90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Looking At The Lives Of Powerful Working Women

We look at the lives of powerful working women, and how their rise has created a less equal world.

Author and professor Alison Wolf. Her new book is 'The XX Factor: How the Rise of Working Women Has Created a Far Less Equal World.' (Kings College, London)

Author and professor Alison Wolf. Her new book is ‘The XX Factor: How the Rise of Working Women Has Created a Far Less Equal World.’ (Kings College, London)

For the first time in history, in much of the world, says my guest today, women are moving boldly into the ranks of the power and business elite.  Female billionaires in China.  Women doctors and lawyers and power players in the USA and beyond.  It’s great and it’s exciting, says Alison Wolf, but don’t assume it’s a victory for what used to be called the “sisterhood.”  A female elite, she says, is lining up with — often literally marrying — a male elite. Concentrating privilege.  Shutting down mobility. Up next On Point:  the rise of women — and its ripples.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guest

Alison Wolf, author of the book, “The XX Factor: How The Rise of Working Women Has Created a Far Less Equal World,” professor of public sector management at King’s College, London and education policy adviser to the U.K. government.

Katherine Newman, dean of the Znvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University, co-author of “Taxing The Poor: Doing Damage to the Truly Disadvantaged” and “No Shame In My Game: The Working Poor in the Inner City.”

From Tom’s Reading List

The Guardian: ‘The XX Factor’ By Alison Wolf – review — “The various studies make it clear that it is education that’s the key to success – no wonder the Taliban are so against it. But even education can be trumped by family: a qualified person may still lose an appointment to a favoured son – but equally to a daughter; and even in the US 90% of registered businesses are family ones.”

The Telegraph: It Can Be Lonely At the Top For Women With the XX Factor — “Because she pours all her efforts into work, the XX woman usually reaches the top of her profession. She thus wields immense influence, despite being in a minority. Not only do her colleagues and bosses bow to her will; the media megaphones her opinion on gender equality, a woman’s ‘human right’ to get out to work, and the need for more child-care places rather than a tax break for single-earner couples.”

New York Times: The Price Of Equality — “These women, like their male counterparts, now marry later and have fewer children than their less-educated sisters. They take shorter breaks from paid full-time employment (a reverse from past trends) and claim an ever greater share of overall female income while relying on nannies and other household help. And although the professional world of the elites is increasingly integrated when it comes to gender, most women, including those domestic helpers, tend to work in professions that are still very much segregated along gender lines.”

Read An Excerpt From ‘The XX Factor: How The Rise of Working Women Has Created a Far Less Equal World’ by Alison Wolf

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Fiscally_Responsible

    Speaking of powerful women, Barbara Boxer’s comparison of the Republicans’ attempts to reign in the out of control spending that will accompany Obamacare to spousal abuse reveals what a liberal moron she is. I would say that the her party’s willingness to force Obamacare onto the American public even though it has many problems and the $17 Trillion of debt that the Democrats are unwilling to deal with other than kicking the can down the road is real spousal abuse.

    Also, how about those powerful women at Walmart who tried to buy thousands of dollars of stuff when there was a glitch with the EBT system with their welfare cards? That’s real empowerment. Until the system came back on and many people who were knowingly trying to cheat the system began scattering like cockroaches. It is no wonder why people have a very skeptical view of welfare and food stamps.

  • geraldfnord

    This is not the fundamental ill leading to our excessive inequality, but rather an exaggeration of such—but a significant one. Look at a model situation in which one-tenth the population are high earners, and nine-tenths low earners: if they marry at random, most high earners marry low earners simply because there are so many more of them; class-bound marriages mean that one-tenth

    But this is a but symptom of there being but one real power-centre in our culture: business and that portion of the political class who cater thereto (that is, most of it). When there are multiple centres of power, people who are good at making money can marry people of equivalent or close status whose status is otherwise derived…so (using traditional examples) the daughter of a wealthy family might marry a poor but brilliant student, or a respected clergyman, or a doctor who’s esteemed for his foregoing a very remunerative practice in favour of working with the poor; a cash-starved nobleman (I didn’t say that all possible power sources were good) might marry a rich woman.

