Month: November 2019

At the beginning of Part 1 of the videos, a Lucretia Mott made an impression on me: “Not every man is a tyrant, but the law gives every man the right of tyranny.” It was interesting way to look at the problem, and I had never looked at it this way before. However, following the theme of the past few classes, my view of  the women’s rights movement completely changed. While we had been taught that abolitionism and women’s rights went hand in hand in high school, we never discussed how the women’s rights movement turned racist. Even though the thought process of the shift towards racism was completely morally wrong, one could see how the movement went down that path. Before the Civil War, the women’s rights movement and abolitionism were fighting for the same rights, so it made sense for them to team up and fight for freedom together. After the end of the war, though, black men were given the rights that both groups fought for. It seems like the shift towards racism was almost out of jealousy, and the way this racism manifested itself was upsetting, to say the least. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one of the most respected women in the fight for women’s suffrage, referred to African-Americans by using racial epithets, yet she is still held in high regard in history classes across America.

5 Comments

An important statement in the first documentary was said when one lady was mentioning her time during freshmen year in college. It stated that women were given the right to vote and at first I did not see anything wrong with this statement but then she began to explain how women fought for their rights and by doing so they earned the right to vote. Also during the documentary, it mentions 2 famous women, Anthony and Stanton, and they were in London to advocate for the slavery movement but weren’t granted an entrance. The reason for not being allowed in was the fact that they were women, and this kick started the Women Rights Movement. 

There is a big argument that strikes my attention and that is how would our world be different if women lead instead of men. I think our world wouldn’t be much different. In my opinion I think that things would be more restrictive and laws would be a lot more implemented because thats how women perform jobs. I also think that whatever they would tell their followers would for the most part get accomplished and there would be as much finagling. Men today definitely try to find loopholes in the system and are able to get past certain rules. 

2 Comments

In the article Would Women Lead Differently, it says “women’s leadership has been linked with enhancing world peace, reducing corruption, and improving opportunities for the downtrodden”(Schein 162). This quote relates to the women’s fight for equality within the other readings and how women nationwide came together to solve inequality in order to dissolve the inferiority in comparison to black men. Oftentimes, we see women lead social movements and protests against or supporting various topics that are of great social and political importance.

I liked how the article Ways Women Lead dove into the idea that women utilize different strength’s within themselves in order to be successful as leaders instead of dissecting and mimicking the methods of male leadership. Having a different style of leadership implements a fresh perspective and can create an impact on the amount of success a group can have. I found it interesting when the article described the male form of leadership as transactional and the woman form as transformational. Which makes sense when you think about marches led by women and how it boosts the morale of the group as a whole as well as allowing members to feel like they have power to make a substantial impact in what they believe in.

3 Comments

I had learned somewhat in previous classes about the similarities and differences of the Women’s rights movement with the Civil Rights movement, but the videos did a good job harboring home the idea that the Women’s rights movement was a white women’s movement. Just like all of the other myths that we have been busting in class, the women’s rights movement is celebrated for its work to make all women equal. In reality, white women gained momentum to rise up because they saw black men doing the same thing, and decided that they could not stand being considered inferior to black men by law.

It is so absurd that such an important social movement like women’s rights grew out a fear of race, and that we are okay with dismissing that knowledge today in its celebration. Additionally, while the women’s rights movement and civil rights movements were both actively engaged in the same goal, they were so divided. The whole idea that the women’s movement gained the success that it did because the women in lead were white relates to our conversations about how it is really hard to make changes if you do not have certain privileges, which explains why our “great leaders” in history tend to be white, and most are male.

5 Comments

I completely disagree with it, but I understand why white women at the time felt they had the unquestionable right to vote over black men.  They had looked down upon black people for so long and now they had more citizenship than them. That was just the mindset back then. However, that absolutely does not make it right or excuse the fact the the women’s suffrage movement turned racist when they couldn’t get anything done just by preaching that women are equal to men no matter the color of their skin. As a woman and a black one at that, it’s disappointing to learn that on the path to getting equal rights for our gender, it had to become so disrespectful. One argument they mentioned in the first video was that they needed “educated white women to make up for the uneducated black vote”. This argument is not only extremely ignorant and racist, but it also turns it from being a movement for women’s rights into a movement for exclusively white women’s rights. So knowing this makes it hard to have any respect for those women who were brave enough to speak out for women because of how low they went just to gain a bigger voice during the movement.

