Women have only recently gained respect in the areas of science and technology. Before, women were totally disregarded when it came to getting a job in science. For example, only recently have women caught up to men in their numbers attending medical schools. In 1966, women made up about 25% of the Bachelor’s degrees earned in science. In 1996 that number rose to 47%, an almost equal amount to men. However, the salary that women get compared to men is still approximately $14,000 less. Technology also discriminates against women. This was shown in the example we studied in class about video games. The video games represented mostly males as the hero character. There were some video games involving females, but these were easily described as subtle. Furthermore, in many video games, women are portrayed as prostitutes and whores, a very condescending idea. Hence, ideas about women are shown in science and technology.
When children grow up with these video games, they learn the stereotypical view of women. They believe that women in real life are like these prostitutes in “Grand Theft Auto.” Furthermore, they might even mock the actions of the characters in the video games. Although adults may be able to distinguish the differences between fantasy and reality, it is hard for children to do so. The idea that women are underrepresented in the field of science also has a major affect on our society. Women may see how science professions are underpaid to those positions held by men in the same field. This may steer them away from a career in science. Also, the idea that they are underrepresented might be deterrence due to the fact that they might have to work hard to receive the same authority and respect as the men in their field. These worries create holes for women that are hard to escape.
It is important to study these effects of gender views in the fields of science and technology because it is important to have equal representation of the sexes in this field. Women must rise up and receive the same treatment as men. In order to make this happen, the underlying causes must be identified and corrected. Large strides have already been taken and as shown by the data, much as been accomplished. There are still many more problems that need to be solved for the sake of future generations. In my opinion, this problem could be greatly reduced by changing modern-day video games and the perception that is portrayed to children. Although it may be hard to change the video games right away, public awareness should be raised. Hopefully parents would recognize the problem and do something about it.
Women have also made great accomplishments in society. Marie Curie was the first person to win two Nobel Prizes. Maria Goeppert-Mayer formed a shell model for atomic nuclei. Not to mention all the men who were well accomplished because of ideas given to them by their wives. Women have great ideas about science, just like those of some men. It has also been proven that men and women have different ways of thinking. If we can combine these different thinking skills, think of all the opportunities and accomplishments!
In conclusion, women represent an important part of science and technology. Ideas about gender have caused under representation of women in these fields. However, this representation is gradually improving. With the will power of women, and the help of others, women will be able to gain equal opportunities through jobs, education, and opportunity in the fields of science and technology.
http://www1.umn.edu/ships/
Friday, September 28, 2007
Sex vs. Gender
Sex and gender are used interchangeably in society. However, according to some concepts we have learned in our class, this idea is invalid. The oxford dictionary defines gender as a “classification roughly corresponding to the two sexes and sexlessness.” It defines sex as the “fact of belonging to either group” (meaning males or females). The aspects we have talked about in our studies would challenge these because they state the proposals of sex and genders are not so easily definable.
Social construction addresses the fact that gender roles are interpreted differently throughout cultures. Therefore, it is hard to define specific roles of each sex. You could not state, for example, that having long hair is a female role in society and having short hair is a male role. This would be going against other cultures such as native people of Africa where many have the same style of hair. Characteristics change throughout cultures. Furthermore, they change throughout time. For example, fifty years ago it was safe to say that the dominating sex in medical schools in the United States was male. For this reason, the physician profession was often associated with being male. Currently, there are a fairly equal amounts of men and women in medical schools. The idea of a career in medicine is now easily associated as being a male and female role in society. While sex is determined by your genitalia, your gender is represented by your role in society. Indeed, social construction creates a volatile view of gender, one that can be changed by the society in which it is referred.
Kate Bornstein also contradicts the two category gender idea. She believes that there is much more than a two gender system. She believes in the idea that people can have different traits, both male and female. Additionally, she believes that there are other genders in society that may not fit into either role, such as being Jewish. This idea can be represented by the “gender pyramid.” Just like we should eat different foods from each category represented in the nutritional pyramid, there are different categories of genders in society. Furthermore, we don’t just “eat” out of one category, but instead we have aspects of all the categories. Bornstein claims that she has been a boy, a man, Jewish, a sailor, etc. She believes that people possess many different genders that may or may not evolve overtime. While sex always stays the same because it is a biological aspect of our being, gender can change throughout time. We can not possess multiple sexes, but we can possess multiple genders. For this reason, Bornstein addresses the difference between sex and gender by assigning not just two but an infinite number of genders.
While I do not agree with Bornstein’s idea that there are multiple genders, I would argue for the social constructionist theory that genders change throughout culture and society. I believe that the idea of gender is the role one plays in society. You can not set a standard for gender however because, like stated in the social constructionist view, it is malleable. Bornstein’s idea is a well thought of one, but I believe what she refers to are simply aspects of our character, not different genders. Bornstein completely separates gender with sex; I believe they are still closely related. There are aspects of gender that do apply throughout society, such as women are child bearers. This can never change throughout society (although it has the potential to change in the future) because of our physical being.
