Leadership and the Humanities Class Blog Posts

While reading the beginning of “The Lottery”, I was not at all expecting the last part where they stoned her. I kind of got some foreshadowing of something bad happening to whoever drew the “correct” paper when Tessie originally began to complain about Bill not receiving enough time to pick a slip of paper and when the girl whispered that she hoped it wouldn’t be Nancy. Therefore, I disagree with whoever wrote the response/summary article B because they claim that the only surprise was the stones and not the act of execution, while I think the entire execution of Tessie and the dark manner of it was surprising. Another surprising aspect was how willing and able the villagers were to stoning her; almost immediately after the crowd knew she was the one to be stoned, her friends and their children were hitting her with the stones without hesitation. It shows how deeply-rooted tradition can become to the point where immoral acts like murder become mindless action, without thought to how it will affect those around them.

Similar to the first story, “The ones who walk away from Omelas” tells the story of the brutal abandonment and horrible life of one child in order to maintain the happiness of the rest of the city. I’ve read this before, and it still makes me angry but it demonstrates, like “The Lottery”, how once a tradition or ideology is imbedded into society, the chances of it becoming unrooted or people going against are so slim. It shows how that this ritual or concept will lead to mindless action, like ignoring the child’s existence and not speaking to the child at all, which then furthers the ideology and continues to harm people.

Kind of maybe a stretch but I think these stories are creating an analogy to slavery, in the way that white people became so mindlessly blind and ignorant to the suffering and pain that the slaves endured and continued to create all of these laws and rules to maintain their happiness and “balance”, when in reality, if they spoke to the slaves or were empathetic to them (like how those who left understood the horror of what Omelas was doing to that child), they could’ve seen the damage they were doing and created an equal society from the beginning.

1 Comment

These readings were very interesting, to say the least. “The Lottery,” was about a village that does a lottery and whoever wins gets stoned to death. While “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” was about, to my understanding, a fake or made up happy society by a child that was locked in a closet made possible only due to their lack of happiness. 

Both of these stories are sad and pulled my heartstring, but more importantly, talked about leadership roles through literature. For example, “The Lottery,” allows the reader to understand the differences between the importance we place on males between females. This is seen by the interactions between Mr. Summers and Janey as he asks if she did not have a “grown boy” to take her place, inferring that a boy had more power or more authority to take her place. 

In the story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” the importance we place on leadership roles to help create structure in a society is evaluated. This is seen as the author begins by illustrating some characteristics of a king, just to say that that leadership role was not needed in the happy society created, which still had structure and function without a clear leader. 

Before reading these pieces of literature and viewing them from a leadership perspective, would I have truly seen the importance or the impact narrative literature had on leadership. I truly believe that the way the author sees leadership has an impact on their writing, but the way literature creates leaders makes us reevaluate the way we see leadership. 

Leave a Comment

These were two very interesting stories that touched upon the power of tradition, culture, and ritual, and essentially discussed the mysteriousness of humans and why we think and act in the ways that we do. In The Lottery, Mrs. Hutchinson demanded that her family be given the chance to draw again from the black box since her husband was not given adequate time to choose his slip of paper. When each member of her family draws again, she wins the lottery, but that means she gets stoned to death by the rest of the villagers. Why do these customs of sacrifice have such a strong presence in the village? Why does old man Warner fear the younger folk deserting these customary executions? Similarly, The Omelas story explored the mystery of humanity. Here, the people of this free and joyous city could only experience joy when they knew the small, naked, emaciated child was trapped in a holding cell below them. If the child was ever to be freed, the city would crumble.

I think there are some serious elements of groupthink in upholding tradition. It’s not always a bad thing, but often when something is repeated so much and is more than just habitual, it is an ancestral and historical practice, it can be very difficult to stop or to change people’s minds. Mind guarding, and unquestioningly believing in the group’s morality and invulnerability are just some of the issues that shroud around tradition. However as humans, we cling to tradition as it often gives us an identity, purpose, and meaning in life. As seen in the city of Omelas, the sacrifice of the morals of one individual to the good of the group is very powerful. This is why people in the city leave behind their own morality and let the child suffer. Tradition and making sacrifices for the common good of the group do not always have to be bad, but as seen in these two examples, they can be manifestations of selfishness, ignorances, and a loss of individuality.

