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...

Gender in (Cyber)bullying

Well we know that gender plays a part in regular bullying. We know that cyberbullies are generally the same people that are regular bullies. Many of the same practices exist in both of the types of bullying. The only evident difference is that cyberbullying is done on the internet instead of face-to-face. Although this means that fights can't break out over the bullying instantly the effects of this bullying are still carried on to the schools, and probably lead to fights later.

All of this is really dancing around the question of wether or not gender plays a role in cyberbullying. How could it not? We know that gender plays a role in regular bullying. Simply put men that bully tend to bully with violence and blunt comments, whereas women that bully tend to be more gossipy, spreading rumors. This doesn't change on the internet. There is nothing to prove that any gender communication methods change when it comes to online communication. However, it's important to note that cyberbullying is still fairly new, and conclusive research is still lacking. We can make logical hypotheses, but until the scholarly research catches up to those trends we will not be able to confirm anything. Also, because technology is such a fluid thing in our society it seems unlikely that the scholarly world could keep up with the rapid changes.

Questions:

1. Have you or anyone you know been involved in cyberbullying?

2. How can cyberbullying be controlled? Regular bullies can be given detention for their actions on the school grounds, but cyberbullying happens off school grounds, so how can teachers and principals punish these bullies? Is it in their jurisdiction?

Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying to me is something that is going to happen no matter what. As long as we have access to websites, and social networks cyberbullying can not be stopped. It goes along with freedom of speech, except for in the online form it is nearly impossible to erase. Its funny that this is the topic this week because I just actually watched the movie Social Network and it reminds me of the part where the girl is extremely upset with Zuckerburg because he wrote in his online blog that she was a whore, etc... Towards the middle of the movie she tells him that she can never forgive him for writing those things because he wrote them on the internet, where they will be forever. This is the same with cyberbullying... the hurtful things someone may say now can be seen by people for a long time. Facebook, myspace, social blogs... you name it and you can write anything you want on it.
To say that gender is not a factor in cyberbullying would not be right. Ofcourse gender is a factor it just depends on the way that you look at it. I feel that if an outsider were reading a comment by a male that could be considered bullying they could autmatically identify it. When it comes to girls though it can be more settle. Not to say that guys and girls can not be cruel in an not so obvious way but sometimes girls are better at it. It can go undetected, and be more hurtful.
Also thinking about the positions in the book, its hard to actually research who has participated in being a bully. No one want to admit to being a bully... well not atleast to authority figures. If you were to hear on the news and such about all the bullying going on the internet and people being charged with murder because of it you wouldnt willingly admit that you have cyberbullied before. I think some research was not true, a lot it would be answers that are more sociably acceptable.

DQ:
1. Would you willingly admit to having cyberbullied someone after seeing the lawsuits that have occured from it?
2. Do you think that boys or girls are more effective when it comes to cyberbullying?

cyberbullying

Cyberbullying has been a growing problem over the past decade. It’s hard, because it is not something that can easily be regulated. It’s also unfortunately that it makes adolescents feel they cannot go to school, feel accepted, and sometimes feel the need to end their life. Children have always been vicious to each other. I think bullying was more different between boys and girls. For girls it has always been more about talking about each other’s back and spreading awful about each other. I feel boys do more taunting. However, with the internet I think it give people more “courage” to say stuff they normally wouldn’t say in person.

My biggest problem with cyberbullying is that the person doing the bullying cannot be punished in school or anywhere else. Since the bullying does not take place on school grounds and most schools have blocked facebook on their computers there is no way to punish the bullies. However, the person who is being bullied doesn’t feel safe going to school. School is suppose to be a place where children feel safe, but with people being able to use social networks as a tool to bully others, some kids don’t feel safe in a place where they spend a majority of their time.

Questions

1. Do you think bullying has changed the way kids bully more so for males or females?

2. Have any of you witnessed cyberbullying?

Cyber fights

Cyberbulling is something that has been created over the years. between facebook, myspace, twitter, and instant messaging, we have slowly evloved to this world of exploitation of peoples personal beliefes, feelings, and rituals. Justr because one thing isn't for everyone, dosn't mean it's not for someone. we have heard of many stories of people commiting violent acts in reaction to some of these posts on the internet for the world to see. I truly believe this is a problem and needs to stop as soon as possible. we all want to fit in and be apart of the coolness that is running through the veins of every 17 year old in the country...dumb, but true.
I see this being a problem first of all because kids sont speak out when being bullied most of the time so why would the tell anyone about being bullied on the internet? these facebooks and myspaces are their places to be themselves and get away, but what happens when they get invaded? they are going to react, because someone is disrespecting their safe place. this can cause, as we have seen in the past, they kid who is getting bullied to react- some kids turn to beating themselves up mentally, others physically- and some hurt others in dispite of their situation.
What can we do to stop this? I want this to stop right away before there is another school year shooting or some 13 year committing suicide.
DQ1: should there be a moderating and patrolling facebook and social networks?
DQ2: how would this help the cause? how could it hurt it?

Cyberbullying

Reading both sides od this arguemnt left me more confused than it explained. I agree with my classmates when they say that the definition the book gave was way too vague and didnt narrow anything down. 'To offend' someone could be anything. Coming from a prelaw and womens gender studies background, its practically impossible to use that definition to represent or defend anyone in the court of law in the case that suicide does happen. We have probably all seen the multiple stories about kids that have committed suicide from things said or posted about them on facebook, and thats a devistating reality. A majority of all people have facebook these days and its a huge online community and thats where a lot of the cyberbullying is taking place. I remember when I was in grade school the huge concern was chat rooms and how predators are getting to kids through the internet. Now cyberbullying is the huge concern. Its a scary reality we have to face because we dont see the people on the other side of the screen and I dont see it changing within the next couple years. This is a huge problem that all kids have to deal with. Back in the day, I only had to face being bullied at school and when I was around the kids I had to deal with. But I dont know if there is a time when kids these days can get away from cyberbullying when they live on facebook and twitter and all the other social networking sites out there.

