In order to obtain a successful/work balance particularly for professional women, there is no question that we need a change in policies beginning with reshaping the structured organizations as the rules and standard norms have been set by men. Now with women being almost have of the entire workforce it is more imperative that policies reflect their needs and that they too be taken into consideration. When the ‘ideal worker norm’ was created, women stayed home and they cared for children but with in an increasing demand for a double income or simply the desire to be independent it has become challenging for women to remain in the workforce and make progress professionally and monetarily as the structure of the organization do not permit it. Repeatedly, we have seen in the course material, our interviews, the videos and in English’s book that women are forced to sacrifice prestige, income, reputation, credibility, and roles of leadership because they choose to also be mothers and raise children. In order to envision, English’s reimaging of the future, it will be necessary to accommodate women’s needs and those of their multiple roles. Wouldn’t you agree that it is reasonable? The most ideal setting would be an organization that offered child care onsite to allow women to visit with their children and nurse them if necessary. Having available childcare as a bonus will not only boost morale in the organization but it will take away from the stress of looking for an adequate provider as moms are more likely to be involved in making this arrangement. Another option that should be offered to women and caregivers is flexibility with the work schedule as it can be challenging to find a balance between both without it. Most importantly, we need to promote for more family friendly policies overall as that will create awareness and the due respect that the responsibilities of women deserve otherwise housework and child raising will continue to be regarded as women’s work that is expected but simply not applauded or commended enough. Only we women with children understand that it really takes much work, effort and competence to be able to manage our multiple roles and to do so effectively. We women are wonderful, there’s no doubt about it!
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Blog #38
Justice O’Connor was the first woman to be sworn into the U.S. Supreme Court in 1981. It’s only been 29 years since she broke the gender barrier in such a prestigious organization. She graduated Magna Cum Lade from Stanford University with a degree in Economics and then went on to law school there as well. Interestingly, when I googled her biography and read it, it also included that during the time that she entered the workforce as an attorney, it was indeed difficult for women lawyers to find jobs. This exemplifies that regardless of her stellar academic resume, what held her back was her gender. In addition, her biography also describes her having children and afterwards ‘going back to work part-time’ thus making indicative that even Justice O’Connor was required to make some professional sacrifices to care for her children early in her career. I was impressed to have learned that only five years later, she was appointed to the State Senate but then again, her youngest child would have been kindergarten age and that’s when children spend less time in the home thus permitting a working mother to return to work full-time. Fortunately, for Justice O’Connor, President Reagan had promised to include women in positions of power and authority and thus granted her the appointment as a Justice during his presidency.
Justice O’Connor gained a reputation of being tough and conservative except when it came to women and children rights. She has been named one of the most influential women in America and as a result has had schools renamed after her including the Arizona State University College of Law and the local federal courthouse has also been named after her. She is known for being quoted as saying, “The power I exert on the court depend on the power of my arguments, not on my gender” and “The more education a woman has, the wider the gap between men’s and women’s earnings for the same work.” It is obviously clear that she was aware of the issues facing women in the profession that still need to be addressed.
Justice O’Connor gained a reputation of being tough and conservative except when it came to women and children rights. She has been named one of the most influential women in America and as a result has had schools renamed after her including the Arizona State University College of Law and the local federal courthouse has also been named after her. She is known for being quoted as saying, “The power I exert on the court depend on the power of my arguments, not on my gender” and “The more education a woman has, the wider the gap between men’s and women’s earnings for the same work.” It is obviously clear that she was aware of the issues facing women in the profession that still need to be addressed.
Blog #37
The American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession reportedly has found that women have made progress in terms of overcoming some discriminatory challenges in the work place however; some existing barriers still remain due to a lack of the promotion of work and home balance. Although the representation of women in law school, in private firm jobs and in major corporations is encouraging, women are still experiencing challenges taking their education to take on roles of leadership. And it’s not their lack of academic accomplishment that is holding them back, it is their gender and the roles associated with it. As a result, there is still an existing underrepresentation of women in major law firms, Fortune 500 companies, and the federal judiciary where pay tends to be higher than in the local government sector. I work at the federal court and only three women hold the prestigious position of a district judge (appointed by the president). More interestingly, a woman in the Arizona district is yet to be named chief judge. Another aspect of interest is that out of the three women I am only aware of one that has children thus reinforcing the notion that if women want to get ahead in the professional world, they need to overlook their desire to be mothers as that role can potentially be a burden to career advancement.
I found that the report also states that women lawyers report being viewed as overly aggressive or uncomfortably forthright and based on Holly English’s accounts, this is due in part because a woman attorney is stepping outside of her gender role (as perceived) and attempting to do a man’s job. For the past president of the California bar to have testified and said on the record as recent as 2003 that women were “too emotional or too aggressive” puts into perspective how gendered the employment structure really is. It also identifies how much work is yet to be done so that the male gaze can cease to focus on the qualities that actually make us special.
I found that the report also states that women lawyers report being viewed as overly aggressive or uncomfortably forthright and based on Holly English’s accounts, this is due in part because a woman attorney is stepping outside of her gender role (as perceived) and attempting to do a man’s job. For the past president of the California bar to have testified and said on the record as recent as 2003 that women were “too emotional or too aggressive” puts into perspective how gendered the employment structure really is. It also identifies how much work is yet to be done so that the male gaze can cease to focus on the qualities that actually make us special.
Blog #36
I am optimistic than women can break through the glass ceiling however I realize that it will take some time. I agree that women have made significant strides academically but in order to achieve equality in the workplace and be able to complete for higher wages there will need to be more women in positions of leadership. With that said, I think colleges need to improve their efforts in focusing on the challenges that women face and prepare female students to overcome those barriers. Although women continue to excel academically and prove that they are equally as competent as their male counterparts, unless this can translate into opportunities in the work place, we will not be able to get very far. In order to be able to enter the workplace with a stellar resume and climb up the corporate latter, it is necessary that the organizations have flexible and family friendly policies so that opportunities for women do not escape them otherwise it’ll continue to be a resemblance of the race between the turtle and the hare. While the turtle eventually reached the finish line, it required more time and effort to get there as the odds were against the turtle. Right now, policies in male dominated fields are set in a manner that they limit opportunity to women. One could argue that those rules are in fact discriminatory because it is clear that working women with familial obligations face greater challenges and if those responsibilities outside of the job are not considered to be legitimate then policies will never change. I think that we need to first recognize that housework, care giving responsibilities, raising children and everything else we women do are challenging tasks. Furthermore, if we work in addition to what we do at home, we should be commended but this rarely occurs. If we defined women’s work as what it is: hard work then I think policies in corporate America are more likely to change and become flexible in order to welcome more women into professions that men have long dominated.
Blog #35
It is impressive that the federal government is recognizing that it is in the best interest of both employers and employees to implement more family friendly and care giving policies as it is evident that individuals with additional responsibilities of a high degree outside of the workplace experience greater challenges and difficulty finding a balance between the two. I agree that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is recognizing that employers need to do more than the legal minimum to ensure that organizations are able to retain competent staff are juggling multiple responsibilities. For some of us that are fortunate enough to still have our parents, we are conscious that one day our parents will require our help as we have required theirs and I think it is our obligation as children to respond to them in same manner. And for the government to make such progress gives me hope that I will be able to care for my parents as they age without having to compromise my career. I would definitely be willing to make a professional sacrifice in order to care for my children and parents as that would be the right thing to do and I would not have it any other way.
I also appreciate that the EEOC recognizes that the care giving work is disproportionately carried out by women as a result it is clearly evident that women are more likely to be in need of greater support and flexibility in the workplace in terms of familial responsibilities. It is also equally important to acknowledge that women are disproportionately paid less than their male counterparts and that has proven to be a contributing factor to the risk of poverty particularly in today’s economy. Most of the job layoffs have occurred in the construction and financial fields were men are dominant thus leaving the woman of the house responsible as the primary wage earner. Because women make less than men in the same positions, they are put at risk for not being able to adequately provide for their family while their male counterpart is able to do so and this is absolutely unfair!
I also appreciate that the EEOC recognizes that the care giving work is disproportionately carried out by women as a result it is clearly evident that women are more likely to be in need of greater support and flexibility in the workplace in terms of familial responsibilities. It is also equally important to acknowledge that women are disproportionately paid less than their male counterparts and that has proven to be a contributing factor to the risk of poverty particularly in today’s economy. Most of the job layoffs have occurred in the construction and financial fields were men are dominant thus leaving the woman of the house responsible as the primary wage earner. Because women make less than men in the same positions, they are put at risk for not being able to adequately provide for their family while their male counterpart is able to do so and this is absolutely unfair!
Blog #34
Clearly, professional women make sacrifices everyday for the sake of their family and children. It is clear that it is necessary for organizations to offer flexible work schedules and other alternatives to enable women to be both successful at home and in the workplace. More importantly however, it is necessary for women to be given the credibility that they deserve. It is interesting that Joan Williams, author of Unbending Gender describes her work experience with a gap as a result of having a child. She specialized in local government law until her child was born which is indicative that women are forced to make decisions that affect them both at home and at work with precision to ensure that they can balance the two. How many times have you heard of a man having changed positions, interests or work schedules as a result of having children? The only man that comes to my mind that had to think about a child first was the Hewlett Packard executive who essentially was forced to consider the child as a result of his wife’s death. Unfortunately, for most of us working women and mothers, we continue to be taken for granted and as explained by Williams it is because the work we do at home is not considered work and for homemakers in particular, they are viewed as simply housewives and we undermine their responsibilities. Williams further states that working mothers also face the challenge of being on the “mommy track” and she is referring to being on track to less pay, less benefits, compromised advancement and unfortunately on track to possibly leaving the workforce because of the increased difficulty to balance home and work life particularly when children are involved.
In terms of feminism, it has become difficult for women to call themselves feminists as the discourse associated with a feminist is almost always strict equality between men and women. However, as long as men do not have to literally bare children, I don’t think that it is possible to achieve equality. As a result, it is necessary to be more flexible towards working mothers as they have the responsibility to be more often times than not, the primary caregivers. I think more women would be inclined to form an alliance as feminists if the discourse was more family oriented because like I mentioned previously, total equality is not possible. This is not to say that women are less as a matter of fact, we often do more than men. We work equally as hard except we work a double shift, one in the office and another at home. The problem is that one is considered legitimate and the other is simply overlooked as “eh housework.”
It is devastating that the ‘ideal worker norm’ has essentially damaged the credibility of working women because realistically children have mishaps, they become ill, they have to visit the doctor or simply put-they are little human beings that are dependent on their adult care givers (moms). An ideal worker image is that of an employee that is willing to work 40 hours every week and to stay for overtime if necessary. Again, it is difficult for mothers to be considered ‘ideal workers’ because of their inability to commit to unfriendly and masculine policies. All of this combined, leaves us hardworking and deserving, admirable and commendable women a step behind men all the time. I have to admit however that I am quite fortunate in many ways as I have a very supportive spouse in which we share the work and we both respect that we have responsibility both at home and we help each other out as we view our marriage as teamwork.
In terms of feminism, it has become difficult for women to call themselves feminists as the discourse associated with a feminist is almost always strict equality between men and women. However, as long as men do not have to literally bare children, I don’t think that it is possible to achieve equality. As a result, it is necessary to be more flexible towards working mothers as they have the responsibility to be more often times than not, the primary caregivers. I think more women would be inclined to form an alliance as feminists if the discourse was more family oriented because like I mentioned previously, total equality is not possible. This is not to say that women are less as a matter of fact, we often do more than men. We work equally as hard except we work a double shift, one in the office and another at home. The problem is that one is considered legitimate and the other is simply overlooked as “eh housework.”
It is devastating that the ‘ideal worker norm’ has essentially damaged the credibility of working women because realistically children have mishaps, they become ill, they have to visit the doctor or simply put-they are little human beings that are dependent on their adult care givers (moms). An ideal worker image is that of an employee that is willing to work 40 hours every week and to stay for overtime if necessary. Again, it is difficult for mothers to be considered ‘ideal workers’ because of their inability to commit to unfriendly and masculine policies. All of this combined, leaves us hardworking and deserving, admirable and commendable women a step behind men all the time. I have to admit however that I am quite fortunate in many ways as I have a very supportive spouse in which we share the work and we both respect that we have responsibility both at home and we help each other out as we view our marriage as teamwork.
