Abstinence Only? Really?

I noticed several things in the reading for this week and in the debate yesterday. Since I have heard both I will reflect on both. The biggest thing I noticed was that each side of the argument was presenting statistics that clashed with one another. Only one of the statistics could be true. The abstinence-only side of the argument got most of their statistics from religion-affiliated organizations like Focus on the Family. The opposing side got their statistics from a variety of sources. I think this is really religion trying to push its way into our schools. Religious organizations have plenty of opportunities to preach their message of abstinence-only, and schools can then offer information about contraceptives. The religious organizations can tell children that it's not smart to have sex too early, and then since not all youth are religious the school can inform them of what they need to do to make good life choices. In my mind this model just makes so much sense. If the religious groups are worried about people having sex too early they can put that message out. Schools have a responsibility to inform students, regardless of their religious affiliation. That common denominator message is, in a nutshell: don't have sex until you are sure you are ready, and if/when you do here's how you can protect yourselves against unwanted consequences.

Earlier this semester I went to a hearing about requiring abstinence+ education in Nebraska's public schools. The only arguments against the bill were religious in nature. However, we live in a nation that has this fantastic freedom of religion. When we make laws that are designed to appease one specific religion it seems to me that we are defeating the whole purpose of that freedom. It's like America is a person with its hand outstretched for different people, but then behind its back there is a knife waiting to stab the different people for their differences.

It may be surprising to hear this from me after that tirade, but I actually support the idea of abstinence, but I don't think schools should be offering that message. It violates the division of church and state.

Questions:

1) Should sex ed be taught in schools at all or should that be handled by parents?

2) If sex ed is taught in schools should the state require that education to be abstinence+ rather than abstinence only?

SEX

Lets all ask ourselves a quick question. How much of what your parents and teachers told you did you listen to in those preteen ages? Personally, I though I knew everything there was to know. I don't even remember if I was taught abstinence or sex education in school. That shows how successful their message was. Frankly, sex education was boring. If one is trying to preach abstinence or sex education they need to make it exciting so students will listen. One student brought up in class today to bring in nursing students to teach whatever kind of sexual education the school feels necessary. This way, it's a young adult and not somebody they are already have their own stereotypes about.

I believe in a mix of sex education and abstinence. I don't think we should be telling our kid's it's okay to sex whenever they please, but I also don't believe in scaring them to the point where it's all lies. They need to know the truth ,plain and simple, the good and the bad. Obviously, buffer the information at younger ages but as children grow into their teens they need to know what sex is so they don't get "curious" and find out for themselves and possibly contract a STD or become pregnant.
 Q1: What characteristics do you feel a sexual education teacher should have?
Q2: Should sexual education be taught by parents or teachers? or both? or neither- just abstinence?

Let's Talk About Sex, Baby. Let's Talk About You and Me.

In the wise words of the esteemed female performance group TLC, let's talk about sex. In our modern media culture, teens are literally surrounded by sexual imagery. If we don't talk to them about sex, the media will.

Study after study has returned the same result: abstinence only sex education does not work. In the eight years that funding for abstinence only sex education was drastically increased by the Bush administration, the rates of teen pregnancy and and abortion simultaneously rose. This reverses a trend of continually decreasing rates of both teen pregnancy and abortions during the years of comprehensive sexual education provided by the Clinton administration. A 2002 report from the Progressive Partners in Health stated, "abstinence only programming runs the serious risk of leaving young people, especially those at elevated risk, uninformed and alienated."

The idea that providing teens with a comprehensive sexual education will a) teach them how to have sex and b) indicate that teen sex is acceptable are both easily refutable. First and foremost, teens will learn how to have sex whether we address it in a school setting or not. The first humans did not have sex ed classes, and yet thousands of year later here we are, products of their procreation. Teaching teens how to have SAFE sex is a critical part of ensuring that their health is provided for, both emotionally and physically. Second, cultural norms about the acceptability of teen sex and premarital sex in general are not going to be reinforced in the classroom nearly as effectively as they would be in the home. For teens from families which deem premarital sex a serious issue, they won't need abstinence only sex ed to convince them that abstinence is the best choice. Their families will already reinforce that decision. However, for students who do not have that strong moral influence from the family, an abstinence only sexual education leaves them without the knowledge to defend themselves against the dangers that come along with engaging in sex. In fact, a study of one California abstinence only program found that students who went through it were more likely to become pregnant (or get a partner pregnant) or need an abortion.

Maher's arguments are flawed in a few places. To start, the one study she cites that shows comprehensive sex ed in a negative light is an old favorite of proponents of abstinence only sex education. The study isn't peer reviewed and isn't regarded as a solid research study by many in the field. Aside from shoddy evidence, her only argument against these programs is that they talk about condoms and don't mention abstinence as a option. Let's just add abstinence to the comprehensive curriculum and call it a day.

While I agree that sex has many physical and emotional consequences, the idea that we can only teach teens about the ideal of what they should do is ludicrous. She can throw any number of statistics about how much teens/society is harmed by pre-marital sex, but until she prove to me that abstinence only sex education actually reduces the numbers of teens having sex across the board (which not study has done thus far), then I am inclined to educate our teens about the choices they make. Ignoring the realities of teen sex in the classroom will not make them go away, it will simply make them taboo topics that teens feel they are completely alone in facing.

You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammels, let's do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel

I definitly say that there needs to be a separation of home and school in this case. If parents want to inform their kids about abstinence, then by all means, they are free to do so. It is their place to help their child to develope his or her morals and see what is best. However I don't think this is a place where a public institution, such as a school, should be involved. The school's primary focus is to add and develop where the parenting left off. I don't think making condoms available undermines the parenting at all, it's just a different way to tell teens to stay safe.

In the end, however, let's let the blame fall where it should: the teens. It's not the parent's or school's fault for the rise of STDs or pregnancies. Teens should take responsibility for their own actions. You can't say they didn't know because they weren't educated; anyone has access to the tools they need to be safe and responsible. It's time they stand up and act like the adults they are.

Q1: Should schools teach a sex ed class at all?

Q2: If so, what should be taught an why?

Issue 18

I don't think that abstinence only education should be the only message teens get. My parents raised me to believe I should wait until marraige before having sex, however growing up that wasn't the only message I was getting. My parents taught me that abstinence was the right thing to do for many reasons, but they also informed me that if I choose not to wait I could face many consequences, which definitely scared me. I think that teens should be taught abstinence both in and out of school because engaging in sex is a risky behavior and the consequences are numorous however they are going to make up their own minds about sex and I think that they should be taught that if they don't maintain abstinence they may face consequences that they may not be ready for. There is a study supporting that abstinence only education actually increases teens likelihood of getting an std or pregnant which I totally can understand. I mean when a teen is told not to do something, they often do, and that's mostly because were curious, we hear people talking about it and wonder what the big deal is. So I beleive that if the information is out there, then the teens will have the choice which most likely will decrease that curiousity. Furhermore in reality teens are subject to a lot of messages thanks to the media and most of those messages are about sex. So I think it's just foolish not to educate teens about the messages they are constantly exposed to otherwise they are going to interpret them the way they want to which can be extremely damaging. So in my opinion give teens a choice, give them the facts and help them understand that their actions may have consequences, but I think the more they know about the matter the better decisions they can make for themselves. Q1: How can abstinence campaigns compete with pop culture to ensure the message is getting across? Q2: Why are teens engaging in risky behavior? Lack of facts, no active parental role?