4 Comments

The videos did a great job explaining the Women’s Suffrage Movement in multiple facets. I like that it pointed out the difference between struggles among women of color as well as the many contributions to women’s rights from people of color. The video makes an amazing point that “‘not every man is a tyrant but the law grants every man the right to tyranny.” Our country is so deeply rooted in patriarchy because of how the laws were (ARE) written. It was very extremely ingrained into the customs of our culture that white men make all decisions regarding anyone and anything.

Women were not “given the vote”, they fought for this right and earned it. This goes to explain how important it is for minorities and marginalized groups to have a seat at the table. While presidents were traveling trying to spread democracy, rich white men were the only people who truly have this right. Now today decades later, there are still disparities between gender, race, economic standing and more. In order to truly be democratic, we must create a culture that wants to hear from everyone, not just those willing to destroy and die for something that should be open to all.

5 Comments

The two video clips provided a good summary of the women’s movement but also addressed how they split from the civil rights movement. I liked how it laid a groundwork in which to understand the other two articles because I was a little confused about the intersection of civil rights movements and women’s movements. Another thing I took from the video was that the women’s movement was not quite as noble, grand, and revolutionary as I was originally taught (which seems to be a common theme of this class). Maybe this is my incorrect interpretation but it seemed liked the women’s movement was successful because A) it was really just white women and B) it exploited race to say that if black men could vote, why couldn’t white women because socially they should be above black people, emphasizing already ingrained racism.

In the first article by Virginia Schein, I was bothered by her justification that women lead differently because they have a stronger “natural ability to nurture,” because I think it embodies a large flaw in our society surrounding gender. I do not think it is a bad thing to be nurturing, (and speaking from an evolutionary perspective, women did tend to need to be more nurturing to help their children survive), but I do object to the generalization of an entire gender. Every women and man and non-binary human being is their own set of characteristics and qualities. When we say women or men are XYZ, it traps people within that box, which I think it unfair.

2 Comments

These readings really made me mad. I just don’t understand why people still have an issue with the whole idea of equality and merit based moving up within leadership it really isn’t that complicated. All you have to do is look at a candidate and realize hey they are just a person it doesn’t matter what the heck their gender is in fact it means so little in today’s workforce because of the internet people can honestly work from home more often than not, but no just because he’s a man he gets the job it’s literally the dumbest thing ever.

In regards to the article and viewing these really make me concerned for humanity as a whole. the longer and longer we go like this makes me wonder if we will ever reach a point of equality for everyone in today’s political and social climate. I’m not a pessimist but it’s almost like we need another war of sorts to spur another movement of inequality or at least some rallying momentous step forward like space colonies or something along those lines.  I just don’t get it people are people no matter who they are love and respect them for that. period.

3 Comments

I have always been skeptical about the Women’s rights movement because I knew that as a black woman, the movement did not necessarily fight for me. Women’s rights typically meant white women’s rights back then because all women were not the same, race made a difference. Fighting for the Vote video touches on this a little by discussing slavery and civil rights. Women in the video expressed that they were extremely motivated to gain voting rights after free black men were giving voting rights. Not because men were given voting rights but especially because black men were because white women felt superior to them. This part of the video made me question the entire movement. It’s great that women were able to come together and fight for their right to vote but its also kind of a slap in the face to black women. These women did not always put race aside when they were fighting but many of them still felt superior to black people. The racist white woman narrative is rarely told but should be. In school, I was taught that the Women’s rights movement was for all women but would rather have learned the truth about the situation.

4 Comments

The traits that are commonly associated with effective and powerful leaders are dominance, assertiveness, and competitiveness. All of these characteristics are typically associated with men and called agentic traits. Women are mostly affiliated with the communal traits of friendly, emotional, and nurturing. The main question Schein asks at the beginning of the paper is ‘Would a woman lead differently because of the traits she is typically associated with?’ I believe that most people would say yes to this question because it is commonly believed that women are “too emotional” to be effective leaders, which is not the case. “Women leadership had been proven to be linked with enhancing world peace, reducing corruption, and improving opportunities for the downtrodden” (Schein 162). One example that comes to my mind of a successful female leader is Queen Elizabeth I. After reading this I’m wondering why don’t we have more women in leadership positions if it’s been proven that it is more beneficial than harmful?

