Based on our discussions in class, and our analysis of language, culture, historical gender roles, and even advertisements, it's clearly evident that a gender divide exists. But despite the attempts of most societies to bridge this divide, why have these differences persisted?
I decided to look at "upstream" inputs, or ones that influence the way in which mindsets are formed.
Dr. David Anderson, professor of economics, and Dr. Mykol Hamilton, professor of psychology at Centre College, KY, have documented that gender bias is common today in many children's books in their research published recently in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research titled "Gender Stereotyping and Under-Representation of Female Characters in 200 Popular Children's Picture Books: A 21st Century Update."
They studied 200 top-selling children's books from 2001 and a seven-year sample of Caldecott award-winning books, and discovered a number of examples of gender bias:
- There were nearly twice as many male as female title and main characters
- Male characters appeared in illustrations 53 percent more than female characters
- Female main characters nurtured more than did male main characters, and they were seen in more indoor than outdoor scenes
- Occupations were gender stereotyped, and more women than men appeared to have no paid occupation
(http://www.collegenews.org/x6773.xml)
By the time children are 3 to 4 years old, they have already formed an image of themselves as boy or girl. Children form these images from parents, teachers, societal members, and the toys and games with which they play. Playing with gender-stereotyped toys is considered to be the beginning of sex role development in young children.
An overview of findings at "Toys R Us" helps expose the hidden sexism that occurs through children's toys. Except for Sesame Street and Fisher Price, who manufacture successful gender-neutral toys to children younger than four years of age, "Toys R Us" actually divides toys into a blue and navy "boys" section, and a pink and white "girls" section. Furthermore, toy packaging exhibited significant color differences. The store aisles contained plenty of pinks, the most popular "girl" color by 95%, yellows, whites, lavenders, reds and pastels. Conversely, the boys' aisles had an array of blue the most popular "boys" color by 95% as well as green, red, black, gray, and brown. In addition to color, inventory also reveals sexism. The female section of the toy store was much bigger than the male side possibly feeding into the stereotype that women have more material objects than men.
(http://www.unc.edu/~dcderosa/STUDENTPAPERS/childrenbattles/toysrusdenise.htm)
A child’s earliest years are critical. During the years from 3~8, skills such as language, social competence, the ability to think critically and the capacity to learn, are developed. Because of entrenched gender bias in many regions, young girls fare less well than boys in many aspects of early childhood, including receiving a worse diet and health care. In fact, there are an estimated 60-100 million fewer women alive today than there would be in a world without gender discrimination and without social norms that favor sons.
Some 121 million children are not in school, most of them girls. If a family can afford school fees for only one child, it will likely be a boy who attends. If someone needs to fetch water or do housework instead of going to school, a girl will likely be chosen. Despite this, numerous studies have shown that educating girls is the single most effective policy to raise overall economic productivity, lower infant and maternal mortality, educate the next generation, improve nutrition and promote health. And mothers who have had some education are more than twice as likely to send their own children to school as are mothers with no education.
(Source: Unicef; http://www.unicef.org/mdg/gender.html)
Although Unicef's "Millennium Development Goal" of gender equality consists of outreach programs in developing nations, it's interesting to note that the problems relating to gender differences exist all over the world. Even more interesting is the fact that the result, namely economic progress, is the catalyst that has brought about the concept of equality in the first place. If it boils down to simple economics, then bringing about gender equality could be as simple as introducing tax breaks for stay-at-home moms who want to run a business from home, or other innovations like loans in Bangladesh that are extended to women at very low interest rates. Based on existing data, women in Bangladesh are much less likely to default on loans than men, and the result of this is, better cash-flow for banks in that country. Diversification has very tangible economic benefits, and it's time we include everyone in the game for reasons that extend beyond mere political correctness.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Supremacy Issues
I want to apologize for the quality of the site the link I am providing points to, but it as the only copy of this essay I could find online... I also do not believe the essay is entirely complete, but the beginning is complete and it is the part I want to focus on.
Ms. Steinem's article, "Supremacy Crimes"
In the article, Steinem asserts that those members of our society acting out in violent ways are our "sons." She equates the violence seen in male serial and mass killers with a sense of entitlement, a sense of superiority that she says is drilled into them from an early age. She even goes on, later in the article to say, "This is not about blame. This is about causation." All-in-all, it was quite an interesting read. My difficulty lies in the arrangement of information.
