Posts
In many ways it seems like Hanna Rosin has been sitting in our class the past three weeks. Her article "The End of Men" (there is a link in the title) in The Atlantic Monthly touches almost every topic we have covered in class from stereotypes to quotas to the wage gap. It is a little scary. Throughout her article, Hanna Rosin argues that women are actually progressing much faster in society than we may think. Her article is the perfect juxtaposition to Carolyn Maloney's book.
Essentially, Rosin argues that women in general are more suited for the 21st century. At first glance, this argument seemed absurd. I thought how can one gender be suited better for a particular time in history? However, once reading her examples it sort of begins to make sense. To begin illustrating her point she examines the number of women earning college and professional degrees versus the number of men. Having attended a state university that had more women than men it was not all that surprising to find that more women graduate from college than men. Next, Rosin examines how traditional stereotypes of men and women have influenced their careers. For example, Rosin discusses that traditionally men are lauded for their strength and competitive nature. According to the author, this made men perfect for the manufacturing jobs and high-powered competitive careers like those on Wall Street in the 20th century. Unfortunately, for men, those jobs are disappearing during the recession. On the other hand, women are traditionally known to be more nurturing and flexible. This is why more women tend to be in the nursing and teaching profession. And according to Rosin, "Of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most in the next decade in the U.S., all but two are occupied primarily by women." In addition, Rosin points out that as of this year women outnumber men in the workforce for the first time. Anyways, the article is quite long and she goes on in great detail to talk more about how the stereotypes of men and women actually play into the careers.
While I think the entire article is fascinating and I am more inclined to agree with Rosin than with Maloney on women's progress I was especially interested with the quotes Rosin uses from current female college students. These female students do not seem the least bit concerned with being discriminated against because of their gender. In fact, they all seem to think that they will be the ones with the "high-power" careers while their husbands stay at home and take care of the kids. So, my question is do you think the issue of discrimination against women is more generational? Do the women who are now entering the workforce really have as hard of a time as Carolyn Maloney suggests? Or have the authors we have read simply worked in a different time in a different climate? I am not really sure.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The Maternal Wall
In Rumors of Our Progress Congresswoman Maloney raises the poignant question of whether or not we can truly call our current political and social situation progress. Defining progress is an interesting endeavor in itself which I think requires some reflection. Ultimately progress is a relative term, and when defining progress we need to consider the context and how fast we can truly expect change to happen.
One example of a situation in which we have not seen much progress seems to be in the legal profession - an issue which we have discussed in class on a few occasions.
In the book Congresswoman Maloney mentions the "Maternal Wall" and details the story of Dawn Gallina and the RAOC (An acronym which I am definitely going to start adopting in my day to day life) that ruined her career at a law firm. Dawn Gallina's story took place in 1996 -- however it is quite apparent that not much has changed.
While reading through some blogs today I stumbled upon a story of a New York law firm that has a shockingly bad record with dealing with mothers -- you can read about it more here:
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/06/kl-gates-closed-to-associate-mothers/
I definitely recommend at least looking at the facts of the story they listed.
Despite all of our conversations and readings -- I was still really shocked by this incident. The Above The Law blog seems to have treated the issue with a fairly flippant tone. It almost sounds as though the only recourse they feel they have is to just make light of the situation, if that is even possible. The blog Jezebel has a post about this as well entitled "When The Mommy Track Leads Out The Door" http://jezebel.com/5558387/when-the-mommy-track-leads-out-the-door
I wonder if it is fair to treat these very serious incidences with such tones? Doesn't the use of the word "mommy track" diminish the importance in some way? What are the practical things that we can do to ensure progress? Although I am not involved in the legal profession and am in no real position to comment on its inner-workings, it seems as though we must be able to find some way to change things? But how? What do you all think?
Ultimately, I guess this is just another example of why we definitely need to carefully heed Congresswoman Maloney's calls for us to question our current standards of "progress".
One example of a situation in which we have not seen much progress seems to be in the legal profession - an issue which we have discussed in class on a few occasions.
