It’s very normal to feel insanely, torturously dissatisfied when you’re in your 20s. You’ve only been out there in the world, ripped from the fairytale womb of private college, for two years now. You’re in shock, but it sometimes seems like the world still wants to know: What do you want to do with the rest of your life? Asking someone fresh out of the luxurious, grassy, boozy microcosm of a private university to map out their career plans is like asking a toddler to run a marathon while analyzing Lacan. — Ask Polly: “My Millenial Life Is Terrible”
Mumbai, a city of hope, dreams, aspirations and love. Every one is running somewhere for something, on this endless treadmill of life.
(Source: 500px.com, via beethovensteaparty)
Latinos Attend More Movies Than Anyone Else But Are The Least Represented On Screen -
and just try getting any decent latin@ films streaming from netflix—they know we’re willing to pay, mm.
damn. this is so true, this is like, very much a huge pasttime in our family despite the lack of representation. i was excited just to take my great uncle benji to see After Earth and he was so happy to see little white centrality. his eyes lit up with intrigue the whole time, it was wonderful.
These statistics are very important:
Across the 100 top-grossing films of 2012, Latinos (who constitute 17 percent of the U.S.) are the most underrepresented group, with only 4.2 percent of speaking roles, according to the study.
And yet Latinos, on average, attended 9.5 movies in 2012, more than Asian (6.5 movies), African-American (6.3) and white audiences (6.1), according toNielson’s market research. In terms ofmovie tickets sold in 2012, whites (78 percent of the U.S.) bought 56 percent of them, and Latinos (17 percent of the U.S.) bought 26
Note that Latinos, Asians, and African Americans go to the movies more often than white folks, even though we are less likely to be featured in those movies…
African Bush Viper
Plucked Duo by Meanest Indian on Flickr.
Love the bright colours.
The myth is that anyone can come from anywhere and achieve great success in Silicon Valley if they are skilled. It holds that those who “make it” do so due to their excellent ideas and ability, because the tech scene is a meritocracy where what you do, not who you are, matters…
I frequently heard variations of the saying “everyone wants to take the pretty girl to the dance,” which refers to the tendency venture capitalists have to cluster around popular deals. (The prevalence of this phrase is very revealing of who is in these meetings.) In reality, everyone wants to be in business with young, white, male entrepreneurs with connections to high-status people, a pedigree from certain companies, a well-known mentor. Sharon Vosmek, CEO of the nonprofit Astia that helps fund women entrepreneurs, identified “systematic and hidden biases” in technology funding:
VCs hold clear stereotypes of successful CEOs (they call it pattern recognition, but in other industries they call it profiling or stereotyping.) John Doerr publicly stated that his most successful investments — and the no-brainer pattern for future investments — were in founders who were white, male, under 30, nerds, with no social life who dropped out of Harvard or Stanford.
This formula certainly filters out enormous numbers of people who may be equally skilled…
The myth of meritocracy also ignores the level of privilege that participation in the tech scene involves, as i09 editor Annalee Newitz points out:
'Let’s say that most people can have access to computers sometimes but only some people can have access to computers all the time, and then an even smaller group can have access to the net while they’re just out wandering around doing Twitter, right? They’re like, I have my phone and I can say things while I’m walking around where somebody else has to actually go home, to their one computer that they own. So the more that you want to participate in this network of wealth and entrepreneurialism, the more stuff you have to have to participate in it. So there [are] these levels of participation that are enabled by either being wealthier or having the free time to participate.'
Certainly, a level of material wealth is necessary to participate in San Francisco tech culture. Very few pointed to the elephant in the room of assumed wealth: “People behave as if we all make kind of the same.” To forge the type of social connections necessary to move into the upper echelons of the tech scene requires being able to take part in group activities, travel to conferences, and work on personal projects. This requires middle- to upper-class wealth, which filters out most people.
‘There are levels of participation that are enabled by either being wealthier or having the free time to participate.’
The result of this mythology is that it denies the role of personal connections, wealth, background, gender, race, or education in an individual’s success. If, for example, women (or people of color, or gay people) are not getting venture-capital funding at the same rate as men, the myth maintains, it is due to their lack of ability rather than institutional sexism. It also justifies immense wealth as the worthy spoils of the smartest and best. — Silicon Valley Isn’t a Meritocracy. And It’s Dangerous to Hero-Worship Entrepreneurs (Wired, Alice Marwick)