Blog #33
The two women lawyers from New York set an excellent example that women can be successful and run and own their own practice so that they have the control to create and set their own schedule-something that is unlikely in the big law firms. Although they admit that they have taken a significant pay cut (it seems to be a trend for women when seeking flexibility) to them, the flexibility and independence is priceless. By having created their very own law firm run by women is a figurative form of breaking the glass ceiling because as they indicated, their colleagues thought they were crazy. I think that more women will be inclined and encouraged to own and operate their own firms and thus set a pathway for successful and flexible opportunities for other women. Since the 1980’s more and more women are entering the workplace and slowly closing in on the gender gap with 47% percent of the workforce consisting of women. However, sadly women still hold less positions of power and they make less than their male counterparts. The reasons for women staying behind are echoed throughout the readings and videos: women gravitate to employment that is less risky and more flexible and they make less because they take more time off than men particularly for child bearing. It seems to me that it is discriminatory as the work that women do at home which is often a second shift goes unpaid!
Furthermore, women like Hilary Clinton, Sara Palin and Michelle Obama have made it clear it is okay for women to step out of their expected gender role and be successful. As seen previously in the videos, the country has come to terms that it is possible that a woman president will be elected soon. Michelle Obama for example, has been repeatedly criticized for her style and her choice of wardrobe and what is important to highlight is that she is not backing down nor is she allowing expectations that were set for her decades if not centuries ago to run her life and by having her set her foot down, she is in essence giving the power back to women and for that she should be commended!
Furthermore, women like Hilary Clinton, Sara Palin and Michelle Obama have made it clear it is okay for women to step out of their expected gender role and be successful. As seen previously in the videos, the country has come to terms that it is possible that a woman president will be elected soon. Michelle Obama for example, has been repeatedly criticized for her style and her choice of wardrobe and what is important to highlight is that she is not backing down nor is she allowing expectations that were set for her decades if not centuries ago to run her life and by having her set her foot down, she is in essence giving the power back to women and for that she should be commended!
Blog #32
Parental roles for women are very distinct than those of men and it is in part due to stereotypical and gender specific expectations set forth by our society. When parenthood is associated with women, the picture is of a more demanding obligation at home that could pose a threat to her professional career. As described in one of the videos, women who are mothers are perceived to be less competent, committed and therefore they are not taken seriously or are not considered for positions of leadership because of her guaranteed absences as a mother during the birth of a child. If we think of who stays home when the children are sick, who accompanies the children to the doctor, who stays up late at night and most importantly who the children seek when they are feeling blue, it is almost always mom so there is a degree of truth to that expectation. Nevertheless, the obligations of a mother should be sufficient to give her greater credibility as she has proved that she can handle her responsibilities at home in addition to managing a career. Men are perceived to be the breadwinners, the protectors and decision makers. As a result of their expected responsibilities we further do not expect that they take on the woman’s roles nor do we expect them to take on any additional roles than to work and bring home the bacon. Because of these preset expectations, women believe that they must meet their obligations as mothers and still excel in the profession but because there is not sufficient flexibility in the workplace to offer them the opportunity to reach their potential, women opt for positions that offer greater flexibility and predictability. Unfortunately, those positions are also accompanied by a lesser salary than are positions in private practice or positions of leadership.
What is even more unfortunate is that when a working mother does excel as an attorney and makes it to the top, we question her and we question if she actually dared to neglect her parental responsibilities to get to the top. She is viewed as a suspect parent because as a society, we doubt that women are capable of excelling in both areas. Women are obviously still lagging in being given the appropriate level of capability and I personally believe we have the men to blame because they are the ones who set the standard and that obviously needs to change.
What is even more unfortunate is that when a working mother does excel as an attorney and makes it to the top, we question her and we question if she actually dared to neglect her parental responsibilities to get to the top. She is viewed as a suspect parent because as a society, we doubt that women are capable of excelling in both areas. Women are obviously still lagging in being given the appropriate level of capability and I personally believe we have the men to blame because they are the ones who set the standard and that obviously needs to change.
Blog #31
The problems facing professional women are the attempt to balance their profession, the home, and their children. The legal profession is very demanding particularly in private practice often requiring employees and partners to work hours in excess of forty per week thus making it difficult for working mothers to commit to those type f positions. As a result of having fewer women willing to sacrifice valuable time with their children, there are more men in those demanding positions. Women could however have more opportunity to work in the legal profession with ample possibilities for promotion and a higher salary. Some of the proposed solutions include: flexible work schedules, reduced hours, telecommuting, job shares and child care facilities within the organization. However, the problem with implanting said propositions involves opposition from the organization as it has been structured and its policies developed from a male perspective and as we well know, men are not expected to be willing to make professional sacrifices for their families and as a result their policies lack any flexibility. In addition, women who have the fortune of working reduced hours or another form of flexible schedule are not considered to be “real lawyers” as they lack the commitment and the willingness to put their job first. Other lawyers in the firm may resent those with flexible schedules due to familial obligations and that may further cause conflict in the workplace and therefore, law firms are less willing to offer flexibility that they might find themselves forced to offer to everyone else. Because our society expects that women exercise their inherited roles as mothers and wives, anything different or outside that scope is considered a choice. Furthermore, if we put forth more effort into building more family friendly organizations and structures, I think slowly we could accomplish change and policies that permit women to work and take care of their families might actually become a reality but it is absolutely necessary to promote a family friendly discourse.
Blog #30
Conventionally and structurally, men are perceived to be as natural leaders therefore, when a man is running for office or for a position of leadership we do not question his capabilities or competence to take on said responsibility whereas if a woman finds herself in the same position, there is a degree of critique, questioning and doubt. It was mind boggling to have learned how long it has taken for women to gain legitimacy and credibility. And for only half of the country to think that the U.S. is ready for a woman president clearly states that as a society we still continue to embed our trust in men because for centuries they have been the leaders. Although women have made significant strides academically as exemplified by the panelists they have been offered less than equal opportunity in the workplace to make progress. Dr. Rhodie listed the following statistics: women are a majority in the electorate but only hold 15% of congressional seats, half of college graduates but less than a quarter of professors, a third of MBA holders but less than two percent of CEOs in Fortune 500 companies more than half of law school entrants but less than five percent of partners in law firms, deans or judges. In addition, judging by the gendered jokes that are written, it is even more evident that society in general particularly in areas where men dominate, no one takes notice that women are excluded.
Men are expected to do what it takes to get things done while they are in positions of leadership whereas women who decide to take similar roles or exercise behavior that exemplifies leadership, they are deemed to be mean and nasty, deceiving, conniving, manipulative or if they opt out of making decisions, they are considered to be unwilling or unable, emotional whereas men naturally are expected to exhibit dominance and authority again without question.
The stereotypes associated with men are quite different than those associated with women. Again men are expected to be committed to their work, available, willing, dominant and authoritative. A woman unfortunately is held to a different and higher standard as a woman with children is perceived to be less committed, less able and less competent. The joke that she speaks about a father having to pick up his child is obviously one that is out of the norm and that is not expected as the comments that father received were, “that’s a new kind of father” meaning that it is not the role of dads to pick up their children. I ask, why not?! Personally, I believe both mom and dad should be equally as responsible because not only are more parents working in the 21st century but it is almost necessary to be able to provide for the family. I understand that women still continue to be Wonder Women because I agree that women will be unable to run the world unless the men are willing to run the washer and dryer.
I further agree that the workplace is failing women more than women are failing their work place because corporate America has not yet been willing to offer flexible and realistic schedules that working women need so that they can continue to work, be a parent and a homemaker as it does not appear that the stereotype and expectation is going away anytime soon.
Fortunately, women who have had the opportunity to take on responsibilities of leadership are making good decisions from a different perspective (a woman’s) and therefore making a different impact than those of her male counterpart and by doing so, she is making the workplace more family friendly and permit more women to enter so that they too could one day have the opportunity to be leaders. Similarly, in law firms, there are so few women that it becomes increasingly difficult for other women to enter as they are unable to relate or find advisors and guiders that have faced the same obstacles and challenges as a woman in a male dominant field.
Personally, I prefer a woman in a position of leadership, more specifically, a working mother or wife as she would be more understanding with her fellow female subordinates. As an example, my daughter had a stomach bug this past week and I was late to work four out of five days. One day in particular, we woke up to poop and puke NINE times and I didn’t think that I would be able to make to work but I feel that the organization expects me to come to work anyway (I did) because I made a personal choice to have children. I think that because we do live in a patriarchal society, policies have been developed from a male’s perspective and as a result they are NOT family friendly, and that is unfortunate.
Men are expected to do what it takes to get things done while they are in positions of leadership whereas women who decide to take similar roles or exercise behavior that exemplifies leadership, they are deemed to be mean and nasty, deceiving, conniving, manipulative or if they opt out of making decisions, they are considered to be unwilling or unable, emotional whereas men naturally are expected to exhibit dominance and authority again without question.
The stereotypes associated with men are quite different than those associated with women. Again men are expected to be committed to their work, available, willing, dominant and authoritative. A woman unfortunately is held to a different and higher standard as a woman with children is perceived to be less committed, less able and less competent. The joke that she speaks about a father having to pick up his child is obviously one that is out of the norm and that is not expected as the comments that father received were, “that’s a new kind of father” meaning that it is not the role of dads to pick up their children. I ask, why not?! Personally, I believe both mom and dad should be equally as responsible because not only are more parents working in the 21st century but it is almost necessary to be able to provide for the family. I understand that women still continue to be Wonder Women because I agree that women will be unable to run the world unless the men are willing to run the washer and dryer.
I further agree that the workplace is failing women more than women are failing their work place because corporate America has not yet been willing to offer flexible and realistic schedules that working women need so that they can continue to work, be a parent and a homemaker as it does not appear that the stereotype and expectation is going away anytime soon.
Fortunately, women who have had the opportunity to take on responsibilities of leadership are making good decisions from a different perspective (a woman’s) and therefore making a different impact than those of her male counterpart and by doing so, she is making the workplace more family friendly and permit more women to enter so that they too could one day have the opportunity to be leaders. Similarly, in law firms, there are so few women that it becomes increasingly difficult for other women to enter as they are unable to relate or find advisors and guiders that have faced the same obstacles and challenges as a woman in a male dominant field.
Personally, I prefer a woman in a position of leadership, more specifically, a working mother or wife as she would be more understanding with her fellow female subordinates. As an example, my daughter had a stomach bug this past week and I was late to work four out of five days. One day in particular, we woke up to poop and puke NINE times and I didn’t think that I would be able to make to work but I feel that the organization expects me to come to work anyway (I did) because I made a personal choice to have children. I think that because we do live in a patriarchal society, policies have been developed from a male’s perspective and as a result they are NOT family friendly, and that is unfortunate.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Blog #29
I have had the opportunity to interview a couple of minority women lawyers and inquired as to their reasons for working for the government (public sector) rather than in private practice where there is ample opportunity for more lucrative positions and higher salary. I have noticed the same pattern across the board in real life and as described by Holly English. Working mothers in particular experience a much more difficult time making a commitment to a position in private practice because of familial obligations. Often times the case load in private practice requires that one be willing to work additional hours, up to 70-80 hours a week and that becomes a challenge for a mother and wife because women in our society are expected to be caregivers and homemakers regardless of their profession. Women are still presumed to be nurturing, loving and mothering as their primary responsibilities. Therefore, when a woman chooses a career, she is not expected to sacrifice her other obligations and as a result, there are less women in positions that require higher responsibility and longer hours thus leaving numerous opportunities for men to continue to dominate the field. Also, because private law firms offer less flexibility than your typical 8-5 government job, working mothers opt to sacrifice more money and prestige over a predictable schedule in the public sector. Based on the stories of the NPR news, a minority woman faces even greater difficulty because not only is she a minority once for being a woman but she is a minority twice for being a woman of color and having what we could call “2 strikes” against her in white male dominated field, her status as a competent and credible attorney is jeopardized twice. And if the woman is attractive then that is an additional strike and even more credibility is taken away and it becomes increasingly difficult for others in the field, particularly men, to take her seriously and this is unfortunate because essentially what is happening is that women are being penalized for being themselves.
