Newsflash: “The Boys Have Fallen Behind”

In his OpEd article, featured in The New York Times on Sunday, March 28, 2010, Nicholas Kristof shares somewhat surprising news: boys have fallen behind girls in school. Girls in the United States and other Western countries have surpassed boys in verbal skills, and are roughly even with them in math. Kristof points to the latest statistics issued by the Center on Education Policy which demonstrates lower achievement by males in reading in each and every U.S. state and in each level tested: elementary, middle and high school.

Using verbal skills as the main issue in the gender gap, the author draws other stats from these fundamental findings. They include female dominance in National Honor Societies and the number of bachelor and master degrees earned. Certainly I am not against narrowing the reading gap, but find it interesting how much attention this gap demands when the math achievement gap between males and females went years without much attention. In my years as a middle school student, girls excelled in reading and English classes, while boys tended to dominate at math. I cannot attest to this discrepancy as it carries on to high school years, for I attended an all-girls high school. Yet in my SAT prep courses, I recall my fellow females having less trouble with the verbal sections than with math. Why, then, is it only recently that so much attention is paid to this issue?

Only on the very top of the charts do boys beat out the girls, especially in math. In 2009, boys earned 62% of triple perfect 800 SAT scores (that is, a perfect 2400 on the SAT), with 69% of all math 800 scores also registered by the boys. Yet this dominance relates to very few students. In reading this part of the article, I could not help but think that the boys with these perfect scores have access to SAT preparatory courses and remarkable educational opportunities. The broader results regarding reading cover most of the general school population across the nation.

Some argue that the world is more verbal and boys have not adjusted as well to this reality. The method to learn these skills is less action-oriented and may bore the boys who turn off early, thus escalating their reading problems in middle and high school. Using research by Richard Whitmire, Kristof describes the lower grade point averages for boys, and the higher likelihood that boys will repeat a grade, be suspended and/or ultimately, drop out of school. Whitmire thus suggests using more adventure, even “gross-out” books to get boys reading. One website that sorts books in ways to appeal to boys even list titles that contain “at least one explosion.” I can readily understand how the reading problem stems from the early school years and agree that educators may need to use more appealing means to focus boys on the reading task at hand. Yet what does that say about gendered education methods? If we begin to cater to boys’ special needs for adventure and excitement, how are we leaving out the girls? I feel that the use of technology may be used to enhance the reading skills of males, rather than a focus on highly gendered genres of literature. Many males are game-oriented, and using games that require a combination of reading and button pushing may engage boys and help them improve their skills while they enjoy the game technology. I prefer this solution as a supplement at home or after school to the “gross-out” books suggested in the article, as these will only lower expectations of males as they make the leap, in literature and in life.

In my last NewsFlash, I discussed the gender inequalities that still exist in the working world. Though women in general have made great gains in the workplace, we have a long way to go; today, men grossly overpower certain fields, as even Kristof notes that “men are still hugely overrepresented in Congress, on executive boards, and in the corridors of power.” As Critenden mentions in her article, “The Mommy Tax,” measuring the gender gap usually only compares wages of men and of women who work like men, free of family and domestic responsibilities. Critendon writes, “the average earnings of all female workers in 1999 were 59 percent of men’s earnings” (93). Our class discussion on wage differences between men and women in the very same fields was just as eye-opening. Clearly, be it in teaching, law, table waiting or human relations, men are earning more than women, though both sexes devote an equal amount of time and effort to the job.

Kristof ignores the irony of this gender gap and instead focuses on how decelerated male performance will affect the fate of the U.S. He believes “our future depends on making the best use of human capital we can, whether it belongs to girls or boys.” Yet I feel that he is only concerned that boys are failing because these boys will not become the aforementioned men at the head of business or with political power. Not once does he celebrate the intelligence of girls across the country and in other Western nations. His male-oriented article neglects to appreciate that female educational advances will have an immense impact on the future of Western nations. As women continue to excel in school, they will assume more prominent roles in what Kristof calls “the corridors of power,” spreading positive female influences and conceptions all over the world.

News Flash: Abortion and Hormone Therapy, Who Pays?

The 1997 Oscar nominated Simon West film, Con Air, is a story of an ex-convict being transferred home on an airplane that is then taken over by other convicted felons. One of the peripheral characters is a transvestite named Ramon “Sally-Can’t Dance” Marinez played by Renoly Santiago. Check out a picture of the character on the right. While this effeminate prisoner serves as comic relief in the film, his character brings an interesting conundrum to light: the issue of transgender inmates and how they maintain their sexuality while in prison.

