Fraternities are organizations that perpetuate masculine stereotypes and contribute to the degradation of women on college campuses. Fraternities recruit news members based on their personality and sexual prowess. Men who are athletic, strong, affluent, competitive and good-looking are chosen to be in fraternities because they are better at attracting women than effeminate and “nerdy” men. The more masculine the candidate the better chance he will have of being accepted into a frat. Effeminate behaviors are highly discouraged by fraternities, and members who display those types of behaviors are ostracized and labeled as homosexuals. Martin and Hummer write, “Fraternities work hard to create a macho image and context and try to avoid any suggestion of wimpiness, effeminacy and homosexuality.” A narrow image of masculinity is created and expected by members of fraternities. An extreme image of masculinity is accepted as the norm and the individuals that stray from this norm are considered inferior. As Martin and Hummer write in their article, femininity is also highly distorted by fraternities. Many members in fraternities view women as sexual commodities who are obedient and vulnerable. Women who stray from the ideal; sexual, beautiful and social are often ignored by fraternity members. Martin and Hummer state, “Brotherhood often plays itself out as an overriding concern with masculinity and, by extension, femininity. As a consequence, fraternities comprise collectives of highly masculinized men with attitudinal qualities and behavioral norms that predispose them to sexual coercion of women.”
Fraternity members emphasize loyalty, use of alcohol, physical force, secrecy, group protection, competition and superiority. These characteristics and actions have been proven to contribute to a “rape-prone” environment in fraternities that is dangerous for women. Martin and Hummer state that alcohol is used as a weapon to incapacitate women and take advantage of them sexually. The highly competitive nature of fraternity members leads to intense rivalries over the number of women they sleep with. Fraternity members often times have a multitude of sexual relationships that are devoid of any emotional attachment. These relationships can be dangerous because the men are only concerned with their sexual pleasure. They have little concern for the wellbeing of the woman and usually abandon them when the intercourse is finished. As it has been shown in the 1988 rape investigation of a Florida university fraternity, the sense of loyalty and secrecy among fraternity brothers has been used to undermine authority and protect members from legal punishment. Group protection is the most important aspect of a fraternity. Martin and Hummer write that, “Brotherhood norms require sticking together regardless of right or wrong; thus episodes are unlikely to be stopped or reported to outsiders, even when witnesses disapprove. The ability to use alcohol without scrutiny by authorities and alcohol’s frequent association with violence, including sexual coercion, facilitates rape in fraternities.”
In the article Men Changing Men, Robert Allen and Paul Kivel state that society has constructed a narrow definition of masculinity in which all men should follow. Men are expected to be aggressive, tough and stoic. These characteristics contribute to acts of violence against women. Allen and Kivel write, “In a patriarchal society boys are taught to accept violence as a manly response to real or imagined threats, but they get little training in negotiating intimate relationships.” Boys are taught to solve all their problems the manly way, by being violent and aggressive. When boys grow up they do not know how to solve problems in a mature way and often resort to violence. I agree that society contributes greatly to the domestic abuse of women. The rigid form of masculinity supported by our society needs to be reformed so that men are not expected to be violent and aggressive.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Blog #16 - Enloe, Navarro
The three articles assigned this week discuss the negative affects that globalization has on third world women. The first article, The Globe Trotting Sneaker, by Cynthia Enloe explains how large corporations have been taking advantage of the lower labor costs in developing countries by outsourcing factory jobs to poor workers in China, Indonesia and Thailand. Trade agreements, such as NAFTA and GATT, are mainly concerned with boosting the global economy and do little to improve the lives of workers. The lack of opportunities and jobs in many developing nations gives women little choice for finding work. Most of the time, women are forced to work in factories that produce the products of American companies. Although American companies are providing jobs for citizens of third world countries, the lack of labor laws, such as minimum wage laws, leaves many women working in dangerous conditions for a salary that is far below the minimum wage set in the United States. Nike and Reebok are just two of the many companies that have built factories in third world countries in order to profit from their loose labor restrictions. American companies that outsource factory jobs can produce their products cheaper in other countries by paying their workers less money. Enloe states in her article that, “If women can be kept hard at work, low paid, and unorganized, they can serve as a magnet for foreign investments.” This quote illustrates how females are being used as a cheap source of labor in order to boost the economy of the United States and other third world countries, with little or no regard for the well being of their workers.
Sharon Ann Navarro, author of The Invisible Women, and Cynthia Enloe both discuss the ways in which globalized manufacturing jobs have led to the displacement of many female workers. In her article, Enloe describes the shoe, clothing, and electronic industries as extremely mobile. The equipment for producing these types of goods are small and easily manufactured. So when workers begin to protest against the factories low salaries and harsh labor conditions, American companies can choose to shut down their factories and relocate them to other areas where there are new sources of cheap labor. The movement of factories has left many women with no work and very little job options. Women are either forced to migrate to where the factories are relocated, or work in demeaning entertainment jobs such as those that offer sexual services. I was shocked when I read these articles. Not because I didn’t know about the outsourcing of factory jobs but because I didn’t know who little governments and companies cared about the well being of their factory workers. These companies need to be held more accountable for their overseas factories, and the government needs to put more regulations on company practices in order to protect third world women from abusive jobs.