Abstinence vs. Sex education

Personally I feel that kids need to be taught about sex education. With the society that we live in today, we can't be that neive to believe that kids are not having sex. There is a television show on MTV dedicated to teenage mothers and being 16 and Pregnant. That is why I feel that abstinence only programs do not work. By teaching kids abou abstinence only, it is going to only increase their curiosity about sex and then they are going to experiment and try it, and then boom, we have another teenage girl having a baby. But if sex education is taught in school, they will know that there is a possibility of STD's and they will also know different methods of contraception such as birth control, condoms etc. So my personal view is that we need to implement a sex education program in the schools and get rid of the abstinence only program. I am from a small town and teenage pregnance used to be quite unheard of, now, there are at least 3 girls in my brothers junior class that are pregnant. How does your school fare?

America Sucks.

Alright--check to make sure your parents aren't around, and watch this brilliant French AIDS charity ad, that would run pre-watershed on French TV. Note that this video, while not overtly pornographic, is certainly Not Safe For Work.

CLICK

There. Try running that ANYWHERE in America. Perhaps HBO might pick it up; otherwise, not a chance. There's this extreme stigma present in America that fundamentally clashes with its more open and liberal take on sexuality; television shows and movies constantly push boundaries, but never tend to push them too far so that advertisers and censors will take issue. There's a tenuous and, frankly, unfortunate line that it tightroped almost every day in this country between embracing sexuality to its fullest, and denying it entirely.

We can't do this any longer; it's time to fish or cut bait. It's time we either regress to Victorian-era denial of sexuality or move toward the European take on sexuality.

Frankly, I don't really care which. Just so long as this asynchronous dichotomy would quit it.

Question: Did the animated images displayed in the above video bother you at all? Would it bother you to realize these were not particularly disturbing images for French children? If so, why do you think it does bother you?

No sex?

Abstinence and education have been in partnership for a long time. Ever since I can remember, even in grade school, we were taught specific ways to act around the opposite sex. Girls and boys, men and women have a strong sexual attraction towards one another- its natural for the two to mix, mingle, and love. In jr. high I remember the health teacher preaching that we must restrain ourselves and not participate in sexual intercourse...ABSTINENCE! and then the teacher made us watch this horrendous film of a women birthing a child, as if they were saying if you have sex this is what happens no matter what! well it scared me, not going to lie, but the real truth is kids, and young adults are going to do whatever they want. This is just what happens when young people and hormones unite. This idea of no sex education in school could be linked to the idea of religion. Could schools silently be preaching an abstinence free lifestyle in regards to the church?

Rather talking about what kids shouldn't do, maybe they should actually educate them about sex, and what they should do if they are going to participate in sexual activities. Such as using protection, and when you shouldn't have sex in regards to menstrual cycles. This may sounds a bit outrageous, but at the same time it makes plenty of since to educate young adults about how to protect themselves and be smart way.

1. Do you think that religious views are being pushed in school class rooms?
2. Do you think sex education should be more realistic, in regards to how many young adults have sex ?

Issue 18 Abstinence and Edu

Whether or not the school only teaches abstinence until marriage or other messages about sexuality and contraception there needs to be messages be taught to kids. To me this issue of only having one message and thats abstinence is kind of wrong but also I see why they would just want to teach that one message. The reason why it is wrong the way they teach it is because the dont really go in depth with it and why we should wait. This is just my personal experience with sex education I had when they were teaching us. Most of the time if you tell kids what they shouldn't do they are going to end up experiencing it for themselves any way. The message should also be taught how to have safe sex as well. But implying this means it is okay to have sex with whoever you want with totally goes against my beliefs but thats another story in its own.

The real problem here is this education should not only be taught in the schools but at home with the parents. The parents should raise their kids with valuable information about this issue more than he school. I know i wont be a perfect parent but i will try my best to raise my kids to what the bible says i know most people are disgusted or don't care for what it is says but the bible has the absolute truth about every situation take a look for your self if u don't want to take my word for it. i will let my children choose the course they want to go but i will try ti instill truth in them also if not with the bible just with stats and things that are happening with people who abstain from sex or are practicing. the school i think just need to go more in depth with information and helping students understand.

1) Are schools now a days spending more time on this subject teaching it better then, when i was in school ?

Abstinence Only Edu.

Of course there will always be two sides to the argument, it's a no brainer. I don't know about everyone else but abstinence was not the only thing taught in my school. We can go out and say that we want schools to each children that sex before marriage is wrong and they they will be likely to get STD's, pregnant, etc... But are we really being realistic? It's not realistic to believe that if you tell children not to do it, that they will listen. I think it's more important for children to be taught abstinence in school as an option. They should also be taught how to practice safe sex along with the side effects. Of course for some abstinence will be the answer but it is more important to teach both sides.
Apart from this how can you teach kids abstinence is the only answer when the can go home and watch t.v. and see it 24/7. Many shows even go as far as to glorify sex. It's contradicting to tell a kid that sex is wrong but then they go home and watch a show like Gossip Girl where sex is seen all over the place and between multiple people. Today's society is a lot different from the past, expectations are different and many parents are a lot more open about sex with their kids. So why shouldn't sex education be more open as well? Telling a kid what not to do is just going to make them want to explore it even more. By teaching both sides of the argument and teaching kids about the dangers they will be able to make the decision themselves and will be more likely to be safer about it. In the end safety comes first when it comes to sex, so that's what should be emphasized in sex education.

DQ:
1) Did your school teach sex education as abstinence only? How do you think this made you view sex?
2) If your child (in the future or now) were to be taught that abstinence was the only answer would you be o.k. with that?

Abstinence Only Education

Abstinence only education is the curriculum that instructs young adults to wait until marriage to engage in sexual encounters. In the early 2000’s this type of curriculum gained many supporters and raised billions of dollars in funding for educational purposes. There were a few studies that showed this type of education was indeed working as fewer teens were engaging in sexual encounters and the average age of the first sexual encounter for students with this type of education was increasing.

Lately many studies have come out supporting the claim that this type of education does not in fact make any difference in the decline of stds and teen pregnancies but rather increased in these two areas because children were not properly informed of the consequences of their actions. These researchers suggest that students are taught a more comprehensive curriculum in which they are taught both the danger of unsafe sex and how to practice safe sex. Many believe that better education of what is really out there will help to combat the situation.

In all reality a hybrid of these two techniques is probably best. Children need to know what is really out there so they can face some of the dangers that will be staring them straight in the face as they get older. In an age where sex sells and big companies are marketing sex more and more children are being influenced sometimes even unconsciously being taught that they need to be having sex. With an increased knowledge on how to practice safer sex students will be able to decipher good practice from bad practice, and with a message of abstinence also being taught maybe more young adults will decide to wait to have sex either until their married or until they are really ready for sex.

