woman who doesn’t play around with anyone.Then there was a New York Times article in January in its Thursday Styles section titled "Speaking Chic to Power."While noting that Pelosi, barely in her new job a month, had brought the House to votes on a minimum wage increase, stem cell research and Medicare drug prices, the article said "she did it looking preternaturally fresh, with a wardrobe that, while still subdued and over-reliant on suits, has seldom spruced the halls of Congress."Similar articles appeared in the Baltimore Sun and Chicago Tribune. Mentioned were other women politicians and their fashion choices, such as Sen. Hillary Clinton’s hair style and preference for black pantsuits or Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s haircut. The question is whether focusing on the clothing choices of serious female political players risks rendering them less than serious. Another question is whether such reports warrant precious space. After all, with rare exceptions, male politicians are seldom scrutinized for their choice of suits.Some reporters and editors haven’t figured out a way to cover female politicians that doesn’t rely on the old stereotypes, says Gail Dines, sociology and women’s studies professor at Wheelock College in Boston. "To be a woman politician, you have to strategize and work hard, and yet what matters is what designer you’re wearing. It’s a way to make women in power less scary," Dines notes. "It’s putting women into a comfort zone for those who are still baffled by how to treat strong women."The articles seem a throwback to a time when women were only spouses, not players, says Ruth Mandel, director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. "To focus on their attire, the cut of their clothes...is to be in danger of trivializing who they are, the important role they play and the meaning behind women’s advancement to positions of power: That is, we’re moving to a true democracy of shared leadership."The problem is the media haven’t quite caught up. "A woman who rises to a leadership position at any level is going to dress appropriately," says Kathleen Hail Jamieson, professor at the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania. "It underscores her competence and is not a distraction. You take for granted that it would not be worthy of comment any more." Jamieson thinks the underlying motivation for reporting on femaIe politicians’ style is "the naturaI news interest in talking about what changes, and men don’ t look different. There is a uniform for men in power and we all know that it looks like.The only thing to change is the color of the shirt or tie." Because women have greater fashion options, changes they make are more obvious and invite analysis. Now that Pelosi’s "uniform" has been established, that should be the end of it. Ditto for Clinton. "Clinton now has a range of what she wears." Jamieson says. "She hasn’t been changing hairstyles or her pantsuits. That is our definition of what she wears, and that should end it."Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, thinks reporting that describes women politicians’ appearance is justified in profiles of them. Female politicians will certainly survive such silly coverage, and some argue the stories are harmless. But these women are role models for young women and offer an alternative to the fashion model and celebrity in setting the standard for female beauty and worth.Dines worries that when the media emphasize the appearance of women, it perpetuates attitudes in the larger world that devalue and limit women. "These are fortunate, privileged women," Dines notes of politicians, "but for yong women trying to make it in the world, how they look can affect their opportunities.\ Some people contend the media().
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
First there was a Washington Post article published shortly after the elections on the presumptive new House speaker, "Muted Tones of Quiet Authority: A Look Suited to the Speaker." It offered the information that "Pelosi’s suit was by Giorgio Armani -- the Italian master of neutral tones and modem power dressing- and she wore it well."The article at least appeared in the newspaper’s Style section, but was chock--full of psychoanalytic forays into Pelosi’s wardrobe choices, asserting that an Armani suit, for a woman, is a tool for playing with the boys without pretending to be one. I would wager that Pelosi is one woman who doesn’t play around with anyone.Then there was a New York Times article in January in its Thursday Styles section titled "Speaking Chic to Power."While noting that Pelosi, barely in her new job a month, had brought the House to votes on a minimum wage increase, stem cell research and Medicare drug prices, the article said "she did it looking preternaturally fresh, with a wardrobe that, while still subdued and over-reliant on suits, has seldom spruced the halls of Congress."Similar articles appeared in the Baltimore Sun and Chicago Tribune. Mentioned were other women politicians and their fashion choices, such as Sen. Hillary Clinton’s hair style and preference for black pantsuits or Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s haircut. The question is whether focusing on the clothing choices of serious female political players risks rendering them less than serious. Another question is whether such reports warrant precious space. After all, with rare exceptions, male politicians are seldom scrutinized for their choice of suits.Some reporters and editors haven’t figured out a way to cover female politicians that doesn’t rely on the old stereotypes, says Gail Dines, sociology and women’s studies professor at Wheelock College in Boston. "To be a woman politician, you have to strategize and work hard, and yet what matters is what designer you’re wearing. It’s a way to make women in power less scary," Dines notes. "It’s putting women into a comfort zone for those who are still baffled by how to treat strong women."The articles seem a throwback to a time when women were only