Sharon Ann Navarro, author of The Invisible Women, and Cynthia Enloe both discuss the ways in which globalized manufacturing jobs have led to the displacement of many female workers. In her article, Enloe describes the shoe, clothing, and electronic industries as extremely mobile. The equipment for producing these types of goods are small and easily manufactured. So when workers begin to protest against the factories low salaries and harsh labor conditions, American companies can choose to shut down their factories and relocate them to other areas where there are new sources of cheap labor. The movement of factories has left many women with no work and very little job options. Women are either forced to migrate to where the factories are relocated, or work in demeaning entertainment jobs such as those that offer sexual services. I was shocked when I read these articles. Not because I didn’t know about the outsourcing of factory jobs but because I didn’t know who little governments and companies cared about the well being of their factory workers. These companies need to be held more accountable for their overseas factories, and the government needs to put more regulations on company practices in order to protect third world women from abusive jobs.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Blog #15 - Mohanty, Bunch
In the article Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses, the author Chandra Mohanty criticizes western feminists for homogenizing third world women, and defining them as one singular group of women with identical goals and struggles. The major fault of many western feminists is that they assume that all women have the same priorities and objectives. Mohanty blames these middle class feminists for presuming that they are the norm and for creating an agenda that they expect all women to follow. Mohanty describes this as a form of ethnocentric universality, in which western feminists believe they are the standard model for all women, and despite differences in race or socioeconomic status all women share the same beliefs and goals as western middle class feminists. Mohanty argues that western feminists designate women from developing nations as the Other according to what is know as the “third world difference”. The third world difference is used by western scholars to compare the average third world woman who is uneducated, poor and victimized to the average western woman who is educated, independent and progressive. The west has created a consistent image of third world women based on the ways that they are oppressed sexually and politically by their patriarchal societies. Despite cultural, geographic and economic differences all women from developing nations are portrayed as victimized and powerless. Mohanty is arguing that western feminists are ignoring the differences between third world women and characterizing them as one homogenous mass.
Chandra Mohanty’s idea is reminiscent of the ideas discusses in Audrey Lorde’s article, The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House. In this piece Lorde addresses the underlying racist views of women in the feminist movement. Lorde argues that a major tool of our patriarchal society is the ability of men to “divide and conquer” or emphasize the gender, class, racial and sexual differences among people, in order to create a hierarchy in which white middle and upper class males are in control. The statement, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” conveys the idea that women will never be able to overcome our patriarchal society if they create a hierarchy within the women’s movement and ignore the voices of women with different races and economic statuses. Mohanty also blames western feminists for creating a hierarchy in which third world women are considered to be at the bottom. Middle class white women need to recognize that not all women from developing nations are the same, and that they have different goals and priorities that are separate from those of western feminists.
Charlotte Bunch’s article, Whose Security, addresses the ways in which the Bush administration has disregarded human rights for the purpose of national security. Bunch argues that in the wake of 9-11, the United States could have become more empathetic to countries that face terrorism every day and could have begun to fight terrorism in a diplomatic and peaceful way. Instead, the Bush administration chose to ignore multilateral politics and proceeded into a disastrous and costly war. In an attempt to combat terrorism, the United States has become a reckless force in the Middle East and a hindrance to development of human rights for women in developing nations. In disregarding many human rights agreements created during past administrations, President Bush has set an example for other countries who now feel that they can also ignore human rights legislation without risking punishment from multi-national organizations. Bunch writes, “Indeed, the erosion of the US commitment to human rights helps legitimize the abuses of governments that have never fully accepted or claimed these standards. For while the US government has often been hypocritical in its human rights policies, open disregard for international standards goes a step further and thus strengthens fundamentalist governments and forces that seek to deny human rights in general, and the rights of women in particular.” The Bush administration has pledged to improve the rights of women in the Middle East. However, that goal has been abandoned and women in the region are still suffering from limited human rights.
Chandra Mohanty’s idea is reminiscent of the ideas discusses in Audrey Lorde’s article, The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House. In this piece Lorde addresses the underlying racist views of women in the feminist movement. Lorde argues that a major tool of our patriarchal society is the ability of men to “divide and conquer” or emphasize the gender, class, racial and sexual differences among people, in order to create a hierarchy in which white middle and upper class males are in control. The statement, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” conveys the idea that women will never be able to overcome our patriarchal society if they create a hierarchy within the women’s movement and ignore the voices of women with different races and economic statuses. Mohanty also blames western feminists for creating a hierarchy in which third world women are considered to be at the bottom. Middle class white women need to recognize that not all women from developing nations are the same, and that they have different goals and priorities that are separate from those of western feminists.
Charlotte Bunch’s article, Whose Security, addresses the ways in which the Bush administration has disregarded human rights for the purpose of national security. Bunch argues that in the wake of 9-11, the United States could have become more empathetic to countries that face terrorism every day and could have begun to fight terrorism in a diplomatic and peaceful way. Instead, the Bush administration chose to ignore multilateral politics and proceeded into a disastrous and costly war. In an attempt to combat terrorism, the United States has become a reckless force in the Middle East and a hindrance to development of human rights for women in developing nations. In disregarding many human rights agreements created during past administrations, President Bush has set an example for other countries who now feel that they can also ignore human rights legislation without risking punishment from multi-national organizations. Bunch writes, “Indeed, the erosion of the US commitment to human rights helps legitimize the abuses of governments that have never fully accepted or claimed these standards. For while the US government has often been hypocritical in its human rights policies, open disregard for international standards goes a step further and thus strengthens fundamentalist governments and forces that seek to deny human rights in general, and the rights of women in particular.” The Bush administration has pledged to improve the rights of women in the Middle East. However, that goal has been abandoned and women in the region are still suffering from limited human rights.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Blog #14 - Mink, Rangel
The Personal Responsibilities Act is a controversial law that was passed in 1996, banning all poor single mothers from welfare benefits. This law was enacted because of the belief that poor single mothers are lazy and promiscuous women whose only motive for have children is to gain financial compensation from the federal government. Gwendolyn Mink in her article, The Lady and the Tramp, describes the Personal Responsibilities Act as a war against poor women, in which single mothers are punished for having children. Mink states that, “Without welfare, mothers who work inside the home are deprived of equal citizenship for they alone are not paid for their labor.” Mink explains that caring for ones child has been almost completely devalued by the federal government because poor mothers have been denied all compensation for their labor as mothers. The only option afforded to poor single mothers is marriage. However this is a dangerous option for many women because they become financially dependent on their husbands. Women, who cannot survive economically to leave their husbands, are forced to remain in a relationship that can be loveless, unhealthy or abusive. Mink explains that, “full-time care-giving mothers, then, are disproportionately dependent on men if married and disproportionately poor, if not.”