Blog #28
The article discussing the harsh criticism of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor from the New Republic is astounding and it puts into perspective the male dominant norm that has been set as a standard particularly for judgeships and it further undermines the competence and intelligence of very brilliant woman. For the New Republic to have purposely left out remarks and cropped quotations in order to advance their own personal attacks, feelings and agenda is preposterous and it further insults the readers as they (the publication makers) assume that the readers are not sufficiently educated on the subject matter to question what is being written about a Latina woman. Rather than focusing on her academic and work related accomplishments which are rather impressive they instead focus on one thing primarily, her temper. According to Holly English, women that she interviewed shared a similar sentiment that when they display emotion and they seem to be “on top of it” in the courtroom and asking the right questions or interrogating a witness firmly, they are criticized for either being too emotional, or to be too into themselves, or even worse, they are considered to be, “difficult, temperamental or as a nasty B$%&*” according to the Media Matters article. It is clear that in the 21st century and in 2009 after having the first person of color elected to the highest position of power, women that are as equally as competent are viewed rather differently. At least President Obama still has the advantage of being a man because if either Hilary Clinton or Sara Palin would have been in office right now, the criticism would continue and perhaps even become harsher. It would of course come from men who have been accustomed to living in a man’s world for so long that having it any other way seems almost impossible to handle.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Blog #27
The interviews in Holly English’s book explicitly state that a big disadvantage that female attorneys face, particularly attractive ones, is that they are not taken seriously because the field has been dominated by men and now that women are entering it, it is presumed that they are entering a man’s territory. Furthermore, because women are stereotyped as emotional, passive and weak, this too has presented as a challenge for women in attempting to prove that they are competent. Because we live in a gendered society where men are deemed to protect women, men are considered legitimate and competent and therefore their ability to fight a case as an attorney is one that hardly goes unquestioned. But when a woman attempts to argue and fight for a client in court we often say things like “Roar” as though she is a cat taking out her claws. Or we may think that she is a B*&^% for stepping out of her traditional role in attempts to be firm and prove her point. In addition, because we have presumed roles for both men and women, it also makes a difference when it comes to pay and a gap continues to exist in income between men and women. Again, it is because it is a man’s world that women encounter difficulty in proving that they too are capable of performing a job equally as well. Undoubtedly, there are both men and women that exceed in different fields and it is time that we start giving credit where it needs to be given. Throughout my career in public service, particularly in the court system I have come across many competent male and female lawyers and I don’t have a doubt in my mind that women are as capable or in some matters like family law that they may have a greater understanding and more compassion and therefore be able to represent their clients in a better way. Personally, I think that it will be a long-long time before women reach equality and that is simply because we are underrepresented in the field. I would very much like to go to law school but I have two young children to spend time with and I am unwilling to sacrifice that. For women that do wait to have children after becoming lawyers also continue to experience salary gaps because they generally work less hours because they have a second job at home as a homemaker and caregiver. I doubt that roles will change anytime soon but in the mean time I am hopeful that there will be less inequality.
Blog #26
Males represent the majority of the lawyer population and as a result there are more male mentors than there are women. Because the legal field is one that is dominated by males, they play a huge rule in defining the rules, the code of conduct, the style of dress and furthermore the standards for being a respectable lawyer. When women lawyers enter the field and are being coached by a male attorney, the training, advice and opinions are those of man and a male perspective. As a result, the female attorney may not be receiving adequate mentoring and advice as the treatment of them is differently than man. In Holly English’s book, an interviewee made a note that when a male lawyer makes his case in court and is firm he is deemed to have done his job and is commended for it. However, when a female lawyer attempts to take the samp position and be firm, she is considered to be going against her gender expectations of being passive thus labeling her as something other than a good lawyer. Although there are excellent female lawyers as I know many of them, they are far fewer and therefore a new attorney is likely to be mentored by a male than a female. The advantages of having an experienced female lawyer assist another woman is that she understands what it is like to work in a gendered organization where a man has essentially made up the rules with only people like himself involved similar to the prison system where women were simply an afterthought. As a result of having men dominate the field, it will undoubtedly take time to break those gender barriers until they are equally as flexible for women because as we have learned gender neutral essentially translates into not feminine and when we think this is acceptable we are not doing enough to reach equality in the field as an attorney.
Blog #25
We live in a society in which undoubtedly, sex will sell. The media and popular culture reinforce that men and women have specific gender roles. Men for instance are expected to be masculine, strong, and protective whereas women are considered to be more passive, weak and of course sexy. Furthermore there are products that define what femininity and masculinity are and as a result those products are sold to us and we buy them with the intent that we will represent that image or that we will achieve that status with the purchase of certain things. If we look at advertisements for clothing, perfume and other things, we often see a woman portrayed as a sexual object. Sexualized behavior in the work place is indeed a ‘weapon in the arsenal’ particularly for women as their physique is something that is a central part of their persona, in our society at least as most of the representations are from the male gaze. When an attractive female lawyer wins a case in court for example, men think that it is sexy because according to the interviews conducted by Holly English, often women that are very attractive become a distraction and are not really taken seriously. Therefore, when males actually witness an intelligent and attractive female lawyer become successful, it is a bonus because she is smart and beautiful. Although a woman’s shape and size should really not be relevant, in the legal field it is. Women have the advantage through their physical assets and features to gain admiration and recognition and it is unfortunate that women have to resort to this because there should not be a double standard but then again the male domination has left them with little recourse. If we imagine that we are a juror in a case getting ready to listen to a closing argument from a male attorney, we anxiously await to see what he is going to say and how he delivers it. However, if a female attorney was in that same position and she was also attractive, we would not necessarily be anxious to hear what she has to say so that we can compare it to her male counterpart but we would pay close attention to her movements, the way she is dressed, how she delivers the message, is she too passive or too aggressive (comparing it to the male) and ultimately, we judge her by how she presents herself, physically as we could have been too distracted to have paid full attention to her closing argument. Unfortunately, the cons to sexualized behavior is that women are continuously accused of using sex to make a gain however the truth is that sexualized behavior is what will capture the most attention, then we will pay attention to anything else she might have to say.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Blog #24
I had the pleasure of informally interviewing Rosetta Thompson, a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Adjudications Officer in the Phoenix Field Office. Rosetta attended a small law school in Delaware, then went into private practice and is currently working for the Federal Government. I inquired about gender expectations and stereotypes while in law school and throughout her career. Rosetta informed me that she attended an evening law program and many of her classroom peers were people like herself, working and professional adults and as in her case, parents. As a result, she was in a much friendly environment compared to her daytime peers or those in a traditional program. She also noted that approximately 35% of her class was female. In law school and through career development seminars she was advised to be “conservative” with makeup, hair styles, jewelry and attire. She was encouraged to wear dark colors, blacks and navy to provide a sense of conservatism and seriousness. She was further discouraged to be “flashy” or to dress fitted. Rosetta talked about working together with two lawyers from California at one firm and she said she was unable to take them seriously because they wore clothing that was very provocative and that was quite the opposite that attorneys are expected to be. She said she figured California must be more liberal.
Rosetta also said that who she is now is not who she was going into law school. As a beginning law student, she was very shy and quite however that changed with what she learned in reference to being confident and assertive. She caught my attention when she further said to me that many times women are interpreted as being “B*&^%$” when they are assertive whereas in the case of men, being aggressive and assertive is a natural characteristic and they are praised for doing a good job, particularly in court. Similarly, Holly English cites that women that are passive are dismissed and if they are aggressive, they are disliked. Nevertheless, Rosetta has worked with many excellent and admirable female lawyers that have actually served as mentors to male attorneys. Furthermore, Rosetta acknowledged that women are forced to make professional sacrifices as they are expected to be caregivers and homemakers in addition to their career. She specifically made reference to an opportunity she was forced to pass after she recently graduated from law school. She was offered a lucrative position in a prestigious law firm in downtown Philadelphia but the position required that she be available to work up to 70 hours a week and as a mother and wife, she was unwilling to put her family second and this has been true for her entire career. Undoubtedly, she has made the best of her professional career without jeopardizing her family. Kudos to Rosetta Thompson!
Rosetta also said that who she is now is not who she was going into law school. As a beginning law student, she was very shy and quite however that changed with what she learned in reference to being confident and assertive. She caught my attention when she further said to me that many times women are interpreted as being “B*&^%$” when they are assertive whereas in the case of men, being aggressive and assertive is a natural characteristic and they are praised for doing a good job, particularly in court. Similarly, Holly English cites that women that are passive are dismissed and if they are aggressive, they are disliked. Nevertheless, Rosetta has worked with many excellent and admirable female lawyers that have actually served as mentors to male attorneys. Furthermore, Rosetta acknowledged that women are forced to make professional sacrifices as they are expected to be caregivers and homemakers in addition to their career. She specifically made reference to an opportunity she was forced to pass after she recently graduated from law school. She was offered a lucrative position in a prestigious law firm in downtown Philadelphia but the position required that she be available to work up to 70 hours a week and as a mother and wife, she was unwilling to put her family second and this has been true for her entire career. Undoubtedly, she has made the best of her professional career without jeopardizing her family. Kudos to Rosetta Thompson!
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Blog #23
The NPR interview panelists agree that historically, first ladies are held to a higher standard as they are the focus of attention by the media and the public. First lady Michelle Obama has been criticized for not holding the conservative standard set for the appearance of a President’s wife but then again we have to realize that the standard has been set by a white middle class woman. I agree that the whole issue has been blown out of proportion because how she dresses and whether she chooses to show off her legs (by wearing shorts) in 80-90 degree weather at the Grand Canyon or if she wears a sleeve-less dress, who cares! She has a great sense of modern fashion and just because she is not sporting the square suit we’re accustomed to seeing in the White House she doesn’t deserve to be criticized because after all, she is also an autonomous individual and she is free to wear what she is comfortable in.
The women that English interviewed give their accounts of being told how to dress to blend in with their male partners. One could not look to feminine or to masculine as they would risk losing a case for a client in court if they didn’t go in with a “power look.” As noted in chapter one, English found that in the gendered constructed society that we live in, women are perceived to be passive and therefore dismissed and this particularly holds true in the lawyer profession. Women lawyers are encouraged to be as unnoticed as possible as they could pose a distraction if they let their curves, hair or attractiveness be shown because an attractive woman is presumed to be incompetent whereas if you are unattractive that too could be a distraction.
In some professions, the way of dress could be an indicator of rebellion as in the case of the sixth year associate of large law firm in New York City. She woke up one morning and she felt it was too cold to wear a skirt suit and freeze her “butt off” as she put it therefore, she wore pants. Interestingly, in my place of employment at the Federal Court, it was only recent that women were allowed to wear pant suits because previously skirt suits and dresses were part of the dress requirement- a policy put in place by men as there is yet to be a woman to hold the position of Clerk of Court. I agree that times have changed but we have not quite achieved equality in the workplace as there is still a male standard that women are held up to.
The women that English interviewed give their accounts of being told how to dress to blend in with their male partners. One could not look to feminine or to masculine as they would risk losing a case for a client in court if they didn’t go in with a “power look.” As noted in chapter one, English found that in the gendered constructed society that we live in, women are perceived to be passive and therefore dismissed and this particularly holds true in the lawyer profession. Women lawyers are encouraged to be as unnoticed as possible as they could pose a distraction if they let their curves, hair or attractiveness be shown because an attractive woman is presumed to be incompetent whereas if you are unattractive that too could be a distraction.
In some professions, the way of dress could be an indicator of rebellion as in the case of the sixth year associate of large law firm in New York City. She woke up one morning and she felt it was too cold to wear a skirt suit and freeze her “butt off” as she put it therefore, she wore pants. Interestingly, in my place of employment at the Federal Court, it was only recent that women were allowed to wear pant suits because previously skirt suits and dresses were part of the dress requirement- a policy put in place by men as there is yet to be a woman to hold the position of Clerk of Court. I agree that times have changed but we have not quite achieved equality in the workplace as there is still a male standard that women are held up to.
Blog #22
During Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, in my opinion, she was literally pulled apart for doing what males in the ‘You Tube’ explained they do themselves as privileged men. They did not admit that they hold women, particularly a minority woman to a different standard. Sotomayor was criticized for “including her own gender and ethnic biases” in the name of law. However, this is exactly what other nominees mentioned that they think about before making a decision, they think about their own personal accounts of injustice. So why is it ok for a male to use his experiences and when a Hispanic woman attempts to, she is too liberal or too biased? The remarks that she had made in 2001, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experience, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life” were completely taken out of context to citizen her as a radical. I was happy to see President Obama to come to her defense and tell the rest of America that when you listen to her entire speech, she wasn’t attempting to allege that white males judges are incompetent. She was simply asserting that a white male judge that has not had the life experiences that a Hispanic woman would bring to the bench and those “life experiences” would obviously permit her to take more things into consideration before rendering her decisions because she has lived a different experience compared to her white male counterparts.
Rather than to judge her on her judicial record on the bench, critics went on a personal attack citing that she would be biased based on gender and race. She should have been praised for challenging the already biased institution! I believe that what took place during Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings was discriminatory, racist, appalling and shameful. It reinforces the male ideology and anything that challenges it is deemed to pose a threat. On brighter note, I am happy that she was finally confirmed and I certainly hope that she will pave the pathway for more racial and gender minorities to aspire to reach similar positions of leadership.
