Unit D - Blog 39

The main initiatives that need to occur are ones that don’t involve gender. English clearly states that her views of the future would include traits of personality and leadership, not about gender differences. To obtain these initiatives the first thing that would have to change is the culture of law. Law has many gender issues engraved in the structure. English shares views with Whalen regarding leadership. They both believe that there should be shared leadership traits. Men and women should combine their “gendered” traits to expand their leadership qualities. Another aspect of structure that English feels very strongly about is job and life satisfaction. She believes that this is feasible one day. This book clearly illustrated that current jobs in law as essentially having no work life balance unless you wanted to be alienated and less compensated. English’s summary of these issues really hit home with me when she clearly stated that it wasn’t just about women and men in law; it was just about law, and doing it right. If lawyers spent as much time and effort on executing their jobs to the fullest, and less time on focusing on gender issues, and on who’s committed and who isn’t, then everyone will benefit. English’s whole point is to find common ground between male and female, not scope in on the differences. Her strongest points of her conclusion were when she stated that it shouldn’t be uncomfortable for men and women to work together. Lawyers shouldn’t have to worry about rumors of sexual affairs when working with an opposite colleague. Social networking should be a place where men and women can exist and have common ground. The ultimate solution is to combine our knowledge and abilities to deliver a great product through our personalities.

Unit D - Blog 38

Myra Bradwell was one of five women lawyers in the United States in 1870. Bradwell was married to a judge, who had previously practiced law after passing the Chicago Bar Exam. After learning law under her husband, she passed the test for admission to the Chicago Bar, but was denied by the Illinois Supreme Court in 1869, then later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Bradwell was already a notable female in the history of law by just passing the Chicago Bar alone, but she later made more historical impact. During her denial by the U.S. Supreme Court a noteworthy remark was made by a member of the courts that was as follows, “The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many occupations of civil life....The paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and benign office of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator." This just shows the outrageous discrimination during those times in America. Nearly fifteen years later the decision was reversed by the Illinois Supreme Court and she was approved and licensed to practice law, and made her the first women to practice law in the state of Illinois. Some of the reason for the initial ruling was because it was not a social norm for women to practice law. Also, had they approved it, it would have opened the window for other women to practice law. This later proved to be true, but only few went through that window. This was significant in history because it was groundbreaking. She was amongst the first to break the gender barrier in law. After those initial barriers are broke, it really does open opportunities for others. One other thing I found notable about Bradwell was that she was a mother of four children. She did however lose two of her children, but nevertheless, she was able to pass the bar and becoming a lawyer while being a mother. Something that even 130 years later still seems to be impossible, or at the least challenging.

Unit D - Blog 37

Many of English’s findings are similar to the ones of the American Bar Association Commission. The first comparable area that was noted was the gender stereotyped behaviors which the Charting Our Progress article uses examples of “insufficiently aggressive, uncomfortably forthright, too emotional, or not as serious as men about their careers.” These are all stipulations or suggestions that English and the subjects or her studies have pointed out. This article later uses terms such as “too boxy, too aggressive, not aggressive enough, too emotional, or too strident.” to describe women in law. These weren’t the same exact terms used in Gender on Trial, but the same concepts of gender discrimination. The next notable part was the sexist terminology that research proved to be more likely in smaller towns. The writing claimed that judges and bailiffs would use the words “honey” and “baby” when calling on female lawyers. The next area that Charting Our Progresses examines is the access to traditional business networks, which the article refers to as “informal networks men have with one another.” This is also practically out of English’s writing. English gets a little more specific when she talks about the golf course, sports, and cigars though. The next topic went to the all so popular work life balance. This article points out that flexible scheduling is very available to lawyers, but that lawyers were afraid to use those benefits because of fear for the possible consequences it would have on their careers. The following sentence explains that they would be perceived as “less seriously committed.” That term committed is used again. That last area of controversy discussed was the issues for the “multicultural” women. They had are parallel to English’s notions that often had to prove and establish their competency. Overall, I think this document was essentially a shorter and more brief version of Gender on Trial.

Unit D - Blog 35

The EEOC recommends “best practices” for employers to adopt for their organizations. These best practices aren’t new laws and aren’t required, they are only suggested. Several times throughout the text, the term work/life balance was used. English uses these same terms while addressing these same issues. This entire document was completely consistent with all of the issues that English points out in Gender on Trial. The EEOC recommendations were also applicable to men as well. One of the laws under these recommendations allows for men to not be denied leave time when women are allowed to have these same benefits at that organization. One big difference in the terminology used on the EEOC document compared to Gender on Trial was the term “caregiver.” However, this term was used in the book Putting Children First. Also, the EEOC and Putting Children First both addressed the care giving of elders and not just children. The EEOC document clearly states that there is not any legal obligation to follow their “best practices”, but that there suggestions are higher than the minimum legal requirements. Towards the end of the best practices they explain that having a better work life balance increases efficiency. This was pointed out in the material during Putting Children First, but seemed pretty absent during Gender on Trial. In fact, the perception was almost opposite when it came to flexible scheduling in law. The current lawyers suggested that work quality and efficiency would decrease, not increase. I don’t think many law firms would adopt these practices as they are only recommendations. In fact, I think that many of the laws that are considered to be minimal requirements may even cause a lot of firms to be in liable situations. These best practices appear to me to be pretty gender equal. The EEOC points stereotypes that Gender on Trial also did that “men are thought to be ill-suited for caregiving and thus not in need of parental leave or a flexible work schedule”, and that “Women caregivers are often thought to be less committed to their paid work or to be likely to be less competent because of their actual or likely role in caregiving.” This is nearly identical to the perspectives that are clearly displayed in Gender on Trial. It seems that law is the extreme and is really a great example to show that there are gender inequalities and there is a poor sense of work life balance. If you think about all of these same concepts can be applied to any nontraditional job for women, but law paints a bright picture of what is really going on.

Unit D - Blog 36

Yes, corporate America can lure women back into the workforce. In some ways we already are, but not enough. As NPR states, women are just as capable. Statistics show that women are attending college at higher rates than ever, and more women are currently receiving a college education. Another topic NPR points out is the challenge for females to balance their lives, and obviously they are referring to the balance of work and family. This was very apparent during Unit B, and there were several solutions that Unit B showed us this semester. Flexible scheduling has become a more and more discussed topic, but it is also beginning to happen more often at organizations. This is one thing corporate America can use to lure women in. The amount of technology and the abilities to work from home are very realistic ways of encouraging women to rejoin the workforce. Another part of NPR that stuck out to me is when they mentioned the mom would prefer to be at their children’s school play. During Unit B one speaker pointed out the guilt factor of having to miss those types of things. Flexible schedule would eliminate some of this guilt and allow them to balance both worlds. The next area that this radio show explores is the sacrifice that has to be made in order to hold a career. They state that women are more likely to sacrifice their career for family, and men likely wouldn’t. The biggest area to explore while considering this would likely be wages. The ratio of salary between men and women is still lopsided and women take that into consideration when deciding rather to join the workforce, and sacrifice their family time for mediocre wages, when their husband can go out and make more money and allow that time. If women made the same wages men do for the same roles, then their likely would be more stay-at-home dads and somewhat of a balance in society. With all these things considered, I think we can lure women back in, and we are.

Unit D - Blog 34

It has been pretty common in all the materials we have studied all semester long that work and life balance is a problem. Early on in the semester it was related to parents finding childcare while working. It then went onto women working in non-traditional roles, the differential treatments in law enforcement type positions, and now we are studying the work life balance issues of law workers and politicians. Joan Williams looks at the work life balance issues of every type of job, and all of them have the same theme: it is difficult for mothers to balance work and life. With that being said, I do want to note that it isn’t just mothers, but jobs with tedious workloads and hours, and fathers that has strong parenting values outside of our society’s norm. Women are now a strong part of the work force, but still are considered to be a liability because of pregnancy. In the New York Times article Deonarian was strong evidence that women become a liability when they are pregnant. Pregnancy isn’t anything new, but in the work force it is fairly new. Clinton passed new welfare reform in order to expand the workforce. It worked as far as expansion goes, but opened the eyes to a lot of issues with balance work and parenting. Some major issues that arise when considering work life balance have to do with children. The development of a child is compromised when both parents, or the only parent, are working full time. There is also this issue obtaining high paying more desirable jobs, which also is elevated when children come into the picture. Williams reflects on the structure of our society’s work habits. She points out that we still follow the structure of the “ideal worker” which is the 40 hour a week job, the men traditionally have worked, and states that because of this structure they have “immunity from family work.” Basically what she is saying is that the way our society is formed is for people to work much longer than probably necessary. She notes that in Europe they have more flexible schedules and fewer hours. English, and others constantly discuss flexible scheduling and other work structure alternatives, but many of them have negative consequences on their careers. If society continues to look down and not give these new alternatives a chance, then we will continue to have this structure that doesn’t allow a work life balance for parents, and only allows for one parent to work. In the New York Times article there are examples of employers not being very understanding, even though they try to come off as that in the beginning. Even in Gender on Trial, many firms will offer flexible scheduling, but when someone chooses to use it, they are looked down upon by their peers and superiors. The only individuals that seem to flourish in the current structure are either women without children, or men with or without children, and I guess for the limited instances, the women that have stay-at-home husbands. Men are starting to break away from this notion of the “ideal worker” and use maternity leaves and flexible scheduling to be part of their children’s lives. English notes that a lot of men noticed the lack of time with their fathers and don’t want that for their children. These men are also feeling the effects of using schedule alternatives to allow a work life balance. In the end, until we break out of tradition and accept alternative scheduling, or come up with something, then this will continue to be an ongoing issue for our society.

