There are a few things that need to be changed so that women can find a balance between work life and family life and so that more equality can be exercised between men and women.
First of all, more women need to pursue legal professions as well as leadership roles in law firms. And men need to allow women to do so without assuming that they’ve gotten there by sleeping their way to the top.
English suggests needs to change is childcare situations. We spoke about the difficulties in finding affordable, safe, and reasonable childcare when we read Chaudry’s book “Putting Children First.” However, the women in English’s book differ in that they have stable jobs and are not low-wage earners. If childcare came as a benefit of jobs in the legal arena, women would not have to worry about having to leave their jobs to care for sick children. There needs to be more flexibility, as I have said time and time again.
Women want to get into firms and develop their practices quickly before they have children. Part of the problem in striving to achieve career/family balance centers on the traditional career model for lawyers in which time devoted to work is an uncontested priority. There needs to be a change in the image of the “ideal lawyer.”
English sees the future as consisting of equal opportunity and representation for men and women and suggests a number of policies and practices that would enforce this. She advocates for performance reviews because if reviews are rigorous and detailed, they may alleviate some of the concern about female lawyers’ competence. There also, according to Enlgish, needs to be transparency in policies, especially when it comes to flexibility in work schedules. If policies are made, they need to be written down and shared with everyone. Additionally, if everyone is aware of flexible work arrangements, the workplace can alleviate the misunderstandings that can occur. English also argues that employees should know who gets what assignments and why, and people should be given a variety of assignments at varying skills.
About Me
- Kasey
- I will be graduating from Arizona State University in December. Even though I feel like I have made the most of my college career, I am scared about what the future holds for me. Graduate studies are in my future, but what I ultimately want to do with my life, well, that is in limbo. I want to make a difference. I want to be challenged and challenge other people. I am an alumni of Omega Phi Alpha, National Service Sorority. I served as president in my final year, and it was definitely a challenge. Now, I am helping to found an organization on campus called Running Start, which is a non-profit geared toward getting young women interested in running for political office.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Post #38
Women in the Judiciary: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the second woman U.S. Supreme Court Justice in 1993 behind Sandra Day O’Connor. For the majority of her career, she focused on equal citizenship status of men and women. In 1970, she co-founded the Women’s Rights Law Reporter, the first law journal in the U.S. that focused only on women’s rights. Gisburg was also the first tenured woman in the Columbia Law School. Ginsburg was a unique nominee for the bench in that she had lots of experience arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court when she was a chief litigator for the ACLU. She was also unique in the during her confirmation process, she refused to answer questions about her beliefs saying that if she were to make a decision before a case came to her, she would be acting injudiciously. Ginsburg has been a major proponent for abortion rights as well as sexual equality. She has said in reference to abortion “that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.”
Women in the Practice of Law: Belva Lockwood
In 1873, Belva Lockwood graduated from National University Law School in Washington, DC. Her graduation was not without uproar. Because the University did not grant degrees to women, she was kept out of practicing law for months after she graduated until she appealed the President of the United States. She was constantly faced with judges who believed she was incompetent. However, she was one of the first female lawyers in the United States and was the first female lawyer who was granted the ability to practice law in front of the Supreme Court after she pushed Congress to pass the law permitting women to do so in 1879. Lockwood was the first women to appear on official presidential ballots in 1884 and 1888 when she was nominated for the office by the National Equal Right Party.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the second woman U.S. Supreme Court Justice in 1993 behind Sandra Day O’Connor. For the majority of her career, she focused on equal citizenship status of men and women. In 1970, she co-founded the Women’s Rights Law Reporter, the first law journal in the U.S. that focused only on women’s rights. Gisburg was also the first tenured woman in the Columbia Law School. Ginsburg was a unique nominee for the bench in that she had lots of experience arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court when she was a chief litigator for the ACLU. She was also unique in the during her confirmation process, she refused to answer questions about her beliefs saying that if she were to make a decision before a case came to her, she would be acting injudiciously. Ginsburg has been a major proponent for abortion rights as well as sexual equality. She has said in reference to abortion “that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.”
Women in the Practice of Law: Belva Lockwood
In 1873, Belva Lockwood graduated from National University Law School in Washington, DC. Her graduation was not without uproar. Because the University did not grant degrees to women, she was kept out of practicing law for months after she graduated until she appealed the President of the United States. She was constantly faced with judges who believed she was incompetent. However, she was one of the first female lawyers in the United States and was the first female lawyer who was granted the ability to practice law in front of the Supreme Court after she pushed Congress to pass the law permitting women to do so in 1879. Lockwood was the first women to appear on official presidential ballots in 1884 and 1888 when she was nominated for the office by the National Equal Right Party.
Post #37
The American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession put out a report called Charting Our Progress.
The report shows that in a decade, from 1994 to 2003, the number of women in law school rose from 45% to 50%. The report also reflects an increase in the number of women in the profession in general too with the number of women lawyers having grown by 29.1%. The number of women partners rose from 12% to 16%. In the Court of Appeals, the composition of women rose from 13% to 17%, and in the Districts Courts female representation rose from 12% to 16%.
Even with all these advancements, women are still paid significantly less than men. In general, women are paid 78 cents to the dollar a man makes. Women are not represented in leadership at all levels of the workforce, and especially, as English found, in law firms. The report concludes that this is because of gender stereotypes, which Enlgish argued were a big reason why women lawyers were treated the way they were in different situations, whether it was regarding dress or communication styles or leadership styles.
The report alludes to the fact that women are seen as too emotional and not aggressive enough, however, as English found, if women tried to be strong and aggressive, they were not seen as effective leaders.
The report also speaks to the fact that law firms are not necessarily the best places for women to try to balance work and family lives. As we’ve seen in English’s study, if women seem to put too much focus on their family lives they are seen as not dedicated to their work. This goes against the idea of the “ideal lawyer” who is a workaholic and devotes their life to their work and lets nothing get in the way of it. The ideal lawyers have all the time in the world because they have no other commitments but work. They are able to work the 70-80 hour work weeks.
Both the report and English suggest similar ways in which women’s situations can be improved. They both suggest that women should be able to have flexible work schedules, be mentored, and not discriminate against employees who need to leave work for family.
The report shows that in a decade, from 1994 to 2003, the number of women in law school rose from 45% to 50%. The report also reflects an increase in the number of women in the profession in general too with the number of women lawyers having grown by 29.1%. The number of women partners rose from 12% to 16%. In the Court of Appeals, the composition of women rose from 13% to 17%, and in the Districts Courts female representation rose from 12% to 16%.
Even with all these advancements, women are still paid significantly less than men. In general, women are paid 78 cents to the dollar a man makes. Women are not represented in leadership at all levels of the workforce, and especially, as English found, in law firms. The report concludes that this is because of gender stereotypes, which Enlgish argued were a big reason why women lawyers were treated the way they were in different situations, whether it was regarding dress or communication styles or leadership styles.
The report alludes to the fact that women are seen as too emotional and not aggressive enough, however, as English found, if women tried to be strong and aggressive, they were not seen as effective leaders.
The report also speaks to the fact that law firms are not necessarily the best places for women to try to balance work and family lives. As we’ve seen in English’s study, if women seem to put too much focus on their family lives they are seen as not dedicated to their work. This goes against the idea of the “ideal lawyer” who is a workaholic and devotes their life to their work and lets nothing get in the way of it. The ideal lawyers have all the time in the world because they have no other commitments but work. They are able to work the 70-80 hour work weeks.
Both the report and English suggest similar ways in which women’s situations can be improved. They both suggest that women should be able to have flexible work schedules, be mentored, and not discriminate against employees who need to leave work for family.
Post #36
Can corporate America lure the women back into the workforce? In my humble opinion, corporate America will not get women back into the work force until they become more flexible with the fact that women are as valuable to the workforce as men.
I know that personally I do not want to work in corporate America. Even working at the labor union I worked for over the summer felt like torture. What I found interesting was the complete lack of flexibility the union operated on, even with the male employees. One of my bosses was a single dad who had two children that he had complete custody of. His son has special needs and has doctor’s appointments all the time, but my boss was constantly forced to find someone else to go to them. The reason was because of the lack of flexibility with the job. They would not let him telecommute and if he took the morning off to go to an appointment but was 5 minutes late into the afternoon portion of the workday, he either had to take the entire day off unpaid, or be laid into by the management.
Another worker had a wife who was suffering from cancer, and he was her primary caregiver. I noticed that every day he came in to work right at the start time and left as soon as he was able to in the afternoon. It was only after he was gone for a few days that it came up with my boss that his wife was very sick and the management at the union offices would not give him paid time off to be able to care for her in her final months.
I feel like this relates a lot to what women face in the corporate world and why women steer away from it. I feel like this lack of flexibility to accommodate the fact that people’s live do not revolve around work is going to continue to keep women from pursuing corporate employment.
I know that personally I do not want to work in corporate America. Even working at the labor union I worked for over the summer felt like torture. What I found interesting was the complete lack of flexibility the union operated on, even with the male employees. One of my bosses was a single dad who had two children that he had complete custody of. His son has special needs and has doctor’s appointments all the time, but my boss was constantly forced to find someone else to go to them. The reason was because of the lack of flexibility with the job. They would not let him telecommute and if he took the morning off to go to an appointment but was 5 minutes late into the afternoon portion of the workday, he either had to take the entire day off unpaid, or be laid into by the management.
Another worker had a wife who was suffering from cancer, and he was her primary caregiver. I noticed that every day he came in to work right at the start time and left as soon as he was able to in the afternoon. It was only after he was gone for a few days that it came up with my boss that his wife was very sick and the management at the union offices would not give him paid time off to be able to care for her in her final months.
I feel like this relates a lot to what women face in the corporate world and why women steer away from it. I feel like this lack of flexibility to accommodate the fact that people’s live do not revolve around work is going to continue to keep women from pursuing corporate employment.
Post #35
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a “best practices” document earlier this year with an emphasis on work/family balance, an issue we’ve been dealing with for the entirety of this class. The purpose of this document, according to Joanna Grossman, was not to antidiscrimination laws, but to encourage employers to “adopt policies that go beyond legal minimum requirements.”
As Grossman states, and apparently as the EEOC's document notes, “the care of children and other dependents is disproportionately provided by women, and even more disproportionately by women of color; men's role in parenting and other caregiving has increased, but is still vastly outweighed by women's.” We have seen this argued at length in English’s book.
Grossman bring up that “for many caregivers, inflexible workplace policies and insufficient access to leave present the biggest obstacles to their successful balancing of work and family responsibilities.” We have seen this argued in English’s book with female lawyers. The inflexibility of working hours prevent women from either being employed full-time or being mothers at all. Some women result to putting off having children until they’ve established a practice or found a job that will try to be flexible for them.
Grossman says “to make matters worse, stereotyping about caregivers is prevalent: Women caregivers are often thought to be less committed to their paid work or to be likely to be less competent because of their actual or likely role in caregiving.” This is yet another connection to English’s study. Female lawyers were seen as not being dedicated to work because of their family commitments. If women had to leave work to pick up a child from school, or stay at home to care for a sick child, they were seen as choosing placing family before work, therefore not taking work seriously.
As Grossman says, sadly “no existing law creates a special, protected status for caregivers” although there are laws that ban discrimination on the basis of pregnancy like Title VII and laws that ban discrimination if someone in the family is disabled.
Grossman says that the best practices document suggests many of the same measures that English argues for in her book that will help with the family/work balance. Flexibility in work arrangements with variable starting times for work and ending times is the biggest similarity. Grossman says the best practices document cites research demonstrating “that flexible work policies have a positive impact on employee engagement and organizational productivity and profitability.” This is one of the same arguments that English made in her book.
As Grossman states, and apparently as the EEOC's document notes, “the care of children and other dependents is disproportionately provided by women, and even more disproportionately by women of color; men's role in parenting and other caregiving has increased, but is still vastly outweighed by women's.” We have seen this argued at length in English’s book.
Grossman bring up that “for many caregivers, inflexible workplace policies and insufficient access to leave present the biggest obstacles to their successful balancing of work and family responsibilities.” We have seen this argued in English’s book with female lawyers. The inflexibility of working hours prevent women from either being employed full-time or being mothers at all. Some women result to putting off having children until they’ve established a practice or found a job that will try to be flexible for them.
Grossman says “to make matters worse, stereotyping about caregivers is prevalent: Women caregivers are often thought to be less committed to their paid work or to be likely to be less competent because of their actual or likely role in caregiving.” This is yet another connection to English’s study. Female lawyers were seen as not being dedicated to work because of their family commitments. If women had to leave work to pick up a child from school, or stay at home to care for a sick child, they were seen as choosing placing family before work, therefore not taking work seriously.
As Grossman says, sadly “no existing law creates a special, protected status for caregivers” although there are laws that ban discrimination on the basis of pregnancy like Title VII and laws that ban discrimination if someone in the family is disabled.
Grossman says that the best practices document suggests many of the same measures that English argues for in her book that will help with the family/work balance. Flexibility in work arrangements with variable starting times for work and ending times is the biggest similarity. Grossman says the best practices document cites research demonstrating “that flexible work policies have a positive impact on employee engagement and organizational productivity and profitability.” This is one of the same arguments that English made in her book.
Post #34
Joan Williams book, “Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What To Do About It,” has many of the same arguments of English’s book, “Gender on Trial.”
Williams talks about market work and family work. “Market work” is any work performed for payment, or any paid work outside the home. “Family work” includes childcare, housework, eldercare and other forms of caring work. These terms are also discussed at length in English’s book. Williams says that in our society, women continue to perform a disproportionately higher amount of family work than men. Even though gender roles in the United States have been changing, they haven’t been changed as much as they could have.
Williams argues that Mothers who stay at home often feel they are taken less seriously by other adults. This relates somewhat to what some of the women in English’s study said about their lives. One woman in English’s study said that she felt like she had to hide that she had a full time job as a lawyer because other adults would come to certain conclusions about what type of mother she was.
Williams says that mothers who work full time often find themselves on the "mommy track," which means depressed pay rates, fewer benefits, and blocked advancement. This is absolutely exhibited in English’s book. The one woman who sat in on employment interviews said that women were not hired because they could potentially get married and have children and become less productive. She remarked that her colleagues said “she’s just getting married, how long before she has kids? When she comes back she won’t be a productive.” She commented that there “was respect for intelligence and work product for all, but there was a strong bias that when things got stressful, when life situations changed, the women won’t handle it as well as a man—that a woman would turn away from her work.” Like Williams said, employers refuse to take women seriously because of the assumption that they will eventually become mothers and “drop out.”
Williams said “Good jobs typically assume an ideal worker who is willing and able to work for 40 years straight, taking no time off for childbearing or childrearing. This ideal is framed around men's bodies-for they need no time off for childbirth- and men's life patterns-for American women still do 80% of the childcare. Not surprisingly, many mothers find it difficult, if not impossible, to meet a standard designed around men's bodies, and around the assumption that workers are supported by a flow of childcare and other family work from their spouses that many men enjoy, but most women do not.” This absolutely agrees with women in English’s study who had children. This is the whole embodiment of trying to balance work and home lives.
Willams say that women can work part-time or reduced hours in a very punitive atmosphere, something that relates very closely to what English says about female lawyers who try to work flexible schedules or part time. Not only do they risk not getting time consuming assignments, they are almost written off as not good, productive workers, punished by their co-workers as not being dedicated to work like they should be. Williams argues that If they had a choice to cut back their hours or reduce them without marginalization, women might do so more; Many mothers who are committed to being ideal workers might cut back if they had the option to do so.
Williams talks about market work and family work. “Market work” is any work performed for payment, or any paid work outside the home. “Family work” includes childcare, housework, eldercare and other forms of caring work. These terms are also discussed at length in English’s book. Williams says that in our society, women continue to perform a disproportionately higher amount of family work than men. Even though gender roles in the United States have been changing, they haven’t been changed as much as they could have.
Williams argues that Mothers who stay at home often feel they are taken less seriously by other adults. This relates somewhat to what some of the women in English’s study said about their lives. One woman in English’s study said that she felt like she had to hide that she had a full time job as a lawyer because other adults would come to certain conclusions about what type of mother she was.