Mink introduces an interesting idea concerning the way that feminists have contributed to the struggles of welfare mothers. During the second wave of feminists, women fought to gain acceptance in the male dominated public sphere, or the men’s world of work. Feminists created the idea that social and political independence came from paid employment. Out of this movement came the idea that all work outside the home is more important and socially productive than work in the home as a mother. The work of second wave feminists has helped to depreciate the value of child care as a woman’s primary source of labor. Mink argues that the work of the second wave feminist has contributed to the acceptance of the Personal Responsibilities Act which states that child care is not a legitimate form of labor. In my opinion Personal Responsibilities Act seems completely contradictory to the purpose of welfare. Poor single mothers are extremely vulnerable and need financial assistance in order to survive and raise their children. I do not understand why a single mother would be denied welfare assistance because she isn’t married, but in our patriarchal society it does not surprise me that the government values marriage and would require a woman to marry in order to gain financial assistance.
Knowledge is Power, is an article by Maria Cristina Rangel, about her struggles as a single mom on welfare. Rangel brings up a very interesting point, about the way that the government forces poor individuals to choose between working and getting welfare, and going to college to get an education and being denied welfare. It is almost impossible to gain a college degree if you are on welfare, because the government does not recognize the pursuit of knowledge as work, and therefore requires individuals to work in separate jobs in order to obtain welfare. Rangel makes a shocking comparison between the way that slave owners denied their “property” and education in order to keep them ignorant and subservient, and the way that the government denies people on welfare easy access to higher education. She explains how this could be a way of keeping these individuals ignorant and preventing them from petitioning against unfair welfare legislation such as the Personal Responsibilities act. In some way I agree with Rangel’s claim. The only way to free an individual from poverty is to provide them with an education so that they can get a high paying job. If individuals cannot afford an education they are forced to work minimum wage, or low paying jobs, and remain dependent on the government for welfare checks. Instead of just offering financial assistance to poor families, the government needs to find a way to offer college educations to lower income students so that they can permanently escape poverty.
Mink introduces an interesting idea concerning the way that feminists have contributed to the struggles of welfare mothers. During the second wave of feminists, women fought to gain acceptance in the male dominated public sphere, or the men’s world of work. Feminists created the idea that social and political independence came from paid employment. Out of this movement came the idea that all work outside the home is more important and socially productive than work in the home as a mother. The work of second wave feminists has helped to depreciate the value of child care as a woman’s primary source of labor. Mink argues that the work of the second wave feminist has contributed to the acceptance of the Personal Responsibilities Act which states that child care is not a legitimate form of labor. In my opinion Personal Responsibilities Act seems completely contradictory to the purpose of welfare. Poor single mothers are extremely vulnerable and need financial assistance in order to survive and raise their children. I do not understand why a single mother would be denied welfare assistance because she isn’t married, but in our patriarchal society it does not surprise me that the government values marriage and would require a woman to marry in order to gain financial assistance.
Knowledge is Power, is an article by Maria Cristina Rangel, about her struggles as a single mom on welfare. Rangel brings up a very interesting point, about the way that the government forces poor individuals to choose between working and getting welfare, and going to college to get an education and being denied welfare. It is almost impossible to gain a college degree if you are on welfare, because the government does not recognize the pursuit of knowledge as work, and therefore requires individuals to work in separate jobs in order to obtain welfare. Rangel makes a shocking comparison between the way that slave owners denied their “property” and education in order to keep them ignorant and subservient, and the way that the government denies people on welfare easy access to higher education. She explains how this could be a way of keeping these individuals ignorant and preventing them from petitioning against unfair welfare legislation such as the Personal Responsibilities act. In some way I agree with Rangel’s claim. The only way to free an individual from poverty is to provide them with an education so that they can get a high paying job. If individuals cannot afford an education they are forced to work minimum wage, or low paying jobs, and remain dependent on the government for welfare checks. Instead of just offering financial assistance to poor families, the government needs to find a way to offer college educations to lower income students so that they can permanently escape poverty.
Monday, November 10, 2008
News Flash #2 - Teaching Boys and Girls Separately
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02sex3-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=teaching%20boys%20and%20girls%20separately&st=cse&oref=slogin
http://www.now.org/news/note/091907.html
Lorber, Judith. “Night to His Day”. Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 51
Specialized single-sex schools have been praised as one of the best ways to educate children today. These schools are different from traditional single-sex schools because their educational techniques vary based upon the gender of each student. Proponents of this kind of education believe that because boys and girls are biologically different, they require different forms of education. It would seem that tailoring a school to the specific needs of its students is beneficial. However, by basing their education on assumptions about the ways that boys and girls are biologically driven to act, these schools perpetuate gender roles and stereotypes. In the article, Teaching Boys and Girls Separately, the author, Elizabeth Weil discusses the benefits and drawbacks to single-sex schools and there underlying educational philosophies. Weil concludes that separate is not always equal.
