Samantha

 Posted by on Fri, 12/2 at 9:59am  reading  No Responses »
Dec 022016
 

http://time.com/76023/pay-gap-gender-kids-allowances/

 

 

This article elaborates on research done in regards to pay gaps… in children’s chores. In something strictly controlled by the guardian, we see that gender bias is deeply ingrained as to where it’s subconsciously taught to children that boys will earn more than girls. It’s wild. Girls are asked to do two more hours weekly of chores than boys, and this seems to be because of the biased tradition of women being domestically adept. And, according to the university of Michigan, boys are 15% more likely to be paid for doing chores. It seems like parents feel it’s an additional expectation for boys, yet not for girls. It’s maybe even seen as being part of a girl’s existence.

“The most damning survey comes from Westpac, which found that boys earned an average of $48 for spending 2.1 hours on chores per week, while girls only got $45 for working for 2.7 hours on household jobs.”

WHAT! $48, or even $45 a week for roughly two hours of chores is crazy. Adopt me. Regardless, Westpac’s data demonstrates the pay gap AND the time gap in the reward and expectation per boy and girl. This just reinforces the expectation that we’re trying to eradicate out of society.

The article touches upon the claim that women just naturally choose lower paying jobs (because they’re so nurturing blah blah blah) such as teachers or social workers (which in a whole other argument really deserves a tremendous amount more for all the effort both those professions take). However, they tie in the bls pay statistics averaged from professions all across the US and we see that only SEVEN professions have the same pay for men and women. Only seven out of over 400. And it’s always in the favor of men. It actually comes from the positions within companies.

 

Junior Gender Pay Gap

 Posted by on Fri, 12/2 at 9:33am  ideas  No Responses »
Dec 022016
 

 

http://time.com/76023/pay-gap-gender-kids-allowances/

When you commented on my  cultural artifact essay you included a totally intriguing idea about how since children’s toys seem to be chore oriented per gender biases, that alongside with girls getting cooking sets boys should be getting toys like “taking out the trash” or “squishing bugs”. Hysterical. Because of antiquated gender roles, even little girls are feeling higher expectations in regards to domestic chores. Not only that, but according to Time magazine, they put in about two more hours a week of chores and are paid less when allowance is distributed per chore in comparison to boys. Is it really that deeply ingrained, even into parents that typically want the best and most fair for their children?

“This chore pay gap also demonstrates to girls that household work doesn’t count as work that should be rewarded.” The old fashioned belief that women are naturally more inclined to do household work and caretake. This coincides with the mom taking the child grocery shopping and nobody thinks anything of it, but when the dad takes the child with him to grocery shop, he playfully gets asked if he got stuck babysitting… his own child… How offensive. The idea that it is expected of women to do domestic tasks shows how underappreciated it is. Especially in our society where women typically are working jobs outside of the home, it’s pretty off-putting that the expectation remains for women to mostly themselves do domestic tasks because they’re groomed to be better at it.

The article refers to it as a junior gender pay gap. Also, the tasks being asked of the child can differ by gender. Maybe the boys empty the garbage pale while the girls wipe down the counters. I always say this to the kids that I nanny when I teach them how to cook, clean, fold laundry, or do other household tasks. “You’ll have your own home someday and you’ll need to know how to do everything”. I start them off with easy tasks as early as 4. They’ll carry their own clothes in small amounts into their rooms for me to put away. Although it makes it tremendously more difficult for me to get stuff done in a timely manner, it shows them responsibility. Therefore, teaching your children responsibility through chores backfires when you’re also teaching them which tasks apply to them, as well as an unequal pay distribution due to biased gender expectations.

She asked if he’s on Instagram. He scheduled in a business lunch.

 Posted by on Sun, 11/27 at 11:37pm  ideas  No Responses »
Nov 272016
 

http://socio.ch/mobile/t_geser3.htm

 

In this article he discusses gender roles and cell phones. He discusses that men began to use the technology first, and that women initially were apprehensive. This is shown in statistics. If this is true, I think it could either be the stereotype that men are technologically inclined, so women weren’t as concerned with trying the cell phone out immediately. He also says that men were more likely to check things on their phone, and that women used it for a more emotional means of communication and connection. I don’t necessarily think this is the case solely based on gender but instead of maybe how each gender is expected to communicate with eachother after years and years of conditioning. I personally think that almost everyone in my generation as well as the upcoming generation are addicted to their phones. Meals are posted, family drama is posted, and almost every other thing typically kept within the home is shared. I see this done equally by males and females. However, I think he was referring to the expectation of women being more likely to call, you know, like the stereotype of the bored gossiping housewife.

