Monday, March 26, 2012

Response to Enloe

In my Environmental Hazards class, we discuss an author, Robbins 2010, who discusses political economy, meaning the political and economic processes that affect the environment in which we live. She also discusses political ecology, which connects political economy to ecological and environmental states. The political economy of the capitalist society in which we live involves accumulation, contradiction, and crisis, meaning that as the necessity of amassing excess resources depletes resource stock, society falls into crisis as we compete for the remaining capital. This "crisis" as it is called also corresponds with distressed employment situations and environmental conditions. These environmental conditions, which include not just the physical environment but the social and cultural processes that affect the place in which one works, lives, sleeps, etc. The political economy of south Korea, encouraging police forces to sexually assault women as control mechanism for suppressing women's engagement in the labor movement, represents a system solely driven by a desire for accumulation and domination. The persistence of women in their fight for fair wages and employment rights, and their actions' subsequent effect on toppling South Korea's military regime and forcing open elections shows that it is persistence and not physical force, domination, strength, and ferocity that must be demonstrated to ensure success. These women, as active agents in a patriarchal system, bonded over their differences from others and used this to increase solidarity, efficacy, and political influence.

In a class I took last semester, Gender, Justice, and Environmental Change, we watched a film about Maquilapolis, a city on the border of the US and Mexico where underregulated and undertaxed factories owned by many companies, usually international, function. It is in these factories where mostly female employees are hired and must work gruesome hours in toxic environments, all for the sake of earning a close-to-nothing income for their families. Most workers earn about $11 a day and are exposed to chemicals, poisons, and dangerous materials that result in extremely harmful health concerns, which they cannot afford to address. Interestingly, this film documents the complete upheaval of these factories in the 90s, following the creation of NAFTA, to Asia. Factories left their chemical pollution behind, which seeps into the soil, contaminates the water and air, and exacerbates the already extremely destitute state of these neighborhoods. These companies now spread their toxins in another part of the world, without mitigating any accidents or negative environmental effects. The international community does not hold these companies liable; the women of Maquilapolis have formed strong grassroots movements in protest of the environmental degradation they face because they are located in the path of least resistance. They, however, have no political power in the international community, which is necessary to bring about the necessary change. There needs to be an international collaboration between grassroots women's organizations to force the United Nations and political leaders to address these blatant human rights violations.

Movie description: http://www.pbs.org/pov/maquilapolis/film_description.php
Some movie clips: http://www.pbs.org/pov/maquilapolis/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRdu5qo-htU

Summary of Enloe


In  “The Globetrotting Sneaker” and “Daughters and Generals in the Politics of the Globalized Sneaker”, Enloe takes up issue with the rise of the popular culture sneaker phenomenon in the post-Cold War era of globalization and the effects that had on women.  Enloe begins by describing how after the Berlin Wall fell, Reebok decided to open a store in Moscow in 1993.  At the time, Reebok was considered one of the US’s most rapidly growing companies, with sales exceeding all others.  The store opening in Moscow was a crucial turning point for Russians because it gave them the option to buy footwear, which were symbolic of American popular culture, even though the price of the shoes was much higher than many Russians could afford.  As Enloe notes, this was a time when, “almost 60 percent of Russia’s single parents, most of whom were women, were living in poverty,” (43).  Nonetheless, children began urging their parents to get them these neat new sneakers, which were thought to give an edge above other children. 

As the American sneaker industry boomed in Russia and around the world, the workers behind their production were never questioned or made into an issue.  According to Enloe, however, women, and more specifically Asian women, were the most susceptible to becoming workers for the sneaker industry.  For Asian women, working for a sneaker factory was a sign of globalization and progress, while Russian women believed that the new Russia had been born seeing that they could now somewhat afford to buy their children fancy sneakers.  This was primarily a result of the NATO and WTO trade agreements that emerged in the nineties, which gave private companies the ability to trade freely and in turn, exploit women for cheap labor.

The “New World Order” of the globalization of sneakers was most evident in South Koreas’s city of Pusan during the eighties.  American sneaker companies in South Korea believed that men should be the managers and responsible for unions that were emerging.  Women, on the other hand, were ideal for cheap labor because their Confucian values promoted working for the good of their family, as fathers and husbands had hoped they would do.  Luckily, South Korean women responded to this as the pro-democracy movement was taking place and saw through their exploitation with the help of feminists on the scene.  The Korean Women Workers Association was one group that formed during this time and aimed to raise awareness among women about fair treatment in the workforce. Suddenly, women saw a rise not only in unions, but also in their earnings that by 1990, had them earning over fifty percent of what men were earning.  When sneaker companies realized that women were no longer “ideal”, they decided it was time to pack up and move to a new location, such as China or Indonesia, where authoritarian regimes made it easy to exploit women for cheap labor. 

Although many companies now report on working conditions in their factories following UN”s Beijing conference in 1995, it is definitely still evident that women are suffering from cheap labor conditions.  Under the “divide and rule” tactic of globalization, the workforce for women in these neighboring countries has become all the more competitive.  Fortunately, many women have become more aware of their conditions and have advocated for their rights and needs in the post-Cold War environment of globalization.

“Daughters and Generals in the Politics of the Globalized Sneaker” touches on many of the same issues raised in the previous chapter.  Enloe begins by examining the roots of the sporting goods franchise phenomenon at American universities, such as Michigan State, where politics and clothing are deeply intertwined.  At universities like Michigan State, sporting good logos mean everything through binding contracts and there are serious penalties if these logos are in any way tampered with.  Enloe suggests that this phenomenon emerged after the Cold War, again particularly in South Korea, bringing the politics of women to the forefront of the scene.  