Rather than to judge her on her judicial record on the bench, critics went on a personal attack citing that she would be biased based on gender and race. She should have been praised for challenging the already biased institution! I believe that what took place during Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings was discriminatory, racist, appalling and shameful. It reinforces the male ideology and anything that challenges it is deemed to pose a threat. On brighter note, I am happy that she was finally confirmed and I certainly hope that she will pave the pathway for more racial and gender minorities to aspire to reach similar positions of leadership.
Blog #21
The National Association for Female Correctional Officers and Britton both agree that reform is yet to come to the prison system that would permit that female officers to work in conditions that are acceptable and less deplorable. They are fighting towards eliminating rape and sexual harassment of female corrections officers while on duty. With their proposed legislation they intend to establish a zero-tolerance policy so that every assault on a female officer is prosecuted and with that increase the accountability of prison officials who fail to detect, prevent, reduce and punish those assaults on female prison guards. It is unfortunate that a female officer has to fight for such protection because if it is likely a man that is in charge of the prison and if the man is viewed as a natural protective figure, one would think that he would be doing more to protect his female co-worker (and in some cases they do) but we are seeing that this is not always the case. Instead male officers and officials hold the belief that the risk of sexual assault and harassment comes with the territory of working in the prison and if women are choosing to work there anyway despite what is involved then it is “her” choice. Besides, because male officers encounter those issues less, they cannot understand how it is a problem.
We have to keep in mind that it is wage discrimination that forced these women to seek jobs as corrections officers as they are more higher paying than the average clerical job. Many single working moms take on these jobs because they need to support a family on a livable wage. Unfortunately, what could have been an opportunity for a career with potential advancement also turns out to be disappointing because women are often overlooked for managerial and supervisory roles due to their familial obligations. The problems facing female officers are abundant and there is no question that reform is necessary.
We have to keep in mind that it is wage discrimination that forced these women to seek jobs as corrections officers as they are more higher paying than the average clerical job. Many single working moms take on these jobs because they need to support a family on a livable wage. Unfortunately, what could have been an opportunity for a career with potential advancement also turns out to be disappointing because women are often overlooked for managerial and supervisory roles due to their familial obligations. The problems facing female officers are abundant and there is no question that reform is necessary.
Blog #20
At the beginning of chapter six, Britton finds that the account of one female officer contributing 90% of the stress on the job is not atypical. There is something undoubtedly wrong if the major stress factors for corrections officers are coming from the institutions and their structure. Similar to the findings of the prison director, Dora Schriro, Britton found that officers often times bump heads with inflexible and illogical work rules, inept and incompetent co-workers and supervisors. Unfortunately, for Louis Fraley, she learned this the hard way as did the entire state of Arizona having learned that the prison system was flawed in more ways than one. Because the prison is a gendered institution, there were many that doubted that a woman could change the facility structure but after the Lewis prison ordeal, Shriro proved herself and then she was supported and deemed as someone that could be trusted to run a male prison.
Historically, we have learned that prisons were built for male prisoners to be overlooked by male guards and female prisoners were merely an afterthought. As a result, Britton finds that men hold the majority of administrator positions nationally in both the female and male prisons and therefore the training and policies that shape the prison and its employees are made from a male perspective rather than existing as a neutral entity.
Men are more apt to use aggression and physical force to put a prisoner in place and what Britton’s study demonstrates is that although it is unlawful to use racially derogatory terms when referring to inmates, prison staff often use the terms anyway as a form maintaining authority. Similarly, it seems as though Wassenaar used the hostage opportunity to gain some authority by calling out to Louis using derogatory terms rather than by her name. In both cases, we see that demeaning and humiliating another person leads the person to believe or feel that they are above the other.
Furthermore, the male officers’ openness about their preference for aid from male officers vs. a female or that they could take better care of themselves than women proves that this “status” of power, authority and masculinity is reinforced in the institutional construction of the (masculine) prison. Britton finds that the overall presumption of male officers is that women are simply not made for jobs in prisons, instead they should be working at a desk or in a clerical position, away from the danger and violence that they are (un)able to handle. The officers’ positions are more so gendered because as some male officers account, they are placed in positions that are more closely in physical contact with the inmates whereas their female counterparts are placed in positions in control units in order to keep them “safe” or at a distance from actual inmate contact. And when there is a call for back up where physical force is required, the men are more likely to be called than women.
The training or lack thereof is indicative of Britton’s discussion between “keepers” and “turnkeys” because they are literally trained to just keep prisoners in check and to turn the key on their cell. What they should be trained in is tactical communication and dignified treatment of inmates. I think the fact that Wassenaar was so physically and verbally aggressive is indicative of the anger and frustration of having been treated that way for the entire time that he had been in prison. I think that the male guard in the tower should have never opened the door as it is unreasonable to think that your fellow prison guard does not have access to the door-that’s a major flaw in training. One should not open the door to anyone that doesn’t have access regardless if they are wearing the uniform.
Overall, I think the coverage of the hostage situation was very biased because Officer Louis Fraley was not given the credit that she deserved for handling the situation so well and making every attempt to make herself equal to her hostage taker. I find it ironic that when the roles are reversed, then it is ok to view yourself as equal for your protection. Personally, I feel that it should always be that way as some of Britton’s study subjects expressed that it is beneficial to be kind to the prisoners because you never know when you will depend on them. Officer Fraley deserves more credit for not only handling the situation successfully but for proving that women are equally as capable of handling situations that they were not trained for which raises the question: Why weren’t they trained on these situations?
Historically, we have learned that prisons were built for male prisoners to be overlooked by male guards and female prisoners were merely an afterthought. As a result, Britton finds that men hold the majority of administrator positions nationally in both the female and male prisons and therefore the training and policies that shape the prison and its employees are made from a male perspective rather than existing as a neutral entity.
Men are more apt to use aggression and physical force to put a prisoner in place and what Britton’s study demonstrates is that although it is unlawful to use racially derogatory terms when referring to inmates, prison staff often use the terms anyway as a form maintaining authority. Similarly, it seems as though Wassenaar used the hostage opportunity to gain some authority by calling out to Louis using derogatory terms rather than by her name. In both cases, we see that demeaning and humiliating another person leads the person to believe or feel that they are above the other.
Furthermore, the male officers’ openness about their preference for aid from male officers vs. a female or that they could take better care of themselves than women proves that this “status” of power, authority and masculinity is reinforced in the institutional construction of the (masculine) prison. Britton finds that the overall presumption of male officers is that women are simply not made for jobs in prisons, instead they should be working at a desk or in a clerical position, away from the danger and violence that they are (un)able to handle. The officers’ positions are more so gendered because as some male officers account, they are placed in positions that are more closely in physical contact with the inmates whereas their female counterparts are placed in positions in control units in order to keep them “safe” or at a distance from actual inmate contact. And when there is a call for back up where physical force is required, the men are more likely to be called than women.
The training or lack thereof is indicative of Britton’s discussion between “keepers” and “turnkeys” because they are literally trained to just keep prisoners in check and to turn the key on their cell. What they should be trained in is tactical communication and dignified treatment of inmates. I think the fact that Wassenaar was so physically and verbally aggressive is indicative of the anger and frustration of having been treated that way for the entire time that he had been in prison. I think that the male guard in the tower should have never opened the door as it is unreasonable to think that your fellow prison guard does not have access to the door-that’s a major flaw in training. One should not open the door to anyone that doesn’t have access regardless if they are wearing the uniform.
Overall, I think the coverage of the hostage situation was very biased because Officer Louis Fraley was not given the credit that she deserved for handling the situation so well and making every attempt to make herself equal to her hostage taker. I find it ironic that when the roles are reversed, then it is ok to view yourself as equal for your protection. Personally, I feel that it should always be that way as some of Britton’s study subjects expressed that it is beneficial to be kind to the prisoners because you never know when you will depend on them. Officer Fraley deserves more credit for not only handling the situation successfully but for proving that women are equally as capable of handling situations that they were not trained for which raises the question: Why weren’t they trained on these situations?
Blog #19
Geena Davis discusses the everyday images including the cartoons that not only we are exposed to but our children. The images are highly sexual and stereotypical and when the women do get a hold of a gun and “kill a rapist” then, it becomes shocking that women are engaged in “violence” rather than self-defense. By portraying women as weak, sexy and “eye candy” per se, it becomes difficult to accept women in any other way hence why Britton found that only one of her study subjects in a supervisory role was female. In part, Davis believes that the messages sent through the media over and over are reinforcing the stereotype that women are worth less than men and the disparity of representation in the movies, programs and cartoons need to change.
Because we live in a patriarchial society, the man tends to be in charge both at home and at work as he is viewed as a natural leader and therefore seen more often in powerful positions across the board in a lot of industries. Due to this stereotype, some “old guards” who had been on the job for many years still held beliefs that the prison was no place for women as it is a place that could potentially be violent and women could not handle the violence or because it would require that they step out of the gender role and leave their sexual dignity aside as they will be working in front of the “worst of the worse” in prisons and they would be exposing themselves to sexual harassment.
In addition, other (male) prison guards expect that women prove that they are capable of taking care of themselves by engaging in physical violence because if a woman in a position that is clearly dominated by males then she should be able to handle what the job entails. Overall, males are associated with strength even if they are of a smaller stature and unless the media delivers a more fair representation of female attributes, occupations in law enforcement will continue to be gendered.
Because we live in a patriarchial society, the man tends to be in charge both at home and at work as he is viewed as a natural leader and therefore seen more often in powerful positions across the board in a lot of industries. Due to this stereotype, some “old guards” who had been on the job for many years still held beliefs that the prison was no place for women as it is a place that could potentially be violent and women could not handle the violence or because it would require that they step out of the gender role and leave their sexual dignity aside as they will be working in front of the “worst of the worse” in prisons and they would be exposing themselves to sexual harassment.
In addition, other (male) prison guards expect that women prove that they are capable of taking care of themselves by engaging in physical violence because if a woman in a position that is clearly dominated by males then she should be able to handle what the job entails. Overall, males are associated with strength even if they are of a smaller stature and unless the media delivers a more fair representation of female attributes, occupations in law enforcement will continue to be gendered.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Blog #18
On the job training for correctional officers involved mostly hands-on physical training given by other officers of which mostly were male. Both men and women were required to pass the same tests therefore one could argue that it is therefore gender neutral but is it really when it is clearly evident that a female officer’s physique could pose potential limitations when compared to her male counterparts. In the training officers are taught to handle the worse case scenarios involving violence and violence is perceived as the means that men use to express emotion whereas women show emotion through tears. Again, this is reinforcing the masculinity of the prison institution. The exclusion of sexual harassment material in the curriculum is further indicative that it is assumed to be gendered towards female officers and because the institution is supposedly gender-neutral, it is not addressed although both male and female officers (female more so than male) are at risk.
Interestingly, both male and female correctional officers in Britton’s study expressed their preference for working in male prisons because they considered women to be too “emotional” and deceiving-again reinforcing the masculine effect of the prison. Women were also considered to be too picky or that they complained about nonsense whereas the complaints of the male prisoners were interpreted to be more “legitimate.”
The fact that the female prisoners had a preference for dealing with the opposite sex demonstrates that the training that they received not only desensitized them, but it trained them to not sympathize with the prisoners even if they could relate to their own necessities as a woman. Female and male prison guards alike were simply trained to view themselves as an authority figure and to act accordingly otherwise it would jeopardize their safety. As a woman, one might attempt to be more aggressive in order to appear authoritative, but is it necessary? I don’t think so. One of the female prisoners in the documentary told the reporter that they only receive one roll of toilet paper per week. Now if the woman menstruates, how is one roll of toilet paper supposed to last an entire week?! Why are pregnant women forced to sleep on two inch mattresses? It infuriates me to see things going on like this and personally, I think the correctional officer job needs to be reformed so that people working the job are required to be more adequately educated and qualified to deal with what one day may be themselves (the prison guard that shot her husband and is now serving a life time sentence without parole.)
Interestingly, both male and female correctional officers in Britton’s study expressed their preference for working in male prisons because they considered women to be too “emotional” and deceiving-again reinforcing the masculine effect of the prison. Women were also considered to be too picky or that they complained about nonsense whereas the complaints of the male prisoners were interpreted to be more “legitimate.”