Sex is a biological fact. However, the two sex concept is incorrect as well. There are children born everyday with ambiguous sex characteristics. While surgery and hormone therapy can treat these conditions, they are still naturally members of both sexes. People also get sex changes frequently in our present society. Can you truly place them into either the category of male or female? Although a man might get an operation to become a woman, he still has internal characteristics like those of males, such as the shape of their pelvis or the absence of a uterus, ovaries, and mammary glands. Sex is much more easily defined than gender; however, there are defiantly not only two categories.
In conclusion, the concepts of gender and sex are completely different. Gender is defiantly vague while sex is a lucid idea. The two genders or two sex models are not good representations for our current society. Gender can represent completely opposite ideas throughout time and cultures. Sex can be altered by surgery and hormone therapy. There are multiple genders and multiple sexes in our current society. As our roles as women change and doctors decide babies’ sex daily, maybe our society should rethink the number of boxes after “check which gender/sex”.
Social construction addresses the fact that gender roles are interpreted differently throughout cultures. Therefore, it is hard to define specific roles of each sex. You could not state, for example, that having long hair is a female role in society and having short hair is a male role. This would be going against other cultures such as native people of Africa where many have the same style of hair. Characteristics change throughout cultures. Furthermore, they change throughout time. For example, fifty years ago it was safe to say that the dominating sex in medical schools in the United States was male. For this reason, the physician profession was often associated with being male. Currently, there are a fairly equal amounts of men and women in medical schools. The idea of a career in medicine is now easily associated as being a male and female role in society. While sex is determined by your genitalia, your gender is represented by your role in society. Indeed, social construction creates a volatile view of gender, one that can be changed by the society in which it is referred.
Kate Bornstein also contradicts the two category gender idea. She believes that there is much more than a two gender system. She believes in the idea that people can have different traits, both male and female. Additionally, she believes that there are other genders in society that may not fit into either role, such as being Jewish. This idea can be represented by the “gender pyramid.” Just like we should eat different foods from each category represented in the nutritional pyramid, there are different categories of genders in society. Furthermore, we don’t just “eat” out of one category, but instead we have aspects of all the categories. Bornstein claims that she has been a boy, a man, Jewish, a sailor, etc. She believes that people possess many different genders that may or may not evolve overtime. While sex always stays the same because it is a biological aspect of our being, gender can change throughout time. We can not possess multiple sexes, but we can possess multiple genders. For this reason, Bornstein addresses the difference between sex and gender by assigning not just two but an infinite number of genders.
While I do not agree with Bornstein’s idea that there are multiple genders, I would argue for the social constructionist theory that genders change throughout culture and society. I believe that the idea of gender is the role one plays in society. You can not set a standard for gender however because, like stated in the social constructionist view, it is malleable. Bornstein’s idea is a well thought of one, but I believe what she refers to are simply aspects of our character, not different genders. Bornstein completely separates gender with sex; I believe they are still closely related. There are aspects of gender that do apply throughout society, such as women are child bearers. This can never change throughout society (although it has the potential to change in the future) because of our physical being.
Sex is a biological fact. However, the two sex concept is incorrect as well. There are children born everyday with ambiguous sex characteristics. While surgery and hormone therapy can treat these conditions, they are still naturally members of both sexes. People also get sex changes frequently in our present society. Can you truly place them into either the category of male or female? Although a man might get an operation to become a woman, he still has internal characteristics like those of males, such as the shape of their pelvis or the absence of a uterus, ovaries, and mammary glands. Sex is much more easily defined than gender; however, there are defiantly not only two categories.
In conclusion, the concepts of gender and sex are completely different. Gender is defiantly vague while sex is a lucid idea. The two genders or two sex models are not good representations for our current society. Gender can represent completely opposite ideas throughout time and cultures. Sex can be altered by surgery and hormone therapy. There are multiple genders and multiple sexes in our current society. As our roles as women change and doctors decide babies’ sex daily, maybe our society should rethink the number of boxes after “check which gender/sex”.
Title IX Event
I attended the luncheon on Title IX. The speaker was Kelly Belanger, a member of the English Department here at Virginia Tech and a former basketball player at Michigan State University. Kelly informed us about the components of Title IX such as employment, career education, sexual harassment, and technology. However, she decided to focus on sports represented by the Michigan State Basketball program.
The idea before title IX was that women should not overexert themselves. They were not physically capable of such strenuous exercise such as sports. Title IX was a fight to change this social norm of women by creating equal participation and equal scholarship money for female athletes. Women were allowed to participate in sports; however, they had seasons which conflicted with other major sports. This caused a decreased audience level. They also did not get equal treatment in the form of what kind of monetary budget they had for uniforms, travel, food, etc. For this reason, in 1972, the fight for equal representation in sports began.
The women who decided to lead the fight for Title IX decided to stay away from association with “radical feminist.” I found this interesting. They seemed to have the same stereotypically views as the rest of society about these feminists although they too were feminists. However, I believe by not associating themselves with the radicals, they were able to gain better support from the rest of the community. Kelly described the fight for the women’s basketball team, the same team that was there during the era of Magic Johnson. The Title IX director, Mary Pollock, was a hard advocate who actually lost her job by doing her job. The team members were happy with everything and anything they received, however, others still wanted better benefits for the team. Eventually, Federal Judge Noel Fox put immediate orders on the university to give the girls team equal food and lodge. Michigan State rejected the order stating they were already planning on doing that.