    When money and status are near-identical, the only way to marry close to your own status, which is what most people seem to prefer, is to find someone else who’s about as good at making money (or otherwise acquiring it) as are you.

  • geraldfnord

    What would a Mr D’Souza have had to say about this before he was found-out?…or after?

  • Bill98

    “A female elite, she says, is lining up with — often literally marrying — a male elite”
    Why would this surprise anyone? Men who reach positions of power, in general, have never cared overly much about the men who did not. It makes no sense to think that women who achieve power will behave any differently.
    What separates the 1% from the 99% is now, and always has been, class, and not gender. It’s time that men and women both recognized this fact, and advocated accordingly.
    Fighting against the “glass ceiling” is all well and good, but, in the end, it will only benefit those women who climb the ladder to the top. Those left behind will not benefit by this. It would be better to fight for those issues that help all working people, both women and men.

  • Yar

    These two hours of On Point are connected more than you may know. I laughed at the concept that you are born into science. It wasn’t quite said that way but that was my take. It is nurturing, it can be done by a parent of either gender, it can be a teacher but they have to been privileged to get nurturing at some point in their lives as well. The basic concept is we must value education. Education takes time and dedication, you can’t monetize nurturing. The homemaker did more to move the family forward than any other single aspect of our society. Oppression of women moved smart women into teaching, this is the source of our baby booms intellectual wealth. For the last three decades we have hollowed out education, along with other opportunities for women is hurting nurturing.

  • KindleQuilter

    It’s still so ingrained in our culture. Just a year ago, I was sitting in a meeting. Our team leader was a woman, and she was very good at her job. But she was annoyed that we had incorrect figures in one of our graphs. So she had us stay overtime to correct it. Grumbling, my male colleague beside me said, “She’s got nothing better to do. It’s not like she has kids or anything.” I was aghast. Instead of taking responsibility that we did something wrong and THAT’S why we were told to stay late, the impulse was to blame it on my female manager not having anything better to do because she didn’t have children. As a woman, I tried to explain to my male colleague why his remark was incredibly sexist, but he didn’t get why I was so annoyed by that statement. This is our problem. People aren’t even aware when they are being biased. Even other women….they can be quite uncharitable toward one another.

  • Yar

    Is your guest connecting past sex selection in China to advancement for women?

  • Jim

    Feminism has created higher productivity in our work force. no question about that. However, it has also produced other things which i think are considered maladies of our society. Many professional females are ripping the fabric of family values, especially in the realm of divorce or the tendency to file for a divorce. In my opinion there is a lot of selfish thoughts from many of these professional women. Many of these marriages can be salvaged but many of these women choose not to go through that road and choose the easy and selfish way out, even when children are involved.

    • hellokitty0580

      That’s an incredibly frustrating statement. So it’s women’s faults that the American family unit is falling apart?? I think there are many reasons as to why the family unit structure isn’t as strong as it used to be and I think the least reason why is women wanting divorces, for whatever reason. Divorce is an incredibly private decision and unless you know the inner-workings of a couple’s relationship, it’s inappropriate to judge a divorce. This kind of statement perpetuates the idea that women aren’t allowed to think of their careers. Its been okay for men to put their careers before family for centuries, but it’s not okay for women. That’s quite the double-standard.

      • Jim

        Correct, we do not know the reasons behind divorce. My statement is subjective as well since i only state my sincere fact and opinion from my observation. you simple attack me that it is all about the women’s career. Have you ever thought about it could be nothing to do with women’s career and some things about her simple choice of choosing her career and returning to her easy pre-marital life over giving her fair share of helping rear her own children? Many men i know have already made enormous sacrifice for the family and are quite willing to contribute their fair share to help cook meals, do bedtime stories and help whatever means to bring up their kids.

