i have never seen a speaker captivate an audience at our school like the one i saw yesterday. every laptop was closed & every pair of eyes was glued to the woman at the front of the class. in fact, i had even planned on reading for class during the presentation, but was sucked in. the presentation was about women in litigation. the speaker made two very interesting points (and i hope i don't butcher this explanation too badly...)
first, that women are confined to this box. it is a box that stands for how we should act, what we should look like, sociological norms that we should conform to, etc. BUT when a woman exhibits behaviors outside of this box, she is labeled one of four things: bitch, tease, whiner, or hysterical female. think about this. have you ever been labeled one of these things for acting outside of the "box?" for example, the speaker mentioned that some students have placed her in one of those categories as a professor. HOWEVER, while some students may have assigned this "label," i think it is their way of reacting to an unconventional woman professor. for some reason, she does not fit in some students' "boxes" so she is unfairly labeled this way (even though she is one of the best professors here). the point really hit home in the presentation when the speaker asked all of us as women to never assign these labels to each other. this can absolutely be applied to women in law-- instead of trying to compete w/ one another, we need to be helping each other.
the second point was about emotion. i honestly wish i could remember more so i could explain it better, but i can't so i'll go on...
another thing i just remembered is what the speaker mentioned about younger women--that they are more likely to say they haven't been victim to sex discrimination. i'm not sure i quite agree w/ this statement as a young woman, but maybe that's because i have more of a background with these types of issues. or perhaps younger women are more naive as to the harsh sexist realities of the world today. i think professor seymore made an excellent point when she asked us to think about the amount of respect given to young male professors vs. young female professors. my point is, maybe there isn't as much outward blatant sexism today, but it still exists.
final point: yesterday's women in litigation presentation was really great. i hope it opened some minds & motivated others to make changes.
that's all for now.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
No Luck Improving Men's Flag Football
For two or three years, I have been my husband's personal cheerleading squad for his flag football team. Season after season I watch from the sidelines and they lose more than they win. A few teams have girls on their teams, one of which actually beat my husband's team. I asked my husband last weekend, why don't they add me to their team as a rusher to quickly get in and pull flags? His response was that he would have two deficits to overcome at that point instead of one--a female and young players that he has to deal with. He went on to say that it would be a death sentence for their team (already losers!!!). He added that he would have to talk to me differently (not as rough and direct), it wasn't as easy as it looked, emotion would cause the guys to be protective without their head in the game-in case I got touched or talked to inappropriately. Also, he referred to my sub-par athletic ability (o.k., I did excel in academics in school and never played sports before-so what, it can't be that hard to run towards a particular person right?).
I was not totally shocked that he assumed I would not be able to handle 'sports/guy sports' pressure. He immediately went into the 'protective' mode like I would necessarily need it. I was thinking about the cases we discussed and how they fit in here. There are girls flag football teams, guy flag football teams and co-ed teams. I do have options if I really choose to play. However, guys look for skill and ability first, rather than strategy. I, being of the more strategic mindset, made a great suggestion after seeing one of their major flaws-pulling flags quickly, and was shot down. I witnessed this technique from the co-ed team that beat them-they put their girls in on defense, to rush in quickly and pull the flags.
Ultimately, my husband did invite me to their practice if I was serious. So, be on the lookout for future posts to see if I've infiltrated the guy's flag football team!
I was not totally shocked that he assumed I would not be able to handle 'sports/guy sports' pressure. He immediately went into the 'protective' mode like I would necessarily need it. I was thinking about the cases we discussed and how they fit in here. There are girls flag football teams, guy flag football teams and co-ed teams. I do have options if I really choose to play. However, guys look for skill and ability first, rather than strategy. I, being of the more strategic mindset, made a great suggestion after seeing one of their major flaws-pulling flags quickly, and was shot down. I witnessed this technique from the co-ed team that beat them-they put their girls in on defense, to rush in quickly and pull the flags.
Ultimately, my husband did invite me to their practice if I was serious. So, be on the lookout for future posts to see if I've infiltrated the guy's flag football team!
Sex-Segregation in Middle School, Protectionist or Practical?
I've been thinking a lot over the past few days about our discussions of sex segregation in schools. Recently, my 14-year-old niece has been having problems at school with different boys teasing her and touching her. Her complaints have been mostly ignored by many of her teachers, who tell her to stop talking to so many different boys or to just stay away from them. However, they refuse to change her seating assignments and continue to assign group projects where she has to regularly work with the same boys. So she asked me the other day what she was supposed to do. Other than getting really frustrated by the attitudes of her teachers, I really had no good answers for her other than to talk to her parents to see if they can figure out a better solution with the school.
