Nancy E. McGlen, Karen O'Connor, Laura van Assendelft, Wendy Gunther-Canada
I'm very glad I read the whole book and took this class. Although, at times, the material that's been covered has pissed me off that only serves to give me more energy to do the things I need to do. For example, the fact that computer science and engineering are still male dominated fields while psychology, my major, is already two/thirds female makes me want to follow one of the other possible job ossupation ideas thats been floating around my head for the past two years, which is architecture.
Earlier in the semester we were asked in class whether we would run for office or not and/or what would make us do it (or something to that effect). I responded, as I still think, that for me to really want to do something someone has to tell me I can't or think that I can't. Most women try to avoid male-dominated professions because they are less welcome in those fields, but I welcome being not welcome because it means that I'll have to prove myself.
Personally, because of my parents divorce and joint custody policy, I've always been interested in divorce, child custody, and family laws along with the current view of the family structure. I'm glad it's changing, but I think it needs to change more. Men and women need to equally split both the income and the hosuehold work for the family system to be stable once more. In the book, it was mentioned that men are being involved way less in their families, actually completely runaway dads are getting more and more common. To strengthen the family once more, I tihnk we need to come up with a new view on what household work and childcaring is. Most men I know want to be good fathers, they just don't feel that they are welcome to it. So instead of making it viewed as a man "going down" to women's work we'd need to make it viewed as a man taking on extra responsiblities.
But culture isn't welcome to change as the book has pointed out over again. Phyllis Schlafly is a great example of that, a woman who even now is fixed in old stereotypes. It is changing though, slowly buit steadily. Women are now accepted, or even expected, to be in places where they used to not be allowed such as undergrad and grad schools, business and the general workplace. This will continue to change, in what direction we don't know, but somewhere.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Women, Politics, and American Society -- Summary
Nancy E. McGlen, Karen O'Connor, Laura can Assendelft, Wendy Gunther-Canda
This is a summary of the entire book, I'll go back in and do each chapter as well. The book covered every part of women in politics, ranging from their schooling to their family to their hob. Because of the way these different subjects overlap, some of the information was repeated mpre than once, which securely lodged it in my mind. Most of these however, were the broad ideas ot the historical ones, going back to Seneca Falls 1848 in every chapter.
The book greatly relates to our class material, in some places going more in depth and in some places only glancing over objects that we spend full days talking about. For example, it never really goes into Roe v. Wade in the depth that we went into in class. Also, although it does mention historic abortions it doesn't go into as great detail as we did in class. But, on the other hand, there were many more statsitics as is to be expected on paper.
This is a summary of the entire book, I'll go back in and do each chapter as well. The book covered every part of women in politics, ranging from their schooling to their family to their hob. Because of the way these different subjects overlap, some of the information was repeated mpre than once, which securely lodged it in my mind. Most of these however, were the broad ideas ot the historical ones, going back to Seneca Falls 1848 in every chapter.
The book greatly relates to our class material, in some places going more in depth and in some places only glancing over objects that we spend full days talking about. For example, it never really goes into Roe v. Wade in the depth that we went into in class. Also, although it does mention historic abortions it doesn't go into as great detail as we did in class. But, on the other hand, there were many more statsitics as is to be expected on paper.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Gender and Learning -- Reaction
Reserve Reading
Sarah Glazer
I was surprised to find mention of John Hopkins University's program Center for Talented Youth mentioned in that article since I was part of that program for four years, as was my sister. Both of us scored higher on verbal than on math, as did most of the girls I know who participated in the program. There's always the odd one out though, at times there are several, but as long as they are in the minority they're still the odd ones out. Although much of what is said in the article is true, from both sides of every argument, there remains the women and men who break the rules or stereotypes and I think that needs to be remembered. All this study of the brain that says men are better at this than women makes the reader forget that although there are more men than women, there are still many successful women as well.
Like all arguments that come down to nature versus nurture, I think it has to be a combination of the two. There's indisputable differences between the brain chemistry of men and women and that has to have some effect, but it isn't everything. Neither is the environment the only factor. Lives of people are made up of so many variables that it's almost impossible to completely simplify them. There's some evidence though that teaching styles effect children differently because when schools switch to one or another it does make a difference.