The fight for equal representation in sports of women was a long lawsuit that was not settled until 1986. There are still arguments about it today. These include those that men are now being discriminated against in sports. Also, the idea that women simply aren’t interested in sports is common. However, this idea could easily be proved or disproved by the third check of Title IX, a survey.
I found this talk very interesting. As a participator in sports during high school, I could easily relate to the facts that were presented. My team defiantly did not receive as good of treatment as the football team or boys soccer team. I also believe that it is important to continue to discuss the long struggle of Title IX because now we take such advantage of it. I did not even think about the fact that thirty years ago, girls might not have even been able to be on a sports team. I also enjoyed the speech because it was a small group of women and we got to have a group discussion at then end.
The idea before title IX was that women should not overexert themselves. They were not physically capable of such strenuous exercise such as sports. Title IX was a fight to change this social norm of women by creating equal participation and equal scholarship money for female athletes. Women were allowed to participate in sports; however, they had seasons which conflicted with other major sports. This caused a decreased audience level. They also did not get equal treatment in the form of what kind of monetary budget they had for uniforms, travel, food, etc. For this reason, in 1972, the fight for equal representation in sports began.
The women who decided to lead the fight for Title IX decided to stay away from association with “radical feminist.” I found this interesting. They seemed to have the same stereotypically views as the rest of society about these feminists although they too were feminists. However, I believe by not associating themselves with the radicals, they were able to gain better support from the rest of the community. Kelly described the fight for the women’s basketball team, the same team that was there during the era of Magic Johnson. The Title IX director, Mary Pollock, was a hard advocate who actually lost her job by doing her job. The team members were happy with everything and anything they received, however, others still wanted better benefits for the team. Eventually, Federal Judge Noel Fox put immediate orders on the university to give the girls team equal food and lodge. Michigan State rejected the order stating they were already planning on doing that.
The fight for equal representation in sports of women was a long lawsuit that was not settled until 1986. There are still arguments about it today. These include those that men are now being discriminated against in sports. Also, the idea that women simply aren’t interested in sports is common. However, this idea could easily be proved or disproved by the third check of Title IX, a survey.
I found this talk very interesting. As a participator in sports during high school, I could easily relate to the facts that were presented. My team defiantly did not receive as good of treatment as the football team or boys soccer team. I also believe that it is important to continue to discuss the long struggle of Title IX because now we take such advantage of it. I did not even think about the fact that thirty years ago, girls might not have even been able to be on a sports team. I also enjoyed the speech because it was a small group of women and we got to have a group discussion at then end.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Gender Test
Kate Bornstein is now referred to in the bipolar gender system as a woman. In public, she passes as a woman. Nevertheless, she is still confused about her gender. Therefore, she is unsure about the category into which she falls. She mentions at one point that she was a boy, or one of the boys, when she was growing up; furthermore, she was a Jew. She claims she was a sailor, boy, scientologist, and husband. These different categories represent Kate’s idea of gender classification. She does not like the classification of people by their genitals; she believes that there is something more to the “gender” of a person than their reproductive organs. She presents the idea of a gender pyramid and gender circle, which to her seem to be the most accurate theories. Personally, I would agree with the gender circle, because I believe we are all connected in someway. However, I do not think I would call these categories genders. They are simply characteristics of one’s being.
Kate seems to change her identity often, which I found to be hard to follow throughout the article. She is very eccentric and sometimes I feel she is being sarcastic.
I did not like her style of writing and when taking the test I often felt like none of the answers were me. However, I understand that this was her objective in making the test and although her writing style did not appeal to me, I thought it was cleaver the way she used the test to get her point across. She caused the test taker to raise questions about their current thoughts on gender with this test. This test is not meant to put one person in a specific category, but more to challenge them to think in a different viewpoint. Because Kate does not believe in two bipolar gender categories, her test bring into view the “different” categories that gender includes. Although we might not think we are learning new information by this test, our subconscious is being tested. We are forced to think outside of our boxes that have been constructed throughout our lives and change our view on what our definition of “gender” really is.
Kate seems to change her identity often, which I found to be hard to follow throughout the article. She is very eccentric and sometimes I feel she is being sarcastic.
I did not like her style of writing and when taking the test I often felt like none of the answers were me. However, I understand that this was her objective in making the test and although her writing style did not appeal to me, I thought it was cleaver the way she used the test to get her point across. She caused the test taker to raise questions about their current thoughts on gender with this test. This test is not meant to put one person in a specific category, but more to challenge them to think in a different viewpoint. Because Kate does not believe in two bipolar gender categories, her test bring into view the “different” categories that gender includes. Although we might not think we are learning new information by this test, our subconscious is being tested. We are forced to think outside of our boxes that have been constructed throughout our lives and change our view on what our definition of “gender” really is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)