finally. a post.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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."

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.

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.

Ramblings of a Sickie

For the past several days, I have been laid up in bed stricken with that awful flu bug.  My major accomplishments have been turning the TV on and off.  With a 100 degree fever and blankets piled so high I could barely see the TV over them, I managed to come to the realization that Women & the Law has ruined the simplicity of television for me.  The other night I was laying in bed listening to an episode of MASH (that's right I didn't even bother trying to keep my head up to see the actual show), and all I could think of was, my gosh I cannot believe the gender roles they are portraying here.  Its really amusing because in this episode the lead woman's paramour wanted her to where pretty dresses and make his food for him and she fought back against this notion of a woman's duties.  I originally thought, hey that's cool this show was progressive in trying to shatter traditional notions of gender.  But, I then proceeded to think back about other episodes and came to realize what a gendered nightmare this show actually is.  The strong female lead who has attained the rank of major is nicknamed Hotlips, shows masculine characteristics as we might say in class, and is hyper sexual.  All, other women on the show are basically sex toys.  Not exactly my ideal portrayal of women. So now, even while delirious with fever, I cannot seem to watch a simple comedy TV show for pleasure. No, I must pick apart every little aspect of those 22 minutes.  So I ask you, does anyone remember when TV was just something fun to watch before law school corrupted your viewing habits? 

GREAT POSTS!

Such GREAT posts, everyone! Keep up the good work!

Sorry I had to cancel class today -- I've got the virus Maya had last week. Sigh. I can't talk, but I can still type. But who knows if I can make sense with a fever of 102!

Two things to think about while we don't have class:

1. A reporter at NBC has been suspended because he said that the Clintons were "pimping out" Chelsea by having her call superdelegates to campaign for Hillary. Do you think a reporter would have said the same if Mitt Romney's sons were making calls for their dad?

2. Remember the attitude test I mentioned that revealed my bias toward the elderly? If you're interested in checking out your attitudes, click here!

What would Saint Valentine think?

Since Valentine's day is getting closer, I have noticed that there are more sexist commercials on television. The commercials are all about buying women flowers and diamonds and big teddy bears. So if men are being encouraged to be generous, why am I so offended?
I thought that Valentine's day was about celebrating love. Love that is equally shared between men and women, and even parents and children, and between friends. So why is the media focused in on getting "your girl" exactly what she wants? What she wants of course is expensive, flashy, and material. Women never want to spend quality time, uninterrupted with their loved one's according to the media (except for maybe sex--as the KY commercial tells us).
Why aren't there commercials about what to get men for Valentine's day? I have yet to see one, but I'm sure there is at least one.
This morning I noticed a sexist Valentine's day event in the wierdest place, my son's cartoon, The Mickey Mouse Clubhouse. I only saw the last 10 minutes, but that was enough for me to be shocked. Mickey had spent the whole show making a Valentine's day present for Minnie. (no problem yet) Then at the end Mickey gives his present to Minnie, with Donald and Daisy right there. Daisy turns to Donald and asks him if he forgot anything, Donald says no (but he has no present for Daisy). So Daisy throws a hissy fit, and tells Donald that he is mean or something to that effect. (this is a little offensive, that Daisy needs a present to not throw a hissy fit) What really got me was when Mickey used his last Mousekatool to make Daisy a bow for her hair that Donald could give her. Donald gives her the gift and she calms down and is all happy again. And the icing on the cake is at the very end when Mickey says that he made the bow and not Donald. Daisy "goes off" about how Donald didn't make it, and then says "but, its OK, I love my bow". This to me stereotyped women as materialistic, who need men to give them presents to be happy. And the worst part of the whole event was that my first thought after being shocked was "at least I don't have a daughter learning this lesson." I'm kicking myself, that I thought it was OK for my son to learn this.

"Because you're not THAT GUY"

Okay this commercial bugs me because the guy is "going beyond the call of duty." With this commercial, yes, amusing, he groomed the dog and even put a bow on it--not common for men to do. But eww! I've watched this a few times, and I've come to this conclusion: The "regular guy" that goes to Helzberg instead, is so not appealing...the "regular guy" is lazy! And diamonds are lovely, but I would take domestic labor any day. This commercial says to me: oh she'll love the necklace, you don't have to actually do something that requires over 30 minutes of effort.