    • Guest

      This sounds fueled by personal experience and bias.

    • Bugsyboo

      Blaming women for the failure of marriage is pathetic and ridiculous.

  • skelly74

    Do those in academia really “see the world as it is” or do they work from samples of the greater mass?

    If your looking for an axe to grind, go find an axe, then go put an edge on it.

  • MarkVII88

    Why would a successful, educated, professional woman or man choose to marry or mate with someone not at that same level? Perhaps better put…why would a successful, educated, professional woman or man pair-up with someone who isn’t successful, educated, or professional and expect it to work out well?

    • 65noname

      because most “successful, educated, professional …
      m[e]n” marry to acquire an ornament, free child raising and a compliant spouse.

      • artwitchnorth

        This is the most ridiculous post I have come across in eons! Successful men do not “marry to acquire an ornament, free child raising and compliant spouse. There are plenty of Professional homemakers, both college educated and not, that would find this remark truly ignorant. Successful marriages are however, collaborative partnerships. We value the structure and integrity not only of our individual families but of our communities! If we have chosen to stay at home, be it male or female, it is to be certain, that we have the ability to impart our talent and energies into helping our children and communities achieve their very best.
        My mother in law was one of the most well rounded and well read women, I have ever met. She could easily devour most anyone, in any debate. She was not college educated but a life long learner. Mary, raised five children brilliantly and was devoted to serving her community in many ways. No one would question her intellectual prowess because she was a homemaker.
        For that matter I doubt , anyone would scorn Abigail Adams for the support and dedication to her family. She had tremendous influence on motivating powerful men. Intelligence and the gifts to impart it, do not just come from the lofty and powerful. We become adversarial when we fail to recognize and appreciate everyone’s contribution to our achievements. Everyone’s voice has value and contribution, whether they choose to be at home or out in the work force.

        • 65noname

          twitchy,
          the fact that you like your grandmother and/or mother-in-law has nothing to do with whether or not rich men marry to acquire an ornament.
          And, dude (or dudette), its obvious why you rely on toward everything that you disagree with; actual intellectual conversation is beyond you.

    • skelly74

      I certainly agree. I screen all women to make sure they meet a specific criteria.

      I examine their resume for professional competency. I definitely want to see that their salary is sufficient. I do not want a freeloader. Lastly, I require a transcript of education. I do not accept state schools. I do prefer Ivy league, of course.

      If my search is unsatisfactory, I find a mirror and Vaseline works just fine.

  • thequietkid10

    Great topic, It’s so much more interesting to talk about WHY the wealth gap is growing, as opposed to just bitch about it growing.

    • Bugsyboo

      It certainly isn’t women’s wages; they’re still only 79% of men’s.

      • thequietkid10

        Oh for God’s sake I’m so sick that myth. It is only 79% when you factor in career choices, like which professions to enter and whether or not you should take time off for work.

        • Bugsyboo

          Sorry you’re sick of it, but it’s still true no matter the profession.

          “One number says it all: women today are still paid only $0.77 for every dollar paid to men. And African American women and Latinas get even less.

          In six out of ten families, a mother is the primary or co-breadwinner, so the wage gap makes a huge difference in a family’s economic security. Particularly in these tough economic times, fair pay is crucial.

          Consider this: Working women in the United States are paid, on average, more than $11,000 less per year than men. That’s the equivalent of 89 weeks of food expenses or more than one year of rent.”

          http://www.nationalpartnership.org/issues/fairness/fair-pay.html

          • thequietkid10

            male/female “income inequality” is entirely a matter of personal choice not public policy. Even to the extent that women have children and men don’t, your statistics still don’t take into account whatever child support the man may (or should) have to pay.