On March 31st, 2010 in Madison, Wisconsin, a judge declared inmates have the right to hormone therapy paid for by state issued health care. The New York Times published the article “Judge: Transgender Inmates Have Right to Therapy” by the Associated Press discussing the victory that American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin and Lambda Legal, a national gay rights group, won for transgender prisoners in Wisconsin. Continuing the discussion of the government’s role in deeming what Americans can and cannot do with our bodies, the plight of these inmates aligns closely with that of women seeking reproductive rights while on Medicade. In a case where individuals’ well being are the responsibility of the state, where should government funding for medical procedures end?

Gwendolyn Mink in “The Lady and the Tramp (II): Feminist Welfare Politics, Poor Single Mothers, and the Challenge of Welfare Justice” discusses the implications of welfare on poor women and the de facto control the government has over individuals bodies. She uses welfare as a way to talk about freedom and choice, or lack there of. Mink says, “We should not think of welfare as a subsidy for dependence but as insurance for the rights that comprise independence” (Mink 1998:59). In this regard, welfare serves as a control for the socioeconomic status of an individual in order for him or her to completely utilize his or her freedom. Welfare recipients are then seen not as a burden upon the state, but rather the norm. This guarantees all people the right to express their full freedom regardless of their socioeconomic status, as Mink argues is protected by the constitution. If we use this logic to look at the case of inmates with gender identity disorder and women on Medicade who want to have an abortion, we see these individuals not as deviant but as the norm. They are individuals who want use all of their liberties as United States citizens. People who can afford or have the ability to pay for these operations on their own are then very luck, but not the standard.

The original authors of the law, which prohibits transgender inmates from receiving taxpayer-funded hormone therapy, are appealing the decision made by U.S. District Judge Charles Clevert who declared it unconstitutional and unenforceable. They are arguing to Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen that this overturn will soon allow for taxpayer dollars to go to sex-change operations, which Clevert did not address in his three-page decision. According to Mink’s logic, this fear is un-American because it denies some individuals freedom to explore their sexuality while granting that liberty to others. Clevert agrees, claiming the law violated the constitutional ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” because the disregard for inmates with gender identity disorder denied them medical attention that was already determined necessary by medical care professionals. During the lawsuit, Clevert placed a temporary order forbidding prison guards from stopping hormone treatment for inmates already receiving it. The law was originally supported by both parties and signed by Governor Jim Doyle after an inmate tried to sue a prison to pay for his sex change (Associated Press 2010).

Following the famous Roe vs. Wade court decision, Medicade covered abortions for women without any consideration. However in 1977 the Hyde amendment began the long succession of rulings that slowly chipped away women’s rights to have abortions, especially those on Medicade. As of September 1993, Medicade covers abortion only in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment (NAF 2010). In this case the government refuses to pay for medical treatment because some individuals deem the medical procedure controversial. Their argument is that pro-life believers do not want their money paying for abortions. While this makes sense on one level, the practical implication of it creates a situation where wealthy women are able to obtain abortions and poor women are not. It also puts the government in a position of power denying poor women the choice to have an abortion. The inmates are also denied the choice to fully explore and understand their sexuality.

In both of these situations, men and women who are dependent on the government for medical attention are denied procedures that seem optional because of the controversy surrounding the medical assistance and because of the expense. In the case of hormone therapy the individual does not appear to have a life-threatening disease so medical attention paid for by taxes seem excessive. However, I wonder what would happen if gender identity disorder were a physical as oppose to a mental disease. If inmates with gender identity disorder had an external symptom like the loss of a limb, and this law denied them help, in lets say the form of a prosthetic, it would more obviously seem like cruel and unusual punishment. In the case of abortion, poor women are continually disadvantaged because they are denied access to medical care that will better help them manage their lives. If the women are in a situation where they are on Medicade and do not think they could support another person, abortion is a logical explanation. However, by denying poor women access to abortions, the government continues to oppress these women because they are deprived of the same financial freedoms women who can afford abortions enjoy. The system also works against these poor women because it creates greater strains on the women, as more children will be dependant upon her.

With the passage of the new health care public option, Obama had the opportunity to change the ideology around controversial medical procedures. He could have made all situations pro-choice, allowing federal funds to give individuals the opportunity to choose their course of action. However, in order to pass the act, the health care plan took a conservative approach to many controversial issues such as abortion and, as gender transition is rarely covered, the public option mimicked the transgender policies of current health care insurance agencies. The public option did create a point of weakness in the oppressive structure for changes in policy, but in this first step progress for reproductive and transgender rights have been left out. I encourage activists to use the public option as a starting point for pushing for all individuals to enjoy their full freedoms!

