"Don't tread On Us"

Recently, some republican G.O.P leaders and Rush Limbaugh have been attacking women, and now Hilary Clinton is fighting back. Clinton has fought for women’s rights around the world. Now she has to fight for women’s rights at home. On Saturday she was at the Women in the World Summit and she said, “Why extremist always focus on women remains a mystery to me. It doesn’t matter what country they’re in or what religion they claim. They want to control women. They want to control how we dress. They want to control how we act. They even want to control the decisions we make about our own health” (NYTimes). Since Clinton is the Secretary of State, she is not supposed to be in domestic politics, but she felt that the whole situation has gotten out of hand and someone needed to address the issue.


The article makes the argument that the Republican men are trying to, “…wrestle American women back into chastity belts…And that could turn out to be the most dangerous thing the wildly self-destructive G.O.P. leaders have done” (NYTimes). The republicans are harassing
the very same women that helped them gain control of the House in 2010. A female Republican senator, Olympia Snowe, is leaving Congress and she told The Washington Post that, “it feels as if we are going back to another era” (NYTimes). She also warns that the republicans are driving women into Democratic arms.


After the response of Republican candidates and Limbaugh calling a female law student a prostitute and a slut, and calling Clinton the “sex-retary of state”, do you feel that because of the recent attacks that the country is digressing? And will the attacks skew the votes?

Sexuality: A Method To Or An Indicator Of Power

In the continual intake of media which I (a mildly HULU obsessed person) partake in, I have observed that powerful women frequently rule with either the iron fist of increased masculinity or the slippery net of sexuality. While it seems to me that the more "feminist" answer in this scenario would be enhancing what are only "perceived" as masculine characteristics and therefore embracing them as female and powerful. This view point would also look down on the effectiveness of sexual prowess in manipulating others (often the cornerstone of any attempt to gain power).

However, I disagree. The intricate relationship between attraction and power cannot be so simply dismissed as petty or dishonorable. Traits the women frequently identify as attractive in men are similar if not identical to ones that can qualify a good leader: confidence, eloquence, persuasiveness. As I am not a man, I cannot positively state the qualities that men might find attractive but I have a feeling the above mentioned traits might be high on the list for them as well. This means that attractiveness and leadership ability have significant crossover. Therefore a woman perceived as more attractive (a notion frequently if not universally attached to some sort of sexual notion) could also be a better leader. In other words, sexuality is not the source of power, but a signifier of a person who would handle a leadership position well.

I would like to just add that I recognize that I based this argument on the idea that the majority of men and women have straight sexual preferences. I think that the same principles could be applied to gay leaders but the argument would be significantly more nuanced. Who is the audience of this leadership? Are the majority of these people also gay? I also feel less confident addressing the subject as there are significantly less openly gay leaders than straight ones. I therefore have less examples to mentally draw from.

Women leaders

My mom’s friend, Michele Jones in 2007 was one of the highest ranked African-American women in the Army. She was a Command Sergeant Major (CSM). My mother and Michele entered the Army at the same time but my mother decided to leave the Army and settle down. Michele and my mom were both ranked E-6’s, just three ranks below a CSM. While my mother was managing her new life outside the army and a family, Michele was climbing the ladder of success. My mom doesn’t particularly regret quitting the Army but I know if she stayed in the Army my home life would be totally different. I would’ve either barely saw my mom or I would’ve been moving from different states and countries. My mother decided that she wanted a family life and Michele chose success in her career.

Not every woman wants the chance to take leadership roles in the workplace. Each woman has a different dream, therefore will have a different priority in life. When a woman’s priority is to start a family, she usually has to sacrifice her job. Women who want to gain a leadership role in her career she has to give up a lot of time. If women weren’t faced with these sacrifices, I think more women will be present in leadership roles, but that seems nearly impossible to me.

Gender and Leadership

Gender and Leadership

Throughout history roles in society have been made typically based upon gender. Of course more women are becoming self -dependent and are taking on some leadership jobs, but history hasn’t always been kind to the acceptance of the independent women. Historically speaking males are given the more important roles such as leadership roles where as females are given the “lesser tasks”. Most leadership jobs such as CEO’s of companies or even a government official position are given to males. Societies throughout history have limited women’s roles. Aside from childbirth, taking care of household needs are classically the only thing society deems women capable of. When women originally began fighting for more rights many people were appalled by their actions because they believed in the “old ways” and where not excited for change. Even in today’s society feminists are still rivaled by those stuck in the “old ways”, not wanting to see change. Lastly, there is still millions more of stay at home wives then husbands. Women in the U.S are fortunate, but women worldwide are facing inequalities. Women in Israel are fighting to be able to site freely on buses, and Women in Africa are fighting rape crimes daily. Equality is still not here.

