Saturday, December 12, 2009
Blog Post #39
First, organizations must stop pretending that there is no problem to deal with; this itself creates a problem. Public statements need to be more closely related to what people actually think. Next, we need to establish common ground between men and women to construct some principles. We need a vision that will prompt both genders to work hard to change the future, not just women. They need to redefine what it means to best deliver legal services, what makes a good lawyer, the best way to manage a workplace, the best way to manage the workplace, and the best way to deal with personal and professional conflicts. The awkwardness of men and women working together needs to be relieved. They need to stop the avoidance and find ways to ease tensions. We should attempt to draw the best from feminine leadership and masculine leadership. Finally, there should be amore balanced notion of parenthood, assuming both parents will want time with the child, not just the mother. We should learn to support and embrace people who step outside stereotypical norms, instead of rejecting them.
Repost of Blog #38
In 1981, Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman to be sworn into the US Supreme Court. She was appointed by Ronald Reagan. She went to Stanford University for a Bachelor’s of Science in Economics. She also attended the Stanford School of Law. Later she married and had three children. Her husband was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and she was actively involved in creating awareness. When she started to pursue her career, many people were still against employing women in the field of law. She was offered a job as a secretary but she turned it down. She worked in public service as the Deputy County Attorney of San Mateo County, California from 1952—1953 and as a civilian attorney for Quartermaster Market Center in Frankfurt am Main, Germany from 1954-1960. Later she served as the Assistant Attorney General of Arizona. In ’75 she became the judge of Maricopa County Superior Court. In ’79 she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Then, in 1981 she joined the US Supreme Court. In 2004 she was the second most powerful woman in America. On August 12, 2009, she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor of the United States, by President Barack Obama.
Jeanine Pirro was the first of many things for the state of New York. She was the first female District Attorney of Westchester County, the first Westchester court judge, the first woman to try a murder case there, and the first woman to be named “outstanding prosecutor” in the state of New York. She graduated from Notre Dame High School in three years rather than the usual four. She went to the University of Buffalo for her undergraduate and Albany Law School for her juris doctorate. Her marriage was filled with violence and infidelity. That is why in 1997 she chaired the New York State Commission on Domestic Violence Fatalities, whose report and recommendations resulted in legislation passing that enhanced protections of, and safeguards for, the victims of domestic abuse.
Jeanine Pirro was the first of many things for the state of New York. She was the first female District Attorney of Westchester County, the first Westchester court judge, the first woman to try a murder case there, and the first woman to be named “outstanding prosecutor” in the state of New York. She graduated from Notre Dame High School in three years rather than the usual four. She went to the University of Buffalo for her undergraduate and Albany Law School for her juris doctorate. Her marriage was filled with violence and infidelity. That is why in 1997 she chaired the New York State Commission on Domestic Violence Fatalities, whose report and recommendations resulted in legislation passing that enhanced protections of, and safeguards for, the victims of domestic abuse.
Blog POst #38
In 1981, Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman to be sworn into the US Supreme Court. She was appointed by Ronald Reagan. She went to Stanford University for a Bachelor’s of Science in Economics. She also attended the Stanford School of Law. Later she married and had three children. Her husband was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and she was actively involved in creating awareness. When she started to pursue her career, many people were still against employing women in the field of law. She was offered a job as a secretary but she turned it down. She worked in public service as the Deputy County Attorney of San Mateo County, California from 1952—1953 and as a civilian attorney for Quartermaster Market Center in Frankfurt am Main, Germany from 1954-1960. Later she served as the Assistant Attorney General of Arizona. In ’75 she became the judge of Maricopa County Superior Court. In ’79 she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Then, in 1981 she joined the US Supreme Court. In 2004 she was the second most powerful woman in America. On August 12, 2009, she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor of the United States, by President Barack Obama.
Jeanine Pirro was the first of many things for the state of New York. She was the first female District Attorney of Westchester County, the first Westchester court judge, the first woman to try a murder case there, and the first woman to be named “outstanding prosecutor” in the state of New York. She graduated from Notre Dame High School in three years rather than the usual four. She went to the University of Buffalo for her undergraduate and Albany Law School for her juris doctorate. Her marriage was filled with violence and infidelity. That is why in 1997 she chaired the New York State Commission on Domestic Violence Fatalities, whose report and recommendations resulted in legislation
Jeanine Pirro was the first of many things for the state of New York. She was the first female District Attorney of Westchester County, the first Westchester court judge, the first woman to try a murder case there, and the first woman to be named “outstanding prosecutor” in the state of New York. She graduated from Notre Dame High School in three years rather than the usual four. She went to the University of Buffalo for her undergraduate and Albany Law School for her juris doctorate. Her marriage was filled with violence and infidelity. That is why in 1997 she chaired the New York State Commission on Domestic Violence Fatalities, whose report and recommendations resulted in legislation
Blog Post #37
American bar Association points out that time will not fix the under-representation of women in the legal field and the discrimination they experience. Holly English agrees that we cannot act as though it is going away on its own; we have to keep working on clearing the gender gap. Attitudes and stereotypes that are entrenched in society and the workplace are reinforcing barriers to women. English touches on a few of these. A good example is the gender expectation that women are generally nurturing. When women act outside this, and act aggressively, people are flabbergasted, and sometimes reject her. If she does carry herself in a nurturing, passive manner than she is not tough enough for the field of law. It is all too often that women are viewed as too emotional, insufficiently aggressive, and not very serious about their jobs. Like English discussed a lot, there needs to be more room for balance between professional and personal priorities, for both men and women. The repercussions of having children are very detrimental to the career of an attorney. Working part-time makes them not as serious about their job. Working full-time makes them a suspect parent. If they cannot successfully manage the role of an employee and as a caregiver then they are considered a failure. All of these things that the American Bar Association and Holly English’s book, Gender on Trial, have recognized as problems in the corporate world add to the disparity in advancement for women. The ABA suggests a few solutions. They suggest that there be an incentive to promote women and lawyers of color, that we start having successful senior partners mentor new associates, we allow more networking, we offer a supportive atmosphere to go along with the offering of a flexible schedule, we make sure everyone gets a fair share of good assignments, and we offer a temporary suspension of the “clock” for those who want to become partner but want kids as well.In Gender on Trial, Holly English gives similar solutions. She recommends a structure mentoring system, REAL flexible work arrangements with constructed policies, rotating of work assignments, risk taking, and performance reviews so advancement is based on merit rather than politics.
Blog Post #36
In the story “Talk of the Nation,” they discussed the idea that many women were either leaving jobs in the top rungs of corporation or opting out of them all together because of the excess demand. The were expected to work 60+ hour per week, have no personal life, be on call 24/7, and to put the company ahead of their personal life. Many women are deciding that it is jus not worth, and it is not just mothers who are making this decision. Women desire to be in control of the lives, and the balance between home and work. With the jobs that have such a high demand they simply cannot do that. Women are less willing to sacrifice their personal life for professional success than their male counterparts. I feel like women have also been sort of forced to quit jobs that have less demand; Jobs that only require 40 hours per week. Companies are treating many women as though they are a waste because they are just going to leave when they start a family. Really they should not be treating the women who will decide to do this in that way but they definitely should not cast this shadow over all women in the workforce. I think it is possible to lure women back into the workforce if they can be shown that the will not just be forced out if they get pregnant and decided to start a family. Like Holly English and Joan Williams discussed, these corporations need to become more family-friendly. They need to stop reducing the pay, benefits, and workload of women who decide to work part-time. They need to make it more okay for people to take advantage of flex-time. They also need to offer more room for men to have domestic responsibilities so the burden doesn’t fall disproportionately on women.
Blog Post #35
The EEOC is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Their main job is to make sure that all of the anti-discrimination laws of the workforce are understood and properly enforced. Recently, they have been trying to promote corporations going above and beyond the bare minimum legal requirements expected of them. Unfortunately, these basic minimum requirements do not create a family friendly workplace. The current laws for family caregiver’s do protect their rights, but they do not help the caregiver out. The employer of a caregiver needs to be sympathetic to the fact that these people come to work and work, and then they go home and work. The most common caregiver is a woman, mostly women of color. As Holly English discuss in her book Gender on Trial, these are the exact people who are already disproportionately affected in the workplace. The have a tough time asserting their competence, they are constantly having to prove themselves, and then if they decide to have a family, none of the previous work they did matter. They are then, automatically put on the “mommy track” and given less pay, less benefits, and less work. Essentially this will run them out of the job. Caregiver is synonymous with “mommy track.” Women’s right and Caregiver rights clearly overlap significantly. In order to go above and beyond, these corporations need to become more family oriented. They need to welcome women having children, and not scrutinize them so much for needing time off. They also need to make it okay for fathers to take time off as well so that the woman isn’t always the one that has to leave work. Doing this will retain valuable employees and make them more loyal to the corporation. A good example of this is my personal life is when my mom had to take time of for me to have a spinal fusion. She was worried they would not understand why she needs to take care of her adult child, but they did not even ask her questions. They worked with her, and allowed her whatever time she needed. They have been sympathetic to our situation for awhile now as I am coming up on a third surgery in one year. However, my mother plans on staying with the company a long time because she feels her loyalty lies with them because of their level of compassion.
Blog Post #35
The EEOC is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Their main job is to make sure that all of the anti-discrimination laws of the workforce are understood and properly enforced. Recently, they have been trying to promote corporations going above and beyond the bare minimum legal requirements expected of them. Unfortunately, these basic minimum requirements do not create a family friendly workplace. The current laws for family caregiver’s do protect their rights, but they do not help the caregiver out. The employer of a caregiver needs to be sympathetic to the fact that these people come to work and work, and then they go home and work. The most common caregiver is a woman, mostly women of color. As Holly English discuss in her book Gender on Trial, these are the exact people who are already disproportionately affected in the workplace. The have a tough time asserting their competence, they are constantly having to prove themselves, and then if they decide to have a family, none of the previous work they did matter. They are then, automatically put on the “mommy track” and given less pay, less benefits, and less work. Essentially this will run them out of the job. Caregiver is synonymous with “mommy track.” Women’s right and Caregiver rights clearly overlap significantly. In order to go above and beyond, these corporations need to become more family oriented. They need to welcome women having children, and not scrutinize them so much for needing time off. They also need to make it okay for fathers to take time off as well so that the woman isn’t always the one that has to leave work. Doing this will retain valuable employees and make them more loyal to the corporation. A good example of this is my personal life is when my mom had to take time of for me to have a spinal fusion. She was worried they would not understand why she needs to take care of her adult child, but they did not even ask her questions. They worked with her, and allowed her whatever time she needed. They have been sympathetic to our situation for awhile now as I am coming up on a third surgery in one year. However, my mother plans on staying with the company a long time because she feels her loyalty lies with them because of their level of compassion.
Blog Post #34
Joan Williams explains that she wrote her book Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What To Do About It, because the course of her career was being directed by gender and women’s issues. She explains that women have made great strides in the workplace since the 1960s but it is still fewer changes than we had hoped for thirty years ago. The book Gender on Trial, by Holly English discusses many of the ways things have not changed. Williams also explains that instead of working toward androgyny to fix the gender gap we have just expanded what is socially expectable for both males and female, but we have ended up still leaving the stereotypical differences between the two genders intact. These are the reasons why she called her book Unbending Gender. She discusses that many times people do, what she calls market work, and family work, but some women can only do one. She also touches on the fact that all mothers are marginalized whether they are stay-at-home moms, part-time workers, or full-time workers. The stay-at-home moms are not taken very seriously as they are seen as “just housewives,” so their family work is devalued by society. The women who do work are considered to be on the “mommy track” that assumes all women will get pregnant and leave. This assumption leads them to giving women less pay, fewer benefits, and not as high quality assignments. The part-time working mothers are considered not to be serious workers as English discusses, and the mothers who work full-time are questioned on their parenting. Williams discussed that women make choices to work or to not work based on the choices available to them, not based on what should be available to them. Often, corporations make it very hard for women to work part-time like discussed in Gender on Trial, so that is really not an option to them. This leaves them with having to make a decision between how important their family life is and how important their work life is to them. Williams main concern is that the ideal worker is based on a man (a person who cannot bear children) who can work for 40 years and have a family that is taken care of by his spouse, and women simply cannot live up to this model of an ideal worker. She wants us to change government benefits so that the entire workforce is covered (including part-time workers) and so that Social Security is offered for those doing important family care work.
