Sexism, Common Sense, and Capitalism

I was talking with someone the other day about why females are less likely to be hired than males, and why are they usually paid less. We actually came to many conclusions that might justify not hiring a woman, because of a matter of sheer economics.

For example in France and many other European countries, companies are required to give women maternity leave if they get pregnant. The companies are forced to leave the positions open, and the companies have to continue to pay them what they would make while they are on leave. In California, their positions are to be held during that period of time, and they still have to be given the same benefits they had while they are working. Since so many women have children in this country, doesn’t it seem like common sense to hire a man for a vital position? You don’t have to worry about losing your employee, and you don’t have to pay so many benefits. Granted not all women have children, however when try to make money isn’t it better to generalize to simplify things.

Is the motivation for not hiring the woman sexist or common sense or both? While it’s true that a company might intentionally choose not to hire a woman, its for the sake of making more money most of the time. The woman is not being not hired just because she has different sexual organs; she is not being hired because it might not create the greatest profit yield. It’s true a woman could choose not to have a kid, and she could choose to not raise it herself; however a good portion of the time, a company is going to get burned. You might argue that making these stereotypes that a woman needs maternity leave, etc. etc. is sexist, but it is profitable. I realize women in general get paid less, however keep in mind that many women also quit their jobs after having a child. With all this in mind it seems like hiring a woman for extremely important roles does not sound like the best possible investment. In a capitalist society all businesses attempt to gain the greatest long term wealth possible. If a company is in the business of making money, is it possible to have a capitalist society where women are treated equally? To me it seems like it is not possible.

Earlier in the year we mentioned how capitalism allows for women to be oppressed. The system treats women as unpaid labor in the home, and that the epitome of capitalist exploitation. However the book did not mention this little aspect of capitalism. Instead of fighting for feminism by changing our mindset about how we perceive our bodies and mindsets we have, maybe we need to change the way we perceive business and capitalism, like Rubin suggested.

I realize I may have offended just about all of you so feel free to post. No I am not an actual advocate of socialism. I just wonder if feminism and capitalism can work side by side.

Title IX

Manali’s post on diversity in the college admission process represents one of many controversial issues educational systems face with race and gender. In high school I was involved in several sports both in school and outside. At this time I watched my sister go through the college application process with intentions of running division one track. As a white female with adequate grades she was recruited to run at Columbia University. A few years later I was recruited by her coach to run as well as play soccer at Columbia. Student athletes often receive criticism for being favored in application processes as well as differential treatment throughout their college experiences. There is no question neither my sister nor I would have been granted admission to Columbia had it not been for athletics.

I apologize for the personal story but I promise that I am getting to a point. My interest in sports in high school led me to write one of my final research papers on Title IX. Originally Title IX was an equal opportunity in education act. The law states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…”

The law applies to schools or institutions that receive federal funds. Universities are required to provide equal opportunities based on sex for athletic programs. While there are other facets under the act, athletics have received the most controversy and attention. Several factors are considered when determining if equal treatment exists within athletic programs. Is there an equal selection of sports and competition levels to accommodate both sexes? Is there equal access to equipment? These are just a few examples of factors considered.

The controversy surrounding the act claims that males suffer under Title IX. While the act strives for gender equality, some complain that male athletes are negatively affected. Since Title IX’s enactment there has been substantial growth in the number of females who participate in sports and receive sports scholarships. These advances lead to more opportunities for females to compete at elite levels like the Olympics.

Studies have proven these benefits for female athletes. Studies have also shown the lack of enforcement surrounding the act. The Office for Civil Rights rarely follows through on investigations of schools failing to meet Title IX regulations. I think it would be an interesting discussion for our class to investigate the Rhodes athletic department. Does Rhodes provide equal opportunity for female athletes?

If interested in more information this is a helpful website.

http://www.titleix.info/Default.aspx

Diversity in the College Admission Process?