Schein stated that there are 13 categories of managerial behavior, ex: representation, crisis management, problem-solving, etc. These are all things that can be taught through specific classes, so I do not see why gender is an issue when it comes to leadership. Schein brings up the concept of the glass ceiling and its emergence. The glass ceiling symbolizes the barriers to any advancements in careers, mostly affecting minorities and women. No matter how qualified they are they will always have trouble advancing or are not given the opportunity to advance. I learned about this in my SOC 101 class with Dr. Grollman along with the glass escalator, which is a much newer concept. The glass escalator describes how heterosexual white men are able to advance in their careers much more easily than women are, even in female/minority dominating fields. We have slightly advanced though as it used to be harder for the women who wanted to start a family because there were barely any maternity leave benefits. Now there is both paid maternity and paternity leave. This allows the father to also take time off of work to take care of a newborn without the mother having all the responsibility. Unfortunately, this leads some women to either choose between their career and their family, which is an unfair ultimatum as men aren’t asked the same question.

Leave a Comment

Throughout history, women have been prevented and discouraged from taking on positions of leadership. Although it would seem counterintuitive, it is more likely that women have learned how to be leaders even more because they have been pushed down into secondary or even tertiary positions. This reminds me of one of the readings we had a couple weeks ago when an author mentioned how minority followers are more likely to know their [oppressive] superiors because they are in positions of followership. I believe this same theory would apply to women because for the longest time women have been forced to watch from the sidelines. So, it would only make sense for women to know the obligations of, the behaviors of, and the best strategies that a [male] leader could use to be their most effective version of a leader.

Schein’s claim that women’s leadership is typically more geared towards world peace, increased opportunities and decreased corruption highly correlates to women’s’ natural ability to be nurturing. In addition, all of these things mentioned could be considered to be utopian values as they would stand opposed to what has been valued throughout history and what is valued today by male leaders. This does not go to say that men strictly desire inequality, corruption, and war from the start. Yet, women have sat back to observe the dominating phenomenon of male leadership and cherry-pick what they would and would not desire as results of their leadership.

In Rosener’s entry, she mentions key aspects of interactive leadership to include the encouragement of participation, the will to share power, and the enhancement of others’ self-worth. These all align with the expectations of how women should lead. They are all along the lines of wider distribution of power and democratic values.

 

1 Comment

In the Fighting for the Vote video they talk a lot about the ongoing seventy-two year long fight for Women’s voting rights. What I found interesting about the video was that in the video they talked a lot about slavery and civil rights as well. They brought up these things because while slaves were getting free and gaining rights, the women felt as if they were going to be left behind when it comes to rights. When black men were in the process of getting voting rights, women were saying how there is no way that free black men were going to have more rights then them so that was the leading cause of them moving forward to try and get voting rights which was something new to me.

With the other articles they both talk about equality in today’s society and in the workplace and the fact that there are more men in higher level jobs than women. The articles also talk about how women would lead differently like encouraging participation and other ways. I found that the second article doesn’t specifically say that women are better leaders but that they lead in a different way and a more interactive way. It reminded me of some great woman leaders like harriet tubman and amelia earhart who are important historical figures to relate to this topic.

Leave a Comment

The video was truly fascinating I though. Throughout my education, we never learned about the suffrage movement in must detail so it was all new information. I had no idea that the fight took so long I thought that Susan B. Anthony was by far the most prominent figure in the suffrage movement, but it turns out there more women involved. This was shocking just because it is something that I have never been taught. I think that I often take the right to vote lightly and sometimes don’t do it at all, just because I’m too lazy to walk to the Alumni Center. I think that this video gave me a new appreciation of the effort that went into the right to vote for women as well as men. I voted in the election today and it was so easy, I can’t believe there was a time in history where I couldn’t have filled in those bubbles just because of my gender. The whole idea just seems so far fetched. This paved the way for women becoming more involved in society as well as becoming leaders, though we still don’t get paid the same as men. Women can be CEOs or astronauts there really isn’t anything we cant do if we try hard enough which again I think that I take for granted. I have opportunities that women 5o years ago did not and that i very important to me. I want to be able to make the most out of my opportunities and try and fight the sexism that still exists today.