“Males see the mobile phone primarily as an empowering technology that mainly increases the independence from, not the connectedness with the social environment”.

Oyyyyy. Idk how I feel about all that. Feminist Samantha wants to eye roll. But, maybe he is just suggesting that women have the tendency to create a conversation style with people easily? Even that seems a little biased. Males see the mobile phone as an EMPOWERING technology…… (eye roll). I bet there’s plenty of females setting 6am alarm clocks to begin a long and productive day. They etch in business meetings and family gatherings. It’s the same tool being received by people in the same life circumstances.

Also, if it’s true that women are more connected with cell phones than men, I think it would be on a social media basis and only to upkeep the image that we’re suggested to maintain. It’s like the episode Nosedive from Netflix’s black mirror. (If you haven’t watched that series, seriously, it’s a great binge. You won’t even feel like you wasted your time). It’s essentially saying that people are so stressed trying to maintain, or even earn, this stellar image and response from people. Yes, acceptance is in human nature. However, if cell phone usage differentiates per genders, our social construct of the genders would be the reasoning for it.

Rose Gold iPhone vs some Samsung with an Otterbox

 Posted by on Sun, 11/27 at 11:21pm  reading  No Responses »
Nov 272016
 

http://socio.ch/mobile/t_geser3.htm

 

This article is extremely detailed in seemingly quantifiable information regarding which gender uses the phone more heavily, as well as the years that provide that information. It discusses how men began to use phones predominantly due to males being socially more adept towards using technology, the same stereotype that exists among computer nerds and the expectation of “gamer dudes”. Women are said to use it more as an emotional level of exchange between the point of contact, which is cool I guess for a method to gossip or whatever. The author didn’t seem to persist any bias within his assertions though which I appreciated because a lot of these gender per specific articles seem to, although I could just be expecting that myself!!!! He actually starts by saying it has been adopted by both genders, and doesn’t delve much into the specifics of who is instagramming which type of things. His narrative seems to be unbiased and he includes statistics, which I feel elevates his writing by adding a back bone to what he is saying.

It’s also a cool topic to write about considering all the social media issues we constantly are feeling as women and are talking about as a society. It makes me think of why more women now are involved in their phones, or why men marginalized obtaining this new “scary” technology first, and then women began to ease into it afterwards. He isn’t saying this though. He’s discussing within his article that usage intensity began with men leading, and then women caught up and then exceeded. It is left to us to fill in the blanks as to why. As an awful milennial of 2016 shattering the baby boomer’s ideals with our facebook reposts, or as a woman feeling the pressure of an ideal image accessible within our pockets as a reminder, it’s of our own interest to be more curious about the thing that consumes a significant amount of our time.  We all know how convenient cell phones provide to be. We wake up to our alarm, we etch in work events and friend’s events to our calendar. It provides us with the tools to be responsible as well as social. It provides us with the entire world. In accordance to gender though, he’s exploring the statistics behind cell phone usage from the time it popularized through the present as it grows even more technologically unimaginable.

Proposal

 Posted by on Fri, 11/18 at 2:32pm  proposal  No Responses »
Nov 182016
 

Samantha Pearlman

Advanced Exposition

16 November, 2016

Proposal

Every Little Boy is a Superhero… Every Little Girl is a Princess

Do children’s toys hold on to old gender stereotypes and encourage them? OR is biased still present and that’s why they’re created in the first place?  In my essay I’m going to discuss children’s toys and activities, and how they shape the child as they age.

Identify- Children’s toys commit stereotypes to gender. Are these stereotypes outdated? Do we get these toys because our culture expects us to? Is it better to raise children gender neutral? Is it better to raise them as culture expects so they are normalized while interacting with other children? Mirror as cultural artifact for girls. Bruises and cuts as cultural artifact for boys. Rugged. Girls expected to be dainty and care about appearance. Boys’ bruises are typical rowdy behavior. “Be more lady like”. Parents and psychologists have opinions about which methods are best. As a nanny I have my own opinions also. The central idea is whether raising the children with gendered upbringing is beneficial or not.