Women and Leadership

I believe that yes, there is a difference in the way women acquire and sustain their leadership positions versus the way men go about acquiring theirs. Sadly, it is evident that is more difficult for a woman, especially in the white collar work industry, to attain and maintain a leadership position. There is opposition from a sides, society, higher ups and at times their own families. Though, of course, this is not the case for all women, society does still largely live in the realm that women should be raising the children and running the home. Society does not have a problem with women holding a job; however they seem to frown upon the idea that a woman should and can be working outside of the home as much as a man in a similar position.

In a blog post I found will reading about men versus women in the work place the author stated, "30 years after women entered the work force in large numbers, the default mental image of a leader is still a male...women who act in ways that are consistent with the gender stereotypes -defined as 'focusing on the work relationships'...were considered less competent. But if they act in ways that are seen as more 'male' - they are seen as 'too tough' and 'unfeminine'" (Perceptions of men vs. women - workplace: http://peteflow.blogspot.com/2007/11/perceptions-of-women-vs-men-workplace.html). Women seem to be in a lose - lose situation. No matter which way they chose to approach their leadership role, they can't seem to please society.

Instead of sitting around and feeling bad about the situation I believe it is time that people who believe in this cause should stand up and do something. I say people because I do not believe that only women could stand up for this; however I do believe that women need to take initiative and get the ball rolling. Similar to what Sheryl Sandburg, I believe that women need to begin putting themselves in positions where they can be leaders and not letting go until they have gotten as high up as possible aka "keeping their feet on the gas pedal".

I also believe that quotas in the work place are important step. Yes, there may be some push back from some unhappy male colleagues but I believe that it is important to get women in the work place so that they can prove their worth as opposed to them not having an opportunity in the first place. I do not think fear of the negative connotations should stop us. Eventually, whether they like it or not people will see that women are just as capable to hold these positions and hopefully this exposure will help break the stereotypes.

Womenand Leadership Positions

Cultural Shift

When I think about the ideal leader, I think about the characteristics that person should possess: keen outlook, self-sufficient, empathetic, and not about the gender that ideal leader should possess. Despite my belief that gender shouldn’t be a, or if at all only a little determining factor in someone’s ability to be/have power; from our class discussions and just common trends, it actually holds true that gender is very much intertwined with leadership. As many people have already mentioned, time and time again, women seem to be absent from the leadership roles.
Like many of my fellow classmates have already mentioned, in almost all fields, ranging from politics to medicine, women seem to be lacking from leadership roles. As I can hopefully assume, however, women are just as capable as men for these leadership roles and yet this favor towards men in power are startling. I would like to blame this uneven representation solely on the fact that despite recent progress, there still is the stereotypical image of women as weak, frail or rather “bitchy” when put in leadership roles, however I acknowledge that this is not the only reason for the lack of women leaders. Like others have mentioned, it is quite possible that although today many women are career-oriented, a majority of women also have other priorities such as families and children. Thus it is quite possible that the companies assume that almost all women would rather focus on the family as their priority than work and then never give them the chance for leadership roles. However, this assumption that women do no want leadership roles can obviously be quite problematic for the women who wish to focus on their career or even have leadership roles at work while maintain a family. But the question rises: how does society allow equal leadership opportunities for those women who want it. Like our previous discussions with women’s suffrage acts, it sometimes requires a mass movement, massive support in order for the opportunity to be open in the first place. Thus, like many of people have mentioned, there needs to be a cultural shift in order to give those equal opportunities for the women who desire it.

Quotas=Good

Last week in class we talked about the quota for having women on a company’s board in Europe (Rebecca’s current event). For those that don't remember, the quota would force companies to have 30% of their board be women by 2015. If they didn't meet the requirements by 2015, they would have to pay a hefty fine. At first, I didn’t think it was a good idea because I thought companies would be forced to put women into positions that they might not be qualified for. However, I wasn’t really educated on the subject. As we talked about it more, the point was made that there in fact are plenty of women that were qualified for these positions, but they are being overlooked. Now that I am more educated on the subject, I believe the quota is fantastic idea. It’s a step forward for equality in the workplace, and will force companies to not discriminate based on gender.

