Sunday, November 8, 2009
Blog 17
Blog 16
Blog 15
Blog 14
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Blog 13
When I think of the image of prison guards I immediately think of the Stanford Prison Experiment. The guards became abusive, finding any way to brutally keep the inmates in place. This has been the belief of people. Because inmates are believed to be so anarchistic, prison guards are perceived to be burly pillars of strength that know the necessary steps to keep order. If this description hasn’t already evoked the image of a man it should. Men are thought to be the ones suitable for prison work and it’s always been thought of as a man’s job. A woman in this position would probably resemble some manly characteristics. She would also more likely be dispatched in an area where she has less or no contact with the inmates. She probably is also expected to rely on the male prison guards for the heavy backup force if needed. Originally women officers were thought of as “small-minded, intoxicated with their own power, vulgar, and occasionally cruel.” (p 53)
Male officers in female prisons can evoke either an officer and enforcer or someone who abuses his power for sex. Reports discussed in Chapter Two of Britton discuss pregnancies due to male officers and other inmates.
A male officer in a male prison is thought of as a custodial enforcer. While it is known that there can be misuse of powers, they are thought of differently to a degree. Men are thought to be more rational and have the skill set better adapted to a potentially violent situation in a prison.
Blog 12
I believe that gender segregation exists because of widespread long-held social beliefs. Not only have women long been described as the “fairer sex” but they’ve been expected to uphold all the traits a fairer sex would have. This would include lesser physical strength, a weakened mental ability, and less of a desire to put herself in harm’s way. This lack of desire for harm would also mean that men would be there to protect her should she be in trouble. In addition to that, women still hold the majority of the responsibility in child-rearing. As Britton states that women and men find the same job characteristics appealing, but women more often have to make trade-offs to balance family and work (p. 8).
When it comes to occupations, women’s and men’s jobs have been clearly defined for a long time. Women tend to obtain the job that rely more on nurturing and have more flexible scheduling. This is considered consistent with a woman’s nature and allows her to balance family life as well. Rather than be a CEO, a woman is more likely to be that CEO’s secretary, because it relies more on taking care of her boss. She also has less responsibility and therefore will not have interference with family life on the same level a CEO would.
It isn’t just social factors that influence gender segregation in jobs. Organizations have various forms of segregation, such as the laws for equal pay and overtime eligibility, both of which only benefit men in the long run. In addition to that, there is the Dothard vs. Rawlinson case. At first glance it appears to be a safety guideline, but when looking deeper it really only excludes women. A better guideline would’ve been something like a strength test. She qualified for everything except height and weight.
When women enter male-dominated fields they not only are expanding their horizons for potential careers, they are helping society move closer to gender equality. It also opens the door for those women who are purely career-driven to more easily move up the ranks to positions where a personal life would not survive. Men benefit, too, because they can see new approaches to their work and discover new perspectives that weren’t previously introduced. Men are already welcomed into most women’s professions such as nursing.