By using the construction of feminization, American sporting goods companies could manipulate women and their families into believing in the cheap labor industry.  With support from the government, women were now supposed to leave their rural farms and head to cities where working for industrialization would make them more patriotic and respectable daughters, or wives.  Women were now supposed to be responsible for brining dowries into their marriages and parents were now supposed to accept this new attitude.  As Enloe puts it: “Inside every computer chip, inside every elaborately stitched sneaker…is a complex web of Cold War militarized, feminized respectability and daughterly patriotism,” (61).  Furthermore, sneaker companies promoted the idea of a high turnover rate to ensure that they could pay women the minimum wage for “training” positions, as well as dating services that emphasized women’s new role in society instead of their role as individual citizens. Like South Korea, Enloe points out that Indonesia has become the modern-day example of this globalization phenomenon. 

Enloe does note, however, that women became knowledgeable of sneaker companies’ dependence on women’s marriage strategies for success in South Korea.  As a result, governments and companies were forced to make the decision that it was time to “restructure” the economy to make up for the loss of women employment.  Although there seems to be no end to this cyclical globalization pattern, Enloe hopes that women in countries facing the same dilemmas as South Korea faced after the Cold War can see through their exploitation and become just as proactive as the girls on American sneaker are advertised to be.    


Sunday, March 25, 2012

Girls in South Korea


 The chapters that we read in Cynthia Enloe’s The Curious Feminist reminded me about how much we focus on the treatment of women in the United States but we often forget about women in other parts of the world. With so much mentioned about South Korea in the 1970’s and 80’s I reflected on what South Korea is like today: I was a part of Colgate’s study group to Seoul last fall.
As an Education Studies and Asian Studies sponsored trip, we took classes that were about multicultural education. As a part of the class, we went around to visit different schools. One of the schools that we went to was Donggu Marketing All Girls School. As the name states, this school was an all-girls school. The school would be what some call a vocational high school with a focus on getting girls into jobs right after they graduate. Some girls go on to college, but usually at a 2-year school as opposed to the 4-year universities. We were able to meet with some of the administration and were able ask them some questions about how the school was run and some of their philosophies. One of the things our professor asked was what they do to empower their girls and if they teach them anything about prior women’s movements. They said that they do not have anything stated in their curriculum. They teach the girls English so that they will be able to be employed at large multinational companies. However, the jobs that these girls will be expected to have are secretarial. They are not given the tools necessary for them to be able to get promotions out of that position. Parents elect to send their daughters to in order for them to gain employment after graduation. They do have a successful employment rate and these girls do receive larger salaries than many others without this school do. Large corporations consistently go back to the school to ask for recommendations on girls to hire. It is through these companies that they get higher salaries.
There are many other social differences between the US and South Korea, but this was just one instance of an educational one that is linked to economic ones. 

Multinational Corporations and Labor Rights


            The most interesting idea from this week’s reading from Enloe’s The Curious Feminist was the idea that everyone, from American employers and subcontractors in Asia to governments spread throughout Asia, has done their best to reinforce the stereotype that women should work to contribute to their family’s wellbeing in addition to their dowries.  The benefits from promoting this idea did a lot to help the bottom line of the companies’ profits, which keeps them investing in Asian countries.  Without the foreign investment, many smaller countries in South Asia would have had failing economies.  By enforcing the idea that young women have a lot to gain by working in industrial factories, local and national governments were able to keep multinational corporations interested in opening new factories in Asia.
            However, it is important to look at how the influence of the multinational companies affected the women in Asia.  The implementation of the idea that women should work in grueling, unsafe conditions to help their social position is less than ideal.  On some levels, the idea that women should work to help out their nation is something that many countries have used (successfully, depending on your viewpoint) to help spur women to join the workforce.  However, using media to enforce the idea of working to help your country during a war, as the US did, is different than exploiting the female population to boost your economy, at the expense of conditions and safety of a large portion of the workforce.  It is unacceptable for wages to be around 50% of the male population, in countries where wages are already extremely low.  As social changes start to have a larger role in developing countries without much attention on human rights and labor rights, there will be an increased focus on changing expectations and rules associated with women in the workforce.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Re: Knowledge is Power



In “Knowledge is Power”, Maria Cristina Rangel talks about her experiences with welfare programs as a woman.  One of the most problematic aspects of welfare programs in our country that Rangel takes up issue with is that they blame the individual for not taking responsibility for him or herself.  In the case of women, this message is particularly pronounced when children are involved.  Women often times are targeted by welfare programs to feel ashamed about their unfortunate situation or to feel as if they are trying to cheat the system altogether.  At the same time, there are, “systematic factors like poor public education, little job training for displaced workers, low wages and lack of affordable childcare,” that contribute to the high percentage of poor women (192). 

When Rangel says that “knowledge is power”, she is referring to the fact that in order to be self-sufficient and independent, as the welfare programs promote, you have to be educated.  Rangel acknowledges that although she suffers from the welfare system, she has more of an advantage over women who are not as privileged.  Unfortunately, many women do not have the four-year college education that Rangel has and are pitted against the system more drastically.  Rangel offers a few solutions to this problem, such as thinking about long-term improvements for women and keeping race, class, gender, and sexuality in mind when doing so.  Furthermore, she calls on institutions of higher education to recognize that they are not giving an entire segment of the population access to a better education that “traditional students” receive.  Rangel sees the worth in the education she has received and the effects of her education on her children.  It is for this reason that Rangel hopes to see a new system that provides equal access to education for all women, regardless of their income, and a welfare system aims to really help women instead of degrading them for their own livelihood.   