The fact that the female prisoners had a preference for dealing with the opposite sex demonstrates that the training that they received not only desensitized them, but it trained them to not sympathize with the prisoners even if they could relate to their own necessities as a woman. Female and male prison guards alike were simply trained to view themselves as an authority figure and to act accordingly otherwise it would jeopardize their safety. As a woman, one might attempt to be more aggressive in order to appear authoritative, but is it necessary? I don’t think so. One of the female prisoners in the documentary told the reporter that they only receive one roll of toilet paper per week. Now if the woman menstruates, how is one roll of toilet paper supposed to last an entire week?! Why are pregnant women forced to sleep on two inch mattresses? It infuriates me to see things going on like this and personally, I think the correctional officer job needs to be reformed so that people working the job are required to be more adequately educated and qualified to deal with what one day may be themselves (the prison guard that shot her husband and is now serving a life time sentence without parole.)
Blog #17
The documentary did not really discuss how the correctional officers found themselves employed at the prisons, if it was a career choice or the only job available to them. However, the male officer did describe what he needs to do to protect himself from allegations and accusations of misconduct. He explains that as a man, he is there to oversee them but not to befriend them as that could ultimately cost him his job. Female prison guards are under the same restrictions because forming bonds with prisoners could pose a security threat as explained by the directors as it could lead to the smuggling of contraband into the prison from the outside. I thought it was very interesting that all the officers assumed that the prisoners were violent and or acting up so that they could be taken to see a mental health professional. I honestly agree with the prisoner who said that she was in a cage for dogs, not merely acceptable to hold human beings.
Personally, I believe that if prisoners were treated more humanly and further permitted to interact and offered more than 45 minutes outside, they would not be perceived as hostile or as violent because being locked up for 23 hours is bound to make anyone, man or woman appear to be mentally unstable. The prison guards and the directors alike believe that the prisoners deserve “to do the time for doing the crime” which is quite laughable if you ask me. I am not alleging that the prison guards are uneducated but if some of them did possess higher education than what they require the inmates to complete during their time there (GED-high school equivalent) then I am confident that their perception of the prisoners would change. If I applied for a prison guard position tomorrow I would go in there with a different mentality not assuming that they have lost their rights to be treated like humans because if we look at the history of prisons and how laws have changed, the majority are in there for substance (ab)use. And for the prison population majority to be composed of the U.S. population minority is indicative of the reasons why laws changed-to keep certain groups of people controlled and as a form of guaranteed cheap labor. Because most guards are institutionally trained to be controlling, interpret authority and the like, they often forget that the prisoners are somebody’s mother or father, son or daughter. Instead the officers view the inmates as savages and therefore they treat them worse than they would treat their own pets! Again, this is not true of all prison guards but if we look at the African American guard that was scolding a prisoner for “contraband” when she simply had a packet of ketchup with her meatloaf, to me, it was ludicrous. Furthermore, the guard said that she could “lock her up” if she needed to- are you kidding me?
Such attitude from a correctional officer of color floored me because it is her people that are in higher numbers in there. I understand that it is necessary to authoritative but you can do it just as well without having to humiliate or anyone or reminding them that they are not equal to you because in prison, the prisoner is perceived to be below the guard and never equally human. Furthermore, according to Britton’s study, the attitude towards inmates did not differ between minority prison guards when compared to their white counterparts. Ironically, Britton finds that minority officers “wear the uniform of the system that imprisons them” and as a result they can find it difficult to partake in oppressing their own people as some can relate it to their own personal accounts of racism. Fortunately, some minority officers do have double consciousness and while the prison may perceive and refer to the inmate as violent and aggressive, for those officers that still consider them human beings (thankfully), they choose to take on a more maternal or paternal role towards the inmates. Specifically, in Britton’s study both male and female officers agreed that a female officer’s mothering and nurturing effects work well when they need to diffuse potentially volatile situations.
In order to keep inmates on their best behaviors, officers often took “privileges” away if an inmate exhibited unacceptable behavior and this is another form of social control within an already controlled institution. This type of control in addition to the distance maintained in the prisoner and prison guard relationship and the talking down to the prisoners are what I would blame for any hostile behavior in the prison. If prisoners were treated differently, if they were ALL given the opportunity to learn a career that they could transition into (with the help of the prison) upon their release, not only would the prisoner population decrease but we could very well find a lesser need or dependency of these institutions.
Personally, I believe that if prisoners were treated more humanly and further permitted to interact and offered more than 45 minutes outside, they would not be perceived as hostile or as violent because being locked up for 23 hours is bound to make anyone, man or woman appear to be mentally unstable. The prison guards and the directors alike believe that the prisoners deserve “to do the time for doing the crime” which is quite laughable if you ask me. I am not alleging that the prison guards are uneducated but if some of them did possess higher education than what they require the inmates to complete during their time there (GED-high school equivalent) then I am confident that their perception of the prisoners would change. If I applied for a prison guard position tomorrow I would go in there with a different mentality not assuming that they have lost their rights to be treated like humans because if we look at the history of prisons and how laws have changed, the majority are in there for substance (ab)use. And for the prison population majority to be composed of the U.S. population minority is indicative of the reasons why laws changed-to keep certain groups of people controlled and as a form of guaranteed cheap labor. Because most guards are institutionally trained to be controlling, interpret authority and the like, they often forget that the prisoners are somebody’s mother or father, son or daughter. Instead the officers view the inmates as savages and therefore they treat them worse than they would treat their own pets! Again, this is not true of all prison guards but if we look at the African American guard that was scolding a prisoner for “contraband” when she simply had a packet of ketchup with her meatloaf, to me, it was ludicrous. Furthermore, the guard said that she could “lock her up” if she needed to- are you kidding me?
Such attitude from a correctional officer of color floored me because it is her people that are in higher numbers in there. I understand that it is necessary to authoritative but you can do it just as well without having to humiliate or anyone or reminding them that they are not equal to you because in prison, the prisoner is perceived to be below the guard and never equally human. Furthermore, according to Britton’s study, the attitude towards inmates did not differ between minority prison guards when compared to their white counterparts. Ironically, Britton finds that minority officers “wear the uniform of the system that imprisons them” and as a result they can find it difficult to partake in oppressing their own people as some can relate it to their own personal accounts of racism. Fortunately, some minority officers do have double consciousness and while the prison may perceive and refer to the inmate as violent and aggressive, for those officers that still consider them human beings (thankfully), they choose to take on a more maternal or paternal role towards the inmates. Specifically, in Britton’s study both male and female officers agreed that a female officer’s mothering and nurturing effects work well when they need to diffuse potentially volatile situations.
In order to keep inmates on their best behaviors, officers often took “privileges” away if an inmate exhibited unacceptable behavior and this is another form of social control within an already controlled institution. This type of control in addition to the distance maintained in the prisoner and prison guard relationship and the talking down to the prisoners are what I would blame for any hostile behavior in the prison. If prisoners were treated differently, if they were ALL given the opportunity to learn a career that they could transition into (with the help of the prison) upon their release, not only would the prisoner population decrease but we could very well find a lesser need or dependency of these institutions.
Blog #16
Interestingly, Britton finds that very few young people dream about becoming a prison guard when they grow up and for those who do land jobs as such; it is often times a last resort as there is an existing demand for them. However because there are stereotypes associated with being a corrections officer, the white educated males are likely to seek other jobs as they can make more than the average $30K (an officer makes) in other work industries. As a result, the jobs are often left behind to be occupied by minorities with a high school education. The women in Britton’s study were aspiring to become police officers but when those opportunities fell through for one reason or another, they opted for the position of correctional officer instead. For some men and women (but mostly for men-44% compared to 7%), the previous work experience in the military is what encouraged them to seek jobs in corrections. In the media and in our culture, it seems that the male is the ideal candidate for a position of control and to oversee unruly persons. In the past when women were considered to have failed to live up to their standard lady-like behavior, it was not uncommon for them to be supervised by men. But when reformists sought change in the conditions in which women were housed, women began to be sought after to supervise female prisoners as they could understand the needs of a woman more so than a man and this opened opportunities for women to enter what is still today, a male dominated field.
However, although this specific job field has offered opportunities to women, it is not prestige that future prison guards are after. In Britton’s study, both men and women cite that it is the pay and benefits that lures them to these positions because they outweigh the potential risks. Because most prisons are located in rural areas, often times good paying jobs that only require a high school education are hard to come by and therefore those seeking stable employment settle for positions as prison guards.
However, although this specific job field has offered opportunities to women, it is not prestige that future prison guards are after. In Britton’s study, both men and women cite that it is the pay and benefits that lures them to these positions because they outweigh the potential risks. Because most prisons are located in rural areas, often times good paying jobs that only require a high school education are hard to come by and therefore those seeking stable employment settle for positions as prison guards.
Blog #15
Britton describes that prisons have existed in the U.S. for so many decades that they have come to be seemed as normal. The first American prison opened in 1785 and the structure was designed with the male prisoner in mind because women constituted only a minority of prisoners. To this date, women are still greatly outnumbered in prison compared to their male counterparts however one similarity that holds true between both male and female prisoners is that they are disproportionately composed of minorities. According to Britton’s statistics, women in prison are 35% white, 46% Black and 16% Hispanic and further finds that Blacks are seven times more likely to be incarcerated than are whites. In addition, for both men and women prisoners, they are more likely to represent working or workless poor.
Historically, prisons were referred to as penitentiaries because they were considered places where “the errant might repent and be transformed” however that was not necessarily the case for women as Criminologist, Francis Leiber suggested that a woman who commits a crime has sunken deeper than a man and therefore when it came to incarcerating them, they were forced to live in miserable conditions. Britton describes the situation for women in prison as an afterthought given the lack of attention, supervision and protection. And even in the prisons, their roles were systematically reinforced by only permitting them to do things like knitting, sewing or cooking.
In Arizona, the first female promoted to sergeant was in 1979, that is only thirty years ago when the legislator proposed that a prison be built back in 1868. Although we do see more women in correctional officer positions, they are more likely to be placed in female and juvenile institutions. Primarily, Britton cites that it is “the masculine foundation on which the system of penitentiary discipline was built also contributed to the exclusion of women from its regimes.” Again, because the prison system was originally designed for men to be supervised by men, when women were accused and punished for moral shortcomings, prison staff perceived them to be a “nuisance.” Today, reformers have brought changes and improvements for female prisoners however based on some recent events such as the deceased Perryville prisoner due to negligent acts of correctional officers, it is clear that there is still an urgent need to change policies to ensure that prisoners do NOT lose their right to be treated like humans.
Historically, prisons were referred to as penitentiaries because they were considered places where “the errant might repent and be transformed” however that was not necessarily the case for women as Criminologist, Francis Leiber suggested that a woman who commits a crime has sunken deeper than a man and therefore when it came to incarcerating them, they were forced to live in miserable conditions. Britton describes the situation for women in prison as an afterthought given the lack of attention, supervision and protection. And even in the prisons, their roles were systematically reinforced by only permitting them to do things like knitting, sewing or cooking.
In Arizona, the first female promoted to sergeant was in 1979, that is only thirty years ago when the legislator proposed that a prison be built back in 1868. Although we do see more women in correctional officer positions, they are more likely to be placed in female and juvenile institutions. Primarily, Britton cites that it is “the masculine foundation on which the system of penitentiary discipline was built also contributed to the exclusion of women from its regimes.” Again, because the prison system was originally designed for men to be supervised by men, when women were accused and punished for moral shortcomings, prison staff perceived them to be a “nuisance.” Today, reformers have brought changes and improvements for female prisoners however based on some recent events such as the deceased Perryville prisoner due to negligent acts of correctional officers, it is clear that there is still an urgent need to change policies to ensure that prisoners do NOT lose their right to be treated like humans.
Blog #14
Britton theorizes that the entire employment structure is gendered because our jobs are presumed to be a separate matter from our home life. How many times have we heard someone say, “When I come to work I leave my home life at home and vice versa? It’s unthinkable to want to blend home and work life but in the case of working women, we have to. Because women are traditionally the caregivers to children and the caretakers of the home, it is often the male who will spend additional hours at work until the job is done. As a result, the male has the advantage of being perceived as “committed and devoted” to his work, always willing to go the extra mile and therefore more likely to get a promotion or considered for a leadership position. Working women with children on the other hand are often hesitant to sacrifice valuable time that they could otherwise spend with their children.
What Britton is highlighting is that the structures of most organizations are not designed to cater to working women with children. How many employers offer on-site daycare, flexible schedules or paid maternity leave? The answer is a no brainer and because the employment sector is not structured to meet the needs of the working mom. It is considered a perk or privilege when employers do offer flexibility for employees with children. However, because not many employers offer these “perks”, women seek more flexible careers thus reinforcing the gendered occupation roles depicted in popular culture. For example, whenever we see a teacher on TV (unless it is science or math) a teacher is always a woman and the same applies to the occupation of a nurse-always a woman. And when occupations are gendered from the ground up, meaning that the structures are designed to reinforce gender roles to begin with and then these images are retold through the media and furthermore through the absence of adequate support from the agencies, what we ultimately end up with is a workforce structure that gives every opportunity for advancement to the person that is willing to give it all up for the job-most likely a male.