These are the ideas I’ll be exploring. The sources I’ll be using are from parent-posted articles, psychology articles, and experience. Just like the example touches upon media and gender roles, I’m doing the same with toys. Do children’s toys continue old gender norms? Also, when people raise children, is it best to do so in traditional roles or is it our job to encourage free choice in children?

 

Not every little boy reaches for a truck, and not every little girl’s favorite play time is dress up. Playtime is considered a necessity for the development of children’s brains, but it’s also about what they play with. Their toys shape their perspective of the world, as well as to help the child develop a sense of self.

“Women are from Venus, men are from Mars”

 Posted by on Sun, 11/6 at 11:32pm  ideas  No Responses »
Nov 062016
 

Communication styles: Understanding gender differences

 

This article attempts to explain the structural differences in male/ female communication style. It briefly mentions that upbringing plays a significant role in the typical communication style as well as the gender of the person. For example, a man in a household of females aside from himself will be more receptive to a female communication style. The writer breaks down the communication methods in a chart……. I would actually have to disagree with the typical examples he provides. He describes women as passive within conversation, likely to complement to build trust, sharing personal details, apologizing or seeking help, and sharing feeeeeeelings. Ugh. He describes the male communication methods as likely to play devil’s advocate, using direct and brief language, talking with authority, and solution talk. Literally taking it from his provided chart. These are the comparisons he describes between gender.  What I took from this was “oh wow Karen, I love your shoes. How are your children doing? I’ve had such a long day. Oh yeah, so about that budget proposal…” while the men are hard at work throwing curveballs to the competitor. I may be more sensitive to perceived bias as a female! I do however believe that there are different ways of thinking per gender, or perhaps per sex maybe it’s more of a biological thing due to hormones and brain wiring. I think that women GENERALLY are more receptive to sensitivity due to the expectation to do so, but i’ve met plenty of women who dismiss that idea as well as plenty of men who are extremely sensitive. I think also that because women are expected to be more passive in our culture, that we’re taught to communicate in a certain way. For example, our composure level in contrast to a man’s must be maintained more so. Like, if Hilary behaved in the same manner as Trump, she would be discredited. The standard is set to dismantle the frantic, emotional stereotype so women in a professional setting have to uphold the passive and collected demeanor. Men are typically raised to be more aggressive. In communication, this could mean interjecting, dominating the conversation, or being overly skeptical. However, I strongly believe in person to person differentiation depending upon how one was raised. The article mentioned that women try to incorporate a team feel and intrinsic motivation by building trust by being passive. I can understand this approach, but I’m not sure if it coincides with the contrast of men being authoritative just to be seen as the alpha male leader.

Mirrors show us what we look like, but not who we are

 Posted by on Wed, 11/2 at 10:28am  artifact networks & relationships  No Responses »
Nov 022016
 

1. My chosen artifact is…

A mirror. Specifically, the mirror I’ve noticed consistently in girl’s rooms and not boys while nannying. This encourages the idea that women need to be made aware of their appearance so that they can upkeep it to the cultural standard.

2. How do you classify your artifact? In what groups can you place your artifact? What connections can you make to other artifacts in the group?

Mirrors are associated with women because of the expectation that a woman should be attentive to her appearance. Commercials display women checking their appearances in mirrors. Make up mirrors are a commonality inside purses. Mirrors are almost always in a girl’s room. All of the female children I nanny have mirrors in their bedroom as a vanity but most of the boys do not. This encourages the girl to be attentive to her appearance from a young age, and creates a differentiation between genders. Girls between classes stop into the bathroom to touch up make up and fix hair strands.

3. Identify points of similarity between your artifact and others. Then identify points of difference with other artifacts. How is it similar? How is it different?