After class on Tuesday when we discussed Spelman’s article on the Ampersand Problem, I recalled my own experience looking for the “right” college and my acceptance into Rhodes. When I started my college search, there was always a specific fraction of how many percentages there are of certain races or males to females. Every college had this sort of demographic breakdown. Through my college selection process, people would say that I would get into any college I wanted regardless of my accomplishments and only on the basis that I am an Indian female because that will increase any college’s diversity. I was told the same thing when I got into Rhodes, that I got accepted because I was an Indian female and Rhodes is known to be a predominantly white school hence more ethnicities would diversify Rhodes College. I had never thought of my admission into Rhodes as a contributor to an institution’s fight against underlying discrimination or that my acceptance could have caused an equally qualified male not to be admitted. As we discussed in class, if you help one type of oppressed group you will unconsciously be enforcing another one. For example, I was admitted into Rhodes therefore, Rhodes had to overcome racism by giving me admission into the college; however, I might have been given admission while rejecting an equally qualified male. Therefore, even though the admissions department accepted a more racially diverse candidate, they did reject the male candidate, so sexism is advanced.

I wonder if we can apply this concept of trying to combat oppression to the concept of transparency and thickness, as seen in Lugones’s article, in regards to the college admission process. The aim for accepting ethnicities is to make campuses culturally more accepting. If admission into a college is based minutely on a person's nationality or race, then we are starting the process of college on the grounds of groups. There are certain people that will be represented as thick or transparent if we accept people on the basis of oppression groups; thus does the college admission process cause thick and transparent members in the group to form?

To clarify, I am not trying to say that Rhodes only accepts students on the basis of race or ethnicity but I am simply using Rhodes as an example. I might be completely off the mark but I am not sure how we can overcome issues such as sexism if we have this sort of a problem when dealing with the admission of oppressed or minority groups on a college level.

By putting an emphasis on diversity we are in fact enforcing groups within the student body by laying out such demographics before and during the admission process. Would it help to actually appreciate diversity on college campuses by not publicizing the demographics of a college?

Institutional Discrimination

The Tennessee Senate and House of Representatives are currently considering a bill that calls for the ineligibility for cohabitants to adopt a child.  Senate Bill 0078 and House Bill 0605 prohibits the adoption of a minor by either same-sex or opposite-sex individuals cohabiting outside of a marriage that is valid under the constitution and laws of the state.  The Senate has referred it to the Senate Judiciary, while the House has referred it to the House Family Justice Subcommittee.  I find it grotesquely ironic that, the future of this bill will be determined by two political committees that both claim to uphold and legislate ‘just’ laws, when it is blatantly obvious that this bill is strictly hetero-normative. 

            If passed, this bill will prevent foster children from being adopted into financially stable, safe, and loving homes.  Consequently, foster homes across the nation will continue to weigh the burden of an unjust system of adoption in America.  Overpopulated and under-funded, foster organizations face numerous obstacles in achieving their ultimate goal of housing homeless children.  The adoption process is already extremely rigorous, wearisome and time-consuming for straight and eligible couples.  So to pass a bill that prevents equally eligible and loving couples from adopting an orphan is simply illogical and discriminatory towards same-sex couples who, mind you, also do not have the right to legally marry. 

            By institutionalizing the terms of marriage and adoption requirements, the government is essentializing a political system that is presumed to promote the best-interest of the majority of American citizens, when in reality it is only reifying a system that benefits the privileged Americans.  According to this bill, if you are capable of marrying then you are potentially capable of raising adopted children.  This assumption is predicated on the belief that all married couples are inherently more qualified to raise children than are same-sex or non-married opposite-sex couples.  If you do not see something fundamentally wrong with this assumption, alone, then I suppose the argument stops here, but if we take moment to consider what our state politicians aren’t, then perhaps we can see past the superficial implications of this bill. 

            I do not disagree with those who argue that having same-sex parents is a potential risk for being ridiculed in school, but let’s be honest, who doesn’t?  Every child is picked on; every child goes through a traumatizing experience at some point in his/her life.  It’s only a matter of time and setting.  Kids may be ruthless, but they are not a legitimate reason to deem same-sex couples inept at raising children.  In fact, the slightest consideration that same-sex couples are some how incompetent parents perpetuates the tendencies to justify such a discriminatory discourse. 

