On a card printed in Britain to raise money for disabled Belgian troops of the First World War, soldiers gather outdoors around a makeshift stage where a male in drag is performing with two other soldiers in a theatrical piece. Sites for military theater included ruins of churches, tents, huts, outdoor platforms as well as stages in well established professional theaters.
David “Chim” Seymour had an intuitive ability to identify and record key moments in the experience of events and of his surroundings allowed him to access wordlessly the emotional heart of a subject. This is from a UNESCO-commissioned project to document the effects of World War II on Europe’s children. It depicts a child who has lost her parents in the war, and the drawing on the blackboard is her rendition of “home.”
“[I]t’s a good thing to think about the child as long as you remember that the child doesn’t exist, only children exist, every time we lump them together, we lose something.”—Margaret Mead (via robertogreco)
In Highsmith: A Romance of the 1950s her one-time lover, Marijane Meaker, describes her as “tall and thin. Black, shoulder-length hair, with dark brown eyes. She looked like a combination of Prince Valiant and Rudolf Nureyev.”
The loud, hissing sound you hear may be the air coming out of the tires of a much-hyped vehicle for improving American public education: the single-sex classroom.
Gender-segregated classes have been promoted in best-selling books, warmly embraced by the media, praised by school officials, and endorsed by politicians. It’s argued that the brains of boys and girls are so different that students need separate classrooms to learn and thrive. This mantra has been repeated so often that it has become the conventional wisdom.
That wisdom is fast unraveling. A consensus is emerging among scientists that single-sex classrooms are not the answer to kids’ achievement issues. This fact appears to be true even for students of color, who are often seen as those most likely to be helped by sex-segregated classrooms.