With an abstinence only curriculum in every school nationwide would modern views of women being seen only for their sex appeal finally start to diminish?

Would teaching sex education at an even younger age, say 4th grade help to fix some of the growing problems in today’s society?

Abstinence and Education

My experience with education and abstinence may be very different than some. I went to an all girls catholic highschool and before that to a catholic middle school. Since in the catholic church they like to teach abstinence until marriage that is all I was taught in school. Basically what happened in highschool if a girl was pregnant they were not allowed to talk about their baby, bring pictures of any sort, and just act as if they were not even barring a child. It was as if my school was turning the other cheak and was trying to be blinded by the situation that people do participate in sex before marriage. This then to me resulted in more of my classmates and other students in my highschool to get pregnant. So, just teaching us abstinence was clearly not working because today about twelve of the girls from my class have children and a few are on their second child. I believe just because I went to a catholic school does not mean that our education system has to ignore the fact that this is happening in the world. I think if they would have taught us more about protection and maybe even had a course that was mandatory to take more girls would have made smarter choices and used some sort of protection. It is dangerous in the world today to be ignorant and blind to this situation because I believe it is only going to continue to get worse until something changes. Another thing though that people need to understand is that the parents of children need to educate their children too. As for myself, my mom is a nurse and has been for 30 years. She has seen as young as a 11 year old come in to deliver a baby. Since my mom is a nurse and has seen this going on for years she was able to educate my sister and I about what could happen to us. She was open about everything and told us that if we were engaging in these actions that steps needed to be taken in order to prevent a pregnancy from happening. She then also, told us about STDs and how this would affect our lives long term. She was very blunt and upfront with us which was smart because I feel that, that is the only way the point will get directly across. So my questions for you all are: 1) Did anyone else go to a catholic school and was only abstinence taught to you? What effects did this have on people that went to your school? Negative or Positive? 2) Should the school system recieve all the blame for not properly educating students about sex and stds? or should the parents be to blame also?

Abstinence & Education

Abstinence until marriage is something that will always be taught to students at a young age in schools. With the way our culture is today, sex and sexual images are everywhere from television and music videos to billboards and other forms of advertising. While students are being taught to not have sex until marriage in school they are finding out in the real world that it might not be as easy as they say to wait. In today's popular culture, one of the most watched shows on MTV is "Teen Mom", a show about the lives of teenage kids who engaged in sexual activity before marriage as 16 and 17 year old kids. MTV has portrayed sex in so many ways over the years through music videos, movies, and their everyday shows like Teen Mom and 16 and Pregnant. Bridget Maher talked about in her side of the argument that each year 3 million teens or 25% of sexual active teens are infected with a STD. She went on to talk about how the teens engaging in this pre martial sex experience fear of STDs, regret, guilt, low self-respect, fear of commitment, and depression. When I was in high school, if a girl was to become pregnant just about everyone in the school would notice it and talk about it. While some people might not think its a huge deal it is affecting that girl in one way or another.

The reading talked a lot about how sex before marriage campaigns are everywhere and how there is so much money being poured into it.But in my opinion I really don't see a great deal of it, instead I see more things advertising sexual things or sexual images being posted. Every time you turn on the TV you are most likely going to see something related to sex as you flip through the channels. I think another big part of abstinence comes from where you live or what type of culture you live in. Coming form the midwest you really dont get the big picture on things, most often things are scaled down to a smaller image where as someone living in maybe California or New York might get a much bigger understanding of this whole thing.

With kids starting to partake in sexual activity at younger ages all the time I think it is important to continue the ads and campaigns in order for the younger generations to hear the messages. But with the way our pop culture is growing and where our media is taking us it will be hard to continue to preach abstinence until marriage. In my opinion if kids are not waiting until marriage they should at least wait until an age where they are more knowledgeable on the subject and they are mature enough and know how to handle it so STDs and unplanned pregnancy dont occur as often.

Questions:
1. Why has pop culture overtaken all the money and time invested in abstinence until marriage campaigns?
2. What will it take for kids to understand STDs and pregnancy at young ages are not worth it?

Abstinence-Only Education

Abstinence-only education (AOE) is not sufficient for today's teens. The majority of teens engage in sexual activity of some sort. For those students that do, schools must equip them with the knowledge and resources to practice safe sex. Furthermore, at some point in their life, likely soon after leaving high school, almost all people are going to participate in some type of sexual activity. If students are given a background on contraceptives, condoms, STD's and risks of sexual activity during middle school or high school, they will have valuable information for whenever they choose to engage in sexual activity, even if that is after high school or when they get married.

I also think abstinence is very much a personal decision that is largely decided upon before sex education of any sort. Religion and parenting play a big role in abstinence, and I don't feel like school sex education classes alter many students' decisions to remain abstinent or not. I think schools should teach comprehensive sexual education which includes abstinence but is not limited to abstinence. Schools should provide a learning environment, and not focus on trying to influence students' decisions. If students believe the facts support abstinence, then hopefully they will abstain from sex. However, for those who will choose to engage in sexual activity, they should be able to learn about safe practices. As mentioned before, I believe parents should be the ones to express their opinion and talk to teens about sex. However, not all students have family environments that provide effective conversation or messages about sex.

1) What type of sex education did you receive as a teen? What is your opinion about that education?

2) Do you think the people delivering the message could alter the effectiveness of an abstinence-only message? What if a relatable, young adult taught sex education classes, rather than a much older adult?

Zach Poss-4/14/11-Abstinence Only Ed

When originally assigned the “yes” position to this argument, I thought it was pretty cut and dry, pretty clear that abstinence only education (AOE) was an ineffective, futile program that the government wastes money on as opposed to the comprehensive or abstinence plus viewpoint. Of course, having looked into it, perspectives change somewhat.

Proponents of AOE tend to take a more logical viewpoint, largely pushed by religious and hegemonic ideals of heteronormativity and the nuclear family. They point to the fact that teenagers, specifically younger teenagers, are mostly not capable of dealing with the possible negative consequences associated with premarital sex and point to abstinence as the only 100% effective means of contraception and protection. I agree with both of these points. Where I think that Bridget Maher and most other proponents fail in their arguments is that they focus so much on proving effectiveness of these programs using numbers, mostly because that’s the same way that opponents argue against it. The problem with numbers is that they can be spun to support any viewpoint.

Supporters of comprehensive education (CE) tend to try to approach the evaluation of AOE from a realistic viewpoint. Why, if so very few people actually want to remain abstinent until marriage (most everyone doesn’t), do we continue to pump money into such a futile program. They try to push numbers too and point to evaluations of the AOE programs that quite frankly, aren’t there. There has been no concrete evidence supporting one way or another. Both sides point to the drop in teen pregnancies in the last two decades as a testament to their own curriculum.