Williams says that mothers who work full time often find themselves on the "mommy track," which means depressed pay rates, fewer benefits, and blocked advancement. This is absolutely exhibited in English’s book. The one woman who sat in on employment interviews said that women were not hired because they could potentially get married and have children and become less productive. She remarked that her colleagues said “she’s just getting married, how long before she has kids? When she comes back she won’t be a productive.” She commented that there “was respect for intelligence and work product for all, but there was a strong bias that when things got stressful, when life situations changed, the women won’t handle it as well as a man—that a woman would turn away from her work.” Like Williams said, employers refuse to take women seriously because of the assumption that they will eventually become mothers and “drop out.”
Williams said “Good jobs typically assume an ideal worker who is willing and able to work for 40 years straight, taking no time off for childbearing or childrearing. This ideal is framed around men's bodies-for they need no time off for childbirth- and men's life patterns-for American women still do 80% of the childcare. Not surprisingly, many mothers find it difficult, if not impossible, to meet a standard designed around men's bodies, and around the assumption that workers are supported by a flow of childcare and other family work from their spouses that many men enjoy, but most women do not.” This absolutely agrees with women in English’s study who had children. This is the whole embodiment of trying to balance work and home lives.
Willams say that women can work part-time or reduced hours in a very punitive atmosphere, something that relates very closely to what English says about female lawyers who try to work flexible schedules or part time. Not only do they risk not getting time consuming assignments, they are almost written off as not good, productive workers, punished by their co-workers as not being dedicated to work like they should be. Williams argues that If they had a choice to cut back their hours or reduce them without marginalization, women might do so more; Many mothers who are committed to being ideal workers might cut back if they had the option to do so.
Post #33
The glass ceiling is still there, even though women have advanced as much as they have. As Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney argues in a recent book, “rumors of women’s progress have been greatly exaggerated.” Even with women finding great leadership roles in government, like Condoleeza Rice serving as Secretary of State, and Hillary Clinton being a major player in the 2008 Presidential race as well as Sarah Palin being nominated for Vice President, women still are not represented or advancing as quickly as they have been represented in the workforce.
A lot can be attributed to the balance women must find between work and family lives. But even disregarding family, there are other factors that contribute to the lack of advancement of women in legal careers.
Despite the fact women are getting more college degrees and PhDs than men, they’re still only making about 78 cents on the dollar than men make.
“There is a wage gap in every profession, in every job,” Sheila Wellington, a professor at NYU's Stern School of Business says. “We're talking about everything; factory workers, business people, lawyers, teachers, it’s just there.” Wellington argues that, “Women negotiate less than men. Women are offered less than men, they don't bargain; that's one of the theories. Women take time out of the workforce and they're penalized for it. But there are also studies when women who do not time out of the workforce, and they still earn less.”
Women are starting their own business, like the female lawyers shown who left highly competitive firms to begin their own practice. Even with starting their own practice they’re not making a lot, taking huge pay deductions after going off on their own. The interesting thing I found was that one of the partners talked about how many lawyers who either have been laid off or who are seeking employment elsewhere are asking them, women, for advice in beginning their own firms.
Women are more than 50% of the population, however, they are not represented as such in Congress and especially, when it comes to the legal profession, on the Supreme Court. Only 17% of Congress is female, and only 2 of the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court are female.
A lot can be attributed to the balance women must find between work and family lives. But even disregarding family, there are other factors that contribute to the lack of advancement of women in legal careers.
Despite the fact women are getting more college degrees and PhDs than men, they’re still only making about 78 cents on the dollar than men make.
“There is a wage gap in every profession, in every job,” Sheila Wellington, a professor at NYU's Stern School of Business says. “We're talking about everything; factory workers, business people, lawyers, teachers, it’s just there.” Wellington argues that, “Women negotiate less than men. Women are offered less than men, they don't bargain; that's one of the theories. Women take time out of the workforce and they're penalized for it. But there are also studies when women who do not time out of the workforce, and they still earn less.”
Women are starting their own business, like the female lawyers shown who left highly competitive firms to begin their own practice. Even with starting their own practice they’re not making a lot, taking huge pay deductions after going off on their own. The interesting thing I found was that one of the partners talked about how many lawyers who either have been laid off or who are seeking employment elsewhere are asking them, women, for advice in beginning their own firms.
Women are more than 50% of the population, however, they are not represented as such in Congress and especially, when it comes to the legal profession, on the Supreme Court. Only 17% of Congress is female, and only 2 of the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court are female.
Post #32
Males and females have always been held to different standards when it comes to parenting. Although gender roles within the family are changing now, with it being more accepted for men to be more directly involved with parenting, women are still seen as the one who should be raising the children. Male and female lawyers are also held to different standards when it comes to parenting.
Women are still the parent who is held most responsible for children. The mother is seen as the nurturing parent, there to raise and mold children into good people. They are the ones given maternity leave. If a child is sick, the mother is the parent expected to stay home with them while they recover.
This can definitely come into play in whether or not a woman is even hired by a firm or not. One woman in English’s study said that she felt as though many young women were prevented from being hired by her firm because conclusions about her future—getting married and becoming pregnant and having children—were made. She remarked that her colleagues said “she’s just getting married, how long before she has kids? When she comes back she won’t be a productive.” She commented that there “was respect for intelligence and work product for all, but there was a strong bias that when things got stressful, when life situations changed, the women won’t handle it as well as a man—that a woman would turn away from her work.”
This has had a huge impact on women who are seeking careers in law. Women are forced to decide between having a career or a family first because they can both come at the same time. One woman who hid her pregnancy for 7 months was confronted with strong animosity by her employers and was labeled as being unprofessional for becoming pregnant.
Women lawyers who are partner in firms are accused of not being good moms because they are supposed to be completely dedicated to their work. It is a situation of you either can be a good lawyer or a good mom, never both, because that’s just too much and no one can do it.
Women are still the parent who is held most responsible for children. The mother is seen as the nurturing parent, there to raise and mold children into good people. They are the ones given maternity leave. If a child is sick, the mother is the parent expected to stay home with them while they recover.
This can definitely come into play in whether or not a woman is even hired by a firm or not. One woman in English’s study said that she felt as though many young women were prevented from being hired by her firm because conclusions about her future—getting married and becoming pregnant and having children—were made. She remarked that her colleagues said “she’s just getting married, how long before she has kids? When she comes back she won’t be a productive.” She commented that there “was respect for intelligence and work product for all, but there was a strong bias that when things got stressful, when life situations changed, the women won’t handle it as well as a man—that a woman would turn away from her work.”
This has had a huge impact on women who are seeking careers in law. Women are forced to decide between having a career or a family first because they can both come at the same time. One woman who hid her pregnancy for 7 months was confronted with strong animosity by her employers and was labeled as being unprofessional for becoming pregnant.
Women lawyers who are partner in firms are accused of not being good moms because they are supposed to be completely dedicated to their work. It is a situation of you either can be a good lawyer or a good mom, never both, because that’s just too much and no one can do it.
Post #31
Women in all careers are forced to balance work and family, but in the legal profession it is even more difficult.
In English’s book, a female partner in a law firm says, “Questions of consistency, of reliability are still alive. Most women try to balance both family obligations and work obligations. So a woman might ask one of the people who works with her to assist her, to cover a meeting for her. Her male colleagues would say that’s her responsibility. To certain people that would be read as, she had to take her kid to school or be at the important cupcake party.” A woman’s dedication is questioned when she has to leave work or dedicate some of her time to her family.
As a result, women want to get into firms and develop their practices quickly before they have children or put off having children until they are older because they have to work constantly. Women are forced to choose between which facet of their life to put on the back burner and which to go full speed ahead into.
Flexible work arrangements are extremely important in order to help female lawyers balance their work and family lives. Many of the respondents in English’s study said that the solutions to this problem—flexible work schedules, reduced hours, telecommuting, job shares, etc.—rarely work out. One recruiter English interviewed said “life stinks for all these lawyers, and it becomes nearly impossible to function competitively once you’ve had a kid if you’re a woman.”
Part time work or flexible schedules are an option and have been proven to help women who must find balance, but when a female lawyer takes on a part time law position, she almost disappears from the practice. English reports that almost 95% of all law firms offer part-time positions, but only around 3% of lawyers take advantage of them. The majority of men and women who did not take flexible schedules said that they thought if they took a part time schedule, they would not be able to advance in the firm.
Flexible schedules have not worked out because most people think that how people work on alternative schedules is not fair. There is all around hostility to change.
In English’s book, a female partner in a law firm says, “Questions of consistency, of reliability are still alive. Most women try to balance both family obligations and work obligations. So a woman might ask one of the people who works with her to assist her, to cover a meeting for her. Her male colleagues would say that’s her responsibility. To certain people that would be read as, she had to take her kid to school or be at the important cupcake party.” A woman’s dedication is questioned when she has to leave work or dedicate some of her time to her family.
As a result, women want to get into firms and develop their practices quickly before they have children or put off having children until they are older because they have to work constantly. Women are forced to choose between which facet of their life to put on the back burner and which to go full speed ahead into.
Flexible work arrangements are extremely important in order to help female lawyers balance their work and family lives. Many of the respondents in English’s study said that the solutions to this problem—flexible work schedules, reduced hours, telecommuting, job shares, etc.—rarely work out. One recruiter English interviewed said “life stinks for all these lawyers, and it becomes nearly impossible to function competitively once you’ve had a kid if you’re a woman.”
Part time work or flexible schedules are an option and have been proven to help women who must find balance, but when a female lawyer takes on a part time law position, she almost disappears from the practice. English reports that almost 95% of all law firms offer part-time positions, but only around 3% of lawyers take advantage of them. The majority of men and women who did not take flexible schedules said that they thought if they took a part time schedule, they would not be able to advance in the firm.
Flexible schedules have not worked out because most people think that how people work on alternative schedules is not fair. There is all around hostility to change.
Post #30
Society, because it has a masculocentric distribution of authority and power, has constructed the idea that females are inferior to males. This social construct has led to the formation of stereotypical gender roles. If something is considered masculine it is recognized by relating to strength, competition, aggressiveness, logic, power, and risk taking, where as femininity is related to empathy, emotional expression, maintaining relationships, and downplaying intellectual achievement and career ambition.
As English says, “It is widely believed that a traditional, masculine profile of confidence is a baseline requirement for success in the legal profession.” Therefore, lawyers who act in a direct, authoritative, self-promoting, instrumental and interpersonally dominant manner are seen as being effective. Being direct exhibits authority and dominance, and when people demand attention in this way, it demonstrates leadership competence. English also point out that there is the assumption that many men come into the workforce with lots of confidence while women are more likely to hang back, timid and unsure, while women actually feel like they have a lot of confidence.
According to this one study done by Forsyth, Heiney, and Wright, the perception of those following a leader, not actual behavior that creates biased evaluations for leaders. Because men and women are perceived to act differently as leaders, with men being more dominant and authoritative and women being more collaborative, when a woman takes on more masculine traits she is seen as not as effective of a leader than if she were to keep feminine characteristics. When a female in a position of authority or power exercises communication traits normally associated with men, they are seen as domineering and controlling or even ineffective, which is not the stereotypical thought of how a woman “should act.” In other words, when women take a more masculine form of leadership style, there is a discrepancy between leadership expectations and social role expectations and as a result of this discrepancy, women are often perceived negatively.
This has definitely been reflected in English’s study. When men exhibited more reserved, quiet, styles of communication within a law firm were seen in a unfavorable manner. One recruiter said “Quiet, reserved men are perceived as lightweights and are marginalized except in a certain type of practice.” One lawyer said that a quieter male colleague had tremendous value when it came to writing a good brief and pointed out that he thought the colleague tried to hide from social situations. However, this is completely different than perceptions of female lawyers who exhibit masculine leadership styles. Men who exhibit “female” characteristics like these men are still seen as effective workers. When women try to act more directly and exhibit confidence, they actually break themselves down by self-deprication, apologizing for putting forth a strong stance on something. Women who do take on more “masculine” forms of communication are seen as ineffective. Women are seen as only being able to be quiet and reserved, not strong and forceful, which they absolutely can be.
As a result, one of the lawyers suggested, women aren’t given the same opportunities as men. She says, “they play a research role and background role, they’re not going to court, their names are not on the briefs.” Another woman said she felt as though male partners look at females and think “sure we’ll introduce them to the clients, sure they can arrange the schedule, but oh, to go right it out with the other side, let’s send the guy.”
In the past I have always strived to hold leadership roles in whatever organizations I have been a part of. In high school I was editor-in-chief of the school newspaper in both my junior and senior years. At Arizona State, I held multiple leadership roles in my sorority, not only acting as a judicial officer as Standards Board Chair, but also as President during my junior year of study. Because I tend to lean toward what are considered masculine forms of communication and leadership, I was constantly seen as the “bad guy” and my authority was questioned multiple times when I tried to enforce rules. I expected punctuality, order, and loyalty, I seldom questioned tradition, I am rules-oriented, I always took a detailed and thorough approach to most situations, and I expected people to play their roles and follow the rules just like me.
I believe that because I exhibited more masculine traits in my communication and leadership, I was faced with animosity because I was breaking from the norm of female personality traits and methods of communications in a leadership role. My sorority sisters did not see me as being an effective leader because their perception of the types of communication styles I should have employed were opposite than those I did use. Because I consider my leadership style more masculine, I was perceived negatively, and did not gain the respect I should have.
As English says, “It is widely believed that a traditional, masculine profile of confidence is a baseline requirement for success in the legal profession.” Therefore, lawyers who act in a direct, authoritative, self-promoting, instrumental and interpersonally dominant manner are seen as being effective. Being direct exhibits authority and dominance, and when people demand attention in this way, it demonstrates leadership competence. English also point out that there is the assumption that many men come into the workforce with lots of confidence while women are more likely to hang back, timid and unsure, while women actually feel like they have a lot of confidence.
According to this one study done by Forsyth, Heiney, and Wright, the perception of those following a leader, not actual behavior that creates biased evaluations for leaders. Because men and women are perceived to act differently as leaders, with men being more dominant and authoritative and women being more collaborative, when a woman takes on more masculine traits she is seen as not as effective of a leader than if she were to keep feminine characteristics. When a female in a position of authority or power exercises communication traits normally associated with men, they are seen as domineering and controlling or even ineffective, which is not the stereotypical thought of how a woman “should act.” In other words, when women take a more masculine form of leadership style, there is a discrepancy between leadership expectations and social role expectations and as a result of this discrepancy, women are often perceived negatively.
This has definitely been reflected in English’s study. When men exhibited more reserved, quiet, styles of communication within a law firm were seen in a unfavorable manner. One recruiter said “Quiet, reserved men are perceived as lightweights and are marginalized except in a certain type of practice.” One lawyer said that a quieter male colleague had tremendous value when it came to writing a good brief and pointed out that he thought the colleague tried to hide from social situations. However, this is completely different than perceptions of female lawyers who exhibit masculine leadership styles. Men who exhibit “female” characteristics like these men are still seen as effective workers. When women try to act more directly and exhibit confidence, they actually break themselves down by self-deprication, apologizing for putting forth a strong stance on something. Women who do take on more “masculine” forms of communication are seen as ineffective. Women are seen as only being able to be quiet and reserved, not strong and forceful, which they absolutely can be.
As a result, one of the lawyers suggested, women aren’t given the same opportunities as men. She says, “they play a research role and background role, they’re not going to court, their names are not on the briefs.” Another woman said she felt as though male partners look at females and think “sure we’ll introduce them to the clients, sure they can arrange the schedule, but oh, to go right it out with the other side, let’s send the guy.”
In the past I have always strived to hold leadership roles in whatever organizations I have been a part of. In high school I was editor-in-chief of the school newspaper in both my junior and senior years. At Arizona State, I held multiple leadership roles in my sorority, not only acting as a judicial officer as Standards Board Chair, but also as President during my junior year of study. Because I tend to lean toward what are considered masculine forms of communication and leadership, I was constantly seen as the “bad guy” and my authority was questioned multiple times when I tried to enforce rules. I expected punctuality, order, and loyalty, I seldom questioned tradition, I am rules-oriented, I always took a detailed and thorough approach to most situations, and I expected people to play their roles and follow the rules just like me.
