In class we broke into groups and tried to first define oppression. My group described it as being the opposite of equality and we said that one agency is limited by another. We talked about how someone higher in a hierarchy oppresses someone that is lower in the hierarchy.
When we talked about oppression as a class, we started to become unclear over the difference between discrimination and oppression. The example given of saying that only people with glasses would get A's really cleared the concept up for me. Since wearing glasses is not part of a bigger system in which wearing glasses is discriminated against, the example does not describe oppression but rather just discrimination. The trait that is being considered has to be identifiable outside of the oppressed status. Another misconception that we talked about is that if harm is being done to you that you are being oppressed. This is incorrect because someone must also be benefiting in order to consider this harm to be oppression.
We also talked about in-group/out-group discrimination. When you are a minority and you do something wrong, others will blame the whole group and attribute that particular characteristic to everyone in the group. When you are not a minority and you do something wrong, the whole group does not get blamed or stereotyped. I think it is really difficult not to do this especially in cases where you only know a few people that are a part of the minority and they have a certain trait. I think people often believe misconceptions like this because they have one experience with a certain race in their life and assume that the rest will be the same. People do this all the time, not even just in regards to race. For instance, if one time a person goes to say Olive Garden and they have a bad experience they will assume that Olive Gardens are all going to result in this bad experience (unless they have previously had many good experiences). People really need to be more open minded in this aspect because if not, they will miss out on a lot of good experiences and miss out on getting to know good people.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Our Racist, Sexist Selves
In class we were given this New York Times article by Nicholas Kristof called "Our Racist, Sexist Selves." The author states that he is a racist, at least according to an online test. This interested me so I went on to his blog and took one of the race tests. In my test first you had to categorize white faces and black faces and then good words and bad words. Then the categories are grouped and you put words either in the white and good category or black and bad category. Finally, they switched the categories to black and good and white and bad. I scored strong automatic preference for white. I am not very convinced by this technique though because of the order in which it was presented. I think I would have scored much differently if they had first grouped black and good together and white and bad. A lot of the time, I do not even recognize someones race when I talk to someone I do not know. For instance, the other day I was at the mall and one of the employees helped me get something off a high shelf. When I was at the register, the lady asked me if someone had helped me and I said yes. She asked me who it was and I said that I was not sure of her name. She then asked me if she was black or white and I did not know the answer. Regardless of this though, it is likely that I do hold some unconscious bias considering where and how I grew up, considering media influences, and because I am white.
The article goes on to discuss the role the unconscious is playing in politics not only against blacks but against women as well. Racism appears to be easier to overcome than sexism. Unconsciously, women are thought of as warm and friendly which could be why voters feel a female candidate for a political position is not the right person for the job. Friendly and warm are not typically thought of as attributes of leaders but rather they should be strong and tough. I do not even need to take the test on gender to know that I am biased when it comes to this. I would like to be able to break that bias but it is so ingrained in my mind that I do not think I would be able to.
The article goes on to discuss the role the unconscious is playing in politics not only against blacks but against women as well. Racism appears to be easier to overcome than sexism. Unconsciously, women are thought of as warm and friendly which could be why voters feel a female candidate for a political position is not the right person for the job. Friendly and warm are not typically thought of as attributes of leaders but rather they should be strong and tough. I do not even need to take the test on gender to know that I am biased when it comes to this. I would like to be able to break that bias but it is so ingrained in my mind that I do not think I would be able to.
Sex Education
For our presentation we told the class to read two articles. The one article was called "How to End the War Over Sex Ed." This article was about a county in South Carolina where they are teaching kids in an abstinence plus style meaning that they are teaching about abstinence and safe sex practices. For the program, a teacher administers two classes, one of which is based on sexuality and the other on decision-making skills. She teaches about STIs, pregnancy, contraceptives and also encourages them to delay sexual activity. This program runs from middle school throughout high school and they keep the same teacher throughout it. Because of this, the students can feel secure with this teacher and are able to ask her questions. This program appears to be effective since the birth rates at this school have decreased. Although this program seems to be working, it would be very expensive to implement it in lots of schools. The difference in this comprehensive program from previous ones that were not as successful is the new focus on behavior while emphasizing that not having sex is the safest choice.
