My mind works in strange ways. That being said, expect this post to be all over the place.
I was reading through Emily Onufrak's post and she mentioned how a man "couldn't apply for many jobs because a lot of the jobs that he wanted said they wanted a women." This reminded me of a flyer I saw in Gaige about a week ago. It was an job opportunity for someone who could speak Spanish. That quickly perked my interest, so I went to read it. I can't give the exact wording anymore, but it was similar to 'pretty, Dominican female'. Really? Any reason for that? Did they want to add a height/weight requirement too? First off, why limit it to pretty Dominican woman? And second, just what does "pretty" mean? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all. What is they rejected someone because they didn't think she was pretty enough? What kind of an effect would that have on the poor women?
And while we're on the subject of job opportunities based on beauty, Hooters anyone? *insert sighing noise here* They hire mainly females but have started hiring more males. Yet they only hire women that fit their desired image. I encourage you to read the legal section in the Hooters link, it's short and interesting.
From the few posts that are up already, everyone is talking about how women are being discriminated against. Emily Q.T. mentions that girls are ahead of boys when they first start school but then fall behind by the time they graduate high school or college. There's an interesting article that disagrees with her. I would like to first point out that this author fails to use links properly. The first link for 'by the BLS' should lead here. BLS stands for Bureau of Labor Statistics, a section of the Department of Labor. More women than men are graduating college and earning degrees, despite the fact that the same amount of each sex are attending college to begin with.
Here's a quote from that article:
In other words, the standard “disparity-proves-discrimination” dogma will not be applied in this case of a huge gender imbalance in college completion by ages 22-23, because the disparity favors women, not men. But consider what happens when the disparity favors men, and this is just one example of many:
NY Times: “Women make up 46% of the American workforce but hold just 25% of the jobs in engineering, technology and science, according to the National Science Foundation. To Sally K. Ride, a former astronaut, that persistent gender gap is a national crisis that will prove to be deeply detrimental to America’s global competitiveness.”
Okay, I can see how this might be viewed as a problem. It's supposed to be equal, so there should be 50% always, right? Or maybe we should look at being EQUITABLE. Women only make up 25% of those jobs listed above. Is there a reason? Do they not want to take those jobs? Are there other jobs they prefer over engineering and science and technology? Maybe we should look at the pay instead of the actual job? If women are given the same opportunity to choose a degree in college, doesn't that mean they are picking a career choice they would prefer? Forgive me for possibly stereotyping, but aren't women more people friendly? Maybe they want to pursue careers like that, in teaching, social work, etc.? Maybe we should look at the degrees being pursued by women before we start making claims that there is a gender gap. Stereotype number two of my rant: I'm pretty sure the majority of nursing and education majors are female. Personally, I don't care if my nurse is a male, female, or androgynous as long as they know what they're doing. Statistics about RIC showed a very small percentage of students pursing those fields there is a gender gap on. I believe these numbers are from the 2009 graduates. 29.5% of graduates pursued Education and Teaching, 13.06% for Therapy and Counseling, 12.35% for Business and Management. Those were the top 3 majors. Then, we have the very low majors. Computer Science: 0.45%, Math: 0.71%, Science: 2.01%
I would also like to point out that RIC has a 68% female population, possibly the highest in the state. It is certainly higher than Providence College (56%), University of Rhode Island (55%), and Brown University (53%). [All these statistics pertaining to colleges were obtained in a project last semester.]
Do we normally see a 'problem' when women are being favored and not men? Are there situations around us where this is the case? What do you think about the gender gap in those three fields? Should things be Equal in percentage or Equitable in the opportunity to pursue that career?
As for the stereotypes above, please forgive me if anyone finds them offensive.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
(Un)Equal?
Brown v. Board of Education was the catalyst that changed everything. Segregation is illegal, schools cannot be run separately based on race.
I'm in an interesting mood right now, so what you're about to read is going to be different from my usual. Like puppets on a string, I'm going to play around with this. ** indicate actions. And the initial descriptions are in there as well. Direct quotes from anyone look like this.
I apologize if this seems long. It likely will be.