I believe that because I exhibited more masculine traits in my communication and leadership, I was faced with animosity because I was breaking from the norm of female personality traits and methods of communications in a leadership role. My sorority sisters did not see me as being an effective leader because their perception of the types of communication styles I should have employed were opposite than those I did use. Because I consider my leadership style more masculine, I was perceived negatively, and did not gain the respect I should have.
Post #29
Nationally, only 4 percent of law firm partners are minorities; even fewer are minority women.
According to NPR news reports, minority women leave law firms in droves because of a combination of the regular discrimination they feel as a result of being women, and also the discrimination they endure because they are women of color. The NPR article says “Many of the women shared tales of discrimination that led them to leave their firms, where they said exclusion, neglect and overt harassment are not uncommon.”
According to an American bar Association study, 44% of minority women reported being passed over for a desirable assignment as opposed to 2% of white men reporting the treatment. 62% of minority women reported that they were excluded from networking opportunities as opposed to 4% of white men. 31% of minority women reported that they felt they were given unfair performance evaluations as opposed to less than 1% of white men. The study also showed 49% of the minority women also reported that they had been subjected to demeaning comment or other types of harassment.
One of the lawyers recalled being called into the office of another attorney who was meeting with a Korean client. The partner wanted her to speak in Korean with the man, and when she did not, the partner left her a phone message of him speaking trying to sound Asian. Another lawyer, who was Native American said that she had people make comments like calling her chief or Pocahontas.
Other minority female lawyers pointed out that they felt like they had been brought into meetings or taken to functions as token minorities. One woman said “I felt like an exotic animal. I was always asked to attend functions and award ceremonies, speak to law students of color and pose for advertising publications. However, I never had contact with partners in power other than at these events. Law firms would do well to examine whether their associates of color are given real opportunities to interact with the power structure of the firm.”
According to NPR news reports, minority women leave law firms in droves because of a combination of the regular discrimination they feel as a result of being women, and also the discrimination they endure because they are women of color. The NPR article says “Many of the women shared tales of discrimination that led them to leave their firms, where they said exclusion, neglect and overt harassment are not uncommon.”
According to an American bar Association study, 44% of minority women reported being passed over for a desirable assignment as opposed to 2% of white men reporting the treatment. 62% of minority women reported that they were excluded from networking opportunities as opposed to 4% of white men. 31% of minority women reported that they felt they were given unfair performance evaluations as opposed to less than 1% of white men. The study also showed 49% of the minority women also reported that they had been subjected to demeaning comment or other types of harassment.
One of the lawyers recalled being called into the office of another attorney who was meeting with a Korean client. The partner wanted her to speak in Korean with the man, and when she did not, the partner left her a phone message of him speaking trying to sound Asian. Another lawyer, who was Native American said that she had people make comments like calling her chief or Pocahontas.
Other minority female lawyers pointed out that they felt like they had been brought into meetings or taken to functions as token minorities. One woman said “I felt like an exotic animal. I was always asked to attend functions and award ceremonies, speak to law students of color and pose for advertising publications. However, I never had contact with partners in power other than at these events. Law firms would do well to examine whether their associates of color are given real opportunities to interact with the power structure of the firm.”
Post #28
Now a Supreme Court Justice, the media perceived Sonia Sotomayor as being “too temperamental and aggressive”, “dumb, lazy, temperamental” and “fiery Latina tempest waiting to knife and brutalize lawyers in the courtroom.” This was all before she was even nominated for the Supreme Court. And these perceptions of her were used to argue that she would not be a good, let alone effective and competent, Supreme Court Justice nominee.
These descriptions of Sotomayor are consistent with a clear double standard in how men and women are portrayed in the media and in American culture in general.
I actually wrote a lengthy paper on how women who employ what society deems as male characteristics when they hold leadership positions are constantly seen as first of all not credible, and second of all, not effective leaders.
Thanks to gender stereotype, males are supposed to be strong, competitive, aggressive, logical, powerful, and risk takers while women are supposed
There is this implicit agreement than women cannot be good leaders when they take on these masculine characteristics. When women go so far as to break the mold by taking on more masculine forms of communication, they are seen as deviant, different, and in essence wrong. When a female in a position of authority or power exercises communication traits normally associated with men, they are seen as domineering and controlling or even ineffective, which is not the stereotypical thought of how a woman “should act.”
“For Sotomayor, being a sharp interrogator and requiring lawyers to be ‘on top of it’ are negative qualities. These traits are not negative in most men, certainly not white men.”
“A persistent and ubiquitous gender stereotype portrays smart and aggressive women as domineering, mean, nasty bitches.”
One comparison that I particularly found interesting was when Sotomayor was compared to Justice Antonin Scalia:
“In Scalia, toughness is positive; in Sotomayor, it is nonjudicial. If Scalia asks irrelevant questions, he is just being a dutiful ‘law professor’ trying to hold the attention of his class. If Sotomayor does the same thing, she is just interested in hearing herself talk. When Scalia duels harshly with litigants, the ‘spectators’ watch in amazement. If Sotomayor asks tough questions, she is seen as difficult, temperamental, and excitable. The disparate treatment is too dense to deny.”
These descriptions of Sotomayor are consistent with a clear double standard in how men and women are portrayed in the media and in American culture in general.
I actually wrote a lengthy paper on how women who employ what society deems as male characteristics when they hold leadership positions are constantly seen as first of all not credible, and second of all, not effective leaders.
Thanks to gender stereotype, males are supposed to be strong, competitive, aggressive, logical, powerful, and risk takers while women are supposed
There is this implicit agreement than women cannot be good leaders when they take on these masculine characteristics. When women go so far as to break the mold by taking on more masculine forms of communication, they are seen as deviant, different, and in essence wrong. When a female in a position of authority or power exercises communication traits normally associated with men, they are seen as domineering and controlling or even ineffective, which is not the stereotypical thought of how a woman “should act.”
“For Sotomayor, being a sharp interrogator and requiring lawyers to be ‘on top of it’ are negative qualities. These traits are not negative in most men, certainly not white men.”
“A persistent and ubiquitous gender stereotype portrays smart and aggressive women as domineering, mean, nasty bitches.”
One comparison that I particularly found interesting was when Sotomayor was compared to Justice Antonin Scalia:
“In Scalia, toughness is positive; in Sotomayor, it is nonjudicial. If Scalia asks irrelevant questions, he is just being a dutiful ‘law professor’ trying to hold the attention of his class. If Sotomayor does the same thing, she is just interested in hearing herself talk. When Scalia duels harshly with litigants, the ‘spectators’ watch in amazement. If Sotomayor asks tough questions, she is seen as difficult, temperamental, and excitable. The disparate treatment is too dense to deny.”
Post #27
There is a gap between the competence that is assumed between male and female lawyers as an effect of the image of a lawyer as being male. This image of a lawyer as being male is of course reflected when we look at the gender demographics of the law profession.
According to English, only 15% of partners in law firms are female, 5% of managing partners at law firms are women, and 12.2% of general counsel in Fortune 500 companies are female.
Women have to continually keep proving themselves as good lawyers to establish competence and credibility.
Women are seen as not being as competent as men in the law profession. A lot of it has to do with men not only dominating the field in numbers but also with credibility. As discussed in the previous blog, women constantly have to seek approval and help from male colleagues so that they are seen as credible and competent. However, there are other things that play into the supposed lower competency of women as lawyers.
One thing is that women have other responsibilities outside of work that possibly prevent them from working the long irregular hours that a career in law can demand. If women need to leave work to pick up a child at school, they are not able to log as many billable hours as men. If they have commitments outside of the law firm they are seen as not putting 100 percent into their job. They are seen as not being dedicated, when in reality, they are as dedicated to their job as their male peers.
One of the lawyers in English’s book said “there’s a perception that the woman will not produce as much either through billable hours or through relationships as the male and there is a perception that men are going to be more predestined to be workaholics than females.”
Another lawyer said that he would prefer to not hire women because “they haven’t had the commitment to the job and the ability to do things that are unpleasant without complaining… they never had any fire in the belly about either becoming a great lawyer or doing great things or being the best you can be, or going as far are you could in the profession.”
The competency gap is also brought into the courtroom. One of the male lawyers said that he took advantage of a woman who he knew had kids. He would try to push depositions back to later hours in the day to force her to have to reschedule because she needed to pick her children up at school. This would just draw out a court case. It gap is also exhibited when big high profile cases are assigned. Women end up not getting assigned to them because they will take lots of time and dedication that women, especially if they have family to take care of, supposedly cannot provide.
According to English, only 15% of partners in law firms are female, 5% of managing partners at law firms are women, and 12.2% of general counsel in Fortune 500 companies are female.
Women have to continually keep proving themselves as good lawyers to establish competence and credibility.
Women are seen as not being as competent as men in the law profession. A lot of it has to do with men not only dominating the field in numbers but also with credibility. As discussed in the previous blog, women constantly have to seek approval and help from male colleagues so that they are seen as credible and competent. However, there are other things that play into the supposed lower competency of women as lawyers.
One thing is that women have other responsibilities outside of work that possibly prevent them from working the long irregular hours that a career in law can demand. If women need to leave work to pick up a child at school, they are not able to log as many billable hours as men. If they have commitments outside of the law firm they are seen as not putting 100 percent into their job. They are seen as not being dedicated, when in reality, they are as dedicated to their job as their male peers.
One of the lawyers in English’s book said “there’s a perception that the woman will not produce as much either through billable hours or through relationships as the male and there is a perception that men are going to be more predestined to be workaholics than females.”
Another lawyer said that he would prefer to not hire women because “they haven’t had the commitment to the job and the ability to do things that are unpleasant without complaining… they never had any fire in the belly about either becoming a great lawyer or doing great things or being the best you can be, or going as far are you could in the profession.”
The competency gap is also brought into the courtroom. One of the male lawyers said that he took advantage of a woman who he knew had kids. He would try to push depositions back to later hours in the day to force her to have to reschedule because she needed to pick her children up at school. This would just draw out a court case. It gap is also exhibited when big high profile cases are assigned. Women end up not getting assigned to them because they will take lots of time and dedication that women, especially if they have family to take care of, supposedly cannot provide.
Post #26
Men play a huge role in assisting women lawyers in establishing credibility in their jobs in the form of male backing. English says that, “women sometimes find that they need male colleagues to step in to grapple with unruly opposing counsel or endorse their advice to clients to get them on boards.”
One of the women said that if a client is not on board with what she is advising she goes to a male employee for reinforcement, and she also believes that it is better that she go to a male as opposed to a fellow female. Another said that she has to go to a male partner for validation when dealing with clients. If she suggests something, she always makes a point to say that she has already talked to her male partner about it, thinking that this will ensure her clients’ approval.
Sometimes female lawyers have to deal with opposing counsel that tries to discredit her. One woman said that an opposing attorney was really obnoxious to her and sarcastic with her until she had her male colleague sit in on a deposition. As soon as there was male supervision, the opposing counsel did not act negatively towards her.
Some women expressed that they felt like male backing was essential in their day-to-day working. However, just by turning to male colleagues, these women are diminishing their credibility because it almost seems like they are not smart enough or strong enough to handle everything on their own.
This absolutely plays into the idea of law firms as gendered organizations. If women have to constantly answer to men to establish credibility, there is a hierarchy built into the organization. Like I argued in a previous post when we were discussing prisons, Britton said that gendered organizations employ agency. Agency includes “all the interactions in which workers are involved that intentionally or not, invoke gender or reproduce gender inequality, as well as processes of identity construction through which individuals come to see themselves as ‘appropriately’ gendered through their work.” Essentially this involves men and women working in their own gender-based interest. In the case of law firms, the gender based interest means women constantly seeking the approval and support of male colleagues.
One of the women said that if a client is not on board with what she is advising she goes to a male employee for reinforcement, and she also believes that it is better that she go to a male as opposed to a fellow female. Another said that she has to go to a male partner for validation when dealing with clients. If she suggests something, she always makes a point to say that she has already talked to her male partner about it, thinking that this will ensure her clients’ approval.
Sometimes female lawyers have to deal with opposing counsel that tries to discredit her. One woman said that an opposing attorney was really obnoxious to her and sarcastic with her until she had her male colleague sit in on a deposition. As soon as there was male supervision, the opposing counsel did not act negatively towards her.
Some women expressed that they felt like male backing was essential in their day-to-day working. However, just by turning to male colleagues, these women are diminishing their credibility because it almost seems like they are not smart enough or strong enough to handle everything on their own.
This absolutely plays into the idea of law firms as gendered organizations. If women have to constantly answer to men to establish credibility, there is a hierarchy built into the organization. Like I argued in a previous post when we were discussing prisons, Britton said that gendered organizations employ agency. Agency includes “all the interactions in which workers are involved that intentionally or not, invoke gender or reproduce gender inequality, as well as processes of identity construction through which individuals come to see themselves as ‘appropriately’ gendered through their work.” Essentially this involves men and women working in their own gender-based interest. In the case of law firms, the gender based interest means women constantly seeking the approval and support of male colleagues.
Post #25
English says in her book Gender on Trial that the dynamics of the workplace have drastically changed. Before, women were only present in the workplace in small numbers and usually as support staff, so when sexual harassment occurred women were punished. Now, women are professional peers, and sexual harassment is actually punished.
I think that the heightened response to sexual harassment has forced both men and women to be more conscious and aware of how they use their sexuality in the workplace.
However, it is almost accepted that women are innately more sexual than men and use their sexuality as “a weapon in the arsenal” to gain an edge.
There are pros and cons to this.
On one hand, women can use their sexuality as a means of power over individuals. Women can dress in a way to emphasize their attractiveness and in a way that flatters them so they seem more confident and professional. Women can also use their sexuality in front of men to gain favor, telling them that they like their tie or suit. So, women can use their sexuality to gain power. One of the lawyers in English’s study said she wore short skirts on the days when she knew she was in front of a particular judge because if she did, she normally got what she wanted.
However, when women overly use their sexuality, it can be seen as they are using it just to get ahead in the workplace or a way of sending incorrect messages to clients. One lawyer said that there are women who get ahead by being overtly sexual at work, but that it is not a longterm career strategy and makes it so that some women are not taken as seriously. Another lawyer said that there was a bad type of flirting that women were engaging in to compensate for shortcomings and that it was used to get to the top without showing that a woman could get there substantively. She also pointed out that there is this image out there of women who use flirtation and sexuality to get where they want to be.
I think this whole sexualized image of a female lawyer is definitely played up in the media. Just look at the movie Legally Blonde. Elle Woods is given her internship by a professor who is working a high profile case because the professor thinks she is sexy and he makes sexual advances on her. When one of her peers sees this, Elle’s credibility is automatically questioned. Another media portrayal of women being overly sexualized I think comes into play in the show Law and Order. Have you ever noticed that the woman who works for the District attorney is a tall, slim, blonde-haired woman?
I think that the heightened response to sexual harassment has forced both men and women to be more conscious and aware of how they use their sexuality in the workplace.
However, it is almost accepted that women are innately more sexual than men and use their sexuality as “a weapon in the arsenal” to gain an edge.
There are pros and cons to this.
On one hand, women can use their sexuality as a means of power over individuals. Women can dress in a way to emphasize their attractiveness and in a way that flatters them so they seem more confident and professional. Women can also use their sexuality in front of men to gain favor, telling them that they like their tie or suit. So, women can use their sexuality to gain power. One of the lawyers in English’s study said she wore short skirts on the days when she knew she was in front of a particular judge because if she did, she normally got what she wanted.
However, when women overly use their sexuality, it can be seen as they are using it just to get ahead in the workplace or a way of sending incorrect messages to clients. One lawyer said that there are women who get ahead by being overtly sexual at work, but that it is not a longterm career strategy and makes it so that some women are not taken as seriously. Another lawyer said that there was a bad type of flirting that women were engaging in to compensate for shortcomings and that it was used to get to the top without showing that a woman could get there substantively. She also pointed out that there is this image out there of women who use flirtation and sexuality to get where they want to be.
I think this whole sexualized image of a female lawyer is definitely played up in the media. Just look at the movie Legally Blonde. Elle Woods is given her internship by a professor who is working a high profile case because the professor thinks she is sexy and he makes sexual advances on her. When one of her peers sees this, Elle’s credibility is automatically questioned. Another media portrayal of women being overly sexualized I think comes into play in the show Law and Order. Have you ever noticed that the woman who works for the District attorney is a tall, slim, blonde-haired woman?