Struggling to Avoid Poverty


I found both of the Listen Up chapters to be very interesting. Hakim-Dyce’s story about considering the job of a “go-go dancer” was particularly intriguing for me, because I’ve never heard the female side of applying for a job in a strip club, or even the perspective of a woman visiting a strip club and considering it a place of work.  Most often, society forgets that the women in strip clubs likely would love to pursue another career but simply don’t have the option.  When thinking about it, it makes perfect sense that working in a strip club as a dancer would be the last possible option for many women on the job scale.  As Hakim-Dyce mentioned, she tried a whole host of other job options first, preferring a receptionist job or even a job as a clown for birthday parties before considering working as a “go-go dancer.”  Although these jobs may not be the most desired, it takes precedence over a dancing job.  This article really shows the desperate measures many will take to avoid complete poverty.  For many women, it is impossible to turn down the high pay that many of the dancing and pornography industries have as their lures.  Hakim-Dyce mentioned hearing rumors of a $1000/week salary, which is very hard to turn down as a college student who is struggling to make ends meet.  In the end, it worked out for Hakim-Dyce because she put in the extra effort on the side and applied for so many jobs.  Her persistence allowed her to avoid the industry, but the reading very much suggests that the idea of entering the industry was something that haunted her for a long time afterwards.
            The second article by Rangel really stressed the importance of education and knowledge.  As with the first article, the difficulty in making ends meet was a central theme, strengthened in this article by the addition of childcare, which is an extremely taxing addition.  Rangel stressed how big of a relief it was when she was able to find childcare for her child, since it was such a problem for her to be a student, work, and provide childcare on her own.  All of the elements of her life were precariously balanced, and if one thing fell, she would have lost her education, which was one of her main life goals.  The article really put into perspective the struggle to stay out of poverty, and how difficult it is to maintain an education while caring for a child and working at the same time.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Response to Mink: Welfare and Microfinance

After reading Mink's paper on the welfare system and the extreme disadvantages it creates for single parents who would like to make the choice to raise their children and work in the home rather than work out of the home, I googled "welfare and single mothers." I came across this article which discusses the plight of poor single mothers, and the Image, Story, Emotion, Action technique used by most chairty/entrepreneurial organizations to attract and direct investors. I reflected on the societal image that has been ingrained in us, directing our perception of single mothers. The traditional life track encouraged by multiple media outlets--receive an education, find a man, get married and start a family--which also perpetuates traditional gender role stereotypes makes it very difficult to encourage enough emotion and sympathy around the single mother story.  Compound single motherhood with the fact that the parent wants to work primarily within the home, and donors are unlikely to turn their emotion into action.  As Mink points out, caregiving work is undervalued in our society, as our focus is primarily on wages earned and economic advancements. Success and wealth are viewed as monetary accumulation rather than the benefits from being part of a wholesome, happy, cared-for family.  As Johnson and Critenden point out in defining patriarchy and work-place environments, the nurturing qualities that women traditionally possess are not valued as strong, positive qualities that belong in the job market.  The reluctance of companies to invest in female employees who will most likely elect to take some time off, to devote themselves to family life, perfectly demonstrates this.  In today's Brown Bag, an anecdote was shared about one professor's job search experience. She attended an employment conference in her field immediately following the completion of her PhD program and brought her husband, 2 year old daughter, and newborn baby with her. Her family had to wait, almost locked up in their hotel room, so that at any available moment between each interview, this professor could frantically sprint upstairs to breastfeed, to prevent unwanted leaking, and then run back down.  She ran into a male colleague of hers at the conference, who was carrying his newborn baby with him, and attending interviews with the child. When he asked why she did not have her baby with her, she replied that she did but that she didn't want to have the baby with her at the conference because of how it would negatively affect her changes for employment. As Critenden explained, employers are wary of hiring mothers who may not be able to put in their best effort because of being pulled in so many directions. The male colleague responded to this by saying something along the lines of, "I am having so much success with my baby at the conference! Everyone seems to want to talk to me because of having her here!" This frustrating double standard amongst male and female parents seeking employment is an extension of the frustration faced by single, stay-at-home parents, who cannot seek welfare without having a wage-paying job. With all matters so contingent on wage, it is clear that advancement is only seen as domination, being better-than, instead of self improvement, moral goodness, sharing of values, etc.

Summary of Mink, Hakim-Dyce, and Rangel


Mink: Gwendolyn Mink worked on welfare issues. During the mid-nineties, she was on a feminist organization that was against punitive welfare reform. They stated, “a war against poor women is a war against all women”, believing that if it affected a small group of women, it reflected upon women as a whole (56). She expresses disappointment that other feminists did not support their efforts. She claims that the Personal Responsibility Act (the welfare reform act) places single mothers on another level compared to others. She says, “Poor single mothers are the only people in America forced by law to work outside the home” (58). She says that because being a stay at home mother is unpaid; if the woman is not married, she must work outside the home in order to make a living. She views welfare not as a means of dependence but as “insurance for the rights that compromise independence” (59).
Hakim-Dyce: In this piece, the author starts by explaining where she was: the living room of a woman by the name of Miss Sweet. She then tells the reader the circumstances that brought her to this place. She was an outspoken woman who had a history of activism. As an African American woman, she saw that sexism and racism overlapped and used this in her time of exploring her identity. She transferred from her original university and went back to New York City. She struggle with paying for rent and other bills. She sent out numerous resumes and applications to jobs, but was often faced with jobs that she was not experienced for, had too low of pay to survive, or whose hours conflicted with her school schedule. She became depressed from her situation. After some conversations with friends about alternative jobs for women, she came to the decision to try to become a go-go dancer for a while. She was at the apartment of Miss Sweet and was about ready to have a formal audition. She started feeling guilty, put off the audition, and avoided Miss Sweet’s phone calls. She felt that it would be too dehumanizing and had mixed feelings, which lead to her not pursuing go-go dancing. However, she also had the benefit of getting a job offer right before she was going to audition. Hakim-Dyce explains that through her experience she know understands how women turn to these types of jobs. Jobs that are often referred to in jest about being a last resort. Unfortunately, to some women, it becomes the only option.