Yet Another Curb on Abortion

Last Thursday Republicans chose a very interesting way to mark International Women's Day. The Judiciary Committee in the Republican- controlled House had a hearing in order to promote the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act bill. Some memebers of the party argued that it is both an "attack on women’s rights and on the basic principles of federalism. "

In the United States there are already 32 States that require teenagers to consult with their parents and get their permission before getting an abortion. The bill would not only expand this to other states but also make it mandatory for teenagers to notify thier parents as well as a 24 hour waiting period on women under the age of 18 who are traveling outside of their homestate in order to recieve this abortion procedure.

Anyone who wants to help these teenagers who are not a legal gardian and are not in the presence of a justice official will be charged a fine. That would include aunts, uncles, grandparents, and older siblings. They would charged with criminal and civil penalties and up to a year in prison, as well as a fine of $100,000.

Also under the threat of these same criminal and civil penalties, doctors would also be force to undergo these same penalties. They would have to deal with the various state laws and any others that deal with the provider of the home state, as well as some measure that may or may not be taken by the Senate.

Everyone would agree that young teenage girls who are caught in these circumstances are left with a difficult decision from an experience that is most times unwanted and unplanned. Should these same girls be encouraged to talk to one or even both of their parents about their decision on abortion or would simply going to another adult be enough. With some teenagers being afraid to tell their parents for fears of violent reactions, broken home communication or other personal mental and emotional reasons is it still okay for these children to be forced into notifying their parents.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/opinion/yet-another-curb-on-abortion.html)

Women in Politics

Recently there was a movie that premiered Saturday on HBO titled “Game Change”. The movie was a fictional movie based on Sarah Palin in 2008. I have not personally watched the movie but I have heard numerous radio shows and critics talk about the movie. On critic stated “Game Change, unquestionably, has moments that don’t shed the best light upon Palin and her actions on the campaign trail. From mental breakdowns, to her stunning lack of knowledge about important facts, to a blatant disregard for those working with her on the campaign”. Other critics talk about how the movie shows that there is an actual “human being there” if anything else. I found these articles very interesting because all the articles relate, in the way that Sarah Palin has feelings and emotions. All the articles in some form or way rather pro Palin or anti Palin discusses her family issues in the movie and how she was not prepared to be in a presidential election. The movie attacks Palin by using her emotions and her mother instincts against her, yet positively portray John McCain in the movie.
I believe that as a society we are not ready to have a woman as our leader especially in politics. One critic stated “How can someone aspire to being a heartbeat away from the Oval Office without a firm grasp of basic history and current events?” and as an society we “remain so woefully uninformed, willfully dissonant and bad at knowing one another”. In simple terms how could Sarah Palin become governor of a state and win the nomination to run in the presidential election with out being qualified. Since Sarah Palin has a family and she chooses to be there for her family she does not have the qualifications as the men in the election. I remember at one point in time in the election Sarah Palin daughter became pregnant outside of marriage, and in some way this was a reflection on Palin as being a bad mother. I remember people clearly stating how can she be a good president when she cannot control her own family? As a woman in the election I felt that Palin had a lot to deal with and a lot of expectations put on her that the men did not have. She was expected to be a good mother, with no emotions, and show that she could run a country. Women alone are expected to work, take care of the children, and take care of her husband, but to top it off Palin added the country to her list of duties. I agree with the critic who stated that there is no way Palin was a governor with out being qualified. Rather she was a good leader in how she ran Alaska or how should would have ran the country is something to consider. Yet there have been many presidents who have been very qualified yet failed to bring this country to success. The country is okay with a man running the country into the ground, but if a woman were to even come close to a mistake she is incompetent and unqualified. I believe that there is a long way before women are accepted into the politic world on the high scale of President in the United States.

Earning the Bronze Medal since the Bronze Age: History of Patriarchy

Politics has a history of being male-dominated. Women had to fight to even have a say in politics and only recently have women begin to fill the leadership positions in politics. I find it reasonable to say that such leadership positions require higher degrees of education. Looking at the history of our countries leaders, logically it made sense that women would not take part in politics (especially before the 19th ammendment) because women were expected to stay home and raise children. Today, although there are many more women who hold powerful positions, politics still seems to be male-dominated and my gut reaction is again to claim that the socially accepted view has not completely evolved yet and so the thought of women in power is still somewhat radical. However, I wasn’t quite sure how we got to this point where a woman’s role was to be at home.