Post #24
One female law student I encountered while in Washington DC had a really in depth conversation with me about her experiences in law school. She said that when people met her and found out she was in law school, they almost automatically thought she was in law school for family law, when in reality she was focusing on international law. She also pointed to how professors treated her in undergraduate studies when she voiced that she was going on to law school. She said that the overwhelming majority were extremely supportive of her goals in becoming a lawyer, saying it would be nice to see more women in the profession, and wished her good luck because it was going to be a difficult three years. In her first year of law school she found that she was actually one of many women in her class as opposed to so many reports and so much input she’d gotten that said she would be lost in a sea of men. She also found that in her classes, many of the women were much more competitive with each other as well as with their male counterparts when it came to class discussions and exam scores. She attributed this to the overall feeling she got from her female classmates that they needed to prove that they were just as good, if not better, than the male law students in their classes. She also encountered a lot of challenges from her professors, who seemed to favor the men in classes, constantly calling on them over women. She has characterized law school as a proving ground, where the work is hard, and so much time is spent perfecting arguments and papers because she feels like she needs to prove that she can get through law school and get a great job offer.
I think a lot of the concerns people have with women lawyers are seen in the article on our blackboard site with Sanda Day O’Connor. “As the court's first woman, she got a lot of letters of encouragement -- and also plenty of messages from detractors who questioned whether it was appropriate for a woman to serve in the nation's highest court.”
I think a lot of the concerns people have with women lawyers are seen in the article on our blackboard site with Sanda Day O’Connor. “As the court's first woman, she got a lot of letters of encouragement -- and also plenty of messages from detractors who questioned whether it was appropriate for a woman to serve in the nation's highest court.”
Post #23
In her study, English points to the fact that getting dressed in the morning is easy for men. All they have to do is put on a suit and tie, and slick their hair back, and they are ready to go.
However, “Women really are the ones who still have the burden of getting up in the morning and putting something on that is, for whatever reason, responsible,” says Marjorie Margolies, a former lawmaker who now helps women prepare for leadership roles in politics and advocacy (The Fashion Laws Of Politics, NPR: 11/12/08)
This is what you see in Washington, DC: Black, grey and navy, with sensible pumps and some haircuts that have come from the halls of the National Portrait gallery. Washington, DC is not the center of style, and we all know it.
Female politicians and lawyers are not seen as legitimate if they stray from this sense of conservative style. English points to the fact that if women wear a blouse or top that has a lower neckline, they are automatically pegged as using their sexuality to get further in the workplace. If a woman wears a skirt-suit instead of a conservative pantsuit, she is being too provocative. First Lady Michelle Obama has been widely criticized for her sense of style while the majority of women I’ve spoken with see her outfits and fashion sense as refreshing and reflective of what they would like to wear or do wear. Women have to look put-together, with their hair pulled back in a tight little bun because long hair worn down is seen as too provocative. Why do women have to wear a certain outfit or their hair a certain way to prove that they are professional, intelligent and capable? Why does it matter?
Today's female politicians, and lawyers, also have to look stylish, but not too stylish, or they're dismissed as indulgent. I think that is why there has been so much said about Michelle Obama having bought the majority of her wardrobe in stores that the common middle class woman could buy from. Women cannot wear flashy jewelry, or they’re seen as indulgent, so many women in DC are seen sporting the good-old-fashioned string of pearls around their neck.
As seen on the NPR website, wardrobe pieces are even checked against stage lighting like before Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke at the Democratic National Convention.
However, “Women really are the ones who still have the burden of getting up in the morning and putting something on that is, for whatever reason, responsible,” says Marjorie Margolies, a former lawmaker who now helps women prepare for leadership roles in politics and advocacy (The Fashion Laws Of Politics, NPR: 11/12/08)
This is what you see in Washington, DC: Black, grey and navy, with sensible pumps and some haircuts that have come from the halls of the National Portrait gallery. Washington, DC is not the center of style, and we all know it.
Female politicians and lawyers are not seen as legitimate if they stray from this sense of conservative style. English points to the fact that if women wear a blouse or top that has a lower neckline, they are automatically pegged as using their sexuality to get further in the workplace. If a woman wears a skirt-suit instead of a conservative pantsuit, she is being too provocative. First Lady Michelle Obama has been widely criticized for her sense of style while the majority of women I’ve spoken with see her outfits and fashion sense as refreshing and reflective of what they would like to wear or do wear. Women have to look put-together, with their hair pulled back in a tight little bun because long hair worn down is seen as too provocative. Why do women have to wear a certain outfit or their hair a certain way to prove that they are professional, intelligent and capable? Why does it matter?
Today's female politicians, and lawyers, also have to look stylish, but not too stylish, or they're dismissed as indulgent. I think that is why there has been so much said about Michelle Obama having bought the majority of her wardrobe in stores that the common middle class woman could buy from. Women cannot wear flashy jewelry, or they’re seen as indulgent, so many women in DC are seen sporting the good-old-fashioned string of pearls around their neck.
As seen on the NPR website, wardrobe pieces are even checked against stage lighting like before Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke at the Democratic National Convention.
Post #22
Sonia Sotomayor now sits on the United States Supreme Court. She is a woman, a minority, and a judge. As soon as we all heard that a prominent "liberal" Justice was going to be retiring and stepping down, everyone was questioning whom Obama would nominate to fill a seat on the highest court of the land. Many people, including myself, were hoping for Latino/Latina representation on the Court and other just wanted a woman.
Then came the day when President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor, a nomination that didn’t really come out of left field seeing as she was amazingly qualified and had a great record.
However, as soon as the public and media saw a Latina Woman nominated for the Supreme Court, thoughts and opinions fueled by racism and sexism arose about her future performance as a Justice.
Many people questioned Sotomayor based on her race, the fact that she was Puerto Rican, Latina. People believed this would mean if a case involving illegal immigration were to be brought to the Supreme Court, she would be soft on immigrants seeing as her parents moved to the States from Puerto Rico before she was born.
While at Princeton, Sotomayor was a loud advocate for minorities, and some people were scared that this passion for minority justice would go too far.
In a Los Angeles Times article about Sotomayor, a former clerk to Justice Thomas said “It is perfectly appropriate for people to bring their life experience to their judging, but there's a difference between having that perspective and being able to put one thumb on the scale to benefit one group over another.”
None of the faculty at Yale Law School was Latino, one was black, and two were women. Sotomayor didn’t like this. And after becoming a judge in New York some time later, Sotomayor has also been quoted, as saying it was "shocking" that there were not more minority women on the federal bench.
It is apparent through her years as a federal judge, however, that her personal sentiments have not shown up in the hundreds and hundreds of cases she’s decided.
Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer with a Supreme Court specialty, said he had reviewed 50 appeals involving race in which Sotomayor participated. In 45 of those cases, a three-judge panel rejected the discrimination claim -- and Sotomayor never once dissented, he said (LA Times, 31 May 2009).
Then came the day when President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor, a nomination that didn’t really come out of left field seeing as she was amazingly qualified and had a great record.
However, as soon as the public and media saw a Latina Woman nominated for the Supreme Court, thoughts and opinions fueled by racism and sexism arose about her future performance as a Justice.
Many people questioned Sotomayor based on her race, the fact that she was Puerto Rican, Latina. People believed this would mean if a case involving illegal immigration were to be brought to the Supreme Court, she would be soft on immigrants seeing as her parents moved to the States from Puerto Rico before she was born.
While at Princeton, Sotomayor was a loud advocate for minorities, and some people were scared that this passion for minority justice would go too far.
In a Los Angeles Times article about Sotomayor, a former clerk to Justice Thomas said “It is perfectly appropriate for people to bring their life experience to their judging, but there's a difference between having that perspective and being able to put one thumb on the scale to benefit one group over another.”
None of the faculty at Yale Law School was Latino, one was black, and two were women. Sotomayor didn’t like this. And after becoming a judge in New York some time later, Sotomayor has also been quoted, as saying it was "shocking" that there were not more minority women on the federal bench.
It is apparent through her years as a federal judge, however, that her personal sentiments have not shown up in the hundreds and hundreds of cases she’s decided.
Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer with a Supreme Court specialty, said he had reviewed 50 appeals involving race in which Sotomayor participated. In 45 of those cases, a three-judge panel rejected the discrimination claim -- and Sotomayor never once dissented, he said (LA Times, 31 May 2009).
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Post #21
The National Association for Female Correctional Officers website addresses issues that are significant to its members. The National Association of Female Correctional Officers is a nonprofit organization “dedicated to improving working conditions in prisons, jails and correctional facilities in the United States.”
The first legislative agenda that they address is “To Enact Legislation that Would Help Stop Female Officers From Being Raped and Sexually Assaulted While On Duty” and would like to do so by enacting "The Rape and Sexual Assault Of Female Correctional Officers Elimination Act of 2008.”
Rape and violence are issues that female correctional officers are faced with every day at work, and Britton goes into great detail about this. She believes that female correctional officers should not have to be faced with the fear of rape and sexual harassment at work. I completely agree and support this legislation. Female correctional officers should not have to worry from day to day whether or not they will be sexually harassed or abused by inmates or even fellow co-workers. And there definitely should be a zero-tolerance standard enforced. I also agree that prison officials should be held more accountable for not enforcing standards for inmates and employees regarding sexual abuse.
This Legislation would (according to the NAFCO site):
- Establish a zero-tolerance standard for the incidence of rape and sexual assault of female correctional officers and employees in prisons and jails in the United States
- Make the prevention of rape and sexual assault against female correctional officers a top priority in each prison and jail system
- Develop and implement national standards for the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment of female correctional officers and employees
- Increase the available data and information on the incidence of rape and sexual assault against female correctional officers and employees,
- Increase the accountability of prison officials who fail to detect, prevent, reduce, and punish the rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment of female correctional officers and employees
- Require the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute all rapes and sexual assaults of female correctional officers and employees
- Provide federal grants to state and local governments to prosecute sexual assault and rape of female correctional officers and employees;
- Provide federal grants to state and local governments to provide female correctional officers with access to safety and defense equipment, including but not limited to puncture resistant vests designed for females and electronic control devices
The first legislative agenda that they address is “To Enact Legislation that Would Help Stop Female Officers From Being Raped and Sexually Assaulted While On Duty” and would like to do so by enacting "The Rape and Sexual Assault Of Female Correctional Officers Elimination Act of 2008.”
Rape and violence are issues that female correctional officers are faced with every day at work, and Britton goes into great detail about this. She believes that female correctional officers should not have to be faced with the fear of rape and sexual harassment at work. I completely agree and support this legislation. Female correctional officers should not have to worry from day to day whether or not they will be sexually harassed or abused by inmates or even fellow co-workers. And there definitely should be a zero-tolerance standard enforced. I also agree that prison officials should be held more accountable for not enforcing standards for inmates and employees regarding sexual abuse.
This Legislation would (according to the NAFCO site):
- Establish a zero-tolerance standard for the incidence of rape and sexual assault of female correctional officers and employees in prisons and jails in the United States
- Make the prevention of rape and sexual assault against female correctional officers a top priority in each prison and jail system
- Develop and implement national standards for the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment of female correctional officers and employees
- Increase the available data and information on the incidence of rape and sexual assault against female correctional officers and employees,
- Increase the accountability of prison officials who fail to detect, prevent, reduce, and punish the rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment of female correctional officers and employees
- Require the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute all rapes and sexual assaults of female correctional officers and employees
- Provide federal grants to state and local governments to prosecute sexual assault and rape of female correctional officers and employees;
- Provide federal grants to state and local governments to provide female correctional officers with access to safety and defense equipment, including but not limited to puncture resistant vests designed for females and electronic control devices
Post #20
The 2004 hostage crisis at Lewis Prison covered by Phoenix Magazine verifies and reflects many points of Britton’s study.
The first point that is reflected is the violence that correctional officers face in their job, and the fear that comes with facing this violence. Fraley, the female officer taken hostage, was raped by two male inmates and then held hostage in a tower in the prison for 15 days. The assumptions one can make about why Fraley had been chosen as a victim can stem from the inmates believing they could take advantage of her because she was a woman; they could exert their power over her.
The second point that is reflected is how Schriro was doubted from the beginning in how she handled the hostage situation because she was a woman in a leadership position. This reflects Britton’s claim that prisons are gendered organizations. The prison system had previous been run by men, the “keepers” and “turnkeys,” who subscribed to the mantra of “lock [prisoners] up and throw out the key.” Schriro, however, wanted to give prisoners a chance to rehabilitate themselves. Other prison leaders believed that Schriro was not performing her job to the best of her ability, but it is noted in the articles that Schriro was the first prison director to get everyone out of the hostage situation alive.
Britton discusses “keepers” and “turnkeys” as being officers in the earliest prisons whose duties were almost exactly that of keeping prisoners and turning the key on their cell. The Phoenix magazine coverage alludes to the fact that the men who had run the prison prior to Schriro had subscribed to this theory of being “keepers” and “turnkeys” and had not really trained guards on other factors that could come into play in their work. I think that an good example that prisons need to turn away from this though process is shown by the officer held hostage and also by how Schriro used what she knew about prisoner behavior to try and understand and predict what the prisoners would do next. Fraley began to reason with the inmates who were holding her hostage, telling them lies to make her seem more human and relatable. Both of these tactics could be seen as more stereotypically “feminine” because they deal with emotions and intuition, something that is essentially not taught to people wanting to become correctional officers. Training tends to focus more on violent outbreaks and how to deal with them, and this is taught to both men and women. The women in the article, however, used their natural abilities to get through the situation. These tactics are not taught in training.
Britton claims that a prison is a total institution because it lies completely outside of society. Whatever happens inside stays inside and affects all who are associated. This kind of plays of the whole “lock them up and throw out the key” ideology. Schriro is definitely an advocate of the opposite, letting inmates work and offer something to society. Also, the prison can be seen as a total institution just in the way it runs. The inmates and guards only really interact with other inmates and guards, and when a crisis such as the one at the Lewis Prison breaks out it affects everyone within the prison, not just those immediately involved. Plus, inmates are involuntarily part of a prison.
Because of society’s perceptions of prison guards, the job of a prison guard in engendered. Prison guards are thought of as “a hulking man in uniform carrying a nightstick or even a gun… brutal and sadistic… someone who would be able to deal easily with unruly inmates… to meet violence with violence.” Training also works along the lines of engendering the job of a prison guard, especially because it tends to focus mostly on the physical aspect of the job and quelling violence. Like the PowerPoint presentation said, “Even more egalitarian men think women can handle the job unless things become overtly physical.” Britton alludes to the fact that assignments deemed “too dangerous or threatening” for women are assigned to men and that there is this unwritten consensus that women should not be placed in certain assignments, even those in prison leadership.
Britton’s suggestion, or conclusion, is that training should focus on the differences between male and female correctional officers and the differences between male and female inmates as well. I guess that if training focused not solely on physical training for violent outbreaks it would’ve helped with the hostage situation. Shriro’s position in making sure that all officers are up to standards I think is more what needs to happen. Making sure that officers know what standards they are being held to is extremely important, and also making sure these standards are uniform across gender is important.
The first point that is reflected is the violence that correctional officers face in their job, and the fear that comes with facing this violence. Fraley, the female officer taken hostage, was raped by two male inmates and then held hostage in a tower in the prison for 15 days. The assumptions one can make about why Fraley had been chosen as a victim can stem from the inmates believing they could take advantage of her because she was a woman; they could exert their power over her.
The second point that is reflected is how Schriro was doubted from the beginning in how she handled the hostage situation because she was a woman in a leadership position. This reflects Britton’s claim that prisons are gendered organizations. The prison system had previous been run by men, the “keepers” and “turnkeys,” who subscribed to the mantra of “lock [prisoners] up and throw out the key.” Schriro, however, wanted to give prisoners a chance to rehabilitate themselves. Other prison leaders believed that Schriro was not performing her job to the best of her ability, but it is noted in the articles that Schriro was the first prison director to get everyone out of the hostage situation alive.