Advocates of specialized single-sex schools believe that the biological differences between boys and girls cause them to learn and develop in significantly different ways. These schools mold their learning methods based on these assumptions. Proponents of single sex schools believe that boys and girls have different brain chemistry and structure. These factors affect the way that boys and girls process information and learn. Supporters of single-sex schools believe that boys learn better in an active classroom environment where the teachers speak loudly and are constantly moving. They believe that boys should read action/adventure books and should be actively engaged in class discussions. Supporters of this type of education believe that girls, according to their biology, learn best in social environments where students are positioned to face each other in order to engage in conversational-type discussions (Weil 7). Advocates claim that these specialized single sex schools permit teachers to use educational techniques that are designed to best suit their students. They argue that co-ed schools do not benefit all the students in the classroom because the learning methods savor the developmental needs of female students. Supposedly, due to their biology, girls are better listeners and do better in lecture based discussions. Those who subscribe to this belief argue that in co-ed schools teachers use a lecture based, passive form of learning which is better suited to girls needs. Boys, who process information better in active environments, have trouble focusing and staying connected to lecture discussions. Because they do poorly in class, boys feel alienated from their teachers and from their schools. Some people have even gone as far as to blame the women’s movement for forcing public schools to overcompensate for the historical injustices done to women, by tailoring teaching methods to benefit female students (Gandy 1). On the other hand, maximizer feminists may also be proponents for single sexed schools because they believe that males and females are biologically different. These feminists argue that laws should be enacted to embrace these biological differences so that no gender has an unfair advantage over the other.
In Teaching Boys and Girls Separately, the author interviews Dr. Leonard Sax who makes an argument for single sex schools based on the idea that boys and girls are biologically different. A closer investigation of his claims reveals that, although there are biological differences between boys and girls, most are not significant enough to cause discrepancies in the learning patterns between male and female students. For example, Dr. Sax argues that boys require teachers who project and amplify their voices because it has been proven that boys have weaker hearing than girls. However, the hearing differences between boys and girls are not significant. The actual scientific data reveals that the hearing threshold of boys is actually only between a quarter, to a half of a standard deviation lower than that of girls. Weil points out that there are more similarities than differences between the hearing of boys and girls. Similarly, it has not been scientifically proven that there is a causal connection between the biological differences of boys and girls and the ways in which they learn (Weil 10).
If the biological data collected does not prove a relationship between brain development and learning abilities, why is it that people are advocating for single sex schools on the basis that males and females require a different style of teaching? Kim Gandy, author of Below the Belt, argues that single sex schools perpetuate social stereotypes. Children in these schools are taught that men and women are different and unequal. Because these schools are based on stereotypes, they create restricting environments that isolate students who deviate from the norm. In the article Weil quotes Jay Geidd, “Imagine trying to assign a population of students to the boys’ and girls’ locker rooms based solely on height. As boys tend to be taller than girls, one would assign the tallest 50 percent of the students to the boys’ locker room and the shortest 50 percent of the students to the girls’ locker room. What would happen? While you’d end up with a better-than-random sort, the results would be abysmal, with unacceptably large percentages of students in the wrong place”(Weil 8). The author cites this example to show that assumptions about gender stereotypes are not accurate because there are so many variants beside gender that affect the way that students learn. Many people argue that single sex education is actually detrimental to students. Judith Lorber writes in her article, Night to His Day, gender is largely a social construct that is ingrained in a child at a young age. The ways that students are taught in specialized single-sex schools helps to create and reinforce gender norms because girls are expected to be passive and quiet, while boys are permitted to be loud and active. These schools teach children these stereotypes and reward them for conforming to gender roles. Weis points out that, “Dr. Sax is trying to tell us that boys draw action and girls draw stasis. He might as well have said: ‘Boys are active, girls are passive. Boys should go out and have jobs, girls should stay home and have babies’ ”(Weis 9). Some people may argue that single sex schools are beneficial because they eliminate sexual distraction, and allow girls to feel confident and empowered in a comfortable environment that is devoid of a dominating male presence. However, In Below the Belt, Gandy argues that the way to empower girls is not to separate them from boys altogether, but to address the reasons why young boys harass girls and make them feel more self conscious. She writes, “When we separate the sexes, we perpetuate the concept that men and women can't get along, and that male harassment of women is best handled by building a wall, not by changing the behavior and its motivation” (Gandy 2). She argues that separating the sexes merely ignores the gender problem.
Despite the arguments against specialized single-sex schools, it has been shown that these schools have successfully increased graduation rates and have attempted to solve the nation-wide “boy crisis”. The boy crisis is a theory that boys in the United States are in an academic free fall and are virtually disappearing from college campuses. However the alarming statistics that allegedly prove the existence of this problem are extremely skewed and are misleading. The actual numbers of boys who are failing out of schools and not going college are primarily racial minorities from poor neighborhoods. The graduation rates of middle and upper class white males have not faltered. Among white students in college the ratio of males to females is consistently 49:51, and males still outnumber female students in Ivy League schools. So is this academic crisis a gender crisis, or is it an economic/racial crisis, in which the needs of poor students are being ignored by the schools systems which fail to motivate them.