1 Comment

Schein’s article was very interesting and encouraging for me. In the beginning I was a little concerned because of the way she associated certain effective leadership characteristics dependent with certain genders, but the way that Schein disassembled these association was amazing to me. In order to actually assess an issue, in this case sexism, it becomes important to ask the right questions and that’s what she did in this article. 

Instead of focusing on making women have to choose between family and career path, she takes a very extraordinary stance and asks to effectively infuse the two. I value this because it does not completely take away from the nurturing aspect of females, which would be problematic because it is often very true, but instead disrupts the idea that a mother can not also be someone devoted and successful in their field of work. In doing this I believe that she is able to diminish the preconceived “feminine” and “masculine” qualities and successfully offers a solution to the issue of gender discrimination in the work place. By integrating these unnecessarily separate yet crucial aspect of life, work and family, there is less of a chance for these stereotypes to persist, as they resolve the issue of restricting women to the household.

The questions she raises are valuable and answering them would create the opportunity to at least address the issue. 

 

2 Comments

The “Fighting for the Vote” video showcased the long and grueling seventy-two-year long fight for women’s suffrage.  It all began with the Seneca Falls Convention lead by Elizabeth Cady Stanton which is where they discussed the Declaration of Sentiments that listed all of the grievance’s women had to endure and how to resolve them. They came to the notion about the right to vote and many people thought that it was too radicle, but they proceeded with it. They also talked about how before the Civil War the fight for rights was fought hand in hand with women and African Americans. After the Civil War, the suffrage movement took a very long time to come back into action. I found it very interesting how it took so long for the women to get the right to vote due to all of the obstacles the government was facing with the 13^th– 15^th amendments. I thought that it was very smart and unique of the women to tag along to public events with their own parades because it really got the word out and eventually got them the 19^th amendment, granting women the right to vote. The only disappointing thing about this victory is that the women who made it possible thought that there was going to be a huge change for women in America, but there was not and the battle for equality is still ongoing.

The ongoing battle for equality can be seen in the article “Would Women Lead Differently?” by Victoria Schein. This article discusses the fact that women are less likely to be in leadership positions compared to men, even though it has been proven that performance wise women and men are identical. The biggest problem that holds women back in leadership positions is the fact that they are expected to be the homemakers and raise the children. This is why women are seen to lead differently, due to the fact that they will create more of an interface between working and raising a family. I think that it is very hard to hold women to the standard of the past when more and more families have two working parents. I found that the conclusion of this article was very interesting because women do lead differently than men, but their differences arguably make them better. Women are said to be more gender blind in promotional decisions, and they are more devoted to enhancing the work and family interface. Although that is true, the fact that sex is still being considered as a factor when considering who will be a good leader and who will not is absurd to me.

5 Comments

I think when the video talked about how women were finally “given” the right to vote that it truly was a downplay of all of the hard work and dedication they put into fighting the Constitution and men that kept not passing the amendments. I guess I never realized that it took a whole 72 years to finally ratify the Constitution and it is definitely not portrayed that way in school either, at least from my history classes. I think that it is also sad that we are still fighting for true equality in some aspects of today’s society because we have already come so far.

The articles about leadership I agree with on some level. The second one talks more about how it is not necessarily that women are better leaders but more so that their experiences provide a new and exciting perspective to some of the challenges in the workplace that men may not think to try. It is a combination of what the specific aspect of the career entails and then of course qualifications for the job. Of course I am all for more equal pay if the same job is being done and girl power and all that but I don’t think that it should entirely be about women needing to take over in all leadership positions.

I did like the second article talking about how maybe the “stereotypical qualities” of women could be some reasons why women have these different views about how to solve issues within the workplace. I also think that from the first article, it was interesting that Schein talks about how Great Man theory does not pertain to this gap between men and women in leading positions.

5 Comments

I thought it was very interesting to learn about the women’s suffrage movement in context of the civil war and civil rights. I found it very interesting that the two movements worked together up until the 15th amendment was passed. I can see why women would be upset that they were not given the right to vote when it gave all men the right to vote. I found it interesting that Douglas was working with the women’s suffrage movement until this point too.

I found it interesting that the 15th amendment caused a division within the women’s movement itself. With one group wanting to wait decades after the 15th amendment was passed to talk about a women’s right to vote and others wanting to be included in the 15th. I think that women should have been included in the 15th because they are equal to men.