          • Bill98

            It’s only true if you take the average wage of all men, and compare it to the average wage for all women. That yields a bogus statistic. If you compare people doing the same job, which is the only comparison that makes sense, the gap shrinks to roughly 5%. Even that remaining gap may be explained by factors not related to discrimination.

            As to your $11,000 figure, you are not considering the jobs that these women are doing, versus those performed by men. If you compare the salary of a teacher, to that of a surgeon, you will surely find a “gap”. And, rightfully so!

    • 65noname

      yea, but unbiased talk should be in order not this righjt wing justification of continuing the usual.

      • thequietkid10

        What do you want? “rich people are greedy scrooge mcducks?” There are lots of reasons that the wealth gap are growing, federal reserve policy, smaller families (ergo more concentrated inheritance), globalization, tax policy, people working longer, rise of computer/technology class, two salary homes, increased emphasis on college education. I could go on and on and on. Some of this is good news, some of it isn’t. You could spend three weeks of episodes talking about the subject. This is one of many parts of the issue.

        • 65noname

          yes, actually, I would. and the main reason for the growing wealth inequality is that thhose who control the wealth, control wealth policy, control the direction of globalization, control tax policy and force working people to work more hours for less pay.

  • Yar

    Your guest could be a fine Southern lady in The Help. In my opinion she is full of it.

  • ian berry

    You have no idea how expensive a nanny is.

  • KindleQuilter

    Child care is a huge issue, especially for single parents–men and women alike. We have to solve that. I agree.

  • thequietkid10

    A women who makes 40,000 a year, takes 10 years off to raise a family full time and then returns to work at half time for another 10 years, has given up over $1,000,000 in lost wages.

    Had this family decided to not have kids, or raise there children in a daycare, a lot of income which can be put into stocks, bonds, rental properties etc. which help to grow wealth further.

  • Bugsyboo

    Why is this discussion focused on women and not class or income? How is it that women can be held responsible or play a pivotal role in the increasing inequalities in society?

    If more women held positions of power, there would be less inequality because, as has been shown in studies, women are more collaborative, seek common ground, and look for solutions than men in general.

    • thequietkid10

      “women are more collaborative, seek common ground, and look for solutions than men in general.”

      I’ve heard quite the opposite, high powered women are less likely to help there female peers.

      In any event, it is one facet of a complicated issue (breaking news, the growing gap in income inequality isn’t caused by cartoonistly evil rich people).

      People shouldn’t be so fixated on income inequality. There are far greater injustices in the world (like women not having career opportunities . Life is full of trade offs and unintended consequences, so get used to it.

      • Bugsyboo

        I believe income inequality is one of the most pressing issues of our time because it creates injustice.

        • thequietkid10

          The only reason people buy the government is because it is worth buying.

    • Bill98


      “If more women held positions of power, there would be less inequality because, as has been shown in studies, women are more collaborative, seek common ground, and look for solutions than men in general”

      It is just this sexist, naive belief that Ms. Wolf refutes. Women ARE gaining power in the world, and yet the level of inequality continues to rise. Clearly, woman gaining power in no way correlates with greater equality.

      • Bugsyboo

        Then it can’t have a correlation w/inequality either.

        • Bill98

          I agree completely! The gender of the elites does not matter. Increasing the number of women who have power will neither help nor exacerbate the situation.

  • Yar

    The see education of their own as critical but not the education of everyone’s kids. They are missing the boat. If you don’t care about society then you won’t have a safe place to live.

    • MarkVII88

      I won’t care about educating everyone’s kids unless I take care of my own first.

    • Sy2502

      Are you referring to working men or working women?