Blog Post #33
Clearly women have made large advancements in the profession of law since the 1960s when they entered the field. When they first came they were welcomed with severe hostility and resentment. Because of this they worked hard to blend in. They dressed similar to make partners, and keep their feminine personality traits under wraps. Eventually, they were allowed to dress more feminine, and were not expected to look so serious and manly all the time. After they could dress how they pleased they started to use their sexuality to their advantage. They were able to use their attractiveness to close deals and build relationships. Now, at least for outside, it looks as though women are nearly equal in the legal profession.
While it is true they have made leaps and bound they are not even close to being equal. Women are very under-represented in the upper-levels of law firms. According to an article from the National Association of Women Lawyers, there is a large gap between the amount of low level female workers and the amount of women promoted to partner or higher positions. Only 6% of firms have women in the highest leadership positions. Women are being promoted to equity partner at a greater rate than the past but they are still only being promoted at about half the rate as men. Also, male attorneys still make far more money than female attorneys – approximately $87,000 more per year. Another problem that women do have to deal with is that there still isn’t much room for them to starts families like there is for men. We have law in place that support them starting families but it still harder for them to balance work and home responsibilities because of the hostility of co-workers (as discussed in the previous blog).
While it is true they have made leaps and bound they are not even close to being equal. Women are very under-represented in the upper-levels of law firms. According to an article from the National Association of Women Lawyers, there is a large gap between the amount of low level female workers and the amount of women promoted to partner or higher positions. Only 6% of firms have women in the highest leadership positions. Women are being promoted to equity partner at a greater rate than the past but they are still only being promoted at about half the rate as men. Also, male attorneys still make far more money than female attorneys – approximately $87,000 more per year. Another problem that women do have to deal with is that there still isn’t much room for them to starts families like there is for men. We have law in place that support them starting families but it still harder for them to balance work and home responsibilities because of the hostility of co-workers (as discussed in the previous blog).
Blog Post #32
Parenthood is definitely different for female lawyers versus male lawyers. For males, parenthood is often seen as a plus because it increases stature without diminishing the legitimacy at work. Fatherhood is more strictly defined that motherhood. Men are supposed to be the breadwinner, and very committed to work, and that is why employers like when men start a family. Often, fathers are given more compensation because they are considered to be the heads of households. Women that are the heads of households do not have this luxury. However, men receive much worse backlash than women if they want to take paternity leave or reduce their hours. They will often not take official paternity leave and just ad together vacation time.
Female often experience parenthood as a negative, at least for their work life. Once a woman gets engaged or married there is the assumption she will be starting a family soon and her work life become an uphill battle. One woman told Holly English that she actually hid her pregnancy for seven months so she wouldn’t be taken off a case. Another woman told that she does not even mention she has children so that the will not decrease her workload. At larger firms, it is likely that women will not be put on big cases because of their domestic responsibilities. One guy mentioned that women are always leaving for something for their kids, but you never ever see guys doing that. A male partner said that he understands these women, mainly because they should be raising children, and the men should not. Women who work less to have a family are frowned upon. Women who maintain the same amount of work and have a family are also frowned upon. People often criticize their parenting. But no one criticizes a man’s parenting if he works a lot; probably because his role is the provider, not the nurturer. Some say that two working parents cannot give a child the amount of attention in needs and deserves, and many of the female attorneys are concerned about this too. One person pointed out that they personality that generally goes along with an attorney is not generally the personality of a nurturing mother, so they questioned how this works. One mother was worrying about how much her children were suffering by staying home alone after school until she gets home around dinner time. She explained that she doesn’t even have time to make dinner. In front of other parent, many female attorneys will down play their success because if they are successful in work they are assumed to be a bad mother.
Female often experience parenthood as a negative, at least for their work life. Once a woman gets engaged or married there is the assumption she will be starting a family soon and her work life become an uphill battle. One woman told Holly English that she actually hid her pregnancy for seven months so she wouldn’t be taken off a case. Another woman told that she does not even mention she has children so that the will not decrease her workload. At larger firms, it is likely that women will not be put on big cases because of their domestic responsibilities. One guy mentioned that women are always leaving for something for their kids, but you never ever see guys doing that. A male partner said that he understands these women, mainly because they should be raising children, and the men should not. Women who work less to have a family are frowned upon. Women who maintain the same amount of work and have a family are also frowned upon. People often criticize their parenting. But no one criticizes a man’s parenting if he works a lot; probably because his role is the provider, not the nurturer. Some say that two working parents cannot give a child the amount of attention in needs and deserves, and many of the female attorneys are concerned about this too. One person pointed out that they personality that generally goes along with an attorney is not generally the personality of a nurturing mother, so they questioned how this works. One mother was worrying about how much her children were suffering by staying home alone after school until she gets home around dinner time. She explained that she doesn’t even have time to make dinner. In front of other parent, many female attorneys will down play their success because if they are successful in work they are assumed to be a bad mother.
Blog Post #31
It seems that the legal profession has even more issue with the balance of work life and home life than other professions. Many attorneys report work/life balance to be the biggest gender issue. This probably because it is likely to disproportionately affect women since they generally stay home as care takers for their children. Therefore, they are most likely to use the flex-time options. Their work responsibilities and their domestic responsibilities tend to clash.
Even though work/life balance disproportionately affects women, it does affect men as well. Many attorneys feel that there is no satisfaction for their success and the amount of hours they put in. Most firms require between 1300 and 2000 billable hours per year, which means they are working far more than 2000 hours per year. This amount of time leaves no spare time to enjoy life. Even those without kids would like fewer hours just to spend less time at work. Fathers want to spend less time at work and be more involved with their children. it is likely that reducing hours will retain talented lawyers and create a sense of loyalty.
Most companies do offer flex-time and alternative work schedules, but most of their employees resist using them. They feel that they will be looked at as unequal and as having a lack of commitment if they don’t work full time. They think that working fewer hours makes them less visible, less important, and less worthy than the full time employees. This may because firms tend not to have written policies with standard guidelines but rather they create alternative schedules as a case-by-case basis. This generally allows for the part-time people to get paid significantly less, and it normally creates a violation of their hour agreement. The way attorneys are treated while using alternative schedules has a lot to do with the attitude of their supervisor. However, most attorneys feel that they do not get as good of assignments working part-time, they lose a level of respect, and they are unlikely to make partner. One woman said that, “going part-time is like dropping out of the race.” And anther woman said, “You just cannot be as competitive.” If these women who desire to go part-time after having children do stay full-time do to fear of losing their “edge” their parenting is questioned.
Even though work/life balance disproportionately affects women, it does affect men as well. Many attorneys feel that there is no satisfaction for their success and the amount of hours they put in. Most firms require between 1300 and 2000 billable hours per year, which means they are working far more than 2000 hours per year. This amount of time leaves no spare time to enjoy life. Even those without kids would like fewer hours just to spend less time at work. Fathers want to spend less time at work and be more involved with their children. it is likely that reducing hours will retain talented lawyers and create a sense of loyalty.
Most companies do offer flex-time and alternative work schedules, but most of their employees resist using them. They feel that they will be looked at as unequal and as having a lack of commitment if they don’t work full time. They think that working fewer hours makes them less visible, less important, and less worthy than the full time employees. This may because firms tend not to have written policies with standard guidelines but rather they create alternative schedules as a case-by-case basis. This generally allows for the part-time people to get paid significantly less, and it normally creates a violation of their hour agreement. The way attorneys are treated while using alternative schedules has a lot to do with the attitude of their supervisor. However, most attorneys feel that they do not get as good of assignments working part-time, they lose a level of respect, and they are unlikely to make partner. One woman said that, “going part-time is like dropping out of the race.” And anther woman said, “You just cannot be as competitive.” If these women who desire to go part-time after having children do stay full-time do to fear of losing their “edge” their parenting is questioned.
Blog Post #30
Traditionally, men are expected to lead in an aggressive, ambitious, and commanding manner while women are expected to lead in a way that is nurturing and inclusive. These expectations reflect stereotypical gender roles. The man is supposed to be aggressive, in control, and the financial supporter. The stereotypical woman is supposed to be “be at home, pregnant, and barefoot in the kitchen,” as people used to say back in the day. Women are expected to take more of a domestic, motherly role. The stereotypical masculine personality traits and styles tend to go more naturally with managing people than the stereotypical feminine traits. Women are expected be very kind and supportive which tends to clash with attempting to exercise authority. People do not really perceive women as naturally having the characteristics of a leader.
Many people’s leadership style is a reflection of who they are leading. A personal example of this is that my manager at work is often very nurturing and inclusive but he also manages a staff full of women, and one man. An aggressive style may not go over to well with his staff. Likewise, people expect to be managed differently by a woman than by a man. The general assumption is that the woman will manage in a nice way, rather than an aggressive way that a man is likely to manage with. A woman who strays from this assumption is likely to be disliked and/or rejected. Many women assume that women in a leadership position will be more supportive of them because they are both women and they have a “sisterhood.” If the women does not act in this manner she is likely to be seen as cold and/r distant. Holly English’s book Gender on Trial reflects the way people respond to different types of leadership. A more feminine leadership style is likely to elicit more loyalty and better performance but people may perceive this leader as weak and take advantage of that. This leadership style is not likely to elicit as much respect as an aggressive or masculine style. However, women are often chastised if they attempt to use a more “masculine” model of leadership and act more aggressive, decisive, hierarchical, autonomous, and directive. Because of this, women feel much more pressure to lead in a “nice” way, meaning they feel they need to act collaboratively, egalitarian, supportive, caring, and down-play their authority. Some of the women the Holly English interviewed admitted to adjusting to the stereotypes and gender expectations. They felt that their natural personality was not okay, and that they had to “sculpt a work persona.” I think that they found this to be true because it is awfully hard to exercise their authority and command respect while still being nurturing. These women in positions of power walk a fine line between being too aggressive, and being too passive. Men definitely have far more room to stray from their stereotypical gender expectations. One woman said that her goal is to get the job done while still being perceived as a familiar woman. Many times, gender expectations of women force the woman to take on the identity of a mother. They end up trying to be nurturing, wholesome, enthusiastic, hard-working, unthreatening, warm, and feminine. When this role is taken on, the work place turns more into a family setting. This role includes caring about the career development of the employees, positive reinforcement, and presenting ideas in way that they are not just leaders but they are everyone’s. This means the manager will use words like “our” and “we” instead of “I” and “my.”
I would like to say that I am a bigger fan of the more feminine way of leading a staff. However, I do not have any experience with a more aggressive leader. All of the jobs I have held (which aren’t many) the staff was small and mostly women. Every office I have worked for has had more of a family bond where everyone is very close, and everyone’s input is desired. My guess is that I keep working in settings like that because I prefer to be led that way. Generally, I do not need an aggressive leader being domineering in order for me to get things done. I know I do not like this type of leadership from my days as a competitive gymnast. At one point, I did have a coach (who happened to be male) that was very aggressive. He yelled at me a lot. That did not prompt me to change what I was doing or work harder, instead it made me shut down. My other coach (a female) would give me constructive criticism and praised me when I did well and I ended up doing very well as a gymnast with her behind me. I definitely think that a nurturing leadership style evokes more loyalty, a positive attitude from employees, and better performance. However, I still do think there is a way to command respect while doing this too (my manger does it).