In our second article, "Sex Ed in Washington," it discusses Bush's policy priority of abstinence-based sex education. After 15 years of a decline in birthrates, they increased earlier in this year. A lot of people blame the abstinence only programs but that is not logical. If you blame this increase on the programs, you must also give them credit for 15 years of improvement. This does not appear to be the case according to the data. In fact, the data indicate that neither abstinence only nor comprehensive are very effective at improving statistics. This article also says that the debate should be kept at a local level instead of requiring the federal government to make the decision for everyone.
Personally, I do not think that the second article's idea to decide on sex education programs locally would be very effective at improving statistics because it is hard to generalize values in any given area. Just because one area is typically more religious, it is not right to just assume that abstinence only is the way to go. Not everyone in that area is going to share the same values and so they need to be taught about other options. I think that the first article shows that a combination of promoting abstinence while also explaining safe sex practices is the best choice for everyone. If this combined program was implemented it would give students of all different values the encouragement to delay sexual activity as well as the information they needed in case they decided not to.
In my school, I did not receive much sex education. The only time I remember talking about sex in school was one year in my high school health class. This did not negatively affect me but I think that the high teen birth rates of my school indicate that the sex education needs some work. Because the school didn't provide us with adequate information, students had to rely on their parents. I do not think that this is a wise strategy because kids are often too embarrassed to talk to their parents about it and are too afraid to ask questions. Personally, I think that schools should be required to teach sex education. As of now, 17 states do not require this but I would like to think that this number will decrease over time.
In our second article, "Sex Ed in Washington," it discusses Bush's policy priority of abstinence-based sex education. After 15 years of a decline in birthrates, they increased earlier in this year. A lot of people blame the abstinence only programs but that is not logical. If you blame this increase on the programs, you must also give them credit for 15 years of improvement. This does not appear to be the case according to the data. In fact, the data indicate that neither abstinence only nor comprehensive are very effective at improving statistics. This article also says that the debate should be kept at a local level instead of requiring the federal government to make the decision for everyone.
Personally, I do not think that the second article's idea to decide on sex education programs locally would be very effective at improving statistics because it is hard to generalize values in any given area. Just because one area is typically more religious, it is not right to just assume that abstinence only is the way to go. Not everyone in that area is going to share the same values and so they need to be taught about other options. I think that the first article shows that a combination of promoting abstinence while also explaining safe sex practices is the best choice for everyone. If this combined program was implemented it would give students of all different values the encouragement to delay sexual activity as well as the information they needed in case they decided not to.
In my school, I did not receive much sex education. The only time I remember talking about sex in school was one year in my high school health class. This did not negatively affect me but I think that the high teen birth rates of my school indicate that the sex education needs some work. Because the school didn't provide us with adequate information, students had to rely on their parents. I do not think that this is a wise strategy because kids are often too embarrassed to talk to their parents about it and are too afraid to ask questions. Personally, I think that schools should be required to teach sex education. As of now, 17 states do not require this but I would like to think that this number will decrease over time.
Presentation: Gender and War
During the Gender and War presentation we split into groups and discussed certain topics relating to the articles we read for class. In my group, we discussed female suicide bombers. We tried to decide whether the fact that women were partaking in suicide bombing was or was not a gain for women in the particular culture being examined. Since women are taking on this job that was previously only performed by men, it would seem that women are becoming more equal to men; however, we felt that because women are still seen as victims in the situation of suicide bombing that it really is not a gain for them and does not make them more equal to men. Because this occurrence is still a phenomena, when it happens we do not attribute the wrong doing to the women but instead to others that somehow caused these women to do such a thing. If this were to become more common of women we believe that it would be more of an equalizer than it is currently.
Another topic that was explored in the presentation was rape as a weapon of war. Rape is such a terrible tactic that tears apart communities and leaves victims scarred with anxiety, stress, depression, and other detrimental effects. I was extremely appalled to learn that US female soldiers are frequently sexually assaulted and raped. What is even worse is that these women refrain from reporting these instances because they are afraid of losing their career. I would think that other women who want to join the military and know about this would be deterred from joining and I certainly don't blame them. It really is a shame that women have to fear their fellow soldiers possibly more than they fear the enemies.
The behavior of US soldiers committing rape and the women not reporting it is a bigger version of what occurs in every day life. Examples of this same behavior can be found all over the United States, even on the Juniata College campus. Women are too afraid to report what has happened to them because they feel like they are to fault. This is probably a result of women constantly being seen as inferior to men. When someone is superior to you, it is extremely difficult to tell them they did something wrong even when it is something small. In this case where the wrong doing is extreme, it would have to be even more difficult to admit.