To me, she would benefit from a sex segregated school, and I wonder how many other teenage girls go through the same things and would benefit from a sex segregated solution. Apparently, a school in Georgia was thinking the same thing this week. I came across this story on MSNBC.com.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23338384/
What if sex segregation would make the girls feel safer as my niece implied? Yes, we don't want to be protectionist when it's not necessary, but what happens when a school refuses to protect individual students because there is no good way to keep them away from the other sex?
To me, she would benefit from a sex segregated school, and I wonder how many other teenage girls go through the same things and would benefit from a sex segregated solution. Apparently, a school in Georgia was thinking the same thing this week. I came across this story on MSNBC.com.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23338384/
What if sex segregation would make the girls feel safer as my niece implied? Yes, we don't want to be protectionist when it's not necessary, but what happens when a school refuses to protect individual students because there is no good way to keep them away from the other sex?
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
No Monetary Value for Homemakers!!!!
My husband and I were watching 'Everybody Loves Raymond' and it was quite enlightening. This episode touched on many of the classes' discussions. First, Raymond decided to invest in a friend's business venture before discussing it with his wife. He had the friend to come over and give a presentation to get Debra on board-well she didn't. But guess what? Raymond had already fronted the friend $1000, before he asked him to give the presentation-and couldn't get it back because the friend had spent all of the money on his preparation for the presentation. Go figure!!! While it appeared that Raymond and Debra were equally considering whether to use their pool of resources for this business venture, Raymond had already invested.
The episode continues with Raymond trying to slip in his misfortune on losing their $1000 and pre-emptively fronting his friend the money by bringing up a time when Debra gave a homeless man a $5 bill when she didn't have change-and she did not worry about it because the guy obviously needed it more than she did. During the discussion following Raymond's confession and their differing opinions about having to discuss how to allocate finances, Raymond says the unthinkable-if he wants to invest in his friend's business he doesn't have to discuss it because it is his money!!! He made the money!!!
The next day, after Debra slept downstairs, she had composed a list of expenses for Raymond, charging him for full time child care, full time chef, housekeeping, etc.-demanding payment for the things she does daily that do not usually translate into monetary value. I was internally cheering, because I knew what she was talking about and also flashed to class discussions. Women handle millions of tasks daily whether they choose to stay at home or circumstances place them on the homefront. The family would not function as smoothly, if she did not carry out all that she does in a day. However, society and individuals regularly overlook this and grant no real value-monetary or otherwise. While women are already personally dealing with the issue of financial dependence on another if she is a homemaker, it digs the knife in that much deeper when the man, who has decided to be her husband, supposed 'family provider', lover, etc., has the audacity to say out loud (even if thinking it) that "I make the money and its mine to decide how to spend it". If married and a unit, then discussion of how the family's resources are allocated should take place-regardless of how the pool got there.
Which brings me to another point in the show. While Debra is discussing with Raymond his actions, it comes out that she has on occassion handled funds without discussing it with Raymond. She borrowed money to handle some household needs and replaced it without mentioning it. So, they decide to discuss from this point on and agree to let this instance go and call it even. The show ends with Raymond saying, I work for her don't I? His brother answers in the affirmative.
Both sides should discuss their plans for finances from the family's resources. This presents questions of equality in the realm of expectations in a marriage, role designations, etc. My husband and I discussed these things following the show, and though we disagree on many points-he makes some valid arguments. Is it equal for men's finances to automatically be considered 'the family's resources' without discussion and women have a say in how allocation works, but then when women get money it is not understood that it will primarily be 'the family's resources'-there is little or no discussion on how to allocate and even with opposition-the decision is usually singularly made and carried out by the woman? Well, my response included talk of role designations and the ideal situation. When men decide to be husbands/fathers, it comes with certain responsibilities-including providing for the 'family'. If women are working, their income should be included in the 'family's resources' to take care of necessities first, but if they are not working and unpaid-their pool of resources is still the 'family's resources'-even if she has not financially contributed to that pool.
I believe that it is fair for both sides to openly discuss and contribute; however, I know that realistically some discussions will come after the act is already done. I know this has been a mouthful, but I was thrilled to have something relevant to the class to share and discuss at home too.
The episode continues with Raymond trying to slip in his misfortune on losing their $1000 and pre-emptively fronting his friend the money by bringing up a time when Debra gave a homeless man a $5 bill when she didn't have change-and she did not worry about it because the guy obviously needed it more than she did. During the discussion following Raymond's confession and their differing opinions about having to discuss how to allocate finances, Raymond says the unthinkable-if he wants to invest in his friend's business he doesn't have to discuss it because it is his money!!! He made the money!!!