Unit D - Blog 33

The advancement of women has many challenges. They have obstacles with being in a nontraditional field for women, the challenges of overcoming stereotypes of being female, and then they have to worry about parenthood if they go that route. Women lawyers first have to work their butt off to gain credibility from their peers. They can’t slip up at all because they are under high scrutiny. Once they establish themselves as capable of performing to the same level as men, and by establishing themselves I mean outperforming men to be considered capable they then have to deal with the obstacles of gender stereotypes. If during any of this they decide to have children they are labeled and aren’t considered to be “real lawyers.” If they use any type of alternative scheduling or non-traditional work structure, then they are questioned for their commitment. During all of this they have to find ways to be included. They aren’t golfers and cigar smokers, and culturally don’t have sports knowledge and background that men do, so it is difficult to team build and find common ground with the people that are important for their career advancement and development. Basically the women that have advanced have had to outperform their peers and put in the long hours. They don’t have a work life balance, which both men and women in the field acknowledge is part of the job, or it is the reason they have been driven out of the job. There are very few exceptions for mothers that have advanced. The ones that have advanced have, in what society would label it as, compromised being a good parent. The women lawyers that have advanced without children are still questioned by their peers, and viewed differently by the older generations. Whelan talks about the pipeline of women getting their foot in and it will open the doors to higher positions, but this hasn’t helped. The women that have advanced have had to battle and fight odds to get there.

Unit D - Blog 32

If you are a parent in law, you are looked at differently; women more so than men. The natural and apparent assumption, not only in law, but in every field is that a child is going to come first to a mother. For a father, this is not the same. Traditionally mothers have been the caretakers while fathers are the breadwinners. Our society structure allowed for men to be at work long hours and to worry about paying the bills and putting food on the table. Mothers obviously were on the other side of that and it was their responsibility to stay at home and raise children. It is now becoming a norm that mothers work, but they are still expected to raise the children. In the law field it is assumed that if a woman has a child there is a good chance she will have to leave work and won’t be able to put 100% into a case. For male lawyers that have children, it is assumed his wife will take care of those issues rather if she works or not. These assumptions make it very difficult for mothers to have respect from their peers.

On the other side of the fence there is the mother that values her job and really doesn’t let her children affect her performance. This type of woman lawyer will still be “committed” and work the long hours, but will then receive criticism on being a good mother. It is a double edged sword. I found it interesting that many mothers were secretive about having children in order to keep the respect from their peers. One mother even hid her pregnancy for eight months, and when she announced her pregnancy she got a wow type reaction that she didn’t let it affect her. Outside of the office the mothers that work long hours and that are high-powered have to then be concerned with perceptions from other mothers that think they aren’t raising their kids properly or giving them enough attention. I couldn’t believe that one mother wouldn’t tell other parents outside of work that she was a lawyer because they would judge her parenting.

Unit D - Blog 31

Men and women both agree that large time commitments are necessary when becoming a lawyer. This causes many issues when it comes to a work and life balance, but even more so when children are involved. When individuals get into law, they know that it is going to be long hard hours, and not a lot of time for extended periods off and short hours. In my opinion it is something that lawyers take pride in. They know they aren’t going to receive a bunch of recognition for their accomplishments. They are in it for the pride and money. They put energy and long hours into passing the bar and representing clients. It gives them a sense of status as a hard worker and being committed. For any type of lawyer, family or not, it is difficult to have a work life balance.

There are several “solutions” that have been suggested, but many of them have their pros and cons. The mainstream suggestions include flexible scheduling, reduced hours or working part-time, telecommuting, and job sharing. Many of these seem more practical with the amount of technology our society still has, but they really aren’t considered to be practical at all in the field of law. Due to that strong culture of commitment and long hours, many lawyers aren’t very accepting of their peers and colleagues who opt to use these alternatives. Lawyers that do go this route, often women, are not considered to be “real lawyers.” Some peers become resentful because they don’t reap the same benefits, and it is considered to have a lack of commitment. A quote from one lawyer, who was female, said that you “can’t dabble in law.” They will also later feel guilt. They are aware of the same values and culture of commitment and know that they are going outside the box of the traditional law structure and it bothers them. This work life balance is why there is such a high turnover with lawyers. The ones that are “committed” and work the hard hours get burnt out. The lawyers that go with alternative work schedules don’t feel welcome or capable and leave. This system will be a really hard field to break into based on the tradition of law.

Unit D - Blog 30

A conventional view about male leadership would be that men have the experience in powerful positions and that they have the proper education and knowledge to succeed in these positions. They also have statistics to back up the notion that they are successful in leadership roles. Women don’t have these experiences and statistics to compare because they traditionally haven’t had the opportunities to make these statistics. However, in the youtube.com video, Does Gender Matter, there are some strong statistics that say women are an advantage in leadership roles. One statistic noted was that Fortune 500 companies that have more women in leadership roles have 34% more profits than ones without. Women also have statistics that prove they have the same educational background and qualifications, but are only a minute amount of women in leadership positions. Whelan points out in the Shared Leadership video that sexism still exists, but it is now much more subtle. Men will benefit because they are more likely to hire like individuals to themselves, that being men. Whelan also points out that another disadvantage, which is also an advantage, is that there are a few women in notable leadership positions such as Hilary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, which in some ways takes attention away from the positions that don’t have a enough women inclusion.

Some gender expectations frame the types of leadership behavior for women. The framework for men is already there and it has been there for a very long time, but for women it is forming and there is a lot of influence from gender stereotypes and socialization. As previous areas of research have shown us, there are implications of “gendered” behaviors that trickle into the workplace. In Shared Leadership Whelan suggests that women will bring a different type of performance and skills. They will be strong at working in teams and building relationships. These are because gender affiliations with nurturing and care giving. There are also notions that women will address issues outside of just their own. Because they are a minority, they will be able to relate to other minority issues and address them. Wheman suggests that child care issues and education would be an issue that they would surface because those issues have been neglected in the past and are likely more important to women. Basically with women there will be new issues brought up and there will be change. With men we can only anticipate the consistency that history has shown us.

When women get the chance and actually are in leadership roles consistency, there will be many positive outcomes. First, diversity is great because it gives us new perspectives. As Whelan suggests, issues that have been ignored or swept under the rug by male leadership will be brought to the table and addressed. It will be a norm for women to be an equal part of society and we won’t lose focus on the issues because someone different is in that role. I liked that Whelan said that women being in leadership role won’t be to just benefit women, it will be to benefit everyone. This is my favorite stance on movements. This is the stance that Martin Luther King Jr. took. He wanted equality and everyone to benefit from equality, he didn’t want his people to become the advantaged, he wanted them to be the equal for a better society. This is what Whelan is saying too. It will be shared leadership, not women dominating leadership roles. It will give men new perspectives on leadership styles that they can adopt, and men will teach women their styles and it will be combined. She believes that if shared leadership happens everything will improve from the economy, to democracy, and other issues that haven’t been addressed. I agree too. Women are over half of our population, but we only use a small percentage for leadership roles. We haven’t been using a large chunk of our potential, and with more people to choose from, there will likely be better results.

I am neutral on which leadership style I prefer. I guess the type I would favor is shared. I have had both male and female supervisors and bosses, and each had similarities and differences. My previous manager was a man and he had an intimidation factor that he was able to use with his leadership. For me that intimidation factor really helped develop me. When he gave me tough feedback, I took it serious. With my manager before that, who was a female, there really wasn’t an intimidation factor, but she helped develop me nevertheless. I got into heated conversations with both of them, and neither one backed down. My female manager developed me by working with me more often. My male boss just left me alone and gave me feedback to either change or keep doing what I was doing. I really do like the shared leadership style. I think it makes you more universal to different work environments and teaches you different leadership styles as opposed to just one narrow type.