There's something to be said for the fact that learning at earlier levels have evened out significantly. I think that the reason there are so few female professors compared to the number of females with high degrees is because of the previous generations view on gender differences, and when the current more androgynous generation reaches the higher levels of education and of every factor of the work force than hopefully and most likely in my mind the fields will even out, at least as much as people want them too.
Sarah Glazer
I was surprised to find mention of John Hopkins University's program Center for Talented Youth mentioned in that article since I was part of that program for four years, as was my sister. Both of us scored higher on verbal than on math, as did most of the girls I know who participated in the program. There's always the odd one out though, at times there are several, but as long as they are in the minority they're still the odd ones out. Although much of what is said in the article is true, from both sides of every argument, there remains the women and men who break the rules or stereotypes and I think that needs to be remembered. All this study of the brain that says men are better at this than women makes the reader forget that although there are more men than women, there are still many successful women as well.
Like all arguments that come down to nature versus nurture, I think it has to be a combination of the two. There's indisputable differences between the brain chemistry of men and women and that has to have some effect, but it isn't everything. Neither is the environment the only factor. Lives of people are made up of so many variables that it's almost impossible to completely simplify them. There's some evidence though that teaching styles effect children differently because when schools switch to one or another it does make a difference.
There's something to be said for the fact that learning at earlier levels have evened out significantly. I think that the reason there are so few female professors compared to the number of females with high degrees is because of the previous generations view on gender differences, and when the current more androgynous generation reaches the higher levels of education and of every factor of the work force than hopefully and most likely in my mind the fields will even out, at least as much as people want them too.
Gender and Learning -- Summary
Reserve Reading
Sarah Glazer
There is a difference between the amount of men and women in every subject at every level, be it a huge difference or one that is almost indefinable. At each stage, in each field, arguments are being made that these differences are caused either by biological or social/environmental factors. In the 1800's more than women used to be in science which sparked a trend in teaching to favor boys, now the opposite is true and teaching is changing again. At the moment, recipients of bachelors degrees have evened out in general, although there still are more men than women receiving engineering and computer science degrees.
This can be put down to women's lack of interest in the subject, which can be because they are socially trained not to be interested or because they biologically aren't wired to like that kind of learning. Or it can be put down to discrimination at any age, starting from the way that parents view their children and act toward their children, to who mentors female students and how they do so. Millions, probably billions of collars have been poured into evening out the playing field in sciencs, but some people still argue that you can't even it out if women don't want to even it out.
Summers, the president of Harvard, made a comment about intristic apptitudes, leaning towards the biological view that women are just not as interested in or worse at the natural sciences. After four months of arguments and demonstrations, Summer put $50 mil into hiring female faculties into tenured positions and more. Instituions across the country reevaluated their own departments in the face of this.
Sarah Glazer
There is a difference between the amount of men and women in every subject at every level, be it a huge difference or one that is almost indefinable. At each stage, in each field, arguments are being made that these differences are caused either by biological or social/environmental factors. In the 1800's more than women used to be in science which sparked a trend in teaching to favor boys, now the opposite is true and teaching is changing again. At the moment, recipients of bachelors degrees have evened out in general, although there still are more men than women receiving engineering and computer science degrees.
This can be put down to women's lack of interest in the subject, which can be because they are socially trained not to be interested or because they biologically aren't wired to like that kind of learning. Or it can be put down to discrimination at any age, starting from the way that parents view their children and act toward their children, to who mentors female students and how they do so. Millions, probably billions of collars have been poured into evening out the playing field in sciencs, but some people still argue that you can't even it out if women don't want to even it out.
Summers, the president of Harvard, made a comment about intristic apptitudes, leaning towards the biological view that women are just not as interested in or worse at the natural sciences. After four months of arguments and demonstrations, Summer put $50 mil into hiring female faculties into tenured positions and more. Instituions across the country reevaluated their own departments in the face of this.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Gender Pay Gap -- Reaction
Reserve Reading
Thomas J. Billitteri
The fact that there is a wage gap, whether it's because of personal choices, sex discrimination, or anything else is discouraging. It makes women think that they are worth less than men, that their skills have less merit, and creates a general anti-female view of the work place. I'm sure that there still is sex-discrimination, whether or not it creates the wage gap, or a significant part of the wage gap I couldn't say. I think it comes down to a persons opinoin as much as it does to the actual facts. Facts can be twisted to support any number of theories.