Rangel:  Maria Cristina Rangel is a woman who was receiving welfare during her college years and the years following. She explains that she started at Smith College with one child and another on the way. She faced the obstacles of trying to go to school and trying to work and trying to raise two children. She explains that recipients of the aid that she was receiving had to enroll in training of some kind, but that going to school as an undergraduate did not count if they also wanted to receive childcare subsidies. In many of the cases that Rangel describes, it is an either or situation to receive funding and many times the requirements would without the recipients’ knowledge. She states that many of the women who do get off (or no longer qualify for) welfare still live in poverty. 

Monday, March 19, 2012

Re: Critenden's "Mommy Tax"


In Critenden’s “The Mommy Tax”, it becomes apparent that women who decide to have children are more likely to suffer from a wage gap than those who remain childless and pursue their career. Critenden notes that this wage gap between childbearing women and childless women is surprisingly larger than the wage gap between men and women.  Furthermore, women in the US are much more susceptible to this disparity compared to women in other countries.  In Sweden, for example, a woman gets a years worth of full pay after having a child, shorter hours until the child reaches primary school, and a stipend from the government to pay for child-care expenses (Critenden 108).  These benefits for women in Sweden significantly reduce the “mommy tax” and give women more freedom to have children if they so please.  In America, on the other hand, these benefits are pretty much unheard of, raising the “mommy tax” for any woman who decides to have children.  Thus, more women in America are not having kids or are having fewer. 

What is interesting to note though is that many women in America want to have kids and are disappointed if they don’t, which suggests that there are other factors surrounding women, the workplace, and the family.  Many women are probably not too concerned about the “mommy tax” at first because there is an expectation that regardless of their career path, they will eventually get married and start a family of their own.  However, there seems to be a disconnect between the changing times and the expectations of women.  Women are no longer settling down as young as they used to, yet they still feel pressured to settle down at a relatively young age.  I think that the workplace can be held somewhat responsible for these pressures because as Critenden points out, there are very few benefits for childbearing women in the workplace so having kids later in the midst of a more serious career is not ideal.  Critenden uses Susan Pedersen as an example of the “be a man” mentality because Pederson decision to hold of childbearing until a later age when her lifetime earnings were higher worked for her, but it does not work for every women.  Many women fear that waiting will reduce their chances of being able to have a child and they don’t want to risk that by “being a man” like Pedersen until they are forty.  The workplace is in part defining what success means for a women while putting restrictions on women at the same time.  The patriarchal nature of the workplace screams the nuclear family, but does nothing for women to actually support that family.  Success for many women has come to mean a relatively balanced life, consisting of a good family and a decent career.  If a woman’s career were too taxing on family life, she would probably choose her family over her career to avoid the disappointment many women are facing—a compromise that men hardly ever have to make.  

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Response to Ehrenreich

I found parts of Ehrenreich's article "Maid to Order" interesting. My experience with maids and house-cleaners is extremely limited. In my area of South Dakota, few people hire someone else to clean for them. That being said, I do remember one woman in my town who supplemented her income by being an independent maid. I didn't realize some of the socioeconomic factors that are associated with being a maid. I thought of it as a career and not a temporary job to do for a short time until a better one comes along. I am interested in knowing if there are any changes in the last decade in the amount of maids of color. They were a majority in 1998, and I would guess that those numbers would have increased. I am thinking that the number of maids of color is related to the lack of options for other occupations. Something that I found disturbing in the article is that the company that she worked for didn't seem to care about actually cleaning their houses, rather they just wanted to give the impression that it was clean. I would be extremely disheartened to learn that I was paying for services that weren't actually rendered. I thought about this part of the article to speak in large part for women's equality with men. It became apparent that there were disparities (dirty) and so some people worked together to reach a greater equality (clean). In actuality, the problems are partially taken care of and not actually fixed. One example of this is the the wage disparity between men and women, as discussed in Crittenden's article. 

Maids and Other Women in the Labor Market


            I found both the Ehrenreich and Crittenden articles very interesting.  Recently, I read Ehrenreich’s book Nickel and Dimed for a class, which details an experiment that she undertook to try to earn a living working in unskilled labor jobs for a year, only to find that it was really nearly impossible to earn a living under the conditions she found.  She worked in three different locations around the US, taking different positions at each, such as a waitress, house cleaner, or employee of Wal-Mart.  While she had varying amount of success in each, her conclusion was that working at minimum wage did not produce very livable conditions.  Regardless, her views on maid services and the gender division of housework were very interesting.  One quote that particularly stood out to me was “The micro-defeat of feminism in the household opened a new door for women, only this time it was the servants door.”  I never really had considered the employment of a cleaning service or a maid to be the result of fighting between married partners, but rather a means of convenience.  Especially in households where both the husband and wife work, it is often worth the cost of a cleaning service so that members of the family can come home to a clean house without the large time investment required to keep it clean.  I find it sad that something so simple as cleaning can be the reason for a marriage to end, so several of the ideas along those lines, such as the fact that marriage counselors recommend it often, surprised me greatly.
            In Gender and the Economy with Grapard, I spend a lot of time talking about the “Mommy Tax.”  There are many issues that Crittenden touches upon which show the problems in our working society.  The idea of lost wages from having a baby is one thing, but the inability to return to the marketplace is completely different.  Women who exit the labor market in order to have a baby and then care for the child have severe difficulty returning to a job that is anywhere close to the same track that they were on prior to pregnancy.  Additionally, in many cases, younger women are discriminated against because it is assumed that they will leave their jobs to have kids, leaving the company with a job to fill down the road.  Some countries have done a better job addressing these concerns, and the US needs to be next to help women have fair treatment within the labor market.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Summary of Critenden and Ehrenreich