Britton discusses “keepers” and “turnkeys” as being officers in the earliest prisons whose duties were almost exactly that of keeping prisoners and turning the key on their cell. The Phoenix magazine coverage alludes to the fact that the men who had run the prison prior to Schriro had subscribed to this theory of being “keepers” and “turnkeys” and had not really trained guards on other factors that could come into play in their work. I think that an good example that prisons need to turn away from this though process is shown by the officer held hostage and also by how Schriro used what she knew about prisoner behavior to try and understand and predict what the prisoners would do next. Fraley began to reason with the inmates who were holding her hostage, telling them lies to make her seem more human and relatable. Both of these tactics could be seen as more stereotypically “feminine” because they deal with emotions and intuition, something that is essentially not taught to people wanting to become correctional officers. Training tends to focus more on violent outbreaks and how to deal with them, and this is taught to both men and women. The women in the article, however, used their natural abilities to get through the situation. These tactics are not taught in training.
Britton claims that a prison is a total institution because it lies completely outside of society. Whatever happens inside stays inside and affects all who are associated. This kind of plays of the whole “lock them up and throw out the key” ideology. Schriro is definitely an advocate of the opposite, letting inmates work and offer something to society. Also, the prison can be seen as a total institution just in the way it runs. The inmates and guards only really interact with other inmates and guards, and when a crisis such as the one at the Lewis Prison breaks out it affects everyone within the prison, not just those immediately involved. Plus, inmates are involuntarily part of a prison.
Because of society’s perceptions of prison guards, the job of a prison guard in engendered. Prison guards are thought of as “a hulking man in uniform carrying a nightstick or even a gun… brutal and sadistic… someone who would be able to deal easily with unruly inmates… to meet violence with violence.” Training also works along the lines of engendering the job of a prison guard, especially because it tends to focus mostly on the physical aspect of the job and quelling violence. Like the PowerPoint presentation said, “Even more egalitarian men think women can handle the job unless things become overtly physical.” Britton alludes to the fact that assignments deemed “too dangerous or threatening” for women are assigned to men and that there is this unwritten consensus that women should not be placed in certain assignments, even those in prison leadership.
Britton’s suggestion, or conclusion, is that training should focus on the differences between male and female correctional officers and the differences between male and female inmates as well. I guess that if training focused not solely on physical training for violent outbreaks it would’ve helped with the hostage situation. Shriro’s position in making sure that all officers are up to standards I think is more what needs to happen. Making sure that officers know what standards they are being held to is extremely important, and also making sure these standards are uniform across gender is important.
Post #19
Geena Davis points out that over the past 15 years, media’s depiction of females in general has not changed, and she also points out that for ever four characters in cartoons and G-rated movies, 3 of them are male and 1 is female. Davis also speaks about her film Thelma and Louise, and how the public and reviewers’ reactions to the film where women carried around guns was clear outrage. If women were carrying guns around, the world was falling apart.
There is no surprise then, why women have been pushed away from becoming correctional officers in prisons. Male correctional officers did not believe that women would not be able to appropriately handle the violence of a job as prison guard. However, men have come to see women as vital assets for employment in the prison system, as long as they can perform the work involved.
The majority of women employed by prisons are administrative aids, not guards. This is a throw back to stereotypical gender roles. Women are better at clerical work where they are told what needs to be done, not hands-on work where anything can happen and violence is perceived to be a natural outcome.
Britton found through her book that female correctional officers are more likely to be placed in assignments were the potential for violence is low. This means that, even though these women have passed the same physical examinations as male guards, they are not able to accurately show that they can use physical force in quelling violence in the prison. Women do not question this position, so they claim a gendered identity at work. They are not able to advance to positions in the prison where they would be more likely to use physical violence or self defense because they do not ask to be put there.
There is no surprise then, why women have been pushed away from becoming correctional officers in prisons. Male correctional officers did not believe that women would not be able to appropriately handle the violence of a job as prison guard. However, men have come to see women as vital assets for employment in the prison system, as long as they can perform the work involved.
The majority of women employed by prisons are administrative aids, not guards. This is a throw back to stereotypical gender roles. Women are better at clerical work where they are told what needs to be done, not hands-on work where anything can happen and violence is perceived to be a natural outcome.
Britton found through her book that female correctional officers are more likely to be placed in assignments were the potential for violence is low. This means that, even though these women have passed the same physical examinations as male guards, they are not able to accurately show that they can use physical force in quelling violence in the prison. Women do not question this position, so they claim a gendered identity at work. They are not able to advance to positions in the prison where they would be more likely to use physical violence or self defense because they do not ask to be put there.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Post #18
Britton argues that the norm becomes masculine when institutions attempt to establish gender-neutral policies and practices.
Because men head the vast majority of prisons, and the vast majority of those employed by prisons are male, the norms of prisons become masculine. The job of a correctional officer is viewed as a masculine job because society views it as being a job that deals with violence and danger, something men are supposedly better equipped to deal with than women.
When officers go through officer training, they are only taught how to deal with stereotypical masculine behaviors such as violence and assertiveness. Training promotes masculinity and skills society associates with being masculine.
The problem is that the training for a correctional officer does not involve training on emotional violence or problems, but more on physical, hands-on training one would need for violent outbreaks. This discrepancy in training can be seen in how correctional officers view inmates. Male inmates are seen as potentially violent and dangerous. Female inmates are “criers, liars, and manipulators.” So if officers are only being trained to deal with physical violence, they are left empty handed when emotion comes into play.
During training, members of both sexes drop out due to the violence associated with the job. Women left for fear of being hurt at work. Men, however, did not admit to this fear of violence, but most likely they left because of it. Training that incites fear, such as the training these officers go through, only deters people from going through with becoming a correctional officer. People do not want to be exposed to violence.
Males and females are treated differently in prisons once they are officers as well. Male inmates seem to respect female guards more than males because they could be seen as positive female figures, possibly motherly figures. Female inmates tend to disrespect female officers and turn to male officers as possibly fatherly figures of authority.
Because men head the vast majority of prisons, and the vast majority of those employed by prisons are male, the norms of prisons become masculine. The job of a correctional officer is viewed as a masculine job because society views it as being a job that deals with violence and danger, something men are supposedly better equipped to deal with than women.
When officers go through officer training, they are only taught how to deal with stereotypical masculine behaviors such as violence and assertiveness. Training promotes masculinity and skills society associates with being masculine.
The problem is that the training for a correctional officer does not involve training on emotional violence or problems, but more on physical, hands-on training one would need for violent outbreaks. This discrepancy in training can be seen in how correctional officers view inmates. Male inmates are seen as potentially violent and dangerous. Female inmates are “criers, liars, and manipulators.” So if officers are only being trained to deal with physical violence, they are left empty handed when emotion comes into play.
During training, members of both sexes drop out due to the violence associated with the job. Women left for fear of being hurt at work. Men, however, did not admit to this fear of violence, but most likely they left because of it. Training that incites fear, such as the training these officers go through, only deters people from going through with becoming a correctional officer. People do not want to be exposed to violence.
Males and females are treated differently in prisons once they are officers as well. Male inmates seem to respect female guards more than males because they could be seen as positive female figures, possibly motherly figures. Female inmates tend to disrespect female officers and turn to male officers as possibly fatherly figures of authority.
Post #17
The NBC documentary, “Lockup—Inside North Carolina Women’s Prison” has arguments that are very similar to those of the Britton book. However, there are some differences between them. I honestly was a bit surprised and disturbed by the documentary.
In regards to relationships between officers and inmates, Britton says that officers take one of two stances. They either believe that the inmates are human and deserve to be treated as such, or they believe that inmates are too privileged. Either way, officers must be weary of the relationships they develop with the inmates they are supposed to be watching. I think the documentary showed the relationship between officers and inmates in both ways. First, there was the officer that told one inmate that her packet of ketchup was contraband. This would be an example of Britton’s position that officers may believe that inmates are too privileged. Next there was the example of the officer getting her hair cut by an inmate in the prison’s Cosmo program. She believed the inmate was human and treated her as such by letting the inmate cut her hair. She also compared it to being in the real world getting a haircut.
Britton also says that officers who become too friendly with inmates may lose respect with other inmates because they appear to have favorites. One of the inmates in the video alluded to having inappropriate relations with officers and trading sexual relations for money, food, etc. The overseer of the prison said that the few times that an officer had become involved with inmates an investigation was conducted.
However, a positive relationship that officers have with inmates is hearing about inmates’ lives after leaving prison. One of the officers in the documentary said that it was nice to hear about women getting jobs and improving their lives, and how it was sad to see repeat offenders.
There were some essentialized assumptions exhibited by the officers in the documentary, especially in regards to the maximum-security inmates, or the segregated inmates. Many of these inmates were seen as potentially violent and were forced to wear handcuffs and shackles on their ankles, and were also only let out of their individual cells for only 45 minutes a day. According to officers that Britton interviewed, inmates are seen as being emotional, liars, and manipulators. I think the emotional side was definitely shown with the relationships that the inmates had made with each other. The overseer of the prison alluded to the fact that this was something that was unique with women. The one inmate that was put in segregation because of a fight with another inmate and the resulting separation from her “girlfriend” exemplified another example of the emotional nature of women. The one aforementioned inmate who had inappropriate relations with officers, getting them to perform sexual acts and getting money out of it, could be seen as exemplifying the manipulating nature of women.
Britton mentions that the race of officers did not cause them to confront different situations in both male and female prisons. Because of the high concentration of minority inmates, it was through that minority officers would be more apt to befriend inmates. The race of the officers did not have any affect on situations within prisons. The documentary really made no mention of race other than a few inmates claiming that the fact they were black was a strike against them. In general, it seemed as though sex was a more apparent characteristic that caused officers to confront different situations. The male officer in the documentary explained how he had to be followed by a fellow female guard at al times, especially when he was in the dormitory. He also had to alert the female inmates to his presence when entering a dormitory or different part of the building by yelling “male in the building.” He alluded to the fact that being a male officer in a female prison was difficult.
Britton doesn’t really touch on social control, but forms of social control were shown in the documentary. Inmates were placed in segregated cells when they acted out, where they were forced to stay inside for 23 hours out of the day. The fear of being segregated from the rest of the inmate population forced inmates to stay on good behavior. Plus, when these segregated inmates got out of their cell for 45 minutes, they were placed in outdoor cells with handcuffs and leg shackles. One of the inmates compared her situation to being in a dog cage.
In regards to relationships between officers and inmates, Britton says that officers take one of two stances. They either believe that the inmates are human and deserve to be treated as such, or they believe that inmates are too privileged. Either way, officers must be weary of the relationships they develop with the inmates they are supposed to be watching. I think the documentary showed the relationship between officers and inmates in both ways. First, there was the officer that told one inmate that her packet of ketchup was contraband. This would be an example of Britton’s position that officers may believe that inmates are too privileged. Next there was the example of the officer getting her hair cut by an inmate in the prison’s Cosmo program. She believed the inmate was human and treated her as such by letting the inmate cut her hair. She also compared it to being in the real world getting a haircut.
Britton also says that officers who become too friendly with inmates may lose respect with other inmates because they appear to have favorites. One of the inmates in the video alluded to having inappropriate relations with officers and trading sexual relations for money, food, etc. The overseer of the prison said that the few times that an officer had become involved with inmates an investigation was conducted.
However, a positive relationship that officers have with inmates is hearing about inmates’ lives after leaving prison. One of the officers in the documentary said that it was nice to hear about women getting jobs and improving their lives, and how it was sad to see repeat offenders.
There were some essentialized assumptions exhibited by the officers in the documentary, especially in regards to the maximum-security inmates, or the segregated inmates. Many of these inmates were seen as potentially violent and were forced to wear handcuffs and shackles on their ankles, and were also only let out of their individual cells for only 45 minutes a day. According to officers that Britton interviewed, inmates are seen as being emotional, liars, and manipulators. I think the emotional side was definitely shown with the relationships that the inmates had made with each other. The overseer of the prison alluded to the fact that this was something that was unique with women. The one inmate that was put in segregation because of a fight with another inmate and the resulting separation from her “girlfriend” exemplified another example of the emotional nature of women. The one aforementioned inmate who had inappropriate relations with officers, getting them to perform sexual acts and getting money out of it, could be seen as exemplifying the manipulating nature of women.
Britton mentions that the race of officers did not cause them to confront different situations in both male and female prisons. Because of the high concentration of minority inmates, it was through that minority officers would be more apt to befriend inmates. The race of the officers did not have any affect on situations within prisons. The documentary really made no mention of race other than a few inmates claiming that the fact they were black was a strike against them. In general, it seemed as though sex was a more apparent characteristic that caused officers to confront different situations. The male officer in the documentary explained how he had to be followed by a fellow female guard at al times, especially when he was in the dormitory. He also had to alert the female inmates to his presence when entering a dormitory or different part of the building by yelling “male in the building.” He alluded to the fact that being a male officer in a female prison was difficult.
Britton doesn’t really touch on social control, but forms of social control were shown in the documentary. Inmates were placed in segregated cells when they acted out, where they were forced to stay inside for 23 hours out of the day. The fear of being segregated from the rest of the inmate population forced inmates to stay on good behavior. Plus, when these segregated inmates got out of their cell for 45 minutes, they were placed in outdoor cells with handcuffs and leg shackles. One of the inmates compared her situation to being in a dog cage.
Post #16
Britton explains that the pathway to becoming a correctional officer differs between individuals and between the genders.
The one consensus that both men and women came to was that they did not expect to become correctional officers, they weren’t working or aspiring to become one.
Britton saw that there was a difference in the type of work that men and women had before turning to a job as a correctional officer. Many men were prior military personnel or in a field in which they physically exerted themselves daily. Women, on the other hand, held mostly clerical, office-type jobs or positions in childcare.
Women were more drawn to a job as a correctional officer after seeing the benefits, retirement opportunities and reasonable pay, especially after being newly divorced.
There are a few appealing aspects about a job as a correctional officer. First, prisons are located in more rural areas where jobs with good pay and benefits are far and few between. Second, prerequisites for being a correctional officer are only having a high school diploma or GED and passing a standardized exam and going through training academies.
Social networks push men and women in different directions when it comes to employment. Women are not encouraged to go into the field of criminal justice and especially not into being a police officer or prison guard. Women are discouraged from this field because it is seen as being dangerous or a masculine field. Women’s fear of violence and the stereotype that women are not violent beings keeps women from being pushed into this field of work. Men also are not pushed into this field, and almost take a job as a correctional officer as a last resort. Society in general does not market the job of a correctional officer to either sex.
The one consensus that both men and women came to was that they did not expect to become correctional officers, they weren’t working or aspiring to become one.
Britton saw that there was a difference in the type of work that men and women had before turning to a job as a correctional officer. Many men were prior military personnel or in a field in which they physically exerted themselves daily. Women, on the other hand, held mostly clerical, office-type jobs or positions in childcare.
Women were more drawn to a job as a correctional officer after seeing the benefits, retirement opportunities and reasonable pay, especially after being newly divorced.
There are a few appealing aspects about a job as a correctional officer. First, prisons are located in more rural areas where jobs with good pay and benefits are far and few between. Second, prerequisites for being a correctional officer are only having a high school diploma or GED and passing a standardized exam and going through training academies.
Social networks push men and women in different directions when it comes to employment. Women are not encouraged to go into the field of criminal justice and especially not into being a police officer or prison guard. Women are discouraged from this field because it is seen as being dangerous or a masculine field. Women’s fear of violence and the stereotype that women are not violent beings keeps women from being pushed into this field of work. Men also are not pushed into this field, and almost take a job as a correctional officer as a last resort. Society in general does not market the job of a correctional officer to either sex.
Post #15
As we’ve read, the United States prison system has come a long way since its beginning, and women are playing larger and larger roles in the system as time progresses both as prison guards, or correctional officers, and as prisoners.
Over the last 25 years, women have been incarcerated at a much higher rate than men. Women were imprisoned for misdemeanors like promiscuity, “waywardness,” or disorderly conduct. Incarcerated women were forced to perform work that was stereotypically female, like sewing, gardening and cooking. This is the opposite of incarcerated men who were forced into manual labor, chain gangs and subjected to harsh beatings if they stepped out of the enforced conformity. Incarcerated women were viewed as being abnormal, masculinized, not true women because they had been violent and committed crime, not a female trait. Women were taught to be domestic workers and trained as servants. Female prison reformers came in to mostly combat the rape of female prisoners. These reformers wanted women to be separated from men and wanted them to be overseen by women. The argument, according to Professor Romero’s slideshow was that “because men are less often than women the victims of sexual assault, men guarding women is more disconcerting than women guarding men.”