It's interesting to know thath there are women on both sides of every issue surrounding the wage gap, whether there is one, how to fix it, whether comparable worth is actually worth something. It means that it's not just men putting down women, but the society looking at the issue as a whole. I find comfort in the fact that the wage gap has been steadily decreasing and somewhere in the article it mentioned that at the rate the gap is decreasing, in 50 years there should be near equality. I definately hope so, not that I like that it's there, but if all else fails, at least there's hope that time will sort it out.
This makes sense as more and more people, both men and women, are being raised under working mothers and it's becoming more acceptable for women to work. Hopefully this will liberalize the view on women working so that the next wave of bosses and managers see no difference between male and female applicants.
Thomas J. Billitteri
The fact that there is a wage gap, whether it's because of personal choices, sex discrimination, or anything else is discouraging. It makes women think that they are worth less than men, that their skills have less merit, and creates a general anti-female view of the work place. I'm sure that there still is sex-discrimination, whether or not it creates the wage gap, or a significant part of the wage gap I couldn't say. I think it comes down to a persons opinoin as much as it does to the actual facts. Facts can be twisted to support any number of theories.
It's interesting to know thath there are women on both sides of every issue surrounding the wage gap, whether there is one, how to fix it, whether comparable worth is actually worth something. It means that it's not just men putting down women, but the society looking at the issue as a whole. I find comfort in the fact that the wage gap has been steadily decreasing and somewhere in the article it mentioned that at the rate the gap is decreasing, in 50 years there should be near equality. I definately hope so, not that I like that it's there, but if all else fails, at least there's hope that time will sort it out.
This makes sense as more and more people, both men and women, are being raised under working mothers and it's becoming more acceptable for women to work. Hopefully this will liberalize the view on women working so that the next wave of bosses and managers see no difference between male and female applicants.
Gender Pay Gap -- Summary
Reserve Reading
Thomas J. Billitteri
There is a gender pay gap, of some kind, for some reason, that may or may not be disappearing. The research is too controversial for a reader to be able to draw an answer without an opinion. Any conclusion on the wage gap is as much an opinion as it is an answer based on research. What is known, is that the wage gap has dramatically decreased since women first dramatically entered the work force in around the 1850's. It continued to decrease, most dramatically during war eras when men were fighting, leaving jobs and the economy in the hands of the women.
Hillary Clinton has been working to pass a bill to create a law on comparable worth, a very controversial issue that has already been struck down once. It argues that equal pay for equal work is a more efficient way of decreasing wage discrimination than the same pay for the same job. Two different jobs could actually involve the same amount of work, just be titled differently and therefore if a woman was in one and a man in the other she could be making less money.
An argument against comparable worth is that it would bring the government into business with a force and would therefore take control out of the private sector. It would also tell women that the government doesn't believe that they can make gains in the jobs where they are. This is against the pro-comparable worth argument that some wage discrimination is based on historical views on women's jobs versus men's jobs. Women were always paid less so the jobs they usually take are paid less.
Thomas J. Billitteri
There is a gender pay gap, of some kind, for some reason, that may or may not be disappearing. The research is too controversial for a reader to be able to draw an answer without an opinion. Any conclusion on the wage gap is as much an opinion as it is an answer based on research. What is known, is that the wage gap has dramatically decreased since women first dramatically entered the work force in around the 1850's. It continued to decrease, most dramatically during war eras when men were fighting, leaving jobs and the economy in the hands of the women.
Hillary Clinton has been working to pass a bill to create a law on comparable worth, a very controversial issue that has already been struck down once. It argues that equal pay for equal work is a more efficient way of decreasing wage discrimination than the same pay for the same job. Two different jobs could actually involve the same amount of work, just be titled differently and therefore if a woman was in one and a man in the other she could be making less money.
An argument against comparable worth is that it would bring the government into business with a force and would therefore take control out of the private sector. It would also tell women that the government doesn't believe that they can make gains in the jobs where they are. This is against the pro-comparable worth argument that some wage discrimination is based on historical views on women's jobs versus men's jobs. Women were always paid less so the jobs they usually take are paid less.