Critenden claims in her article that motherhood is currently the single greatest obstacle women face in their quest for employment and wage equality. The wage gap between mothers and non-mothers under the age of 35 is much more significant than that between males and females in that same age gap, demonstrating the glaring employment discrimination and lack of parental support programs provided by the government. The "mommy tax," as she calls it accumulates from lost wages, additions to pension plans, bonuses, management positions, etc. and can be very steep, with some even pushing families in the lower income brackets pre-children into a state of poverty. This large sacrifice, economically, is not usually realized until many years after the child is born and the difficulties of reentering the work force become clear. The author used Daley, an employee of Aetna Life and Casualty, as an example of the mom-discrimination of modern times. Her requests for a compressed work week were denied and she was subsequently fired due to "poor performance." When she sued her company for wrongful firing, the judge and jury agreed with her firm, claiming she was "overextended," that no woman could be a full-time mother and fully functional employee.  Many studies on the wage gap between men and women have presented misleading results, simply using women with traditionally-male work habits as their representative female sample, thereby showing an improvement in the gender wage gap. Reasons behind the difference in mother/non-mother pay have been hypothesized: lack of paid maternity leave, the heavy penalization of prolonged time off, a lack of part-time employees wage rights, and the popularity of owning a small businesses for mothers because of the schedule flexibility. Prolonged interruption in career paths at any point,  have been found to seriously hinder advancement through the management roles.  These suggested reasons can be boiled down to one  glaring problem in the capitalist system, and that is that nurturing skills are seriously undervalued. Young women are convinced to postpone family responsibilities as long as possible, to ensure career advancement and earning improvements. Often, women begin to settle down only to realize that they waited too long biologically, or that having children later in life is not their desired life path.  In order to improve this wage gap and support mothers and parents, the US needs to adopt welfare programs similar to France's programs for families and mothers  and US veteran programs. Critenden claims that the government, employees, and/or husbands need to take a more active role and thus share the long term costs of child birth.

An issue that I had with Critenden's piece is regarding her claim that the mommy tax is a "high price to pay for the right thing to do." While I think it is fair to reflect on the economic costs of motherhood, she does not have the ability to objectively state which choice is best in terms of raising a child; there is a wide variety of family dynamics and it is highly unlikely that the right thing to do in all cases is homogenous. Additionally, she adds that taking time off to raise a child adds to the general good by adding another productive person to the nation. This then claims that not taking off work to raise a child does not result in a productive human addition to society and that a child's time spent interacting with one's stay-at-home parents rather than working parents is correlated with productivity. I don't think these assumptions are possible to make or appropriate given the material she's utilizing for this article. She also states that the mommy tax is highest for high-income, well educated individuals and lowest for poorly educated people who have less income to lose. She shows a prejudice in this statement regarding the correlation between education and income, assuming that those who are poorly educated are in the lower income bracket and are not as harmed by the mother discrimination. She did not seem to consider that, regardless of education, those in the lowest income bracket may be on the verge of losing access to basic necessities, and that a loss in income, even a small one, could push them past a threshold point and into a destitute state. This loss may then be greater than the larger loss if income experienced by those in the higher-income bracket.

Ehrenreich touches on a similar prejudice in her essay, addressing the divide created with an increase in outsourcing housekeeping between the laborers and the employers.  The issue with the "maid" dynamic is not necessarily the work that is being done but the power relations that are created. She states that while one person can be a arrogant or indifferent, the other must work to mitigate such behavior; the former role is traditionally maintained by males while the latter is by females. The idea of a cleaning lady has been introduced as a marriage-saving technique, a way to increase the peacefulness in the home. The process of hiring and paying an independently contracted cleaning lady is relatively shady business, however, with only 10% of households reporting monetary exchanges to the IRS. These workers are most often associated with minority communities, and receive no health benefits, job security, or retirement benefits. In recent years, there has been a rise in corporate cleaning services who provide their workers with benefits and vacation time. Services, rather than a specific person, are hired, and the relationship between the specific workers and the homeowner remains somewhat anonymous. This has helped to reduce the odd interactions that often develop between maids and their employers, as the employee often fills a friendship role but can often deteriorate to more of a master/parent/instructor type of relationship. The atmosphere in this new cleaning environment is significantly more cut-throat, with employees receiving pay cuts, no tips, no breaks, and being forced to operate under a strictly choreographed, factory-like routine.

The increase in excess income has corresponded with an unmanageability of homes as they're continually upgraded. Unfortunately, the hiring of help means that people are separated from the suffering their actions, purchasing decisions, and rapidly-paced lifestyle cause. Children are presented with a class, employment, and wage hierarchy correlated with minority status from a very young age, and the resulting discrimination becomes ingrained.  Ehrenreich's suggestion is that the work being done, the exhanges being made, the relationships being created need to become more transparent and visible to the public so that a connection can be reforged between actions and their consequences. This is very important if environmental and sustainability intiatives are going to be effective in reducing the rapid destruction of our planet that is taking place. Additionally the severe environmental degradation that occurs because of a nonchalance about pollution, extraction, and production efforts and the resulting serious health effects most often experienced by marginalized populations can be mitigated if politicians, elite income groups, and general decision and culture makers become more transparent and more receptive to the variety of their constituents.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Sex at Dawn Summary