Wise and Herbert v. Society
*Tim Wise and Bob Herbert enter the crowded courtroom and take their place at the prosecutor's bench. Wise is a 42 year old white male and prominent anti-racist essayist. Herbert is a 66 year old African American male, formerly an op-ed writer for the New York Times on poverty, racism, and politics.*
*An older white gentleman enters the courtroom next, walking to the defendant's place. He has grey hair, slightly balding, and is wearing a formal pin-striped suit. Wrinkles cover his face sparingly, making him appear younger than his 77 years. He is the former CEO of a Fortune 500 company.*
Bailiff: All rise! The honorable Judge Bogad presiding.
*Judge Bogad enters and sits. She is a 39 year old white women and is a professor at Rhode Island College, teaching education and social justice classes.*
Judge Bogad: *bangs her gavel* Court is now in session. You may all be seated. In the matter of Wise and Herbert versus Society, are all parties prepared?
Wise/Herbert/Society (in unison): Yes, your honor.
Judge Bogad: Very well. If the prosecution would start?
Wise: Thank you, your honor. The prosecution alleges that the defendant knowingly discriminated against millions of American citizens on the basis of their race and social class, especially in education.
Herbert: Society was told years ago in 1954 that it could not have segregated schools, but this continues to be the case today. Segregation in schools is still an issue. Schools are no longer legally segregated, but because of residential patterns, housing discrimination, economic disparities and long-held custom, they most emphatically are in reality.
Wise: It has taken many years to get as far as ruling segregation to be illegal. Now, we need to charge society with changing, by making this an event big enough to inspire other events. The election of Barack Obama as President is one of those changes, but it only proves Racism 2.0 is alive and well--*Judge Bogad interrupts*
Judge Bogad: Forgive me, but I don't know what Racism 2.0 is and the jury probably doesn't either.
Wise: *nodding* Of course, your honor. Racism 2.0 is the second stage. There has been a decrease in what I call Racism 1.0, the old school overt bias. 2.0 deals with enlightened exceptionalism. In this instance, President Obama was elected because he is above the rest; he is essentially transcending race because of his rare credentials for a man of his race. However, the norm for blacks and browns are still considered sub-par. We live in a society of double standards, where a man can be an idiot and elected to office but it takes an exceptional black man to be elected. And denial is everywhere. People are denying the problem and have been for many years. You can be a good person, a decent person, and remain oblivious to everything. We'll let Society give his opening.
Society:*Gives a curt nod to Wise before clearing his throat* Thank you. The American people respectfully deny your misinformed claim. We admit that there are some instances that might appear to be segregation, but we assure the court that it is not. Where parents choose to reside is their decision, and consequently, that is where their children enroll in school. People are habitual, they return to their roots, make friends with people of the same social status and race as them, and then live near one another. It is not due to any actions on the part of anyone else. It is their decision. There are no excuses. And blaming the white population at large of 'segregation' is an excuse.
(Above quote is by Wise)
----The End
Wise and Herbert would get along well with one another. Their viewpoints are similar in how segregation and racism still exist today. To them, Brown v. Board of Education was a step in the right direction, but it needs to be followed up more other significant events as well. Yes, it ended the overt racism (1.0), but 2.0 is still prevalent. Until the day schools, communities, and the country are integrated and mixed, neither Wise nor Herbert will agree that racism and segregation have ceased to exist. The point Wise makes about needing many large events over time to occur before change can happen is a good one and something that Herbert would prefer differed. Herbert wants change to happen now, widely, and without political sidesteps to achieve.
Why did I pick such a description for the representative of society? Because he is a rich, white male who was 20 years old when Brown v. Education took place, and the fictional ex-CEO of Wal-Mart, which is currently fighting a lawsuit that it is discriminating on the basis of gender.
Also, I've tried to capture the style of everyone's speech. How well did I do?
I realize that this is a bit of a recap of everything we heard and read, but I wanted to let society 'defend' itself as well. In your mind, are schools just as segregated as they were before? Or perhaps not to such a degree, but given that my school only has a 9% white population, it would appear that the neighborhood has a higher population of Hispanics and African Americans. Why not a more equalized population? What makes that area have such a lower percentage of white students?
I'm in an interesting mood right now, so what you're about to read is going to be different from my usual. Like puppets on a string, I'm going to play around with this. ** indicate actions. And the initial descriptions are in there as well. Direct quotes from anyone look like this.