Both sides of this argument fail to look at the bigger picture in defining the success or failure of a program. The goal of both is to protect kids from negative consequences that their maturity levels don’t quite grasp. Kids can’t look back with hindsight and regret what they haven’t done yet. Everyone knows that not all sex is bad, and that a girl doesn’t get pregnant every time, that you won’t always get an STD. Both programs are successful even if they put off sexual activity for a short period of time, giving kids a chance to mature and make better decisions, to be in a better position to handle any of those negative consequences I just listed, should they happen. The problem with the programs is that they are being taught by 40 to 60 year old nurses and teachers, by generations of people who don’t remember what it was like to be a kid. Kids need to know that abstinence is the best route to take, and they need to know what kinds of contraceptives are available, but they need to know how often those methods fail too, and they need to hear it from someone they respect.

Abstinence Only

Abstinence only programs are lacking in the education needed in contraception. Watching shows like Teen Mom where they are asked if they used contraception they almost always say no. They just didn't think it would happen to them. Or they thought that there's no way they would get pregnant after one time. These examples alone stress the importance of having a real sex education. During these sex Education classes it needs to be stressed the importance of contraception and how easy it really is to get pregnant. I mean In my High school, we had SO many pregnant girls. It was insane. We did have a sex ed. Program though so that doesn't really “prove that it works” or anything, but I still think it is important. I really just believe that they need to do a better job. Maybe even make the program longer so that they can explain how hard parenting really is and that all it takes is one time to have a baby.

I think that abstinence only programs have good intentions but they need to do more than just that. I personally think that High School age teens should not have sex. I think that they should remain abstinent until they are mature, and with a serious significant other. But these days, that's just not going to happen. I think that I would be most beneficial to incorporate abstinence into the sex education program but not exclude the contraception aspect. A combination of the two in my opinion would be the best.

Abstinence Only Education

The biggest problem I have with abstinence only education was hardly mentioned in our book: scare tactics. Abstinence only education, whether effective in preventing teen pregnancy or not (and I side with the no side of the debate, that it isn't), the scare tactics used in abstinence only education have long-lasting effects.

From my experience, abstinence only education focuses mainly on the dangers of sex. Not just premarital sex. All sex. Contraceptive failure rates, graphic pictures of STDs, stats about teenage pregnancy... And face it, when you get married, that fear doesn't magically disappear. Not everyone wants a kid right away when they are married. Even abstinent people who have only learned about abstinence will still probably need to learn how to use contraceptives when they're married, only they must then learn on their own. But by then, they have been conditioned to be fearful and ashamed of sex, that it can make having ever having sex seem scary and wrong.

Not only does it teach that premarital sex is scary and "wrong," but abstinence only teaches that sex outside of marriage is disgusting and perverse... Those are not psychologically safe associations to place on a perfectly normal (and, might I add, necessary) biological function. As I said before, being married won't make all those feelings disappear overnight. To teach abstinence only is to deny that sexual feelings happen, and that sex will eventually happen in an environment where contraception is still necessary. To say that sexual feelings can be easily smothered, should be repressed... And from what I remember of my psychology classes, repression is not only bad, but potentially dangerous and psychologically scarring.

Personally, I was taught a 50/50 program. 50% focused on effectiveness of abstinence, 50% focused on safe sex and contraception (that is, aside from my middle school class that wanted me to sign an abstinence and anti-drug pact, which I signed , even then consciously aware that I was only agreeing strictly to the no illegal drugs portion).

And I think 50/50 is the way it should be. Teaching abstinence as an option is very critical. But the fact of the matter is, even if 99% of teens didn't have sex, the 1% who did would still need access to safe sex information, and the other 99% would need the information for whenever they do start having sex. I am absolutely against any curriculum that intentionally hides or misrepresents important scientific or medical information.

I just love FRC's arguments. And by love, I mean I love to pick them apart. They're the only articles I've read where I literally cannot stop myself from writing rebuttals in the margins. They harp on the fact that STDs can be dangerous, but they don't want to teach about condoms that prevent most STDs... Sorry, but the mere existence of condoms invalidates most of that argument in a heartbeat. "The truth about sex" is "that it is meant to be saved for marriage"? Seriously? That's not a fact any more than the "fact" that the toaster is only meant to toast bread. Hate to break it to you, but a toaster can safely toast pastries, bagels, English muffins... And I promise, toasting a bagel in a toaster isn't any more perverse than safe sex outside of marriage. Oh, and the 9% jump in students that were scared into believing that teenage sex will "make it harder for them to get a good job or be successful in a career"? Someone really needs to tell those poor kids that no sane employer is going to ask about their virginity before deciding to hire them.

3/15/11

The issue of women in the workplace is very double sided to me. On one hand I do believe that women are held back by societal forces, but on the other hand I believe that we in some circumstances hold ourselves back as well. In the past men have dominated to workforce and held the highest positions at companies. These positions take years to get to and women have not seen themselves as a force in the workplace for that long of time. If men and women had started off in the workforce at the same point in history I think that the numbers would be completely different. But then again its always hard to tell. Our society is a rapidly changing place, and everyday people are breaking barriers. Women in the workforce isn't a new debate by any means. This is where my belief in women are held back comes into play. It is not seen as normal to many people in our society for a woman to hold a leadership position, especially in a fortune 500 company. Part of this I think is because men feel intimadated by a new presence in the workplace. They do not know how to communicate and interact with females on a completely equal level. I have heard instances of where women are paid less for the same job that a man does and ofcourse I feel that this is completely unfair. But you do have to look back at the point where these two peoples jobs started. Say that in an interview to become a teacher both a man and a woman are given a position at a university. In the interview the employer may ask what salary each desires. The man may shoot for a higher number while when the woman is asked she feels the need to reserve herself and states a lower salary. Both are granted the salary that they feel they should have. Now this is not the employers fault, each interviewee gave the specific salary that they desired. This is a circumstance from an article in the New York Times. It talks about women feeling undeserving of higher salaries so they shoot lower when asked. So when an employer agrees to the salary they want it is in a way their own fault. Addressing this one major problem is that women need to learn to speak up, and partake in risks so that they can equal the playing field. Ofcourse its not just about women speaking up, society also needs to recognize that both sexes have the ability to become leaders. I think that it is definitly something that we are currently working towards, its just not completely perfected. But like everything else, it can't be 100% perfect.

DQ:
1. Do you think that as women are in the workforce longer that these numbers will dramatically change?
2. What do you think employers should do when two people of different sexes desire different salaries, especially if the womans is lower?

Women and the Workplace

I agree with many of the post when they state that there are still many issues holding women back as well as agreeing with the fact that we are making many advancements everyday. That being said i feel like there are still many challenges facing both men and women in the workplace. Women are constantly doing a large amount of the work while not receiving the proper pay and promotions. I also feel like men are often put in situations that force them to make unfair decisions based on gender for better or for worse. Many issues come into play when talking about womens in the workplace. Sex appeal is a large issue that can hurt women, as well as help them advance. It is sad that this is the case but unfortunately this is the world we live in. I am sure everyone has heard of a women getting a job because of her sex appeal as well as losing one. I feel like we are making huge advancements and I like the way our progress is going.