Now, women have entered into the prison system as correctional officers. Originally, women were excluded from this job, and even men took it as more of a last resort. It was thought that men could actually perform the job and that it was too dangerous for women. Because of the United States’ taking on the Auburn Prison Model, which encouraged brutality and physical discipline, women were pushed away from being guards. It was only because of these abuses that women were initially let into prisons to serve as “matrons” who would supervise and act as mentors and surrogate mothers to prisoners. Women were also not allowed to guard male prisoners until late in the game. Now, both men and women guard both sexes.
If we take a look at Arizona’s correctional history, we see that it followed the rest of the nation in focusing more on male prisoners initially. Now, Arizona tries to get more women working in prisons and jails. More women are also being imprisoned as well. However, men are still disproportionately imprisoned over women in Arizona. Arizona utilized chain gangs, and still does, with the help of people like Sheriff Joe Arpaio. In Arizona, because of prison overcrowding, prisoners are forced to build their own prisons.
Over the last 25 years, women have been incarcerated at a much higher rate than men. Women were imprisoned for misdemeanors like promiscuity, “waywardness,” or disorderly conduct. Incarcerated women were forced to perform work that was stereotypically female, like sewing, gardening and cooking. This is the opposite of incarcerated men who were forced into manual labor, chain gangs and subjected to harsh beatings if they stepped out of the enforced conformity. Incarcerated women were viewed as being abnormal, masculinized, not true women because they had been violent and committed crime, not a female trait. Women were taught to be domestic workers and trained as servants. Female prison reformers came in to mostly combat the rape of female prisoners. These reformers wanted women to be separated from men and wanted them to be overseen by women. The argument, according to Professor Romero’s slideshow was that “because men are less often than women the victims of sexual assault, men guarding women is more disconcerting than women guarding men.”
Now, women have entered into the prison system as correctional officers. Originally, women were excluded from this job, and even men took it as more of a last resort. It was thought that men could actually perform the job and that it was too dangerous for women. Because of the United States’ taking on the Auburn Prison Model, which encouraged brutality and physical discipline, women were pushed away from being guards. It was only because of these abuses that women were initially let into prisons to serve as “matrons” who would supervise and act as mentors and surrogate mothers to prisoners. Women were also not allowed to guard male prisoners until late in the game. Now, both men and women guard both sexes.
If we take a look at Arizona’s correctional history, we see that it followed the rest of the nation in focusing more on male prisoners initially. Now, Arizona tries to get more women working in prisons and jails. More women are also being imprisoned as well. However, men are still disproportionately imprisoned over women in Arizona. Arizona utilized chain gangs, and still does, with the help of people like Sheriff Joe Arpaio. In Arizona, because of prison overcrowding, prisoners are forced to build their own prisons.
Post #14
Britton states that organizations are completely gendered and these gendered organizations exist because of the combination of their organizational structure, culture, and agency. Britton argues that the combination of these three factors contributes to the gender wage gap and limits put on women who pursue non-traditional careers.
Organization gendering is affected by the organizational structure, which is based on the division of labor between private labor and public labor. This is what Britton means when she states “organizations are gendered at the level of structure.” Britton says “in a very basic sense, organizations build on and reproduce a division of labor between the public and private spheres, between production and reproduction” (p. 7). Organizations, according to Britton, rigidly separate the work lives and “private” lives of their employees, but this separation or division only applies to an ideal person. Because women are considered responsible for domestic labor, including childcare and housework, their private lives often “spill over into their working days” which isn’t ideal. So work, according to Britton, is “based on notions about gender and sustain[s] its reproduction.” This means that women are forced to search for jobs that will accommodate their needs and must sometimes compromise upward job mobility. But, this excludes women from pursuing jobs that pay higher wages, because most require workers for certain hours and do not tolerate the intertwining of private and public spheres. One of the women Britton interviewed said that when she was put up for promotion, she declined because she felt as though she had no time for herself or her family. Policymakers have tried to focus on these issues by passing such bills as the Family Medical Leave Act, which allows people to leave work to care for ailing family members.
Organizations culturally reproduce gender stereotypes through “images, symbols, and ideologies that justify, explain, and give legitimacy to” an organization. A great example that Britton used was the idea/image of the military being the “place where boys are turned into men.”
Gendered organizations also employ agency. Agency includes “all the interactions in which workers are involved that intentionally or not, invoke gender or reproduce gender inequality, as well as processes of identity construction through which individuals come to see themselves as ‘appropriately’ gendered through their work.” Essentially this involves men and women working in their own gender-based interest. It is essentially upholding hegemonic notions. Examples of this include, as Britton suggests, sexual harassment and denying job training. Agency could also be considered “doing gender” or considering themselves the example of feminine or masculine.
Organization gendering is affected by the organizational structure, which is based on the division of labor between private labor and public labor. This is what Britton means when she states “organizations are gendered at the level of structure.” Britton says “in a very basic sense, organizations build on and reproduce a division of labor between the public and private spheres, between production and reproduction” (p. 7). Organizations, according to Britton, rigidly separate the work lives and “private” lives of their employees, but this separation or division only applies to an ideal person. Because women are considered responsible for domestic labor, including childcare and housework, their private lives often “spill over into their working days” which isn’t ideal. So work, according to Britton, is “based on notions about gender and sustain[s] its reproduction.” This means that women are forced to search for jobs that will accommodate their needs and must sometimes compromise upward job mobility. But, this excludes women from pursuing jobs that pay higher wages, because most require workers for certain hours and do not tolerate the intertwining of private and public spheres. One of the women Britton interviewed said that when she was put up for promotion, she declined because she felt as though she had no time for herself or her family. Policymakers have tried to focus on these issues by passing such bills as the Family Medical Leave Act, which allows people to leave work to care for ailing family members.
Organizations culturally reproduce gender stereotypes through “images, symbols, and ideologies that justify, explain, and give legitimacy to” an organization. A great example that Britton used was the idea/image of the military being the “place where boys are turned into men.”
Gendered organizations also employ agency. Agency includes “all the interactions in which workers are involved that intentionally or not, invoke gender or reproduce gender inequality, as well as processes of identity construction through which individuals come to see themselves as ‘appropriately’ gendered through their work.” Essentially this involves men and women working in their own gender-based interest. It is essentially upholding hegemonic notions. Examples of this include, as Britton suggests, sexual harassment and denying job training. Agency could also be considered “doing gender” or considering themselves the example of feminine or masculine.
Post #13
Britton’s opening comments in At Work in the Iron Cage play off society’s belief that the job of a prison guard is for a man.
As Britton says, when we imagine a prison guard we almost automatically envision “a hulking man in uniform carrying a nightstick or even a gun… brutal and sadistic… someone who would be able to deal easily with unruly inmates… to meet violence with violence.”
These views of a “typical” prison guard are completely mirrored in popular media. Britton references films like Penitentiary, Cool Hand Luke, Brubaker and ConAir which all reflect our stereotypical view of a prison guard. Look at the remake of The Longest Yard, in which Adam Sandler’s character puts together a football team with fellow inmates to play against a team comprised of the prison guards. All the prison guards are huge, bulky, heavily muscular men.
The problem here is that all these images are of men. Women are pretty much nowhere to be found, even though the number of female prison guards rose in the last decade. According to Britton, as of 1995, 19% of all correctional officers were women.
The media portrays female prison guards as having some of those aforementioned male characteristics. They seem to be overweight, more masculine, tough women. They exhibit what we would say are masculine traits. These images are far and few between in popular media because as a society it is generally accepted that the position of a correctional officer is a traditionally male job.
The job of a prison guard is considered to be dangerous, and because of the violence associated with the prisoners help in penitentiaries, it has been accepted that prisons are not the place for women to work. Women are not supposed to be violent or associated with violence, according to the hegemonic views we have of women.
I feel like there can be differences between images of male correctional officers in male prisons and those in female prisons. Male officers in female facilities are generally feared because of many reports having to do with sexual abuse. So the image that comes to mind of these men is that of a sexual abuser. Women are fearful of their guards and retaliation that may come if they report sexual misconduct. Personally, I would like to see more women as correctional officers in female facilities.
As Britton says, when we imagine a prison guard we almost automatically envision “a hulking man in uniform carrying a nightstick or even a gun… brutal and sadistic… someone who would be able to deal easily with unruly inmates… to meet violence with violence.”
These views of a “typical” prison guard are completely mirrored in popular media. Britton references films like Penitentiary, Cool Hand Luke, Brubaker and ConAir which all reflect our stereotypical view of a prison guard. Look at the remake of The Longest Yard, in which Adam Sandler’s character puts together a football team with fellow inmates to play against a team comprised of the prison guards. All the prison guards are huge, bulky, heavily muscular men.
The problem here is that all these images are of men. Women are pretty much nowhere to be found, even though the number of female prison guards rose in the last decade. According to Britton, as of 1995, 19% of all correctional officers were women.
The media portrays female prison guards as having some of those aforementioned male characteristics. They seem to be overweight, more masculine, tough women. They exhibit what we would say are masculine traits. These images are far and few between in popular media because as a society it is generally accepted that the position of a correctional officer is a traditionally male job.
The job of a prison guard is considered to be dangerous, and because of the violence associated with the prisoners help in penitentiaries, it has been accepted that prisons are not the place for women to work. Women are not supposed to be violent or associated with violence, according to the hegemonic views we have of women.
I feel like there can be differences between images of male correctional officers in male prisons and those in female prisons. Male officers in female facilities are generally feared because of many reports having to do with sexual abuse. So the image that comes to mind of these men is that of a sexual abuser. Women are fearful of their guards and retaliation that may come if they report sexual misconduct. Personally, I would like to see more women as correctional officers in female facilities.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Post #12
Occupational segregation still exists in our society because it has become engrained into the social structure. Occupational segregation exists because of differences, whether they are stereotypical, gender, racial, biological, economic or social.
Gender segregation specifically in the job market happens when stereotypes and preconceived notions about gender are used to determine what jobs men will perform well and what jobs women will perform well.
The cause of the gender wage gap can be attributed more to occupational segregation, and using stereotypes and discrimination before someone even holds a job, than pay discrimination within jobs.
“Gender” results from the socially constructed ideas about the behavior, actions, and roles a particular sex performs.
Of course gender socialization plays a large role in occupational segregation.
From the moment children are born we assign their gender—blue for boys and pink for girls. Toys for children are completely gendered—girls get kitchens and baby dolls while boys are given trucks and guns. Girls are taught to be loving, compassionate, caring, nurturing, and sympathetic. Boys are taught to be assertive, competitive, independent, courageous, and career-focused. Boys and Girls are taught to follow and exhibit these stereotypical traits. Gender roles are engrained into children’s minds from an extremely young age and everyone has a hand in socializing children to gender. We force our children to conform to gender “norms.” When a girl exhibits “male characteristics” or a boy exhibits “female characteristics” they are seen as deviant and challenging hegemony.
Girls are pushed to be teachers and caregivers while boys are pushed to be scientists and leaders. So when a woman decides to become a politician, she is seen as being deviant, deviating from the norm, as resisting the socially accepted and promoted role she is supposedly supposed to serve.
This is what has led to occupational segregation along gender lines. Because girls are supposed to be loving, compassionate, caring and nurturing, they should seek jobs in which these traits will be maximized. Therefore, being a scientist is not something that fits with being caring and loving; being a teacher or nurse, however, does.
According to an article by Today’s Workplace, “women do not get promoted to such powerful professional positions is because stereotypes in the workplace pose serious challenges to women’s career advancement. Stereotypes that impede women’s advancement include “a woman’s job is only supposed to supplement a man’s,” “women are not aggressive enough,” and “women are not as good at problem solving.” Today’s Workplace also says “studies show that women are often stereotyped as the ones who “take care” while men are stereotyped as the ones who “take charge.”
Personally, I believe that no one has anything to lose from gender diversity in all sectors of the workforce, only things to gain. Men and women could benefit from experiencing different perspectives on issues.
Gender segregation specifically in the job market happens when stereotypes and preconceived notions about gender are used to determine what jobs men will perform well and what jobs women will perform well.
The cause of the gender wage gap can be attributed more to occupational segregation, and using stereotypes and discrimination before someone even holds a job, than pay discrimination within jobs.
“Gender” results from the socially constructed ideas about the behavior, actions, and roles a particular sex performs.
Of course gender socialization plays a large role in occupational segregation.
From the moment children are born we assign their gender—blue for boys and pink for girls. Toys for children are completely gendered—girls get kitchens and baby dolls while boys are given trucks and guns. Girls are taught to be loving, compassionate, caring, nurturing, and sympathetic. Boys are taught to be assertive, competitive, independent, courageous, and career-focused. Boys and Girls are taught to follow and exhibit these stereotypical traits. Gender roles are engrained into children’s minds from an extremely young age and everyone has a hand in socializing children to gender. We force our children to conform to gender “norms.” When a girl exhibits “male characteristics” or a boy exhibits “female characteristics” they are seen as deviant and challenging hegemony.
Girls are pushed to be teachers and caregivers while boys are pushed to be scientists and leaders. So when a woman decides to become a politician, she is seen as being deviant, deviating from the norm, as resisting the socially accepted and promoted role she is supposedly supposed to serve.
This is what has led to occupational segregation along gender lines. Because girls are supposed to be loving, compassionate, caring and nurturing, they should seek jobs in which these traits will be maximized. Therefore, being a scientist is not something that fits with being caring and loving; being a teacher or nurse, however, does.
According to an article by Today’s Workplace, “women do not get promoted to such powerful professional positions is because stereotypes in the workplace pose serious challenges to women’s career advancement. Stereotypes that impede women’s advancement include “a woman’s job is only supposed to supplement a man’s,” “women are not aggressive enough,” and “women are not as good at problem solving.” Today’s Workplace also says “studies show that women are often stereotyped as the ones who “take care” while men are stereotyped as the ones who “take charge.”
Personally, I believe that no one has anything to lose from gender diversity in all sectors of the workforce, only things to gain. Men and women could benefit from experiencing different perspectives on issues.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Post #11
I think that a pertinent current event/issue that is being debated in the United States that relates to the conditions of working poor women is healthcare reform.
I think that a lot of people are scared by the possibility of “government-run healthcare” and I honestly do not blame them. If working poor women can’t get their child-care subsidies paid on time or make too much money at their low-wage job to receive public services, how could we rely on the crazy bureaucracy to take charge of our healthcare system?
I am of the belief, however, that everyone deserves quality healthcare, especially those in the most desperate of situations. I do not think that poor working families should suffer because the system puts them down. Working families should not have to be forced to make ends meet and just get by. Just because someone works a low-wage job does not mean they are undeserving of being able to stay healthy.
Like it was said in one of the earlier videos we watched for the course, “the oops in life should not be able put you in the gutter.”
I really think that employers should provide healthcare as a benefit for their employees. Unions provide great benefits to their members and their families, but in states like Arizona who abide by the hypocritical “Right to Work” policy, the working poor are unable to fight for these benefits for fear of termination.
I really believe that universal healthcare would remedy some of the burden we have put on the working poor’s health costs, especially working poor women who already have more than others to swallow.
I think the problem is that as a country we have come to view the impoverished as lazy and non-working even with all the statistics and studies. We continue to refuse help to those that need it most, and I think extending healthcare benefits to the most needy would really held their situation.
I think that a lot of people are scared by the possibility of “government-run healthcare” and I honestly do not blame them. If working poor women can’t get their child-care subsidies paid on time or make too much money at their low-wage job to receive public services, how could we rely on the crazy bureaucracy to take charge of our healthcare system?
I am of the belief, however, that everyone deserves quality healthcare, especially those in the most desperate of situations. I do not think that poor working families should suffer because the system puts them down. Working families should not have to be forced to make ends meet and just get by. Just because someone works a low-wage job does not mean they are undeserving of being able to stay healthy.
Like it was said in one of the earlier videos we watched for the course, “the oops in life should not be able put you in the gutter.”
I really think that employers should provide healthcare as a benefit for their employees. Unions provide great benefits to their members and their families, but in states like Arizona who abide by the hypocritical “Right to Work” policy, the working poor are unable to fight for these benefits for fear of termination.