As I was thinking about monarchy, I noticed that men also tend to dominate as well. Perhaps the reason for so many Kings can be attributed to the biblical belief that lineage was passed on through the male, especially since, depending on the interpretation, God made Adam first. Yet this is all speculation so I searched for reasons that could account for the gender gap in politics and other leadership positions and I stumbled across the author Gerda Lerner, Ph.D., who wrote, The Creation of Patriarchy. Dr. Lerner notes in an interview that women are almost absent in history. Women have accomplished many things which sadly are lost amongst the “great male achievements”. Such lack of history allows men to believe that they “are much more important in the world than they actually are.” Dr. Lerner explains that if men are responsible for the great in this world, then it is only natural that boys will be held to higher expectations. Dr. Lerner says that humans created the leadership disparity because it was appropriate for the time (the Bronze Age). Women and children were “the first slaves in every civilization.” This fact is a result of the Bronze Age, where plow agriculture allowed more production of food and thus prisoners of war could be kept alive and turned into slaves. Before, keeping slaves wasn’t possible because there wasn’t enough food for them. With the invention of chains, prisoners could be locked up and the victor wouldn’t, “ take the risk that that man at night would brain them all.” However, capturing men didn’t come until later. Captured women could be sucked into the victor’s group through marriage thus allowing tribes to grow.

The Bronze Age brought much war and so women found it beneficial to “ally themselves to a man who promised to give them that protection.” Dr. Lerner notes that anthropologists disagree with her work and claim other methods that lead us to patriarchy. It seems, however, that the other theories all support that patriarchy was only reinforced over hundreds of years and consequently, women became more and more oppressed. Now women must climb out of this grave that our ancestors have dug and I believe progress has been made. I just hope things really start to speed up so that it won’t take hundreds of years to reverse such disparity.

Are Leader-Wives Possible?

Self definition for most married women tends to involve their husbands in some way, the man’s position often providing a focal point around which the women’s life pivots. Many women demurely accept a position under or behind their husbands, while others struggle to remain independent in a partnership. More challenging, and thusly more rare, are women who not only step out from behind their husbands but take leadership roles in their communities or workplaces. Women across the globe are facing this struggle and some are overcoming it beautifully, two women who are doing just that are Connie Shultz and Saima Muhammad.

For many women, Connie Shultz’s title of “Senator’s Wife” is title enough, but for Ms. Shultz it is only a piece of her life. Ms. Shultz is an accomplished author, syndicated columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner, as well as a mother and activist. For many women her life would be considered successful, in terms of career and family, yet it seems more exceptional because of her husband’s power. Certainly the trend of political wives taking a backseat is not unique to the United States, strong but silent spouses are ubiquitous globally. Yet Ms. Shultz pursued an independent career, branching out from her husband’s. Not to belittle her accomplishments, but it is interesting to consider how much more impressive her accomplishments seem because she did so with a powerful husband. It speaks to the strength of our cultural expectations of women with powerful husbands that when their wives succeed, especially as leaders, independently we up the praise considerably. It is comforting to think that wives like Ms. Shultz will become the norm, that in the future a husband’s power will not define his wife’s independent success, but there is no guarantee.

Across the globe in P Lahore, Pakistan lives Saima Muhammad, a woman who’s life is simultaneously similar and vastly different form Ms. Shultz’s. Mrs. Muhammad spent the beginning of her marriage as broken and submissive a wife as possible; she was beaten daily and lived by the will f her husband and his family. Clearly she had no power despite her husband’s own relative lack of power in society. Mrs. Muhammad turned her life around with the help of a loan and the success of her own embroidery business. Against local pushback Mrs. Muhammad turned the single-person startup into a thriving business that employed numerous local women. With her own success came a life away from her husband. Mrs. Muhammad no longer lives at the beck and call of her husband, though she still respects the idea of an obedient wife, and she has become an independent and successful businesswoman. Like Mrs. Shultz, Mrs. Muhammad is undoubtedly successful, but her accomplishments are elevated because of the contrast of her previous state as an invisible wife. Mrs. Muhammad was able to gain leadership in her community, but hers is currently an exceptional story, not a universal one.

Women have proven countless times that they can lead successful independent lives, pursue accomplished careers, and lead others capably, yet only a minority does so. Women fail to break away from their husbands’ shadow and seek out power en mass. It is possible and it has been done, but their remains deficiency of women who succeed in balance family and work and gaining power at every level.