  • 65noname

    how is it that mainstream economists like wolf are only willing to
    acknowledge the ever increasing economic inequality of advanced industrial nations for the purpose of blaming it on women working? Next they will blame the ever increasing inequality on the fact that afro-americans are now permitted to go to colleges.
    And, as to wolf’s preteense that men now prefer marrying women who are economically independent, the m.c. of this program should simply go over his past shows dealing with the problems that women who are economically independent have a far harder time finding marriage with economically successful men.
    As to her phoney economic analysis of why nannies MUST be paid slave wages so that their employers can go out and be high paid lawyers, etc. nonesense!!!!! Which jobs get values the most by way of high pay is not a function of the product value of the job but the fact that those who control the economy are the people who are assigning economic values to jobs. and they are not going to voluntarily give up power.
    As to be expected from this show and from right wing economists such as wolf, more blaming the victim, while dressing it up in faux sympathy for those being blamed.

    • Blue_To_Shoe

      Excellent points!

  • Yar

    As a stay at home dad when my children were preschool, I am offended at the stay at home parent that “doesn’t do much” that gender neutral offensive. I built the damn house as a homemaker.

  • Yar

    The current PTA president is a Black Man. Good for him!

  • Blue_To_Shoe

    I still remember the images of women cheering, clapping, and nodding in agreement with many of the soft, fake-macho, phony, tough talking men – during last year’s Republican debates – when the infamous question was asked of Ron Paul in regards to “…should we simply let someone die that doesn’t have Healthcare…”?

    Funny though…I believe it was that exact same week where a group of men (and women) risked their lives to pull a motorcyclist from underneath a flaming car he was trapped under.

    Many women – especially Republican women – are already copying many male pathologies, such as gun worship, like the ‘Newtown’ mother that had a house full of deadly semi-automatic weaponry.

    We know what happened there.

    This woman is simply telling the truth: many people, (including women), are already selling out in this new world order of economic inequality.

    There are inumerable stories like this from all over the world: many newly wealthy Chinese are already selling out big time! – just story after story of growing apathy and self-indulgence by the privileged classes.

  • Bill98

    Agreed, Allison. To expect otherwise was naive, and a bit sexist. I expect the elite to behave as they have always done, whether they be men or women.

  • artwitchnorth

    I think it is wonderful that women have assumed roles of leadership and power however, to think it has not been at the cost at devaluing others in the process is ridiculous. This is not about blaming women or blaming men who also achieve power and position in the same way. We are all interdependent on the efforts of one another in order to build a successful society. I know that my success, often depends on the contributions of others and that it is important to compensate their efforts fairly; not only monetarily but with genuine thanks.
    After leaving the work force to raise a family, I have seen both sexes equal in devaluing the very workforce, that struggles to make them a success. The “Power Couple” aka “Do you know Who I am?” are prime narcissistic examples of what, I do not view a successful marriage to be. One such couple, would leave their child with me for hours at a time( 7am – almost midnight) at my daycare, with no communication at all. They were not the definition of the very involved parents, your speaker claims they are. I could cite plenty of other examples as well, from others who have been employed by such couples. The child did benefit from a stable and nurturing environment that I provided, so much so, that she became very reluctant to leave. This enraged her educated powerful parents, who took her kicking and screaming home one evening. I never saw them again. Calls made to find out the welfare of the child were never answered.
    A male friend, who worked for a predominately male organization( law enforcement) was belittled for being a stay at home father. When he and his wife placed his child with me, he was usually the one to bring the child to me. His stint at home had really enlightened him. Once returned to the workplace, he was in a position of leadership, not only encouraging the women in his command, but continuing to support his wife in her career efforts. This is the definition of a “Power Couple” A couple that works towards empowering the community around them. “Sisterhood” and “Brotherhood” partnerships build healthy communities.
    Without a thriving community, we all cease to be successful. Power lust, never was a successful foundation for love, family, or society.

  • artwitchnorth

    Ah! Vanity and Egotism at it’s best!! “Do you wish men to speak well of you? Then never speak well of yourself.” Pascal

  • Bill98

    Actually, I don’t see the two concepts as mutually exclusive. There are those who are “elites”, by birth, and those who gain this status by virtue of career success or marriage.
    I also agree with you completely on the fair application of laws. The same standards and protections should be available to everyone, irrespective of the conditions of their birth. I used to think that most Americans shared this belief, but I’m not sure any more.