What Britton is highlighting is that the structures of most organizations are not designed to cater to working women with children. How many employers offer on-site daycare, flexible schedules or paid maternity leave? The answer is a no brainer and because the employment sector is not structured to meet the needs of the working mom. It is considered a perk or privilege when employers do offer flexibility for employees with children. However, because not many employers offer these “perks”, women seek more flexible careers thus reinforcing the gendered occupation roles depicted in popular culture. For example, whenever we see a teacher on TV (unless it is science or math) a teacher is always a woman and the same applies to the occupation of a nurse-always a woman. And when occupations are gendered from the ground up, meaning that the structures are designed to reinforce gender roles to begin with and then these images are retold through the media and furthermore through the absence of adequate support from the agencies, what we ultimately end up with is a workforce structure that gives every opportunity for advancement to the person that is willing to give it all up for the job-most likely a male.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Blog #13
When we think of correctional officers, police officers or any law enforcement officer for that matter we envision a strong and masculine figure. Dana Britton describes a “hulking man in uniform” and that is indeed what is popularized and reinforced through the media. As a result of the traditional images of correctional officers, when we turn to the images of female correctional officers they tend to be viewed as unfeminine and or representations of “rough and tough” women, meaning that in order to be in this field you have to show some masculine traits. Particularly for guards in male prisons, they are expected to be able to handle potential violent situations therefore we automatically assume that the male guard is the “ideal” candidate for the job. Britton also discusses the advantages that women have working with male prisoners because their traditional nurturing effect gives them the ability to reason and talk to male prisoners or by using the weaker female position so that male prisoners don’t turn physically violent against them. One of Britton’s interviewees described that she communicated to a male prisoner that she liked her face hinting to him that she would like to keep it that way so that he would not assault her.
In addition, prison institutions reinforce the notion that the capacity of the female guard is limited compared to that of her male counterpart and as a result a larger percent of female guards are found in women and juvenile facilities. In federal facilities where pay is greater there is the least number of female officers. According to Britton, women are only making 83% of the wages of their male counterparts. We could then conclude that prisons hold preexisting assumptions of what their “ideal” employees should be and it is evident by the large contrast between male and female corrections officers.
In addition, prison institutions reinforce the notion that the capacity of the female guard is limited compared to that of her male counterpart and as a result a larger percent of female guards are found in women and juvenile facilities. In federal facilities where pay is greater there is the least number of female officers. According to Britton, women are only making 83% of the wages of their male counterparts. We could then conclude that prisons hold preexisting assumptions of what their “ideal” employees should be and it is evident by the large contrast between male and female corrections officers.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Blog #12
Although sex discrimination has been made illegal and women have come a long way in the workforce, segregation continues to exist because both men and women are expected to fit in and stay within their traditional gender roles. Holly English notes in her book that women are perceived to be passive and therefore deemed to be weak or if they are attractive then they are presumed to be frivolous and incompetent. However, when a woman steps out of her “traditional” role and she is aggressive, then she risks being disliked. As a result of the roles that society has associated gender with, women encounter difficulty entering male dominated industries because men doubt that they possess the necessary “brains” or perhaps the strength to perform such work as in the case of female police officers. Because the male is generally associated with the role as a protective figure, it is undoubtedly expected that police officers are expected to be male.
Furthermore, because we see very few women in non-traditional roles, other women who might consider a career in a male-dominated field experience difficulty finding a role model and the moral support within the workforce so that she does not become discouraged from pursuing a traditionally male career. The role of institutions contributes to a continuous segregation as women are not actively sought after to enter male dominated career fields. If we think about a scientist or a mathematician or an engineer for example, the first image that comes to mind is that of a male therefore until women are equally represented and given the opportunities to enter traditional male occupations, segregation will continue to exist.
Fortunately, for women that successfully enter male dominated fields as seen in the videos, they find themselves more financially stable as wages in aviation, mechanics, welding and law enforcement tend to be higher than wages in clerical and administrative jobs. In addition, they are “proving” themselves as in the case of the female officer who applied for a SWAT position twice before she was promoted and then she was approached by her male counterparts and told that they were doubtful until she proved that she too could perform the job well.
Men too are fortunate when they enter women dominated fields because they are promoted quicker when they compete with women for managerial and leadership roles as they are perceived to be “traditional and natural” leaders. Both genders however are essentially placing themselves under the radar when they are in their non-traditional and that could become uncomfortable and stressful to constantly have to prove that they are equally as capable of performing the job.
Furthermore, because we see very few women in non-traditional roles, other women who might consider a career in a male-dominated field experience difficulty finding a role model and the moral support within the workforce so that she does not become discouraged from pursuing a traditionally male career. The role of institutions contributes to a continuous segregation as women are not actively sought after to enter male dominated career fields. If we think about a scientist or a mathematician or an engineer for example, the first image that comes to mind is that of a male therefore until women are equally represented and given the opportunities to enter traditional male occupations, segregation will continue to exist.
Fortunately, for women that successfully enter male dominated fields as seen in the videos, they find themselves more financially stable as wages in aviation, mechanics, welding and law enforcement tend to be higher than wages in clerical and administrative jobs. In addition, they are “proving” themselves as in the case of the female officer who applied for a SWAT position twice before she was promoted and then she was approached by her male counterparts and told that they were doubtful until she proved that she too could perform the job well.
Men too are fortunate when they enter women dominated fields because they are promoted quicker when they compete with women for managerial and leadership roles as they are perceived to be “traditional and natural” leaders. Both genders however are essentially placing themselves under the radar when they are in their non-traditional and that could become uncomfortable and stressful to constantly have to prove that they are equally as capable of performing the job.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Blog #11
A couple of weeks ago there was a news article in the Arizona Republic describing the changes in the Women, Infant and Children (WIC) programs requiring healthier choices of food for the women and children participants. Some of the changes include more fresh fruits and vegetables choices and less processed foods. The article cites that the change was necessary after a study found that individuals on food allowance vouchers, particularly women had a higher body mass index compared to people who did not receive the assistance. I believe that it is good change for the health and well-being of the children and mothers receiving the food allowance to teach them healthier eating habits at a young age thus encouraging them to make better food choices as they get older. According to the article this revision is the first in 30 years which makes it clear that the programs currently made available for women and children might be inadequate if they were designed for a family some decades ago. The Arizona Department of Health is also pushing for a revision of the food stamp program to require similar restrictions and in addition offer incentives for recipients to make better choices. Overall, the change will help the families live healthier and with a lesser risk of becoming obese.
Of course, this is a single issue that has been addressed and there are many more that need similar attention. Health care for example, is a major concern for the near poor because they do not qualify for state Medicaid due to their working status. After 14 years, it would be a good time to revisit the effectiveness of welfare and reform it where it is necessary so that children are cared and provided for adequately and with their best interests in mind. Given the present state of the economy there is an increasing number of children falling victims to poverty. I continue to believe that in a country as rich as ours that spends more on war rather than education is indicative of the government having shifted their focus in the wrong direction and it is time that it too be reformed. Give the American people the opportunity to provide for themselves by bringing jobs back, giving them health care and guaranteeing us a livable wage!
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/10/01/20091001wicfood1001.html
Of course, this is a single issue that has been addressed and there are many more that need similar attention. Health care for example, is a major concern for the near poor because they do not qualify for state Medicaid due to their working status. After 14 years, it would be a good time to revisit the effectiveness of welfare and reform it where it is necessary so that children are cared and provided for adequately and with their best interests in mind. Given the present state of the economy there is an increasing number of children falling victims to poverty. I continue to believe that in a country as rich as ours that spends more on war rather than education is indicative of the government having shifted their focus in the wrong direction and it is time that it too be reformed. Give the American people the opportunity to provide for themselves by bringing jobs back, giving them health care and guaranteeing us a livable wage!
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/10/01/20091001wicfood1001.html
Blog #10
Working mothers in Chaudry’s study were forced to become more flexible making their work schedule fit the child care schedule. In addition, it was necessary that they use both money and subsidies in order to afford child care while they worked. After the welfare reform shifted the focus from the well-being of children to work first, many women found themselves scrambling for work because their benefits were only offered to them for a limited time. To have to find child care quickly did not always translate into effective and successful outcomes as depicted in the working mothers’ stories. They face child care, transportation, and education issues that make exiting poverty much more difficult. Although the welfare reform reduced the number of women on assistance it has not made it possible for working mothers to find the support they need in order to get ahead as they have to continue to rely on other social services such as healthcare and child care assistance. Therefore one can conclude that the number of people that came off the welfare rolls simply shifted to other services.
It is absolutely essential for the working mother to have dependable and quality health care in order to succeed in the workforce. The women in Chaudry’s study often had to take numerous days off of work in order to submit the proper documentation to obtain approval from the State and when the subsidies fell through and the providers were not paid on time or correctly for that matter, that jeopardized the entire situation creating a burdensome worry for the working mother that again needed to act fast and find new child care arrangements when the previous ones didn’t work out. And throughout the time period that mom is seeking adequate care for her children so that she can work; the children are put at risk for delayed development that may be difficult to overcome later in childhood by exposing them to continuous change and instability.
Working women would like to make it a priority to find a safe and stable environment for their children. However, when that option is not available due in part to “all the red tape” involved with obtaining child care assistance in order to exit the welfare system and enter the work force, it makes it much more difficult for the women to be able to provide for their family. And when the women do find child care they find that it takes up most of their income again leaving the mother at the risk of experiencing financial hardship.
Contrary to what some people might believe about poor families being lazy and dumb, Chaudry found that they are in fact hardworking members of society except working hard is still not enough to keep them afloat. Sometimes it requires working women to have more than one job and this means that they spend less time with their children. Not being able to care for their own children is a great concern for the working mothers but they remain torn between caring for the children themselves and ensure their emotional well-being or keep the children in day care for 10-12 hours days to ensure they are physically taken care of.
I agree with Chaudry recommendation to increase the funds for children’s programs because the children are the ones that require the stability in their critical early years of life so that they can develop and progress normally because if they are not given that opportunity then we are failing these children from the beginning when they did not ask to be born into poverty. It is not fair to penalize the children for the parents’ unfortunate circumstances. If we do not help single working mothers by enabling them to take their children to head start for the benefit of the child’s educational future simply because her single income of $10 is too much in the chart then the message to those mothers is that the lack of assistance comes with the territory of being the working poor. Chaudry argues that it is necessary to also provide access to stable child care for all eligible families because by providing stable child care will benefit the children first. And by making the care accessible to eligible working mothers and families we will see healthier and happier children in addition to increased productivity in the work place by working mothers.
It is absolutely essential for the working mother to have dependable and quality health care in order to succeed in the workforce. The women in Chaudry’s study often had to take numerous days off of work in order to submit the proper documentation to obtain approval from the State and when the subsidies fell through and the providers were not paid on time or correctly for that matter, that jeopardized the entire situation creating a burdensome worry for the working mother that again needed to act fast and find new child care arrangements when the previous ones didn’t work out. And throughout the time period that mom is seeking adequate care for her children so that she can work; the children are put at risk for delayed development that may be difficult to overcome later in childhood by exposing them to continuous change and instability.
Working women would like to make it a priority to find a safe and stable environment for their children. However, when that option is not available due in part to “all the red tape” involved with obtaining child care assistance in order to exit the welfare system and enter the work force, it makes it much more difficult for the women to be able to provide for their family. And when the women do find child care they find that it takes up most of their income again leaving the mother at the risk of experiencing financial hardship.
Contrary to what some people might believe about poor families being lazy and dumb, Chaudry found that they are in fact hardworking members of society except working hard is still not enough to keep them afloat. Sometimes it requires working women to have more than one job and this means that they spend less time with their children. Not being able to care for their own children is a great concern for the working mothers but they remain torn between caring for the children themselves and ensure their emotional well-being or keep the children in day care for 10-12 hours days to ensure they are physically taken care of.
I agree with Chaudry recommendation to increase the funds for children’s programs because the children are the ones that require the stability in their critical early years of life so that they can develop and progress normally because if they are not given that opportunity then we are failing these children from the beginning when they did not ask to be born into poverty. It is not fair to penalize the children for the parents’ unfortunate circumstances. If we do not help single working mothers by enabling them to take their children to head start for the benefit of the child’s educational future simply because her single income of $10 is too much in the chart then the message to those mothers is that the lack of assistance comes with the territory of being the working poor. Chaudry argues that it is necessary to also provide access to stable child care for all eligible families because by providing stable child care will benefit the children first. And by making the care accessible to eligible working mothers and families we will see healthier and happier children in addition to increased productivity in the work place by working mothers.