Many people’s leadership style is a reflection of who they are leading. A personal example of this is that my manager at work is often very nurturing and inclusive but he also manages a staff full of women, and one man. An aggressive style may not go over to well with his staff. Likewise, people expect to be managed differently by a woman than by a man. The general assumption is that the woman will manage in a nice way, rather than an aggressive way that a man is likely to manage with. A woman who strays from this assumption is likely to be disliked and/or rejected. Many women assume that women in a leadership position will be more supportive of them because they are both women and they have a “sisterhood.” If the women does not act in this manner she is likely to be seen as cold and/r distant. Holly English’s book Gender on Trial reflects the way people respond to different types of leadership. A more feminine leadership style is likely to elicit more loyalty and better performance but people may perceive this leader as weak and take advantage of that. This leadership style is not likely to elicit as much respect as an aggressive or masculine style. However, women are often chastised if they attempt to use a more “masculine” model of leadership and act more aggressive, decisive, hierarchical, autonomous, and directive. Because of this, women feel much more pressure to lead in a “nice” way, meaning they feel they need to act collaboratively, egalitarian, supportive, caring, and down-play their authority. Some of the women the Holly English interviewed admitted to adjusting to the stereotypes and gender expectations. They felt that their natural personality was not okay, and that they had to “sculpt a work persona.” I think that they found this to be true because it is awfully hard to exercise their authority and command respect while still being nurturing. These women in positions of power walk a fine line between being too aggressive, and being too passive. Men definitely have far more room to stray from their stereotypical gender expectations. One woman said that her goal is to get the job done while still being perceived as a familiar woman. Many times, gender expectations of women force the woman to take on the identity of a mother. They end up trying to be nurturing, wholesome, enthusiastic, hard-working, unthreatening, warm, and feminine. When this role is taken on, the work place turns more into a family setting. This role includes caring about the career development of the employees, positive reinforcement, and presenting ideas in way that they are not just leaders but they are everyone’s. This means the manager will use words like “our” and “we” instead of “I” and “my.”
I would like to say that I am a bigger fan of the more feminine way of leading a staff. However, I do not have any experience with a more aggressive leader. All of the jobs I have held (which aren’t many) the staff was small and mostly women. Every office I have worked for has had more of a family bond where everyone is very close, and everyone’s input is desired. My guess is that I keep working in settings like that because I prefer to be led that way. Generally, I do not need an aggressive leader being domineering in order for me to get things done. I know I do not like this type of leadership from my days as a competitive gymnast. At one point, I did have a coach (who happened to be male) that was very aggressive. He yelled at me a lot. That did not prompt me to change what I was doing or work harder, instead it made me shut down. My other coach (a female) would give me constructive criticism and praised me when I did well and I ended up doing very well as a gymnast with her behind me. I definitely think that a nurturing leadership style evokes more loyalty, a positive attitude from employees, and better performance. However, I still do think there is a way to command respect while doing this too (my manger does it).
Blog Post #29
In law firms, the amount of minority women present below four percent. The American Bar Association reported that forty-nine percent of minority women working in private law firms were subjected to some form of harassment. These women experience more discrimination than white women and minority men. A woman said that blatant exclusion and neglect, or overt harassment were not uncommon to them in the workplace. One minority woman said that they are constantly dealing with underlying stereotypes and biases from the partners, colleagues, and clients. Often, people assume that minority women working in law firms hold administrative or secretarial positions. Another woman said that many times big clients like firms from Wall Street are shocked to see a minority woman in power, and they often do a double take. Most of the women interviewed for NPR told stories that basically their employer hired them to work with the minority customers. One African-American woman had to sit in on a meeting with a client who was ending their business because the firm didn’t employ enough minorities. Another woman was mostly used to pose for advertising. It should be examined if the female associates of a minority are actually being given real opportunities. The previous readings have reflected this because it showed a few of the ways that minority women have a much harder time than white women. Minority women, especially African-American women have to be very careful in the messages they send through their behavior and through their wardrobe. In the way they dress, they have to make sure that they come across as not threatening. They also need to make sure they do not go too far over the top if they are given the opportunity to dress casually. They really cannot dress up their ethnicity because it may come across as threatening. They have to be concerned with looking too sexy since there is a stereotype that they are more sexual in general. They must avoid making someone think they are challenging authority. There are stereotypes about how certain minorities carry themselves. If the stereotype is a good one, like being submissive, they should use it. But if it is a bad one, like being overly aggressive than they should avoid. It seems like all too much to deal with.
Blog Post #28
Sonia Sotomayor was a judge for the Second Circuit Court of appeals, and came up against some harsh criticism when she was nominated for appointment to the United States Supreme Court. However, most of the criticism came from the media and was based on few facts, anonymous quotes, or misrepresented quotes from her colleagues. One quote from a fellow juror of hers on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was misrepresented to show him saying she is stupid. The quote was, in fact, actually praising her intelligence. Most of these criticisms were based on gender and ethnic stereotypes. She has been referred to as stupid, vain, and temperamental. One person was quoted calling her, “dumb and obnoxious.” It was said that her questions in the courtroom do not ever penetrate into the heart of the issue. Someone complained that she is domineering in oral arguments. She has also been accused of just liking to hear herself talk. Another accusation is that she has an inflated opinion of herself. I am not saying this is true, but I may have an inflated opinion of myself too if I accomplished all that she did. However, her biggest criticism in on her “temperament.” Some one described her as being a “fiery Latina tempest waiting to knife and brutalize lawyers in the courtroom.” This means she is tough and a sharp interrogator. I am sure that no one would complain if a man acted this way. But apparently if she asks tough questions then she is difficult, temperamental, and excitable. Sotomayor is very well known for being aggressive on the bench, and some people label her as being “a bully on the bench.” She is no more aggressive than her male colleagues but because she is a woman, aggressiveness makes her mean, nasty, domineering, and bitchy. Unfortunately, her clear competence in the area is being looked over because people do not like her acting as aggressive as her male counterparts. People have a stereotype that they thought she would fit into, and when she didn’t, they reacted with hostility.
Blog Post #27
Female attorneys experience much negativity as a result of the legal field remaining male dominated. Women often feel they have to prove themselves, and excel over their male counterparts in order to gain respect. Holly English found some rather shocking statistics in her research for her book, Gender on Trial. She found that 60% of women feel they need to be better objectively in order to be seen as equal. 64% of women and 345 of men feel that women get less respect in the workplace. Also, 70% of women and 39% of men felt that women are treated condescendingly by their male colleagues. Unfortunately, many high level women are not treated with the proper respect by there younger male colleagues. They tend not so see the women as someone to impress because they see them as less threatening. Because of the general assumption that women lack power, people automatically assume that the male is in the position of power. This forces women to have to assert their status just to get to the starting line. Also, women tend to be under more scrutiny and they are constantly being tested. All too often, women are given either domestic or administrative tasks when they are in a group with male attorneys. They are sent to make copies, get the coffee, or serve lunch to everybody.
Many times male attorney will greatly underestimate the female attorneys. The will attempt to use scare tactics in an attempt to throw the female attorneys off track. Especially if the female counsel is young, a male opposing counsel may attempt to upset her, and make her get emotional by making rude remarks and objections. Some men try to bully and intimidate the women. Some will try to undermine the woman’s confidence by questioning her questioning skills, or saying, “Do you have a point?” Anther tactic that may be used if the woman has children, the opposing counsel may try to push the trial as late as possible so she is put in a time bind.
Many times male attorney will greatly underestimate the female attorneys. The will attempt to use scare tactics in an attempt to throw the female attorneys off track. Especially if the female counsel is young, a male opposing counsel may attempt to upset her, and make her get emotional by making rude remarks and objections. Some men try to bully and intimidate the women. Some will try to undermine the woman’s confidence by questioning her questioning skills, or saying, “Do you have a point?” Anther tactic that may be used if the woman has children, the opposing counsel may try to push the trial as late as possible so she is put in a time bind.
Blog Post #26
We do not live in a gender neutral world, and it is true that many times a female attorney is by the biased outside world more than the world inside her firm. Often, women will run into male opposing counsel that treat her disrespectfully, and test her. Or women will have clients that do not necessarily trust their judgment and acts as if they would rather have a man representing them. Sometimes, if a woman is in court with an unruly opposing counsel, she will allow a male to take over the case because the opposing counsel is unlikely to treat a male attorney in the same manner. A female attorney who told a story like this mentioned that it is what was best of the client. Most of the time this is the case. Another female attorney found that just having male supervision in the courtroom discouraged unruly behavior of the opposing counsel. One woman told that sometimes when she meets a new client she will have a male colleague sit in on the first meeting so that she can establish her credibility with him there to validate it for the clients. She said that she also is sure to use statements like, “We think,” rather than, “I think.” Some women often use this tactic to get their clients on board. Unfortunately, it is the sad truth that society often makes the glass ceiling that women experience already, even thicker. Many times looking for the support or backing of a male colleague is the right thing to do for the firm and the client but these women do have need to be concerned with the effect that doing so has on her status in the eye of her colleagues.
This points to law as a gendered organization because it still sits on several traditional stereotypes. The first being that women are the weaker gender and they cannot handle problems themselves; In essence, they need to be saved. Women having men rush in and save them appears just like this stereotype. At the same time, this depicts the man as stereotypical, and as the leader, and the one is control. It is assumed that men are the ones with the power, and unfortunately women relying on men shows just that. It may not be true, but that is how many people will perceive it.
This points to law as a gendered organization because it still sits on several traditional stereotypes. The first being that women are the weaker gender and they cannot handle problems themselves; In essence, they need to be saved. Women having men rush in and save them appears just like this stereotype. At the same time, this depicts the man as stereotypical, and as the leader, and the one is control. It is assumed that men are the ones with the power, and unfortunately women relying on men shows just that. It may not be true, but that is how many people will perceive it.
Blog Post #25
In the legal profession there are varying views about the use of sexuality in the workplace. Some women will use their sexuality, and flirt to advance in their career. In Holly English’s book, Gender on Trial, a woman admits that she would wear different length skirts to trial depending on the judge and what she was asking for. There are some who agree that flirting is okay, as long as it is used properly. Most would say that if you are going to use your sexuality to gain in your career, you better have the credibility to back it up in order to avoid stereotypes. It is definitely not a good weapon if they are using it to make up for or hide their shortcomings as a professional. Many men say they are jealous of this advantage but they do suggest using it because it does work. A psychologist that English spoke with said that sexuality absolutely belongs in the work place as long as the person using it knows their boundaries, knows who it is appropriate to use it with, and how to read how these people are reacting to it. The same woman said that if we ignore sexuality we are just opening up a new stereotype that female attorneys are asexual. The truth is humans are sexual beings, and if their sexuality can work to their advantage why not use it? (Within reason of course.) However, this does not suggest sleeping around to move forward, but harmless flirting is okay. Also, this use of sexuality can result in more equity between the sexes.
There are those people in the legal field that consider using their sexuality to their advantage to be taboo. These people generally feel that it de-legitimizes women because it reawakens the stereotype that women’s presence in the workplace is sexual rather than professional. One woman’s concern is that women already have a hard time being taken seriously in a “man’s world,” and using their sexuality will just make them less likely to be taken seriously. Her point is that men already tend to think sexually in general, so adding fuel to their fire is just a bad idea.
There are those people in the legal field that consider using their sexuality to their advantage to be taboo. These people generally feel that it de-legitimizes women because it reawakens the stereotype that women’s presence in the workplace is sexual rather than professional. One woman’s concern is that women already have a hard time being taken seriously in a “man’s world,” and using their sexuality will just make them less likely to be taken seriously. Her point is that men already tend to think sexually in general, so adding fuel to their fire is just a bad idea.
Blog Post #24
Women in the legal field are expected to act just as their male counterparts do, while still maintaining their feminine qualities but not being too feminine. As mentioned before, they are caught in what we would call a double bind. If they work just as hard as their male counterparts and leave out their feminine qualities as well, they are taught to be not feminine enough for the job. In current society, people like when traditional female characteristics are brought to the business more than they did back when women first entered the field. It is not considered a bad thing when a woman acts more demure, polite, and less aggressive then men. However, it seems that these qualities are not common of female lawyers. They tend to be more aggressive, assertive, and to the point. For the purposes of the double standard they are caught in, these characteristics are likely to get them labeled as a bully by their peers. But, if these women keep the stereotypical feminine edge they will be ridiculed as well. They may be seen as too soft. Also, they must worry about coming off as too sexy. These women have t be very careful in the way they appear and how they carry themselves because the stereotype is that an attractive woman is incompetent. But an unattractive woman is looked down upon. It is important that these women strike a proper balance between how they carry themselves and how they appear to others in order to be taken seriously. Another problem professional legal women may encounter is that they are not expected to achieve as much professionally as their male peers. People tend to have a much lower expectations of women in a “man’s field.” A problem tends to arise when women in this field want to start a family – her peers may treat her differently. She may be considered unreliable because of her domestic responsibilities. She may be viewed as a bad mother if she continues to work several hours like most attorneys do. If she works less hours she is not considered to be serious because “real attorneys work 60 hours per week.”
