Despite the disturbing reality we are all facing of attempting to argue for human decency through our own politics, but still being ascribed labels, there is a middle ground on each issue that many have unheard of. This is especially true for the issue of women’s rights in contemporary times. ‘Difference feminism’ undeniably resolves much of the dilemma that media figures have spent years arguing. Unfortunately, many people discussing the topic don’t know of the movement, and the information continues to sink down the internet. The “to be or not to be” of feminism has been a downfall to the progress of revealing women’s humanity to the world. Most media figures who claim feminism would more accurately be called “radical feminists”. Radical feminists believe that all of society is held back by “patriarchy” which argues for nonexistent male-female differences through which it promotes male-female hierarchy. They believe by dismantling gender differences socially that society will benefit. Other media figures who claim to disagree with feminism point to the mainline feminist teachers primarily across the first and second wave movements, whose views are oftentimes those of radical feminism, and claim that they make the false agenda of erasing tradition, difference, and male leadership, concluding that feminism altogether is wrong. Yet, both of these sides don’t acknowledge the shared view — women and men are equal in dignity and value. That view is where difference feminism comes into play. Originally, difference feminism was created by the women who were opposed to the mainstream feminism movement which wanted to place women into typically masculine settings and roles, and eliminate sex difference. Difference feminism promoted the idea that instead, women’s traditional roles should be equally valued and respected as men’s. Today, many difference feminists believe in equal legal rights and opportunities for education and work, but also hold that men and women should be seen in a complementary way. Difference feminism recognizes the duality of sexes and notes that men and women have inherent differences, but that the cultures that claim this but stick to sexist constructs — such as a lack of representation for “feminine” traits — need to reshape their priorities. All in all, a multitude of people among the political spectrum are likely to be hidden “difference feminists”. This movement could be the key to promoting a helpful conversation politically about women’s rights. Lastly, it answers the battle of having to describe what should be coherent virtues and morals.
By Megan Fincher
Indie horror movies have taken the industry by storm and are putting big-budget Hollywood films to shame. While Hollywood makes movies like The Odyssey and Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu, which audiences generally find uninteresting, independent filmmakers and YouTubers are conquering the cinemas. The release of small-budget films, like Iron Lung, Obsession, and Backrooms, is generating millions in box-office returns relative to their budgets, whereas larger productions are seeing sharp declines in ticket sales. These feats are especially impressive because the YouTubers behind these hit films are quite young. Backrooms, for instance, was directed and co-written by 20-year-old YouTuber Kane Parsons. The film was released by A24 across 3,442 locations in the US and Canada, grossing $81.5 million in its opening three days. These returns are just shy of what The Mandalorian and Grogu earned in their debut weekend. Backrooms’ global revenue is already at $118m, dubbing Parsons the youngest director to achieve a global number one film. The movie is doing so well that some are even suggesting that Parsons was not actually the one who directed the film because of his young age. Meanwhile, Obsession was filmed for less than $1 million and has become one of the major surprise hits of 2026. The film was directed by 26-year-old YouTuber Curry Barker and grossed $109 million worldwide. The movie is also projected to gross between $300M and $400M. Many viewers online have mocked Hollywood for their lackluster box office returns, calling it karma for modern mainstream movies regularly mocking their fans, race-swapping characters, and disrespecting source material. Overall, the current situation has shown a significant cultural shift in how people create and enjoy movies. Internet culture has seeped into mainstream entertainment; people are tired of Hollywood’s safe, watered-down, uninteresting films that prioritize left-wing political messaging over telling a good story that will stand the test of time. If Hollywood continues to refuse to adapt and provide its audience with what they want, it may be left behind by viewers in favor of indie filmmakers who have captured what has long been missing from entertainment: fun.