Blog #9
The statistics posted by the National Center for Children in Poverty reflect that 18% percent of the nation’s children live in poverty. Now we are talking about the richest nation in the world and we have 13 million children living in poverty. How is this possible? First of all, as found by the NCCP it takes about twice the poverty income to actually make ends meet for a family of four. With the rising cost of living, the working mothers are less able to provide adequately for their children resulting in neglected care and supervision of the children of the working poor. In Arizona, the rate of poverty among children is 20 % and in other states it is higher but particularly among minorities that are twice as likely to experience financial hardships. According to the NCCP, minorities are living in poverty at the rates of between 29% among American Indians and as high as 35% for African-Americans compared to a 10% rate of poverty for their white counterparts. In a border state such as Arizona, having immigrant parents (as I do) increases the rate of poverty by 10% (from 16%-26%) compared to children with native born parents.
The conditions of working women make it difficult for them to not only earn enough to enable them to provide for the children’s basic needs but also increase the vulnerability of the children because they lack adequate nutrition and health care. Because a large percentage of poor children do not have healthcare coverage and because their mothers cannot afford to take the time off of work let alone pay for a doctor visit, children are often sent to school sick and the parents themselves have to go to work sick. Overall, the situation of the working poor is one that places both the parents and the children just shy of homelessness and children should not have to worry about those insecurities at such a young age.
As a mother, I strive to work hard to provide my two children with everything they need but if I lost my job tomorrow and my husband was the only one working, I too would find my children among the 13 million children in poverty and my heart breaks to watch these hard working parents trying to do everything they can to provide for their families and it is still not enough.
The conditions of working women make it difficult for them to not only earn enough to enable them to provide for the children’s basic needs but also increase the vulnerability of the children because they lack adequate nutrition and health care. Because a large percentage of poor children do not have healthcare coverage and because their mothers cannot afford to take the time off of work let alone pay for a doctor visit, children are often sent to school sick and the parents themselves have to go to work sick. Overall, the situation of the working poor is one that places both the parents and the children just shy of homelessness and children should not have to worry about those insecurities at such a young age.
As a mother, I strive to work hard to provide my two children with everything they need but if I lost my job tomorrow and my husband was the only one working, I too would find my children among the 13 million children in poverty and my heart breaks to watch these hard working parents trying to do everything they can to provide for their families and it is still not enough.
Blog #8
Urban poverty creates unique problems for poor working mothers in particular because tehe environment that they are in puts them at risk for raising children single handedly with a great number of fathers in jail and unable to contribute to the household . In additions children are attending failing schools, children and their mother are going to bed hungry, parents have to choose between keeping the house warm and put food on the table over purchasing and taking necessary medication so that they can stay healthy and continue to work. In essence, the family structure is unable to function properly to ensure that everyone can strive, particularly the children because in urban neighborhoods there are less available jobs that pay well. Another issue is the degree of violence present in urban poor communities where there is a higher concentration of drug use thus rendering the environment unsafe and unfit for children to grow up in.
The working poor are working just as hard as the next person and yet it is still not enough to bring them out of poverty. Some of the videos reflect women who are working hard and have the desire to become more but they are held back by the fact that they cannot afford to pay for college on minimum wage, they cannot afford to buy new clothes and shoes because what they earn is just enough for rent (at their parent’s house), food and bills. Whereas if the children were raised in mixed income neighborhoods, the schools are better, the resources are more plentiful and the overall environment is a better situation for the children to grow up in. Children can play outside, make friends and experience a more normal childhood than those who live in urban poor communities forced to stay inside watching television in order to stay safe. Every child in this country deserves the right to be happy and protected and it is time that we do more for the hard working mothers who are trying to do just that.
The working poor are working just as hard as the next person and yet it is still not enough to bring them out of poverty. Some of the videos reflect women who are working hard and have the desire to become more but they are held back by the fact that they cannot afford to pay for college on minimum wage, they cannot afford to buy new clothes and shoes because what they earn is just enough for rent (at their parent’s house), food and bills. Whereas if the children were raised in mixed income neighborhoods, the schools are better, the resources are more plentiful and the overall environment is a better situation for the children to grow up in. Children can play outside, make friends and experience a more normal childhood than those who live in urban poor communities forced to stay inside watching television in order to stay safe. Every child in this country deserves the right to be happy and protected and it is time that we do more for the hard working mothers who are trying to do just that.
Blog #7
The biggest factors that contribute to the instability of child care that Jaqueline and Julia experienced included inability to pay and work and class/internship schedules. Julia was not by any means a lazy poor person who just didn’t try. As a matter of fact, she was trying very hard to find adequate child care arrangements as any mother would do for her child so that she could go to school and work to enable her to provide for herself and Jaqueline. The inability to pay was a major factor affecting the stability of Jaqueline’s quality of care because although the arrangement with Sonia was working out well in terms of a safe and stable environment, Julia was forced to end the arrangement because she could not afford to pay for it.
As seen on the slides, in Arizona for example there is a greater number of women compared to men living in poverty. If the women are mother, they face even greater challenges when attempting to enter the workforce given they to make additional arrangements and sacrifices so that they can work. Minimum-wage jobs are usually accompanied by minimally tolerant absence policies that do not offer paid time off which means that if the nanny/sitter becomes ill and is unable to care for the child or if the child becomes ill and needs to be taken to the doctor, mom is not only going to make less during the pay period but she will be at risk of losing her job for having to take time off.
Also, most people employed at minimum-wage are unable to afford adequate transportation or health care making them more vulnerable to unforeseen circumstances that may cause them to lose time away from work thus translating that into the inability to make ends meet.
Once again, it is the children that ultimately pay the price of poverty because if the parents are having to work more than one job to adequately provide for the family and if you add to that the need to use public transportation, the children miss out on the opportunity to build a bond with the parent because the parents are too busy “taking responsibility” and the result could prove to be devastating particularly for the children to have the parent(s) around.
As seen on the slides, in Arizona for example there is a greater number of women compared to men living in poverty. If the women are mother, they face even greater challenges when attempting to enter the workforce given they to make additional arrangements and sacrifices so that they can work. Minimum-wage jobs are usually accompanied by minimally tolerant absence policies that do not offer paid time off which means that if the nanny/sitter becomes ill and is unable to care for the child or if the child becomes ill and needs to be taken to the doctor, mom is not only going to make less during the pay period but she will be at risk of losing her job for having to take time off.
Also, most people employed at minimum-wage are unable to afford adequate transportation or health care making them more vulnerable to unforeseen circumstances that may cause them to lose time away from work thus translating that into the inability to make ends meet.
Once again, it is the children that ultimately pay the price of poverty because if the parents are having to work more than one job to adequately provide for the family and if you add to that the need to use public transportation, the children miss out on the opportunity to build a bond with the parent because the parents are too busy “taking responsibility” and the result could prove to be devastating particularly for the children to have the parent(s) around.
Blog #6
I agree that all children including low-income and poor children should be protected and given the opportunity to develop during a very critical early years of life when they are developing mentally and emotionally. However, this has become an arduous task for working mothers because their income limits their child care choices. Mothers like Annette and Brittany are example of women that are forced to find the quickest and easiest forms of child care because it is necessary if it means that they were going to have the opportunity to work. Their choices were not reflective of the best interest of the children or the most ideal arrangement because without the ability to pay, the choice of the mother is almost non-existent. Judging by the cost, it seems as though quality child care is a luxury considering it costs more than college tuition in every state for an infant.
Because quality child care by a licensed provider is not readably affordable, low-income mothers resort to care by provided by the father, older siblings, other relatives, family day care centers, nursery programs, head start, or specialized care of some sort. It is a common occurrence that when children are cared for by care-givers that are over-burdened by many other children or if they lack knowledge in child development, the television will act as the sitter. In other instances children are inadequately supervised because the care giver’s responsibility exceeds the ability to care for numerous children. Preferably, any mother would wish that their child would have individual attention and the opportunity to develop, learn and play in a safe environment but what the low-income mother prefers is not necessarily what she will receive for her child because she is unable to pay. Thus, low-income mothers find themselves using patchwork for care creating an unstable environment for the continuous development of the children.
In the Applied Research Center link, we find that children born to poor families do not receive the same quality of care compared to children who have parents that can pay. As for care providers who work for the state, they too suffer from having to wait for reimbursement thus jeopardizing the affordable care that they offer to low-income families. For some states such as California that cannot afford to oversee the child care industry makes it even more hazardous for children because if care facilities are not regularly checked then there is no incentive for the provider to be looking out for the best interest and well-being of the children in their care. Ultimately, it is the children born in poverty that are placed at even a greater risk because our government has failed to direct their attention to those who need it most, the most vulnerable population, our children.
Because quality child care by a licensed provider is not readably affordable, low-income mothers resort to care by provided by the father, older siblings, other relatives, family day care centers, nursery programs, head start, or specialized care of some sort. It is a common occurrence that when children are cared for by care-givers that are over-burdened by many other children or if they lack knowledge in child development, the television will act as the sitter. In other instances children are inadequately supervised because the care giver’s responsibility exceeds the ability to care for numerous children. Preferably, any mother would wish that their child would have individual attention and the opportunity to develop, learn and play in a safe environment but what the low-income mother prefers is not necessarily what she will receive for her child because she is unable to pay. Thus, low-income mothers find themselves using patchwork for care creating an unstable environment for the continuous development of the children.
In the Applied Research Center link, we find that children born to poor families do not receive the same quality of care compared to children who have parents that can pay. As for care providers who work for the state, they too suffer from having to wait for reimbursement thus jeopardizing the affordable care that they offer to low-income families. For some states such as California that cannot afford to oversee the child care industry makes it even more hazardous for children because if care facilities are not regularly checked then there is no incentive for the provider to be looking out for the best interest and well-being of the children in their care. Ultimately, it is the children born in poverty that are placed at even a greater risk because our government has failed to direct their attention to those who need it most, the most vulnerable population, our children.
Blog #5
Chaundry argues that “we are asking the least fortunate to strive and work harder” because the people living in poverty are essentially being asked survive off of what is not survivable. As a result of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, many working mothers were forced to enter the work place but without the adequate support system to enable them to enter the job market. Annette’s case for example is reality for many single mothers and they are not all fortunate enough to have an understanding prospective employer that is willing to wait for them to find child care arrangements in order to go to work. And although there are programs such as AmeriCorps that will train mothers with skills to enter the workforce, the waiting list for stable and quality child care to be able to join the program is often times lengthy and challenging to secure. The PRWORA took away the focus of the children’s wellbeing and instead shifted the focus on the mothers to take “personal responsibility” for their own children needs and the result has been devastating for children born in poor families. Just because children are born to a poor family or in a disadvantaged environment does not mean that they are any less worthy of having opportunities made available to them in terms of care, education and healthcare but the government has basically made poor people work harder to be able to provide for their family and they are still unable to due to the increasingly high cost of living and disproportionate wages. According the poverty guidelines a family of four is poor if they are making $20, 614 or less but the truth is, is that it is almost impossible for a family to survive on that income making them desperate rather than poor in my opinion. Annette worked her way up and found herself making from $16,000 to $22, 000 yet she still depended on public housing, food stamps and help with child care. If she was making well over the poverty level for her family of three, why was she unable to provide housing, food and care out of her income alone? Undoubtedly, the poverty guidelines are not realistic.
Interestingly, the public also understands that the working poor are essentially those that are working full time and still unable to provide for their basic needs. Some of the responses describe what is needed to be done in order for them to be able to go to work and make their income work to keep them out of poverty. Healthcare and minimum wage were two things that most people would change because without a decent pay it is impossible to make a living. We really need to visit these issues if the government’s intent is for people to “take responsibility” and provide for their kin. We need to ensure that the opportunities exist otherwise the new generations born into poverty will be unable to break the cycle. It sounds easy to say that we should all pull ourselves by our own bootstraps but what if you don’t have boots to begin with?
Interestingly, the public also understands that the working poor are essentially those that are working full time and still unable to provide for their basic needs. Some of the responses describe what is needed to be done in order for them to be able to go to work and make their income work to keep them out of poverty. Healthcare and minimum wage were two things that most people would change because without a decent pay it is impossible to make a living. We really need to visit these issues if the government’s intent is for people to “take responsibility” and provide for their kin. We need to ensure that the opportunities exist otherwise the new generations born into poverty will be unable to break the cycle. It sounds easy to say that we should all pull ourselves by our own bootstraps but what if you don’t have boots to begin with?