In the book Congresswoman Maloney mentions the "Maternal Wall" and details the story of Dawn Gallina and the RAOC (An acronym which I am definitely going to start adopting in my day to day life) that ruined her career at a law firm. Dawn Gallina's story took place in 1996 -- however it is quite apparent that not much has changed.
While reading through some blogs today I stumbled upon a story of a New York law firm that has a shockingly bad record with dealing with mothers -- you can read about it more here:
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/06/kl-gates-closed-to-associate-mothers/
I definitely recommend at least looking at the facts of the story they listed.
Despite all of our conversations and readings -- I was still really shocked by this incident. The Above The Law blog seems to have treated the issue with a fairly flippant tone. It almost sounds as though the only recourse they feel they have is to just make light of the situation, if that is even possible. The blog Jezebel has a post about this as well entitled "When The Mommy Track Leads Out The Door" http://jezebel.com/5558387/when-the-mommy-track-leads-out-the-door
I wonder if it is fair to treat these very serious incidences with such tones? Doesn't the use of the word "mommy track" diminish the importance in some way? What are the practical things that we can do to ensure progress? Although I am not involved in the legal profession and am in no real position to comment on its inner-workings, it seems as though we must be able to find some way to change things? But how? What do you all think?
Ultimately, I guess this is just another example of why we definitely need to carefully heed Congresswoman Maloney's calls for us to question our current standards of "progress".
Monday, June 7, 2010
Dressed to Dissect?
Sabrina's post and the subsequent conversation about Dowd's article got me thinking again about something I saw in Newsweek last Friday* that extends this issue of physical appearance and self-presentation in another direction. The title of the Newsweek Article is "Conservative Hotties and Gender Hypocrisy: Why It's Hard to Have It Both Ways".
The Newsweek article discusses a list of the "20 Hottest Conservative Women In The New Media"** posted by the Right Wing News. The article provides names and photos of these 'top rated' women but no readily available additional biographical information (most of the photos are fairly sexual in nature, as the blog Jezebel pointed out today***).
In regards to Sabrina's question - Personally I feel as though people should be allowed to dress however they would like and that people should not necessarily have to adhere to any guidelines of conservative/creative professional dressing. Moreover, I think that in an ideal situation the focus would be on substantive qualities and ability. Of course, I am not so naive as to believe that people's appearances do not dramatically impact perception and I understand that they are inherently relevant to the decision making process.
I think the other way of looking at the question that Sabrina posed is:
Should the impact of your outfit be something you can be judged on instead of your ability? Of course this is something we discussed in some depth with regards to the articles on Elena Kagan, but what about for people who are not taking on a position of prominence? What about people who are being specifically pointed out for their "hotness"? Can "hotness" ever be a real advantage?
By focusing on the "New Media" the Right Wing News article is inherently targeting lesser known figures (Of course they did include people like Laura Ingram, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin on their list - all relatively famous female conservative figures who are likely accustomed to the kind of intense criticism that comes from holding a position of prominence). On the one hand, being featured on a list like this is certain to generate some degree of publicity for these writers - but perhaps not the kind of critical attention they deserve.
Graham's Newsweek post addresses this question by saying:
"It’s great that there’s such a vibrant female presence in the conservative commentariat—Coulter and Malkin in particular have a stature that’s equaled only by the likes of Rush Limbaugh—but by any sensible standard, it’s clear-cut sexism: women trying to compete on the same intellectual playing field as the men being ranked for how sexy they look in their online profile, not how scathingly they dissect Obamacare."
I think Graham raises an important point -- by focusing on people who work hard to be included on "the same intellectual playing field" the "20 Hottest Conservative Women" erases any potential advantage that a list like that could provide. Essentially, it seems to be the case that no matter whether you are considered 'drab' or 'hot' - a focus on appearance that replaces a hard analysis of your work is never acceptable, no matter what kind of position of leadership you may be in. So can "hotness" be an advantage? Maybe it can be... but it should not the primary measure by which any individual should be measured.
