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
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, November 7, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)