I really believe that universal healthcare would remedy some of the burden we have put on the working poor’s health costs, especially working poor women who already have more than others to swallow.
I think the problem is that as a country we have come to view the impoverished as lazy and non-working even with all the statistics and studies. We continue to refuse help to those that need it most, and I think extending healthcare benefits to the most needy would really held their situation.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Post #10
For the women in Chaudry’s book, life is learning to constantly adapt to the curveballs they are thrown, balance life, and becoming as flexible as they can. This includes everything from reorganizing budgets, trying to find affordable and safe childcare, and trying to organize work schedules.
Life is filled with finding balance between work and childcare situations. “Mothers in the sample spent enormous amounts of time and energy developing strategies for work and childcare”. Some women scheduled work around childcare, others schedule childcare around work, and Chaudry points out that all of the mothers had a hard time determining which to prioritize because of the importance of each.
We know that preschools and childcare centers are the best situations to have children in. However, when the government does not step up and force all childcare centers to be certified and force caregivers to be certified teachers or social workers, the centers are become unsafe for children in multiple ways. “Quality preschool programs can serve as both a balm and a developing force for children coping with the severe stresses of their family’s poverty,” Chaudry says. Why do we continue to provide substandard services to the nation’s poor?
After finishing this book, I have come to realize that the United States does not provide adequate childcare and policies for all families. The government absolutely needs to reform our welfare system and public services so that people have a chance at improving their lives. There are so many people struggling to make ends meet and live day-to-day, paycheck-to-paycheck. Chaudry argues that the government needs to increase funding for childcare programs. The government also needs to reform their policies to make life easier for single working mothers. Chaudry argues that there should be a government-approved limit on the amount of income a person can spend on childcare. Chaudry says that a family should not have to spend more than 10% of their income on childcare. If you compare that to the 18% that most families spend, being able to save the extra 8% in income could make the difference in families’ abilities to fulfill other financial obligations.
Chaudry argues that kin care was extremely important in helping mothers keep their jobs, but it was unreliable at best. Workingwomen cannot constantly expect that their family members will be able to provide permanent care for their children.
If we look at the statistics, we find that millions of children are living in poverty. One in five children in the US are impoverished, and this needs to change. Too many families fall below the poverty line. The poverty measure itself is an inadequate method for determining who deserves help and who does not. As the National Center for Children in Poverty states, “Research consistently shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice the federal poverty level to make ends meet.” This needs to change.
When their primary form of employment did not provide enough income, some women turned to alternative forms of income, unfortunately turning to drug money and possibly prostitution. This needs to change.
Welfare policy in the United States needs to be changed to help people. If it stands the way it is, we will continue to systematically force people to stay impoverished. Not only does it need to be completely reformed, it needs to be made a much easier system for families.
Chaudry argues the following:
- There needs to be an increase in the available care options and supports for families with infants;
- There needs to be more educational investments to foster early childhood development;
- There needs to be improved access to childcare systems and continuity in care needs to be promoted;
- And all eligible families must be provided with childcare assistance.
I almost feel embarrassed that the US treats millions of people like they do not matter, like they are not worth helping. I think that Chuadry’s arguments are well-founded and something needs to be done quickly if we want to see any difference in the numbers of people in poverty. The political mentality in the United States needs to change from being one of constant subordination and no support to one that sees the working poor as people too.
Life is filled with finding balance between work and childcare situations. “Mothers in the sample spent enormous amounts of time and energy developing strategies for work and childcare”. Some women scheduled work around childcare, others schedule childcare around work, and Chaudry points out that all of the mothers had a hard time determining which to prioritize because of the importance of each.
We know that preschools and childcare centers are the best situations to have children in. However, when the government does not step up and force all childcare centers to be certified and force caregivers to be certified teachers or social workers, the centers are become unsafe for children in multiple ways. “Quality preschool programs can serve as both a balm and a developing force for children coping with the severe stresses of their family’s poverty,” Chaudry says. Why do we continue to provide substandard services to the nation’s poor?
After finishing this book, I have come to realize that the United States does not provide adequate childcare and policies for all families. The government absolutely needs to reform our welfare system and public services so that people have a chance at improving their lives. There are so many people struggling to make ends meet and live day-to-day, paycheck-to-paycheck. Chaudry argues that the government needs to increase funding for childcare programs. The government also needs to reform their policies to make life easier for single working mothers. Chaudry argues that there should be a government-approved limit on the amount of income a person can spend on childcare. Chaudry says that a family should not have to spend more than 10% of their income on childcare. If you compare that to the 18% that most families spend, being able to save the extra 8% in income could make the difference in families’ abilities to fulfill other financial obligations.
Chaudry argues that kin care was extremely important in helping mothers keep their jobs, but it was unreliable at best. Workingwomen cannot constantly expect that their family members will be able to provide permanent care for their children.
If we look at the statistics, we find that millions of children are living in poverty. One in five children in the US are impoverished, and this needs to change. Too many families fall below the poverty line. The poverty measure itself is an inadequate method for determining who deserves help and who does not. As the National Center for Children in Poverty states, “Research consistently shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice the federal poverty level to make ends meet.” This needs to change.
When their primary form of employment did not provide enough income, some women turned to alternative forms of income, unfortunately turning to drug money and possibly prostitution. This needs to change.
Welfare policy in the United States needs to be changed to help people. If it stands the way it is, we will continue to systematically force people to stay impoverished. Not only does it need to be completely reformed, it needs to be made a much easier system for families.
Chaudry argues the following:
- There needs to be an increase in the available care options and supports for families with infants;
- There needs to be more educational investments to foster early childhood development;
- There needs to be improved access to childcare systems and continuity in care needs to be promoted;
- And all eligible families must be provided with childcare assistance.
I almost feel embarrassed that the US treats millions of people like they do not matter, like they are not worth helping. I think that Chuadry’s arguments are well-founded and something needs to be done quickly if we want to see any difference in the numbers of people in poverty. The political mentality in the United States needs to change from being one of constant subordination and no support to one that sees the working poor as people too.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Post #9
Around 13 million children (18% of children) in the United States are living in families that are considered poor by the federal poverty level. Between 2000 and 2005, the number of children living in poverty increased by more than 11%. Poverty has become an intergenerational problem, and the number of children living in poverty will keep growing from year to year as long as the federal government continues to not address the problem. The situation of parents is a large indicator of the future socio-economic status of their children.
Unfortunately, the current system in the United States punishes the poor and keeps them where they are. In the 1950s, it was found that families spend about a third of their income on food. This measure has become the grounds for the current poverty measure, and is very inadequate.
Poverty is still measured by multiplying food costs by three, but in reality, food comprises much less than a third of an average family’s expenses. The National Center for Children study says, “Research consistently shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice the federal poverty level to make ends meet.” Regrettably, there is no will to change the system. The poverty measure does not vary from state-to-state or between urban and rural areas, even though the cost of living from state to state and between urban and rural areas differs.
As the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) study states, “Since research is clear that poverty is the greatest threat to children’s well being, strategies that help parents succeed in the labor force can help children.” Support needs to be granted to families.
“19% of poor children lack health insurance—this is nearly double the percent of all children who lack coverage (10%).” Workers need access to benefits like health insurance, paid leave, and the ability to leave work to care for ailing family members. According to the NCCP study, “Policies such as earned income tax credits and regular increases in the minimum wage are critical to supporting income growth for low-wage workers.”
Parents need support and they need low-cost programs that will help with the development of their children. The NCCP study says “High-quality early childhood experiences can go a long way toward closing the achievement gap between poor children and their more well-off peers.”
Children across the US are living in poverty because of their family situations, and are not receiving the level of support they need to get out of their poor situation. The conditions of urban poverty, and poverty in general, are something that cannot be escaped.
Unfortunately, the current system in the United States punishes the poor and keeps them where they are. In the 1950s, it was found that families spend about a third of their income on food. This measure has become the grounds for the current poverty measure, and is very inadequate.
Poverty is still measured by multiplying food costs by three, but in reality, food comprises much less than a third of an average family’s expenses. The National Center for Children study says, “Research consistently shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice the federal poverty level to make ends meet.” Regrettably, there is no will to change the system. The poverty measure does not vary from state-to-state or between urban and rural areas, even though the cost of living from state to state and between urban and rural areas differs.
As the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) study states, “Since research is clear that poverty is the greatest threat to children’s well being, strategies that help parents succeed in the labor force can help children.” Support needs to be granted to families.
“19% of poor children lack health insurance—this is nearly double the percent of all children who lack coverage (10%).” Workers need access to benefits like health insurance, paid leave, and the ability to leave work to care for ailing family members. According to the NCCP study, “Policies such as earned income tax credits and regular increases in the minimum wage are critical to supporting income growth for low-wage workers.”
Parents need support and they need low-cost programs that will help with the development of their children. The NCCP study says “High-quality early childhood experiences can go a long way toward closing the achievement gap between poor children and their more well-off peers.”
Children across the US are living in poverty because of their family situations, and are not receiving the level of support they need to get out of their poor situation. The conditions of urban poverty, and poverty in general, are something that cannot be escaped.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Post #8
Urban poverty, according to lecture notes, is a cause of multiple factors including an increase in single mothers, welfare, and concentrated poverty, increase in the amount of crime or concern of crime, especially for children and elderly, middle class and affluence moving out of urban areas, and poor schools and diminished aspects for learning.
This sort of environment is extremely negative for raising children. With more and more fathers in these urban areas being incarcerated, children are left in homes headed by single mothers who are struggling to make ends meet.
Chaudry talks about the life of Traci, a working mother of two, and how she struggles to raise her children in such an environment. The father of her children has been in and out of jail due to drugs, and Traci and her children have lived off drug money from time to time because they did not have enough money to survive.
Traci grapples with the problems of childcare and living on welfare, much like Julia, who was mentioned in a previous post. Welfare was an unreliable system for Traci, not paying her childcare providers on time with money from her childcare subsidies.
Traci found work, but because of the $10/hour wage she received, she did not qualify to receive subsidies from welfare for better childcare and had to result in placing her children in substandard centers. Just as I said in Post #6, the Applied Research Center found that the number of uncertified childcare facilities has risen and surpassed the number of certified facilities in major urban areas which means low-income children put into these facilities are at risk health-wise and safety-wise.
Also as a result of her new job and longer hours, Traci had the burden of finding childcare within her apartment building and the money to pay for it, so that her children could be supervised. She also missed multiple days at work because she couldn’t pay for extra childcare. This is not a unique phenomenon, just as DeNice, in Professor Bravo’s slideshow points to- “If the kids are sick and sent home from school, there’s no place for them to go. The school called and said I had to get my 5-year-old daughter. I was fired.” Half the workforce, and ¾ of low-wage workers, have no paid sick days and many who do have them can’t use them to care for sick family members. This means that low-income workers cannot leave work if a child is sick. If they leave, the are threatened by job termination. Low-wage working women are caught in the catch 22 of “work can’t pay if it doesn’t last, but work can’t last if it jeopardizes kids.”
The problems Traci faces are not unique to a working mother living in urban poverty. Chaudry feels as though there is no way out of living in urban poverty. Even though some families are able to find better job opportunities and make their way out of the urban landscape, what is left for those who cannot get out is not a pretty picture. Urban poverty is a life full of crime and violence, and children are not able to safely play outside.
In the “7 Days at the Minimum Wage” videos, one of the women interviewed, Jessica, talks about how she is fearful of her neighborhood and forces her children to stay indoors when they want to play. She lives in a dangerous neighborhood and although she could move to another housing development that is cheaper, it is less safe than where she is living now. Jessica also pushes her children to do well in school so that hopefully they can succeed enough to find their way out of poverty. According to Professor Romero’s slideshow on poverty, “Research demonstrates a direct link between education level and earning potential, and one’s ability to get out of poverty.”
This sort of environment is extremely negative for raising children. With more and more fathers in these urban areas being incarcerated, children are left in homes headed by single mothers who are struggling to make ends meet.
Chaudry talks about the life of Traci, a working mother of two, and how she struggles to raise her children in such an environment. The father of her children has been in and out of jail due to drugs, and Traci and her children have lived off drug money from time to time because they did not have enough money to survive.
Traci grapples with the problems of childcare and living on welfare, much like Julia, who was mentioned in a previous post. Welfare was an unreliable system for Traci, not paying her childcare providers on time with money from her childcare subsidies.
Traci found work, but because of the $10/hour wage she received, she did not qualify to receive subsidies from welfare for better childcare and had to result in placing her children in substandard centers. Just as I said in Post #6, the Applied Research Center found that the number of uncertified childcare facilities has risen and surpassed the number of certified facilities in major urban areas which means low-income children put into these facilities are at risk health-wise and safety-wise.
Also as a result of her new job and longer hours, Traci had the burden of finding childcare within her apartment building and the money to pay for it, so that her children could be supervised. She also missed multiple days at work because she couldn’t pay for extra childcare. This is not a unique phenomenon, just as DeNice, in Professor Bravo’s slideshow points to- “If the kids are sick and sent home from school, there’s no place for them to go. The school called and said I had to get my 5-year-old daughter. I was fired.” Half the workforce, and ¾ of low-wage workers, have no paid sick days and many who do have them can’t use them to care for sick family members. This means that low-income workers cannot leave work if a child is sick. If they leave, the are threatened by job termination. Low-wage working women are caught in the catch 22 of “work can’t pay if it doesn’t last, but work can’t last if it jeopardizes kids.”
The problems Traci faces are not unique to a working mother living in urban poverty. Chaudry feels as though there is no way out of living in urban poverty. Even though some families are able to find better job opportunities and make their way out of the urban landscape, what is left for those who cannot get out is not a pretty picture. Urban poverty is a life full of crime and violence, and children are not able to safely play outside.
In the “7 Days at the Minimum Wage” videos, one of the women interviewed, Jessica, talks about how she is fearful of her neighborhood and forces her children to stay indoors when they want to play. She lives in a dangerous neighborhood and although she could move to another housing development that is cheaper, it is less safe than where she is living now. Jessica also pushes her children to do well in school so that hopefully they can succeed enough to find their way out of poverty. According to Professor Romero’s slideshow on poverty, “Research demonstrates a direct link between education level and earning potential, and one’s ability to get out of poverty.”
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Post #7
Julia constantly struggled with the childcare arrangements for her daughter Jacqueline. It is a point to note that the hardships she faced are many of the same obstacles that other women face in finding adequate care for their children when their income is low.
Even though Julia was making a concerted effort to return to school so she could hopefully get a better job and support her family, she constantly struggled with finding and affording childcare.
Initially, Julia was able to rely on her children’s father. She then ended her relationship with him and him to leave. She was then faced with having to turn to family to help her care for her children. Julia turned to her sister for help, and her sister moved in to watch the children while Julia went to school. However, this only lasted for a short period until her sister found a job. Julia was forced to drop out of school to find a job to support her family.
Luckily, Julia was able to benefit from the Welfare to Work Program. This program assisted Julia in securing work internships that could possibly translate into full-time jobs, and one of the greatest benefits of this program was a childcare subsidy, which Julia took full advantage of.
Once her daughter Jacqueline was a year old, Julia was able to find consistent family-care for two years with the childcare subsidies from Welfare to Work. But, once Julia found a full time job, she could not afford the continuation of the childcare because her public assistance was cut, and she did not earn enough to afford the difference in cost.
Julia not only faced obstacles when it came to finding care for Jacqueline. She also faced obstacles with employment. Once she found a steady job, she would lose subsidies that provided for Jacqueline’s childcare and would have to work longer hours to afford it. If she couldn’t find affordable care, she would have to quit her job to care for Jacqueline herself, meaning no income and the need to rely on welfare programs.
The series of video clips from “7 Days at the Minimum Wage” showed the difficulty of living and working at, or close to, minimum wage. All of the subjects interviewed talked about having to work long hours or multiple jobs and feeling like they could never get ahead on financial responsibilities. They all felt helpless having to live from paycheck-to-paycheck without benefits like paid leave and healthcare.
Even though Julia was making a concerted effort to return to school so she could hopefully get a better job and support her family, she constantly struggled with finding and affording childcare.
Initially, Julia was able to rely on her children’s father. She then ended her relationship with him and him to leave. She was then faced with having to turn to family to help her care for her children. Julia turned to her sister for help, and her sister moved in to watch the children while Julia went to school. However, this only lasted for a short period until her sister found a job. Julia was forced to drop out of school to find a job to support her family.