"Emo Killings"

In researching for current events, I came across a New York Times Article entitled, "Threats and Killings Striking Fear Among Young Iraqis, Including Gays." Over the past couple of weeks, a wave of killings and intimidation aimed at Iraqi gays and teenagers associated with the latest "emo phenomenon" have been circulating in Baghdad. Iraqi newspapers call them "emo killings" targeted at what human rights advocates describe as gay men and teenagers who style themselves in a uniquely Iraqi collage of hipster, punk, emo and goth fashions." Many see the look as a result of the blooming of Iraqi society since the end of the war and departure of American troops, while religious conservatives have expressed their outrage and opposition to the look, directly associating it with homosexuality. The Iraqi government is said to be unsuccessful in protecting the youth, denying that these killings have even occurred. It claims that the media has produced the stories in order to embarrass the country. However, the article states that the Iraqi government was in fact the first to label the emo youth as a "public menace," calling the look Satanic. According to the New York Times article, the Social Police in Iraq have received authority to further investigate the "emo situation" by going into Baghdad schools and "eliminating" those found to be associated with the trend.

Many gays have been received threatening letters, saying things like “Reform your behavior, stop being gay, or face deadly consequences.” The beatings and killings of gays by Islamist militias in Shiite areas of Baghdad have been going on for at least six years now. An estimated 750 gays have been killed, while many others have emigrated to the north for safety. Those that remain in Baghdad are continuously chastised, facing discrimination and threats every day. In an effort to repress their gay and emo identities, many youth cover their long hair and hide deep in the closet.

In the US, we see these kinds of things happening (not exactly to the degree in Iraq) – members of the LGBT community being constantly bullied and harassed and driven to the point of suicide. So it makes me wonder; what solutions are there to combating these issues? Are there any solutions? I know that we can’t change everyone’s opinions of the LGBT community but do you think we can at least get to a point of tolerance in order to ensure the safety of members of this group?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/world/middleeast/killings-strike-fear-in-iraqi-gay-and-emo-youth.html?pagewanted=2&ref=hatecrimes

Freedom of Choice = Choosing Gender Inequality?

My mom told me that when she was just beginning work as a lawyer, her boss told her that women were never going to be able to work as much as men. My mom was a very carreer-driven women and, I guess, hadn't thought about the possibility of gender as a limitation. He told her the same answer that we've been tossing around in class: because women will always have a home to take care of, a family, children. I had assumed that this explanation was only discovered by those who really thought about this issue, but the offenders give it as valid explanation. I googled "why aren't there more women leaders," just out of curiosity, and in the first comment of an article which read, "NO matter what you do, women still have another part of their life that they place a higher value on than men. For men, career success is still far higher in priority than family and children." For some reason, it didn't hit me that this explanation was so well-understood and recognized.

Another comment on that post got me thinking about the idea of choice. Women choose, for instance, to not try so hard to obtain positions of leadership because they have their husband to fall back on (as explained by Sheryl Sandburg). So I did a little more research and one article I read gave this interesting quote:
"It's the opposite of what we'd expect," says Pinker. "You'd think the more family-friendly policies, and richer the economy, the more women should behave like men, but it's the opposite. I think with economic opportunity comes choices, comes freedom."
The article goes on to explain that, while factors like family and stability influence women's desicions, when we approach societies with more and more choice, women choose something different than men more and more often. The article deals with women in more technological fields, claiming that women tend to want to work with organic things (ie. biomedical sciences, social sciences, humanities) instead of inorganic things (physics, chemistry), while men prefer the opposite. But I think the take-away is applicable to the discussion of leadership: it's more about what women would naturally want than what they are somehow pressured into doing. When Dr. Harris talked to our class, we learned that women are naturally more interested in building relationships than men. So maybe women simply prefer to "work" with family members are build relationships that way--maybe it's a product of our biological makeup or whatever causes us to be more interested in social interaction (nature more than nurture).
(Still, I find a pretty big loophole in the article's argument: if women are more interested in working with inorganic things (namely, people), why aren't there more women in management?)

For me, it's easy to blame the men for not allowing women into leadership positions they deserve or creating an enviornment in which women feel that their priorities should always lie with their children. But all these points and statistics remind me that gender inequality, particularly in leadership, like everything (ever), is a complicated, interconnected web of causes and effects and subjects. I'm having a really hard time untangling that web to find even a step that would help put us on the path toward closing the gender gap when choice does not seem to be enough.