Yes, women have made huge strides in the legal professional but they still have a ways to go if they want to reach equality.
Yes, women have made huge strides in the legal professional but they still have a ways to go if they want to reach equality.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Blog Post #23
On NPR, when Nina Totenberg was interviewing some people for her discussion “What is she Wearing?” one man said that style has always been a powerful political weapon. A persons clothing generally says a great deal about their identity, personality, and self-confidence. Women in the world of politics and law need to portray themselves in a certain light, generally one that shows them as competent but yet not aggressive or threatening. Many times women who come of as threatening are disliked by their colleagues. When women first started to enter the field men all wore identical suits and women tried to look like the men in order to blend in, in order to avoid resentment and to be taken seriously. There is an old stereotype that an attractive woman is thought to be incompetent. Back then, from 1960-1980, dressing like the men put women in a double bind. If a woman dressed in a manly manner then she was thought to be non-feminine and not being themselves. But if a woman dressed feminine they were not considered to be serious. Most women in the field felt that they were stripped of their personal identities. In the 1990s women start to drop the faux-male suit look. It started to become more important that they appear to be attractive and confident in their skills. They were rewarded for being more self-confident with greater power and control. This started to resolve that contradiction between femininity and competence. They started to have the self-assurance to dress they way they wanted and let their abilities speak for themselves. Social science research says that attractive people tend to be more persuasive than unattractive people. This change is women’s professional wardrobe also brought a casual dress movement. This lessened the differences between men and women because men too are now plagued by what to wear for what occasion. Both genders had to learn to base their outfits on the client, the setting and the location. Many women felt that the casual dress confused the hierarchy between the lawyers and staff, and female attorneys were more likely to be mistaken for a secretary. Some people felt that a professional look makes attorneys appear to be more confident and controlled.
Unfortunately, women are still judged highly on what they look like. One woman that Holly English spoke with said she actually thought she won some cases because they jury liked her appearance more than her opponents. Another woman pointed out that, more often than not, women are not credible until they prove they are. Whereas men, are credible until they prove they are not credible. Now, women have to attempt to dress feminine while making sure they are not too sexy or too boring. A woman the English spoke with for her book, Gender on Trial, said that her goal is always to not look too bland, or too flashy, jus neat and well put together so that the case will take center stage rather than her outfit. A good example of a woman who dresses more feminine while making sure she is fun without being too sexy is the first lady, Michelle Obama. She steers away from the traditional Washington DC look but still makes sure she looks like a woman of power. She has made herself appear charismatic and relatable to the public through her wardrobe. She has the ability to reflect society’s fears about women, power, gender, and race.
Unfortunately, women are still judged highly on what they look like. One woman that Holly English spoke with said she actually thought she won some cases because they jury liked her appearance more than her opponents. Another woman pointed out that, more often than not, women are not credible until they prove they are. Whereas men, are credible until they prove they are not credible. Now, women have to attempt to dress feminine while making sure they are not too sexy or too boring. A woman the English spoke with for her book, Gender on Trial, said that her goal is always to not look too bland, or too flashy, jus neat and well put together so that the case will take center stage rather than her outfit. A good example of a woman who dresses more feminine while making sure she is fun without being too sexy is the first lady, Michelle Obama. She steers away from the traditional Washington DC look but still makes sure she looks like a woman of power. She has made herself appear charismatic and relatable to the public through her wardrobe. She has the ability to reflect society’s fears about women, power, gender, and race.
Blog Post #22
Sonia Sotomayor was nominated for appointment to the US Supreme Court by President Barack Obama in May of 2009. Her nomination was confirmed by the US Senate in August of 2009. She is the first Hispanic justice, and the third female justice on the US Supreme Court. Unfortunately being a minority woman brings some level of discrimination, especially for a woman of such high power. Often people deal with her on the basis of stereotypes rather than her very impressive work record. People assume that because she is Hispanic and a woman that she is a Liberal. There is also an assumption that she may not be able to put aside her personal biases and use the law objectively. “Her personal biases” means that she will judge on the side of her ethnicity or gender. But no one assumes that a white male will not be able to put aside their own personal biases for their own race and gender. Some people have said that Sotomayor has a problematic temperament, as she is often referred to as a bully on the bench. White men are assumed to be rather cool headed in comparison to women or people of color. I would assume that those who consider Sotomayor to be a bully would not react in the same way if a white male judge acted in an aggressive or assertive manner, it may actually be welcomed. Those same people definitely would not hold a white man to the same expectations of temperament. One study done by PsychologyToday.com on students’ response to female Hispanic teachers versus white male teachers found that “students appeared to be receptive to Latina professors as long as they were lenient in their teaching style-flexible, indulgent, and compassionate. When Latina professors had strict teaching styles-stern, rigorous, and authoritarian--they penalized them relative to professors who were white men.” These students saw strict Latina teachers as bullies whereas they had a neutral view male teachers with the same “temperament.” It seems that people have a set of expectation about Hispanic women such as Sonia Sotomayor that can produce hostile responses if they are violated. She has also been criticized on her ability to relate intimately because she is a “workaholic.” No one would question a man’s ability to have an intimate relationship because he works too much.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
BLog Post #21
The National Association of Female Correctional Officers has identified the issues of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape as most significant to its members. The stereotypical woman is depicted as weak and vulnerable. They are also seen as unequal to men, and of less value to society. Britton discusses the gendered policies and practices of prisons that can reinforce these stereotypical ideas to the male inmates. Compounded with that is the fact that a bunch of men are living together and competing for male dominance which can be defined by sexual aggressiveness. Britton first suggests that we change the depictions of the male prison system as aggressive, violent, and sexually sadistic. Then, she points out that training these officers more appropriately and informing them of what the prisoners are really going to act like will help the situation of the female officers. This will allow them to be more aware, and therefore better prepared. The prevention would be in showing the prisoners that these women are not vulnerable or weak, that they are seen as equals to men, and that their skills should not be devalued. The prison systems could make this happen by changing their policies and practices. Making women more able to deal with domestic responsibilities would greatly decrease the gender segregation and inequality. Also, making things like the ability to defuse violence without the use of violence more equitable to male traits of aggressiveness will decrease the devaluing of feminine traits. If the inmates who rape women do not see the women as vulnerable and devalued, they are less likely to attempt to harass or rape them.
Blog Post #20
Britton’s study is concerned with the idea that prisons are gender organizations. She argues this on the basis that the job of a correctional officer has embedded assumptions about what traits an ideal worker has. The main characteristics that the job is assumed to require are physical and mental toughness, as well as aggressiveness, which are all masculine traits. It is thought that a correctional officer needs these traits because of the assumed level of violence within the prisons, which is in fact false. Then, through policies, and formal and informal practices this ideal is reproduced. A good example of this is the training that teaches the new officers how to deal with violence in a high security prison in the worst situation possible, and it scares them. Also, the training never prepares them for what they are about to face a female guards, or what they will face if they work in a female prison.
The hostage situation in Arizona reflects these problems because this female guard actually did experience a high level of violence. She was raped and beaten as one prisoner tried to escape but it turned into a hostage situation. But, as Britton discusses, this victim knew how to use her “female skills,” or her people management skills to survive. Instead of matching violence with violence, like a “masculine” officer may do, she acted as if she agreed with them and made them see her as person rather than a guard. She also played into the role of the “dumb girl” by pretending she did not know how to use the guns or the panel controls, and this worked for her. It seems that in a hostage situation like this one, masculine aggressiveness and brutality would have lended itself as well as typical “female characteristics.” Also, Dora displayed the “female” characteristics of patience. If she had been the “ideal prison worker” who displayed aggressiveness, she would have had that tower invaded immediately while being unconcerned with the potential costs. However, because of her patience she got the prisoners to surrender and saved the life of her employee. Raiding the hostage situation would have got the employee killed.
Britton labels a turnkey officer as a guard who acts as a parent figure to the inmates. A guard that takes on a parent or custodial role for prisoners is like to try to nurture them, teach them right from wrong, and attempt to rehabilitate and transform the prisoners, rather than just lock them up until their time is fulfilled. From what Britton has defined as female and male characteristics, it seems that this type of behavior is more like to be used by a female officer, as it is assumed females carry that “maternal sense.” The only way I see the hostage situation reflecting this is that both the victim and Dora used “maternal” or “female” skills to make the situation o the way they intended. Lois, victim, used what could be considered maternal skills to make the offender listen to her and see her as a person without having to use violence or dominance. Even though Lois thought she was going to die right up until the two men were handcuffed, she managed to remain calm, play the game, and attempt to nurture these guys. Dora did the same thing. Instead of using what is male dominance, she wanted to talk these guys off the cliff, and convince them to do the right thing, just like a parent figure would.
I am not sure which suggestion of Britton’s this is referring to since she makes several through the book. I am going to assume it is the suggestion she makes in the final chapter about giving training that more thoroughly prepares officers for work in both men’s and women’s institutions as well as to give more information about the different environments they will face. Yes, this would have helped to potentially stop this situation but hindsight is always 20/20. It is my assumption that this was a well planned attack because it happened to be right at the time when a new person was coming into power, and there was more likely to be a small lapse in security as she was getting used to how the place is run. However, this would be extremely helpful in the future to prevent this type of occurrence, and also change the negative impact of policies on women.
The hostage situation in Arizona reflects these problems because this female guard actually did experience a high level of violence. She was raped and beaten as one prisoner tried to escape but it turned into a hostage situation. But, as Britton discusses, this victim knew how to use her “female skills,” or her people management skills to survive. Instead of matching violence with violence, like a “masculine” officer may do, she acted as if she agreed with them and made them see her as person rather than a guard. She also played into the role of the “dumb girl” by pretending she did not know how to use the guns or the panel controls, and this worked for her. It seems that in a hostage situation like this one, masculine aggressiveness and brutality would have lended itself as well as typical “female characteristics.” Also, Dora displayed the “female” characteristics of patience. If she had been the “ideal prison worker” who displayed aggressiveness, she would have had that tower invaded immediately while being unconcerned with the potential costs. However, because of her patience she got the prisoners to surrender and saved the life of her employee. Raiding the hostage situation would have got the employee killed.
Britton labels a turnkey officer as a guard who acts as a parent figure to the inmates. A guard that takes on a parent or custodial role for prisoners is like to try to nurture them, teach them right from wrong, and attempt to rehabilitate and transform the prisoners, rather than just lock them up until their time is fulfilled. From what Britton has defined as female and male characteristics, it seems that this type of behavior is more like to be used by a female officer, as it is assumed females carry that “maternal sense.” The only way I see the hostage situation reflecting this is that both the victim and Dora used “maternal” or “female” skills to make the situation o the way they intended. Lois, victim, used what could be considered maternal skills to make the offender listen to her and see her as a person without having to use violence or dominance. Even though Lois thought she was going to die right up until the two men were handcuffed, she managed to remain calm, play the game, and attempt to nurture these guys. Dora did the same thing. Instead of using what is male dominance, she wanted to talk these guys off the cliff, and convince them to do the right thing, just like a parent figure would.
I am not sure which suggestion of Britton’s this is referring to since she makes several through the book. I am going to assume it is the suggestion she makes in the final chapter about giving training that more thoroughly prepares officers for work in both men’s and women’s institutions as well as to give more information about the different environments they will face. Yes, this would have helped to potentially stop this situation but hindsight is always 20/20. It is my assumption that this was a well planned attack because it happened to be right at the time when a new person was coming into power, and there was more likely to be a small lapse in security as she was getting used to how the place is run. However, this would be extremely helpful in the future to prevent this type of occurrence, and also change the negative impact of policies on women.
Blog Post #19
Geena Davis noticed that kids see the same gender segregation in their shows that we see as adults in real life. She gives several examples of cartoons that based on stereotypes and masculinity. Winnie the Pooh only has one female character, and she is the mother of Roo, and never does anything by herself. In the Looney tunes, the only female character is Granny, the owner of Tweety, who must leave in order for the story to happen. She even finds that these cartoons characters emphasize the importance of the female body. Miss Piggy had cleavage. In the Smurfs, there were originally no female characters. Until a witch made Smurfette, who was considered ugly, to ruin the Smurfs. However, the Smurfs accepted her after she was turned into a blond bombshell. Things like this tell young children that it is only important that girls look pretty. It teaches that the worth of women is different and less then men. The foundation that Geena Davis started found that very few of the top animated movies have female characters, and the ones that do show highly stereotyped women. When of think of movies like this I think of Cinderella, Snow White, and the Little Mermaid who were all “damsels in distress,” who couldn’t fend for themselves and needed a man to save them. Even this shows that women are unable to deal with physical violence and cannot handle typical male activities.
