Overall I think WS200 was very interesting. Many of the topics discussed reaffirmed my own values or made me rethink my position. For example, one idea that got challenged involved relationships:
I no longer believe in committee-like approach in families. Instead, implicit positions should be given to a member depending on their experience in the respective area. This is a very ideal concept, and consistent execution would be difficult.
Unfortunately an online class is unable to offer the same kind of interaction a classroom does. And while I enjoyed the course in its present form, I would have rather of conducted discussions in person rather than over a message board. The message board, in theory, would have allowed for more in depth discussions since people could research a topic further and present their findings or argue the positions of others. A classroom does not provide this; however, response is immediate. Also, topics must be tabled whenever a new one is presented. This does not happen on the discussion board since threads can run simultaneously and allow for the discussion of multiple topics.
The road to equality is a long one. Most changes will be so subtle that progress will not be apparent until it is analyzed years from the moment it happened. I live by what I believe to be right, and though not as effective as dedicating my life to changing a cause, I hope the affect on people is small enough to help the cause. Gender equality is not a small issue, and I applaud those who dedicate their lives for change. Some problems I see in the future involve nations that do not share the same vision of equality as most western nations would. Changing those values could be constituted as an attack on their culture, but where does one draw the line?
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Module 18
One of my previous entries discussed inner-city black females. Single black mothers are becoming more commonplace than they were sixty years ago. Often I hear relatives discussing how different the times were when they grew up. When a woman became pregnant, she married the man; doing otherwise was unheard of and shameful. A woman could not, and was not able to raise a child on her own (most of them still hold this view to be true) since her husband was able to find work inside the city as industries such as manufacturing were still located in these areas. As time passed, the industries left and the males were unable to get jobs to support families. The result can still be seen today. Many men, unable to find work, loiter the streets of the inner-city hustling or finding odd jobs that don't bring the promise of gainful employment.
I thought this bit from a congressional testimony was interesting:
Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)
As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her seminal article for The Atlantic Monthly:
The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)
The above argues that single parent homes are suspect to propagating delinquent behavior in inner-city neighborhoods. Statistics that were included within the trail claimed that areas of high crime also saw high rates of children being born out of wedlock and are often raised without fathers.
I thought this bit from a congressional testimony was interesting:
Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)
As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her seminal article for The Atlantic Monthly:
The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)
The above argues that single parent homes are suspect to propagating delinquent behavior in inner-city neighborhoods. Statistics that were included within the trail claimed that areas of high crime also saw high rates of children being born out of wedlock and are often raised without fathers.
Module 17
Many laws have been created for the safety of women, and these were created as a response to problems in society.
I think laws are a necessary crutch to reducing the gap in gender inequality, though, these laws act as a double edge sword in that they both protect women and acknowledge that they require protection from someone other than themselves. Sweden is a nation where many laws ensure womens' safety. During some research I did for my PowerPoint presentation, statistics showed an increase in domestic abuse since the law had been enacted. The report (by the Swedish Institute) determined that this was due to more women reporting the actions against them, instead of keeping quiet.
It is regrettable that these violence laws are not created for both genders. Males, though not as frequently, also suffer from abuse; however, I feel voicing equal concern would be akin to focusing on white issues during the Civil Rights Movement. Yes, all races should receive the same treatment as the next, but there are more pressing issues to fix with these particular races at the moment. Men enjoy more privileges than women (even in countries that are considered to be progressive and civilized). I understand and am confident on my stance of gender equality; society, on the other hand, does not share the same view as I.
One parallel I found involves race and affirmative action. Realistically, there are little differences between blacks and whites outside of society. When both are taken in a social context, blacks have inherent disadvantages over whites. This disability is corrected by creating laws that give them the same privileges as whites. Often they are explicitly acknowledge that such rules were created especially from them as it is understood that whites would never require such assistance. The same can be seen for women and these laws. Though they are not disabled, they still require explicit assistance that men don't.
I think laws are a necessary crutch to reducing the gap in gender inequality, though, these laws act as a double edge sword in that they both protect women and acknowledge that they require protection from someone other than themselves. Sweden is a nation where many laws ensure womens' safety. During some research I did for my PowerPoint presentation, statistics showed an increase in domestic abuse since the law had been enacted. The report (by the Swedish Institute) determined that this was due to more women reporting the actions against them, instead of keeping quiet.
It is regrettable that these violence laws are not created for both genders. Males, though not as frequently, also suffer from abuse; however, I feel voicing equal concern would be akin to focusing on white issues during the Civil Rights Movement. Yes, all races should receive the same treatment as the next, but there are more pressing issues to fix with these particular races at the moment. Men enjoy more privileges than women (even in countries that are considered to be progressive and civilized). I understand and am confident on my stance of gender equality; society, on the other hand, does not share the same view as I.