Q1) Is it fair that women are put in these awkward situation dealing with sex appeal?
Q2) How do you feel about the mans perspective on this situcation?

Women in the Workplace

I definitely agree that there are some inequalities in the workplace. Women are still not getting paid the same as men are and there are plenty of barriers for them. It is unfair but times are constantly changing and I think the gap is getting smaller, especially with the number of women entering college is at an all time high. However there are gender differences that need to be addressed to, for instance many women don't want to be in the work place, instead they are happy being home with the kids and letting their husbands bring in the income. Also there are many jobs that are gender oriented and those often times are paid less. So I think the large reason for the gender gap really depends on gender, however not the only reason.

Where we see the biggest gap is probably with positions of power, for instance a President or CEO of a company. For me when I think of this kind of position I typically associate a male holding it. It's a stressful position and even the book talks about this stereotype. So why hasn't that changed, do we need more women working in those positions, or is it such a deeply engrained in people that changing that stereotype would be too difficult?

The book goes onto say that many women have strong leadership skills which make them successful at certain jobs. However I think men are typically better at that because a lot of it has to do with task orientation and delegating work, which is generally not as high on a woman's list as men. They have great communication skills and are more likely to give support and encouragement to their subordinates but is that what it takes to be a good leader? Every job requires a different set of skills and many of those skills are going to be better in either males or females. So it makes me wonder if that is why there's the gender gap, is it because people would rather hire men or is it because of the skills the man has.

These questions make it difficult to really pinpoint the reason for this gender gap but they do help in explaining certain aspects. So I don't know if this gender gap and inequality will ever go away completely but I think it will continue to get better over time.

Q1) In your opinion would you rather have a male or female boss?
Q2) Will women one day be seen as more successful and powerful than men?

Women - Work

Both sides of the issue make some decent points. There is an undeniable gender gap that still exists today within the workplace and there are numbers and statistics to back that statement up. Men have the numbers when it comes to top tier positions. This is probably due to some gender bias and an unfair preference that is most likely present within people in hiring positions but with that being said I believe that it is societal as well in terms of gender roles. But I do think that change takes time, and that it is happening every day. I do not think that change means unequal treatment one way or the other. Which brings me to the societal obstacles. I think that there is a "traditional" set of standards and roles that still exist within a lot of older generations and that plays a par,t although it could be minimal, in the number differences that are present in the workforce. Also there are still a lot of women that still prefer to hold those gender roles as the housewife and a stay at home mother and are just fine with it. The fact that almost all men, if not all, want to be an earner, and hold a good job and be the provider- and how a lot of women are split when it come to their role, this plays a huge factor in why there are gender number difference existent in the workforce today. In a way women are playing catch up in entering the workforce because it used to be so rare for women to hold high end jobs. There are still some gender biases that exist in the hiring process with preference given to males, and this is unfortunate. But I think this being a problem is lessening every day.

RQ: If your boss was a the same sex as you, would you have a more or less respect following their orders than someone of the opposite sex?

Are Barriers to Women's Success as Leaders Due to Societal Obstacles?

...shoot this is late, totally spaced it! But here I go!

As always, I think that both sides have a piece of truth. What stood out to me the most are two ideas, one on each position. I believe that the biological differences are preference of women and men from biological aspects. I also think that evolution plays a role in what biological preferences men and women may have. Most women and men have to keep up with society to be successful. I say most because there are other cultural beliefs that are still successful. With that said biologically women have evolved just haven't had the opportunities to evolve as quickly as men.

Which brings me to the societal obstacles. I am not sure if women in the 1950's aspired to work with their husbands or work similar jobs but women defiantly aspire to do so now. A long with the societal obstacles of women having to work outside of the home came the aspiration of wanting to work outside the home. So yes, I think women are playing catch up but have come a very long way, in a very short amount of time.

On the topic of males being a more preferred leader but females having better leadership skills. Like mentioned, it is hard for women to use the same leadership techniques as men because of societal norms and perceptions. Which in all, I would think that is because there are more negative stereotypes about women in higher positions (obviously), i.e. "she is just a bitch because shes hormonal or something!". I can also see males dominated jobs being frustrated by a female boss easily, thinking that she doesn't know but day after day females are proving them wrong.

Okay, now I am just rambling.

In previous jobs I have had to train someone how to do there job, when they were hired to be MY manager. This was very frustrating. I am curious that if you were a male in my position (in the example) that you would be even more frustrated if the new manager was a female?

In your current position, does majority of higher management consist of mostly males and would you consider your job to be a male dominated position?

Women in the Work place

My biggest compaint about this whole debate is when the authors said that a 'glass ceiling' doesnt exist for women in the work place. I understand what they meant when they said its not true because of the many levels of accomplishments that women have recieved around the world. Yes, things are getting better. But they are not where they need to be. A glass ceiling (and the glass escalator for men in women dominated fields) do exist. It might not be the same for all women, but there is a limit to how high within a company a woman can get. Yes, there have been women presidents in other countries, but until a woman is elected as president here in the US, there will still be problems with equality in the work force in this country. This is being seen in the semi-recent law suits with Walmart. There is still a problem that women have to face in the work place of being paid less than males doing the same job, even if we have come a long way since the '50s.

In one of my other WGS classes, my teacher told me that there was a study done by the Danish that said if women were to hold 50% or more of the CEO positions in the US, then we would never face another recession. This is because women are more cautious with their spending and look at all aspects of a decision before they would make it.

Now if this were to work out like they think it would, would the US population ever reconsider paying women less than men and actually give women the jobs and positions they deserve? Or do you think that the males would still dominate the power in our work place?

Women. Workplace. Fallacies.

It is a daunting challenge to try to address women’s equality rights, because both sides of the argument are remarkably incensed and almost disturbingly easy to anger. There’s also the two-sides of the coin argument—you can’t support social change if you don’t support most female advocacy groups. To that argument, I respond with a slippery slope fallacy accusation, and perhaps a couple of Advil. I find myself in great disagreement with a disturbing amount of feminist organizations, and much to my dismay, I’ve grouped many of Eagly and Carli’s posits in with them. I just now read “Zach Poss’s” entry, and his second paragraph was almost exactly what I wanted to cover on this issue; essentially, there are times it feels Eagly and Carli want to have their cake and eat it too—embrace equality without giving up some traits that should probably be put at the door if women are to pursue those occupations. Childbirth is an incredibly challenging issue since there is nothing comparable that men can endure; however, it is important to note that it is entirely optional.

While I hate to admit it, I feel Browne presents a much stronger argument than Eagly and Carli, despite the fact I firmly believe that women are just as capable as their male counterparts in the workplace. His article reads much more level-headedly, and his ideas feature better organization. What I’d like to see is a compromise, of sorts. An article which discusses how women feature different—but equivalent—abilities in positions typically dominated by males without bringing out a grocery list of how women need to be (almost paradoxically????) accommodated. Then I’d happily throw away my Advil.