Unit D - Blog 29

Turnover is very high when it comes to minority women in law firms. There are many reasons for this. White women have to battle with being different as law is nontraditional for females. Minorities have to deal with the different treatment as a female, but also the difference of being a minority. The percentage for women is low, but for minority women is even lower at four percent. Minority women have to deal with the implications by men that they are not competent enough and the double standards. When they say something it means one thing or isn’t acceptable, but when a man, especially a white man says it, it is totally valid. This is similar to Sotomayor when she was labeled aggressive it was perceived as negative, but when a white man was described this way it was positive. It is a battle for women to have to deal with these institutionalized inequalities and they have to deal with it on a daily basis. For women and minority women, the question is if it is worth dealing with a discriminatory environment regularly, or moving on to somewhere in which they are valued and don’t have to deal with hostility. On NPR the stereotypes of male professionals assuming that an African American female is automatically assumed to be a secretary, and that they have to deal with the looks on the faces of successful men when a women of color carriers themselves in a way that shows they are in charge. During the interview the lawyer stated that dealing with the biases and stereotypes really wasn’t worth it, especially considering the amount of hours. So the answer really is that it’s not worth it for them to stick around. The interviewee also stated that companies that really value diversity make strong efforts to retain and recruit a diverse organization.

Unit D - Blog 28

This article illustrated that the exact same descriptions and terms used to describe a man and a woman can mean two totally different things when interpreted by the media and society. Jeffrey Rosen wrote an article about Sotomayor that later proved to be completely distorted from the truth and discredited. However, even though he had a sneaky and dishonest approach, he did influence others to share his notion. Terms such as temperament, domineering, inflated opinion of self, and bully are all terms that the media used to describe Sotomayor because she is smart and aggressive. Foser points out that when men are smart and aggressive that they have positive affiliations through the media. When Foser and Hutchinson point out the true double standard, it really demonstrates with solid evidence that the media can portray a man different from a woman using the same words. It is flat out discrimination. I notice this same type of discrimination in sports relating to race. White quarterbacks are similar to the amount of white male chairs on the Supreme Court. These quarterbacks are described as smart and strong leaders. When commentators speak about black quarterbacks, they often use terms such as talent, athleticism, and god given ability. These terms are rarely ever used to describe a white quarterback, and you almost never hear a black quarterback as being referred to as smart or good decision maker. They both are performing the same task, and many of the same base skills are needed, although everyone has different strengths at those skills. It is the same thing with Sotomayor. She went to Princeton and Yale and completed the same type of education as her peers and competition, but she isn’t considered to be smart, just like the black quarterback. She is referred to as the “cookie cutter” candidate because of her diversity. It is pretty ridiculous. This type of hidden prejudice is in language everywhere. Since I’ve become a justice student I have paid attention to it on the radio, television, work, school and everywhere else and I notice it everywhere. Just listen for key terms when people talk about gender, race, religions, sexuality, etc. and you will notice that words have different meanings and situations are considered different depending on whom the subject is.

Unit D - Blog 27

Women are still clawing into the field of law, and because of this they are viewed as inferior based on the history of women in the field, and women not having education as available in the past. The easiest solution to overcome these perceptions is to compensate with hard flawless work, which will prevent skepticism. This is very comparable to Jackie Robinson being the first African American to play in major league baseball. He was handpicked by the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers for many reasons, but the most important was that he had enough athletic ability to perform at a level that they wouldn’t be able to question that. Women in law are doing the same thing; they are performing at a level that can’t be questioned. Many women prefer to do it themselves because they don’t want to be questioned as not being able to do it themselves by their male counterparts. Some women even talked about strategies to avoid giving men the ammunition to question them such as leaving talk about their family and children out of their work environment. I found the part about building relationships very interesting. English points out that there are cultural gender topics such as football and sports, and stogies and golf, which help build relationships between men, and women often don’t have those same opportunities to build relationships. There is also the concern of sexism. English suggests that men and women will likely work with the same sex to avoid awkwardness and not leave room for sexual misinterpretations. Another strategy that women use to capitalize in the courtroom is the underdog route. Women go into the trial or case over prepared and won’t miss a beat and wait for a moment to jump out and prove their competency. I don’t think they should have to do that, but they do. It works too. This is a strategy often used in sports. A losing team will get complete excessive preparation and come out and stomp a top team because the opposition is expecting a lower performance and it catches them off guard. Overall, women have found ways to combat these gender inequalities and have to do these things for the time being to neutralize the playing field. Hopefully this won’t have to happen in the future and these strong workers will have proved to men that they are capable and there won’t be any question.

Unit D - Blog 26

Males that assist female lawyers are treated almost as equals, even when they are junior to the female managing partner. I found it remarkable that there is such an obvious indifference the way these female lawyers described their treatment. The example of the body language differences is likely the first way they experience. The manager partner stated how the client would naturally face the male and makes strong eye contact and turns his chair towards the male assistant, but when she stated she was the manager partner, their entire demeanor would change and they wouldn’t even make eye contact. The sad part about it is that most of the individuals that are displaying these behaviors don’t even notice that they are doing it. The most degrading example discussed in Gender on Trial was when they were at meetings and they would expect a senior female to order food and take care of those types of arrangements. The things I found most stunning about these instances was that the dialogue implied that they performed these tasks even though they didn’t think it was right, or if it frustrated them. As far as workload, some examples the book listed is that women in senior positions would have to perform paralegal tasks. I have a friend that used to be a paralegal for a male lawyer and the entire reason she quit was because of the amount of workload she had over the other paralegal who was a male. When I first started working with her about six months ago and we were discussing out previous work experiences I asked her why she left her job as a paralegal. Her answer was that the last firm she worked for she was treated terrible and had an outrageous work load. She went on to say that she had to do all kind of daunting tasks like getting coffee and reorganizing the office. The last area discussed in Gender on Trial was how males acted during interviews. Again, this demonstrated poor body language and eye contact towards the female. I found it interesting that the female partner’s notes were almost completely opposite of the male partner’s notes. The main trend I have noticed in all of the materials pertaining to lawyers and politicians is the lack of credibility they have as far as being smart and intelligent. It seems that they are always questioned on their intellect no matter how much education they have completed, and how much they have proven it. English points out that a lot this questioning and these inequalities come from the older males, but these are the types of behaviors that learned by the next generation or wave of men in those fields. I agree that there has been progress, but if all of these behaviors are still accepted, they are going to continue.

Unit D - Blog 24

I interviewed a woman name Tiffani who previously was a law student and paralegal. Tiffani left the field of law last year primarily because of the way she was treated by her male counterparts. Many of her answers to me interview seemed as if they were straight out of the book Gender on Trial. While she was a law student she said that most of the upper division teachers were male and the lower division teachers were female. During Tiffani's experience she said that women generally filled the roles as assistants and paralegals, and that men were almost always the managers or managing partners. When asked about the dress code and fashion expectations Tiffani stated, “Women were expected to wear suit jackets and those who wore skirts, nylons and closed-toe shoes. Skirts must be below the knee and not too fitted. I learned quickly to not draw attention to myself; not to wear too much make-up or even slightly revealing clothing. Those who did were immediately criticized and her abilities questioned.” Later in the interview when talking about her experience with other females in the field she brought up fashion and looks again when she stated, “I saw many female attorneys that had let their appearances go, in order to be perceived as tougher or more experienced..” I then asked her about some of the gender issues she faced and she stated said, “I definitely experienced a lot of doubt when it came to my decisions and I felt I had to support my arguments more so then my male counterparts with case law and legal rulings.” At one point she also pointed out that there were leadership stereotypes, similar to English's ideas. One example used was, “some believe women were stronger at building relationships with clients and teams in class.” and “... men naturally possess stronger in analytical skills.” I then asked Tiffani if gender was responsible for her leaving the field and she stated, “es. If I was argumentative, my was emotional state was questioned, while male attorney were perceived as savvy litigants. Then if I didn’t agree with my male counterparts, I would endure jokes about my personal life and menstrual cycle. If I had no emotion or reaction to comments, my sexuality was questioned. I was often referred to as a liberal because I felt all people were entitled to fair experience in the legal system. If my argument was validated, I was told it was because I was pretty or that I must have made sexual advances toward my opponent. As a result, I signed everything with only my first initial and last name, so my audience is unaware of my gender when reading my research.” While discussing other women that she worked with in the field she brought up the issue of being able to have a family and work life balance when she said,”It was difficult for many women to balance a home life and work life because they felt more obligated to spend more time at home with their children. As a result, many did not have children, multiple failed marriages or some chose not to marry at all.” The last question I asked Tiffani was her thoughts on why the field is so lopsided. She responded, “I believe males are encouraged more and believed to be more academic than women. Most in the field believe females are not capable of defending themselves against an attack, be it physical or intellectual. There is a belief stemming from the early 20th century, men are unable to detach their emotions from a wounded female as they would a male in battle. I think this notion transcended through time as women were incapable of serving in these positions, rather than the truth; men couldn’t handle seeing dead women. Actually, in certain respects this works to the advantage of the women in legal careers because men lessen their expectations and may be less prepared in ligations involving women. Also, women are more likely to attempt conflict resolution, rather than be combative and escalating violent situations.” One part of her answer that stuck out to me was when she said that men may not be as prepared because of their expectations of women. This is right in line with Enlgish's “under dog” strategy that women have used in the court room. The interview with Tiffani totally validated nearly all of the issue themes that English pointed out.