Maybe a car, maybe if this was a Lexus bow commercial (you know, the big surprise outside commercials), maybe then I would not be so repulsed. Because that spouse went through at least 3 hours of car bargaining, and the result was a finely tuned automobile. (Joking!)

But in all seriousness, I hate the preconceived duties that men and women have. These sentiments should be changing. It should be an entirely reasonable concept that a male spouse would wash a family pet!

How Efficient Would You Be?

As I watched the Super Tuesday primary returns the other night, I came across this on the internet, and upon a bit of investigation, found that it was an actual article. It was kind of surreal to be reading it while listening to pundits on all the cable news networks discuss Hillary Clinton as our potential next President. Since it coincides with some of our discussions on employment discrimination and stereotypes, I thought I would post it here.

An excerpt written by L.H. Sanders from the July 1943 issue of Mass Transportation magazine… This was written for male supervisors of women in the work force during World War II.

“Eleven Tips on Getting More Efficiency Out of Women Employees: There's no longer any question whether transit companies should hire women for jobs formerly held by men. The draft and manpower shortage has settled that point. The important things now are to select the most efficient women available and how to use them to the best advantage.

Here are eleven helpful tips on the subject from Western Properties:

1. Pick young married women. They usually have more of a sense of responsibility than their unmarried sisters, they're less likely to be flirtatious, they need the work or they wouldn't be doing it, they still have the pep and interest to work hard and to deal with the public efficiently.

2. When you have to use older women, try to get ones who have worked outside the home at some time in their lives. Older women who have never contacted the public have a hard time adapting themselves and are inclined to be cantankerous and fussy. It's always well to impress upon older women the importance of friendliness and courtesy.

3. General experience indicates that "husky" girls - those who are just a little on the heavy side - are more even tempered and efficient than their underweight sisters.

4. Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination - one covering female conditions. This step not only protects the property against the possibilities of lawsuit, but reveals whether the employee-to-be has any female weaknesses which would make her mentally or physically unfit for the job.

5. Stress at the outset the importance of time the fact that a minute or two lost here and there makes serious inroads on schedules. Until this point is gotten across, service is likely to be slowed up.

6. Give the female employee a definite day-long schedule of duties so that they'll keep busy without bothering the management for instructions every few minutes. Numerous properties say that women make excellent workers when they have their jobs cut out for them, but that they lack initiative in finding work themselves.

7. Whenever possible, let the inside employee change from one job to another at some time during the day. Women are inclined to be less nervous and happier with change.

8. Give every girl an adequate number of rest periods during the day. You have to make some allowances for feminine psychology. A girl has more confidence and is more efficient if she can keep her hair tidied, apply fresh lipstick and wash her hands several times a day.

9. Be tactful when issuing instructions or in making criticisms. Women are often sensitive; they can't shrug off harsh words the way men do. Never ridicule a woman - it breaks her spirit and cuts off her efficiency.

10. Be reasonably considerate about using strong language around women. Even though a girl's husband or father may swear vociferously, she'll grow to dislike a place of business where she hears too much of this.

11. Get enough size variety in operator's uniforms so that each girl can have a proper fit. This point can't be stressed too much in keeping women happy.”

Beautiful, But at What Cost?

During lunch today I was watching a show on plastic surgery addicts. The first thing I noticed was that every person interviewed was a woman. I know there are men that become obsessed with plastic surgery, it is not solely women consumers. The second thing that caught my attention was the lengths these women would go to in order to achieve "perfection." The choices of one women in particular were particularly appalling. In order to finance her $55,000 of elective surgery she was selling the beautiful home that her husband adored. Her son also loved their home, he and his dad hiked through the creek and went fishing on a regular basis. Was sacrificing something so cherished by her family worth liposuction and a breast augmentation? I cannot imagine being self absorbed enough to engage in such actions. Originally I was mad that she was being ridiculous and then I started to look at the bigger picture. Why is it that women feel they have to be beautiful to be accepted? Women should be valued for more than their physical attractiveness, but society has projected the image you are less valuable if you are an unattractive woman.

