Upward Mobility: Myth or Truth?

Since its inception, America has rested on the idea of upward mobility. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his 1840 Democracy in America that, “[i]n aristocratic families the eldest son, inheriting the greater part of the property, and almost all the rights of the family, becomes the chief, and, to a certain extent, the master, of his brothers. Greatness and power are for him – for them, mediocrity and dependence.” Contrastingly, in democratic America, “all the children are perfectly equal.” America was founded on the ideal of upward mobility.

With hard work and perseverance, anybody can rise up in society and make something of him or herself. Upward mobility implies that America’s set class system can be broken into. A young boy born in the slums of Chicago can work hard in school, earn a scholarship, and go on to be a cutting edge doctor in an esteemed hospital. The media gleams on to success stories and heralds them as proof of an upward society. In reality though, American society fails to match up to the wide-held myth of upward mobility.

The 2005 book Class Matters, published by correspondents from the New York Times, suggests looking at class like a deck of cards. At birth, everyone is given four cards from each suit: education, income, occupation, and wealth (Scott, 9). While the myth of upward mobility implies that anyone can rise up and trade in their cards for better cards, society makes it much harder to move up.

Education is often seen as the ticket to success. While success is now granted based on one’s merit, and has ceased be passed down from one successful generation to the next, an important fact remains. Class Matters states that, “merit, it turns out, is at least partly class-based. Parents with money, education, and connections cultivate in their children the habits that the meritocracy rewards. When their children succeed, their success is seen as earned,” (Scott, 4). Parents firmly entrenched in the upper middle class raise their children in a college-focused environment. Their children are taught to value education, and going to college is seen as inevitable.

A 2004 U.S. Department of Education study found that only 41% of low-income college students entering a four-year college graduated within five years compared to 61% of high income students who graduated within five years (Leonhardt, 87). As college prices continue to rise and lower income families persist in failing to place a strong emphasis on college, the gap has continued to widen. In the 1990’s, on average, poorer students received fifty percent more financial aid than wealthy students. Today, upper middle class students receive, on average, slightly more financial aid than lower income students do (96). If upper middle class students need financial aid to attend college, than the financial situation has become even more dire for lower middle class students.

When Mark McClellan opted out of college to stay and work in the local factory, none of his friends or families tried to discourage him. McClellan quickly worked through the ranks at Kaiser Aluminum. By age 22, he was a group Forman, by age 28 he had become a supervisor, by age 32 he had been promoted to management, and by age 40, he was earning $100,000 a year with bonuses. For McClellan, along with millions of other men, a factory job had been his ticket into the middle class. When the Kaiser Aluminum shut down in 2001, McClellan found himself out of a job in a society that required a college degree to enter the middle class.

Class Matters reports that in the past three decades, the American economy has shed six million manufacturing jobs. The widespread loss of jobs has “come as a shock” to those “of a generation that could count on a comfortable life without a degree,” (Egan, 106). McClellan now believes: “There is no working up anymore,” (110) and is determined that his sixteen-year-old son won’t make the same mistakes he did. Despite rapidly disappearing factory jobs,, a strong factory work ethic continues to persist among many lower and working class communities.

Maria and Salvatore with their four-year-old daughter

For recent immigrants, upward mobility has slipped farther and farther away. Recent laws have made it more and more difficult for illegal immigrants to become U.S. citizens. Without legal citizenships, immigrants are shut off to many opportunities to work their way up. With Arizona’s recent harsh law towards immigration, the upward struggle will continue. Yesterday, May 24^th, the Los Angeles Times did a piece on a young Mexican family living in Arizona entitled “Moving deeper into Arizona’s shadows.” 24-year-old Maria immigrated legally to the United States at the young age of six and became a U.S. citizen at age eighteen. Salvatore, her husband, illegally crossed the U.S. border when he was eighteen. Despite marrying in an Arizona courthouse, U.S. citizenship has continued to evade Salvatore. An immigration attorney said that in order for Salvatore to attain U.S. citizenship, he would have to return to Mexico to apply for residency. The process could last ten years.

Now, Maria and Salvatore live in constant fear of him getting deported. They only drive during the day, avoid any unnecessary trips, speak English in public, and constantly worry. Salvatore can only work menial jobs that won’t attract attention. For this young couple, there is no American dream. Without citizenship, they will continue to remain in the lower class.