"Emo Killings"

Women and Power

If I were to reflect on my experiences with gender and leadership in the workplace, this post would be pretty short, despite my mother's constant nagging for me to get a job. I can talk about my experiences with gender and leadership within sports. I've played soccer for the majority of my life; playing with both girls and boys. Reflecting on my experiences within that realm, I've noticed a substantial difference between playing with the two. When you are a girl on a boys team, there are usually two different scenarios that occur (that I've noted, anyway). One scenario is: the girls become intimidated, leaving the boys to exclude them from the game, or treating them like they're made of glass which leads to a horribly uninteresting, one-sided contest. Another scenario would be that the girls come out strong, not letting themselves become intimidated, leaving the game to be high-paced and fun to watch.

After reading some of the other posts, I feel as though I'm just echoing a common theme. From my experiences, I can't help but feel as though we as people, being unrelated to gender, reap what positions we put ourselves in. Traditionally, I think we can all agree that women are expected to stay at home and take care of the kids, etc. While I think there are many great women in power historically, millions and millions of women sit day-to-day accepting this inferiority. If we go back to my (somewhat) connecting soccer story, the girls who were played better or tougher against the boys were the girls who weren't scared of the boys and viewed themselves as being just as good, if not better, than them. I have to agree with other posters in my point being: women should stand up and start taking control of their own powers and strengths.

Gender & Leadership

When thinking about this topic, I am reminded of Sheryl Sandberg's TED talk about why we have too few women leaders. I remember her saying that women generally second-guess themselves a great amount of the time and contribute their success to others, while men generally possess more confidence and contribute their success to themselves. At first I did not fully grasp this notion. But when I put it in context with my life, I could understand it better. For example, my brother may seem very cocky and a little arrogant at times, but he has a great deal of confidence, allowing him to be more willing to try new things and readily face obstacles. I too have confidence, but not to the extent that my brother has. I sometimes feel that had I believed in myself a little more or tried to go into things without thinking the worse would happen, I could've accomplished more in the past. This certainly is not true for ALL men or women, but I often do think that women are a little more mindful and aware of what people think of them, and so, they sometimes let factors like other's people's opinions or even their own insecurities hold them back (I don't know if there is any statistic on this - just my personal opinion).

LIke we've discussed in class before, I personally do think that when it comes to men and women in leadership positions, people will often have more respect and liking towards a man in a position of power than towards a woman in the same position. Women are often stereotyped as being "bitchy", nagging, or constantly complaining, and so people tend to favor a man in a leadership role. I've attended seven schools throughout my education, having both male and female principals. But I can say that the male principals were favored by students a lot more over the female principals. I really do not think this was just a coincidence, as I felt that both the male and female principals were equal in manners when it came to running the school and taking disciplinary actions.

In order to reach their full potential, I believe that more women need to start developing the confidence and determination in school and the workplace that so many women already possess. And like previous posts, I think that women need to demand the same respect as their male counterparts in order to dispel these stereotypes and be taken seriously so that they are truly valued for their work and accomplishments.

Do It Like a Brother...

When I think about gender and leadership, I think about the advice that my mother gives me, but not my older brother. She always tells me when going for a promotion, or a leadership position, I should not be surprised if I have to “apply” or inquire three times; the first time to show interest, the second time to show that I’m serious, and the third time to actually be accepted or denied. My mother’s advice has been crafted and refined from years in the medical field, fighting for promotions, and more importantly time off. Time off is just about the most precious commodity in medicine. It can be used to bargain with co-workers or exert power in the work place. If a physician who takes care of a practice and a half worth of patients is able to take time off, they are high up on the totem pole. Likewise, since only so many doctors can be out of the office at a time, time off can be used as an ace up the sleeve when trying to make headway; work some holidays, allowing other physicians to take time off, you’ve just got a new bargaining chip in getting a raise. But, in my mother’s experience, men in the office around her have been able to use these skills to make progress in their careers faster than their female colleges, simply because the women have to peruse their wants and needs more frequently, and with more intensity.

What is about American culture that makes it necessary for women to take the extra step of showing a serious interest in a position? Why is serious interest not implied, as it is with men, by simply inquiring or applying for a new job, a new position, a raise, or really anything? While I guess this problem could relate to the idea that once women have children they back down from moving forward or progressing in the work field, I think the true problem runs deeper. I cannot quite put my finger on it, but something about these types of situations strikes me as old fashioned sexism; that children or no children, women simply should not be taken seriously in the work place or as part of the work force. Sadly, I think the only way to correct this problem is for women to follow advice like my mother’s, and continue to show interest, and not give up, until maybe one day women will only need to inquire once.

If you were wondering about the title of my post, and the title of Aubrey's post, here is our inspiration. Lightening the mood of GCP...