* The Newsweek post is included in the title of the blog post.
**http://rightwingnews.com/2010/06/the-20-hottest-conservative-women-in-the-new-media-2010-edition/
***http://jezebel.com/5557442/the-persistent-perviness-of-pundits-on-pin+up-bloggers
The Newsweek article discusses a list of the "20 Hottest Conservative Women In The New Media"** posted by the Right Wing News. The article provides names and photos of these 'top rated' women but no readily available additional biographical information (most of the photos are fairly sexual in nature, as the blog Jezebel pointed out today***).
In regards to Sabrina's question - Personally I feel as though people should be allowed to dress however they would like and that people should not necessarily have to adhere to any guidelines of conservative/creative professional dressing. Moreover, I think that in an ideal situation the focus would be on substantive qualities and ability. Of course, I am not so naive as to believe that people's appearances do not dramatically impact perception and I understand that they are inherently relevant to the decision making process.
I think the other way of looking at the question that Sabrina posed is:
Should the impact of your outfit be something you can be judged on instead of your ability? Of course this is something we discussed in some depth with regards to the articles on Elena Kagan, but what about for people who are not taking on a position of prominence? What about people who are being specifically pointed out for their "hotness"? Can "hotness" ever be a real advantage?
By focusing on the "New Media" the Right Wing News article is inherently targeting lesser known figures (Of course they did include people like Laura Ingram, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin on their list - all relatively famous female conservative figures who are likely accustomed to the kind of intense criticism that comes from holding a position of prominence). On the one hand, being featured on a list like this is certain to generate some degree of publicity for these writers - but perhaps not the kind of critical attention they deserve.
Graham's Newsweek post addresses this question by saying:
"It’s great that there’s such a vibrant female presence in the conservative commentariat—Coulter and Malkin in particular have a stature that’s equaled only by the likes of Rush Limbaugh—but by any sensible standard, it’s clear-cut sexism: women trying to compete on the same intellectual playing field as the men being ranked for how sexy they look in their online profile, not how scathingly they dissect Obamacare."
I think Graham raises an important point -- by focusing on people who work hard to be included on "the same intellectual playing field" the "20 Hottest Conservative Women" erases any potential advantage that a list like that could provide. Essentially, it seems to be the case that no matter whether you are considered 'drab' or 'hot' - a focus on appearance that replaces a hard analysis of your work is never acceptable, no matter what kind of position of leadership you may be in. So can "hotness" be an advantage? Maybe it can be... but it should not the primary measure by which any individual should be measured.
* The Newsweek post is included in the title of the blog post.
**http://rightwingnews.com/2010/06/the-20-hottest-conservative-women-in-the-new-media-2010-edition/
***http://jezebel.com/5557442/the-persistent-perviness-of-pundits-on-pin+up-bloggers
Response to a few posts
Will try to be brief here, getting back in the groove after being away and really enjoyed the posts. So to respond to a few:
1). "Babies" Haven't seen it but I have been wanting to for quite a while, I will make the effort to now, it does seem that the natural maternal instinct is the stronger of the 2 parental instincts and the relationship with the child is usually stronger w/the mother since its a special relationship, not that the fathers don't have a strong bond but this seems to usually be the case. I agree that the luxury of a more "advanced" (I use that term cautiously) society like ours affords more of an ability for fathers to get more involved as the basics of survival are more readily taken care of, but who is to say that anything is lacking from how the less developed cultures raise their kids? A question for the ages there.
2). "Dressed to Distract" Great post! What can I say on this I think we covered it 2 weeks ago, I just remember Rudy Guiliani defending Sarah Palin at the '08 GOP convention asking "when has a man ever been asked that question" about her fitness for office with her family responsibilities, not to mention how much nonsense goes into the appearance factor.