A Newsweek article was published on January 17, 2009 with the headline: “The End of Upward Mobility?” The article re-iterates that the “implicit American contract has always been that with education and hard work, anyone can get ahead,” (Kotkin, 2). A study conducted by the Federal Reserve of Boston found that the number of families who moved up one quintile (fifth) up the income ladder decreased in the 1980’s compared to the 1970’s. The number of families moving up shrank again in the 1990’s in comparison to the 1990’s. Upward mobility has steadily decreased in the last thirty years, but America continues to herald upward mobility as a viable option.

An instance of the American myth of upward mobility playing out in the media can be seen in this uplifting trailer for The Pursuit of Happiness, a 2006 film starring Will Smith.

Works Cited

DePalma, Anthony. “Fifteen Years on the Bottom Rung.” Class Matters. 2005. Print.

Egan, Timothy. “No Degree, and No Way Back to the Middle.” Class Matters. 2005. Print.

Esquivel, Paloma. “Moving deeper into Arizona’s shadows.” Los Angeles Times 24 May 2010. Web. 25 May 2010.

Kotkin, Joel. “The End of Upward Mobility?” newsweek.com. Newsweek, 17 Jan 2009. Web. 13 May 2010.

Leonhardt, David and Janny Scott. “Shadowy Lines That Still Divide.” Class Matters. 2005. Print.

Leonhardt, David. “The College Dropout Boom.” Class Matters. 2005. Print.

Summing up the New in Five Minutes: SNL

Before enrolling in media studies, I read the LA Times online every day. However, I wasn’t exactly catching up on breaking news and following international policies. No, I was giving the front page a two second glance over before clicking over to the Entertainment section. I would then proceed to thoroughly read the Television and Movies sections. I spent a lot of time on The NY Times website in the midst of research papers, but for the most part, I wasn’t keeping myself informed. At home, I always read The Oregonian over breakfast because there was a tangible paper there amongst the grapefruit juice and toast. My parents never watched the news because they preferred reading the newspaper, so I’ve never been in the habit of watching the news on TV. Once I came to Andover, it became a lot harder for me to read the paper when there was no longer a newspaper sitting at my breakfast table.

But, since this class, I go to The NY Times website everyday. I try to read two-three articles in depth, and skim over others. I still read The LA Times, but now, I read the front page before going to the Entertainment section. Now, it’s hard to imagine not reading the news.

I started thinking about all of this last week when I watched the May 8^th, 2010 episode of “Saturday Night Live.” Betty White hosted, and she was hysterical. I don’t tend to watch full SNL episodes, but I’ll usually end up seeing viral videos from SNL
that other blogs and websites highlight. However, I thought Betty White was great in The Proposal last summer, and I thought it was really cool that Betty scored the SNL hosting gig from a Facebook campaign. Moreover, she made history by being the oldest person to ever host SNL.

Betty White

While Betty nailed her hosting duties, the most interesting segment for me didn’t feature Betty. Midway through the episode came Seth Meyers' “Weekend Update.” For five minutes, Seth Meyers ripped on the headlines in the news with Amy Phoeler and Tina Fey. He deftly mixed in more serious news with some ridiculous news bits.

Seth Meyers

His topics? The riots in Greece, the terrorist attack in Times Square, the dome put over the oil leak, and the Dow. He also threw in funny notices such as the fact that White Castle (a food joint) would be selling scented candles that smelled like - what else? - White Castle.

Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, and Seth Meyers

Seth Meyers on the Dow dropping suddenly:

“On Thursday the Dow fell 1,000 points because someone entered a billion instead of a million. How is that possible? How is there not a backup system? When I delete a picture on Facebook, it asks me if I’m sure. Why is Facebook more squared away than the Dow?”

On the Greek riots:

“Really, Greece, you have to get it together. You’re in crippling debt, and you don’t want to make spending cuts, really? Where do you think your money’s gonna come from? Royalties for inventing civilization?”

Meyers delivered each zinger with perfect comic timing, always knowing when to hold a beat and when to continue on to the next line. It was fascinating seeing all of the major headlines from the week summed up into a five-minute sketch. Anyone watching would walk away with the basic threads of everything big that happened in the news that week. When I watched it, I had already read lengthy NY Times articles on all of the serious topics he touched on, but if I hadn't, I would have become informed after hearing him. Last month, I blogged about Chelsea Lately. Her opening monologue takes a similar format to Seth Meyer, but she rips on celebrity headlines as opposed to serious news headlines. It’s interesting seeing the same technique be applied to news. Obviously, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart have been doing this for a while, I just don’t watch their shows regularly.