Katalyst / Hannah Wintrode Choreography

...Do It Like A Dude

I often gripe about my minimum wage job at Dave's Cosmic Subs. For instance, were you aware that packaged salami smells like baby diapers? One day I was complaining, yet again, about how my boss had recently given a fellow employee a raise. While yes, the employee works full time (40 hours a week) and has a more complicated job than I do and is much older, I complained anyways. When I slipped in that the employee was a "he", my cousin and aunt automatically decided that it was obvious that he made more money than me because of his gender.
Though this is a specific situation, it makes me question women's actual position in leadership. Could it be possible that this whole time women have spent so much time complaining that they haven't actually taken the time to prove their point?
While there are thousands of papers about the progress of women, almost none of the owmen who are writing such articles are at the top of their fields. Additionally, most women have different priorities. If you look at women and politics, there were almost no laws concerning marriage, children, or education until women began to have a say in politics. Women have stereotypically had a larger emphasis on things as such than men have, which can be a good and a bad thing. I think it is reasonable to ask women to work to prove that their stereotypes are untrue, as all stereotypes must be proven wrong before they can be eliminated. At the same time, men have shorter paternity leaves and often have to fight more to get time off to spend time with their families. There are stereotypes on boths sides of the equation, whcih is why I think that women should stop talking about it and start proving it. This is a true example of how actions speak louder than words.

How Can We Change Society?

One evening at the dinner table my mother told a story about a friend at work. The friend, a woman, was applying for a promotion along with 3 men. At her interview, my mother’s friend was asked, “Don’t you have small children at home? How do you think you’ll manage this job along with your family?” None of the 3 men who were applying for the same job were asked about their families.

When my mother finished telling me this story, I responded, “Why didn’t the woman say something? If she knew she was being treated unfairly, why didn’t she cause some sort of outcry that would draw attention to the matter?”

Sometimes my brain gets a little confused with all this talk of "gender discrepancies in leadership positions" talk. On one hand, I see the statistics and hear people speak in outrage of gender discrimination in the workplace (like with the story of my mother’s friend). On the other hand, however, I don't think I've ever had a personal experience when I felt at a disadvantage (in America, in school or when applying for a leadership role) because of my gender.

Although when I hear the statistics and stories I think, "well this has to change," I think my lack of personal experience impedes my ability to truly understand the fight women face in our country. For example, after I asked my mother why her friend didn’t make her outrage public, my mother shook her head slightly and went back to eating her dinner as if to say “you just don’t get it.”

Until I do understand completely, however, I can only offer this question on the subject: Are women repressed by men in society, or do women repress themselves? By not speaking out about how she was treated unfairly, was my mother’s friend only perpetuating cultural norms of gender discrimination? How many women each day remain silent in the face of repression and discrimination? Maybe my mother’s friend would have appeared as something of a “sore loser” if she made her outrage public, but if every time this type of instance occurred the woman wrote an angry letter to her interviewer’s superior or told everyone she knew, then maybe a cultural shift would occur.

Women cannot expect to be free of gender discrimination by showing statistics of its existence. Nor can women who successfully hold leadership positions adequately rally those who are being repressed or change the ways of their repressors. Change can only happen if women every day stand up in the face of prejudice and demand to be treated as equals. In other words, a successful cultural shift will come from many women pursuing their own personal fight and thus adding strength to the pursuit of equality at large.

In some ways, I am almost hoping for the moment when I feel personally touched by gender discrimination. I can’t wait to cause a fuss, and thus inspire others to do the same.

Family or Country: The Decisions of Aung San Suu Kyi

Previous to reading the newest Newsweek, I knew relatively little about Burma. The article, The Lady's Destiny , painted a picture of a politician who had a family, but did not broadcast it. Aung San Suu Kyi is a strikingly beautiful woman who led the Burmese democratic revolution, by chance. She had come to the country to take care of her mother, with a determination to leave as soon as possible and return to Oxford and her family. However, being the daughter of Gen. Aung San, the man who negotiated freedom for his country from England and established the first army, many students and revolutionists were determined to have her participate in the revolution. After hesitation, she took on the role. Her husband had minimal say in the matter, for upon their engagement "she struck a deal: if her people should ever need her, she would have to return to them...and Michael unhesitatingly agreed." (42) Suu Kyi fought for her country and was placed under house arrest as a political prisoner, unable to leave the house even when her husband died of cancer. She has not seen her son, Alexander, since he was 15 years old on a brief trip that her family took to Burma. As the article put it, "few of us could imagine being asked to choose our country over our family, as she has effectively had to do" (42)
In a country where family is used as a prop for campaigns, can anyone in our country actually imagine the consequences of doing that? While Suu Kyi is hailed in Burma as the Mother of Democracy, she is often criticized for choosing her political career before her family. How can we learn to reconcile the two in order for women to progress in society to the same point that men have?