3). Joe McGinnis trying to stalk the Palin's like some sickened paparazzi. It is pathetic in a sense but it's amazing to me how the "Palin-haters" do nothing but continue to fuel the fire of her mystery/fascination/fame/myth/aura whatever it is, so I love it! I think it's great he moved in and she built a huge fence and the Palin's get more and more book sales and TV gigs and paid speeches and on and on every time some angry detractor does something like this. It just astounds me that they haven't either collectively or individually figured out that if you want someone like a Palin to go away the best thing is to ignore them, not throw rocket fuel on the white hot embers. Somehow though, I don't think he'll be getting an invite over for a beer and a Mooseburger!
1). "Babies" Haven't seen it but I have been wanting to for quite a while, I will make the effort to now, it does seem that the natural maternal instinct is the stronger of the 2 parental instincts and the relationship with the child is usually stronger w/the mother since its a special relationship, not that the fathers don't have a strong bond but this seems to usually be the case. I agree that the luxury of a more "advanced" (I use that term cautiously) society like ours affords more of an ability for fathers to get more involved as the basics of survival are more readily taken care of, but who is to say that anything is lacking from how the less developed cultures raise their kids? A question for the ages there.
2). "Dressed to Distract" Great post! What can I say on this I think we covered it 2 weeks ago, I just remember Rudy Guiliani defending Sarah Palin at the '08 GOP convention asking "when has a man ever been asked that question" about her fitness for office with her family responsibilities, not to mention how much nonsense goes into the appearance factor.
3). Joe McGinnis trying to stalk the Palin's like some sickened paparazzi. It is pathetic in a sense but it's amazing to me how the "Palin-haters" do nothing but continue to fuel the fire of her mystery/fascination/fame/myth/aura whatever it is, so I love it! I think it's great he moved in and she built a huge fence and the Palin's get more and more book sales and TV gigs and paid speeches and on and on every time some angry detractor does something like this. It just astounds me that they haven't either collectively or individually figured out that if you want someone like a Palin to go away the best thing is to ignore them, not throw rocket fuel on the white hot embers. Somehow though, I don't think he'll be getting an invite over for a beer and a Mooseburger!
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Dressed to Distract
I can thank Maureen Dowd's article in today's NY Times as the catalyst for today's post. If have not read her op-ed, titled "Dressed to Distract"- you should. (See link in title of post)
I think that this article is an interesting follow up to the one written about Justice-Nominee Kagan several weeks ago. Once again, it discusses the influence of a woman's dress on the public's perception of her.
My favorite quote from the article is, "“She has to manage her wardrobe so these men can manage their libidos?” said her lawyer, Jack Tuckner". The question is clear- do women have an obligation to dress with others in mind?
For sake of argument- let's narrow the universe to workplace attire. When you wake up in the morning, a lot goes into your decision of what to wear that day. Should the impact of your outfit, or your body on others be part of your decision making?
I know how I feel- but I am actually more interested in hearing your thoughts.
I think that this article is an interesting follow up to the one written about Justice-Nominee Kagan several weeks ago. Once again, it discusses the influence of a woman's dress on the public's perception of her.
My favorite quote from the article is, "“She has to manage her wardrobe so these men can manage their libidos?” said her lawyer, Jack Tuckner". The question is clear- do women have an obligation to dress with others in mind?
For sake of argument- let's narrow the universe to workplace attire. When you wake up in the morning, a lot goes into your decision of what to wear that day. Should the impact of your outfit, or your body on others be part of your decision making?
I know how I feel- but I am actually more interested in hearing your thoughts.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Could it be instinct or necessity?... I don't know!
I saw the documentary, Babies last night! I laughed throughout the entire movie. The film follows the earliest stages of the journey through life of four babies from Tokyo, Mongolia, Africa (Namibia), and the United States. It really showed that though we are raised so very different across the world there is still a universal understanding and commonality for all of us. Here is a link to the main site about the film: http://focusfeatures.com/film/babies/
I did find it interesting and wanted to raise a question (I am not sure where I really stand on the notion). “Is the stereotypical role of women instinctual or was it created out of necessity (for survival)?”