It is assumed that women are not physically strong enough or aggressive enough to deal with physical violence. Colleagues see these women more as liabilities and someone who will have to be saved if violence arises. It is assumed that the women mo=must be able to use physical means in order to control violence. Many male workers feel that women are not cut out for jobs that deal with violence, but men are, “strictly by virtue of being male.”
It is assumed that women are not physically strong enough or aggressive enough to deal with physical violence. Colleagues see these women more as liabilities and someone who will have to be saved if violence arises. It is assumed that the women mo=must be able to use physical means in order to control violence. Many male workers feel that women are not cut out for jobs that deal with violence, but men are, “strictly by virtue of being male.”
Blog Post #18
The on-the-job training provided for working as a correctional officer tries to use gender-neutral practices that are actually masculine in nature. This reinforces correctional work as gendered. It is true that everyone receives the same training for both male and female prisons because everyone is trained together, they learn the same material, and passes the same tests. However, it becomes gendered because the teachers over exaggerate the level of violence that exist within the job. This exaggeration scares many people away, mostly women. They sell the job as requiring toughness and aggressiveness, which are both considered masculine qualities. The truth is that violence like they are taught in class is very rare. When it is questioned if women can handle the job, the supervisors are concerning themselves with the “what ifs” that rarely ever occur. The job is mostly about managing people. One officer tells Britton that the hardest part of the job is not physical, it’s mental, and they are not prepared for that. This officer explains that the inmates are always trying to get one over on them.
The training they call generic or gender-neutral is actually masculine. It assumes that both the officer and the inmate are male. No one tells the women what it is really going to be like. No one explains that they may have to deal with sexual harassment and resistance from the inmates, and potential discrimination from their male counterparts. One of the female officers that was interviewed says she wished a female officer had come in a briefly told them what to expect. Also, most of the generic training is for high security prisons which are almost always male prisons, as many times women are in lower security prisons. These officers are not taught that the female prisons are completely different than male prisons. When dealing with women, a different set of skills needs to be utilized because the interactions are different. This masculine based training leads officers to see female prisons as “exceptions, and more lenient than male prisons.”
The training they call generic or gender-neutral is actually masculine. It assumes that both the officer and the inmate are male. No one tells the women what it is really going to be like. No one explains that they may have to deal with sexual harassment and resistance from the inmates, and potential discrimination from their male counterparts. One of the female officers that was interviewed says she wished a female officer had come in a briefly told them what to expect. Also, most of the generic training is for high security prisons which are almost always male prisons, as many times women are in lower security prisons. These officers are not taught that the female prisons are completely different than male prisons. When dealing with women, a different set of skills needs to be utilized because the interactions are different. This masculine based training leads officers to see female prisons as “exceptions, and more lenient than male prisons.”
Blog Post #17
I found the documentary on NBC to be very interesting. Even though I know my assumptions are wrong, I still think of women prisons as rather non-violent. My assumption is always that women are in prison for petty crimes like drugs and theft, so it was interesting to see a documentary where most of the inmates were serving long sentences for violent crimes. Also, I knew that the women in female prisons tended to form lesbian relationships but I had no idea how I invested they were in each other. One of the officers hit it dead on when they said it is scary that they care more about the other person, than their self and their sentence. Britton discusses the humanistic attitudes that correctional officer have towards the inmates and the film was a good example of that. The officers never seemed to be looking down on the inmate, but they did seem to want to evoke change from the prisoners like a mother. It was clear the officers respected the inmates and wanted to see them succeed in life.
Britton points out that many times the correctional officers will spend more time with inmates then they spend with their own families. This level of proximity can tend to break down stereotypes on both sides, and possibly create an emotional relationship or attachment. Previously, in situations of this nature, officers have been persuaded to go too far. There have been instances where the officer has had a sexual relationship with the inmate or where the officer has brought the inmate illegal contraband and allowed inappropriate activities. In the video on NBC, one life time prisoner talks about how she would bait the workers and convince them to give her stuff like money and drugs. Relationship like this can push the officer to be hurt by behavior the inmate exhibits or what the inmate suffers from. Officers must remain cautious in order not to be compromised. This is especially true for men working in female prisons. Some essential assumptions the officers have of inmates is that there are difference between the officers and the inmates that rationalize the bad behavior of the inmates. The officers have a strong set of attitudes about inmates that include the assumption that they will always behave badly, and an overall sense of distrust. However, they also assert that all of the inmates are human that have made mistakes, and they do deserve to be treated with respect. The officers just approach the inmates with reservation.
Britton points out that there seems to be a disproportionate number of inmates who are of a minority. Officers of Latin and African American descent (minorities), have to deal with rationalizing this apparent discrepancy. Also, one African American female officer that Britton quoted says she was hired to do the dirty work and keep “her” inmates in check. Many of these minority officers feel pressured to demonstrate their loyalty to their co-workers over their ethnicity by distancing themselves from inmates of the same ethnicity. The minority officers show a more positive orientation towards rehabilitation of the offenders because they respect them as human beings, however, they still use strategies to keep themselves emotionally separated. The term the “language of the overseer” means a disidentification with their racial or ethnic identity that is shared with inmates. Sometimes they will use the method that Britton calls “active construction of other markers of difference” to feel separated from these inmates.
In saying that the officers use humanistic attitudes towards inmates that tended to objectify or infantilize them, we are saying that the officers do not view them as their equals. Some officers view them as animals, and that their job is to restrain these animals. Most of the officers view the inmates as having the mentality of a child, but they still prioritize communication with the inmates. They respect the prisoners but they feel that because of their education level or their upbringing they need to speak to them like a child. In this way, the officers take on more of a maternalistic/paternalistic role. They chose to play a custodial role, and hope to transform the inmates.
The officers see the inmates as rather spoiled. They come to prison for being deviant and they have a bed, food, cable television, a gym with weights, a pool table, and their schooling all paid for by the government. One officer compares it as a cheaper alternative to a retirement home. Another officer points out that it keeps the inmates busy and makes their jobs easier. Also, it give the officers something to take away for bad behavior.
The form of social control that is used in the women’s prison is based on rehabilitation and family. It seeks to transform the inmates and help them to succeed in life. This type of social control is used because female are far more emotional then men, and also more manipulative. Most male prisons have a form of social control that is based in masculinity and run by the older inmates. If one inmate acts out they will have to answer to their peers as well as the officers, which is almost worse.
Britton points out that many times the correctional officers will spend more time with inmates then they spend with their own families. This level of proximity can tend to break down stereotypes on both sides, and possibly create an emotional relationship or attachment. Previously, in situations of this nature, officers have been persuaded to go too far. There have been instances where the officer has had a sexual relationship with the inmate or where the officer has brought the inmate illegal contraband and allowed inappropriate activities. In the video on NBC, one life time prisoner talks about how she would bait the workers and convince them to give her stuff like money and drugs. Relationship like this can push the officer to be hurt by behavior the inmate exhibits or what the inmate suffers from. Officers must remain cautious in order not to be compromised. This is especially true for men working in female prisons. Some essential assumptions the officers have of inmates is that there are difference between the officers and the inmates that rationalize the bad behavior of the inmates. The officers have a strong set of attitudes about inmates that include the assumption that they will always behave badly, and an overall sense of distrust. However, they also assert that all of the inmates are human that have made mistakes, and they do deserve to be treated with respect. The officers just approach the inmates with reservation.
Britton points out that there seems to be a disproportionate number of inmates who are of a minority. Officers of Latin and African American descent (minorities), have to deal with rationalizing this apparent discrepancy. Also, one African American female officer that Britton quoted says she was hired to do the dirty work and keep “her” inmates in check. Many of these minority officers feel pressured to demonstrate their loyalty to their co-workers over their ethnicity by distancing themselves from inmates of the same ethnicity. The minority officers show a more positive orientation towards rehabilitation of the offenders because they respect them as human beings, however, they still use strategies to keep themselves emotionally separated. The term the “language of the overseer” means a disidentification with their racial or ethnic identity that is shared with inmates. Sometimes they will use the method that Britton calls “active construction of other markers of difference” to feel separated from these inmates.
In saying that the officers use humanistic attitudes towards inmates that tended to objectify or infantilize them, we are saying that the officers do not view them as their equals. Some officers view them as animals, and that their job is to restrain these animals. Most of the officers view the inmates as having the mentality of a child, but they still prioritize communication with the inmates. They respect the prisoners but they feel that because of their education level or their upbringing they need to speak to them like a child. In this way, the officers take on more of a maternalistic/paternalistic role. They chose to play a custodial role, and hope to transform the inmates.
The officers see the inmates as rather spoiled. They come to prison for being deviant and they have a bed, food, cable television, a gym with weights, a pool table, and their schooling all paid for by the government. One officer compares it as a cheaper alternative to a retirement home. Another officer points out that it keeps the inmates busy and makes their jobs easier. Also, it give the officers something to take away for bad behavior.
The form of social control that is used in the women’s prison is based on rehabilitation and family. It seeks to transform the inmates and help them to succeed in life. This type of social control is used because female are far more emotional then men, and also more manipulative. Most male prisons have a form of social control that is based in masculinity and run by the older inmates. If one inmate acts out they will have to answer to their peers as well as the officers, which is almost worse.
Blog post #16
The path to working as a correctional officer in a prison seems the most gendered in how people get into the field. The men seem to come from backgrounds of government work (military, police) which lend more to working in the prison system. Women tend to come from backgrounds that have nothing to do with the prison system so it is more unlikely they will look for a job with that kind of institution. Also, the pay is more than what a woman could make at other jobs, on average, but for men it is less.
Many of the officers that Britton interviewed said they drifted into the job. However, there seems to be a clear relationship between previous work and becoming a correctional officer for most of the men. 44% of the men that Britton interviewed came from the military. One man explained his draw to being a correctional officer was that is had a lot of structure like the military. Many of these men aspired to be a police officer and feel into the prison system in some way. The other jobs that men previously held were janitor, welder, miner, and assembly line workers. It seems that these jobs are not directly related but they have in common that they are very male dominated. For women, it seemed that previous job experience had no effect on becoming a correctional officer. Most women came from clerical type jobs or sales, and none believed that corrections was a natural progression. The women that were teachers saw the most resemblance in the sense that they were basically baby-sitters for the inmates just like they were for their students. Circumstance, opportunity, and personal contacts were what led most women into corrections. Social networks play a very large role in how women get into prison corrections, but not as much for men. Men tend to come from a similar background, but women tend to be told about the job by someone they know. One woman in Britton’s interview explained that she lived by a prison her whole life, and her friend told her about it, and that is how she got started. This woman actually started as a secretary and gradually moved into corrections. Another woman explained that a customer at her old job told her about the job in the prison. Britton explains that is often the weak ties, or acquaintances that introduce you to the best information.
It seems that the biggest motive for both genders is the money. The job requires that you have a high school diploma or a GED, so the money is really good for a person with no formal education, especially for women. For women and minority men, the pay is much better than other available work. White men make about the same or a little less working as a correctional officer. It is likely the government benefits of this job it what motivates the white men. They offer good health insurance, vacation, and retirement. Prison jobs also have high job security. Many people in the interviews with Britton referred to the job as “the best available option.”
Many of the officers that Britton interviewed said they drifted into the job. However, there seems to be a clear relationship between previous work and becoming a correctional officer for most of the men. 44% of the men that Britton interviewed came from the military. One man explained his draw to being a correctional officer was that is had a lot of structure like the military. Many of these men aspired to be a police officer and feel into the prison system in some way. The other jobs that men previously held were janitor, welder, miner, and assembly line workers. It seems that these jobs are not directly related but they have in common that they are very male dominated. For women, it seemed that previous job experience had no effect on becoming a correctional officer. Most women came from clerical type jobs or sales, and none believed that corrections was a natural progression. The women that were teachers saw the most resemblance in the sense that they were basically baby-sitters for the inmates just like they were for their students. Circumstance, opportunity, and personal contacts were what led most women into corrections. Social networks play a very large role in how women get into prison corrections, but not as much for men. Men tend to come from a similar background, but women tend to be told about the job by someone they know. One woman in Britton’s interview explained that she lived by a prison her whole life, and her friend told her about it, and that is how she got started. This woman actually started as a secretary and gradually moved into corrections. Another woman explained that a customer at her old job told her about the job in the prison. Britton explains that is often the weak ties, or acquaintances that introduce you to the best information.