If there is no real academic boy crisis, why then have single sex schools been so affective in increasing the graduation rates among girls and boys? First of all it is important to recognize that many single sex schools are being developed in poor neighborhoods in the form of charter schools. Although these are public schools, they have rigorous admission standards in which only best and most motivated students are accepted. These charter schools have been so successful not because they are single sexed, but because the students enrolled are highly motivated and their teachers are extremely invested in seeing their students succeed. So, once again, the statistics surrounding these schools are misleading because there are other factors beside gender which influence a students outcome. Although experts like Dr. Sax claim that the success of these single sex schools is due to the specialized curriculum designed specifically for boys and girls, others would argue that there are many other factors that lead to the higher graduation rates at these schools. Elizabeth Weil states that, “Many variables are at play in a school: quality of teachers, quality of the principal, quality of the infrastructure, involvement of families, curriculum — the list is nearly endless”(Weil 17). Gender separation alone does not make single sex schools successful; it is based on a number of factors including the high level of dedication demonstrated by the students and faculty.
While single sex schools have greatly improved the graduation rates among poorer students, these schools will never be able to completely solve the problems of prejudice, poverty and gender stereotypes. Charter schools place some students in a position of privilege because they are chosen to receive a better education than the other students who are left in public schools. One of the problems with charter schools is that they remove the brightest and the most motivated students from the public school system, leaving the students who are at the most risk for dropping out of school. Yes, charter schools give many students an opportunity to fulfill there academic potential, but they abandon the most vulnerable and unmotivated students in the overcrowded and under funded public school system in our cities. In order to solve the academic crisis growing among students of lower income neighborhoods, more single sex schools do not have to be created. Students do not have to be separated by gender, rather, state governments put more funding in the already existing public schools, so all students, not just the brightest students, can benefit.
Single sex schools that educate boys and girls differently have helped to perpetuate stereotypes and gender inequality. In her article, Teaching Boys and Girls Separately, Elizabeth Weil illustrates how single sex schools teach children that each gender is different and expected to act in a certain way. The biological data that proves that there is a difference between boys and girls is misleading, and from closer analysis it is obvious that each gender is most similar than different. It is therefore apparent that specialized single sex schools serve the purpose of not benefiting boys and girls but rather preserving the idea that each gender is different and unequal.
http://www.now.org/news/note/091907.html
Lorber, Judith. “Night to His Day”. Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 51
Specialized single-sex schools have been praised as one of the best ways to educate children today. These schools are different from traditional single-sex schools because their educational techniques vary based upon the gender of each student. Proponents of this kind of education believe that because boys and girls are biologically different, they require different forms of education. It would seem that tailoring a school to the specific needs of its students is beneficial. However, by basing their education on assumptions about the ways that boys and girls are biologically driven to act, these schools perpetuate gender roles and stereotypes. In the article, Teaching Boys and Girls Separately, the author, Elizabeth Weil discusses the benefits and drawbacks to single-sex schools and there underlying educational philosophies. Weil concludes that separate is not always equal.
Advocates of specialized single-sex schools believe that the biological differences between boys and girls cause them to learn and develop in significantly different ways. These schools mold their learning methods based on these assumptions. Proponents of single sex schools believe that boys and girls have different brain chemistry and structure. These factors affect the way that boys and girls process information and learn. Supporters of single-sex schools believe that boys learn better in an active classroom environment where the teachers speak loudly and are constantly moving. They believe that boys should read action/adventure books and should be actively engaged in class discussions. Supporters of this type of education believe that girls, according to their biology, learn best in social environments where students are positioned to face each other in order to engage in conversational-type discussions (Weil 7). Advocates claim that these specialized single sex schools permit teachers to use educational techniques that are designed to best suit their students. They argue that co-ed schools do not benefit all the students in the classroom because the learning methods savor the developmental needs of female students. Supposedly, due to their biology, girls are better listeners and do better in lecture based discussions. Those who subscribe to this belief argue that in co-ed schools teachers use a lecture based, passive form of learning which is better suited to girls needs. Boys, who process information better in active environments, have trouble focusing and staying connected to lecture discussions. Because they do poorly in class, boys feel alienated from their teachers and from their schools. Some people have even gone as far as to blame the women’s movement for forcing public schools to overcompensate for the historical injustices done to women, by tailoring teaching methods to benefit female students (Gandy 1). On the other hand, maximizer feminists may also be proponents for single sexed schools because they believe that males and females are biologically different. These feminists argue that laws should be enacted to embrace these biological differences so that no gender has an unfair advantage over the other.
In Teaching Boys and Girls Separately, the author interviews Dr. Leonard Sax who makes an argument for single sex schools based on the idea that boys and girls are biologically different. A closer investigation of his claims reveals that, although there are biological differences between boys and girls, most are not significant enough to cause discrepancies in the learning patterns between male and female students. For example, Dr. Sax argues that boys require teachers who project and amplify their voices because it has been proven that boys have weaker hearing than girls. However, the hearing differences between boys and girls are not significant. The actual scientific data reveals that the hearing threshold of boys is actually only between a quarter, to a half of a standard deviation lower than that of girls. Weil points out that there are more similarities than differences between the hearing of boys and girls. Similarly, it has not been scientifically proven that there is a causal connection between the biological differences of boys and girls and the ways in which they learn (Weil 10).