Of all the readings from the semester so far, the two selected chapters from ­­­­Sex at Dawn were easily among the most interesting for me.  The first chapter discusses the standard narrative of human sexual evolution, which is the most commonly accepted theory for human sexual evolution.  The authors begin by laying out that humans are extremely sexual creatures, and that both sexes “certainly find pleasure” in sex, even though our biological sexes mean that we look for different things in sex and relationships (47).  The chapter addresses initially the differences between males and females when it comes to sexual libido, as well as the reasons behind sexual relations for each sex.  The authors then offer the four “major areas of research that incorporate the most widely accepted assumptions” about the standard narrative (48), which are: the relatively weak female libido, male parental investment, sexual jealousy and paternity certainty, and extended receptivity and concealed (or cryptic) ovulation.
            However, before getting into these four main topics for the chapter, Rayn and Jetha outline the economics behind sex for both men and women.  They suggest that the old logic of standard evolutionary theory is based on the idea that “leaving a genetic legacy is our sole purpose in life” (50).  The focus then turns to male and female roles in society.  Historically and psychologically, men have provided goods and services in exchange for “consistent sexual access” to one female (49).  They then look at the idea of a “return on investment,” which basically means that each parent wants their offspring to live and succeed, but the inputs depend on the sex.  For men, it is far easier for them to want to sleep with a lot of women, while remaining close to one to ensure that no other men jeopardize their “investment.”  For women, they look for the right man who will stay with them, provide the necessary things to survive, and help with fatherly tasks during childhood.  Essentially, Rayn and Jetha say that women exchange their sexual services for access to resources from men.
            From here, the chapter moves into the four main points, starting with the fact that women have a significantly lesser libido when compared to men.  Many studies have reportedly been done that suggest women are far less inclined to jump into bed as readily as men.  The takeaway from the section is that women are far less inclined to engage in casual sex.  Secondly, the chapter focuses on male parental investment, which basically says that men have an invested role in the success of their offspring, once they find a woman that they “lay claim to” (50).  However, this idea also encompasses the idea that women are more interested in quality over quantity when it comes to sex partners, due to the high level of female investment.  Most interestingly, theorists find that the levels of male parental investment are much higher than with other primates.  This apparently leads to both men and women competing for the other gender’s investment in sexual selection, which is rare.
            The second to last section of the chapter concerns the “battle” between the sexes, based on their best “economic” actions regarding sex and contributing to the gender pool, while also ensuring the best for their offspring, which is looks to the different types of jealously each sex feels with their partners.  Men tend to feel more anxious about sexual infidelity, while women tend to fear emotional infidelity, which is very interesting to me in particular.    Women are more worried about the emotional stability of the relationship, because according to standard narrative, it is the tie that keeps the man of her life providing her with the things she needs.  Men, on the other hand, worry about sexual infidelity, because it can mean that they are providing for a child that is not their own, which would be a huge waste of investment.  The authors then lay out the ideal goals for men and women.  Men, following this mixed strategy model, would ideally get a woman pregnant, and continue to have as much casual sex as possible on the side while providing for the original woman and ensuring she doesn’t sleep around.  Women, on the other hand, would attempt to extract a long-term commitment from a man to provide from her, but then sneak out and sleep with other more sexually desirable men on the side. The chapter concludes with a discussion concerning the fact that women are basically the only mammals that don’t have an obvious sign showing when they are the most fertile.  There are two theories that suggest why this is, but they don’t agree on much.  One believes it is to keep men interested and away from other partners due to the chance that she could always be the most fertile, while the other theory suggests it is to confuse men such that women could sleep with several men to protect her wellbeing.  Either way, the chapter concludes by saying that humans are extremely sexual creatures, and that the standard narrative suggests that human sexual history is marked by deceit and confusion.
            The second chapter made a little bit less sense than me.  From the title, it would appear that the chapter should debunk the standard narrative, yet in my opinion, it does a poor job.  Rayn and Jetha look to a few select cultures that seem to operate in a different way than ours or any other patriarchal society.  First, they look at the Mosuo, a tribe in China whose sexual history is markedly different than any other.  The women reach maturity at 13, which allows them their own room to which any other male can come on a given night, and the details are not spread later.  Any offspring are cared for by the adults of the entire culture, rather than forming the traditional families.  In some cases, individuals have sex with hundreds of individuals, and they do not look on this number with pride or shame in any sense.  The chapter also looks to another culture in which neither sex seems to dominate, but instead “males and females complement one another” (133).  Finally, the chapter ends with a discussion on monogamy, and concludes by saying that it is a purely social construct and that no other animal is absolutely monogamous, even though other species have the illusion of being monogamous for certain periods of time.  The human understanding of monogamy does not exist elsewhere, and neither do socially constructed things such as “marriage,” “mating,” and “love” (137).

Sex at Dawn and Global Rankings of Women


The chapters in Sex at Dawn, homosexuality was not discussed. To generalize about male and female sexuality but to ignore sections of the population is problematic. I understand the authors to be critical of the commonly held beliefs of the past. The belief  that I find personally troubling is that women have sex for things. I know that our culture tells men that they should pay for women. This doesn’t mean prostitution or slavery. Men are the ones who are supposed to pay for the big things. They are the ones who are supposed to take care of women and financially support them. Obviously not everyone agrees with this. Many women that I know don’t want men to pay for them. Some people will argue that men should just be the ones that pay because they earn more money or that is just how life is. In this case, women don’t necessarily have to pay the men back. However, there is the growing cultural norm that if a man pays, a woman should “return the favor” sexually.  I do not agree with the idea that men can pay for women’s fidelity. To me, this seems like it takes away the concept of free will and the awareness of one’s actions.
We like to think that the United States is the best place to live. In many cases this is true, but this article points out that in the case of women’s rights and equality, the US is not always the top. The categories are things like best place to earn money, to live long, and for the right to choose. Many of the places that top the list are surprising and not where one would normally expect. For example, the best place to be a politician is Rwanda. This list highlights some of the global inequalities between men and women. I think that by looking at what works in some countries we will see that there are alternatives to our current stance. For instance, Rwanda has a higher proportion of female politicians than the US. They have a minimum number of women who must be in the legislature. I don't think that mandating a certain number or percentage would work well in the US, but it gives hope to the possibility to increase the number that we currently have. 