Luckily, Julia was able to benefit from the Welfare to Work Program. This program assisted Julia in securing work internships that could possibly translate into full-time jobs, and one of the greatest benefits of this program was a childcare subsidy, which Julia took full advantage of.
Once her daughter Jacqueline was a year old, Julia was able to find consistent family-care for two years with the childcare subsidies from Welfare to Work. But, once Julia found a full time job, she could not afford the continuation of the childcare because her public assistance was cut, and she did not earn enough to afford the difference in cost.
Julia not only faced obstacles when it came to finding care for Jacqueline. She also faced obstacles with employment. Once she found a steady job, she would lose subsidies that provided for Jacqueline’s childcare and would have to work longer hours to afford it. If she couldn’t find affordable care, she would have to quit her job to care for Jacqueline herself, meaning no income and the need to rely on welfare programs.
The series of video clips from “7 Days at the Minimum Wage” showed the difficulty of living and working at, or close to, minimum wage. All of the subjects interviewed talked about having to work long hours or multiple jobs and feeling like they could never get ahead on financial responsibilities. They all felt helpless having to live from paycheck-to-paycheck without benefits like paid leave and healthcare.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Post #6
Many families struggle in providing care for their children while they are at work. The early years of childhood are pertinent in a child’s development and the care they receive plays a major factor as well. Yet, so many barriers have been set before struggling families in getting quality care for their children to ensure their healthy development.
Many parents ask family members or family friends for assistance or look for affordable daycare. However, they struggle to pay for the cost of daycare programs or their family members are too busy or live too far away to be reliable. According to Table 2.1 in Chaudry’s book, 24.2% of children are cared for by family, 12.1% are in family daycare, and 17.8% are in center-based care. According to Chaudry, “many mothers prefer center-based care for their children by the age of two or three to get them ready for school, but many mothers in low-income neighborhoods are unable to find center care…”
The average annual cost of childcare can range from $4,000 to $6,000, and in some instances cost upwards of $10,000. These costs can exceed the cost of a year of college tuition in 49 of the fifty states.
In addition, many states are not using millions of dollars of federal money for helping needy families. There is also a shortage of qualified childcare providers. There are millions of parents in need of childcare. 24 million children need some form of care when they are not in school. Plus, preschools and daycares provide safe havens for children of low-income families. The number of childcare teachers has dropped by 20%, but the number of needy children has risen by 15%. Low salaries, high turnover and an aging workforce are blamed for the decrease in the availability of qualified early childhood teachers.
Not only that, but childcare options for low-income mothers are low quality. Parents would prefer to have their children in safe setting. The health and safety of low-income children at childcare facilities in low-income neighborhoods are not meeting standards. In a recent Applied Research Center study, ARC found that the number of uncertified childcare facilities has risen and surpassed the number of certified facilities in major urban areas. This means that they don’t necessarily follow government standards and practices when dealing with young children. Low-income children put into these facilities are at risk health-wise and safety-wise.
If childcare assistance were increased, workforce participation would increase and then the economy and tax base could be strengthened.
Working single women’s salaries are too low to pay for childcare. The money they have is not enough to provide for adequate services. Single motherhood is difficult, and making ends meet is a huge challenge. Child support, if it comes at all, is sporadic, and cannot be heavily relied upon. Most single mothers are forced to rely on the dangers of their children becoming latchkey children because they are stuck at work and cannot make it home as the children are being released from school.
Many parents ask family members or family friends for assistance or look for affordable daycare. However, they struggle to pay for the cost of daycare programs or their family members are too busy or live too far away to be reliable. According to Table 2.1 in Chaudry’s book, 24.2% of children are cared for by family, 12.1% are in family daycare, and 17.8% are in center-based care. According to Chaudry, “many mothers prefer center-based care for their children by the age of two or three to get them ready for school, but many mothers in low-income neighborhoods are unable to find center care…”
The average annual cost of childcare can range from $4,000 to $6,000, and in some instances cost upwards of $10,000. These costs can exceed the cost of a year of college tuition in 49 of the fifty states.
In addition, many states are not using millions of dollars of federal money for helping needy families. There is also a shortage of qualified childcare providers. There are millions of parents in need of childcare. 24 million children need some form of care when they are not in school. Plus, preschools and daycares provide safe havens for children of low-income families. The number of childcare teachers has dropped by 20%, but the number of needy children has risen by 15%. Low salaries, high turnover and an aging workforce are blamed for the decrease in the availability of qualified early childhood teachers.
Not only that, but childcare options for low-income mothers are low quality. Parents would prefer to have their children in safe setting. The health and safety of low-income children at childcare facilities in low-income neighborhoods are not meeting standards. In a recent Applied Research Center study, ARC found that the number of uncertified childcare facilities has risen and surpassed the number of certified facilities in major urban areas. This means that they don’t necessarily follow government standards and practices when dealing with young children. Low-income children put into these facilities are at risk health-wise and safety-wise.
If childcare assistance were increased, workforce participation would increase and then the economy and tax base could be strengthened.
Working single women’s salaries are too low to pay for childcare. The money they have is not enough to provide for adequate services. Single motherhood is difficult, and making ends meet is a huge challenge. Child support, if it comes at all, is sporadic, and cannot be heavily relied upon. Most single mothers are forced to rely on the dangers of their children becoming latchkey children because they are stuck at work and cannot make it home as the children are being released from school.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Post #5
The first video “Living With a Hole in Your Pocket,” really addresses Chaudry’s argument that "we are asking the lest fortunate to strive and work harder, we are deeply discounting our public responsibility for the children born into poor families and disadvantaged communities." The video says that vicious cycles & catch 22s in the system are keeping way too many people in poverty. Systemic barriers have grown worse, preventing the poor from being able to better their situation.
The working poor are the people who go to work and earn a wage but cannot make enough money to subsist at a higher level. The Associated Press article said that in 2006, the most recent year for available data, a family of four earning $41,228 or less qualified as a low-income family. According to the federal government, if a family of four is earning less that $20,614, that family is living in poverty.
However, when you look at annual expenses for that same family, they spend $5756 on housing, $2656 just on utilities and public services, $5330 on transportation, $ 4064 on food, $2329 on health care, and $2600 on child care, leaving that family $2121 in the hole. Families in this situation are forced to let things go, give things up that aren’t necessarily considered vital to live.
Somewhere around 37 million people live below the poverty line, and 12 million of them are children. 1 in 5 children live in poverty in the US.
Living poor is like living with a permanent hole in your pocket, living payday to payday, barely making ends meet. Families cannot overcome the problems in the system. “The ‘oops’ in life should not be able to put you in the gutter.”
There is a shortage of higher paying jobs that will help the working poor stay ahead. According to the Associated Press article, the number of U.S. jobs paying a poverty-level wage increased by 4.7 million between 2002 and 2006. The number of jobs with pay below the poverty threshold increased to 29.4 million, or 22 percent of all jobs, in 2006 from 24.7 million, or 19 percent of all jobs, in 2002.
People struggle in the job market even with job training programs. Most times, job training gets people into the workforce, but most of these jobs are low-paying jobs, or don’t exist because they have been taken already. These people are in debt due to relying on credit to live. They work long hours at work but have bills to pay.
These people are uninsured, somewhere around 33 million Americans are without health insurance. They earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but don’t work for employers who offer health insurance.
Educational opportunities are limited for these people. Public higher education is not highly available for them.
Another great problem with poverty is that it has become an inter-generational phenomenon. This has occurred from a lack of motivation, education, resources and support systems in poor communities. Poverty begets more poverty. People who grow up in poverty are more likely to remain in poverty and raise families in poverty.
Only 5% of Americans think that poverty is an important problem to remedy. Americans don’t feel like they need to help the poor because of the belief that the poor are lazy, do not work at all, and don’t deserve help. So the poor are ignored by public policy because they aren’t seen as important.
The working poor are the people who go to work and earn a wage but cannot make enough money to subsist at a higher level. The Associated Press article said that in 2006, the most recent year for available data, a family of four earning $41,228 or less qualified as a low-income family. According to the federal government, if a family of four is earning less that $20,614, that family is living in poverty.
However, when you look at annual expenses for that same family, they spend $5756 on housing, $2656 just on utilities and public services, $5330 on transportation, $ 4064 on food, $2329 on health care, and $2600 on child care, leaving that family $2121 in the hole. Families in this situation are forced to let things go, give things up that aren’t necessarily considered vital to live.
Somewhere around 37 million people live below the poverty line, and 12 million of them are children. 1 in 5 children live in poverty in the US.
Living poor is like living with a permanent hole in your pocket, living payday to payday, barely making ends meet. Families cannot overcome the problems in the system. “The ‘oops’ in life should not be able to put you in the gutter.”
There is a shortage of higher paying jobs that will help the working poor stay ahead. According to the Associated Press article, the number of U.S. jobs paying a poverty-level wage increased by 4.7 million between 2002 and 2006. The number of jobs with pay below the poverty threshold increased to 29.4 million, or 22 percent of all jobs, in 2006 from 24.7 million, or 19 percent of all jobs, in 2002.
People struggle in the job market even with job training programs. Most times, job training gets people into the workforce, but most of these jobs are low-paying jobs, or don’t exist because they have been taken already. These people are in debt due to relying on credit to live. They work long hours at work but have bills to pay.
These people are uninsured, somewhere around 33 million Americans are without health insurance. They earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but don’t work for employers who offer health insurance.
Educational opportunities are limited for these people. Public higher education is not highly available for them.
Another great problem with poverty is that it has become an inter-generational phenomenon. This has occurred from a lack of motivation, education, resources and support systems in poor communities. Poverty begets more poverty. People who grow up in poverty are more likely to remain in poverty and raise families in poverty.
Only 5% of Americans think that poverty is an important problem to remedy. Americans don’t feel like they need to help the poor because of the belief that the poor are lazy, do not work at all, and don’t deserve help. So the poor are ignored by public policy because they aren’t seen as important.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Post #4
The characteristics of good family life are variable. It depends on the family, and knowing this one cannot make empirical observations in characterizing what good family life is for all.
For me, good family life would be living in a supportive environment. If a family has goals, and enforces good values in all its members, in my opinion, everyone is better off. I think good family life can also be characterized by cooperation. Yes, not all people in every family get along, but if they are all working together to accomplish goals, it is all the better. I think that cooperation in raising children and supporting them is what works best. When care in a family is weighted to one side of the parental unit, it creates tension and stress. Making sure everyone is happy and content is a hard thing to do, but striving for that speaks volumes.
I think it is very important for parents to balance life and divide their careers and family lives. However, it is a very difficult task to undertake.
“Juggling Work” addressed many issues families face when trying to balance work and childcare. The female lawyers showed how difficult the balance is between these two things. Many female lawyers are not able to work full time because of children. They are forced to give up their career goals and the possibilities of making partner for their children. In my personal opinion, this is unjust. Just because a woman has the goals of both having a family and a career should not mean that she must choose one over the other.
Why is it only women who must make this choice while men are able to keep their fulltime jobs?
I honestly believe that it is because our society has become so accustomed to gender stereotypes, the social constructs that we adhere to, that this injustice is engrained into the structural components of our society. Women are forced to stay at home with children because society has deemed them the primary caregiver. Men are told they must provide for their family, so they become the breadwinner. We teach this to our children in everyday life. What kinds of toys do little girls play with? Babies and dolls. Girls play house, have tea parties and pretend to be caregivers. They are told to be nurses and teachers, not engineers, politicians and policemen.
There are many problems with our society. One is that the idea of the man being the provider for a family is outdated. There are more women in the workforce than ever before and they provide just as much to families as their husbands. But, they are still forced into the care-giving role as well, forced to work that second shift preparing dinner and rushing children everywhere after their nine hours at work.
Another problem is that employers have not made the effort to adapt to this fact and become flexible with women, and also men.
I think what it boils down to is that in order to make it so that women are not forced to choose between work and family, employers need to be more flexible.
Like we saw in the video from the UK, many companies are adopting programs that allow employees who need to care for family members the ability to do so. An employer would gain so much in allowing someone to work from home when a child is sick. This doesn’t just have to do with raising children, it concerns care for elderly family members as well. It can kind of be explained with the good old Golden Rule—do unto other as they would do unto you. If an employer shows flexibility, an employee will work harder to show their gratitude for said flexibility.
I know that when I was young, my mom would work days while my father worked nights to make sure that I never had to be left in daycare. Once I grew older and my sister was born and grew, my mother turned to family such as my grandmother for childcare. She would also leave us in the care of neighbors. My mother’s employer has grown to become much more flexible now that my mother has seniority with the company and has a mother to care for.
The point is that it is not only women who can care for family. What happens to the single father who can’t make it to his child’s educational planning meeting because his employer doesn’t think he deserves time off? He suffers and his child suffers. What happens when a single mother cannot take off work to care for her children when they are not in school and cannot afford childcare? She suffers and her children suffer.
Society tells women that they need to take maternity leave when they give birth, but do men get paternity leave? No. I think that because the roles of men and women in society have changed, but the socially constructed stereotypes associated with each sex have not, it has made the situation much more complex than it should.
For me, good family life would be living in a supportive environment. If a family has goals, and enforces good values in all its members, in my opinion, everyone is better off. I think good family life can also be characterized by cooperation. Yes, not all people in every family get along, but if they are all working together to accomplish goals, it is all the better. I think that cooperation in raising children and supporting them is what works best. When care in a family is weighted to one side of the parental unit, it creates tension and stress. Making sure everyone is happy and content is a hard thing to do, but striving for that speaks volumes.
I think it is very important for parents to balance life and divide their careers and family lives. However, it is a very difficult task to undertake.
“Juggling Work” addressed many issues families face when trying to balance work and childcare. The female lawyers showed how difficult the balance is between these two things. Many female lawyers are not able to work full time because of children. They are forced to give up their career goals and the possibilities of making partner for their children. In my personal opinion, this is unjust. Just because a woman has the goals of both having a family and a career should not mean that she must choose one over the other.
Why is it only women who must make this choice while men are able to keep their fulltime jobs?
I honestly believe that it is because our society has become so accustomed to gender stereotypes, the social constructs that we adhere to, that this injustice is engrained into the structural components of our society. Women are forced to stay at home with children because society has deemed them the primary caregiver. Men are told they must provide for their family, so they become the breadwinner. We teach this to our children in everyday life. What kinds of toys do little girls play with? Babies and dolls. Girls play house, have tea parties and pretend to be caregivers. They are told to be nurses and teachers, not engineers, politicians and policemen.
There are many problems with our society. One is that the idea of the man being the provider for a family is outdated. There are more women in the workforce than ever before and they provide just as much to families as their husbands. But, they are still forced into the care-giving role as well, forced to work that second shift preparing dinner and rushing children everywhere after their nine hours at work.
Another problem is that employers have not made the effort to adapt to this fact and become flexible with women, and also men.
I think what it boils down to is that in order to make it so that women are not forced to choose between work and family, employers need to be more flexible.
Like we saw in the video from the UK, many companies are adopting programs that allow employees who need to care for family members the ability to do so. An employer would gain so much in allowing someone to work from home when a child is sick. This doesn’t just have to do with raising children, it concerns care for elderly family members as well. It can kind of be explained with the good old Golden Rule—do unto other as they would do unto you. If an employer shows flexibility, an employee will work harder to show their gratitude for said flexibility.
I know that when I was young, my mom would work days while my father worked nights to make sure that I never had to be left in daycare. Once I grew older and my sister was born and grew, my mother turned to family such as my grandmother for childcare. She would also leave us in the care of neighbors. My mother’s employer has grown to become much more flexible now that my mother has seniority with the company and has a mother to care for.
The point is that it is not only women who can care for family. What happens to the single father who can’t make it to his child’s educational planning meeting because his employer doesn’t think he deserves time off? He suffers and his child suffers. What happens when a single mother cannot take off work to care for her children when they are not in school and cannot afford childcare? She suffers and her children suffer.
Society tells women that they need to take maternity leave when they give birth, but do men get paternity leave? No. I think that because the roles of men and women in society have changed, but the socially constructed stereotypes associated with each sex have not, it has made the situation much more complex than it should.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)