  • Mari McAvenia

    Powerful means rich. Men and women are equally avaricious. Extraordinary wealth is the elusive treasure which, when captured, changes the benign personality to a malignant one. That will never change as long as mega-resource control is considered a virtue..

  • Mari McAvenia

    I am the daughter of a cop, too, and I take the opposite stance towards guns. There are TOO MANY in the hands of inexperienced wannabe vigilantes like you! Frankly, I am more wary of young women embracing the “shoot ‘em all until proven innocent” mentality than I am of the dudes doing most of the killing, now. Don’t buy it, lady.

  • Vic Volpe

    Something like Charles Murray, Coming Apart — the super zips, the cultural divide.

  • http://www.outsourcingtypingservices.com/ Snehal Joshi

    The topic seems interesting.

  • Carolynn Gockel

    This is interesting, but it ignores some “facts on the ground”. First off, women who stay home with their children are better able to direct their children’s education. I see a lot of female doctors, lawyers, etc. choosing to stay home at least while their children are small for this reason.

    Education is key, but this story makes a lot of the Ivy League. There is a lot of evidence that going to an Ivy League school is only helpful if you come from a background that is severely disadvantaged–otherwise it’s not where you go to school, it’s what you do while you are at school.

    Finally, she talks about lack of mobility–this station and others have pointed out that upward mobility still exists in the States on the coasts and in Europe due to well functioning safety nets and decent education systems. I don’t think women’s participation in the upper levels of the workforce has anything to do with it.

  • 228929292AABBB

    Has anyone noticed that the title of Sheryl Sandberg’s book is code for ‘show a little cleavage as you negotiate’? You could think it was just a coincidence until you realize that on the book and in every interview and appearance she’s wearing a ‘tastefully’ unbuttoned or low cut shirt. Is the real message ‘Remember ladies, do all the leadership crap I say, but don’t forget this is war – use what you got on these animals, they crumble when you do!’ or were her editors really that dumb to miss that?

  • Bill98

    I agree with your last statement, and I would add that it’s the cutthroat types who tend to climb the corporate ladder. Man or woman, that type of person is not likely to care about those left behind.

    I do disagree with you, when you say: “Women as a group do make society more gentle. It’s because women love their kids, and that’s where women put most of their energy”.
    This implies that men do not love their kids, or put their energies into their families. This is simply untrue. Caring for their families is paramount to most men. Further, guys are far more compassionate than our society gives them credit for being.
    Just as with women, the most cutthroat men tend to achieve power. Such people do not tend to produce gentle societies. This fact will not change, even if many of the people gaining power are women.

    • BryWal

      The “implication” that men do not love their kids is in your mind, not mine. I am glad that you are a man who loves your family and who values gentleness in men. You will raise healthy sons. Men who cultivate gentleness and women who cultivate independence give me hope for the future of our species. These choices are made individual by individual, and in that sense we are all free to buck old values, should we choose freedom.

      Men have always valued their children, and, women have birthed and nursed babies and infants. Men can choose to get involved in that phase of their children’s lives, or not. It is that phase which makes it clear how deeply vulnerable we all are, just because we are human. Being responsible for one who will die pretty quickly without your ongoing care and attention has a deep impact on the psyche.

      And I stand by my generalization about groups. Woman and children created patriarchy? History; what percentage of soldiers down all the ages have been women and children? What percentage of perpetrators of violent crimes have been women and children?