Gender Equality on Boards: Reding or Not, Here it Comes

The gender disparity in the workplace has existed for so long that such a statement should surprise few, if any. Men have always seemed to hold more “higher-end” (board positions) jobs than women have held. However, exactly one year ago, Viviane Reding, justice commissioner for the EU, had asked companies to “voluntarily increase women’s presence on corporate boards.” Yet, after a whole year, the world has seen little change. According to the Huffington Post, 24 companies had promised to dedicate 30% of the board positions to women by 2015. To give a little perspective, Huffington Post also points out that “That’s up only slightly from just under 12 percent in 2010 and despite the fact that 60 percent of university graduates are now women.” In fact, the percentage of women on big company boards has actually declined from 3.4 percent (January 2010) to 3.2. Reding pointed out that women end up benefiting the company rather than costing it money; this statement is supported by the female and male boards who have a “56 percent higher operating profit compared with companies with all-male boards.”

On Monday, March 5th, Viviane Reding demanded a change. Last year she threatened to use quotas if she didn’t see a change, and now the Commission is considering such methods to increase the percentage of women on the boards. Reding states, “I am not fond of quotas, but I very much like what quotas do.”

Countries with quotas already, such as Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, are the countries that improved the gender gap. The Huffington Post states, “France alone was responsible for half the EU-wide increase, Reding said, bringing its own percentage to 24 percent,” when a year ago, only 12 percent of board positions were held by women. The New York Times points out that, “In Italy, one-third of a company’s board must be women by 2015 or the business will face fines of up to €1 million, or $1.3 million, and the nullification of board elections.”

It’d be wrong to assume that Reding’s initiative was unpopular and ill received. The NYT also says that “Ms. Reding said she had the support of many members of the European Parliament, which had already backed the need for legislation if companies failed to make sufficient progress through self-regulation” in addition to the “new poll showing that 75 percent of respondents favored legislation to balance gender representation on company boards.”

So from now until May 28th, “consultations” will help “determine the proportion of women that should be on boards under any E.U.-wide legislation” and the techniqualities of the quotas. Do you feel that Reding has so far dealt with the inequality issue in an appropriate way (was threatening quotas one year ago necessary and or the right thing to do)? Do you think these quotas will be enforced? Will such an attempt to create gender equality change society’s view of women?

Statictics on Sex Ed vs. Abstinence-only Ed

http://www.planetwire.org/files.fcgi/7689_Ab_Only_Ed_Kohler_.pdf

Hundreds demonstrate for women's rights at state Capitol, 31 arrested

On Saturday 31 protesters were arrested at the state Capital in Virginia. The protest was in response to the proposed bill that women would have to undergo a mandatory ultra-sound if they wanted an abortion. Some of the protesters held signs such as "Gov. McDonnell get out of my vagina,". 17 women and 14 men were arrested and though the charges are unknown it was said that they were probably charged with "trespassing or unlawful assembly". The protesters were arrested and taken to a bus where some waited for 5 hours before they were taken to a correctional facility.
The protesters explained their views stating "The legislators should not be legislating medical procedures, especially for women, We have a freedom of choice and they're trying to take that away." Many women believed that the force used by the police was not needed and unnecessary, for they were only practicing their freedom of speech. The police of the Capital stated that the police force was called because they believed that the demonstration was "getting really large and we didn't want things to get out of hand," Leigh Weedon a participator in the protester stated "I was incredibly proud of the people that were arrested on the stairs. I thought that was a great sacrifice, and I was very proud of them doing that," Weedon said. "I was also really surprised today with the presence of the SWAT team, obviously, and the German shepherds."
I used this article because it reminded me so much of "Jawed Iron Angels" because of how the women were protesting against the government, yet they were arrested under the same "crimes" as they were. My question to the class is "Has the US really progressed as a country as far as women rights?" though the Obama administration doe snot support the the bill, his views and support was still neglected and people were still arrested. In the coming up election if the republicans were to become the majority in politics would that potentially become a problem for basic human rights?

Why is there so much violence in the Congo?

Some useful sources for your research:

Roots of the Crisis (Enough Project)

"The Roots of War in Eastern Congo" (The Guardian) 

Roots of Conflict in the Eastern Congo (Pulitzer Center)