1 Comment

This week I have watched another lecture. This one was presented by Dr. E. Bruce Heilman. He gave a lecture to a leadership class with the topic of Military Leadership. To begin with, what caught my attention almost immediately to this lecture was the title of the lecture: “Why They Never Talked About It.” Once I realized this lecture was going to be given by someone who had served in the military, my interest only grew greater, because I wanted to know the answer to the question of why they, as in people in the military, never talk about it. It being war. 

At the beginning of the lecture, Dr. Heilman created a timeline with his life. He explained how he had lived through the Great Depression, WW1 and served in WW2. He went on to express to the class that the hardships he faced at war, especially at such a young age as a teenager, prepared him for the challenges he later experienced in life. He then followed by explaining the surface reason why returning military did not talk about their experiences at war with their family by saying there wasn’t enough time to do so. They returned home to their wives and family to find jobs and continue living, without the time to address stories at war. At that moment Dr. Heilman addressed my interest in the topic by acknowledging that the lack of communication of those war stories, left future generations on a cliff hanger, hungry for what actually happened at war and what it was like. 

Dr. Heilman reveals to the audience that the reason he will reveal those realities was that he believed that they would increase the appreciation of the military and those who gave their lives for the country. He explains three things war movies have not been able to illustrate, the sound of the dying, the smell of the body decay, and the process of dying on the battlefield. These things he explains are things that veterans cannot to this day surpass. Interestingly but not surprising, Dr. Heilman, also divided into the idea of survivals’ guilt. He describes it as feeling selfish for surviving. He continuously expresses the questioning of his survival by talking about things his comrades were unable to experience a college education or the formation of a family. By the end of the lecture, Dr. Heilman reveals to us why veterans never talk about it. He says that he and his partners understood the severity of their experiences, and understood the lack of social norms they had. They were that their war stories were not presentable in table-talk. 

Leave a Comment

Although I was taught that women were granted the right to vote much later than men, I did not realize how big of a fight it took to reach that point. The videos definitely gave me a good look into the effort and years of fighting it took for these women to earn a right that all people should have. This then makes me think of how different things might be if women had been leading this entire time. In the article “Would Women Lead Differently?,”Schein writes about the different approach that women have to leadership that men generally do not possess. She mentions that the world would be a much more inclusive and peaceful place which I can definitely imagine to be true.

I also thought it was intriguing that women described themselves as transformational leaders and genuinely had the best interest of their followers in mind. This really makes me wonder how different our society would be with more women leaders, especially in the past. In general, the readings and videos really opened my eyes to the struggles that women faced in the early 1900’s.

 

7 Comments

    Appropriate Play

Susan Nevin 

I chose to go to the production, “Appropriate,” as one of my out of class Jepson Leadership events. This play’s storyline was focused around a family in which the father had just died, so all the grown kids had to come back to their childhood summer home to clean out his belongings and sell the house. When the children arrive, there is a clear conflict and unresolved issues between all of them, and they struggle to each take charge of the project. However, all their issues halt when photos of lynchings are found in their father’s house, along with the body parts of a black person. 

After this horrible situation, the siblings start to take sides. The daughter, Toni, believes that it is just a coincidence, while the two brothers claim that they may not know their father as well as they thought. This also causes a huge divide amongst the siblings, as Toni doesn’t want to think of her father in a negative light, while the brothers claim that she was his obvious favorite. After this, one of their own children finds a Ku Klux Klan hat in the attic, and all hell breaks loose. The siblings begin to fight, and they all leave in a hurry, leaving the house with its horrible secrets.

Leave a Comment

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