It seems that the biggest motive for both genders is the money. The job requires that you have a high school diploma or a GED, so the money is really good for a person with no formal education, especially for women. For women and minority men, the pay is much better than other available work. White men make about the same or a little less working as a correctional officer. It is likely the government benefits of this job it what motivates the white men. They offer good health insurance, vacation, and retirement. Prison jobs also have high job security. Many people in the interviews with Britton referred to the job as “the best available option.”
Blog Post #15
Starting in the 1980 and through the mid 1990s, the US experienced a huge population growth. With this, we saw a large increase in number of people incarcerated. At the beginning of this population boom, the imprisonment of women increased four times, while the imprisonment of men increased but not nearly as much. When the growth of the population seemed to level out the number of women in prison kept growing. We saw a trend that the states that had a high rate of population growth overall, had a higher rate of women in prison as well. Likewise, those states that had a drop in population saw a drop in the amount of women in prison. While the number of women incarcerated has grown, they still hold a relatively small portion of the overall prison population. Researchers have attributed this recent growth of women in prison to a few historical changes in the US. An example is the movement for equal rights for women. This could have caused more women to become involved with crime, and it could have led to more equal punishment. We also saw an increase in domestic violence during this time, and pro-arrest policies were instated. These may have led to more arrests of women for domestic assault that we may not have seen in the past. During this time, crack cocaine was introduced to the US, and so was the “war on drugs.” This “war” was supposed decrease the violence of men, but it has been greatly affecting women as well. Now, 32% of women prisoners are serving time for drug offenses. Drug arrests have been a major player in the increase in female prison population, but not so much for men which has stayed about the same.
Many reformers are concerned that women have inadequate access to education, vocational training, health care, and psychological treatment, and this has been attributed to their relatively low numbers and the high cost. They are also concerned with the fact that 70% of these women have children who are being negatively impacted by their mother’s incarceration. It is argued that the domestic responsibilities should be taken into account because their children experienced hardship before and during incarceration, and they will experience more after release. These children experience separation from siblings, constant change in caregivers, anxiety, guilt, and fear. A major concern in how well a female convict will be able to provide for her family after release because the conviction will greatly affect how she will get the much needed resources. It is likely that if she cannot do this she will relapse and return to a life of crime. Reformers are fighting for alternatives to incarceration that are based in the community on order to give these women a way to lead a self sufficient life. Many of the women are prison are serving time for non-violent offenses and women tend to have low recidivism rates so it will not jeopardize public safety.
Arizona’s history is similar in the fact that they saw an increase in prison populations overall and of women. However, they are different because they rank 7th in the nation for the female imprisonment rate. Since 1999, they saw a 60% increase in the female prison population. They tend to be tough in comparison to most states.
Many reformers are concerned that women have inadequate access to education, vocational training, health care, and psychological treatment, and this has been attributed to their relatively low numbers and the high cost. They are also concerned with the fact that 70% of these women have children who are being negatively impacted by their mother’s incarceration. It is argued that the domestic responsibilities should be taken into account because their children experienced hardship before and during incarceration, and they will experience more after release. These children experience separation from siblings, constant change in caregivers, anxiety, guilt, and fear. A major concern in how well a female convict will be able to provide for her family after release because the conviction will greatly affect how she will get the much needed resources. It is likely that if she cannot do this she will relapse and return to a life of crime. Reformers are fighting for alternatives to incarceration that are based in the community on order to give these women a way to lead a self sufficient life. Many of the women are prison are serving time for non-violent offenses and women tend to have low recidivism rates so it will not jeopardize public safety.
Arizona’s history is similar in the fact that they saw an increase in prison populations overall and of women. However, they are different because they rank 7th in the nation for the female imprisonment rate. Since 1999, they saw a 60% increase in the female prison population. They tend to be tough in comparison to most states.
Blog Post #14
Britton used the theory of gendered organization to frame her research questions on occupational segregation both in general, and in the prison system. This theory includes separate levels which are structure, culture, and agency. We think about all of these levels in gendered ways. No organization is gender neutral, and most organizations are based on preexisting assumptions that reproduce gender segregation. All of these things affect job choice, employer preference, and the practices and policies of organizations, and in turn we see ongoing job segregation of the basis of male and female. Britton questions why this segregation is so persistent. She also questions why it is that the jobs we have culturally socialized as “female jobs” pay less. On that same note she wonders what factors keep women and “female jobs” at the bottom of the occupational ladder. Britton gives the example of female attorneys who specialize in “female” areas like family law and public defense that make far less money than male attorneys in “male” specializations. Why are female skills devalued? This type of segregation that seems to be engrained in our culture and our institutions is not allowing any further forward progress, and that is what Britton wants to look deeper into, and it is at the heart of gendered organization.
Structure, agency, and culture are all interlinked in the ongoing process of gendered organization because they all influence each other, and affect the choices of employees and employers. Culture connotates our social beliefs about gender, and what traits are male and female, and which jobs each other those traits fits into. Therefore, culture defines male and female jobs. The practices and policies of organizations are based on what the culture has defined as proper male and female jobs. A great example of this is informal practices job assignments for men and women in the same job are based on culturally defined “male” and “female” traits, and women end up in more domestic assignments, and men get the strength and intellectually based jobs. Then what culture defines and what organization base their structure on is reinforced by agency. The workers search for the individual identity as a work, and interpret themselves as possessors of appropriate masculine or feminine qualities. This is likely to reinforce gender inequality in the work place.
When Britton says that “organizations are gendered at the level of structure,” she means that policies and practices of organizations are based on gender, whether it is directly or indirectly. These practices and policies are created on the basis of what the workers and what culture defines as occupational masculinity or femininity. Obviously, this plays a major role in gender segregation.
Public and private spheres have become a gendered concept because it is much harder for women to separate the two, than for men, and women are negatively affected when jobs call for complete separation. As a culture we have decided that women are in charge of domestic responsibilities. This most likely originates from when women never workers and they we homemakers, but there has been little shift in domestic responsibility since women have joined the work force. Because women still have to handle domestic tasks like child care, the men can more easily enjoy the separation of work and home, than women can. Since women joined the workforce, women are expected to be the jack of all trades – a good mom, employee, wife, sister, daughter, cook, house cleaner, etc. Most employers are going to assume that a woman requires a certain level of flexibility to handle her domestic responsibilities, and that affects their choice on whether they are going to employ certain women.
In turn, women have to make trade offs to have that level of flexibility, and they pay the price for it. They more likely to be stuck in gender jobs, dead end jobs, and jobs that have a significantly lower pay scale.
Structure, agency, and culture are all interlinked in the ongoing process of gendered organization because they all influence each other, and affect the choices of employees and employers. Culture connotates our social beliefs about gender, and what traits are male and female, and which jobs each other those traits fits into. Therefore, culture defines male and female jobs. The practices and policies of organizations are based on what the culture has defined as proper male and female jobs. A great example of this is informal practices job assignments for men and women in the same job are based on culturally defined “male” and “female” traits, and women end up in more domestic assignments, and men get the strength and intellectually based jobs. Then what culture defines and what organization base their structure on is reinforced by agency. The workers search for the individual identity as a work, and interpret themselves as possessors of appropriate masculine or feminine qualities. This is likely to reinforce gender inequality in the work place.
When Britton says that “organizations are gendered at the level of structure,” she means that policies and practices of organizations are based on gender, whether it is directly or indirectly. These practices and policies are created on the basis of what the workers and what culture defines as occupational masculinity or femininity. Obviously, this plays a major role in gender segregation.
Public and private spheres have become a gendered concept because it is much harder for women to separate the two, than for men, and women are negatively affected when jobs call for complete separation. As a culture we have decided that women are in charge of domestic responsibilities. This most likely originates from when women never workers and they we homemakers, but there has been little shift in domestic responsibility since women have joined the work force. Because women still have to handle domestic tasks like child care, the men can more easily enjoy the separation of work and home, than women can. Since women joined the workforce, women are expected to be the jack of all trades – a good mom, employee, wife, sister, daughter, cook, house cleaner, etc. Most employers are going to assume that a woman requires a certain level of flexibility to handle her domestic responsibilities, and that affects their choice on whether they are going to employ certain women.
In turn, women have to make trade offs to have that level of flexibility, and they pay the price for it. They more likely to be stuck in gender jobs, dead end jobs, and jobs that have a significantly lower pay scale.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Blog Post #13
The media images of prison guards generally portray them as big, tall, strong, dominant men, or the stereotypical masculine man. They generally carry a weapon of some sort and look men, and like they can handle any unruly prisoner with violence. When I think of prison guards I think of the ones in the Shawshank Redemption. Those guards were brutal; they continually beat the prisoners and killed some of the prisoners from beating them so badly. In that movie, it seemed that they guards beat the prisoners to prove that they were more dominant then them, and to belittle them and make them know they were inferior and useless. I am not sure that images of female guards in male prisons exist; if so, I haven’t seen any. Regardless, I still do have an image in my head of a very masculine woman who is strong and rather emotional as a prison guard in a male facility. It is actually really sad that that image is what I think of because not only do I know that it is a stereotype, and an incorrect one at that, but I actually visit a prison rather often so I know that female guards are not like that at all. From my personal experience, they only difference I see between female guards and our stereotypical female is that they seem a little less sweet, and a little more blunt and to the point but I feel that is because their job calls for them to behave in that manor, and they probably only behave that way at work.
There are definitely difference in the images that portray correctional officers in female prisons and male prisons. The officers in male prisons are portrayed as strong, harsh, dominant, and using brute force to settle all problems. This is mainly because it is assumed that male prisons are always violent, and therefore the officers need to be able to control this in whatever way they can. The truth is that the prisons are rarely that violent because the prisoners keep each other in check. The officers in female prisons are not portrayed so harshly because people assume that female prisons are not violent because it is not in the nature of women to act aggressively. However, this is a stereotype of women, and is not true. The only films I have ever seen with guards in a female prison are in a juvenile female prison. The guards were not mean, they were more understanding, and they did not carry weapons, or use force. It seems that guards trained in female prisons are trained not to use force or dominance, while guards trained in male prisons are.
There are definitely difference in the images that portray correctional officers in female prisons and male prisons. The officers in male prisons are portrayed as strong, harsh, dominant, and using brute force to settle all problems. This is mainly because it is assumed that male prisons are always violent, and therefore the officers need to be able to control this in whatever way they can. The truth is that the prisons are rarely that violent because the prisoners keep each other in check. The officers in female prisons are not portrayed so harshly because people assume that female prisons are not violent because it is not in the nature of women to act aggressively. However, this is a stereotype of women, and is not true. The only films I have ever seen with guards in a female prison are in a juvenile female prison. The guards were not mean, they were more understanding, and they did not carry weapons, or use force. It seems that guards trained in female prisons are trained not to use force or dominance, while guards trained in male prisons are.
Blog Post #12
It seems that gender occupational segregation because of the way our society defines masculinity and feminity. These definitions include an assumption of what typical female and male jobs are. For example, some stereotypical female jobs would be administrative work, social work, teaching, and nursing. Stereotypical male jobs would include jobs in technology, science, math, security, and manual labor. People stick to what they have been socialized to think because they feel the “other gender” jobs are harder to break into, it can be challenging, they may have no support, they may gain resentment from their co-workers, and they do not want to stick out in the crowd. Gender socialization helps in the formation of occupational segregation because it labels women as always being sweet, polite, and emotional, as assuming the role of a nurturer, and as not as intellectually capable as their male counterparts. It labels men as strong, dominant, the financial provider, emotionless, and academically savvy. Many institutions play into these stereotypes, furthering occupational gender segregation. Britton gives the example of a prison as an institution that does exactly that. It is generally assumed that women cannot work in the prison system because they cannot handle rowdy inmates and violence. Therefore, prison jobs are considered male jobs because it is assumed that the job requires brute strength, mental strength, and male dominance. People think the job requires these traits because it is also assumed that a male prison is overtly violent, mainly because we match masculinity with violence. Hence, a woman would be powerless to this level of perceived violence as they cannot handle masculine men. Society perceives women as the weaker sex. Jobs in administrative work and secretarial work tend to have mostly female employees because these jobs do not require either physical or mental strength, or academic intelligence. However, I am unsure if this kind of job is segregated because of the institution or because men do not want this kind of work for fear they will be looked down upon.