I apologize if this seems long. It likely will be.
Wise and Herbert v. Society
*Tim Wise and Bob Herbert enter the crowded courtroom and take their place at the prosecutor's bench. Wise is a 42 year old white male and prominent anti-racist essayist. Herbert is a 66 year old African American male, formerly an op-ed writer for the New York Times on poverty, racism, and politics.*
*An older white gentleman enters the courtroom next, walking to the defendant's place. He has grey hair, slightly balding, and is wearing a formal pin-striped suit. Wrinkles cover his face sparingly, making him appear younger than his 77 years. He is the former CEO of a Fortune 500 company.*
Bailiff: All rise! The honorable Judge Bogad presiding.
*Judge Bogad enters and sits. She is a 39 year old white women and is a professor at Rhode Island College, teaching education and social justice classes.*
Judge Bogad: *bangs her gavel* Court is now in session. You may all be seated. In the matter of Wise and Herbert versus Society, are all parties prepared?
Wise/Herbert/Society (in unison): Yes, your honor.
Judge Bogad: Very well. If the prosecution would start?
Wise: Thank you, your honor. The prosecution alleges that the defendant knowingly discriminated against millions of American citizens on the basis of their race and social class, especially in education.
Herbert: Society was told years ago in 1954 that it could not have segregated schools, but this continues to be the case today. Segregation in schools is still an issue. Schools are no longer legally segregated, but because of residential patterns, housing discrimination, economic disparities and long-held custom, they most emphatically are in reality.
Wise: It has taken many years to get as far as ruling segregation to be illegal. Now, we need to charge society with changing, by making this an event big enough to inspire other events. The election of Barack Obama as President is one of those changes, but it only proves Racism 2.0 is alive and well--*Judge Bogad interrupts*
Judge Bogad: Forgive me, but I don't know what Racism 2.0 is and the jury probably doesn't either.
Wise: *nodding* Of course, your honor. Racism 2.0 is the second stage. There has been a decrease in what I call Racism 1.0, the old school overt bias. 2.0 deals with enlightened exceptionalism. In this instance, President Obama was elected because he is above the rest; he is essentially transcending race because of his rare credentials for a man of his race. However, the norm for blacks and browns are still considered sub-par. We live in a society of double standards, where a man can be an idiot and elected to office but it takes an exceptional black man to be elected. And denial is everywhere. People are denying the problem and have been for many years. You can be a good person, a decent person, and remain oblivious to everything. We'll let Society give his opening.
Society:*Gives a curt nod to Wise before clearing his throat* Thank you. The American people respectfully deny your misinformed claim. We admit that there are some instances that might appear to be segregation, but we assure the court that it is not. Where parents choose to reside is their decision, and consequently, that is where their children enroll in school. People are habitual, they return to their roots, make friends with people of the same social status and race as them, and then live near one another. It is not due to any actions on the part of anyone else. It is their decision. There are no excuses. And blaming the white population at large of 'segregation' is an excuse.
(Above quote is by Wise)
----The End
Wise and Herbert would get along well with one another. Their viewpoints are similar in how segregation and racism still exist today. To them, Brown v. Board of Education was a step in the right direction, but it needs to be followed up more other significant events as well. Yes, it ended the overt racism (1.0), but 2.0 is still prevalent. Until the day schools, communities, and the country are integrated and mixed, neither Wise nor Herbert will agree that racism and segregation have ceased to exist. The point Wise makes about needing many large events over time to occur before change can happen is a good one and something that Herbert would prefer differed. Herbert wants change to happen now, widely, and without political sidesteps to achieve.
Why did I pick such a description for the representative of society? Because he is a rich, white male who was 20 years old when Brown v. Education took place, and the fictional ex-CEO of Wal-Mart, which is currently fighting a lawsuit that it is discriminating on the basis of gender.
Also, I've tried to capture the style of everyone's speech. How well did I do?
I realize that this is a bit of a recap of everything we heard and read, but I wanted to let society 'defend' itself as well. In your mind, are schools just as segregated as they were before? Or perhaps not to such a degree, but given that my school only has a 9% white population, it would appear that the neighborhood has a higher population of Hispanics and African Americans. Why not a more equalized population? What makes that area have such a lower percentage of white students?