The next day, after Debra slept downstairs, she had composed a list of expenses for Raymond, charging him for full time child care, full time chef, housekeeping, etc.-demanding payment for the things she does daily that do not usually translate into monetary value. I was internally cheering, because I knew what she was talking about and also flashed to class discussions. Women handle millions of tasks daily whether they choose to stay at home or circumstances place them on the homefront. The family would not function as smoothly, if she did not carry out all that she does in a day. However, society and individuals regularly overlook this and grant no real value-monetary or otherwise. While women are already personally dealing with the issue of financial dependence on another if she is a homemaker, it digs the knife in that much deeper when the man, who has decided to be her husband, supposed 'family provider', lover, etc., has the audacity to say out loud (even if thinking it) that "I make the money and its mine to decide how to spend it". If married and a unit, then discussion of how the family's resources are allocated should take place-regardless of how the pool got there.
Which brings me to another point in the show. While Debra is discussing with Raymond his actions, it comes out that she has on occassion handled funds without discussing it with Raymond. She borrowed money to handle some household needs and replaced it without mentioning it. So, they decide to discuss from this point on and agree to let this instance go and call it even. The show ends with Raymond saying, I work for her don't I? His brother answers in the affirmative.
Both sides should discuss their plans for finances from the family's resources. This presents questions of equality in the realm of expectations in a marriage, role designations, etc. My husband and I discussed these things following the show, and though we disagree on many points-he makes some valid arguments. Is it equal for men's finances to automatically be considered 'the family's resources' without discussion and women have a say in how allocation works, but then when women get money it is not understood that it will primarily be 'the family's resources'-there is little or no discussion on how to allocate and even with opposition-the decision is usually singularly made and carried out by the woman? Well, my response included talk of role designations and the ideal situation. When men decide to be husbands/fathers, it comes with certain responsibilities-including providing for the 'family'. If women are working, their income should be included in the 'family's resources' to take care of necessities first, but if they are not working and unpaid-their pool of resources is still the 'family's resources'-even if she has not financially contributed to that pool.
I believe that it is fair for both sides to openly discuss and contribute; however, I know that realistically some discussions will come after the act is already done. I know this has been a mouthful, but I was thrilled to have something relevant to the class to share and discuss at home too.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Stop and Frisk
I was riding out with my fiance on Saturday. He is a police officer and I thought the ride along could prove entertaining. I originally was watching how other officers profiled cars and people to decide who to stop. Then something else caught my attention. Adrian stopped a car and was going to search the car. His backup arrived and pulled the female passenger out to be sure she had no weapons. He had to bring the female to the front of the car, face her towards the in car camera, and could only search her with the back of his hand. When the stop was complete I asked whether females searching males had to follow this same procedure and the answer was no. Interesting. I find it hard to believe that no male would find it uncomfortable to have a female performing an intrusive search. I believe it would be fair to extend this same courtesy to males being searched by females. Another concern is that the policy was enacted because there is a risk of sexual assault claims and the department does not want to give the appearance of impropriety. It is as though we have to protect females from the cops who may violate their rights. Is there absolutely no risk that a female would sexually assault a man if a search is performed off camera?
Policies like these can prove disturbing. On one level it is comforting to know that these policies are being enacted due to past events and officers taking advantage of their authority. But, on another level it reinforces the protectionist attitude. What harm would result from simply having such a rule but applying in to both sexes? I understand a department's desire to lower chances of lawsuit as much as possible; but, a man could just as easily sue for sexual assault in a similar situation. Or could he? A man could be made fun of if he brought such a lawsuit. After all, what "real man" would mind being felt up by a woman? We could prevent men from feeling such pressure if we applied the rule universally. However, it does not appear that society feels that men need such rules.
On a side note, I was entertained when a man asked if I had been arrested for the same thing as him-family violence. I wanted to say "Of course, I am just a special prisoner, that is why they put me in the front seat." I refrained and replied with the standard "No, I am not under arrest."
Policies like these can prove disturbing. On one level it is comforting to know that these policies are being enacted due to past events and officers taking advantage of their authority. But, on another level it reinforces the protectionist attitude. What harm would result from simply having such a rule but applying in to both sexes? I understand a department's desire to lower chances of lawsuit as much as possible; but, a man could just as easily sue for sexual assault in a similar situation. Or could he? A man could be made fun of if he brought such a lawsuit. After all, what "real man" would mind being felt up by a woman? We could prevent men from feeling such pressure if we applied the rule universally. However, it does not appear that society feels that men need such rules.
On a side note, I was entertained when a man asked if I had been arrested for the same thing as him-family violence. I wanted to say "Of course, I am just a special prisoner, that is why they put me in the front seat." I refrained and replied with the standard "No, I am not under arrest."