References

Associated Press. 2010. “Judge: Transgender Inmates Have Right to Therapy.” The New York Times. Retrieved April 11, 2010 (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/01/us/AP-US-Transgender-Inmates-Wisconsin.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=hormones&st=cse).

Human Rights Campaign 2010. “Health Insurance Discrimination for Transgender People.” Washington, DC: Human Rights Campaign. Retrieved April 13, 2010 (http://www.hrc.org/issues/9568.htm).

Mink, Gwendolyn. 1998. “The Lady and the Trap (II): Feminist Welfare Politics, Poor Single Mothers, and the Challenge of Welfare Justice.” Feminist Studies 24(1):55-64.

National Abortion Federation 2010. “Public Funding for Abortion: Medicaid and the Hyde Amendment.” Washington, DC: National Abortion Federation. Retrieved April 13, 2010 (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html).

Welfare: To Fare Well as an Independent

Gwendoyln Mink's article "The Lady and the Tramp (II): Feminist Welfare Politics, Poor Single Mothers, and the Challenge of Welfare Justice" posed some interesting ruminations about what it means to be a feminist and what it means to be pro-choice. She reprimands middle and upper class white women who claim they are feminist but focus mainly on their own identity politics . She also condemns herself and other scholars and activists in her same situation who fight for poor women but will probably never receive a welfare check in their lives. Both of these arguments are valid, but combined they leave little room for wealth (or semi-wealthy) women to fight for poor women. If poor women cannot fight for themselves because they need to work at least 2 jobs (a paying one and caring for their children) who is supposed to fight their battles? Mink makes upper class women (or maybe just me) feel both guilty for not helping and guilty for helping when their help is condescending.

Mink makes an interesting argument that I am calling pro-choice; she promotes women's ability to choose to raise their children themselves or to go to work outside of the home. She also says that single men would benefit from childcare wages, which would encourage more men to stay home and raise their children. I think this is the true embodiment of feminism and freedom, the ability to choose the life you would like to lead regardless of the opportunities you have been given. A critic would say this puts a burden on other women and men taxpayers who must then support you financially. I argue against that because if everyone agreed to give a steady small amount, none of the taxed people would feel a burden and all of the people receiving the welfare would be able to have access to the assistance they need, which in turn will help them leave the welfare program.

The most interesting quote from the article was "We should not think of welfare as a subsidy for dependence but as insurance for the rights that comprise independence" (Mink:59). I never thought of welfare as a way to insure independence, especially since it deems people dependent. However, welfare allows people to be individuals and dependent on the U.S. government, not another individual. It gives women and men the opportunity to exist as citizens in conversation with their government and not through a mediator.

Newsflash: “Nighttime March on Campus Spreads Sexual Assault Awareness”…Or does it?

Newsflash: “Nighttime March on Campus Spreads Sexual Assault Awareness”…Or does it?

Link to article: http://www.maroon-news.com/nighttime-march-on-campus-spreads-sexual-assault-awareness-1.1311742

I really wish I could have been a part of this march on Monday, April 5^th but sadly I was out of town. For those who missed it (like myself) a group of one hundred women and men joined together in a march to raise awareness of sexual assault on campus. And this is where my argument comes in: why did only one hundred people participate in this? The absurd amount of sexual assault that has happened on this campus has affected all of us. And yet, only one hundred students of the 3,000 that go here participated in the march. My question is why? Why such a little number? Was the event not publicized enough? Or are people really not appalled by what’s going on on our campus? I think it’s a little bit of both.

The surprising statistics that came out in this year’s Campus Climate Survey should be discussed amongst the entire student body, especially men. All classes should have been talking about this issue and, yet, the only classes that have talked about this that I have been in are both Women’s Studies classes of which women make up the majority of students. Yes, there are a few men who have really spoken out about this issue but I bet the majority of those marchers were women. And to be frank, it’s the men at this school who need to be educated about sexual assault because more often then not, perpetrators tend to be male. It’s those ignorant boys, like the ones who yelled ““You’re making me horny!” and “Shut the hell up!” that need to be educated about sexual assault. Yes, I understand the school has implemented a “mandatory” lecture on sexual assault but I know for a fact that the majority of students never bothered to go because it was never enforced.

I think another problem is publicity. News that this march was going to happen only seemed to be publicized through the Women’s Studies email outreach and posters around school. Events like this should be emailed to the entire student body. In no way by saying this am I criticizing the march’s organizers; I commend them for started this in the first place. I only wish that it was more broadly publicized and encouraged by faculty and other students.