            Perhaps if we shifted our focus from the potential risks of raising a child in a same-sex household to the potential risks of raising a child in a household with a married opposite-sex couple we can being to illuminate the nuances of what is implied by this bill.  For example, what if the child up for adoption is gay, and is placed in an extremely conservative homophobic family?  What if the child’s previous parents were gay, and he or she feels more comfortable being raised by a similar couple?  What if the child is guaranteed to get a better education if adopted by a same-sex couple?  I guess what I am trying to highlight with these questions is my doubt that politicians and citizens who support this bill are really advocating for the best interests of children in state custody.  It seems more reasonable to recognize that they are driven by their self-interests to get re-elected and preserve the sacredness of marriage, all at the expense of hundreds of children without a home and even more unmarried individuals who are willing, able and eager to provide one.  Yet, we’re supposed to believe in something called justice? 

The Value of "Thickness"

I have to admit that I found Lugones’ writing style to be mildly infuriating. At first it seemed to be filled with ambiguous references to eggs, mayonnaise, curdling, and not much else. During our recent class discussion about her article, however, I realized that Lugones’ ambiguity is the most effective way to discuss the topic of mestizaje, or mixed identity. Once our discussion had unlocked the meaning behind Lugones’ terminology I became quite interested in her classifications of “thick” and “transparent” group membership.

We all strive to belong to groups in which we can be transparent members because such groups are comfortable and rejuvenating in their familiarity. On the other hand, thickness can be unsettling and even painful. Hence, I brought up the point that the ideal society would be one in which all groups had completely transparent memberships, not in such a way that individuals only belonged to those groups which represented them perfectly, but in the sense that all groups would be representative of all people. The only possible way to arrange group membership thusly would be to make it so that mestizaje was a primary identifier of all groups. In other words, every group would have to make mixed identity its defining characteristics.

Although this may seem ideal, I have since realized that it is actually highly undesirable. For to arrange groups so that they are primarily concerned with representing mixed perspectives and backgrounds is to make political action impossible. How, for example, could a liberal political organization still function as such while giving equal representation to the opposing conservative viewpoint? The term liberal would no longer apply to this organization, but neither would conservative. It would simply be a group of people with no discernable interest and no ability for action. One may object that even political groups should strive to achieve some balance in their perspectives, and I would agree, but there is a difference between such open-mindedness and the inability to formulate an opinion that would result from complete mestizaje.

It is clear then that thickness, to a degree, is necessary for healthy political action. Not only does its tolerance enable groups to act on deeply held and controversial principles, but it also allows us to appreciate other points of view. People will always have unique perspectives that lead to conflict and thickness. However, if every person can learn to value their experiences of thickness in groups as opportunities to understand how others feel in similar situations, this will hopefully lead to more constructive and less violent disagreements between opposing perspectives. It is absurd to think that human beings can ever live in a world without differences of opinion, but it is a real possibility that we can become more rather than less united through the appreciation of these disagreements.

Miscarriage Made Illegal in Utah

The Utah House and Senate recently passed a bill that makes it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage. Though the bill isn’t as evil as I just made it out to be, I used language that blunt because that is the message Utah is effectively sending its female population. The bill is meant to hold pregnant women responsible for induced miscarriages or illegally obtained abortions. In addition to induced miscarriage, however, the bill states that a woman who engages in “reckless behavior” resulting in a miscarriage can be criminally responsible for the death of her child. “Using the legal standard of "reckless behavior" all a district attorney needs to show is that a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she didn't intend to lose the pregnancy. Drink too much alcohol and have a miscarriage? Under the new law such actions could be cause for prosecution” (Larisa).