Friday, February 15, 2008
Tootsie
I took a TV break from researching a paper topic for another class, and, of course, found something fun on TV to distract me for longer than the planned 1/2 hour... maybe it's indicative of poor discipline or maybe (and hopefully because it sounds better) I really like my Women and Law class! Tootsie is on TCM! What a classic! I haven't watched this in years, but I was suprised and delighted to find references to class discussions in just the first 15 minutes of my viewing.
For anyone who hasn't seen the movie (I highly recommend it), Dustin Hoffman plays an out-of-work, desperate actor who dresses as a woman to land a part on a soap opera. He learns of the part through a girl friend who was denied the part for looking too feminine. He was nearly denied the part on the same basis (oh, the irony!) He procures a reading for himself by bringing out decidedly male manners during a speech where he asks whether a woman in power (referencing the acting role) must be a masculine woman. In other parts of the film, he finds even getting a taxi dressed as a woman is easier when he uses his male shout and male physicallity to stand up for "herself."
He is trying to play a woman, but finds that his natural maleness is an advantage in that role on and off the set. "Dorothy" becomes popular and he must carry out her portrayal more and more off-set, convincing press and colleagues alike that Dorothy is real. It is interesting to see how people react to his male characteristics versus the female characteristics in the woman costume and what advantages/disadvantages come from the different characteristics. He sympathizes (even empathizes?) with women when he begins to understand the power disparity between the sexes and how the empowered sex treats the other (take sexual harassment, for example. The "Tootsie" title is a reference to the cute nickname Dorothy's boss gives her.) After gaining celebrity, Dorothy becomes a symbol of female power looked up to by real women, but of course Dorothy is really a man. With ego brimming, Dorothy's male alter-ego seeks PR opportunities where "she" can inspire women to stand up for themselves, but he is reminded by a knowing friend that he doesn't know anything about what it is like to be a woman... he is, after all, a man.
For anyone who hasn't seen the movie (I highly recommend it), Dustin Hoffman plays an out-of-work, desperate actor who dresses as a woman to land a part on a soap opera. He learns of the part through a girl friend who was denied the part for looking too feminine. He was nearly denied the part on the same basis (oh, the irony!) He procures a reading for himself by bringing out decidedly male manners during a speech where he asks whether a woman in power (referencing the acting role) must be a masculine woman. In other parts of the film, he finds even getting a taxi dressed as a woman is easier when he uses his male shout and male physicallity to stand up for "herself."
He is trying to play a woman, but finds that his natural maleness is an advantage in that role on and off the set. "Dorothy" becomes popular and he must carry out her portrayal more and more off-set, convincing press and colleagues alike that Dorothy is real. It is interesting to see how people react to his male characteristics versus the female characteristics in the woman costume and what advantages/disadvantages come from the different characteristics. He sympathizes (even empathizes?) with women when he begins to understand the power disparity between the sexes and how the empowered sex treats the other (take sexual harassment, for example. The "Tootsie" title is a reference to the cute nickname Dorothy's boss gives her.) After gaining celebrity, Dorothy becomes a symbol of female power looked up to by real women, but of course Dorothy is really a man. With ego brimming, Dorothy's male alter-ego seeks PR opportunities where "she" can inspire women to stand up for themselves, but he is reminded by a knowing friend that he doesn't know anything about what it is like to be a woman... he is, after all, a man.
Female Ref Barred from Calling Game
http://sports.aol.com/story/_a/female-ref-barred-from-calling-game/20080214091409990001
I don't know if anyone else saw this, but I thought it was blog-worthy. The ref couldn't be in this game because of the academy's religious beliefs that a woman should not be in a place of authority over boys. Wow. I know this is a Catholic school and is quite different from a public institution, but wow. This is discrimination, without a doubt, but my confusion is from the fact that a religious school is behind the activity. The state really isn't involved at all. But, this is still so wrong! I guess I could go through the full analysis, but this is so blatantly unjust! I know that everyone has the freedom of religious beliefs, but there are other schools involved in these games--schools that do not ascribe to the same beliefs.
I don't know if anyone else saw this, but I thought it was blog-worthy. The ref couldn't be in this game because of the academy's religious beliefs that a woman should not be in a place of authority over boys. Wow. I know this is a Catholic school and is quite different from a public institution, but wow. This is discrimination, without a doubt, but my confusion is from the fact that a religious school is behind the activity. The state really isn't involved at all. But, this is still so wrong! I guess I could go through the full analysis, but this is so blatantly unjust! I know that everyone has the freedom of religious beliefs, but there are other schools involved in these games--schools that do not ascribe to the same beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)