In this day and age, everything you need to know in order to get your way through a party can be accomplished through a five minute video.

The SNL video embedded below:

Facebook: The End of Privacy

When I singed up for Facebook three years ago, I immediately set my privacy settings to private, which meant that only people I was Facebook friends with had could view my complete profile. Non friends could only see my profile picture and which networks (Portland, OR and Phillips Academy) I belonged to. After feeling secure that my profile wasn’t open to the entire word, I thought nothing of posting photos and personal information.

Initially, I found that Facebook allowed me to connect to old friends. My old au pair who lived with my family when I was nine found me on Facebook. She lives in France, and I hadn’t seen her since she lived with us. I friended a lot of my former classmates from my old school in Portland, and I friended my cousins who live throughout California. I posted photos from family vacations and regularly updated my status with such boring details as “Going to New York City on Wednesday” and “Three finals down, one to go.”

In the three years since I first opened my account, the Facebook layout has gone though numerous different designs, the privacy settings have constantly changed, and more and more features have been added. I remember when the status still included the mandatory “is”. Margaret Bonaparte is… Each time the layout changes, the privacy settings seem harder and harder to manipulate. Facebook now earns money from advertisers, and the more information you make public, the more money Facebook earns. A New York Times article, “Tell-All Generation Learns to Keep Things Offline,” published on May 8, 2010 reports on young people’s increasing awareness of just how little privacy they have online.

The article mentions a study conducted last July by U.C. Berkeley. The Berkeley Center for Law and Technology conducted a telephone survey on 1,000 people on Internet privacy. 88% of people aged 18 to 24 believed that “there should be a law that required Web sites to delete stored information.” 62% of people aged 18 to 24 “wanted a law that gave people the right to know everything a Web site knows about them.” I know that if I were asked these questions, I would say that yes, web sites should be required to delete stored information. It’s creepy to think that even if you delete your Facebook profile, the data is still stored online and accessible by the company.

A screenshot of an Honesy Box

Nothing on Facebook is every really private. Last spring, a boy from my old school was expelled. My old school was a private pre K-12 day school in Portland, Oregon. The boy, an eleventh grader, had a sibling at the school and a grandfather on the Board of Trustees. When an underclassmen girl reported receiving several racial comments in her Facebook honesty box, the school contacted Facebook in order to identify who had posted the “anonymous” comments. If someone chooses to have an Honesty Box on their profile, anyone else can post anonymous comments into the Honesty Box. However, the school convinced Facebook to reveal the name of the student who posted the racial comments, and he was expelled. While I don’t condone racism, his comments act as a wake up call to remind us that nothing on the web is really anonymous.

Facebook maintains that Facebook is an optional application, and that no one is forcing you to post all of your private information for the public to see. While this is true, it’s hard to imagine giving Facebook up now. Facebook has such a presence in the life of young adults, especially in highs school and college students. When I slugged through college applications last fall, I was reminded that I should be aware of what my Facebook profile revealed about me. If an admissions officer were to see my profile, what would they see? While I know people who temporarily deleted their profiles until May, many, including me, kept their profiles. However, in a few years, while applying to grad schools and for internships, the same privacy issues will undoubtedly come up. One wanders if users will eventually protest as Facebook continues to take away more and more of our privacy.

Works Cited

Holson, Laura M. “Tell-All Generation Learns to Keep Things Offline.” Nytimes.com. The NY Times, 8 May 2010. Web. 11 May 2010.

From C.D.'s to iPods: A New Era

I have found that the best songs evoke memories. A song has the power to bring you back to a certain place and time. I can’t hear the song “Survivor” by Destiny’s Child without thinking of the Ainsworth Elementary School talent show. I was ten years old, and three of my friends and I choreographed a dance to “Survivor.” I remember countless practice sessions in one another’s basements spent perfecting our routine, arguing over outfits, inventing new dance moves, and performing on stage in front of the harsh, yellow stage lights.