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
The Higher the Discourse, the More Rallied the People
This song is often called the Higher 9/11 Remix or World Trade Center Remix.
I'm comfortable enough with myself to admit that I'm not 'manly' and this song makes me cry. I don't know why, it just does. This, and I'm Already There by Lonestar.
I'm comfortable enough with myself to admit that I'm not 'manly' and this song makes me cry. I don't know why, it just does. This, and I'm Already There by Lonestar.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
What are we doing this for?
In The Service Of What? The Politics of Service Learning -- Joseph Kahne and Joel Westheimer
Reflection
This article was quite interesting. I don't know if many of us realized the two types of service learning. It raises several good questions. Is it enough to just 'help' and be charitable with your time or does it take some thought before and after to help and make a change? What we do in this class? I think it all depends on who you are. Yes, we have our discussions and the entire semester is spent learning about the differences and hardship some of the students may be facing. But really, it all comes down to what you make of it. Yes, we are giving our time. Yes, we don't have a choice in the matter. But aren't we working to help change lives? Isn't that why we want to become teachers? [It's not for the pay, certainly :) ] In trying to help the students, we should be trying to create that little spark within them to motivate them, to make them think that they can succeed, that they DESERVE to succeed and that they can go on to college, graduate, and live their lives the way they want to. That is the ideal. Without the discussion, the collaboration, the research that goes on in our classroom, that ideal would be further away than the sun. Without the classroom content we learn, we'd only be helping the students to pass their next test. There would be no lasting effect; once we left, they would be on their own again, perhaps only slightly better off than they were before. One person can change the world, yes, but only through effort and understanding.
What do you think? Are we making a difference and contributing 'change' rather than 'charity'? If we didn't discuss things so heavily in class, do you think it would be the same experience for you? Is there something I say that you disagree with?
Reflection
This article was quite interesting. I don't know if many of us realized the two types of service learning. It raises several good questions. Is it enough to just 'help' and be charitable with your time or does it take some thought before and after to help and make a change? What we do in this class? I think it all depends on who you are. Yes, we have our discussions and the entire semester is spent learning about the differences and hardship some of the students may be facing. But really, it all comes down to what you make of it. Yes, we are giving our time. Yes, we don't have a choice in the matter. But aren't we working to help change lives? Isn't that why we want to become teachers? [It's not for the pay, certainly :) ] In trying to help the students, we should be trying to create that little spark within them to motivate them, to make them think that they can succeed, that they DESERVE to succeed and that they can go on to college, graduate, and live their lives the way they want to. That is the ideal. Without the discussion, the collaboration, the research that goes on in our classroom, that ideal would be further away than the sun. Without the classroom content we learn, we'd only be helping the students to pass their next test. There would be no lasting effect; once we left, they would be on their own again, perhaps only slightly better off than they were before. One person can change the world, yes, but only through effort and understanding.
What do you think? Are we making a difference and contributing 'change' rather than 'charity'? If we didn't discuss things so heavily in class, do you think it would be the same experience for you? Is there something I say that you disagree with?
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Dissident of Dreams
Unlearning the Myths That Bind Us by Linda Christensen
Argument
Linda Christensen argues that children unconsciously have their ideals shaped through cartoons and other media.
We are all products of our environment. Everything we see leaves an imprint on us, especially when younger. Many cartoons and other media leave us with a small imprint, an expectation of values, that is distorted in some way, whether it be racially, socioeconomically, or sexist. The "secret education" given to our children is one that must be questioned. Only after it is questioned, can it be understood and applied to the world in a broader sense. Christensen's other message is that an outlet needs to be formed. It is not good to hold in all the thoughts and disgust these stereotypical media create. Writing about it, to provoke others to search their own thoughts and those hidden in media, or creating projects that can be presented to family, church groups, members of the community, or beyond, is how she had her students cope. Being frustrated with the tactics used in media and knowing that many of their dreams were by-products of ill-meaning childhood was crushing for many of her students. After coming to terms with that, they were tasked with spreading the word to others, to help create a network of more informed people, distancing themselves from such media.
The most important aspect of her argument? Don't keep it inside - unleash it on the world in a way that can help others see.