Another topic that was explored in the presentation was rape as a weapon of war. Rape is such a terrible tactic that tears apart communities and leaves victims scarred with anxiety, stress, depression, and other detrimental effects. I was extremely appalled to learn that US female soldiers are frequently sexually assaulted and raped. What is even worse is that these women refrain from reporting these instances because they are afraid of losing their career. I would think that other women who want to join the military and know about this would be deterred from joining and I certainly don't blame them. It really is a shame that women have to fear their fellow soldiers possibly more than they fear the enemies.
The behavior of US soldiers committing rape and the women not reporting it is a bigger version of what occurs in every day life. Examples of this same behavior can be found all over the United States, even on the Juniata College campus. Women are too afraid to report what has happened to them because they feel like they are to fault. This is probably a result of women constantly being seen as inferior to men. When someone is superior to you, it is extremely difficult to tell them they did something wrong even when it is something small. In this case where the wrong doing is extreme, it would have to be even more difficult to admit.
Gender Roles
The presentation on gender roles was very interesting to me, especially since it really got me to thinking about the dynamics of my relationship with my boyfriend. I would say that I would classify our relationship as egalitarian but with some traditional values. For us, we maintain some traditional values because we like them but not because we expect that of each other. For instance, when we go on dates my boyfriend often pays but I do not expect him to and I offer to pay for myself. Sometimes I even pay for both of us on a date and that does not cause any gender role issues. Because we both do things in our relationship because we want to instead of because we have to in order to fit into certain gender roles, we do not get into fights about those little things. From listening to others talk in class about examples of parents that get mad for having to fulfill certain roles it seems to me that this can be the cause of fights that are unnecessary. For instance, one mother would get mad that she is expected to fill the motherly role of doing laundry. In an egalitarian relationship this duty would likely be shared thus preventing a fight over it. In an egalitarian relationship with traditional values, the woman might still fulfill this role but because she enjoys it rather than because she has to which would also prevent fighting. In my relationship I know that I would take over this role because I wanted to not because I was expected to. Also, I know that if I asked my boyfriend to do it for me, he would. In reverse, he would fulfill certain male roles such as doing yard work because he wanted to and if he asked me fill that role for him, I would. So at least for me egalitarian with traditional values is the ideal relationship which is probably a result of the way in which I was raised. My mother and father fulfill normal gender roles in most things but they both seem to be content in doing so. I am sure if I had been raised in a different household, my idea of the ideal relationship would be different.
After writing this I realized that when I was referring to the woman I used the word "motherly" to describe the roles she was fulfilling but for the man I just used "male" to describe his roles. I thought about going back and changing it but then I decided not to because it just shows how ingrained it is in me than women are identified as mothers and men are just men, not fathers. I have to wonder if as gender roles change and men and women become more egalitarian if people will continue to still view women as mothers and men as just men or if it will move more towards women as mothers and men as fathers. My guess is no but I am sure it is a possibility. I just think that because women are the ones physically giving birth that we cannot help but view them as mothers. The woman will have to care for her child throughout pregnancy whereas a father could just get up and leave.
After writing this I realized that when I was referring to the woman I used the word "motherly" to describe the roles she was fulfilling but for the man I just used "male" to describe his roles. I thought about going back and changing it but then I decided not to because it just shows how ingrained it is in me than women are identified as mothers and men are just men, not fathers. I have to wonder if as gender roles change and men and women become more egalitarian if people will continue to still view women as mothers and men as just men or if it will move more towards women as mothers and men as fathers. My guess is no but I am sure it is a possibility. I just think that because women are the ones physically giving birth that we cannot help but view them as mothers. The woman will have to care for her child throughout pregnancy whereas a father could just get up and leave.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Material World
In Valenti's chapter "Material World" she explains that despite popular belief, women are still getting paid significantly less than men. This was somewhat surprising to me but the real shocker was that the Bureau of Labor Statistics stopped reporting on women's wages because it wasn't a priority. Luckily, the Senate passed an amendment that required BLS to continue collecting data on women's wages. Also, some claim that the difference comes from women working part time or taking time off to take care of family even though statistics that indicate that women get paid 76% of what men get paid were based off of women who work full-time.
So how can we fix this problem? One way would be to get more women in higher positions in companies because it is shown that when this is the case, women workers make more money. However, it is hard to get women in these higher positions due to sex discrimination. Walmart, for example, has 70% women making up the hourly workers but less than a third of the management.