Fourth grade was right around the time that I became interested in music. I used to love browsing the C.D.’s at the grocery store, mesmerized by the shiny covers. I can’t remember the first C.D. I bought, but I remember lying on floor for hours listening to my C.D.’s. I memorized every track and knew all of the lyrics. Each C.D. seemed to tell a story, and I was entranced. I went to a Brittany Spears concert with my mom in fourth grade and I knew all of the songs by heart. When iTunes first emerged in 2003, I still clung to my C.D.’s. In eighth grade, I finally joined the massed when I received a green iPod mini for my birthday. Once I had iTunes at my disposal, and the ability to purchase single songs off of an album, my C.D. buying slowly petered off. Before I knew it, it seemed like I only bought songs off of iTunes.

Of course, there have been exceptions. I still tend to buy movie soundtracks, since all of the songs go along with the narrative of the film. Last spring I purchased the soundtrack to Spring Awakening after seeing the musical. But, for the most part, I stick to iTunes and cherry pick my favorite songs off of albums. There are times when I want to go back to the days when I bought C.D.’s, but it seems so long ago. Most of my favorite C.D. stores in Portland have gone out of business, and buying a song off of my computer is much more convenient than going to a store to purchase the song. I know that technically one can buy an album off of iTunes, but if I’m going to buy all of the songs in an album, I want a tangible C.D. in my hand.

After three years, I upgraded to an iPod video. Now on top of being in color, my iPod was capable of playing movies.

Today, the New York Times ran an article on the decreasing sound quality of music since the rise in popularity of iTunes. In order to be able to download a song in thirty seconds, the quality of the song had to be lowered. No one was going to wait the extra hour for a song to download in order to have a higher quality sound. Moreover, the article points out that people don’t listen to music in the same way that they used to. People used to place a higher standard on music quality. There was a huge market for expensive stereos, and people expected high quality sound. Now, with the rise of iPods, music has taken on a different role.

“People used to sit and listen to music,” Mr. Fremer said, but the increased portability has altered the way people experience recorded music. “It was an activity. It is no longer consumed as an event that you pay attention to. Instead, music is often carried from place to place, played in the background while the consumer does something else — exercising, commuting or cooking dinner.”

Reading the article made me nostalgic for the days when I used to listen to C.D.’s and the whole purpose would be to do listen to the music. I wasn’t half listening to the song while doing homework or cleaning my room. No, I was solely focussing on the music.

Works Cited

Plambeck, Joseph. “In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Takes Step Back.” nytimes.com. The NY Times, 9 May 2010. Web. 9 May 2010.

Beauty and the Beast: Our Obsession with Physical Appearance

Belle with the Beast

In 1991, Disney’s animated Beauty and the Beast became the first animated film to be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture. Disney studios restructured the old French fairytale into a story for the screen. An enchantress, disguised as a beggar, asks a young prince for a place to stay for one night in exchange for a rose. When the spoiled and haughty prince sends the woman away, the enchantress reveals herself and turns the prince into a beast. The enchantress warns the prince that he must find true love before his twenty-first birthday, or stay a beast forever.

In the film, a young woman named Belle becomes entangled with the beast, and ends up offering herself up as a prisoner to the beast in order to save her father. Needless to say, Belle is first frightened of the beast and longs to return home to her father. But, as time goes on and she begins to acquaint herself with the beast, she comes to love him. The film ends with Belle’s declaration of love that launches the Beast up into the air and transforms him back into a young man. The Beast is once again a handsome young man, and he lives happily ever after with the beautiful, young Belle.

The Disney film manages to highlight American society’s unhealthy fixation with beauty and physical appearance. The Prince’s good looks allowed him to be rude and selfish. Subsequently, once the Prince became a beast, the townspeople were afraid of the best and assumed that he was evil on the inside because of his gruesome outward appearance. People are judged on their looks as opposed to their personality.

Kyle pre-transformation

On July 8, 2010, CBS Films will release a modern update of The Beauty and the Beast. The film, entitled Beastly, will be set in a New York City high school. Based after the 2007 novel of the same name, the movie tells the tale of a popular, good looking high school boy named Kyle who was raised to believe that looks are the most important things.

Kyle after has been made "ugly"

After a witch makes Kyle ugly, he holes himself up in an apartment, unable to show the world his new face. Kyle must find someone to love him in one year if he wants to regain his old appearance. While I have not read the book, I have seen the newly released trailer. In the trailer, Kyle does finally find a young girl his age that isn’t interested in looks. Kyle must learn that someone’s physical appearance does not determine who he or she is on the inside.