Women have several advantages if they can break into a male dominated occupation. The biggest advantage is that they will make more money because “male” jobs tend to pay higher then women. They can gain a sense of satisfaction and empowerment from succeeding against the odds. It seems to me that men can chose whether they gain or lose from women entering “their” fields. Women going against the odds and succeeding has a major impact on society. If the men chose not to b bitter about the success of these women, then they can gain. I feel that men can learn from women, just as women can learn from men, in order to have the best of both worlds. Men can definitely gain from the different traits that women bring to the table. However, if men chose to be bitter about it, they will lose. They will lose the opportunity to learn and grow as an employee because they feel that a woman took a job reserved for a man.
Women have several advantages if they can break into a male dominated occupation. The biggest advantage is that they will make more money because “male” jobs tend to pay higher then women. They can gain a sense of satisfaction and empowerment from succeeding against the odds. It seems to me that men can chose whether they gain or lose from women entering “their” fields. Women going against the odds and succeeding has a major impact on society. If the men chose not to b bitter about the success of these women, then they can gain. I feel that men can learn from women, just as women can learn from men, in order to have the best of both worlds. Men can definitely gain from the different traits that women bring to the table. However, if men chose to be bitter about it, they will lose. They will lose the opportunity to learn and grow as an employee because they feel that a woman took a job reserved for a man.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Blog Post #11
I think a really good example of this is in the movie “The Pursuit of Happyness” because it shows several real life struggles that people go throw when they can barely make ends meet, and have a child to be concerned with as well. I realize this movie is actually about the poverty that the male character experiences but I would like to focus on the female character, Will Smith’s wife. In the movie, it shows her as clearly working more than eight hours per day, and making very little money for her time. It shows what kind of labor a poor, unskilled women does. And it also does a very good job of portraying her as tired, haggard, and stressed out. Constantly, they are making imperative decisions about what bills to pay with the little money that they do have. Several times the parents argue over not having the money to pay all the bills. They had to make the decision to not pay the parking tickets in order to pay for day care. Also, they were about 3 months late on rent because of their needs for food and water. This movie also does a good job showing the type of child care that many low income children receive – low quality. In the movie, the father gets angry at the provider because she allows them to watch TV nearly all day. Eventually, the wife gives up and leaves her child alone with her husband but before she left, she portrayed a true women in poverty. And the truth is, if her character was a real person, which I am sure it could be, she is lucky that she has two incomes to help her child rather than just the one. All of these things that her character experienced are things that happen in real life, to real people every day.
Blog Post #10
The women that were greatly affected by the welfare reform of 1996 brought several survival strategies with them into their new life. Most of the women say they wanted to work and that they gained satisfaction from earning an income and raising a family despite the obvious amount of stress that lifestyle brings. Regardless of if that life is something they wanted, they knew what they had to do and they did it, and most of them did it well. These women are entirely resilient. It seems as if they have learned to handle anything that is thrown their way. While making remarkable work efforts and making significant economic gains, they still proved strong in raising their child(ren) and finding one child care arrangement after the next in order to keep moving forward. If there is one thing these women know how to do, its use their resources, and use them efficiently. They took the time to learn the social welfare system, and became very good at negotiating their way around it. A good example is of Sara who knew that getting her child into a Head Start program was based on need so she made sure her kid was in need in order to assure that she received a spot in the program. They know how to patch together what resources they do have in order to make an arrangement that works for them and for their child(ren). These women learn to adjust very quickly to ever changing job and care circumstances, mainly because of their inherent instability. They have learned to prioritize well because they must decide what they should base their decisions around. Should they be more concerned about their job hours or they child care hours? Also, they learn how to change their priorities as situations change and children get older. They persevered through all the tough times in order to make sure that their child was in the best situation they could get into given the current circumstances. Mainly, they became very good at making do with what little money and resources they had.
These strategies that these women have either brought to the table or learned throughout their lives on welfare have strong relations to both work and care, and how they related to one another. Mothers have spent much of their time and energy looking for accessible, affordable child care that works with the need of their family, whatever those may be; whether it is a schedule that works around work hours or a schedule that works around day care hours or something that satisfies the child’s developmental needs. Often, it tends to be the case that child care is the anchor around which to base other decisions. As previously mentioned, these women learn to prioritize and then use their resources in order to make sure everyone involved gets what they need. They must make changes to make child care and work correspond with one another; this seems to be a constant feat for most low income mothers. These women continually work as many hours and as many jobs as they can in order to make enough money to put their children in the best care possible. They end up spending a significant amount of their pay check on child care so they can work. And many times the care they can afford is low quality. However, they do learn to make the second best situation work. In the book Putting Children First, Uma explains that “the scarcity of adequate child care slowed down her own development and opportunity in her job but care for her child always comes first.” These women, unfortunately, need to make a decision between time with their young child and working enough to make enough money to meet the basic needs for their family. Many children that are forced into making this decision are very concerned about their child’s emotional, physical, and intellectual development but decide that economic stability is a precursor to adequate development, as they cannot develop without the bare essentials like food and shelter.
I feel like most of the critiques are generally the same as most of them cannot be argued with. It is true that our social welfare system has too many statutes in place that really do hold these women down and negatively affect the children born into poverty. What our country is doing to the poor is cruel. It is clear from both Chaudry’s book and the videos from the course material that there are clearly problems in the arena of child care for low income or poor families. The biggest problem is that most good child care is really expensive and does not accept government subsidies because they do not pay out on time. Another large problem with the system is that it forces women to work, and therefore make more money. When these mothers do that they tend to lose any government help like food stamps and child care subsidies, and they are right back to not being able to afford care for their child and therefore cannot work, again. It seems to be a never ending cycle. Care in general is very expensive is relation to the income levels of these women, and the quality care costs even more.
The affordable care is often low quality and lacking in continuity and stimulation that young children need. This type of care also tends to be unstable.
These strategies that these women have either brought to the table or learned throughout their lives on welfare have strong relations to both work and care, and how they related to one another. Mothers have spent much of their time and energy looking for accessible, affordable child care that works with the need of their family, whatever those may be; whether it is a schedule that works around work hours or a schedule that works around day care hours or something that satisfies the child’s developmental needs. Often, it tends to be the case that child care is the anchor around which to base other decisions. As previously mentioned, these women learn to prioritize and then use their resources in order to make sure everyone involved gets what they need. They must make changes to make child care and work correspond with one another; this seems to be a constant feat for most low income mothers. These women continually work as many hours and as many jobs as they can in order to make enough money to put their children in the best care possible. They end up spending a significant amount of their pay check on child care so they can work. And many times the care they can afford is low quality. However, they do learn to make the second best situation work. In the book Putting Children First, Uma explains that “the scarcity of adequate child care slowed down her own development and opportunity in her job but care for her child always comes first.” These women, unfortunately, need to make a decision between time with their young child and working enough to make enough money to meet the basic needs for their family. Many children that are forced into making this decision are very concerned about their child’s emotional, physical, and intellectual development but decide that economic stability is a precursor to adequate development, as they cannot develop without the bare essentials like food and shelter.
I feel like most of the critiques are generally the same as most of them cannot be argued with. It is true that our social welfare system has too many statutes in place that really do hold these women down and negatively affect the children born into poverty. What our country is doing to the poor is cruel. It is clear from both Chaudry’s book and the videos from the course material that there are clearly problems in the arena of child care for low income or poor families. The biggest problem is that most good child care is really expensive and does not accept government subsidies because they do not pay out on time. Another large problem with the system is that it forces women to work, and therefore make more money. When these mothers do that they tend to lose any government help like food stamps and child care subsidies, and they are right back to not being able to afford care for their child and therefore cannot work, again. It seems to be a never ending cycle. Care in general is very expensive is relation to the income levels of these women, and the quality care costs even more.
The affordable care is often low quality and lacking in continuity and stimulation that young children need. This type of care also tends to be unstable.
Blog Post #9
More and more children are becoming impoverished as the statistics for the amount of entire families entering poverty increases. Many people right now are losing their jobs and cannot get back on their feet so we are seeing many more children in poverty as a result. This can become increasingly problematic for those children who are younger than school aged children because the parents need to be able to provide them with care. Since the parents cannot even afford the basic things in life, they really cannot afford child care. This puts children who cannot go to full time school in a potentially bad situation as they cannot go into a quality day care that stimulates the development of the child. The 1996 Reform Act has forced more women into work. While this seems good, it forces these children into poor quality forms of day care. In the news story “More Families Find Themselves Homeless amid Economy,” say that those children who have experienced long bouts of poverty or homelessness experience depression. Also, Clinton said,: Welfare should not be a second chance, not a way of life,” but the reform forced these women to make more money which decreases the amount of government help they can receive and this greatly affects the children of these working mothers. The money these women are now making does not even come close to covering all of their expenses. The jobs that parents of young children work generally make less money because the people that work them tend to be young and inexperienced. Even though women feel more empowered, and seeing the mother go to work is good for the children, their quality of life has still not improved. Many of the women feel that employers are judging them and it stops them from getting good jobs. There has been a drop in the amount of children born out of wedlock which is a main cause of poverty but there is still a significant amount of children growing up in poverty. The statistics in now about 1 in 5 children are impoverished according to the National Center for Children in Poverty. Recently, we are seeing many more children going hungry or being food insecure. The prices of goods are rising but the wages we are paid are not. These children and families actually need the lunch programs at school in order to eat. In the video, “US families Struggle to Eat” one family talks about taking up hunting just to feed their children.
Blog Post #8
Urban poverty brings a lack of basic needs. These mothers not only have the stress of raising children and a family, but also the stress of survival. Even the women who are single and without children have a rough time living in poverty, and constantly wondering if they are going to make ends meet. Those with children have to worry about providing basic life necessities to their children as well as themselves, but they also have to consider how every decision they make will affect their child. To add to their stress, they have to work one or more dead end jobs for minimum wage which generally bring no benefits. Because they cannot work their way up the ladder in their jobs they feel as though they will never get out of poverty. When they do not have benefits from their jobs, they are likely to lack proper health care. These people living in poverty have to make the decision to pay for health care or pay for their rent. Many will choose the rent because they are unsure if they will utilize the amount of money the put into health care, but they will definitely need a roof over their heads. This leaves their children, and themselves without any form of health care which can be problematic in young children. Also, those without benefits generally do not receive any form of paid time off, or even unpaid time off so any little emergency could lose them their job, and sole income. These people could literally lose everything if they or their children become even minorly ill. When these impoverished women have children, they still need to work in order to make enough money to provide for their children so they need to find child care. Many time the good care is unavailable during the hours needed or all together, and/or it is way too expensive for these women. And because of this, many of the mothers have to sacrifice what they would like their children to have in order to make sure that their child at least has someone there, and that they can continue working. Many times the child care that costs less in not developmentally focused, and they have to many children under their care in order for a child to get any kind of special attention. This can cause development affects on the child. On top of that, the mother is working more and the child is away from their mother more which is another thing that can create developmental challenges for young children. This makes is more possible for the poverty circle to be repeated. However, one of the greatest problems that I have noticed in my studies throughout this course is that the government is helpful to those who make little to no money. But once a person gets a job and starts to make more money they cut off their assistance which throws them right back to where there started; living with barely enough to survive.
Those is mixed income neighborhoods tend to have great opportunity and better jobs. The fact that they are in a better neighborhood alone, helps them to find a better job. With a better it is more likely they will not work as much and they may have an opportunity for advancement. It seems that they better neighborhoods may bring better care options as well which is better for their children. These neighborhoods are also safer for the child to be in and go outside in, and they tend to have a slightly better education system so it is a good way to decrease the chances that the cycle will repeat itself.