spouses, not players, says Ruth Mandel, director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. "To focus on their attire, the cut of their clothes...is to be in danger of trivializing who they are, the important role they play and the meaning behind women’s advancement to positions of power: That is, we’re moving to a true democracy of shared leadership."The problem is the media haven’t quite caught up. "A woman who rises to a leadership position at any level is going to dress appropriately," says Kathleen Hail Jamieson, professor at the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania. "It underscores her competence and is not a distraction. You take for granted that it would not be worthy of comment any more." Jamieson thinks the underlying motivation for reporting on femaIe politicians’ style is "the naturaI news interest in talking about what changes, and men don’ t look different. There is a uniform for men in power and we all know that it looks like.The only thing to change is the color of the shirt or tie." Because women have greater fashion options, changes they make are more obvious and invite analysis. Now that Pelosi’s "uniform" has been established, that should be the end of it. Ditto for Clinton. "Clinton now has a range of what she wears." Jamieson says. "She hasn’t been changing hairstyles or her pantsuits. That is our definition of what she wears, and that should end it."Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, thinks reporting that describes women politicians’ appearance is justified in profiles of them. Female politicians will certainly survive such silly coverage, and some argue the stories are harmless. But these women are role models for young women and offer an alternative to the fashion model and celebrity in setting the standard for female beauty and worth.Dines worries that when the media emphasize the appearance of women, it perpetuates attitudes in the larger world that devalue and limit women. "These are fortunate, privileged women," Dines notes of politicians, "but for yong women trying to make it in the world, how they look can affect their opportunities.\ Professor Jamieson believes that ().
Forum for the Future, working with Tesco and Unilever, reckon that by 2022 what we buy, how we buy it and who from will have changed radically. In their report, Retail Futures, they look ahead 15 years to see what lies in store for shoppers and the retail groups. They see not only new or bigger store chains, more sprawling retail parks, and more poultry products and pasta sauces. Their visions range from multi- storey car parks converted into city centre allotments or"vertical farms"with produce markets where the parking payment booths once were, to a nation of stay-at-home shoppers who let their fingers do the walking to order in almost everything they need or let their refrigerators do the talking, with automatic, direct-to-store reordering and home delivery every time yoghurt, salad or beer stocks run low.Forum for the Future, a sustainable development charity founded by veteran environmentalist Sir Jonathon Porritt and which now advises more than 100 organizations in the public and private sector, says the reality of 2022 is probably somewhere between the two extremes. "It will be a mixture," said Tom Berry, the Forum’s main sustainability adviser.The high street is vital to the economy and the environment: nearly three million people work in retail which generates 6% of UK GDP-- and 2.5% of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions. The Forum says stores and retail groups have a disproportionate influence over society as a result of marketing campaigns and daily dealings with consumers.The Forum’s researchers identified a range of factors which will affect what we buy, how we buy and who we will buy from in the next 15 years. They include: climate change, which is likely to affect agricultural production, higher- or lower- oil prices, new technology, advances in energy production, more globalization and demographic changes that will mean more immigrant labor and more elderly and single person households.They could prompt new shopping formats, says the Forum, like "Tesco Silver" outlets with customized products for retired baby boomers. They also reckon the bell could be tolling for endless aisles of utility products like toilet paper and bin liners, which might only be sold online, or from a utility section at the back of a store, alongside vast vats of liquids like fabric conditioner, where shoppers could fill reusable containers. The long queue at the checkout could also be history when bar codes are read for prices immediately an item is dropped into a trolley.The online revolution, says the Forum, has only just started: "We can anticipate innovations such as entering your postcode for hyper-local sourcing". Consumers, however, might also use the Internet to cut out the middleman and source direct from farms and manufacturers "so posing a threat to major retailers".The explosion in the number of TV channels and the rise of the Internet to download entertainment means store chains will have to work far harder to build, and keep consumers’ trust. One retailer told the researchers: "We won’t be able to rely on hitting millions of people at 7:45p.m. on a Wednesday night with a Coronation Street advertising slot."The Forum came up with four different visions of the future depending on high or low economic growth and changing consumer outlooks; whether shoppers want more convenience or to do more for themselves; perhaps buying more locally sourced products with more information about what their families are eating and wearing. When the Forum advances four kinds of future consumption, the condition not taken into consideration is().
Mark Moore, director of the Northwest Weather, warned skiers of the deadly avalanches that have () the mountains of Washington state, killing nine people.
Players will be () against four others worldwide in a timed competition to answer trivia questions from the 1950s to present day.
微信支付 
支付宝支付