I noticed the role of the mother in all four of the babies that were filmed, was the dominate role, at least in the beginning of the child rearing (the film followed each baby to age 1). This was especially true in the more primitive upbringings. For example, the African baby lived with her other 8 siblings as a part of a Himba tribe. The men of the tribe were never seen throughout the entire film. I asked my friends what they thought about that and one said, “Well you could tell that they were well fed, I assume that the men do the hunting and bargaining, while the women stay in the village and rear the children.” This to me seemed natural, especially given the circumstances that the family lived in. The fathers interestingly enough in the more devolved cities (Tokyo and San Francisco) were much more involved in the rearing of their baby. They had resources and lifestyle opportunities that were not available to the other to families.
This got me thinking… that as our society changes and we are exposed to more and more opportunities to share the responsibility of raising a child, the role of the father becomes much greater. The difference that I felt was evident in the movie was the unique bond and connection that the mother had with her newborn. The fathers from Tokyo and San Francisco both participated in the birth of their newborn, but it was apparent that both mothers were dominant in the interaction. This is when I felt like it was more instinctual… that maternal instinct.
What do you think, because obviously I am unsure and seem to see them both as a natural reason why specific stereotypes have been created around the roles of both men and women.
Again, you have to go see Babies!
I did find it interesting and wanted to raise a question (I am not sure where I really stand on the notion). “Is the stereotypical role of women instinctual or was it created out of necessity (for survival)?”
I noticed the role of the mother in all four of the babies that were filmed, was the dominate role, at least in the beginning of the child rearing (the film followed each baby to age 1). This was especially true in the more primitive upbringings. For example, the African baby lived with her other 8 siblings as a part of a Himba tribe. The men of the tribe were never seen throughout the entire film. I asked my friends what they thought about that and one said, “Well you could tell that they were well fed, I assume that the men do the hunting and bargaining, while the women stay in the village and rear the children.” This to me seemed natural, especially given the circumstances that the family lived in. The fathers interestingly enough in the more devolved cities (Tokyo and San Francisco) were much more involved in the rearing of their baby. They had resources and lifestyle opportunities that were not available to the other to families.
This got me thinking… that as our society changes and we are exposed to more and more opportunities to share the responsibility of raising a child, the role of the father becomes much greater. The difference that I felt was evident in the movie was the unique bond and connection that the mother had with her newborn. The fathers from Tokyo and San Francisco both participated in the birth of their newborn, but it was apparent that both mothers were dominant in the interaction. This is when I felt like it was more instinctual… that maternal instinct.
What do you think, because obviously I am unsure and seem to see them both as a natural reason why specific stereotypes have been created around the roles of both men and women.
Again, you have to go see Babies!
Image, Stereotypes and Privacy
After our discussion in class about image and stereotypes and how the media is focusing much more of this things in women, I began thinking in the connection they have with what Kunin in “Pearls, Politics, and Power” calls “privacy”.
For a single woman running for office the question she will get is if she is a lesbian or why is she have not get married? For a woman with children the question will be who is taking care of the children?
These things would be brought up immediately and if you do not fit on the “image” of what people want you to be, you will become a “treat to the establishment” as Kyrsten Sinema said on the book.
What it came to my mind is if those stereotypes are bigger when you are a woman, lesbian, single, African American, Hispanic, etc? In these cases the loss of privacy will be worse than candidates with “good image”?
I was thinking in that when I read Tammy Baldwin’s response when somebody asked her if being a lesbian was an issue for her. She said: “We certainly live in a country and a world where homophobia still exist, but frankly, sexism still exist, racism still exist. Being a woman, being a lesbian, all those issues you have to deal with. There are clearly some people who would never dream of voting for me because I’m a woman and because I’m a lesbian”(p. 30).
She is saying that she has to deal with 2 things: 1) being a woman and 2) being a lesbian. The question is if a man who is openly gay has to deal with just one thing: being gay?? In that case, we (women) have to deal with our gender first and then with all the other things uncommon for society. So, “yes, gender does make a difference”! (p.82).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)