If the biological data collected does not prove a relationship between brain development and learning abilities, why is it that people are advocating for single sex schools on the basis that males and females require a different style of teaching? Kim Gandy, author of Below the Belt, argues that single sex schools perpetuate social stereotypes. Children in these schools are taught that men and women are different and unequal. Because these schools are based on stereotypes, they create restricting environments that isolate students who deviate from the norm. In the article Weil quotes Jay Geidd, “Imagine trying to assign a population of students to the boys’ and girls’ locker rooms based solely on height. As boys tend to be taller than girls, one would assign the tallest 50 percent of the students to the boys’ locker room and the shortest 50 percent of the students to the girls’ locker room. What would happen? While you’d end up with a better-than-random sort, the results would be abysmal, with unacceptably large percentages of students in the wrong place”(Weil 8). The author cites this example to show that assumptions about gender stereotypes are not accurate because there are so many variants beside gender that affect the way that students learn. Many people argue that single sex education is actually detrimental to students. Judith Lorber writes in her article, Night to His Day, gender is largely a social construct that is ingrained in a child at a young age. The ways that students are taught in specialized single-sex schools helps to create and reinforce gender norms because girls are expected to be passive and quiet, while boys are permitted to be loud and active. These schools teach children these stereotypes and reward them for conforming to gender roles. Weis points out that, “Dr. Sax is trying to tell us that boys draw action and girls draw stasis. He might as well have said: ‘Boys are active, girls are passive. Boys should go out and have jobs, girls should stay home and have babies’ ”(Weis 9). Some people may argue that single sex schools are beneficial because they eliminate sexual distraction, and allow girls to feel confident and empowered in a comfortable environment that is devoid of a dominating male presence. However, In Below the Belt, Gandy argues that the way to empower girls is not to separate them from boys altogether, but to address the reasons why young boys harass girls and make them feel more self conscious. She writes, “When we separate the sexes, we perpetuate the concept that men and women can't get along, and that male harassment of women is best handled by building a wall, not by changing the behavior and its motivation” (Gandy 2). She argues that separating the sexes merely ignores the gender problem.
Despite the arguments against specialized single-sex schools, it has been shown that these schools have successfully increased graduation rates and have attempted to solve the nation-wide “boy crisis”. The boy crisis is a theory that boys in the United States are in an academic free fall and are virtually disappearing from college campuses. However the alarming statistics that allegedly prove the existence of this problem are extremely skewed and are misleading. The actual numbers of boys who are failing out of schools and not going college are primarily racial minorities from poor neighborhoods. The graduation rates of middle and upper class white males have not faltered. Among white students in college the ratio of males to females is consistently 49:51, and males still outnumber female students in Ivy League schools. So is this academic crisis a gender crisis, or is it an economic/racial crisis, in which the needs of poor students are being ignored by the schools systems which fail to motivate them.
If there is no real academic boy crisis, why then have single sex schools been so affective in increasing the graduation rates among girls and boys? First of all it is important to recognize that many single sex schools are being developed in poor neighborhoods in the form of charter schools. Although these are public schools, they have rigorous admission standards in which only best and most motivated students are accepted. These charter schools have been so successful not because they are single sexed, but because the students enrolled are highly motivated and their teachers are extremely invested in seeing their students succeed. So, once again, the statistics surrounding these schools are misleading because there are other factors beside gender which influence a students outcome. Although experts like Dr. Sax claim that the success of these single sex schools is due to the specialized curriculum designed specifically for boys and girls, others would argue that there are many other factors that lead to the higher graduation rates at these schools. Elizabeth Weil states that, “Many variables are at play in a school: quality of teachers, quality of the principal, quality of the infrastructure, involvement of families, curriculum — the list is nearly endless”(Weil 17). Gender separation alone does not make single sex schools successful; it is based on a number of factors including the high level of dedication demonstrated by the students and faculty.
While single sex schools have greatly improved the graduation rates among poorer students, these schools will never be able to completely solve the problems of prejudice, poverty and gender stereotypes. Charter schools place some students in a position of privilege because they are chosen to receive a better education than the other students who are left in public schools. One of the problems with charter schools is that they remove the brightest and the most motivated students from the public school system, leaving the students who are at the most risk for dropping out of school. Yes, charter schools give many students an opportunity to fulfill there academic potential, but they abandon the most vulnerable and unmotivated students in the overcrowded and under funded public school system in our cities. In order to solve the academic crisis growing among students of lower income neighborhoods, more single sex schools do not have to be created. Students do not have to be separated by gender, rather, state governments put more funding in the already existing public schools, so all students, not just the brightest students, can benefit.
