Men are spending more and more time in the kitchen encouraged by celebrity (名人) chefs like Gordon Ramsay and Jamie Oliver, according to a report from Oxford University.

    The effect of the celebrity role models, who have given cooking a more mainly picture, has combined with a more general drive towards sexual equality and men now spend more than twice the amount of time preparing meals than they did in 1961.

    According to the research by Prof. Jonatahn Gershuny, who runs the Centre for Time Research at Oxford, men now spend more than half an hour a day cooking, up from just 12 minutes a day in 1961.

Prof. Gershuny said, “The man in the kitchen is part of a much wider social trend. There has been 40 years of sexual equality, but there is another 40 years probably to come.”

    Women, who a generation ago spent nearly two hours a day cooking, now spend just one hour and seven minutes—a great fall, but they still spend far more time in the kitchen than men.

    Some experts have named these men in aprons as “Gastrosexuals (men using cooking skills to impress friends)”, who have been inspired to pick up a kitchen knife by the success of Ramsay, Oliver as well as other male celebrity chefs such as Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, Marco Pierre White and Keith Floyd.

    “I was married in 1974. When my father came to visit me a few weeks later, I was wearing an apron when I opened the door. He laughed,” said Prof. Gershuny. “That would never happen now.”

    Two-thirds of adults say that they come together to share at least three times a week, even if it is not necessarily around a kitchen or dining room table. Prof. Gershuny pointed out that the family meal was now rarely eaten by all of its members around a table—with many “family meals” in fact taken on the sofa in the sitting room, and shared by family members. “The family meal has changed a lot, and few of us eat—as I did when I was a child—at least two meals a day together as a family. But it has survived in a different format.” 

    How could we possibly think that keeping animals in cages in unnatural environments, mostly for entertainment purposes, is fair and respectful?

    Zoo officials say they are concerned about animals. However, most zoos remain “collections” of interesting “things” rather than protective habitats. Zoos teach people that it is acceptable to keep animals bored, lonely, and far from their natural homes.

    Zoos claim to educate people and save endangered species, but visitors leave zoos without having learned anything meaningful about the animals' natural behavior, intelligence, or beauty. Zoos keep animals in small spaces or cages, and most signs only mention the species' name, diet, and natural range. The animals' normal behavior is seldom noticed because zoos don't usually take care of the animals' natural needs.

    The animals are kept together in small spaces, with no privacy and little opportunity for mental and physical exercise. This results in unusually and self-destructive behavior called zoo-chosis(圈禁性精神病). A worldwide study of zoos found that zoochosis is common among animals kept in small spaces or cages. Another study showed that elephants spend 22 percent of their time making repeated head movements or biting cage bars, and bears spend 30 percent of their time walking back and forth, a sign of unhappiness and pain.

    Furthermore, most animals in zoos are not endangered. Captive breeding(圈养繁殖) of endangered big cats, Asian elephants, and other species has not resulted in their being sent back to the wild. Zoos talk a lot about their captive breeding programs because they do not want people to worry about a species dying out. In fact, baby animals also attract a lot of paying customers. Haven't we seen enough competitions to name baby animals?

    Actually, we will save endangered species only if we save their habitats and put an end to the reasons people kill them. Instead of supporting zoos, we should support groups that work to protect animals' natural habitats.

    Listed below are the stories of women you may not know about, but definitely should.

    Hedy Lamarr

    Hedy Lamarr starred in many films. But her film career is far from her only noteworthy achievement; she was also a brilliant inventor. In 1942, she and composer George Antheil received a patent（专利）for a device that could change radio signal frequencies. The purpose of the technology was to keep military enemies from figuring out messages. But it did more than that - it laid a foundation for the wireless technology we use today.

    Maria Sibylla Merian

    Today, children can happily explain how a caterpillar（毛虫） tums into a butterfly. But there was a time when no one knew this. Until the 1670s, scientists thought that caterpillars and butterflies were two totally different creatures. Thanks to Maria, we know the truth about these beautiful winged insects. Fascinated by insects, she began collecting, studying and drawing them as a child. It was through her study of caterpillars that she discovered the truth about their life cycles. She published two volumes of naturalist research, which provide major contributions to the field of entomology（昆虫学）.

    Ada Lovelace

    Ada Lovelace, the daughter of celebrated British poet Lord Byron, wasn't a poet herself but the world's first computer programmer. We think of computers as a recent invention, but people were toying with the idea of "computing machines" in the mid – 19th century when Lovelace was alive. Lovelace's mathematical genius was apparent at a young age and caught the attention of Cambridge professor Charles Babbage, who was working to design early computing machines that would be able to quickly solve math problems. Lovelace wrote some suggestions as to how to program the machines to work out numbers.

    In addition to designing this early computer program, she was also the first to surest that these computers might be able to do more than compute. She imagined them doing almost everything, from producing images to composing music.