Unit D - Blog 25

Sexualized behavior has many pros and cons. Being sexual can have benefits, rather if it is at work or not. Many women can exploit this to get ahead, some men are able to as well, but it is much more affiliated with women. Is it right to flirt and be sexual to gain advantage over others? No. But many people do. If women have the opportunity to use it as a weapon, then that gives them an easier opportunity to get to places they have struggled to get to because they are women. I don’t think it is ethical, but it certainly happens. I was trying to think of analogies when considering this topic and the one that stuck out to me the most wasn’t in the work place. The most common and exploited use of sexualized behavior as a weapon is at the bar. I can’t tell you how many conversations I overhear at ASU and bars where girls are talking about talking or flirting with a guy to get a free drink. I have even had female co-workers that I have gone out with and had them flirt with a dude to get a drink, and then they hand it to me. This is a pro because they are saving money. You can relate that to work and say that this type of behavior would be beneficial because they would earn more pay, or have lower work expectations, etc.

The cons are pretty obvious. It is demeaning to women. It isn’t ethical to gain advantages based off or looks and sexual behavior. In one of my classes I learned about the “myth of meritocracy.” Meritocracy basically means that the individual with the most merit, and most deserving based off of performance and accomplishment, will be the individual that will receive the benefit, or position. This is called a myth because our society doesn’t work off of that. There are individuals that can have sexual influence, there are prejudices, biases for friends, and many other things that influence who will receive the benefit and reward of positions and promotions.

The strategy of sexualized behavior in the media is everywhere. Hospital and doctor shows usually display sexual affairs between doctors and nurses. These reality TV shows where many women are fighting for one man’s love, and vice versa, are always about the contestants trying to get their 12 seconds of fame. These shows have now transformed into who is really there for the cause, not there for the fame. This type of thing is all over the media from dramas, to reality, and everything in between. These media examples are what socialize this type of behavior as acceptable.

Unit D - Blog 23

The politics behind fashion for women lawyers and politicians all go back to the early part of our society’s structure. Obviously the roles for men and women are far more different then they were in 1776 when our country was established, but the transformation of those gender roles have progressed slowly. Women fashion traditionally has been conservative and “lady-like.” Our society now is a lot more radical, including fashion. As our society has included women more in roles of lawyers and politics, they have also socialized the dress apparel. When you see a woman politician in the paper, or a female lawyer in a movie they are dressed “appropriate.” The socialization of women fashion in these fields is to have bland fashion. A suite and slacks and less make-up appeal. This type of dress style is still the social norm, but I think we are currently witnessing the transformation of it. While researching Sonia Sotomayor, I came across an article in Latina magazine in which Sotomayor was attending a White House event. Obama and the rest of the staff set dress guidelines for her at this event. This included neutral nail polish and size restrained earrings. Sotomayor painted her nails anyway and had her large red hoop earrings on, but the fact that this was something that was attempted to be regulated is ridiculous. First Lady Obama seems to be part of the new wave that is initiating some of this transformation. The dress she wore on election night basically became famous because it was so non-traditional for a first lady. With the dress came much attention to her black culture as well. On NPR they talked about “black style” and if it is consistent with white standards when referring to Obama’s style. They go on to say her dress was “odd” and “fantastic,” and that it’s as odd and as fantastic as it was to see a black family in the white house. There were also implications that she may have more scrutiny of her fashion and style because of her cultural background and Mrs. McCain may have had more room to dress differently because she wouldn’t have been under as big of a micro-scope, and that a much “more traditional person” could get away with dressing different than the norm. The next area that NPR discussed had to do with the sexual aspect of women’s fashion, and Obama in particular. They referred to her as having “sex appeal” with her style and that “she shows off her curves.” With these phrases they are pointing out that these traits are unusual when analyzing the women in politics dress. The other notable thing from that radio show was when they pointed out that First Lady Kennedy was the last politician to dress like this. That shows that 45 years ago was the one example of non-traditional fashion in politics, and it didn’t stick. I am interested to see what type of influence Obama and Sotomayor will have on transforming the socialization of women’s fashion in non-traditional fields.

Unit D - Blog 22

After reading about Sonia Sotomayor, I am very surprised that I had no prior knowledge of who she was. I am not a big news guy, but still can’t believe I have no background knowledge of this woman. The main reason I am so surprised is the way she is represented in the media. Several articles on Sotomayor refer to her status as celebrity like. Obviously she is going to receive added attention as she is only the third woman to have a chair on the Supreme Court. O’Connor had the same type of effect on the public and media for being the first, just like many other diverse individuals who were amongst the first.

Sotomayor also brought a lot extra added attention with some of her statements such as, “I want to up front, unequivocally and without doubt, I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging.” She also said during a speech the she her cause is “to inspire young Hispanics, Latino students and lawyers to believe that their life experiences added value to the process” referring to the process of joining the Supreme Court. One other phrase during her early career on the Supreme Court included “wise Latina.” All these statements opened up talk for the media and many of them exploited the remarks. In my opinion, she will be questioned on her rulings because of her diversity. However, many of the current judges get questioned on if they have a bias for race and gender. It will happen no matter if it’s a male, female, white, black, Hispanic, etc. That is how our structure has been socialized. The system has never had anything but white males, and now that it has changed, society acknowledges those differences and they will be questioned on topics of this magnitude. Is it right? No. But that is the way it has played out. Sotomayor has not gone back on her comments and I think she will stick to her words. If she remains strong to her words, she won’t be able to be questioned.

Other areas of the material that I researched did have a lot of gender and race implications. I read an article from Latina magazine that emphasized Latino affiliations such as the types of food she cooks and types of earrings that Latina’s are known to wear. This article also scoped in on cooking and fashion while telling her story. More news type magazines made several gendered statements that included stereotypes. One statement said, “Women appreciate collaboration and negotiation, we’ve had to learn to negotiate just to run our families.’’ Another stated, “Men take too many risks, they’re too aggressive, there’s not enough concern about families.’’ These are some of the implications that the media is saying will affect her judging ability.

Overall, the media will continue to stay current with her because it is something our society has seen very little of, a women in the Supreme Court, and a Hispanic one at that. Sotomayor refuses to do interviews with the media, which will help prevent more exploitation. If she stands true to her bold statement as a new Supreme Court Chair, then she will prove that it’s not about gender or race, it’s about justice.

Unit C - Blog 21

Britton gives many great examples of how to improve the prison system and make it less gendered. One recommendation she has is to restructure the system. It was developed and constructed by gender norms for in society. Britton believes we need to restructure to where positions are not gender related. So prisons aren’t divided by gender. She also has issues with how prisons are portrayed in society. This is responsible for a lot of the gender inequalities as well. If we (society) keep socializing prisons as these violent places, then it is going to keep feeding the stereotype. Another thing she believes is that these affiliations like violence being attached to gender exist, then they will exist in the prisons. Britton also has strategies about training the officers for men’s and women’s facilities, not just one. She also takes the stance to reduce sex segregated positions and to have some balance. These are all resolutions with specifics. The National Association of Female Correctional Officers’ recommendations are less detailed, as well as one dimensional. Their recommendations are all geared to sexual assault and preventing it. In my opinion, this is keeping the stereotypes alive. It is portraying the women as victims that can’t defend themselves. None of these solutions are restorative, they are all retributive. They are mainly punishment based. Britton has ideas that will influence structure and won’t depict female officers as sexual victims, but as officers that have ways to prevent these things from happening. Last, these recommendations don’t even imply that these females will be able to prevent it themselves. They are all about how the situation will be handled. There is room for speculation that they are looking to have men defend them better or they will be held accountable for not. And the very last recommendation included weapons and technology to defend it. I would go with Britton’s restorative stance any day of the week.

Unit C - Blog 20

The hostage situation at the Lewis Prison was reflected as a high security prison. In relation to Britton, the prison, like many others according to our media was portrayed as violent. It obviously supported the norm by describing and demonstrating violent and ruthless inmates. During the early part of At Work in the Iron Cage the book spoke about the stereotype of an officer, but also to inclusion of weapons being necessary to tame. This was portrayed in the article as well. I also think the socialization of a male corrections officer was supported, but not necessarily how Britton described it. In the Phoenix Magazine article, the male officers were affiliated with cowboys multiple times, which have the same brute and violent implications as the other stereotypes. The headline also stuck out to me right off the bat when it affiliated female with soft right away. Another area that relates to Britton is some of the implications of restorative justice by some of the guards. Schriro is cited as using restorative justice for her correctional facilities. Also, when the incident was first initiated, her number one priority was to make sure that no one would be killed. This supports that she views the inmates as human beings.