The Speak-Out and the march have both been two truly important steps to raising awareness on this campus; however, I think the effort needs to be expanded for the whole school to hear and participate in. When I heard about the Speak Out, I really expected it to be ground breaking. Before the Speak Out, I imagined hoards of students and professors walking out of class and joining in the protest. I expected the academic quad to be packed with concerned students and professors. But in reality, only about 50 students were listening and while 50 are better than nothing it is still not enough. When racist slurs were written on the bathrooms of Alumni Hall last year, there was a huge gathering in the chapel in which all different groups of students (for example, Greek and non-Greek) gathered. A huge presence that is missing from sexual assault awareness gatherings are members of Greek life—the institution that, frankly, is somewhat responsible for the sexual assaults that occur on this campus and the way men and women interact and are treated. In a brown bag last semester in which we discussed how to better improve the sexual atmosphere at Colgate, a faculty member stated that it used to be mandatory for all fraternities to go through sexual assault awareness and prevention lectures-Why does this no longer exist?

At the Speak Out, I personally recall one extremely emotional student speaking up about how she was fingered in the Jug by some random dude. I heard whispers around me from both men and women students saying “Yeah, that happened to me too, I never thought of it as sexually assault. I mean it happens all the time. Who cares?.” Situations like that happen ALL THE TIME at the jug and frat parties. It happens so often, that people are blind to the fact that it is sexual assault and is WRONG. We must let the perpetrators and those who watch assault going on and say nothing that this behavior is NOT ok and NOT normal (no matter, sadly, how often it happens on this campus). Colgate’s next step is to organize a sexual assault awareness demonstration that truly reaches out to the entire student body because until awareness reaches everyone, sexual assault on this campus will continue.

Lead Post for 4/13

While reading "The Mommy Tax," at first I thought, wow Critenden makes a really good point. But then I turned to page 90 where she talks about the difference between the French and US government and how supposedly France better supports Moms. And then I thought, hmmm...what would I rather?: lose my money through the "mommy tax" or lose money by paying actual taxes in order to support other Moms? Sure, as Critenden states, the "mommy tax on French women is...one of the lowest in the world" (90). What Critenden fails to mention, however, is that France has one of the highest tax rates in the world. I'm gonna be selfish and take my chances--i'd rather the "mommy tax." Because even if I was a Mom, I still would have the potential to earn alot of money and would rather not see more of my income going to yet another taxation funded program. I'd rather choose the capitalist system we have than the socialist economic system of France, because, frankly, I should be able to keep at least some of my hard earned money. That way, at least I'll make some money before kids too.

Addressing Ehrenreich's article, I am appauled at the way Merry Maids are forced to scrub on their hands and knees. How incredibly degrading! And the fact that women hire women to clean on their hands and knees is appauling! What happened to sisterhood here? (Note photo of Merry Maid cleaning on her hands and knees...think she's really as "Merry" as she appears? Doubtful!)

Another thing that came to mind as I was reading this article was an experience I had last year while staying at a friends place in Central Park West, NYC. I was shocked and appauled by the number of minority nannies pushing around white babies--I was even more shocked by the fact that the mothers clad in their designer sunglasses and handbags were right, talking on their blackberry, while the minority nanny carried/pushed in a stroller the white, rich woman's kids. My friend embarrassingly pointed out that most of these white, rich mom's were housewives anyway but simply hired a nanny so they didn't have to deal with their own, whining, spoiled rotten kids. Being from Buffalo, this was a complete culture shock to me. White, spoiled kids then grow up to believe minority women are meant to serve them. And this is the educated, sophisticated New York City I'm talking about not some "confederate flag" bearers as Ehrenreich mentions on page 61. Stories like Elizabeth Senghor (pg 64) may be more common than we think.

Hakim-Dyce did not have a "Reality Check"--she made a choice to be a go-go dancer. Considering she had a college education, Dyce had many more job options; thus, frankly, it is difficult to feel sympathy for her.

Rangel makes some excellent points in her essay. It is about time for College institutions to modify. It's surprising that still today, class is not considered nearly as much as race, gender, and sexual preference, when in reality it is class that most greatly divides humanity. The fact that she was not granted the same benefits of traditional students is absurd. I'm curious if any colleges, Colgate included, has addressed the modifications suggested by Rangel.