First Ladies in the States -- Reaction
Reserve Reading
Laura van Assendelft and Bernadette Nye
I can't wait until a time when there can be research done on the husbands of governors. Pr. van Assendelft mentioned in class that there was one husband at the time, but he didn't get a survey. It was interesting to see how these women have created new careers for themselves especially because they mostly had to put their own careers in the back seat. Personally, I would never like to be known as the governor's wife, or as anyone's wife. I am my own person, not just a relation to another person.
It's still good to know that there are people out there who can take their position and use it. There will always be governors spouses, no matter what gender. There will also always be presidential spouses, hopefully soon we'll have a male one of those too. So it is ever important to study what these people do. I would like to talk personally to these women, but also to see a more recent survey because I know of more female governors now. My state, Connecticut, currently has Jodi Rell as governor, although she got it through being lieutenant governor first.
Another intersting group of people to look at would be the children of governors, teenagers would surely have input on their parents political activity, although I don't know how many governors actually have teenage children when they're in office. It's great that many governor's spouses are championing causes, specifically breast cancer. You can see the play out of the recent surge of breast cancer awareness activity in each state and nationally. These women are obviously making a difference and will continue to do so.
Laura van Assendelft and Bernadette Nye
I can't wait until a time when there can be research done on the husbands of governors. Pr. van Assendelft mentioned in class that there was one husband at the time, but he didn't get a survey. It was interesting to see how these women have created new careers for themselves especially because they mostly had to put their own careers in the back seat. Personally, I would never like to be known as the governor's wife, or as anyone's wife. I am my own person, not just a relation to another person.
It's still good to know that there are people out there who can take their position and use it. There will always be governors spouses, no matter what gender. There will also always be presidential spouses, hopefully soon we'll have a male one of those too. So it is ever important to study what these people do. I would like to talk personally to these women, but also to see a more recent survey because I know of more female governors now. My state, Connecticut, currently has Jodi Rell as governor, although she got it through being lieutenant governor first.
Another intersting group of people to look at would be the children of governors, teenagers would surely have input on their parents political activity, although I don't know how many governors actually have teenage children when they're in office. It's great that many governor's spouses are championing causes, specifically breast cancer. You can see the play out of the recent surge of breast cancer awareness activity in each state and nationally. These women are obviously making a difference and will continue to do so.
First Ladies in the States -- Summary
Reserve Reading
Laura van Assendelft and Bernadette Nye
First Ladies of States, if not as nationally influential as the First Lady, have just as much of an impact in their state. The research in the article was particularly interesting because it was so recent whereas the First Lady article only had two or three really recent women. One of the women wrote that the time of the cookie-cutter governor's spouse was over. Now that women are getting more involved in the workforce that is happening more over the entire country.
It wasn't surprising to read that most of the FL's of state's favorite activity was to meet people. If I were in that position, I would do the same thing. They were also used as a more personal extension of the governor, they had more time to travel and communicate with the local people. FL's tended to like smaller, more intimate gatherings than the ceremonial, large affairs. They also almost all championed typical women's issues so as not to endanger their husbands career.
The media was reported as being quite friendly to the governor's wives, especially because they only championed typical women's issues. If they had taken on more political or controversial issues, they probably wouldn't have had such a general good relationship with the press. Some did report that they felt personally attacked when their husband was attacked by the press. They all believed that they had influence over their husbands and over their issues. Some lobbied, some didn't, so worked within the state and some within the public, but they all made a contribution in one way or another to their husbands candidacy.
Laura van Assendelft and Bernadette Nye
First Ladies of States, if not as nationally influential as the First Lady, have just as much of an impact in their state. The research in the article was particularly interesting because it was so recent whereas the First Lady article only had two or three really recent women. One of the women wrote that the time of the cookie-cutter governor's spouse was over. Now that women are getting more involved in the workforce that is happening more over the entire country.
It wasn't surprising to read that most of the FL's of state's favorite activity was to meet people. If I were in that position, I would do the same thing. They were also used as a more personal extension of the governor, they had more time to travel and communicate with the local people. FL's tended to like smaller, more intimate gatherings than the ceremonial, large affairs. They also almost all championed typical women's issues so as not to endanger their husbands career.