One parallel I found involves race and affirmative action. Realistically, there are little differences between blacks and whites outside of society. When both are taken in a social context, blacks have inherent disadvantages over whites. This disability is corrected by creating laws that give them the same privileges as whites. Often they are explicitly acknowledge that such rules were created especially from them as it is understood that whites would never require such assistance. The same can be seen for women and these laws. Though they are not disabled, they still require explicit assistance that men don't.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Module 16
“Welfare queen” was a new term I learned in the last few days. It refers to someone collecting welfare payments through fraud. First used during Ronald Regans 1976 campaingn, it became a label placed on poor mothers and carried racial connotations. The quote read:
She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.
I think welfare is a feminist issue because a lot of single mothers may rely on it since some may be less likely to obtain the same pay as single fathers. Although welfare is not available to persons indefinitely (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act prevents this), I think some would require it more than others. Groups concerened with their particular demographic can help those get what they need, and female support groups do exactly this.
Western cultures are less likely to shun single mothers than some other cultures are. In this day in age, having a baby out of wedlock is no longer a serious act of deviance, although the person may still be shunned in his or her respective coumminty. Women with children are expected to be married, and unless the father has died, may have a difficult time earning respect. On the most immediate level (people they see everyday), acceptance in the community may be difficult. The mother may have habits that are not approved of (drugs for example), and others around her may be less likely to lend a hand should she need anything; association with a person like her may bring one's own social status down. When it comes to dealing with someone outside the immediate area, the government for example, the mother may be in a position to divulge less information or blatant lies to receive the kind of assistance she needs.
Privacy is becoming a rare things these days (the Internet provides information many thought was confidential). I think when it comes to obtaining TANF for the first time, a person or family should be given a bigger benefit of the doubt. Although this good faith system can still be exploited, subsequent return trips will trigger alerts within the office if individuals are looking to abuse the system.
She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.
I think welfare is a feminist issue because a lot of single mothers may rely on it since some may be less likely to obtain the same pay as single fathers. Although welfare is not available to persons indefinitely (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act prevents this), I think some would require it more than others. Groups concerened with their particular demographic can help those get what they need, and female support groups do exactly this.
Western cultures are less likely to shun single mothers than some other cultures are. In this day in age, having a baby out of wedlock is no longer a serious act of deviance, although the person may still be shunned in his or her respective coumminty. Women with children are expected to be married, and unless the father has died, may have a difficult time earning respect. On the most immediate level (people they see everyday), acceptance in the community may be difficult. The mother may have habits that are not approved of (drugs for example), and others around her may be less likely to lend a hand should she need anything; association with a person like her may bring one's own social status down. When it comes to dealing with someone outside the immediate area, the government for example, the mother may be in a position to divulge less information or blatant lies to receive the kind of assistance she needs.
Privacy is becoming a rare things these days (the Internet provides information many thought was confidential). I think when it comes to obtaining TANF for the first time, a person or family should be given a bigger benefit of the doubt. Although this good faith system can still be exploited, subsequent return trips will trigger alerts within the office if individuals are looking to abuse the system.
Module 15
Single mothers of low socio-economic status often have the stigma of being system abuses. Many black women in poorer parts of the inner-city, for example, often get pregnant and end up raising the child alone. They may be out to abuse the system (living on welfare) or had a partner that did not want, or could not, handle the responsibility of raising a child and left.
Racism is still around in the United States; however, I think it has changed its definition. To me, racism refers to dislike or hatred of a race. Period. It does not take into consideration of culture, nationality or any other attribute of a person expect his or her race. The racism we see today is based on class identity. Many inner city blacks are often poor, and as a result, the entire black race lives with this connotation. The same goes for Hispanics and other minority groups in the United States. People that exhibit the traits of a lower socio-economic class are likely to be treated different depending on who they are talking to. Their mannerisms may indicate where they came from, and the other person may not respond favorably.
Many black women living in the inner-city suffer from this image. In job interviews, potential employers may react negatively if she exhibits those qualities of a typical "hood" female, and may even not consider her for the position. These considerations are also reinforced if the female is expecting to have a child or already has one.
I understand why a company would be dissuaded from hiring a pregnant worker. This is blatant discrimination, and I think would be a great issue to look into at some point. Should women consider when they have children before they apply for a job? I think this places extra responsibility on her end and is probably too big of a topic for me to dwell on in a single entry.
Racism is still around in the United States; however, I think it has changed its definition. To me, racism refers to dislike or hatred of a race. Period. It does not take into consideration of culture, nationality or any other attribute of a person expect his or her race. The racism we see today is based on class identity. Many inner city blacks are often poor, and as a result, the entire black race lives with this connotation. The same goes for Hispanics and other minority groups in the United States. People that exhibit the traits of a lower socio-economic class are likely to be treated different depending on who they are talking to. Their mannerisms may indicate where they came from, and the other person may not respond favorably.