Re: Sex at Dawn and Limbaugh Article



In Chapter Three of Sex at Dawn, “A Closer Look at the Standard Narrative of Human Sexual Evolution”, there are some pretty bold theories surrounding the nature of human sexuality that are a bit off-putting to read as a female, and most likely, as a male too.  The chapter begins by stating that standard narratives are wrong in stating that men and women are liars, whores and cheats, but that humans are without a doubt, sexual beings.  It is a relief to hear in the first paragraph that the authors are not in favor of the theories they discuss, but the chapter makes me question whether or not there actually is some truth to those standard narratives.  The basic principles that the standard narratives offer suggest that life is a game and that males and females have a different stake and strategy in that game.  Men have a "male parental investment", or MPI, by which they exchanges goods and services for exclusivity with women worthy enough to reproduce their offspring.  Women, on the other hand, are deemed as having no libido and are therefore likened to prostitutes by accepting the goods and services for sex.  Furthermore, these standard narratives suggests that men are more concerned with their partners sexual infidelity because they fear the possibility of their partner getting pregnant by another man, while woman are more concerned with their partners emotional infidelity because they don’t want to lose the good and services he provides altogether.  In the end, neither the male nor female is happy when they realize that the love they once proclaimed for each other is all twisted game with a genetic agenda.  The tone of the chapter seems to mock these outdated narratives, but it is not clear to what extent.  It ends on a very cynical note and you are left wondering what to make of these narratives and what narratives the authors would replace these with. 

I found this Huffington Post article discussing the comments made by Rush Limbaugh interesting in the context of this chapter and our last class discussion because it focuses on the issue surrounding both male and female sexuality.  Aside from the fact that using the word “slut” is problematic, it addresses the fact that most couples, regardless of their background, are uncomfortable or dissatisfied with sex because of the double-edged sword associated with it.  In our society, sex becomes both a shameful and fearful act through exploitation and regulation.  The Rush Limbaugh criticism is fairly centered around the war on women, but as this article suggests, perhaps criticism should look beyond Rush Limbaugh to see society as a whole in relation to the war on sexuality.  Going back to chapter, it could be through this lens that a whole new narrative of sexuality overwrites the standard narrative I found so off-putting.      

Monday, March 5, 2012

Relationship between Justice and Rights

Upon reading Ettelbrick's response to gay marriage rights and the relative importance and power granted to those in the sanctity of marriage, I began reflecting on the notion of Environmental Justice.  Ettelbrick explains that while the "right" to marry may be granted to gay men and lesbians, that does not entail that society grant gays the privileges and respect held by married heterosexual couples. The separation of rights and justice is also an overarching concern of minority groups, marginalized because of socio-economic status, gender, or race, as they face the effects of environmental degradation.  Zoning and the"Not In My Backyard" phenomenon results in the placement of environmentally hazardous processes and materials in low income or often predominantly African-American areas consisting mostly of women. Additionally, low-income housing is often built on land that was previously polluted and deemed to be "appropriate" for construction without proper analysis and enforcement. In class, we studied many examples of neighborhoods first becoming aware of their unjust exposure to toxic pollutants because of the massive amount of miscarriages occurring. Because of the ways toxins affected the body, women were most often the first ones to notice, because of increases in breast cancer rates, noticing skin rashes on children, and having difficulty getting pregnant and/or keeping the fetus alive.  These affected groups often respond by demanding representation amongst their local leaders and access to the political system.  Local and state government officials are pressured by these grassroots groups to visit the locations in question and view degradation and health impacts first hand. In many cases, local groups are granted access to the political system as their statements and desires are heard by those with decision-making power. However this is a huge disconnect between being granted the right to an audience with a politician and having the environmental justice, defined as the "meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies" (http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/).  Attempts to access to actually influence decisions about their land and exposure have been mostly unsuccessful, with minor wins consisting of gaining the support of politically weak local leaders. 


Access to the legal system and the power to effect change in order to coordinate justice and rights discourse is vital to minority movements, including the gay rights movement, the women's movement, and  the environmental justice movement.  Justice is not met by granting a handful of rights by civil unions. It is only achieved when gay men and lesbian women no longer feel the need to be married to follow the status quo of society but can still be granted equal rights by engaging in partnerships rather than marriages. In the case that a couple desires to be married, they should be given federal rights to do so and should not feel shamed for somehow deserting the justice fight by engaging in marriage. 

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Summary: Ettelbrick & FAQ


In “Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation”, Paula Ettelbrick discusses the institution of marriage in relationship to the gay and lesbian community.  As a t-shirt that Ettelbrick once read, “marriage is a great institution, if you like living in institutions,” (Ettelbrick 305).  According to Ettelbrick, marriage is a form of self-affirmation in which one becomes a powerful insider, casting every other unmarried individual as a weak outsider.  It is a state regulated two-tier patriarchal system that makes gay and lesbian couples unimportant and invisible.  In turn, it relegates them to a lower status on the social ladder while those who are married move up the social ladder.  Despite popular belief, however, Ettelbrick notes that giving gays and lesbians the right to marry does not solve the problem of justice.  For justice to be achieved, the gay and lesbian community must be accepted in a society that challenges the current power imbalances.  By just associating marriage with rights, gays and lesbians who choose not to marry are at risk of being even more ostracized than before.  Ettelbrick believes that the domestic partnership movement is important because it affirms non-marital relationships and offers some, although not many, protections. 