Question: Do you think women’s percentage in the workforce will continue to rise? When do you think there will be a brickwall?

Question 17

So. Cool.

Reading through this my mind is just spinning with all these questions about why there aren't as many women in the upper crust of the work force. Is it because of education, and that from a young age women are taught that either it is unattainable or not where they belong? Is it because of biological differences, the same types of differences that could make it harder for women to get into high-level math and science careers? So many different topics come to mind in this massive amalgamation of a question. Are the barriers that hold women back from upper-level business positions societal in nature?

I think they absolutely are societal. Another influence I would point out is the tradition of men in the workplace. As Eagly and Carli explained, female managerial styles can actually be more effective than male managerial styles. However, I believe that our cultural history of men in the workplace has solidified that idea that the male managerial style is the correct one.

Along with that there are also numerous other forces that hold women back from advancing in the workforce. I think being a family caretaker is probably at the forefront of these issues. Women are more likely to take time off after having a child to care for it while men tend to stay at work earning the money to care for the child. This is not a new concept, but one that continues to hold even career-oriented women back.

I think to argue that these forces holding women back from high-level managerial positions are not societal is absurd.

1. Why do we as a culture have such a hard time adapting to new methods, such as female managerial styles?

2. Do you think there are just as many women as there are men vying for these high-level managerial positions?

Woman Today

Being involved in women athletics I can honestly say that there are still some barriers that women face everyday. Whether it be being compared to male sports or being compared as athletes, this is an unfair standard.
Women and men sports and athletics are very different especially when it comes to popularity. male sports have dominated media such as ESPN for a long time, but women are making a voice for themselves in today's athletics. This is very uplifting for a female athletes.
The fact that women's sports are being more recognized symbolizes all the hard work women have put into being more know. my mom was a big part of title 9 at her high school back in the 70's. she would always tell me how hard it was to get peoples attention in order for a fair change in athletics compared to all the male sports.
So to answer the question I'd say that there is some barriers that are still present in the gender world, but women are making a name that will become stronger and will always be know.

1) where there unfair opportunities in athletics in your high school?
2) What do you think is the main factor that is driving women to change these barriers?

Zach Poss-Women’s Obstacles-3/15/11

There is a definitely a gender gap that exists within the workplace, as evidenced by the numbers of women versus men in top tier jobs, at the present. However, I didn’t feel like Eagly and Carli or Browne effectively looked at all angles of this statistic. For example, though women have increased to holding over 40% of managerial positions at present, only 50 years ago this percentage would’ve hovered around zero. In that time, how much turnover has occurred in these top tier positions at these top tier companies? CEO’s might stay around for 10 years, so say 5-6 openings in that 50 years. Right now, 40% of eligible candidates are women, but for only one opening per company? In that 50 year time span, there may have only been 10-20% qualified women candidates for each position. Also consider that most of the top companies trade each other’s qualified candidates around, that is, a person that works for a serious competitor is going to be given more weight as a candidate than someone who works for a subpar company, when hiring from outside the company, which hasn’t been a major practice over that time period. I am not naïve enough to believe that social barriers don’t exist for women, but could it be, as Browne points out, that more women in general, who are undoubtedly capable of making their own sound decisions, are choosing to go down paths that don’t lead to being the CEO of a fortune 500 company?

I especially took issue with Eagly and Carli’s idea that women should be accommodated to allow them to have certain advantages over men in getting to these positions. Should women who have families be given more opportunities or time to be considered for advancement? Should women who take time away from a career be offered more consideration for having done so? Should the norm of long hours be changed to accommodate them? Should employees be required to “shore up” social capital practices for women? Personally, it seems like these authors have strayed from advocating women’s equality. I would think that a position that came with special accommodations would be hollow, that women would want to earn that position given the same situation as men. I take no issue with the idea that, all things being equal, women should be given the same opportunities as men, and that to some in the older generation, gendered bias does exist. But I do think that change takes time, and that it is happening every day. I do not think that change means unequal treatment one way or the other. Personally, as a man, I don’t expect extra time for having a family unless the company idealizes family values, and if I want to network socially, I take/have an interest in the same things as those I want to socialize with. Women are every bit men’s equals, and should be treated equally.


Do women even want a position that comes with special accommodations? Do they want equal treatment before equal numbers or vice versa?

Is bias against women in the workplace something more exclusive to the older generation that runs these major companies now, primarily, and therefore subject to change as the younger generation takes over? Or is it something that will perpetuate societal standards at work and needs to be actively dealt with?

The Now Generation

I think the problem is that people look at the numbers and think there's a huge disparity in the work force especially when it comes to top tier companies. The thing is that the numbers have been increasing over time. The clip we watched of Leave it to Beaver shocked a lot of people I showed it to, but they were more shocked that society actually believed in that mentality. That was over 50 years ago and things have changed. The problem is that we live in a society that demands constant change and immediate gratification. When people look at the number they think, "Well this is bullshit! Why isn't there something changing?" Change always takes time. The industrial revolution, civil rights movement, or even the technological revolution we are currently living now didn't happen over night. It takes years and even decades for it to start to shift and even longer for the effects to continue to build momentum after the dust has settled.

1) Will all these changes to the work force after 10 years be more beneficial or detrimental?
2) Many people ask for equal pay/equal rights, but do you think that most people understand the problems and hardships that people have to endure to get those practices enforced. Personal experience, it creates a lot of hostility in the workplace. Especially since you just want to be recognized that you ended up getting the job for your work performance, not because you're a minority or a woman filling an HR requirement.

Women's barriers

The question many wonder is do men have an advantage over men in the leadership work force? One cannot know the exact answer to this question because if we said YES , everyone would be sexist. On the other hand if we said NO, then women would look " lazy" because they have no succeeded over men in leadership positions. One can only analyze the facts that we have found since the workforce began.

Obviously, thankfully not in our generation women, were thought of as dumb and could not handle working. Many articles I have seen is simply they thought either women's brains were to small, or they couldn't handle the pressure of working a "man's job." Luckily our generation makes it so that any women can have ALMOST any opportunity a man can have. ( excluding some military work). We have seen the numbers go out for women in a men's usually dominated workforce. This is due to equal opportunity, but I do believe in many people's minds they still view women as less competent for many jobs then men. This is something that is still holding many women back from getting the career's they deserve ( especially in the business world). Until people realize men & women are equal and can do the same job men will always dominate the leadership career field.

Would you hire a man over a women if they had the same work qualities ? ( I ask this because many employers feel a women's emotional state of mind could interfere with leadership making decisions) 


Do you think that men have barriers when trying to get into a pink collar job? ( nursing, flight attendant , nanny etc.) 