      Biology; culture shapes human patterns so deeply, but culture is so variable; let’s look at our closest evolutionary relatives instead. Bonobos and chimps; both share 98% of their DNA with us. That’s quite a bit of genetic overlap. Bonobos are matriarchal and they make love not war. Chimps are patriarchal and they make war not love.
      30,000 years of a preponderance of male violence in history, and evidence that patriarchy in other primates makes for more violent cultures in other primates. That’s sufficient evidence for me to stand by my statements that group dynamics are different from individual choices, and in group dynamics men with power are more violent than women in groups. Yes, I stand by that. Testosterone is pretty heady stuff and hugely influences aggression in all mammals. . . .

      Don’t worry; as an individual with free will, biology is not your destiny.

      • Bill98

        The implication that men do not love their children, at least not as much as women do, comes directly from your comment, where you say that “Women as a group do make society more gentle. It’s because women love their kids”. (Since you claim the previous comment as yours, I assume that you are the same person, using two different pseudonyms). So, you are saying that a society without women, i.e. consisting solely of men, would be less gentle. And, further, that the reason that women inject this gentleness is because they “love their kids”. Hence, by your reasoning, men do not love their kids, at least not as much as women do. If they did, then their society would be just as gentle was one containing women. If this is not what you intended to state, then I’m glad. However, the implication was in your comment, not in my mind, as you state. Incidentally, I would not “imply” something from your argument, as you state. I would “infer” it. But, I didn’t do that, either!

        As for most of the rest of your post, I’ll simply say that you can’t have it both ways. Group dynamics are nothing more than the accumulated effect of individual actions. You can’t claim that men love their children, are compassionate, etc., but then claim that men, as a group, are prisoners of their biology and are responsible for all the ills in society. That wars were fought by reluctant conscripts, on behalf of men and women of power, is hardly proof of the inherently violent nature of men. Rather, it is proof of their greater physical strength, and of their expendability.

        Finally, before you blame testosterone for aggressive behavior, you might be interested to learn that estrogen acts to increase aggression, as well. If hormones were the only consideration, I might worry for both genders. However, men and women are both endowed with highly developed brains, and, therefore, self-control. They are not at the mercy of their hormones, as you suggest, and thank goodness for that.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Sep 1, 2014
This Friday, Aug. 22, 2014 photo shows a mural in in the Pullman neighborhood of Chicago dedicated to the history of the Pullman railcar company and the significance for its place in revolutionizing the railroad industry and its contributions to the African-American labor movement. (AP)

On Labor Day, we’ll check in on the American labor force, with labor activist Van Jones, and more.

Sep 1, 2014
Pittsburgh Steelers outside linebacker Jarvis Jones (95) recovers a fumble by Carolina Panthers quarterback Derek Anderson (3) in the second quarter of the NFL preseason football game on Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014 in Pittsburgh. (AP)

One outspoken fan’s reluctant manifesto against football, and the big push to reform the game.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 29, 2014
Beyoncé performs at the 2014 MTV Music Video Awards on Sunday, August 24, 2014 in Inglewood, California. (Getty)

Sex, power and Beyoncé’s feminism. The message to young women.

 
Aug 29, 2014
Ukrainian forces guard a checkpoint in the town of Mariupol, eastern Ukraine, Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014. Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko called an emergency meeting of the nation's security council and canceled a foreign trip Thursday, declaring that "Russian forces have entered Ukraine," as concerns grew about the opening of a new front in the conflict.  (AP)

War moves over Syria, Ukraine. Burger King moves to Canada. Nine-year-olds and Uzis. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: August 29, 2014
Friday, Aug 29, 2014

On hypothetical questions, Beyoncé and the unending flow of social media.

More »
Comment
 
Drew Bledsoe Is Scoring Touchdowns (In The Vineyards)
Thursday, Aug 28, 2014

Football great — and vineyard owner — Drew Bledsoe talks wine, onions and the weird way they intersect sometimes in Walla Walla, Washington.

More »
Comment
 
Poutine Whoppers? Why Burger King Is Bailing Out For Canada
Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014

Why is Burger King buying a Canadian coffee and doughnut chain? (We’ll give you a hint: tax rates).

More »
1 Comment