What’s interesting about Ettelbrick’s piece is that she is writing in 1989.  Twenty-three years later, we are dealing with these same issues and many of us are convinced that marriage is in fact the answer.   The campaigns for same-sex marriage obviously have a lot of worth in our society, but Ettelbrick’s piece makes me wonder whether or not justice would be achieved if every state made it legal.  There would most likely still be the constraints that Ettelbrick discusses and patriarchal order would most likely prevail.  It is hard to imagine our society defined by such a rigid power structure being completely altered by extending the institution of marriage to all couples.  In a way, it seems like an attempt to curb liberation movements and an achievement to fall back on when those movements claim there hasn’t been much progress for gay and lesbian communities.  Ettelbrick is right that we can be deluded by the idea of marriage and that broader goals for liberation must be made if we want to see proactive change. 

The “Same Sex Marriage FAQ”, which can be found on the Human Rights Campaign website, answers questions regarding the differences between same sex marriage and civil unions.  According to the FAQ, same sex couples want to marry for a variety of reasons: love, safety nets for children, and the protections given to heterosexual marriages.  Some of these protections deal with taxes, hospital visitation rights, health insurance, social security benefits, immigration rights, and pensions, among many others.  While civil unions offer some protections, they are generally “second class” and not recognized across state borders.  If you were to be given civil unions in Vermont, for example, you may not be protected in other states or by the federal government.  Furthermore, religious institutions are not required to recognize these civil unions or perform any kind of ceremony.  What the FAQ makes apparent is that civil unions are both separate and unequal, and are not held at the same standard as marriages.  

Response to Ettelbrick

Before reading this article, I hadn't heard of a member of the LGBTQ community argue against same-sex marriage. I see Ettelbrick's argument to be broader. I understand that she wants equality, but that true equality won't be reached by getting the okay from the government to get married. She is saying that marriage would make the community more assimilated. A sort of, you're okay as long as you mimic what we do. I see her point, but I think that it falls down to what you make it. A couple could be married but still not conform in other ways. Her second main objection to same-sex marriage, is more of an argument against marriage in general. It tries to deem relationships as traditional and normal. There becomes a divide between married couples and unmarried couples. 

I'll admit that I have a jaded view on marriage. I know more people that have been divorced than those who have been married to just a single person. It has gotten to the point where marriage is a twisted sort of idea. It is either a social contract or it is for love. I can't really speak to the marriage for love part. I will say that for the marriage as a contract, I have been warned about marriage. I have been told that if I were to get married that I should have a separate bank account, just in case, I should never marry for a green card, and if I were to get divorced, I should have a female attorney. Because of these things, I tend to view marriage as a contract and not as a love thing. I think it is nice if a child is raised by a married couple, but as someone who had divorced parents, I don't think it is necessary. I think it is more important to financially and emotionally support the child, and that certainly can be done without a marriage certificate. I do agree with  the idea that marriage privileges should be extended to non-married couples, but I understand the logistical challenges that such a transition would face.  

Response to Ettelbrick


The Ettelbrick article and the same sex marriage FAQs offered differing opinions on the issue of same sex marriages.  The FAQs were mostly written in the typical same sex rhetoric that crops up in the news or media, and was not very new to me.  While reading through it, it is easy to understand why those who have same sex partners are upset about the lack of equality surrounding marriage.  There are far more rights not afforded to those in same sex partnerships than those who live in the typical heterosexual marriage.  Regarding the differences between a civil union and a marriage, the article was very clear that there really is no way that they are comparable.  The FAQs point to more than 1000 federal benefits and protections offered to those in a legal marriage that makes it outstandingly obvious that a civil union is not enough.  However, I was very surprised by Ettelbrick’s article, although I can understand her point.  She argues that even if the laws regarding same sex marriage were changed overnight, it wouldn’t drastically help out those who are pursuing equal rights.  Her thought is that if gay and lesbian partners are granted legal marriage, then they will lose momentum and their fight for rights will have been in vain.  Ettelbrick is vehemently against assimilation into the culture of those in heterosexual partnerships.  She believes there is a “gay identity and culture” that would be violated and destroyed upon the change allowing same sex marriage (Ettelbrick, 306).
            While I understand where Ettelbrick is coming from, I don’t think that her argument is right.  She recognizes that there are certain gains that would come from the recognition of same sex marriages, but she doesn’t think that they are worth the change due to the detriment it will do to the same sex movement.  In my opinion, the change to allowing same sex marriage would act as a stepping stone to greater rights, not the end of the movement, as she claims.  Ettelbrick also believes that the system needs to change, to not make marriage so powerful in the wording of laws, the granting of insurance, or any other distinction based on legal partnerships.  In her mind, the real issue is that marriage has too much influence on society.  She believes that acceptance of same sex couples will never be complete until they can change society so that the traditional sense of marriage is no longer.  I disagree with Ettelbrick on this point.  I think it is important to have marriage be a powerful institution in our country.  It provides stability, which is extremely beneficial to the raising of children, while also helping preserve the familial unit, which I view as important.  I think she should consider the ability for same sex marriages to occur as a first step on a path to more rights, rather than a pothole on that same path.  While I don’t know for sure, I would have to think that she must be in the minority with her viewpoint.