 

A mirror is a gateway to acceptance and respect in our culture. A female that presents herself to society’s standards will be included more often, or given more opportunities in multiple regards. The mirror is like bringing candy bags to class on Halloween. People will like you better, but only because of what you’re providing. (a decent appearance to look at vs candy to enjoy idk)

4. What metaphors or analogies suit your artifact? (Explain if needed)

 

Females that choose to wear hair simply or choose to not wear make up or choose to dress in simple and not form-fitting outfits aren’t given the same attentiveness that the traditional beauty standard receives. This shows itself in job opportunities. Companies want a “good representation”. I have friends who say they’ve only gotten hired for their looks as front desk help, clothing stores, or resturants/ bars. Appearance is said to be associated with confidence, but is that confidence internally from the woman herself, or the perceived confidence from surrounding people assuming she isn’t confident because she doesn’t appeal to beauty standards. Mirrors show girls, even from toddler age, that their appearance is a significant part of their lives. The beauty routine for women is significantly more involved than the typical man’s routine if she does it as society expects.

5. How is your artifact characterized? (How do people/media/groups characterize it?)

Media is a significant encouragement of the female “ideal”. Thin, tan, long-haired women are the stars of media when sexual appeal is portrayed. This has become the expectation because this is whats being seen everywhere. Girls are wearing make up and even dieting at such a young age. My 15 year old sister takes 30 minutes to get ready and watches her calorie intake because she’s told by media that she is supposed to appear a certain way. The mirror as an artifact is categorized as a necessity to upkeep the ideal. Hair needs to be in place. Make up needs to be fresh. Cleavage gets adjusted. It takes so much energy to upkeep that it takes away from more important aspects. It creates the mindset that appearance comes first, but not necessarily how loyal somebody is, or how likely they are to tell the truth, or what their hobbies are or what they dream of doing with their life.

6. What cultural narratives govern your artifact?

The epidemic in eating disorders, or in depression from low self-esteem are prevalent in our society and especially within females, we see the early expectation causing anxiety when it feels like it isn’t being met. The unrealistic goals set by models who are chosen out of thousands of applicants makes us feel like thats the traditional beauty standard. The editing of photos, or the seemingly effortlessness behind them make us feel like we’re set to a standard we can’t reach.

7. What assumptions, stereotypes, habits, social practices, and institutions frame your artifact?

The stereotype of a powerful woman is one that presents herself well while being successful. These women are expected to dress well, be poised, and be ambitious. The raw and real women in messy buns and pajamas running to class with spilled coffee aren’t held to the same standard. Internal attributes don’t seem to be as important to society as a whole. The mirror is a constant reminder that we need to be reminded of our appearance.

8. What doctrines or practices affect your artifact? (Or, what doctrines or practices you’re your artifact affect?) Political parties and platforms? Religious? Ideological? Which ones? Are there cultural “rules” and practices? Which?

The artifact of the mirror affects female self esteem, and affects the perspective that people have on women. Cultural rules are somewhat unspoken, yet still blatant. We see women getting overlooked when they don’t look the part. We see women getting put down by the media’s beauty standard. We see women being shamed over whats appropriate to wear at which size and we see the expectation of beauty and the absence of respect when the standard is different to her.

9. How does your artifact affect culture? How does culture affect your artifact?

Women are respected differently based off of their appearance. If we dress simply and wear no make up, we’re plain. If we wear make up and heels, we’re vain. However, it goes deeper than just looks. Because women are expected to expend effort on appearance, it leaves me to wonder what theyre missing out on and could be applying that same energy to instead. Instead of an hour every morning to get ready, she could have time to drink tea and read and therefore be more peaceful and learn new things. The mirror as an artifact came to mind because I’ve primarily seen vanity areas in girl’s rooms that I nanny for. This tells girls, not boys, that their appearance is extremely important to be aware of and to tend to.

artifacts / children gender norms

 Posted by on Sun, 10/23 at 11:31pm  artifact ideas  3 Responses »
Oct 232016
 

The topic I’ve been working closely with is gender bias portrayed through toddler’s toys. This touches upon the idea that our culture is setting an early precedent for gender norms and associating children with these expectations early on, regardless of how antiquated the norms are. There are a few cultural artifacts that come to mind from my experience nannying as well as just being exposed to gender bias.

The baby doll is a common toy aimed towards female children but not directly associated as a male toy. This advances the notion that females are more nurturing. The baby doll is indicative of the social norm for women to be more competent at raising households, which in itself is a completely outdated concept. Because of that superseded perception, the baby doll shouldn’t be seemingly reserved for girls, but instead also inclusive of boys. Realistically, they could potentially be uncles, older brothers, and fathers and those same qualities are essential for connection.