Barriers to Women's Success in Leadership

When you often think of all the CEO and President jobs in companies you are most likely going to imagine a male holding them. The book stated some facts that say its pretty much true, but why does it have to be like that? Women go to college just like men, women succeed as do men, and women have every right to be able to hold the same positions as men. In the eyes of many people, I think men are looked at when it comes to playing the 'leader' role and the head of the company. Eagly and Calri talked about women playing the leadership role, they said women tend to be more transformational than males especially when it comes time to giving support and encouragement to subordinates. That might be some what true, but I also think some women can take that role and be the one who tells others what to do. But the typically stereotype is that men are the ones who should play that role because of the masculinity. They also talked about men being more likely than women to be laissez-faire leaders who take little responsibility for managing. I think men and women are both capable of managing a group of people in the work field, while men may have a slight edge when it comes to taking the initiative and be more of a vocal leader, women are going to be the ones who are easier to talk to and maybe sometimes easier to understand.

Looking back in the past and thinking about how far women in the work force have come really shows that they are beginning to take higher jobs and make more money. According to Browne in the reading, back in 1960 women accounted for just one third of the American work force. In today's work force, 46% of the working class are women. It still isn't quit an even number but the number has grown dramatically throughout the years. Another reason for the increasing number is in the number of women who attend graduate school, law school, or medical school. In those types of post school work you are most likely going to be making more money and having a job that is of more "status". In the end I think there is some sex differences in terms of men and women in higher paying and higher jobs. Its obvious that men are in higher positions in the work force, but I feel women are working their way up the work latter. The gap will probably continue to get closer, but I dont know if it will ever reach 50-50.

Questions:
1. How do women feel about men being in higher positions in the work force?
2. Is there any one certain career that women would be better at than men when it comes to being the President of CEO?

Gender and the Evolutionary Process

For several centuries women have been looked down upon by men. They have been mistreated and practically enslaved by men from many different cultures for a number of years. As the United States began to form as a country nearly 250 years ago women had no rights. Men held every position in the work place and it was the woman’s job to be the homemaker taking care of the kids, having no voting rights, and not even having any ability to own property in this country. As times changed and the men in the armed forces went off to war women had to step up and become a vital part of the workforce sending much need supplies to troops engaged in war overseas. It was this turn of events that began the push for equality and women’s rights.

After being forced to be caretakers for a number of years it was only logical that women would evolve into a similar role in a working environment. As women became integrated into the workplace they took on many of the jobs where their current skill sets applied such as nursing. Today’s culture is still very similar to the one we saw in the mid 1950’s as women continue to dominate certain fields such as nursing while men continue to dominate areas like construction where a more physical demand is put on the body. But women are beginning to create a push to increase presence in a more dominate role in fields which they are already established. To prove this a recent statistic showed that approximately 24% of family physicians are women, which is up from 10% just a few years ago.

As a struggle for equality and equal pay continues more and more women are going to college to pursue education. This evolutionary process will continue to grow and begin to change the shape of the modern workplace. While occupations such as becoming a political leader are still completely dominated by men more and more women are begin to make strides in changing the landscape expressing themselves and demonstrating that women have what it takes to succeed regardless of the pressure and intimidation they are subjected to. Television shows are now beginning to depict women in vital roles as doctors, lawyers, and political leaders giving hope that someday women will be just as influential if not more influential than men. However this is a slow time consuming process that will still take years to fully develop and while women still are only making about 77% of what men of the same position are there is still hope out there.

Will women one day be more powerful than men in the United States?

How long will it be before we see an influential position such as President be held by a woman?

Men Are Obviously Superior To Women

I completely agree with the "no" side of the argument. Women are obviously biologically inferior to men in every way possible, as it has been proven over and over and over again throughout history. Each time a women tries to do something, they always fail, no matter what. Sometimes they even fail at failing. They are only here to make men happy.

Just kidding..........

I completely disagree with the previous paragraph, I just wrote it to garner attention. Now that I have your attention, let's talk about the issue at hand. I would say I mostly agree with the "yes" side, but there is always some overlapping. The wage gap is what grabs my attention right away. It's amazing that with the same qualifications, experience, and degree, women will make less than men in the workplace. It would be interesting to send out the same resume to different companies but change the name from "Bruce" to "Susan" and see what happens. Would the male get more interest? Would the starting salary for the position be the same?

It's true that some people attribute this to women getting pregnant, and thus having to take time off, costing the company productivity and money. An interesting study to see would be womens' salaries over the age of 40 compared to mens' of the same age. Theoretically, those women have almost a zero percent chance of getting pregnant, but I'll bet the same wage gap is still there.

Unfortunately, I think the reasoning behind it is just the idea ingrained into society that men do work and women do the less desirable tasks (laundry, cooking, cleaning, etc). It stems from a long history of these practices, and I don't think it will be going away soon. With the people I know, however, I would gladly hire a woman over a man, because they have better work ethics and are able to multitask better.

Q's
Will the wage gap ever disappear?

Will house chores ever be split evenly between men and women?

Women and Leadership: Can we really have it all?

This is a very interesting issue to me. The disparity between men and women in the workplace in terms of both leadership and pay has been fairly well-documented in both research and demographic information over the years. A recent report from the National Women's Law Center to the more recent report that the White House Council on the Status of Women and Girls released last week, financial inequality for women in the workplace is common. Often, this is due to the "family gap" or the difference in earning power of women who are primary caretakers for children and those who are not. A British study from the late 1980s found that the single women actually make 95% of what men make, while married women who care for their families fall significantly further behind.

There are many more factors that go into this debacle. I was really intrigued by the last paragraph or two of Browne's essay. His entire arugment hinges on this idea of agency and differing types of equality. Does equity for women in terms of leadership mean that they be given the same choices that men are, and that the results are non-correlative to the equality of choice and opportunity that men and women are given. While, in a utopian world, these arguments may hold true, I don't think an assertion of this nature can be made until the cultural, social, and structural violence and discrimination against women in completely removed from American society.

1. What is the biggest factor that prevents women from rising to positions of leadership?

2. Do women who become leaders face harsh judgement? Can a women be an effective leader while retaining all of her feminine qualities and satisfying the gender roleplay that society expects from her?

3. How does a dearth of female leaders affect our culture?

Women's Success as Leaders

I mostly agree with the “yes” side, but as always there’s more to it, and I also agree that biological differences are also a small barrier for women’s success. The gender gap in wages amazes me, especially when comparing the same job, same experience, and same education. I found it interesting that married men were associated with higher wages and married women were associated with lower wages. I understand the underlying factors leading to this difference, but it is a form of wage discrimination. Married women often become tied down and less focused on their job due to family obligations, as they are expected to be the caretakers of family and relationships. They may also take time off for parenthood. Married men are often seen as more committed and responsible, not only in their life but in the workplace. Another wage gap is seen in education, as it had a more positive effect on women’s wages than on men’s wages. Must women get a degree to prove their ability?

Men and women have different communication styles: men are typically associated with an agentic style while women with a communal style. Most people believe effective leadership is done with an agentic style. This belief may be rooted in history, as men have long been leaders and have demonstrated that this style can be effective. Women who use an agentic style are often criticized for not being communal enough (as women are expected to be), and both men and women are more turned off by a woman using an agentic style. Furthermore, it is not typical social behavior for women to use self-promotion or assert themselves, while a man can use both of these to work towards promotion. Societal expectations men’s and women’s appropriate behavior is playing a role in the gender gap. When leadership styles are compared, women are more commonly transformational, and women’s styles have been shown to be more effective than men’s styles.