These articles also support the notion that prisons are gendered. The largest example was apparent in Inside the Tower when the Sheriffs that were restraining the convict were referred to as “four burly men.” It also portrayed the victim as a week female that was in fact a victim that had to have the Sheriffs around to essentially protect her. They also referred to the Sheriffs’ thick necks and biceps that could be considered “lethal weapons.” The Phoenix Magazine article, as stated earlier, referred to the previous officers as cowboys, again with implications of violence (masculinity). They then started referring to her as getting nervous and not being able to handle the situation, a sign of weakness, and a sign of feminine. One other huge part of the Inside the Tower article that really emphasized gender roles was the fact that Schriro chose a non-violent resolution which is in line with the feminine stance. And finally, back to the restorative justice. Schriro believes that the inmates can go back and be a part of society, the masculine stand point would be that they are violent animals.

A prison is a total institution because it is a place where individuals “live the whole of their lives” (Britton, Pg. 3). Britton talks about how inmates are living there against their own will, but nevertheless they are an institution under total control. Prisons are basically a small society, but have a hierarchy of control that they have to abide by. There is simply a chain of command. The prisoners, the officers, and the wardens is the structure of the institution. They all spend a majority, or whole part of their live together.

A correctional officer is an engendered position because it came about with socialized structure. Prisons have always been affiliated with violence, as have men. Men were historically the majority of the incarcerated and in past times, men had to be controlled by men. Violence had to be controlled by violence. Due to these early formations of prisons, the foundations were reproduced and still are. Our society continues to socialize the traits of prisons, although, as Britton mentions several times, are inaccurate.

Britton’s recommendations could have been useful in avoiding the hostage take over. Her whole stance with training and restructuring is to help provide an equal prison life for guards and inmates. I think the situation could have happened either way, and I think she would have done, or had structure prepare officers, both male and female, how to handle it. Britton states that we need the “promotion practices that privilege the ability to deal with physical violence over other skills, like the ability to defuse it, should be made more equitable.” Schriro takes this same stance and is working on that type of structure, as well as defused the violence.

Unit C - Blog 19

Geena Davis raises the issue with children’s TV programs being gendered. She points out that both current and past cartoons and television shows were extremely unbalanced as far as the male to female ratio. As she was speaking a lot of the audience was laughing at her examples that she gave, not only about the lack of women, but how they were portrayed. I think the laughter alone shows a sort of acceptance to this socialization. Some of the portrayals included women and shopping and women and their looks. This is a great example of our society being shaped and socialized from something as early and as basic as cartoons. This is easily transferable to the gender socialization of prisons. As Britton talks about in At Work in the Iron Cage, these same socializations take place in the media towards enforcement officers and prisons. Again, the violence is the highlighted gender trait for these two elements of the prison system. These socializations automatically discourage women from these fields. Women are then deterred from the highlighted violence and brutality during the training. For the few that make beyond these two barriers, they have to deal with even more gender issues. They have to deal with the perception that they are emotional when dealing with violence. Then they have to fight the notion that they are not physically capable, especially with male inmates. Britton discusses how the male officers have the specialized role of dealing with women inmates while at women facilities. Many of the female officers agree with this too and say that they need the men there. They themselves believe the socialization and don’t even see it. This brings me back to Davis. She and her colleagues approached the companies that produced and displayed these cartoons and informed them of the lopsided numbers. Many of these production companies had no clue and were “Thunderstruck” when they noticed the imbalance. A lot of the women officers don’t ever realize that they are socialized. Overall, the few women that are the small statistic of a correctional officer are socialized themselves in a lot ways.

Unit C - Blog 18

Many prisons and confinement institutions attempt to be gender neutral with their policies, but due to our society still structured through masculinity, it truly isn’t gender neutral. The common theme with law enforcement and correctional officers has been affiliated with violence, brutality, and strength, which ultimately is a masculine trait. Because our society doesn’t notice these socializations, they continue to be masculine. The training that these correctional officers receive is violent based. This comes off as unattractive and dangerous to women, therefore discouraging them from working in the field, which in turn keeps the institutions from being truly gender neutral. The violence also continues to drive masculinity through the training, and again, size and force come into the picture.
Men and women prisons are different in many ways. Men’s prisons are believed to be more violent, therefore more men officers are employ those areas due to the masculinity factor. There is also the perception that women are more emotional, not necessarily violent. These are very typical socializations and we continue to embrace them. Through the training these stereotypes are apparent as well. This reinforces it to the officers. The media continues to socialize prisons and officers as violent. All these things make a distinct divide between genders. Officers refer to women as emotional. If we keep using these terms to refer to curtain genders instead of using gender neutral terms and eliminating the misperception, according to Britton, that are apparent for the institutions, then they will always be considered masculine.

Unit C - Blog 17

Building relationships is very common for correctional officers. As Britton discusses, many of these COs (Correctional Officers) spend more time with inmates than they do their families. Some of the dangers that can arise from these relationships are that COs sometimes are considered to have “gone too far” (Britton, Pg. 107). This term “gone too far” can be in many ways. The first way, which can lead to other areas, is emotional attachment. Some COs begin to have empathy for the inmates and feel bad for them. This can resort to them being let down by the inmates when they do something wrong because they start to build trust and attachment. Another example given was becoming sexually involved. Britton states that there were “many cautionary tales” relating to sexual involvement. The last way that she discusses is that officers will start supplying the inmates with contraband, which can also be dangerous. In the NBC documentary Lock Up, one inmate talks about “hustling” correctional officers and said that she would find “weak staff” and have “hook up” with them and play them for money.

Many officers view inmates very inconsistently. Britton talks about how many officers will view some convicts in a positive manner, but others in a spiteful manner. It is also discussed how some officers treat inmates as if they are animals. She later goes on to say that most officers that she studied really viewed the inmates as humans. She next points out that some officers view them as humans, but also as convicts, therefore placing them in a different category. Other officers view convicts as “bad people.” Some officers unknowingly speak about inmates in coded languages and classify them differently even though they are all inmates. In the end, COs view inmates and convicts in many different ways. I think some of it has to do with what was discussed earlier, COs build relationships with some of these inmates and it changes their views on individuals. Others just have the mindset that inmates are bad people or animals.

Over the last twenty or so years African American and Hispanic correction officers have grow drastically. This is very notable for several reasons. The biggest reason is the proportion of African American and Hispanic inmates. Many of the minority correction officers experience racism while working. This in turn opens their eyes to some of the racism of our criminal justice system. Britton points out that none of the corrections officers acknowledge that they have issues with the system, but believes it is likely and suppressed. She does however recognize that they “share the bond of color and ethnicity” (Britton, Pg. 111) with the inmates, but often hide it. The officers will also distance themselves from the inmates, who are of the same ethnicity and are also of higher proportion, to show loyalty to their coworkers. The book refers to this as “language of the overseer.” This notion is explained as the denial of one’s own race. One officer speaks about how she has to view the inmates as beneath her. She says that she doesn’t necessarily think this, and that she feels some of them are decent, and that it was probably an issue with how they were raised. However, she takes the stance the she essentially says she was trained to take, and that is that the inmates are beneath her. To me, it seems like there is definitely a conflict of interest for a minority, but when it comes down to it they have to abide in order to remain in that position without conflict.

Many officers expressed humanistic attitudes towards the inmates because they see them as human. During one part of the book, as I discussed earlier, one CO said an inmate said he didn’t have his mom around, and that she thought that was apparent. She essentially said that because of a poor upbringing that the inmate was bound for failure. Many of the COs have empathy and compassion for the inmates and feel like they are able to be rehabilitated. A lot of them are taking the stance of restorative justice. That these inmates can pay there consequences, but how can we prevent them from happening again.

Unit C - Blog 16

The position of correctional officer is a unique position that has a high demand for workers, but a low supply of them. Britton mentions that being a correctional officer isn’t one of the typical main stream jobs that children and young adults strive to be. It is a blue collar job that entails hard work, sometimes rough working conditions, and doesn’t offer great salary or benefits. These elements combined are part of the reason that this job isn’t the most attractive for many individuals.

There are many paths that lead to becoming a correctional officer. According to At Work in the Iron Cage, several correctional officers alluded to the fact that they did not strive to become correctional officers, but more so fell upon it. Many of the individuals had strived to become police officers, but ended up as correctional officers. Britton speaks about many of the images affiliated with police officers. Many of these include crime fighting, tough and aggressive, and she goes on to speak about the socialization that occurs through television and pop culture. The next parts that Britton goes over are salary and the difference in salaries between race and gender. She points out that white male officers still are higher paid than anyone else, but for diverse workers, it is more comparable than in other fields. Because of this it is more attractive to women and minorities. Other areas that relate to the path of entering corrections include education. Britton speaks about individuals that study criminal justice, which sparks an interest in this field that they later end up pursuing.