Those is mixed income neighborhoods tend to have great opportunity and better jobs. The fact that they are in a better neighborhood alone, helps them to find a better job. With a better it is more likely they will not work as much and they may have an opportunity for advancement. It seems that they better neighborhoods may bring better care options as well which is better for their children. These neighborhoods are also safer for the child to be in and go outside in, and they tend to have a slightly better education system so it is a good way to decrease the chances that the cycle will repeat itself.
Blog Post #7
Minimum wage jobs do not allow these mothers to have the time to care about anything other than the bare necessities for their children. It often become the case that poor, working mothers have to make a choice between supporting their children and providing for them, or spending time with them. And unfortunately, the choice has to be going to work in order to support them because they need things like food, clothing, and shelter. Often they have to make choices between the necessities as one girl from the videos, Jessica, discussed. She mentions that she has to choose between things like paying rent and fixing the car that she used to get to work. Sometimes these women are even forced to work more than one job. These low wage jobs are hard because they pay minimum wage or close to it, so these mothers have to work several hours just to make ends meet. Erin from “7 Days of Minimum Wage” describes that life she lives at minimum wage as emotionally and physically draining. She says she does not understand how a family could ever live on such a little amount of money. On top of that, women already make less money than men, especially low income mothers because of job loss due to children. Also, many low wage jobs have hours outside of the norm which makes it incredibility hard to find available, affordable, and quality care for their children. In the low-wage workforce, workers are rarely given sick days, paid time off, and vacation time so I child becoming ill may bring an end to their job. This forces these women to continually start over (at minimum wage) because the jobs are much harder to keep, as the workers are generally seen as replaceable, just as Jessica from “7 Days at Minimum Wage” talks about. Jobs tend to base what they are going to pay you on what you made previously, but what if that was not enough? And if you can keep them there is very little opportunity to advance. Mallory who is also from the video “7 Days at Minimum wage” discusses the fact that the best way to move up is education but since those living at minimum wage do not have any money to save, as they live from pay check to pay check, and cannot find the money to go to college or even a car to maybe be able to get a better job.
In the book Putting Children First, they looked at the life of Julia who is a working mother with three children, and her youngest, Julia. Before Julia was born the family was living in different homeless shelters but the day after her birth they moved into their first real place in section 8. She wanted to find a way out of poverty and welfare so she decided to go to community college and have Julia’s father watch her youngest two daughters. After the semester, she broke up with the father and that is when life got really hard. She did not do all of things needed to get food stamps so they were literally on the brink of starvation. The next care arrangement while Julia was back in school and doing an internship was to have her younger sister watch her kids, but this ended because of her sister’s job. The internship she was doing turned out to be no good. She took a short job working in a burger joint but didn’t stay long because she did not want her public assistance to get cut. She took a new internship after not working for a month because she could not find child care. At her new internship, she put her daughters in a care center but that situation ended because her public assistance kept messing up the payments to the provider. Next her cousin started watching them but quit when she was getting paid because Julia was cut from welfare when they lost all of her paper work. Julia continued to have to change the care arrangements to work around her job(s) or she would risk losing her source of income. Julia was forced to pay her new provider more money because her kids needed to be there longer, and past normal hours after she was offered her first real full time job. Once welfare realized that Julia had been working they cut off all of her assistance and she could no longer afford any care for her children because she was having a hard time paying rent and food.
In the book Putting Children First, they looked at the life of Julia who is a working mother with three children, and her youngest, Julia. Before Julia was born the family was living in different homeless shelters but the day after her birth they moved into their first real place in section 8. She wanted to find a way out of poverty and welfare so she decided to go to community college and have Julia’s father watch her youngest two daughters. After the semester, she broke up with the father and that is when life got really hard. She did not do all of things needed to get food stamps so they were literally on the brink of starvation. The next care arrangement while Julia was back in school and doing an internship was to have her younger sister watch her kids, but this ended because of her sister’s job. The internship she was doing turned out to be no good. She took a short job working in a burger joint but didn’t stay long because she did not want her public assistance to get cut. She took a new internship after not working for a month because she could not find child care. At her new internship, she put her daughters in a care center but that situation ended because her public assistance kept messing up the payments to the provider. Next her cousin started watching them but quit when she was getting paid because Julia was cut from welfare when they lost all of her paper work. Julia continued to have to change the care arrangements to work around her job(s) or she would risk losing her source of income. Julia was forced to pay her new provider more money because her kids needed to be there longer, and past normal hours after she was offered her first real full time job. Once welfare realized that Julia had been working they cut off all of her assistance and she could no longer afford any care for her children because she was having a hard time paying rent and food.
Blog Post #6
Low-income, working mothers now need to use a wide range of care for their children in order to meet their family’s needs. If it is a two parent home, many times they will arrange their schedules so they work opposite of each other. Otherwise, single mothers use care that ranges from family/friend care, to at home day care, to child care centers. When these families can no longer afford real day care, they settle for what tends to be a patchwork of care by care centers and family members/friends which can be rather unpredictable. In Putting Children First, the mothers say the care ranges from “babysitting to “nurturing” to “developmental” to “educational” to “special needs.” These families must always be concerned with money, location, availability, and rules around subsidies first before they can worry about what is going on during the care. In the book Putting Children First, Brittany wanted to do an internship that was unpaid, but if she was successful at it she could get a job after 4 months. However, she needed someone to watch her daughter. At first she allowed Brittany’s uncle to watch her because he was not working and he was willing to accept the little amount she was given in subsidies, and he had immediate availability. He didn’t do much with her when he was with her, and then he started slacking and not showing up so she needed to find a new arrangement immediately so she did not loose her internship. So her sister took her daughter. The problem with this was that she lived far away from where the internship was located so she would have to leave her daughter there for several days at a time. These are both good examples of how many single, working mothers must sacrifice the needs of the child just to make sure there is someone there to look after them, and give them at least the bare necessities. After she was offered a job, she put her daughter in a child care program but she had to pay the full cost on her own for nearly two years. The arrangement ended due to a dispute with the provider over money. Her next provider seemed nice until she started acting weird and not answering her phone or door when Brittany was supposed to be picking up her kid. Finally, Brittany started taking her to work until she could get her subsidies and put her in a real center, not a home. She no longer wanted her child in home care.
It seems that one of the biggest challenges represented in both the videos and the book, is that when a family starts to make more money, they lose all or most of their child care subsidies which makes them unable to afford their care anymore. The first video, “Child Care Struggles,” showed a mother who received a scholarship for care which allowed her to pay only $206/week for 2 children. When she was given a $6000/year raise, the price was increase to $306/week. The problem is that she really only made $20 more per week, but now she needed an extra $100/week to keep her children in a day care center. She had to find alternative plans, which we not necessarily the best for the development of the child but it fit within her budget.
Parents would like to have their child(ren) in one ideal arrangement but many times they need more than one arrangement because the primary one does not meet all of their needs. This is sometimes because of the day care providers have set or limited hours that tend to run during traditional work hours but many low wage earners do not work traditional hours. However, most of the time, giving up their ideal arrangement for their child is due to a lack of funds. From the book, Brittany prefer that her daughter went to a day care center for care but many times she ended up using an at home care center or family members. Many of the home day cares or the cheaper child care situations turn out to be short-lived and unsatisfactory, offering poor quality care. In the news report provided, one person says, “I saw a center with 58 kids spread across three rooms and only one or two adults looking after them.” Clearly, these centers are not only poor quality intellectually, but they also offer very little attention to these young children which can negatively affect young children. Many parents would love for their child’s care to be developmentally focused, directed to involve parents, and provide parents with more than just day care services like the Head Start Programs, but this is not true of many of the second choice programs. These programs are often hard to get into, and they do not cover a whole day, normally just about four hours. So if a child can get in, they still have to receive some other form of care.
It seems that one of the biggest challenges represented in both the videos and the book, is that when a family starts to make more money, they lose all or most of their child care subsidies which makes them unable to afford their care anymore. The first video, “Child Care Struggles,” showed a mother who received a scholarship for care which allowed her to pay only $206/week for 2 children. When she was given a $6000/year raise, the price was increase to $306/week. The problem is that she really only made $20 more per week, but now she needed an extra $100/week to keep her children in a day care center. She had to find alternative plans, which we not necessarily the best for the development of the child but it fit within her budget.
Parents would like to have their child(ren) in one ideal arrangement but many times they need more than one arrangement because the primary one does not meet all of their needs. This is sometimes because of the day care providers have set or limited hours that tend to run during traditional work hours but many low wage earners do not work traditional hours. However, most of the time, giving up their ideal arrangement for their child is due to a lack of funds. From the book, Brittany prefer that her daughter went to a day care center for care but many times she ended up using an at home care center or family members. Many of the home day cares or the cheaper child care situations turn out to be short-lived and unsatisfactory, offering poor quality care. In the news report provided, one person says, “I saw a center with 58 kids spread across three rooms and only one or two adults looking after them.” Clearly, these centers are not only poor quality intellectually, but they also offer very little attention to these young children which can negatively affect young children. Many parents would love for their child’s care to be developmentally focused, directed to involve parents, and provide parents with more than just day care services like the Head Start Programs, but this is not true of many of the second choice programs. These programs are often hard to get into, and they do not cover a whole day, normally just about four hours. So if a child can get in, they still have to receive some other form of care.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
JUS 420 Blog #5
Chaudry argues that by we are asking the less fortunate to work harder, we are ignoring our public responsibility to the children born into these poor, disadvantaged families and communities because when we send these single, poor mothers off to work their kids need to go somewhere, and that somewhere is generally not good. These mothers already lack money, and forcing them to put their children into child care facilities forces them to spend more money they do not have. Some may argue that they are making more money now, and therefore should be able to afford it, but this is simply not true. Yes they make more money, but this also makes them qualify for less help from the government and less child care subsidies. So these mothers look for the cheapest care they can find, and most of the cheap places are lower quality. Child care is supposed to stimulate children to develop their full potential during their critical period for development of their bodies and minds but the cheap child care does not provide this. In his first chapter, Chaudry looks at the story of Annette and Aaron who experienced a many problems with the reform. She had a hard time holding down a job because she could not find reliable child care. When she finally found a child care provider, they said they did not want to watch him because he was troublesome shortly after they started watching him. Next, he went to his grandmother who did not treat him well, she yelled and hit him, and she allowed him to play outside in the projects often. The next place allowed him to watch TV all day and Aaron begged her not to take him there. All of these situations that she was forced to put her son in were not conducive to his psychological well-being and development. Annette finally found a stable, good environment for her son, but she worried that she did not know what was going on there because she had no time to talk with the provider. This is a good example of how many women are having a hard time striking a balance between making money and parenting, and many times they have to give up on the parenting in order to supply their children with the material things they need. Again, another thing that affects the young children of poor families negatively. The reform has neglected the needs of already disadvantaged children by forcing their mothers to leave them in bad child care facilities that are unconcerned with their development.
In the video, “Living with a hole in your pocket,” they address the fact that many times parents will have to work nearly 80 hours per week in order to make ends meet. This gives the children of these families nearly no time with their parents which is a necessary part of their development. The video also touched on the idea that these people have a hard time working their way out of poverty, and they call it “the vicious cycle.” When these children lack parental supervision throughout their lives and proper child care, it makes them more likely to lead a life similar to that of their parents because they were not properly equipped with the tools to get out. The video “Katherine Newman on America’s working poor” addresses this issue in more detail. She says, “The children fall through the cracks.” She says this because many children are left alone after school, making them more likely to get in trouble and repeat the poverty cycle. The problem also escalates because the key to upward mobility is education which is not easily available to these children.
In the video, “Living with a hole in your pocket,” they address the fact that many times parents will have to work nearly 80 hours per week in order to make ends meet. This gives the children of these families nearly no time with their parents which is a necessary part of their development. The video also touched on the idea that these people have a hard time working their way out of poverty, and they call it “the vicious cycle.” When these children lack parental supervision throughout their lives and proper child care, it makes them more likely to lead a life similar to that of their parents because they were not properly equipped with the tools to get out. The video “Katherine Newman on America’s working poor” addresses this issue in more detail. She says, “The children fall through the cracks.” She says this because many children are left alone after school, making them more likely to get in trouble and repeat the poverty cycle. The problem also escalates because the key to upward mobility is education which is not easily available to these children.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)