By Alexandra Miskewitz
In the 21st century, society is no longer defined by kings, inherited aristocracies, or rigid class systems where wealth stays permanently concentrated in a few hands. We do not live in a world where people are forced into fixed social positions based on birth. Instead, we live in a democratic, market-driven era where economic outcomes are fluid: the child of a billionaire can lose everything, while a child born in poverty can become a global success. This fluidity is one of the defining features of modern capitalism and it is what makes opportunity powerful. Against this backdrop, Zohran Mamdani’s economic approach—where he sharply increases taxes on the wealthy—raises a deeper question: does it strengthen opportunity, or does it risk weakening the very system that allows people to rise? Mamdani’s central argument is that taxing the rich more heavily will generate resources to support ordinary people and address inequality. On the surface, this message resonates in a city like New York where housing costs, income disparities, and living expenses remain high. However, the core issue is not whether the rich should contribute—most already do through taxes and economic activity—but whether higher and more targeted taxation of wealth creators can reliably improve long-term outcomes for everyone else. The danger, critics argue, is that redistribution alone does not generate new wealth; it only reallocates existing wealth. The deeper flaw in this approach is the assumption that wealth is static and simply concentrated in a fixed group. In reality, wealth in America is constantly being created, lost, rebuilt, and transferred across generations. The modern economy is not a closed system of permanent elites; it is a dynamic environment shaped by entrepreneurship, risk-taking, innovation, and failure. Policy, therefore, should focus not only on redistribution, but on preserving the conditions that allow upward mobility to continue. This is where the broader story of economic success becomes important. Many of the individuals often labeled as “wealthy elites” are not products of inherited privilege, but of dramatic upward mobility. For example, Oprah Winfrey rose from extreme poverty in rural Mississippi to build a global media empire. This is not an isolated case: Howard Schultz grew up in Brooklyn’s public housing before transforming Starbucks into an international brand; Ralph Lauren came from a modest immigrant family in the Bronx before creating a fashion empire; Larry Ellison was adopted into a working-class household and went on to found Oracle; Kenneth Langone, the son of a plumber and a cafeteria worker, helped build Home Depot into a retail giant; David Murdock struggled financially after military service before becoming a major business leader; Alan Gerry grew up during the Great Depression before building a telecommunications empire; John Paul DeJoria was once homeless before creating Paul Mitchell and Patrón; Harold Hamm rose from the son of Oklahoma sharecroppers to build an energy fortune; J.K. Rowling went from financial hardship as a single mother to global literary success; Guy Laliberté began as a street performer before founding Cirque du Soleil. There are even more to name: Kenny Troutt, Do Won Chang, Stephen Bisciotti, Shahid Khan, George Soros, Jan Koum, Roman Abramovich, Leonardo Del Vecchio, and François Pinault. They all reflect variations of the same theme which is that wealth in modern economies is often created, not inherited. The same pattern is visible within New York’s own economic story. Howard Schultz’s journey from Brooklyn public housing to global entrepreneurship and Jan Koum’s rise from immigrant hardship to building WhatsApp both demonstrate how the city and its broader ecosystem have historically enabled upward mobility. Kenneth Langone’s path from a blue-collar family to high finance reinforces the idea that opportunity—not origin—is the key driver of success. It is precisely this mobility that makes the debate over taxation so consequential. Critics of aggressive tax policies argue that while the intention may be to reduce inequality, the unintended consequence could be reduced investment and slower economic growth. Business leaders have voiced concern about rhetoric that frames wealth creation negatively. Citadel CEO Ken Griffin criticized Mamdani’s messaging as hostile toward successful entrepreneurs, warning that such attitudes can influence where firms choose to invest. Others, including major financial leaders like Jamie Dimon, have cautioned that policy discussions should prioritize long-term economic competitiveness and growth rather than focusing narrowly on redistributive measures. Supporters of higher taxation argue that the goal is fairness and social support, not punishment of success. And it is true that inequality is a real and persistent issue in modern cities. However, reducing inequality can happen in two fundamentally different ways: by lifting those at the bottom or by discouraging those at the top. History shows that cities and economies thrive most when they expand opportunity broadly rather than shrink success. The concern, therefore, is not whether the wealthy should contribute—they already do—but whether policy will maintain the conditions that allow future entrepreneurs to emerge. New York became a global financial and cultural center precisely because it attracted investment, ambition, and talent from around the world. If the city becomes perceived as a place where success is heavily penalized, capital and talent may increasingly flow elsewhere. Ultimately, the debate is not about protecting billionaires, but about protecting mobility. A healthy economy is not one where wealth is frozen and redistributed, but one where new wealth is constantly being created and more people have the chance to rise. Mamdani’s “tax the rich” agenda may generate political support in the short term, but the long-term challenge is ensuring that New York remains a place where the next generation of entrepreneurs, innovators, and workers can still build something from nothing. That is the foundation of the American Dream, and it is what determines whether prosperity expands—or simply gets reshuffled.
By Susmita Majumder
Follow Us