Single sex schools that educate boys and girls differently have helped to perpetuate stereotypes and gender inequality. In her article, Teaching Boys and Girls Separately, Elizabeth Weil illustrates how single sex schools teach children that each gender is different and expected to act in a certain way. The biological data that proves that there is a difference between boys and girls is misleading, and from closer analysis it is obvious that each gender is most similar than different. It is therefore apparent that specialized single sex schools serve the purpose of not benefiting boys and girls but rather preserving the idea that each gender is different and unequal.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Blog #13 - Gerson, Hakin-Dyce
In today’s society women are faced with difficult issues surrounding family commitment and economic autonomy. It seems that obtaining a balance between work and family has become an unattainable goal among many working mothers. In her article, Moral Dilemmas, Moral Lessons and the Transformation, Kathleen Gerson discusses the ways in which women’s roles in the “male-breadwinner, female-caretaker” family dynamic has changed in the second half of the twentieth century. In nineteenth century traditional American society, women were considered morally superior to men and therefore better fit in the home as the primary caregiver. This idea of moral superiority was used to justify the creation of two spheres in society in which women were isolated in the home, or the private sphere, and the men were in control of the public sphere, or the corporate workplace. Women were considered to pure to venture into the corrupt public sphere, and men were considered morally inadequate to raise children in the private sphere. This family paradigm persisted until the early nineteen seventies. At that time women began to challenge the traditional family model by venturing out of the home and questioning women’s moral superiority. When analyzed, it is apparent that this idea of moral superiority was a socially constructed idea that was meant to perpetuate gender inequality. By putting women on a moral pedestal, men were “inadvertently” oppressing women by confining them to the home. The concept of two separate spheres for men and women began to collapse when people realized that gender is not inborn but rather a social construct. Gerson writes “It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that using gender in this way is more prescriptive than descriptive.” In this quote Gerson is stating that gender is not an inherent trait but a characteristic that is assigned to all individuals.
Today women are faced with the moral dilemma of choosing between their careers and their families. Gerson explains this moral dilemma as a catch-22 situation in which women are forced to make “irreconcilable choices between caring and self sufficiency.” These choices are extremely difficult to make and almost always end in some form of societal disapproval. Despite the fact that the model of two spheres has largely been rejected, its ideals are still rooted in society. Women are almost always considered more responsible for household obligations. In some form or another, the traditional family dynamic is still present in our society. Women are expected to carry the bulk of the child care and household chores while men are primarily concerned with their careers. Another problem faced by working mothers is the inflexibility of employers. Most do not cater to the needs of working mothers who need to devote a large amount of time to their families. Having a balance between a woman’s family and career is made nearly impossible by the fact that many employers expect complete dedication from their workers. Gerson explains that there is a growing crisis among families who try to “balance the need to provide economic support with the need to devote time and attention.”
Aisha Hakim-Dyce’s article, Reality Check, relates to many issues discussed in Kathleen Gerson’s article. Through her own experience Hakim-Dyce illustrates how our society works on systems of privilege in which people are forced to make extremely difficult decisions. In Gerson’s article, she describes how it is nearly impossible for both men and women to balance there careers and their family lives. This is because employers expect so much from their workers and do not offer many exceptions for working mothers. Lower class women are at a disadvantage because most of the time they will be forced choose their careers over their family so that they can provide financially for their children. On the other hand women in the upper and middle class can work less hours because they have more financial stability. A balance between their family and their careers are more attainable for women of a higher socioeconomic status. Hakim-Dyce is also forced to make a tough choice between a job and her college education. Like Hakim-Dyce many women cannot afford a college education because they need to work full-time in order to support themselves financially. Women who come from middle or upper class backgrounds are able to afford a college education without having to worry about supporting themselves. These women can graduate from college and find higher paying jobs that are reserved for college graduates. Women who are forced to drop out of college, due to financially reasons, are forced to work in lower income jobs and therefore can never escape their financial instability.
Today women are faced with the moral dilemma of choosing between their careers and their families. Gerson explains this moral dilemma as a catch-22 situation in which women are forced to make “irreconcilable choices between caring and self sufficiency.” These choices are extremely difficult to make and almost always end in some form of societal disapproval. Despite the fact that the model of two spheres has largely been rejected, its ideals are still rooted in society. Women are almost always considered more responsible for household obligations. In some form or another, the traditional family dynamic is still present in our society. Women are expected to carry the bulk of the child care and household chores while men are primarily concerned with their careers. Another problem faced by working mothers is the inflexibility of employers. Most do not cater to the needs of working mothers who need to devote a large amount of time to their families. Having a balance between a woman’s family and career is made nearly impossible by the fact that many employers expect complete dedication from their workers. Gerson explains that there is a growing crisis among families who try to “balance the need to provide economic support with the need to devote time and attention.”
Aisha Hakim-Dyce’s article, Reality Check, relates to many issues discussed in Kathleen Gerson’s article. Through her own experience Hakim-Dyce illustrates how our society works on systems of privilege in which people are forced to make extremely difficult decisions. In Gerson’s article, she describes how it is nearly impossible for both men and women to balance there careers and their family lives. This is because employers expect so much from their workers and do not offer many exceptions for working mothers. Lower class women are at a disadvantage because most of the time they will be forced choose their careers over their family so that they can provide financially for their children. On the other hand women in the upper and middle class can work less hours because they have more financial stability. A balance between their family and their careers are more attainable for women of a higher socioeconomic status. Hakim-Dyce is also forced to make a tough choice between a job and her college education. Like Hakim-Dyce many women cannot afford a college education because they need to work full-time in order to support themselves financially. Women who come from middle or upper class backgrounds are able to afford a college education without having to worry about supporting themselves. These women can graduate from college and find higher paying jobs that are reserved for college graduates. Women who are forced to drop out of college, due to financially reasons, are forced to work in lower income jobs and therefore can never escape their financial instability.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Blog #12 - Naples
The article Queer Parenting for the New Millennium, by Nancy Naples, discusses the controversies surrounding same sex marriages and parenting. George Bush said in 2004 that, same sex marriage “would undermine the welfare of children and the stability of society.” Naples addresses this statement by arguing that poverty, not gay marriage is the main factor that contributes to the instability of families. She blames President Bush for faulting same sex marriages while ignoring the more significant underlying issues that cause family insecurity. What makes same sex marriages more susceptible to poverty are the laws supported by President Bush, such as the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. This law provides monetary assistance for lower income parents who are in traditional heterosexual marriages, while ignoring the needs of individuals in same sex relationships who are prohibited to marry. Therefore needy parents who are in homosexual relationships are not entitled to the same benefits afforded to heterosexual married couples. Naples also discusses some of the difficulties and barriers presented to gay parents. She details the alienation felt by non-biological comothers who are forced to explain their relationships with their children. Comothers also experience a detachment from society. The pregnant partner becomes more accepted by society because she shares a commonality with heterosexual mothers (pregnancy), while the comother is considered the other. Naples closes her article with the same idea that Paula Ettelbrick discussed in her article, Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation. Both authors discuss the problem of rights without justice, which is the idea that assigning homosexuals more legal privileges will not create social acceptance. Naples states that, “it is unlikely that by itself legal change will create acceptance or transform dominant cultural values.” To improve society’s view of homosexuality, we need to question compulsory heterosexuality and gender norms. The best way to benefit same sex couples would be to promote societal acceptance rather than push for the rights to marriage.