There is certainly a difference between men and women when it comes to entering the field of corrections. As stated above, many people become correctional officers through other goals such as police officers, military and criminal justice. Many of these things are socialized as masculine. I have mentioned in several blogs the correlation of prisons and violence, men and violence, size and law enforcement, etc. All these are products of our society’s stereotypes. There aren’t a lot of women that strive for law enforcement because of these socializations, which obviously would mean less would want to be a correction officer. Another factor in the path to become a corrections officer are the other alternatives out there. Although it isn’t the savviest job available during a scarce job market, pay and benefits usually better in corrections, which is many people’s modivation when looking for a job. Overall, it is apparent that corrections officer job isn’t the greatest, but it isn’t the worst. Women are attracted to the position through education, ambitions in for law enforcement, and networking through friends.

Unit C - Blog 15

Women’s prisons have constantly been increasing for over half a century now. There are many reasons for this increase. One reason this can be said is because the numbers are compared to men’s numbers. Another reason is because of the small amount of women that were incarcerated in the past. Women weren’t imprisoned a lot during early part of the 20th century. There was also a strong transformation in the justice system that allowed for stiffer penalties and stronger sentencing. In addition to all of these reasons women have also had population growth as well. There is also a correlation between the region or state and the ratio of women prisoners to men prisoners. One great example of this would be the strict DUI laws in Arizona. If a woman were to get a DUI in another state, she likely wouldn’t have to serve any jail time. I know of two women that have had to serve over four months in prison for DUI charges. Arizona is the strictest. As time progressed, more and more laws were implemented, and the overall views of women began to transform. Women have, and have had, an image of being lady-like and proper. Men and masculinity have the image of being violent and aggressive. Many crimes are affiliated with violence, and that is one reason why men are, and were, incarcerated more frequently than women. Women were also affiliated with certain types of crime such as shoplifting, prostitution, and passing bad checks (Greene, Pranis, Pg. 21). As women became more liberated and our society transformed, more and more women began having violent crimes as well. This went away from some of the notions that implied properness and being “lady-like.” The article Growth Trends and Recent Research also indicated that drug use and dealing became a factor with women as well. Arizona has always been a strict state an incarceration. Before they even were declared a state they already had a prison. This prison was in Yuma and was considered very strict and brutal. This prison included women even way back in the early 20th century. The male to female ratio was still uneven though. During the article Early ADC History it mentioned how women were often pardoned and didn’t receive as harsh penalties. This was apparent in the Growth Trends and Recent Research article as well when the discussed it, as well as discussed the statistics affiliated with it. Overall, women imprisonment rates continue to increase. There are numerous reasons for this including state policies and laws, feminist progression, female growth, and harsher penalties and reforms.

Unit C - Blog 14

Britton begins to frame three questions regarding the theory of gendered organization based on one major issue. This issue is the persistent wage gap between men and women workers. Birtton explores this issue by researching why occupational segregation is persistent, why women concentrated jobs pay less, and what keeps women at the bottom of the ladder. After framing these questions she gives some of the reasons why these are issues. Those reasons include structures of work organizations, ideological functions that shape them, and the agencies of the workers themselves. Essentially she is saying that these three elements are the primary reasons that organizations are gendered. She goes on to explain that we first must acknowledge that organizations are unequal between genders. After that we can analyze it from micro levels, being the individuals, then from macro levels, such as social institutions, policies, and practices.

The three main components of this theory are all interlinked and take place together. The first aspect is the organizational structure. This includes the policies, procedures, and general configuration of an organization, which also includes laws. This is very systematic and is on a macro level. The structure is almost unnoticeable because it is engraved into the operations and some individuals don’t even realize that they are part of the segregation. An example used in the book was when a woman interviewed for a counselor, or correctional officer, in Alabama, but was denied due to her height and weight. With the structure of the laws and legal policies in Alabama at that time, this was valid. This structure automatically would have prevented women from even attempting to get the job. The next component is the cultural and ideological assumptions that shape us. Several examples of this include the media, interaction with others, and anything else that individuals are exposed to that display behaviors. I think movies are a great example for this. Britton uses military movies and the term, “a place where boys are turned into me.” Several movies make a reference to this saying, therefore influencing the culture of and thought processes of the individuals that watch this. I think this can be said for many things. In my last blog I referred to television shows always having female nurses that are good looking. The consistency of this on several different shows displays a cultural norm of nurses being good looking women. The last area is agency. This involves individuals’ interactions that imply gender inequalities. Britton notes that these often aren’t even intentional. The examples that come to me are terms like, “take it like a man,” and “quit whining like a girl.” I think these are the most relatable to me. Since studying in the justice field, I have noticed more and more of these types of remarks everywhere. I hear them from professors, co-workers, television, and especially sports talk radio. Will all three of these components working together our society continues to feed into gender segregation both intentionally and unintentionally.

When Britton says “organizations are gendered at the level of structure,” she means that how organizations are structure can influence gender segregation, and the amount of it. Obviously, as discussed above, the way an organization and society is structured can minimize the amount of segregation. Many of our current structures were designed before any laws were even created for women’s rights. We have certainly made some progress and changed some policies just enough to be in line with the law, but they have not been completely changed to eliminate gender inequalities. Because we are still following structures that were created when discrimination was socially accepted, we continue to reproduce and produce discriminatory behaviors. If organizations were designed or redesigned without gender being a factor, then the structure would be at a level where gender wouldn’t be as much of a factor in the organization. There would still be other things that would influence it like culture and agency, but the structure wouldn’t really allow for that to dictate jobs or salaries.

Public and private spheres become gendered based on history. Women have traditionally been the primary care takers of children. Clearly women also are biologically the primary care taker when birth first takes place, and there really isn’t any debating that. Because of that biological fact and historically women are the care takers of their children, society has structured around it. As society has progressed that has included the socialization of jobs, of men, and of society all together. These reflect on the history of labor by having socializing jobs for men without having to worry about them missing work because of physical effects of pregnancy or child birth. It has allowed for the primary focus of men to be work and of women to be childcare. This is another reason why women are directly affiliated to nurturing and caretaking jobs. These socializations then became norms and have continued to reproduce as time has progressed. They have now become a part of law and policies because it creates an inequality. Women are sometimes considered to be a bit of a liability because there is the chance of pregnancy, or even an emergency with a child to where they would have to leave work. Some policies have allowed for women to take maternity leave so they don’t have to worry about missing work. Laws have been formed for women to not be segregated against because of this biological function.

Unit C - Blog 13

The media has and currently still shapes correctional officers and prison guards pretty consistently. In At Work in the Iron Cage, the introduction characterizes the popular beliefs of these individuals as “brutal and sadistic” based on some of the stereotypes that our media and society has traditionally affiliated these individuals as. The socialization of prisoners also influences these images of officers too. It is based on hegemony. The stronger is always the dominant; therefore if the inmates are strong, then the officers have to appear stronger. Another element involved with these images is weapons and guns, which the book also touches on. This again displays violence and brutality. The book also used the movie ConAir as a source for images our media displays these individuals as. I thought this was a great reference. This movie displayed these guards as larger men, the undercover officer as a large man, and many of them had mustaches. These images are directly affiliated with men, especially size and the mustache. They also portrayed the convicts, or inmates, as big brutal men that were unable to be controlled. The last thing this movie really did to buy into the socialization was include a female guard that was petite, good looking, but somewhat fierce. But in the movie, she ultimately had to be saved from sexual assault by a large physical male. These are all types of images that are regularly portrayed. It seems to me that the women officer in films and shows always has a sexual role. She is usually viewed as a sex figure, not as a guard or capable enforcer. The women are regularly having to be bailed out by men and are usually displayed as physically weaker. In the few occasions that women’s facilities are displayed in the media, the women guards are usually larger and visibly stronger than they typical image of women that society has sculpted. I want to focus on the mustache thing for a second though. This is a male gendered trait that is one of the most affiliated attributes of an officer, guard, military, or anyone in this type of field. I think this alone is something that socializes a lack of inclusion of women.

Unit C- Blog 12

Occupational segregation still currently exists because of our society’s structure. Yes, our society does have laws that prohibit sex discrimination, but occupational segregation still occurs because we our socialized to accept it. As children growing up and learning in schools, observing through experiences and media, occupations are segregated. Even reflecting on my childhood, and in dialogue that is still currently used, I can recall and terms such as “Police Man,” “Mail Man,” and “Fireman.” These are terms that are engraved in our society’s and culture’s communication. In the book At Work in the Iron Cage, they use the media as examples for social constructing pertaining to prison facilities. I can think of several examples of socialization from the media with occupational segregation. In a majority of sitcom and TV shows, Nurses are always these beautiful women that are nurturing to whatever character is having some type of health problem. There is the stereotype of the successful business man and his female secretary. These are just a couple of examples of how our society shows us from a young age that it is a norm for certain genders to perform certain careers. Many of the materials we researched have shown slight improvements on women, and even men, entering non-traditional jobs. I think that because we have shown some improvement, we are quick to pat ourselves on the back and say, “See, we are improving.” Overall, they still exist because society as a whole accepts it, and don’t always realize that they are contributing to the segregation, or are part of it, they just think they are performing the role that they have been raised to complete.