Modern Family-Lead Post for 4/6

Until reading Ettelbeck, I had never realized that gay men and lesbian women may be opposed to marriage rights. Her article surprised me, for I cannot understand her belief in the importance of remaining unmarried, as marriage would be an injustice to her lifestyle. I find her argument to lack conviction for she is opposed to marriage for the sameness and assimilation it brings to gays as they 'enter' mainstream culture. Though marriage is a time-honored tradition that once celebrated only certain people, that is, straight people of the same race and religion, with time, the institution has changed, as it should, to meet the needs of the people. Interracial marriage is widespread, as are mixed religion marriages. Why then must gay marriage mean the assimilation of gay people into mainstream culture? Ettelbeck thinks that gay marriage will lead to the "outlawing of all gay and lesbian sex which is not performed in a marital context" (307), yet just as straight people often choose not to welcome the institution of marriage into their lives, so too may gay couples choose their own lifestyle without being "cloaked in and regulated by marriage" (307). I recognize that such lifestyle choices are uncommon and often looked down upon; perhaps then we should fight to alleviate this type of prejudice against non-married same-sex or straight couples. I think it's important to remember that this was published in 1989; today, the radical "reordering of society's views of family" (308) is well underway: Does anyone watch Modern Family? Mitchell and Cam's lifestyle, with adopted baby Lily, is far different than, say, that of Colin Firth's character in A Single Man, who is not even welcome at the funeral of his partner of 16 years. I am more on board with Naples, that instead of fighting this fight against same-sex marriage, we should be questioning, “How can we harness the political energy that has been unleashed by the debates over same-sex marriage and queer parenting to destabilize the taken-for-granted notions of what counts as a family and what can be in the best interests of children in resilient and inclusive society?” (682). Let's stop fighting against marriage as an institution, Ettelbeck, and instead advocate for the acceptance of family units and lifestyles of all types.

Lead Post for 4/1: Taken with a grain of salt.

I was strongly disappointed by the Crenshaw article. She set out to explore "the race and gender dimensions of violence against women of color" but spent the entire article confirming stereotypes of domestic violence, berating white policy makers and institutions that fail to help women of color because they are simply ill-equip to handle them (page 1). I learned nothing new and felt defensive throughout the entire article. In the example of a shelter not helping a woman because she did not speak English, Crenshaw condemn the shelter for not taking care of the woman. If the shelter itself would not be able to help her, why should it be responsible to do so? The shelter should be able to contact other shelters that may be better able to assist her, but the shelter itself is not at fault. This is a constant theme I am seeing in a lot of humanitarian aid work; if an individual organization knows it cannot assist a specific population so does not try, it should not be reprimanded. Instead, the system that exists to oppress the population and the lack of support for that specific population should be addressed. It does no good to attack do-gooders for not being do-everything-gooders.

The Steinem article was equally infuriating. (I guess I'm feeling sassy tonight.) I do not think that those few anecdotal pieces of violence denote a real sample of the reasons for "teen" and/or white murders. Each of those convicts are clearly facing more serious issues than being too supreme. I see how they take their place in social hierarchy as legitimatizing their actions, but I do not think it is the root of their issues. I think these people were clearly messed up from the start and used their social location to push their own agenda's forward. When Steinem discusses changing the gender of the teen murders to female, she points to a very basic notion that an "unmarked" status is male. Changing their gender will mark them and bring a conversation of gender to the table but this point does not further her argument. While I feel guilty disagreeing with a woman like Steinem, I have to say that she lost me with this article. Here is a picture of her as a playboy bunny!

Although, the article about G.I. sexual abuse confirms Steinem's argument about men asserting there supremacy. In most of the cases discussed, the men were of a higher or equal office in the military than the women they harassed. I also found it interesting that men were less likely to report an incident, which relates to the point I made last class that sexual harassment can, and does, go both ways. Again, the officer who stalked Captain White was a serial aggressor who could then, maybe, be discounted in the same way I discounted the murders Steinem discusses. Committing such a series of attacks leaves me to believe that these people have serious issues with their supremacy status and are not the common byproduct of our current cultural norms. While I do not think they should be disregarded all together, I do not think they proved adequate evidence for claims like Steinem tries to make. The film also added an interesting light to the story but my feelings remain the same.

The Living and Fighting Alongside Men article was the only article I really agreed with. Granted it was the only one with a positive message, but I felt it was more true than the others. I was intrigued that all of the women proved themselves through their performance and did not expect to be treated differently because they were women. They did perform better than some men, one officer said he had relived men but never women from their posts, which confirms the old notion that for women to be equal to men they must be better than men. Overall the women seemed to be accepted into the armed forces because they acted as if they were already welcome.