When was it that Americans became obsessed with the easy way to achieve their goals? The first step should be hard work and dedication. If a person desires the perfect body, working out and eating healthy should be the first step, not elective surgery.

Because elective surgery has now become an option, the standards for beauty have become almost unattainable. Enough is enough. It should not surprise anybody that girls (and boys) struggle with self image. We are attempting to raise children in a society obsessed with physical perfection and teaching children that other attributes are less importance than physical appearance. I wish optional plastic surgery was not an option. Americans should learn to accept themselves as God created them. For all the flaws I may have, this is the body that God gave me and I am going to love it, flaws included.

I also became irritated with myself while watching this show. Immediately I thought "go figure, women obsessed over their looks." My reaction frustrated me and made me realize how easily I can stereotype my own class. It also made me realize that it is often other women that are the most critical of women in general. It is possible that if women worked together, and stopped being their own worst enemy, we could start to make a difference in the societal stereotypes. But, at the same time, I find the problems numerous and the optional solutions frustrating.

It's always the television's fault

My first favorite thing about Netflix is that they have effectively introduced the term ‘queue’ into daily US lingo. My second favorite thing is that you can get an amazing variety of television shows neatly compiled and commercial-free delivered to your mailbox. I have lived without a television for a while and Netflix has provided me with the ability to decipher pre-class banter. My fiancé and I just finished our marathon viewing of HBO’s Six Feet Under and have moved on to the same network’s series, The Wire.

Five episodes in and I’m hooked. The show centers around a Baltimore police task force assigned to infiltrate a large drug operation that has claimed the lives of many Marylanders, including one State’s witness. Unlike many television crime dramas, this one doesn’t take sides or otherwise valorize law enforcement. The story-line flip-flops between various perspectives: cop, detective, drug addict, informant, district attorney, judge, public defender, prostitute—none of whose lives is sugar-coated. I was first drawn by the mystery, then by the politics but ultimately hooked by the honesty.

Perhaps I’m over-sensitized because of my enrollment in Seymore’s Women and the Law, but my infatuation with the show is being challenged by my inability to stop analyzing women’s portrayal in everything I encounter. While women are distinctly absent from much of the cast, the roles they occupy are oozing with themes of inferiority and otherness.

Time for a disclaimer: I have only seen the first 5 episodes of The Wire. Four more seasons follow, but this analysis is based on those first 5 episodes.

The character of Kima is the largest female role. She is a narcotics detective assigned to the task force. While she is a lead detective, she is essentially one step above the lowest rank with several layers of males out-ranking her. Two of the central themes involving Kima are her lesbian lifestyle and her girlfriend’s worry over her safety. In effect, the sole female cop emulates a male identity.

The character of Rhonda Pearlman is the other regular female presence. She is an assistant state’s attorney who acts as liaison between the task force and the courts. Rhonda’s lack of character is notable. Also notable is her infatuation with lead character Detective McNulty whose booty-calls keep her favors coming to the task-force.

Other female characters play very minor roles. McNulty’s ex-wife is portrayed only in reference to his child custody dilemmas. Although McNulty is an alcoholic and endangers his children several times by mixing their visits with his work, his wife is portrayed as interfering with his fathering by continually nagging and criticizing him.

The women associated with the drug operation are primarily prostitutes and girlfriends. They are portrayed as weak-links who are targeted by the cops for their propensity to snitch. The men are largely unfaithful and otherwise disrespectful to the women. In one episode, a prostitute is sexually assaulted and dies from asphyxiation after she is abandoned in a drunken state warranting little to no reaction of the men who are present.
Is it an interest in fostering a stereotypical female presence that a show touted for its truthful characters portrays women as inferior and naive? Or are the women in The Wire a result of the writer’s effort to nail the female role? My unfortunate realization is that it likely the latter. And even more unfortunate is that even though I endorse that portrayal by watching the show, I don’t plan on rearranging my Netflix queue.