Nineteen years after the animated Beauty and the Beast, America continues to have a vested interest in beauty. Every year, People magazine releases a special issue with the headline: “World’s Most Beautiful People.” The magazine gave the 2010 World’s Most Beautiful title to Julia Roberts. Other celebrities included in the 2010 issue include Diane Kruger, Amanda Seyfried, Scarlett Johansson, Jennifer Garner, Taylor Swift, Robert Pattinson, Zoe Saldana, Adam Lambert, and several more celebrities. There are disproportionately more women than men featured. One wanders what gives People magazine the authority to rank celebrities in terms of their physical attributes. More suspiciously, Julia’s title suspiciously coincides with the release of her summer movie Eat, Pray, Love based off of the bestselling non-fiction book by Elizabeth Gilbert. Despite People’s questionable lack of authority, millions of people will read the issue.

The trailer for Beastly below:

Sandra Bullock: Re-writing the Narrative

On April 6^th, I wrote a post on Sandra’s marriage woes that dissected the media’s portrayal of her husband’s alleged infidelities. Aside from issuing a brief statement that no sex tape existed between Sandra and Jesse, Sandra Bullock has refused to publicly comment on all of the rumors. Sandra’s name has continued to pop up in the tabloids, but until a few days ago, the readers had no hard facts pertaining to the allegations. And then last Wednesday, on April 28^th, People.com posted a preview of the newest issue. On the cover? Sandra Bullock smiling and lifting up a three-month-old African American baby.

MY NEW BABY

3 MONTHS AFTER THE SECRET ADOPTION

After months of silence, Sandra Bullock chose this moment to finally speak out and set the record straight on what actually occurred between her and her husband. Sandra chose People magazine, a nationally read magazine known for its celebrity coverage. Along with celebrities, the magazine also covers a fair amount of human-interest stories ranging from the Phoebe Prince suicide to local heroes across America. All of the stories tend to tell a narrative designed to draw the reader in. It has a better reputation than Star and US Weekly, and is available for purchase at newsstands, grocery stores, local pharmacies, and often seen strewn on tables in waiting rooms.

Sandra, smiling out from the cover, is proclaiming to the world that she is a proud new mother. More than that, she is the new mother of an African American baby adopted from New Orleans. She’s no longer the scorned wife of a cheating scoundrel. Sandra is rising up from her “role” as America’s princess whose husband betrayed her in front of millions of rapt followers. Now, she’s an overjoyed new mother, and there’s nothing America loves more than a smiling baby. Tabloids and celebrity blogs often feature photos of celebrity babies and toddlers, delighting over their little outfits and smiling faces. People reportedly paid four million to score the exclusive rights to the first public baby photos of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s twins. Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise’s four-year-old daughter Suri Cruise has become a mini fashionista. The paparazzi constantly photograph her in tiny heels and expensive, mini-size designer dresses.

Katie Holmes with her four-year old daughter Suri Cruise

New York Magazine posted a short blog post that cynically pointed out that Sandra managed to change her own narrative:

"By changing her story from one of misfortune — America's Oscar-winning sweetheart gets her heart stomped on! — to one of pluck — American's Oscar-winning sweetheart gets her heart stomped on, gathers her strength, and finds a way to love, a baby, anew — she has saved herself many, many years of looking really sad on tabloid covers, given the future biopic about her life a great twist, and demonstrated to the American public that she is the woman she seems to be in the movies."

By waiting to speak out, Sandra built up anticipation, insuring that when she finally did speak out, people would be listening. The People cover article is lengthy interview with Sandra Bullock where she talks about how happy she is to have a new baby in her life. She named him Louis, after Louis Armstrong. According to Sandra, she and Jesse had been trying to adopt a baby for years; long before any of the divorce drama began. In January, the adoption agency finally located a baby for them. Sandra had planned to announce the news of the adoption after the Oscars, but than, news of her husband’s affairs became public. Sandra clarifies that she was ignorant of her husband’s affairs until a reporter called her to tell her the day before a story was ran. Yes, she is filing for divorce. No, she never thought this would happen to her.

Large, beautiful photos of Sandra with Louis accompany the article. Sandra holding Louis, Sandra watching Louis sleep, and large close-ups of Louis smiling and gurgling.