Women were given the right to vote after WWI . Women were forced to take the position of men and were capable of doing their jobs. This showed women were equal to men and forced the nation to pay attention to the movement.

2 Comments

Last night I went to a last lecture series talk by one of the psychology professors. Her basic premise was that being a person is hard. She talked about how in developed nations we have this uncanny ability to be unsatisfied with everything that we have. If we have a job with a $70,000 salary we want a job with a $100,000 salary but when we get that higher salaried job, we aren’t satisfied. We are also highly adept at feeling suffering, whether that be physical or emotional suffering. This ties into the idea that we are never satisfied with what he has and that leads to feelings of inadequacy and disappointment in ourselves. I have struggled with anxiety for years and this whole lecture really hit home for me. The speaker basically described exactly how I feel and told me that it’s both normal and that its ok to let myself off the hook sometimes. She states how in US culture we glorify the hard worker; the person who works late or comes in early or skips lunch. This makes sense but she also said that we glorify that even when there’s nothing for them to be doing that benefits anyone. The example she provided was that students always feel like they should be being productive. If we’re eating at dhall were thinking about why we’re not at the lib working. Everything she said really made sense to me and I really enjoyed going to this. It was way more interesting then I thought it was going to be and I would totally go to another Last Lecture Series speaker again.

Leave a Comment

Reading “Why Women Lead” by Judy B. Rosener went hand-in-hand with the reading I recently completed for my Justice class: Make Love, Not War by David Allyn. While Make Love, Not War predominantly focuses on the sexual double standard, “Why Women Lead” ties in the double standards against women in the workplace. Rosener states, “men and women received different signals about what was expected of them…women have been expected to be wives, mothers, community volunteers, teachers, and nurses,” (157). The push of women into “pink-collar” jobs persists today and contributes to phenomena such as the wage gap, the wealth gap, and the feminization of poverty. Women were expected in the home to support their spouses (specifically, their husbands, due to the heteronormative view of the American family) and enter the “helping” fields such as the ones listed above.

While I thought that Rosener did a good job outlining the results found in the IWF Survey of Men and Women Leaders, I think the article itself had limitations that must be acknowledged when studying women’s leadership. While the author acknowledged that “linking interactive leadership directly to being female is a mistake,” she did not elaborate upon that conclusion. She also made points that oftentimes women were only given these leadership positions due to a company’s own turmoil or need for employees. Again, the author does not elaborate upon why this is problematic, and that women are only entering certain fields at the expense of a company’s organizational failure, rather than their own skills. 

Additionally, I found the conclusion from the survey results that “both men and women leaders pay their female subordinates roughly $12,000 less than their male subordinates with similar positions and roles” was extremely problematic. Statistics such as this one show the impact that class has on one’s acquisition of power and wealth; women are very well pervading sexism against their poor counterparts just as men are. We must take into account all facets of one’s identity to recognize that while women have been discriminated against since the beginning, factors such as race and class come into play as well.

 

Anna Marston

6 Comments

One of the readings makes an intriguing point about the different pathways that could have occurred to end the institution of slavery. The author writes how, “It would take either a full-scale slave rebellion or a full-scale war to end such a deeply entrenched system.” I was aware that Lincoln’s emancipation declaration was mainly political move, but I didn’t realize the full extent of his decision. The reading talked about the practicality of freeing the slaves as it mentioned the growing number of slaves, a cause for concern due to past revolts, and the potential for the Union to have the black population on their side. The reasoning behind freeing the enslaved population was a political move that gave both Lincoln and the Union moral high ground in addition to changing the reason for the war from state rights to human rights.

The black population was not freed because white men finally found their moral compass, but rather because the situation forced them to this decision. The reading reflects how the United states, “…would end slavery only under conditions controlled by whites, and only when required by the political and economic needs of the business elite of the North. It was Abraham Lincoln who combined perfectly the needs of business, the political ambition of the new Republican party, and the rhetoric of humanitarianism.” The previously mentioned elite white men changed the narrative for the emancipating the slave population to help paint themselves and the Union in a better way. These rich white men tactically supported the abolishment of slavery in order to not lose their business that depended partially on the Southern states. This reading really was eye-opening to me because I was not aware of the political reasoning and implications of the Emancipation Proclamation, and why Lincoln may have not been the social warrior that we remember him as today.

5 Comments