Gender formations relate to occupational segregation in many ways. The first example that comes to mind is the physical attributes affiliated with the male and female genders. Several times throughout the book At Work in the Iron Cage they refer to the relation between men and violence, and men and strength. Even in the youtube.com video Women at Work, non-traditional jobs, many of the women talk about the physical labor involved with their non-traditional jobs. Many of the jobs that are segregated in favor of men entail a lot of physical labor. Our society obviously implies that men are more physical than women. This socialization is apparent through jobs, sports, and many other aspects of our society. Therefore, these physical stereotypes with men and women are played out in the work place. The next example would be the stereotype with women and nurture. Many of the jobs like childcare and healthcare are segregated towards women because of this stereotype. If our society continues to display these things as norms, then they will continue to influence occupations.

When women do break into non-traditional or male dominated occupations, there are many benefits and advantages. I think the first major advantage is the pay is typically higher in these fields, so they will likely have more income in a more female dominated field. Another advantage is for the impact on society. The more women are crossing this barrier, the more normal it becomes to society. It can also motivate other women to do the same thing. The last would be the amount of recognition involved. Peers and co-workers will automatically notice a woman in this type of position, because it is different than what is normal, therefore these individuals have a chance to shine in that spotlight.

When women enter their field they both gain and lose. I am a strong believer in work diversity because it helps people become more rounded and learn the ways of others. It broadens our minds to work with individuals different then us, and it helps us to learn from each other. Another way men benefit is that it would increase the amount of competition and could possibly push them to excel more than they may have without that competition. One way they would be on the losing side is that it would eliminate the amount of opportunity that would normally be available to them. Another way they could suffer in this type of situation is that they sometimes may be more qualified, but quotas have to be filled and someone diverse may get the nod. This happens with not only gender, but race, sexuality, etc. I would say overall though, that men and society would benefit from women entering male dominant occupations.

Unit B - Blog 10

The welfare reform basically limited who was getting welfare and how much people would get. This impacted many people's lives including children. The women that previously had collected these funds while being unemployed now had to start working. Once they began working is when childcare became a big concern. These parents that previously had watched their own children while collecting government money now had to work to earn money, and then spend a majority of that money on childcare.

These women and parents had to find many ways to adapt and survive to this new, basically required, lifestyle. One strategy they used was kin care. Kin care is basically a type of childcare that is a temporary fix until better childcare is available or affordable. Many parents had to resort to having a relative or parent watch their children while they began working. Some of the issues with this was the child's development and the reliability of this type of care. After sustaining a job and qualifying for government assistance, many parents were placed on a waiting list for family day care centers. Once they finally got an open spot they would often have paperwork errors that would result in not being able to afford the care and often losing the childcare services. Again they would resort to kin care, or have to quit there job or lose their job. Other obstacles they would have to overcome that they previously didn't have to worry about was work benefits. Many of these new hard working women didn't receive sick days or health benefits. If they got sick they would have to miss work, and wouldn't be able to get it treated. If a parent wanted health insurance for their children, it was nearly impossible, especially after a majority of their money was now going to childcare. Eventually these parents would have to find ways for this new life style to work. Many of them would struggle the first few years, but eventually finding and adjusting to what needed to be done to get by in life. It usually wasn't very pleasant though. Many families lacked food, transportation, and insurance. Many of them would figure out that they had to find a way to work their schedule, find the type of childcare that would be best for their children, learn ways to receive government funding, and whatever else needed to become.

When analyzing work and childcare, it is extremely clear that they influence each other. If there are issues with work, then childcare really isn't possible. If a work schedule doesn't coincide with the childcare schedule, then the work isn't going to last, or vice versa. When childcare isn't affordable or feasible, then a parent has to sacrifice work to take care of their child. There are other things at stake was well. Many parents need to have trust in their childcare center. Often they have to switch from childcare to childcare just to find someone they can trust and that can develop their child. This can be very costly. Cost is the biggest impact on everything though. When the reform went into action, many parents lost what funded their childcare or had to start funding their own. Society's concern was for the children, not necessarily the parents who brought them into this situation, but it ultimately affected both.

Chaudry and many of the other materials we reviewed shared common themes. Most concerns were for the children. Many people focused on how they needed to develop and end this continuing cycle. Urban areas continue to be problematic areas. Both the book and the materials also show that it really isn't affordable for these families to afford everything that our society requires to be successful. That is the common view. It isn't possible for children to get proper development, be healthy, have insurance, eat right, etc. with our minimum wage being what it is. It is not fair to the children to not have proper childcare. They didn't chose to get put in that position. It is our society's responsibility to try and contribute through aide and programs to help the CHILDREN out. I did see some families that are dependent on this help though, and they expect a hand out from society. As I discussed several times throughout this blog, the health care and sick benefits for employees are also one of the most influential pieces of this whole cycle. Parents can have better stability, healthier children, and more money available for other needs if they offer more breaks in these areas. Overall, many of these issues are all systematic and somehow our society needs to figure out a way to break this continual cycle.

Unit B - Blog 9

All of the issues that poor women and parents face trickle down to their children. In several of the stories in Putting Children First, there are similar trends. Mothers having issues affording childcare, finding quality childcare, holding a job, having a quality job, healthcare, etc. All of these things not only affect the parent, but the children as well. One interesting fact in the article by the NCCP titled Who are America’s Poor Children? The Official Story, was that children are usually more poor early in their childhood as opposed to the later years. This is very clear with a lot of the families in Putting Children First. One mother Julia had many issues with finding a job, securing a job, and earning decent wages when she got to that level. Often she, and other parents, lost their jobs because of circumstances involving their children such as personal health, childcare, and their children’s health. Because they aren’t able to sustain jobs and gain solid work experience, they have a difficult time getting jobs that have higher salary and benefits.

Another part of the NCCP article that stuck out to me was the current cost of things. The article stated that 1/3 of people’s income in the 1950’s went towards food (Fass&Cauthen, pg1). It said that families currently spend more on transportation, housing, and childcare, which is essentially taking the food off of the table for these families.

Some other interesting areas in the NCCP statistics were the stats relating to minorities and immigrants. Many of the parents from Putting Children First lived in big cities and urban areas. Many of the statistics from this article illustrate that these areas have the biggest issues with poverty. One thing specifically that caught my eye was the statistics in New Jersey. Overall, Jersey is under ten percent for child poverty, however, their minority poverty levels were still high. Approximately twenty percent of Latino and African American children were below poverty. The low for white poverty was four percent. These facts clearly demonstrate that there is certainly a difference when it comes to the two. Part of the reason for his is the diversity in urban areas, and as both the book and the article point out, urban areas have a lot more struggles with jobs and childcare.

The last area I would like to relate between the article and book, and the parents affect on their children relating to poverty is the solutions suggested at the end of the NCCP article. The solutions were to give tax credits to these struggling parents, raise minimum wage, and offer more benefits such as health care and sick days for parents and children. These were all issues that affected the parents in the book with childcare and employment. Raising minimum wage was also a popular solution recommended in the youtube videos. I definitely agree with offer more health care benefits and sick days. I think the sick days would really help out with some of these parents holding jobs for longer, and the healthcare would help prevent these parents from burring themselves in debt. My only concern with minimum wage going up is the prices in everything else going up. As we have seen recently in Arizona, when minimum wage went up a few years ago so did things such as milk and food, bus passes, and clothing. The last area of solutions that the article suggested was for children to have better early learning experiences so they don’t get stuck in the same positions their parents did. This to me is the best solution, which is also affected by the others as well. Many of these children didn’t have the choice to be born in these situations and often have to defy the odds to get out. A lot of the issues with childcare have a negative effect on their development and early education. This is also influenced by the lack of jobs or salaries which limits the parents’ options on childcare and they always don’t receive the best quality.

All of the big concerns and issues seem to be a popular trend between the book and the article. As we continue to research these things, we continue to see that they are all related and influence each element.