As we have already figured out in this class, the media lies. Valenti points out another instance in which this is the case. The media has started this idea that women "opt out" of work to stay at home. This is not the case and in fact most women cannot afford to do so. When women do choose to stay at home, they are under appreciated for their work which would amount to a salary of $134,121 a year.
Social and political forces are telling women that all they are good for is having babies yet the cost of doing so is not even manageable for some. If women are supposed to want to have babies than why is it so hard to do and why is there no incentive for doing so? The government could at least fund for pre-schools or provide paid leave for new parents.
Valenti proposes an interesting question: Are women more likely to choose low-paying jobs or are jobs low paying because they are jobs predominantly chosen by women? I have no idea what the answer to this question is nor a way to test it. Considering women get paid less when they hold the same jobs as men I would have to guess that the second one has to be at least somewhat true but I am not saying I do not think the first part could be true to an extent as well.
So how can we fix this problem? One way would be to get more women in higher positions in companies because it is shown that when this is the case, women workers make more money. However, it is hard to get women in these higher positions due to sex discrimination. Walmart, for example, has 70% women making up the hourly workers but less than a third of the management.
As we have already figured out in this class, the media lies. Valenti points out another instance in which this is the case. The media has started this idea that women "opt out" of work to stay at home. This is not the case and in fact most women cannot afford to do so. When women do choose to stay at home, they are under appreciated for their work which would amount to a salary of $134,121 a year.
Social and political forces are telling women that all they are good for is having babies yet the cost of doing so is not even manageable for some. If women are supposed to want to have babies than why is it so hard to do and why is there no incentive for doing so? The government could at least fund for pre-schools or provide paid leave for new parents.
Valenti proposes an interesting question: Are women more likely to choose low-paying jobs or are jobs low paying because they are jobs predominantly chosen by women? I have no idea what the answer to this question is nor a way to test it. Considering women get paid less when they hold the same jobs as men I would have to guess that the second one has to be at least somewhat true but I am not saying I do not think the first part could be true to an extent as well.
What does it mean to be secure?
In class this week we tried to answer the questions, "What does it mean to be secure?" and "How should we think about defining security?". In my group we came up with a few things to describe security:
-Comfortable with self and surroundings
-Having power over a situation
-People of power are the ones providing security
We defined security by:
-Cultural norms
-Protecting rights and freedoms
-Variation cross-culturally
-Economics and power
When we combined as a class, we added to these answers. Being secure also means:
-Sameness
-Protection against unknown hypothetical threat
-Ability to meet basic needs
-Individual/collective sense of security
-Political, physical, mental, and emotional security
In class we got to talking about the way security is gendered and how men obtain security from their body while women obtain security from other people. Personally, I would have to agree with this because I feel much more secure when I am with other people that I trust than I do when I am alone. Part of the reason I came to Juniata was because I knew I would be able to feel secure here since it is small and you have the privilege of knowing most of your classmates and professors. I will probably never live alone just because I am too fearful of my security when I am alone. This feeling of insecurity of being alone is probably a result of feeling (and being) physically weaker than other people (men). On the brighter side, at least I know that I can take classes to better prepare myself for encountering an attacker. The field hockey team actually took one of these classes together last year and I hope to do so again so that I can feel more secure when I am alone.
-Comfortable with self and surroundings
-Having power over a situation
-People of power are the ones providing security
We defined security by:
-Cultural norms
-Protecting rights and freedoms
-Variation cross-culturally
-Economics and power
When we combined as a class, we added to these answers. Being secure also means:
-Sameness
-Protection against unknown hypothetical threat
-Ability to meet basic needs
-Individual/collective sense of security
-Political, physical, mental, and emotional security
In class we got to talking about the way security is gendered and how men obtain security from their body while women obtain security from other people. Personally, I would have to agree with this because I feel much more secure when I am with other people that I trust than I do when I am alone. Part of the reason I came to Juniata was because I knew I would be able to feel secure here since it is small and you have the privilege of knowing most of your classmates and professors. I will probably never live alone just because I am too fearful of my security when I am alone. This feeling of insecurity of being alone is probably a result of feeling (and being) physically weaker than other people (men). On the brighter side, at least I know that I can take classes to better prepare myself for encountering an attacker. The field hockey team actually took one of these classes together last year and I hope to do so again so that I can feel more secure when I am alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)