It seems amazing that in this day and age where celebrity websites update every few minutes with gossip and paparazzi photos, Sandra was able to keep her new son a secret. Moreover, in the article, she comes across as a protective parent rather than a psychotic woman who kept her baby locked away in a house. Moreover, Sandra managed to do the impossible. She overcame a huge scandal and emerged as happy, smiling mom. She deftly manipulated the media to present herself in a positive image.

Works Cited

Chiu, Alexis and J.D. Heyman, "Sandra Bullock Loving Louis." People Magazine 10 May 2010: 170-182. Print.

Paskin, Willa. "Sandra Bullock Adopts a Baby, Audience Breathes Sigh of Relief." nymag.com. New York Magazine, 28 April 2010. Web. 4 May 2010.

The Modern American Woman

Betty Draper, Don's wife, from "Mad Men"

Today, the 21^st century American woman can go to college, earn a substantial paycheck, and keep her last name in marriage. She can vote. Society no longer dictates that a woman needs an escort to accompany her in public. She has accessible access to the pill and other forms of birth control. Indeed, women have made many leaps and bounds since the beginning of America. From the women’s suffragist movement in the early 20^th century that fought for the right to vote to the Second Women’s movement in the 1970’s, women have made huge leaps and bounds.

And yet, at the same time, society still harbors many expectations of its women. Women continue to be viewed as homemakers and mothers. While a woman may work eighty hours a week as a lawyer, society expects her to make it home for dinner with her husband and two kids. She will still shepherd her kids to soccer games on the weekends and attend every single violin recital. While it has become more common for a man to cook and help out with housework, women have remained unable to shake off their role as house maker.

While a woman may keep her last name, her kids will often take the last name of their father. My aunt lives in Marin County with her three daughters and husband. She works in Silicon Valley managing technology corporations while her husband stays home. She kept her last name when she married, but her three girls all took their father’s name. Despite her extensive workload, she manages to take her daughters on college trips, attend dance shows, and to stay on top of her daughter’s lives. She makes working at a top-level job and being a mom seem easy, but I know that it takes its toll on her. When a man is the primary breadwinner in the family, society doesn’t expect him to simultaneously maintain a “mom” role as well. He’s not expected to do all of the laundry and pick Billy up from school in the afternoons.

Julia with her daughter and husband on "Parenthood"

Television offers many ripe examples of women figures. On NBC’s new drama Parenthood, an early thirty-something mom named Julia works as a lawyer in a law firm. She works long hours while her husband stays home with their five year-old daughter. Many of Julia’s storylines revolve around her fear that her daughter doesn’t really know her. Julia is made to feel guilty that her work cuts into her spending time with her daughter.

Kristina from "Parenthood"

On the same show, Monica Potter plays Julia’s sister-in-law, Kristina. Kristina is a stay-at-home mom with a working husband, a teenager daughter, and a nine year-old son with Autism. In the most recent episode, entitled “ Perchance to Dream”, that aired on April 27, 2010, Kristina is invited to Sacramento for a weekend to help an old friend campaign for a political position. Before she had kids, Kristina used to work in politics. During the weekend, Kristina feels re-invigorated and remembers how much she values being needed. She does excellent work, and earns a job offer. But, when she tells her husband, although he is supportive, she ultimately decides that now is not the right time for her to go back to work. Kristina reasons that her kids will only be kids once and that she can always postpone work until they graduate high school. When Kristina’s nine-year old graduates, eleven years will have passed. If Kristina continually puts her children’s needs above her own, she may never return to work. She should not have to choose between being an employee and being a mother.

I think that Kristina serves as an example of how few leaps women have made in their everyday lives. While many, many women do work, those that do face a double standard. They are expected to superstars at work and at home. If a child is not doing well, the mother is expected to give up her job instead of her husband. In my Edith Wharton class, we are currently reading The House of Mirth. The women from New York society in 1905 could not vote, were viewed as inferior as men, could not be alone with men who they were not betrothed to, didn’t go to school, and faced many other discriminations. The modern American woman has improved immensely from a woman in one of Edith Wharton’s novels, but she has not gained an equal status to a man. Women continue to be expected to fulfill their “feminine duties” as mothers and masters of the house. They may work and travel alone, but at the end of the day, they are not granted the same freedoms that men possess.