Is there a way that kids these days can avoid being cyberbullied with all the time that they spend on the internet? Or do you think that being bullied in general is just a part of growing up?

Cyberbullying

Growing up I wasn't the type of kid who played internet games and video games. But looking back on it now I can see how in some ways the kids who did play those violent games became "bullies". Cyberbullying is something that has really started to grow with the growth of social media and the massive online world. Because I didn't grow up playing internet games or role playing games I don't really know how bullying or harassment takes place in the games, but Im sure it happens. With the growth of twitter and facebook cyberbullying has been taken to a whole new level. Facebook has allowed cyberbullying to go from the internet to the schools. Kids have always been bullied in school but now with the growth of social media and technology it is starting to happen more often. One thing I found interesting when reading Li's side of the argument is that gender has played an important role in forms of bullying. Males are more likely to be bullied then females, I had a feeling that was how it was but I also figured it could be the other way around because of how much drama is caused between girls, especially in middle school and high school. But if you think about it men are typically more physical and harmful to one another.

When you think of bullying in general you normally think of physical bullying that occurs in schools. But with the growth of the internet, cyberbullying has become bigger and bigger. Along with the growth of the internet, kids are starting to become internet uses at such a young age and they are being introduced to the social media. With kids using the internet at such young ages they may not know what physical bullying is like because they may not experience it. Along with the growth of the internet, cyberbullying has become a more popular type of bullying because kids are not getting caught as easily. Kids can post whatever they want on their facebook and about whoever they want and can usually get away with it. But if verbal or physical bullying is occurring in a school setting kids are more prone to get caught and get in trouble with the school.

Questions:
1. Has cybercullying became as big if not bigger than physical bullying?
2. Does cybercullying have the same impact on kids as physical bullying does?

Al Gore Invented Cyberbullying

The first question I would like to ask is what is considered bullying? It may seem like a simple question, but it probably has a very complicated answer. Does two friends making jokes about each other count as bullying? Or what about someone spreading a rumor? When a bigger kid pushes down a smaller kid or hits him, that is textbook bullying. Nowadays, it's harder to draw that line.
We could label bullying as when one person tries to put someone down, and the other is put down. When someone calls a person "stupid" and the name-caller is trying to make them feel bad, it may seem that that's obvious bullying. But is that where we draw the line? Lets go a step further.
We could label bullying as when one person is put down, regardless of the others intentions. Maybe when a friend makes a joke about another, they think it is harmless, but the other may get really upset. Like the poetry clip in class, those guys had no idea their friend was homosexual, and yet they would call him "fag" in a derogatory fashion, and it got to be so much that he ended up killing himself. Sounds like bullying to me, to the extreme, even if they weren't trying to be bullies.

Now with the advent of the internet (created of course by none other than Al Gore), we have this thing called "cyberbullying." It's the same thing as bullying, just via phone lines and satellites. Where bullying would just happen in the classroom, cyberbullying can happen anywhere. Luckily, I never had to deal with cyberbullying, as Facebook and similar sites were just barely coming on to popularity.
Cyberbullying can be done by anyone, girls and boys both, and not just the bigger kids. But who does it more? For guys, physicality is the prevalent way of bullying. Pushing others down, hitting them, etc is the way to show others who's boss. Girls however, are usually the back-stabbing type of bullies. They would rather talk behind someone's back than confront them, and Facebook and associated sites allow them to do this easier. Now they don't even have to be around other people to talk bad about them.

Questions:
1) Will there ever be a day when the popularity of Facebook dies down like Myspace, or will it keep getting bigger, and along with that cyberbullying?
2) Is there a foolproof way to stop cyberbullying?

A New Dimension of Bullying

For most men bullying is something that is almost considered a norm. Bullying is seen as a way to express and create dominance over another individual so it is something that has been rather common among young men. Adding the internet and these social networking sites that are all of today’s craze just adds another weapon to these boy’s arsenal. With the added use of cell phones it can be done in a matter of seconds and will become visible to a wide array of the students peers. For young men I think cyberbullying is a problem that can go a little bit unnoticed as it takes confrontations off the playground and posts them on Facebook instead.

For girls bullying is not something that is usually seen in public as it is in boys. Girls generally bully by word of mouth and tend to start rumors and spread them throughout their friends who then pass it on to others. Now take this problem and add the internet and the problem again grows because they have a new way of starting a rumor by simply changing their status. Children now days can bully each other avoiding confrontation which allows for even the more timid of them to join in this problem. With the use of cyber space I think it has become more apparent as to how much bullying actually goes with girls as it does with boys.

Cyberbullying is a major issue in today’s society. Cyberbullying has been blamed for the suicide of many young men and women who are seen as different by their peers for a number of reasons including sexuality and for being overweight. The creation of the internet and social networking websites have added yet another way for today’s children, and even a few adults for that matter, to belittle and degrade one another. I don’t think that cyberbullying is a bigger problem for one gender, but I do believe that it is a tool that can be utilized by both males and females. As a percentage I think more girls use cyberbullying as a means to bully one another but with boys I think it is probably a smaller percentage seeing how they will still bully in places such as the park or at recess. In general I think boys and girls will utilize cyberbullying about the same so in that context I don’t think it’s a bigger problem for either, but a problem for both none the less.

Would adding a filter restricting the use of certain words help to control cyberbullying on websites such as Facebook and Twitter?

At what age should parents inform children of the danger and possible repercussions associated with cyberbullying?