A domestic partnership is a legal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life, but are neither joined by marriage or a civil union. In New York State there are three ways that a couple can gain domestic partnership status. 1- by having registered with some jurisdiction that provides a registration system for domestic partners, such as one of the cities or counties in New York State with domestic partnership registries; 2 - by being a person's designated partner for employee benefits purposes at work; or 3 - the catch-all category, by being able to provide documentation of dependence or mutual interdependence, mainly along financial lines. The New York State law allowing domestic partnerships includes such rights as providing that a decedent's domestic partner will take priority over anybody except a person specifically designated in a will or a special designation of agent for this purpose. The law also includes the right to control the disposition, including burial, interment or cremation, of the remains of such decedent and all reasonable costs associated therewith and the disposition of any part of the decedent's body. Therefore, surviving domestic partners will take priority over surviving adult children, surviving parents, surviving adult siblings, surviving guardians or estate property.
A domestic partnership is a legal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life, but are neither joined by marriage or a civil union. In New York State there are three ways that a couple can gain domestic partnership status. 1- by having registered with some jurisdiction that provides a registration system for domestic partners, such as one of the cities or counties in New York State with domestic partnership registries; 2 - by being a person's designated partner for employee benefits purposes at work; or 3 - the catch-all category, by being able to provide documentation of dependence or mutual interdependence, mainly along financial lines. The New York State law allowing domestic partnerships includes such rights as providing that a decedent's domestic partner will take priority over anybody except a person specifically designated in a will or a special designation of agent for this purpose. The law also includes the right to control the disposition, including burial, interment or cremation, of the remains of such decedent and all reasonable costs associated therewith and the disposition of any part of the decedent's body. Therefore, surviving domestic partners will take priority over surviving adult children, surviving parents, surviving adult siblings, surviving guardians or estate property.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Blog #11 - Ettelbrick
In her article, Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation, Paula Ettelbrick discusses her beliefs regarding same sex marriage. Ettelbrick supports same sex relationships; however she argues that marriage would destroy the identity of gay or lesbian couples by forcing them to conform to society’s norm. She wants to emphasize the difference between homosexual and heterosexual individuals and advocate for societal approval of all relationships despite their marital status. Marriage would undermine the gay rights movement which is trying to get people to recognize and respect the difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Ettelbrick argues against same sex marriage because she believes that marriage is about having everyone conform to an appropriate standard. Those people who resist marriage are not considered to be in a legitimate relationship and therefore not worthy of the legal benefits given to married couples. Instead of simply giving homosexual couples the right to marry; Ettelbrick would rather address the underlying issues that allow the government to deny homosexual couples the rights afforded to married heterosexual couples. She states that, “Gay and lesbian marriages will not demolish the haves and have-nots. We must not fool ourselves into believing that marriage will make it acceptable to be gay or lesbian. We will be liberated only when we are respected and accepted for our differences and the diversity we provide to this society.” Paula Ettelbrick argues that giving homosexuals the right to marry is an example of false empowerment in which they believe that they are gaining legal power but ultimately they are being forced to conform to society’s norm. Marriage would be upheld as the norm and considered the only acceptable relationship. Ettelbrick believes that the act of allowing homosexuals to marry would be society’s attempt to model every relationship to heterosexual relationships.
I disagree with many of Ettelbrick’s arguments. It seems contradictory that as a lesbian herself, Ettelbrick would not support the marriage of homosexual couples. I understand her arguments against marriage however I believe that all individuals should be given the option to get married. If homosexual marriage was legalized, Ettelbrick could still resist conforming to society by choosing not to marry her partner. In her article Ettelbrick tries to emphasize the differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples. However I don’t believe that same sex and heterosexual couples are so different that each group should receive different legal privileges. I do however agree that the underlying social issues causing the disparity of legal privilege needs to be addressed before gay and lesbian individuals can truly be liberated from social oppression.
I disagree with many of Ettelbrick’s arguments. It seems contradictory that as a lesbian herself, Ettelbrick would not support the marriage of homosexual couples. I understand her arguments against marriage however I believe that all individuals should be given the option to get married. If homosexual marriage was legalized, Ettelbrick could still resist conforming to society by choosing not to marry her partner. In her article Ettelbrick tries to emphasize the differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples. However I don’t believe that same sex and heterosexual couples are so different that each group should receive different legal privileges. I do however agree that the underlying social issues causing the disparity of legal privilege needs to be addressed before gay and lesbian individuals can truly be liberated from social oppression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)