Finally, women typically face more pressure than men at home, when the work day ends. Women contribute to more household work and have less time to advance their careers through socializing with coworkers and clients. Changing roles and more men taking on household/parenthood roles, is slowly changing the work/home dynamic. But there remains an imbalance in the home, as society still views women as primary caretakers.

I believe biology and society plays a role in which careers men and women choose, and there are wage discrepancies between traditional male and traditional female careers. But, the important data to look at is wage difference between men and women in the same careers….and a gap still exists.

What human resource practices can be adopted to lessen the gender gap at home and with parenthood?

Do you think traditionally female careers should earn lower average wages than traditionally male careers? Why or why not?

Obstacles for Woman Leadership (Issue 17)

Well, I have to say that I think the simple answer to the question is both yes and no. Obviously, society has an influence on women's potential role as leaders. Especially since when given the same resume, with the same qualifications, employers are more likely to pick the applicant with a male name. However, rarely is that the case in the real workplace. Not often do any two people, regardless of their gender, have the exact same qualifications.

And I must say, I agree with Browne when he says that people are more likely to apply for jobs that interest them, and that differences in preference exist among differing sexes. For example, most women are not physically capable of doing jobs that require extremely heavy lifting. If a woman is strong enough, then she should apply for such a job if it interests her. But to expect a 50/50 male/female spit in such an occupation is outrageous.

The same goes for CEO positions. Like it or not, right or not, women do more housework than men, and society expects them to do so. Women often take off more time for childbirth and raising than men do. This means that overall, they take more time off from work for such things, and lose opportunities for job experience during those times. That means that their applications (especially those of mothers), are more likely to be less qualified than male applicants, even if the male applicants are fathers. This would also make mothers slightly less qualified overall (from a strictly resume standpoint) for a CEO position. Of course, that alone doesn't account for the vast difference in the sex of CEO's, especially considering that not all women are mothers.

However, I would again like to mention that men and women often have different interests, personal ideals, and aptitudes. I will readily admit that society plays a role in forming those differences. No doubt about it. But, the fact still remains that if women expect themselves to do more housework and childrearing, and if they place more value on those things than financial gain or economic power, they are less likely to apply for CEO positions. Especially if they expect those positions to take time away from things they perceive as more valuable.

Personally, as a female, I have zero interest in being a CEO. I would not want to deal with the stress, immense responsibility/liability, or the large number of overtime hours required. I would much rather be a mother with a part-time, preferably work-from-home job if finances allow. I think it's a shame that so many parents want/need to work outside the home and spend less time with their children. I place much more value on educating and emotionally supporting children than on personal economic power. As such, that is another large factor as to why I would not want to be a CEO. On the other side, men are told (by society, again, as I will admit) that the ideal father is a successful businessman with a high-paying job. If they value that more than childrearing, they are more likely to desire a CEO position.

I also agree with Browne that dimorphism probably plays a role, though I think he probably overstates it. I agree that brain (and thus behavior) dimorphism is unlikely to be substantially different in humans than in other closely related species. However, I think that humans capacity for reasoning can overcome much of the mental dimorphism.

Questions

1) Would you want to be a CEO? Are your reasons culturally based, or motivationally/personal interest based?

2) Do you think that sex differences that would influence leadership exist biologically to any degree? If so, what role do you think that human reasoning plays in altering/overcoming those differences?

Never Say Never

Note: This is so late, it’s practically in its fourth trimester—but I had most of it typed earlier, so I may as well post it even if it’s too late to be worth points.

Perhaps it’s petty, but my interpretation of what compiler/commentator Jacquelyn White seemed to imply was the question of whether gender played either some role in cyberbullying, or NO role what-so-ever. As my mother told me before my first true/false test in grade school, “Look out for statements that imply that under no circumstances can one component influence another—these questions are almost always false.” Well. Perhaps she didn’t word it like that. But close enough.

We’re taking a “gender in communications class.” Even if gender is entirely socially constructed, there is no denial that gender plays at least a certain role in every human interaction. This includes cyberspace. Even if a male masquerades as a female, the individuals who interact with this person will still take the perceived gender of the individual into account. There’s just no way a person in our current, highly-gender influenced society can fully ignore it because it is so engrained in us at such an early age.

What I think could have been a much more interesting question White could have asked—but it probably lacked conflicting articles—would be whether people tend to act similarly in their online life as they do in real life. While many would just assume people would take on whatever role they please due to the relative anonymity of the interweb, with high-accountability social networking sites such as Facebook (where a wayward insult to your mother may actually be read by her, or one of her friends—just look at Failbook) bears great weight on how people will act in an online environment. Perhaps, once research catches up with the current trends, there’ll be more interest in it.

Questions:

Do you think it’s possible to completely ignore someone’s gender altogether? How might we strive to demote the importance of gender in communication? Do you think this would be a good thing?

cyberbullying

In Li's study, “Cyberbullying in Schools: A research of Gender differences,” published in May 2006, she found that when gender was considered, significant differences were identified both in terms of bullying and in cyberbullying. Males were more likely to be bullies and cyberbullies than their female counterparts. In addition, female cyberbully victims were also more likely to inform adults about an incident occurring than males.

She also finds that women tend to prefer this technology based form of bulling because it allows for the aggressor the option to remain anonymous and avoid that face-to-face interaction.

Within all of these gender differences found in Li's study, cyberbullying is related to gender.

Li's strongest statistic in relation to gender being a significant factor in cyberbullying ..is that female cybervictims are more inclined to inform adults about the incidents than are male cybervictims.

This finding may relate to the gender differences identified in conversational and conflict-management styles..... for example how men are typically more hesitant to ask for help because it puts them in a one-down position.

These findings suggests that gender plays a significant role in cyberbullying and the gender difference identified in this study that males are less likely to inform adults underlines the importance of awareness.

Regardless of any differences in statistic variation within studies conducted on this issue, The question asked was, “Is cyberbullying related to gender?” And it without a doubt Is related to gender in one way or the other any way you look at it. For example, in the online gaming world, 60% of gamers have played as a differently gendered character. They are able explore the different dimensions of gender and experience alternative social interactions.

This example just underlines the easy ability to remain anonymous and this is seen in cyberbullying all the time. There are countless cyberbullying stories of a female portraying a male to bully another girl and vice versa. The fact that gender is often used as a tool in these kinds of scenarios and is used as a means to bully one another shows that cyberbullying is related to gender. Within Li's results to her study as well as the examples I have discussed and countless others, within all of these scenarios, Cyberbullying is related to gender.

But seeing as that Li's study was conducted in 2006, we see it as a little dated considering the rapid changing and enhancement of technology. Gender showed to have played a role within her study then, but in more recent studies we have found that in plays and an even more significant role since then. It's really hard to measure this sort of thing because technology is rapidly changing every day.

RQ1 What can schools to better teach students to help them avoid being cyberbullied and becoming cyberbullies? If anything...