Reading this article, I thought back to many of the cartoons I watched as a child. Most were dominated by white males. Females were either no present or helpless. And trying to think if there were different races, I can't remember any off the top of my head. Did you watch any cartoons (or something else) that breaks this pattern and might make Christensen happy?
Argument
Linda Christensen argues that children unconsciously have their ideals shaped through cartoons and other media.
We are all products of our environment. Everything we see leaves an imprint on us, especially when younger. Many cartoons and other media leave us with a small imprint, an expectation of values, that is distorted in some way, whether it be racially, socioeconomically, or sexist. The "secret education" given to our children is one that must be questioned. Only after it is questioned, can it be understood and applied to the world in a broader sense. Christensen's other message is that an outlet needs to be formed. It is not good to hold in all the thoughts and disgust these stereotypical media create. Writing about it, to provoke others to search their own thoughts and those hidden in media, or creating projects that can be presented to family, church groups, members of the community, or beyond, is how she had her students cope. Being frustrated with the tactics used in media and knowing that many of their dreams were by-products of ill-meaning childhood was crushing for many of her students. After coming to terms with that, they were tasked with spreading the word to others, to help create a network of more informed people, distancing themselves from such media.
The most important aspect of her argument? Don't keep it inside - unleash it on the world in a way that can help others see.
Reading this article, I thought back to many of the cartoons I watched as a child. Most were dominated by white males. Females were either no present or helpless. And trying to think if there were different races, I can't remember any off the top of my head. Did you watch any cartoons (or something else) that breaks this pattern and might make Christensen happy?
 |
| Just like Racism, it's not always easy to spot things in cartoons and other media. |
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Harassment Hurts
Hyperlinks - connecting the world together
TheGLSEN website is filled with disturbing statistics about harassment and abuse toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexuals (LGBT) students. Perhaps one of the more disturbing statistics was the fact that two-thirds of LGBT students never reported being harassed and almost one-quarter say they did not report it because they felt that staff would not do anything to help. No student should feel that staff would not do anything to help stop or minimize the harassment. Many schools have anti-bullying policies, but only 18.2% of LGBT students say they go to a school that has protection based on sexual orientation or gender expression.
Rhode Island College's student handbook has some sections that help to prevent harassment of LGBT students. Freedom of speech is encouraged but "racial/sexual attacks and illegal harassment will not be tolerated." (pg. 27) It is curious to note that although there is a section for Sexual Harassment, readers are told to see this page. However, this only details the college's Affirmative Action plan -- not a Sexual Harassment Policy. However, there is a mention about sexuality in the Residential Life & Housing section on pg. 36. "These interactions, whether between" ... "members of different sexual orientations"... "will be tempered with sensitivity and a sense of responsibility toward others. The Harassment section includes (not limited to) "repeated questioning or implication concerning another's sexual activity, sexual orientation, or gender identity" To me, this is severely lacking. So only residents have to abide by these codes?
Teaching Tolerance has an article called 'Homo High' that details how much easier it is for all students, not just LGBT, to learn in an environment without bullies. The articles mentions that there has been some opposition to the idea because people claimed the school supported "separate but equal" by creating an environment just for LGBT students. However, this is not true. Even straight students enroll there for smaller class sizes and a friendlier learning environment. One straight student was uncomfortable, but became friends with some other students and realized that being LGBT doesn't change anything - they are just like you. A Christian group protested at the school and the same straight student who used to pass judgment on LGBT was quick to join in showing that the protesters were wrong.
Perhaps the scariest part of this article was what I was looking for: the extremes bullying has gone to. I'm sure everyone has heard, over the past several years, of cases when teens and young adults committed suicide after being bullied. There were a few well known cases locally within the past few months as well. These are reports the article used: the Minnesota student who was repeatedly harassed by teachers who assumed the student was gay; the 15-year-old Oxnard, Calif., boy who was shot in the head by a classmate after coming out as gay; the Massachusetts 11-year-old who hanged himself after enduring anti-gay bullying at school."
Especially the student who was harassed by teachers, this should not be happening. Does anyone know what it feels like to be treated like this? The kind of pain and emotional turmoil bullies are inflicting on people?
There are sites out there where people post secrets they've kept. While not all, some are related to LGBT. This is a video containing some relevant items from Postsecret.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)