    How would you like an easy way to earn $2,500? All you have to do is to sit around and wait for your meals. There's a catch, however. You have to stay in a chicken cage with a stranger for a whole week. There are no books or television or radio for a whole week. There are no books or television or radio for amusement. You can't leave until the week is up. And a camera will be recording your every move.

    Two people actually took the job. The idea came from Rob Thompson, a video artist. He wanted to make a film about the way animals are treated. His goal was to raise people's awareness of the living conditions of animals that are raised for food. He decided to pay $5,000 out of his own savings to two people who were willing to live like chickens for a week.

    To Rob's surprise, quite a few people answered his advertisement. He had interviews and selected Eric, a 24-year-old restaurant worker, and Pam, a 27-year-old chemist. The plan was for them to spend seven days together in a chicken cage that was six feet long and three feet wide. A camera would record their experience, which would take place in an art museum.

    The week was long and difficult. They slept on a hard wooden floor. They couldn't stand up without banging their heads. They ate mash(a kind of food for animals) and drink water from a garden hose-pipe(软管). Their only privacy was a toilet surrounded by a curtain. There were no sinks, mirrors, or toothbrushes in the cage. Their only inspiration was the two framed checks that hung on the wall outside the cage. Visitors who came here were warned, “Do not feed the humans.”

    Finally it was over, and Pam and Eric came out of the cage. They had survived the week, and they each had a $2,500 check in their hands. When Rob Thompson opened the cage, Eric came out, changed into clean clothes, and ate a chocolate bar right away. “It's great for me to be able to stand up.” he said. Pam just changed her clothes and left. After a week of visitors and reporters watching her, she didn't want to talk to anyone.

    There's a world of difference between a horror movie and a comedy—the former scares you half to death while the latter leaves you rolling on the floor with laughter. But try watching them without the background music and you just might decide they're not so different after all. Music and movies have been closely connected since the beginning of the film industry—even before the voices of actors were recorded. In movies, music helps to provide a sense of time and place, convey ideas about the characters and, most importantly, draw emotions out of the audience.

    Studies have long shown that our heart rates and anxiety levels rise and fall depending on the speed of the music we hear. Using this knowledge, composers use sudden changes in film music speed to create fear among audiences. Slowing the speed of the music will have the opposite effect, bringing about a sense of peace or a dreamlike quality. The use of dissonant (不和谐的) tones and noises is another technique that heightens tension. Humans naturally become unnerved when we hear dissonant sounds because such noises are usually associated with danger, like those that animals make to warn against predators (捕食者).

    As crucial as it is, the best film music is subtle. All that audiences are supposed to feel is a heightened sense of emotion—they shouldn't realize what's causing it. Only when the music is taken out of the film should audiences understand its effects.

    In keeping with this principle, some filmmakers are even using what's called "infrasound" (次声波) to arouse fear. While we may not be able to hear it because its frequency is below the range of the human ear, infrasound has been proven to cause anxiety, tremble and even sorrow. For example, infrasound was used in the soundtrack of the 2007 horror movie Paranormal Activity, and audiences reposed extremely high fear levels despite the 1ack of action throughout the movie. "It doesn't affect everyone equally," said British science writer Philip Ball, author of The Music Instinct, but he predicted that "we will see more of it used in movies in the future".

Good news for all Wes Anderson fans — the US director is back with the film The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar which hit Netflix, an online film provider, on Sept 27. It is a film adaptation of UK novelist Roald Dahl's novel under the same name.

The film stars UK actor Benedict Cumberbatch as a wealthy man named Henry Sugar, who develops the ability to see through objects. At the very beginning he uses this power to cheat at cards and win big while gambling (赌博), and later turns his fortune into a global network of orphanages (孤儿院).

Dialogue style

Running for just 40 minutes, the film features Anderson's quick-paced dialogue style. He also asked the actors to recite lines directly to the audience by looking at the camera, creating "the effect of listening to a podcast (播客) while turning the pages of a lovely picture book quickly", commented CNN.

Visual style

Anderson's work is immediately recognizable for his visual style as well. The "Anderson aesthetic (美学)" often uses bright color palettes (调色板) to both add visual appeal and make various ideas known to the audience, reported Yahoo News. In The Grand Budapest Hotel for example, Anderson uses a color palette of deep blues, rich greens and warm pinks to recreate an old-world European feel. In The RoyalTenenhaums the red tracksuits worn by Chaz, one of the main characters, show deep-seated anger resulting from parental trauma (创伤).

Symmetrical style

Another style is his use of symmetry (对称). Many of the shots involve (涉及) a person facing the camera, with the elements around the character set up in a sense of order and balance. Anderson explained to the media that it is out of his nature to "arrange things in a frame", which he compares to how people can't change the individuality of their handwriting. "You might try to write very well, but really, you have something your brain tends to do", he said.

However, his obsessive repetition of these stylistic choices in his films has led some to question his ability to innovate (创新). In response to this, Anderson stated, "It's not something I make any effort to do. I just want to make films that are personal but interesting to an audience."