Many black women living in the inner-city suffer from this image. In job interviews, potential employers may react negatively if she exhibits those qualities of a typical "hood" female, and may even not consider her for the position. These considerations are also reinforced if the female is expecting to have a child or already has one.
I understand why a company would be dissuaded from hiring a pregnant worker. This is blatant discrimination, and I think would be a great issue to look into at some point. Should women consider when they have children before they apply for a job? I think this places extra responsibility on her end and is probably too big of a topic for me to dwell on in a single entry.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Module 14
A global perspective seems like a great idea until one considers cultures outside of his or her own. A method or procedure may work great within Romania, but who's to say that the same success will result from transplanting it into Japanese borders? Ethnocentrism hinders global ideas because consideration is not given to the needs and functions of other cultures. Global feminism creates an idea of a woman, and this idea must have an origin. More likely than not, the global idea of a woman will come from a western nation. Amoralism is the opposite of ethnocentrism; within the scope of humainty, no culture or society is any better or worse than the other. This is a great way to study other cultures, however, it does little to further the mission of global feminism. Women in western nations certain enjoy more freedoms than women in parts of Africa and the Middle East, but what gives one the right to go and change their way of life. Is attempting to do so admitting that some cultures are better than others; that some cultures are doing it wrong?
Amoralism is difficult to practice when social norms are considered atrocities within one's own culture. The existence of absolute rights and wrongs are, in my opinion, something the individual needs to consider on his or her own. Transnational feminism offers are compromise between a ethnocentrism and apathy. Instead of imposing one template of woman on all cultures across the world, each nation colloborates with others reach its goal. Collaboration is the slowest way to accomplish a task; however, if successful, all parties are able to win in the final result. This is an extremely difficult and delicate process since each culture has its own idea of what a woman is.
In my opinion, transnational femnism considers everyone's opinion instead of the opinion of the nation with the most power (usually a western one). Unfortunately it will be a lengthy process to bring about global equality when other cultures practice are respected, even when they run counter to one's own beliefs.
Amoralism is difficult to practice when social norms are considered atrocities within one's own culture. The existence of absolute rights and wrongs are, in my opinion, something the individual needs to consider on his or her own. Transnational feminism offers are compromise between a ethnocentrism and apathy. Instead of imposing one template of woman on all cultures across the world, each nation colloborates with others reach its goal. Collaboration is the slowest way to accomplish a task; however, if successful, all parties are able to win in the final result. This is an extremely difficult and delicate process since each culture has its own idea of what a woman is.
In my opinion, transnational femnism considers everyone's opinion instead of the opinion of the nation with the most power (usually a western one). Unfortunately it will be a lengthy process to bring about global equality when other cultures practice are respected, even when they run counter to one's own beliefs.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Module 13
Relationships between homosexuals and straight persons present similar problems found in platonic relationships. Should at some point one develop feelings for the other and wish to pursue something other than friendship, he or she risks rejection and losing the relationship. Heterosexual and homosexual friendship faces this problem too; however, the heterosexual member is more likely to reject all advances than entertain them as if they were in a heterosexual platonic relationship.
The homosexual member of the friendship may be reluctant to talk about anything other than banal chit-chat to avoid upsetting the other -- especially if he or she is unaware of their stance on homosexuality. This constant vigilance and self-consciousness of one's deviant behavior puts an even bigger strain on the homosexual friend if he or she has developed feelings outside of normal friendship. They stand at a crossroads wondering if they should divulge how they really feel or continue to masquerade as casual friends to preserve what they have. Homosexuals risk more than rejection if they decide to reveal their true feelings.
Termination of friendship, loss of contact, and even violence are likely outcomes awaiting their choice. Because of these possible reactions, many make use of gay clubs or areas catering to gay culture, if their area provides them. These establishments offer an environment where they are more likely to find someone to a relationship deeper than they are in the mostly heterosexual world.
The homosexual member of the friendship may be reluctant to talk about anything other than banal chit-chat to avoid upsetting the other -- especially if he or she is unaware of their stance on homosexuality. This constant vigilance and self-consciousness of one's deviant behavior puts an even bigger strain on the homosexual friend if he or she has developed feelings outside of normal friendship. They stand at a crossroads wondering if they should divulge how they really feel or continue to masquerade as casual friends to preserve what they have. Homosexuals risk more than rejection if they decide to reveal their true feelings.
Termination of friendship, loss of contact, and even violence are likely outcomes awaiting their choice. Because of these possible reactions, many make use of gay clubs or areas catering to gay culture, if their area provides them. These establishments offer an environment where they are more likely to find someone to a relationship deeper than they are in the mostly heterosexual world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