Another artifact is the use of earrings to identify a female child from a male. The twin toddlers I nanny for are just starting to get to the age of distinction where one can see feminine features in the face, but realistically they could be called either gender and one wouldn’t question unless looking for it. As infants, sex is undetectable until the diaper needs to be changed so parents will often pierce the girl’s ears to identify that she is indeed female. The need to create the identity of the child so early on is a cultural importance here, and probably in most modernized places. Our identity is how we relate to our world and how our world seems to relate to us so parents find it important to set that precedent early on.

The room set-up also differs. I’ve noticed that girls have a long mirror, or a vanity area of some sort meanwhile the boys have just dressers and the toys but no extra mirrors. This also explores the idea of women not necessarily being vain, but being expected to take an extra note of their appearance and it starts their attention in that direction at a really young age.

Is it larger than just “locker room banter”? ( reading )

 Posted by on Sun, 10/9 at 11:48pm  Uncategorized  No Responses »
Oct 092016
 

Firstly I noticed that the article came from a reputable source, the Washington Post. Especially with political searches I wanted to be thorough and also try to find an unbiased article. Regarding the subject matter this provided to be challenging. The article is written in what may be perceived as a biased tone, however, I feel that there is just no other way to word the facts and that there is and should be no other reaction besides disgust. The fact that its a presidential candidate, a potential leader of millions of women, is extremely worrisome. The article’s tone is fact-based. It quotes people involved as well as other leaders with strong opinions about the leaked audio. The intended audience could have been multiple targets. Definitely women, and really, anybody who knows and cherishes a woman (because we all love the “I have a wife” response… because without the possessive, the situation would hold less relevance). This article positively and effectively communicated what was said, and provided dates. Aside from the publication, it still would have seemed like an extremely valid source. There also was enough information to work with, so the task was definitely simplified. These types of news articles are important to populate during election time. This is beneficial to Clinton’s campaign because it exposes a seemingly striking character flaw in her opponent. The intention of the article seems to not necessarily sway readers but instead to present information to readers using his quotes. It provided information in a clear and concise way that I would say leaves readers better understanding the situation.

Is it larger than just “locker room banter”? ( Ideas )

 Posted by on Sun, 10/9 at 11:26pm  ideas  No Responses »
Oct 092016
 

The controversial conversation released Friday raised further red flags about the morality of Donald Trump, but his seemingly acceptable rebuttal of “just locker room banter” exposes a deeper issue regarding respect for women in our culture. He was recorded making claims as if he is entitled to a woman’s body, as if she were a property for him to purchase, solely because of his financial stature. Whatever the reason is, as it varies per person, there is a dominance and entitlement issue that goes beyond just Trump, and goes beyond just this recorded instance. Reading the article provoked thought about all of the frustration women endure because of men with like mindsets. The narrative as a woman is extremely different than the narrative as a man. Understood that we differ in gender. Not understood how that correlates with a different level of respect. Woman are socially expected to smile to vulgar “flattery”, or face even violence in some cases after rejecting. I just felt personally offended on behalf of myself, friends in situations that Trump has placed those women in, and all women who have been placed in situations because of similar men. The “just locker room banter” creates the expectation that this is how men communicate not only about women, but also to eachother. This sets the precedent that women are not to be taken seriously, have ultimate control of their bodies, or have much else to offer besides physicality. The fact that he, and many others, found this reasoning to not be flawed shows just how far we have to go while raising the next generations to eradicate the biased thinking.

I’m also thinking of this current one. I think about how people like Brock Turner are allotted more respect and empathy than the victim. They get to leave the court room with more dignity than the victim. It makes me wonder how women can be afforded less validation regarding a concept so basic. Even the toddler twins I nanny have a clear grasp of what no means, and that acting anyways will result in punishment. “Just locker room banter” implies joking with team mates, or discussing the work out. It’s incredible that he would categorize an innocent conversation as having the same implications as sexually assaulting women and discussing it like it has humor to it. He also implies that women can be bought, which is still implying an inner vanity and dependence upon men. Women (and men) have been fighting for equality. But there is a deeper rooted issue within our culture regarding the narrative behind women, our intelligence, worth, and self-validation due to greater achievements than beauty. There is a deeper rooted issue within our culture regarding women’s narrative through the eyes of entitled men.

 

 

 Older Entries