Malcolm Gladwell

The whole thing goes to this question of that there can be, I mean, what interested me was that there can be a moment when public opinion or acknowledgement or knowledge of an event can kind of shift overnight. I mean, that was what attracted me to that story.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, so this work, I've ran across this really wonderful TV scholar named Bonnie Dow, who does this analysis. First, she starts with the way that Hollywood talked about women's issues. So remember that wave of kind of feminist shows starting in the 70s, Mary Tyler Moore show. Right, Rhoda. Rhoda. Yeah. Yeah, Cagney and Lacey, is that? Yes, I think that's part of that.

Yeah, so this work, I've ran across this really wonderful TV scholar named Bonnie Dow, who does this analysis. First, she starts with the way that Hollywood talked about women's issues. So remember that wave of kind of feminist shows starting in the 70s, Mary Tyler Moore show. Right, Rhoda. Rhoda. Yeah. Yeah, Cagney and Lacey, is that? Yes, I think that's part of that.

Yeah, so this work, I've ran across this really wonderful TV scholar named Bonnie Dow, who does this analysis. First, she starts with the way that Hollywood talked about women's issues. So remember that wave of kind of feminist shows starting in the 70s, Mary Tyler Moore show. Right, Rhoda. Rhoda. Yeah. Yeah, Cagney and Lacey, is that? Yes, I think that's part of that.

And she points out that you would think watching those that those were shows that were kind of pro-women's liberation or whatever, feminist, but they follow an implicit set of rules about how a woman is allowed to proceed. She says that in every case, the woman was only allowed to succeed if she was succeeding in a man's world, and all of those heroes were childless, and not in a relationship.

And she points out that you would think watching those that those were shows that were kind of pro-women's liberation or whatever, feminist, but they follow an implicit set of rules about how a woman is allowed to proceed. She says that in every case, the woman was only allowed to succeed if she was succeeding in a man's world, and all of those heroes were childless, and not in a relationship.

And she points out that you would think watching those that those were shows that were kind of pro-women's liberation or whatever, feminist, but they follow an implicit set of rules about how a woman is allowed to proceed. She says that in every case, the woman was only allowed to succeed if she was succeeding in a man's world, and all of those heroes were childless, and not in a relationship.

So the real message of those shows were, yes, you can get ahead if you're a woman, but only if you give up any chance of having a family.

So the real message of those shows were, yes, you can get ahead if you're a woman, but only if you give up any chance of having a family.

So the real message of those shows were, yes, you can get ahead if you're a woman, but only if you give up any chance of having a family.

There's no domesticity. So it's not really, are those shows pro-feminist? Or when you watch them, do you think, oh, wow, that's the price I have to pay if I want to participate? Then she says, there's a similar set of rules about the way Hollywood dealt with gay topics. And the rule was, homosexuality was always a problem to be solved.

There's no domesticity. So it's not really, are those shows pro-feminist? Or when you watch them, do you think, oh, wow, that's the price I have to pay if I want to participate? Then she says, there's a similar set of rules about the way Hollywood dealt with gay topics. And the rule was, homosexuality was always a problem to be solved.

There's no domesticity. So it's not really, are those shows pro-feminist? Or when you watch them, do you think, oh, wow, that's the price I have to pay if I want to participate? Then she says, there's a similar set of rules about the way Hollywood dealt with gay topics. And the rule was, homosexuality was always a problem to be solved.

In other words, the plot surrounding the gay person had to turn on the fact that everyone else in that person's life was trying to fix All of the crisis that had been caused by this person's sexuality. The gay character was only ever seen in isolation. So they didn't have a community. They weren't in a relationship. They were just off by themselves.

In other words, the plot surrounding the gay person had to turn on the fact that everyone else in that person's life was trying to fix All of the crisis that had been caused by this person's sexuality. The gay character was only ever seen in isolation. So they didn't have a community. They weren't in a relationship. They were just off by themselves.

In other words, the plot surrounding the gay person had to turn on the fact that everyone else in that person's life was trying to fix All of the crisis that had been caused by this person's sexuality. The gay character was only ever seen in isolation. So they didn't have a community. They weren't in a relationship. They were just off by themselves.

It was like the typical one would be you find out your 16-year-old son is gay, right? And so the whole family is left to deal with this intense problem. Another rule was no sex. So you can't ever see what this thing is about. It's always an abstraction. Oh, and then the last one was that the gay character cannot be the center of the narrative. They have to be peripheral to the narrative.