I could go on for hours describing my opinion about this bill, but out of respect for differing belief systems, I’m going to focus on a more relevant, and more dangerous aspect of this legislation. It’s sexist. The entire bill stands upon the notion that women are, first and foremost, bodies that can create life. When we write legislation that separates men from women on the basis of reproductive possibility, the discrimination necessary to make that differentiation is -at its base- sexist. This bill primes the law to be untrusting of women to love their own children, making it clear to me that men (who run the government) need to maintain some amount of control over unborn fetuses (the only realm belonging completely to women). The bill even makes women responsible (and criminally liable) for accidents. The whole bill reminds me of our discussion of the Last Stand commercial response and whether men could be switched with women. Because we couldn’t make the switch, we concluded that the initial commercial was sexist. Because the law can’t be attributed to men, making them responsible for accidental miscarriages they may cause inadvertently, the law is sexist.

How we live in a nation that is still passing laws regulating women’s bodies is beyond me, but I can fully understand how Firestone and other feminist scholars describe “liberation in terms that suggest the identification of woman with her body has been the source of our oppression, and hence that the source of our liberation lies in sundering that connection” (272). Agreeing with this bill on the basis that induced miscarriage is murder is at some level understandable to me, but making that stipulation is not worth furthering the cage we’ve built for women in America. This bill was made to seem innocuous (after all, no one likes baby killers), but its real substance is in the fact that it perpetuates control of women’s bodies at the government level, all the while acting under the guise of “saving lives”.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/19/utah-passes-bill-that-charges-women-for-illegal-abortion-or-miscarriage

Acceptance at Rhodes

When we watched it in class, it was my second time to see "But I'm a Cheerleader". The first time I watched the movie I was in middle school. A friend and I had gone to the video store to rent some sleepover movies and "But I'm a Cheerleader" looked like a typical teen-age movie on par with other films that would feature a cheerleader. Little did we know that is was about going to straight camp and featured some up close and personal girl on girl love scenes. Admittedly my friend and I were uncomfortable watching some of the really “gay” things going on in the film; it is a bit above thirteen year old heads. I am pretty sure we turned it off about mid-way through the love scene between Megan and Graham. However, I was thinking about this initial viewing experience when we were discussing what we liked and disliked about the film in class. I feel that despite not getting a lot of the suggestions the film was trying to make, as a thirteen year old I still took away that the concept of straight camp was absolutely ridiculous. Even as a younger person, the intensely strict gender roles the campers are trying to be reassigned to are apparent. I feel that watching this film, even at such a young age, reinforced my upbringing and the openness that my parents instilled in me that it is ok for people to be gay. I have openly gay family members, when to a middle school and high school where being gay was not going to get you beat up, and figured out that my favorite thing to do on a Friday night in Oklahoma City was go to the drag show with my best friend and her gay god father. All of this brings me to the point we were getting at in class, which is why does Rhodes not have a visible gay population?

I came from a magnet high school for arts and academics, so it is not a surprise that a person felt comfortable being openly gay if that was who they were. However, when I got to Rhodes I realized that there really weren’t very many openly gay people. I had one good friend my freshman year who was gay and he transferred in part because he felt he lacked a gay community at Rhodes. So my one friend who is gay leaves because he doesn’t feel that Rhodes is a gay friendly college campus. Why doesn’t our school have a “gay community”? In class we discussed thing like geographical region, the Greek system, and other possible reasons why gayness isn’t really allowed at Rhodes. One of the things that I was thinking about I didn’t want to say in class because it could be taken as pretty controversial, but I wanted to put it out there and see if anyone else feels the same way, or disagrees whole heartedly. Having been at Rhodes for four years, I have decided that there is a status associated with being a Rhodes student. There seems to be this mold that we need to fit into and being a homosexual is not a part of it. Because I am not Greek, I do not know how much the Greek system contributes to this, but I feel as if there is a somewhat restricted definition of what Rhodes students should be like. Rather than an explicit thing we can point to, what I am talking about is more of a collective, unspoken sentiment that pervades the student body. There is this status to be obtained, and that status is not conducive to an active gay population. Please comment if you think I am full of it or totally wrong.