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Blog #4
I agree that a society that marginalizes the women impoverishes the children. Today, it is almost necessary for women to work outside of the home to help generate adequate income for a decent standard of living. As a result, working mothers have to make agonizing choices of whether choosing their careers or spending valuable time with their children. As a mother it is heart breaking that we are expected to be wonder women because those second and third roles that we take on as caregivers and homemakers are not considered real jobs.
However, we have come to realize that attempting to live to those expectations have enriched our pocket books but impoverished our good quality of family life. When our work requires more of us, we fail our family, the home and most importantly our children. We miss time with our children that we can never get back. We miss the opportunities to build a bond and trusting relationship. The need to provide for the family in every aspect is stressful, exhausting, and can take a toll on mom and dad because we are always in a hurry from here to there. As a working parent there are always a ton of things to do and not enough time to do them all making it difficult to find a balance between work and home.
In order to be able to find a balance, it’s almost necessary that is flexible so that a parent can fulfill the parental and professional obligations effectively because without that flexibility chances are we are going to be much too exhausted to spend any such quality time with our children when we come home. In some instances it will require that working parents make sacrifices such as taking opposite shifts or working less thus resulting in lesser income. The most difficult decision that parents have had to make is to leave the work force and become a full-time caregiver and homemaker because the employer sector does not offer the flexibility to women.
Realistically, the U.S. does not address working parents’ concerns and therefore our overall quality of life has suffered. At work, we are expected to leave our home issues at home and the opposite when we are away from the work place but that is far from realistic. Because the traditional gender roles continue to be reinforced in the media, women continue to feel the pressure to make everything work.
Employers in the United States should probably look at the policies of caregivers developed and implemented in the U.K. because they have found that the flexibility their companies offer to their employees boost morale, production, and loyalty in the work place. What employer doesn’t want a loyal, hardworking and trustworthy employee? If they want them, why aren’t they working with their employees to meet their needs? If there are 54 million adult caregivers in the country now, that number is only likely to increase with the retiring baby boomers.
It’s unfair to women that it is only us that often have to make those sacrifices because the men are making significantly more than women in the same positions. If there was equality in pay, we would probably see more stay at home dads and this is where Corporate America is failing women thus pushing them out of the workforce making it much more difficult for them to make headway and compete with the men.
In addition to flexibility in the workplace, it is important to have the support from family, friends, neighbors and the community because caring for our children and our parents can potentially take a toll on oneself when attempting to do it alone. If we are unable to care for ourselves, we cannot expect to care for others effectively and not only will we fail others but ourselves as well and the end result may be very disappointing. It’s important to take time off away from the full-time job both at work and at home to regain perspective and be able to recharge and do it all over again.
If we want achieve satisfaction and achieve a good quality family life, we have to be there with our family to help raise our children, to care for our home and take care of what is most important. The trade off may be to give up income, opportunities to climb the corporate ladder or give up time with the children. It is obvious to me that women would much rather give up the former to ensure they spend quality time during the most important stages of our children lives. I don’t believe we should have to feel conflicted and have to feel that our job is getting in the way of our family lives but unfortunately, that is the case for many working women in society today.
However, we have come to realize that attempting to live to those expectations have enriched our pocket books but impoverished our good quality of family life. When our work requires more of us, we fail our family, the home and most importantly our children. We miss time with our children that we can never get back. We miss the opportunities to build a bond and trusting relationship. The need to provide for the family in every aspect is stressful, exhausting, and can take a toll on mom and dad because we are always in a hurry from here to there. As a working parent there are always a ton of things to do and not enough time to do them all making it difficult to find a balance between work and home.
In order to be able to find a balance, it’s almost necessary that is flexible so that a parent can fulfill the parental and professional obligations effectively because without that flexibility chances are we are going to be much too exhausted to spend any such quality time with our children when we come home. In some instances it will require that working parents make sacrifices such as taking opposite shifts or working less thus resulting in lesser income. The most difficult decision that parents have had to make is to leave the work force and become a full-time caregiver and homemaker because the employer sector does not offer the flexibility to women.
Realistically, the U.S. does not address working parents’ concerns and therefore our overall quality of life has suffered. At work, we are expected to leave our home issues at home and the opposite when we are away from the work place but that is far from realistic. Because the traditional gender roles continue to be reinforced in the media, women continue to feel the pressure to make everything work.
Employers in the United States should probably look at the policies of caregivers developed and implemented in the U.K. because they have found that the flexibility their companies offer to their employees boost morale, production, and loyalty in the work place. What employer doesn’t want a loyal, hardworking and trustworthy employee? If they want them, why aren’t they working with their employees to meet their needs? If there are 54 million adult caregivers in the country now, that number is only likely to increase with the retiring baby boomers.
It’s unfair to women that it is only us that often have to make those sacrifices because the men are making significantly more than women in the same positions. If there was equality in pay, we would probably see more stay at home dads and this is where Corporate America is failing women thus pushing them out of the workforce making it much more difficult for them to make headway and compete with the men.
In addition to flexibility in the workplace, it is important to have the support from family, friends, neighbors and the community because caring for our children and our parents can potentially take a toll on oneself when attempting to do it alone. If we are unable to care for ourselves, we cannot expect to care for others effectively and not only will we fail others but ourselves as well and the end result may be very disappointing. It’s important to take time off away from the full-time job both at work and at home to regain perspective and be able to recharge and do it all over again.
If we want achieve satisfaction and achieve a good quality family life, we have to be there with our family to help raise our children, to care for our home and take care of what is most important. The trade off may be to give up income, opportunities to climb the corporate ladder or give up time with the children. It is obvious to me that women would much rather give up the former to ensure they spend quality time during the most important stages of our children lives. I don’t believe we should have to feel conflicted and have to feel that our job is getting in the way of our family lives but unfortunately, that is the case for many working women in society today.
Blog #3
As a child, my father was the sole bread winner and my mother the care taker. Although my mothered entered the workforce for a short period of time to help with the finances, my father did not help my mother in the home. I vividly recall him arriving home from work and mom always had a meal prepared. In addition, my mother handled all the chores of the home including during the time that she worked part-time.
Today, it is very different in my home. Both my husband and I work and we both handle the chores and the care of our children. Therefore, in essence we are both working a double shift except I have an added load of school work and during those times he does more of the housework or he hires help. I have to admit that I feel guilty not being able to fulfill my duties as expected because I am in school full-time in addition to working 40 hours a week.
As a mother, I believe it is my primary responsibility to care for our two daughters and when my parents come of age, I also believe it will be my responsibility to help care for them as they cared for me when I was a child. The policies for caretakers of the UK are admirable and should be implemented in a country such as ours. If my job offered the flexibility and the compassion that the UK offers its employees, I’m sure working parents would be less stressed. I have seen some co-workers at my place of employment suffer from debilitating anxiety and stress over their responsibilities at home as care givers for their elderly parents and that partially is due to inadequate support at home and in the work place.
Truthfully, it is a win-win situation if the employer offers the necessary support and flexibility because the result is employees are loyal and more productive. With that notion, society needs to acknowledge that women have taken an unpaid second and third shift because not only are we expected to do it but we have been raised to believe that it is our responsibility and our job. We need to redefine the assignments in the home and it doesn’t necessarily mean that men and women should trade roles but we need to help each other with the different roles. Because there are more and more working parents outside of the home, the reality is that we cannot do it all and until the societal expectations change, we will continue to live with increased anxiety, stress and dissatisfaction both at home and in the workplace.
Today, it is very different in my home. Both my husband and I work and we both handle the chores and the care of our children. Therefore, in essence we are both working a double shift except I have an added load of school work and during those times he does more of the housework or he hires help. I have to admit that I feel guilty not being able to fulfill my duties as expected because I am in school full-time in addition to working 40 hours a week.
As a mother, I believe it is my primary responsibility to care for our two daughters and when my parents come of age, I also believe it will be my responsibility to help care for them as they cared for me when I was a child. The policies for caretakers of the UK are admirable and should be implemented in a country such as ours. If my job offered the flexibility and the compassion that the UK offers its employees, I’m sure working parents would be less stressed. I have seen some co-workers at my place of employment suffer from debilitating anxiety and stress over their responsibilities at home as care givers for their elderly parents and that partially is due to inadequate support at home and in the work place.
Truthfully, it is a win-win situation if the employer offers the necessary support and flexibility because the result is employees are loyal and more productive. With that notion, society needs to acknowledge that women have taken an unpaid second and third shift because not only are we expected to do it but we have been raised to believe that it is our responsibility and our job. We need to redefine the assignments in the home and it doesn’t necessarily mean that men and women should trade roles but we need to help each other with the different roles. Because there are more and more working parents outside of the home, the reality is that we cannot do it all and until the societal expectations change, we will continue to live with increased anxiety, stress and dissatisfaction both at home and in the workplace.
Blog #2
Sex segregation continues to exist because the number of females employed in the non-traditional female positions is widely disproportionate. For example, when we think of architects, engineers, pilots, scientists, and the like the first mental picture is that of a white middle-aged male. The question is WHY? Why are we as women staying away from this fields that are concentrated in math and science? That could easily be explained by the stereotypical images that we see over and over again through the media and the repeated message suddenly become reality because we see a trend of absent women in male dominated professions. ASU is an affirmative action employer thus they claim to not discriminate on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, etc., however in a survey conducted in 2006 by the Commission of the Status for Women and Faculty Women’s Association they found that male professors were more satisfied than female professors. Furthermore, women reported having less mentoring and less opportunities for promotion. One category where they reported more of than men was having experienced inappropriate behavior towards them. Although this is difficult to digest, as women we continue to be regarded as less capable because the gender roles that we repeatedly see embedded in our culture reinforce the notion that women are more nurturing and therefore we are best suited for jobs in elementary school teaching, social work, nursing, and of course homemaking and caretaking.
As a mother I do regard myself as a phenomenal caretaker but I also know that I perform at my job very well. In the home where I grew up, my mother did not work but I do in my home because in order to maintain a certain lifestyle, two incomes facilitate that more so than one. In addition, in the work place I feel that I am autonomous, intelligent and capable of achieving my professional goals so that I am satisfied.
In reference to patriarchy, I respect my husband for being the lead bread winner of the household. He takes on the most difficult tasks at home and in addition helps me with the more “feminine” chores. He helps me with laundry, dishes, and our children. He is the absolute opposite of my father and his. My father never changed one of his children’s diapers, fed us a bottle, much less care for us on his own. My husband cares for our children while I am at work if he is off and in the evening while I’m either in class or doing homework. Because we are Christian, the bible does say the man’s position is that of the head of the household but we are also a team and therefore we make our decisions together. In cases, where the father is absent, of course it is necessary for the mother to take on that role.
As a result of the downfall of the economy we have seen more women take on the role of being the main provider of the household. According to the radio report, mothers have had to become the main breadwinners and even take on a second job to support the family because the male dominated fields suffered the largest number of layoffs. Jobs in constructions, finance, and the like left many more men than women without a job.
Ultimately, I blame the media for feeding these images to us and ourselves for buying into them. Until we change the way we think of ourselves and our roles in society, the images in the media will continue to reflect how we currently think and feel.
As a mother I do regard myself as a phenomenal caretaker but I also know that I perform at my job very well. In the home where I grew up, my mother did not work but I do in my home because in order to maintain a certain lifestyle, two incomes facilitate that more so than one. In addition, in the work place I feel that I am autonomous, intelligent and capable of achieving my professional goals so that I am satisfied.
In reference to patriarchy, I respect my husband for being the lead bread winner of the household. He takes on the most difficult tasks at home and in addition helps me with the more “feminine” chores. He helps me with laundry, dishes, and our children. He is the absolute opposite of my father and his. My father never changed one of his children’s diapers, fed us a bottle, much less care for us on his own. My husband cares for our children while I am at work if he is off and in the evening while I’m either in class or doing homework. Because we are Christian, the bible does say the man’s position is that of the head of the household but we are also a team and therefore we make our decisions together. In cases, where the father is absent, of course it is necessary for the mother to take on that role.
As a result of the downfall of the economy we have seen more women take on the role of being the main provider of the household. According to the radio report, mothers have had to become the main breadwinners and even take on a second job to support the family because the male dominated fields suffered the largest number of layoffs. Jobs in constructions, finance, and the like left many more men than women without a job.
Ultimately, I blame the media for feeding these images to us and ourselves for buying into them. Until we change the way we think of ourselves and our roles in society, the images in the media will continue to reflect how we currently think and feel.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