Unit B - Blog 8

Many different problems occur for working mothers in urban poverty, especially when you compare them to poor mothers living in mixed income areas. The first problematic area would obviously be with the environment they are surrounded by. There is crime and safety issues all of over urban areas. In fact, in the youtube.com video 7 Days at Minimum Wage, one mother talks about her concerns with letting her children outside of their home because she is concerned they will “get shot or killed.” They have to worry about that, as well as the working environment. Many urban areas don’t offer as many job opportunities, especially for the less skilled. Our society’s structures work in a way to keep the poor oppressed. Several mothers in Putting Children First talk about how they are essentially forced to stay in the neighborhoods they were raised in because they have to use their friends and family as home-based child care, because they cannot afford it. On top of that, they have to start working at a young age to be able to assist with their families or provide themselves with necessities. Due to them being in the workforce early, they do not have many opportunities to increase their education, and often cannot afford. Obviously their families aren’t able to afford it either. I would like to go back to the problems with childcare though. As we several times in Putting Children First, many of these parents have a difficult time working and paying for childcare. They often lose their jobs because they have to tend to their children. When they do get jobs they lose their childcare benefits. And as we saw in the book with Julia, her paperwork was often lost or she was put on waiting lists for certain types of childcare. In urban areas it is likely easier to have paperwork get lost and waiting lists as there are mass amounts of people that are all going through the same thing. The next problematic area with child care in urban areas is also the quality of care that is actually given. The old saying is, “you get what you pay for.” Many of these parents rely on relatives who are available because they themselves don’t work and aren’t very responsible. These are the individuals that are supposed to be developing these children? Or the child will be put into family day care centers or networks. Some of the family day care networks have up to 200 children. How can a child truly be developed properly without getting the full amount of attention needed? These are all questions that urban mothers have to deal with. Often these mothers are single too. Also a popular trend throughout the videos and book was the father being incarcerated. This goes back to the crime issue. Some of these challenges are like not as difficult in mixed income neighborhoods. Many patrons of the urban neighborhood depend on the little bit of extra cash they receive for “helping out” and conducting home-based child care when the parent is in a bind. In a mixed income neighborhood it is likely easier to find someone that isn’t as dependent on the money, and it isn’t just money driven child care. Poor mothers in mixed income neighborhoods likely don’t have to worry about paperwork getting mixed up or waiting lists either. And last, they probably have more job opportunities available to them.

Unit B - Blog 7

Many factors played a role for Jacqueline and Julia when it came to childcare in the book Putting Children First. Soon after Julia had her first child, her family moved to their first permanent residence. Julia’s first type of childcare that she used was father care, which is a type of home-based care. The father, while he was still around, watched Jacqueline while Julia was attending community college to give her better career opportunities down the road. Not long after having her first residence, Julia and the father broke up and the father was incarcerated. Once she no longer had the option of having father care she still used home-based childcare and had her sister take care of her child while she attended school and began internships. This arrangement lasted briefly as it began to conflict with Julia’s sister’s work schedule. At this point Julia got on the waiting list for subsidized child care and provided primary care to her daughter for a short period of time until she was accepted to the work experience program that provided child care benefits for her. With these benefits she was able to place Jacqueline and her sister in a family day care center. Due to late payments by the welfare Julia was forced out of that family day care after a short stint. Julia next resorted to home-based care through her cousin, who she knew would be more accepting to payment errors from the welfare system, but again, there were paperwork problems and her cousin would no longer watch them for free. Julia next resorted to a family day care center with a woman named Sonia. She was pleased with the environment Jacqueline was in at this center and liked the development her child was receiving at that center. Her next obstacle came when she started getting better work opportunities. These opportunities affected her schedule and she reached out to Sonia to extend the child care for longer than the center was scheduled to. Sonia had to pay extra for this service, as well as pay her cousin to watch her other daughter. The next dilemma arose when she had to be reviewed for the ACD family child care program. She now showed wages being earned and would have to make co-payments on the child care on top of the extra that she had to pay to enable her to work. Shortly after that she lost other benefits like food stamps. When this took place she had to leave Sonia’s family day care and go back to home-based care in which her mother would watch Jacqueline.

There are several issues that Julia had to face. One of the major problems she has was with the benefit programs not making payments and having paperwork errors. This resulted in her having to switch child care centers, and the types of child care she would use. Another issue was the instability with having to leave her with family members. From many of the books and videos it very apparent that most home-based care by family members are of a “quick fix” nature. It is often a temporary solution to figuring out how to afford a different type. Also, the friends or family members may not be as dedicated to what is best for the child or may not be physically suitable to take proper care of the child. The last issue that came about for Julia was when she finally was able to get decent work. Her jobs would have scheduling conflicts with a lot of the child care options that were available. Then on top of that, the benefit programs essentially punish these mothers or parents when they are able to find steady work and start getting on their feet by reducing the benefits that were previously available to them.

Unit B - Blog 6

There are many types of child care available to parents, but each one has there pros and cons.
Home-based care is very common, but not always available. It consists of family, close friends, neighbors, and nannies. Home based care is informal and isn’t always available due to the availability of family members and friends, and sometimes is affected by trust issues. It can also be unaffordable if the individual opts to have a nanny. This type of care is usually in the child’s own home or the home of the relative or friend.

Family day care is another option for families. These types of day cares include licensed and unlicensed, and also have network and group day care centers available. Many parents prefer this type for several reasons. The licensed centers are usually more trusted because they in fact are licensed. Family day care centers can also be regulated by government, which makes it a little more trust worthy as well. Some family day care centers have three to six children, others can have eight to twelve, and even some have twenty to two hundred. The eight to twelve is considered a family day care group, and the larger groups are called family day care networks. The family day care center is preferred as there are fewer children making it more beneficial. The networks are often the least preferred because of the amount of children.

Center-based care is another type of child care. This type of care includes day care, nursery programs, preschool, and prekindergarten. This care is usually in schools, churches, non-profit organizations and private companies. These are often preferred because of the type of development the child will receive.
Parental care arrangements are another type. Parental care is the care of the mother and/or father. It is called a subtotal parental care arrangement when the parents rotate in taking care of the child. This is also when a parent will stay home while the other one is working. This is ideal for many parents, but can result in one source of income, or less time together as an entire family.
Other care arrangements are also available. Some of these options are care available after schools and care centers provided by employers.

Many parents use multiple types of care centers at time, or different ones throughout time. Many of the individuals in the Putting Children First use more than one of these at a time. Others have switched frequently due to specific circumstances. It is called multiple care arrangements when they use more than one at a time. For example, this can be using family day care centers during the week and home-based care on the weekends. The parents that have switched often have to use what is called bridge care. This is when parents are between primary care centers and have to find a temporary solution until they can find a new primary care. In chapter 2 of Putting Children First, one mother had to use bridge care multiple times. While she was being trained to learn a trade she had to resort to home-based care multiple times as she could not afford family day care or center-based programs weren’t available. Other times the father took care of the child while she was working and she used a parental care arrangement.

Many parents would prefer home-based care centers for many reasons. They are affordable, convenient and trust worthy. This, however, isn’t always available or feasible for some families. I think the thing that influences the type of day care the most is the cost. Many parents spend more money on child care than they do on rent. The cost is usually what dictates the type of child care used. Parents sometimes used home-based care as a temporary solution though. When using kin care, it isn't always the preferable use of child care, but sometimes is the only option. I would like to note that many parents that have to settle with cheaper care often run into issues with trust and concerns for lack of development, which results in frequent change. Many of the government policies have also been reformed which has hurt the type of day care available to low income families. There are many forms of day care out there and parents often have many dilemmas in finding which one best suites them financially, their children’s development, the convenience, and how trust worthy the provider really is.

Unit B - Blog 5

When Chaudry states “we are asking the least fortunate to strive and work harder, we are deeply discounting our public responsibility for the children born into poor families and disadvantaged communities,” she is essentially saying our society’s structure is set up in a way that it hurts the children in the long run. The way our government reformed some of its structure and policy to encourage a work based society, it didn’t take into consideration the impact it would have on the children. When the policies were reformed, many low income families lost a lot of their financial resources and were forced to work. Chaudry acknowledges that there were able adults that could have been working, but basically abused the policies to get free income. However, she really emphasizes the other end of the scope, the individuals that the previous policies were in place for. The families that couldn’t afford childcare while the parent was working and the ones that needed that extra income to provide for their children. The new policies push for these parents to work, or still work, but don’t give them the extra income they need to provide food, shelter and health care. In the youtube video Working With a Hole in Your Pocket they talk about the poverty line, which is $20,614, and that anyone that makes a dollar more than that is not considered to be poor by the government. This means that they will not qualify for any type of welfare or other benefits. Families in poverty no longer get that little extra that use to make a big difference. Back to Chaudry’s argument, this is significantly affecting the children born into poverty. The children are receiving awful childcare, don’t have the food, clothing shelter and other necessities that they would have under previous policies. Other videos indicated that this is a social problem and not an individual. Our society sometimes traps people into poverty. Many people that are able to get out of the poverty level had to accrue debt to make it out. This debt is nearly impossible to get out of. Our society also places restraints on the poor. The jobs they can get don’t offer healthcare. Their transportation required maintenance. If they can’t afford to maintain their transportation, they won’t make it to work. Some people need that extra little boost from programs to get them over the hump, to allow them to have childcare, to maintain an automobile. If our society can’t give that little push, these individuals will be stuck and it will result in the poor upbringing of children, homelessness, and the future of our society not even having a chance.