The media was reported as being quite friendly to the governor's wives, especially because they only championed typical women's issues. If they had taken on more political or controversial issues, they probably wouldn't have had such a general good relationship with the press. Some did report that they felt personally attacked when their husband was attacked by the press. They all believed that they had influence over their husbands and over their issues. Some lobbied, some didn't, so worked within the state and some within the public, but they all made a contribution in one way or another to their husbands candidacy.
Wives in the White House -- Reaction
Reserve Reading
Laura van Assendelft, Bernadette Nye, and Karen O'Connor
It doesn't surprise me that first ladies have had so much impact. In fact, I'm more surprised that that impact hasn't been previously studied. Who could have more impact then the person who whispers in the president's ear every morning and every night? It was interesting to read about how different women took advantage or shirked from the duties that first ladies were given. I particularly liked reading about women who technically did exactly what they were asked but did so much more within the area they were given, such as Dolly Madison.
The area that is deemed as the women's sphere has been viewed as less important or influential than men's, but I've always disagreed. What is more important than the home you live in? Sure morals and rights are great, and not unappreciated I'm sure, but what good are rights if you have no place to practice them, no family to return to? Some cultures view women as goddesses, since they can give, make or even take life (that is only through preganancy, miscarriage, and abortion of course). But in the United States women ahve always taken a backseat that other cultures think of as a throne.
Thankfully, women have been slowly climbing forward and pushing their husbands out of the way. Not to say that they push their husbands back, just over to make room. Jackie Kennedy, for example, didn't really tread into her husband's area but was very incluential where she practiced. When spouses work like that it means that they can cover even more ground than if they were always treading on each others feet. It will, of course, be interesting to see how Michelle Obama, who is already a contraversial figure, will affect the role of the first lady. Also, to see if the first female president will have previously been a first lady, such as Hillary Clinton. Only time will tell.
Laura van Assendelft, Bernadette Nye, and Karen O'Connor
It doesn't surprise me that first ladies have had so much impact. In fact, I'm more surprised that that impact hasn't been previously studied. Who could have more impact then the person who whispers in the president's ear every morning and every night? It was interesting to read about how different women took advantage or shirked from the duties that first ladies were given. I particularly liked reading about women who technically did exactly what they were asked but did so much more within the area they were given, such as Dolly Madison.
The area that is deemed as the women's sphere has been viewed as less important or influential than men's, but I've always disagreed. What is more important than the home you live in? Sure morals and rights are great, and not unappreciated I'm sure, but what good are rights if you have no place to practice them, no family to return to? Some cultures view women as goddesses, since they can give, make or even take life (that is only through preganancy, miscarriage, and abortion of course). But in the United States women ahve always taken a backseat that other cultures think of as a throne.
Thankfully, women have been slowly climbing forward and pushing their husbands out of the way. Not to say that they push their husbands back, just over to make room. Jackie Kennedy, for example, didn't really tread into her husband's area but was very incluential where she practiced. When spouses work like that it means that they can cover even more ground than if they were always treading on each others feet. It will, of course, be interesting to see how Michelle Obama, who is already a contraversial figure, will affect the role of the first lady. Also, to see if the first female president will have previously been a first lady, such as Hillary Clinton. Only time will tell.
Wives in the White House -- Summary
Reserve Reading
Laura van Assendelft, Bernadette Nye, and Karen O'Connor
The power behind the thrown is a saying that I grew up with, referring to queens with kings, wives with husbands on any level although I usually heard it from my stepmother. This article describes the power behind the president, the first lady. Throughout history first ladies have had great impact on their husbands, just as all wives do. Although not all first ladies were actively involved in politics, some made huge strides for women, future first ladies, and whatever policies they were fighting for.
First Ladies have continued to use their realm of influence and just, expanded inside it while tentatively testing the boundaries of it. Martha Washington started out by hosting parties and dinners for foreign dignitaries as well as for members of the American Government. This greatly helped George Washington while he struggled to keep the fledgling country together. Since that very first first lady, first ladies have been expected to be hostess and decorator of the White House as well as representatives and surrogates for their husbands.
The influence of First Ladies and Vice Presidents were compared, and first ladies came out on top. Throughout history they have had more press coverage and closer proximity to the president and all his staff. Originally the vice president was connected to the Senate and the legislative branch of government instead of the executive branch. This had to change when presidents such as Eisenhower got sick in office or were assassinated. But before it was the vice presidents job to step in, the first ladies were there to "take care of their husbands" by running the country for them. Eleanor Roosevelt is a great example of this, she basically ran the country while her husband was suffering from illnesses and toured for him while he was busy with World War II.
However, because women have been making so many strides in other fields of politics, the role of the First Lady has possibly stopped evolving for now. Women tend not to plan to be first lady any more if they have political aspirations because there are so many other opportunities open to them that didn't exist for women earlier in the nation's history. It will still be interesting to see how Michelle Obama expands or lies within the current boundaries set by for the "office" of the first lady.
Laura van Assendelft, Bernadette Nye, and Karen O'Connor
The power behind the thrown is a saying that I grew up with, referring to queens with kings, wives with husbands on any level although I usually heard it from my stepmother. This article describes the power behind the president, the first lady. Throughout history first ladies have had great impact on their husbands, just as all wives do. Although not all first ladies were actively involved in politics, some made huge strides for women, future first ladies, and whatever policies they were fighting for.
First Ladies have continued to use their realm of influence and just, expanded inside it while tentatively testing the boundaries of it. Martha Washington started out by hosting parties and dinners for foreign dignitaries as well as for members of the American Government. This greatly helped George Washington while he struggled to keep the fledgling country together. Since that very first first lady, first ladies have been expected to be hostess and decorator of the White House as well as representatives and surrogates for their husbands.
The influence of First Ladies and Vice Presidents were compared, and first ladies came out on top. Throughout history they have had more press coverage and closer proximity to the president and all his staff. Originally the vice president was connected to the Senate and the legislative branch of government instead of the executive branch. This had to change when presidents such as Eisenhower got sick in office or were assassinated. But before it was the vice presidents job to step in, the first ladies were there to "take care of their husbands" by running the country for them. Eleanor Roosevelt is a great example of this, she basically ran the country while her husband was suffering from illnesses and toured for him while he was busy with World War II.
However, because women have been making so many strides in other fields of politics, the role of the First Lady has possibly stopped evolving for now. Women tend not to plan to be first lady any more if they have political aspirations because there are so many other opportunities open to them that didn't exist for women earlier in the nation's history. It will still be interesting to see how Michelle Obama expands or lies within the current boundaries set by for the "office" of the first lady.
Women in the Judiciary -- Reaction
Reserve Reading
The most surprising thing about this article was how recent the advancements in the judicial system were. Sandra Day O'Connor was only appointed in 1981 as the first female member of the Supreme Court. Ruth Ginsburg after her was only the second, and the article didn't cover any women since then so I'm assuming there haven't been any. It's encouraging that the levels of women in law school is even to the number of men. This means that the eligibility pool is developing, even though in class we've discussed how the pipeline theory doesn't actually work that well.
I was very interested, and actually relieved, to find that women don't judge particularly differently than men. As the article states, it does lend a certain amount of viability to the judiciary system. it also makes women seem less opinionated and feminist-y. It would be interesting to see whether the court system as a whole has changed since the induction of women into it. The article seemed to assess how women voted differently from men, while the women interviewed said they were affecting how the men voted. Isn't it possible that rather than voting against the male judges, female judges are actually changing how the men vote?
The most surprising thing about this article was how recent the advancements in the judicial system were. Sandra Day O'Connor was only appointed in 1981 as the first female member of the Supreme Court. Ruth Ginsburg after her was only the second, and the article didn't cover any women since then so I'm assuming there haven't been any. It's encouraging that the levels of women in law school is even to the number of men. This means that the eligibility pool is developing, even though in class we've discussed how the pipeline theory doesn't actually work that well.
I was very interested, and actually relieved, to find that women don't judge particularly differently than men. As the article states, it does lend a certain amount of viability to the judiciary system. it also makes women seem less opinionated and feminist-y. It would be interesting to see whether the court system as a whole has changed since the induction of women into it. The article seemed to assess how women voted differently from men, while the women interviewed said they were affecting how the men voted. Isn't it possible that rather than voting against the male judges, female judges are actually changing how the men vote?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)