Not to be alarmist, but I wonder at the strategic placement of, well, blame, in the article. It is not until the eighth paragraph that any sense of explanation comes into play. The first seven paragraphs are a scathing indictment of males and violence. Is this agenda-driven? If so, what really is the agenda? I was upset by the article until I made it well into the late middle.
Also, and I know this is a painfully generalized assumption, but I wonder, as I think about the scenarios this article is read in... how many readers made it to the eighth paragraph? Imagine you are in the waiting room at the doctor, the dentist, or any other place, and you begin reading this article. You get called into the appointment around paragraph five and you go home thinking that men are horrible killers. Anyone who takes the time to read the entire article gets a better sense of the actual argument Steinem is making, but even then, it is presented in a manner very unfavorable to the subjects it claims not to blame.
As someone who has personally been attacked (and often) about my involvement with Dungeons and Dragons and the "fact" that it will make me commit suicide or become a devil-worshipper, I tend to worry at any argument such as this one. After all, the majority of mass and serial killers may be, statistically, white males. But consider the number of mass and serial killers as a percentage of the entire white male population and you wonder if statements such as, "Even if one believes in a biogenetic component of male aggression, the very existence of gentle men proves that socialization can override it," are truly worthy? After all, the vast majority of men would seem to fall into this latter category, since it is not every day that another angry white man just starts killing.
And even more interesting, Steinem asserts that we don't talk about the causes because the people affected by those causes are "the powerful." Is the assertion here that it is a trap we can't escape because the men in power will refuse to relinquish that power by talking about its negative effects?
It is a difficult piece, and I wrestled with it quite a bit. I still don't have answers for myself that I am happy with, but I certainly think that gender is at the heart of, what feels to me, to be a very strategic piece of writing.
--Michael
Ms. Steinem's article, "Supremacy Crimes"
In the article, Steinem asserts that those members of our society acting out in violent ways are our "sons." She equates the violence seen in male serial and mass killers with a sense of entitlement, a sense of superiority that she says is drilled into them from an early age. She even goes on, later in the article to say, "This is not about blame. This is about causation." All-in-all, it was quite an interesting read. My difficulty lies in the arrangement of information.
Not to be alarmist, but I wonder at the strategic placement of, well, blame, in the article. It is not until the eighth paragraph that any sense of explanation comes into play. The first seven paragraphs are a scathing indictment of males and violence. Is this agenda-driven? If so, what really is the agenda? I was upset by the article until I made it well into the late middle.
Also, and I know this is a painfully generalized assumption, but I wonder, as I think about the scenarios this article is read in... how many readers made it to the eighth paragraph? Imagine you are in the waiting room at the doctor, the dentist, or any other place, and you begin reading this article. You get called into the appointment around paragraph five and you go home thinking that men are horrible killers. Anyone who takes the time to read the entire article gets a better sense of the actual argument Steinem is making, but even then, it is presented in a manner very unfavorable to the subjects it claims not to blame.
As someone who has personally been attacked (and often) about my involvement with Dungeons and Dragons and the "fact" that it will make me commit suicide or become a devil-worshipper, I tend to worry at any argument such as this one. After all, the majority of mass and serial killers may be, statistically, white males. But consider the number of mass and serial killers as a percentage of the entire white male population and you wonder if statements such as, "Even if one believes in a biogenetic component of male aggression, the very existence of gentle men proves that socialization can override it," are truly worthy? After all, the vast majority of men would seem to fall into this latter category, since it is not every day that another angry white man just starts killing.
And even more interesting, Steinem asserts that we don't talk about the causes because the people affected by those causes are "the powerful." Is the assertion here that it is a trap we can't escape because the men in power will refuse to relinquish that power by talking about its negative effects?
It is a difficult piece, and I wrestled with it quite a bit. I still don't have answers for myself that I am happy with, but I certainly think that gender is at the heart of, what feels to me, to be a very strategic piece of writing.
--Michael
Salary Negotiating: Men versus Women
It is no surprise when a man and a woman apply for the same position, and the man gets the job, for him to make more money if the woman had gotten it? Not considering the profession, but why is that? Why are men and women not considered equally?
One theory was discussed in this Washington Post article called "Salary, Gender, and the Social Cost of Haggling by Shankar Vedantam. The beginning of the article does quite a bit of convincing with statistics that during the interview process, a man is significantly more likely to push for a higher salary than a woman. Babcock, the researcher referred to during this article, thinks this may partially explain the persistent gender gap in salaries as well as other disparities in how people rise to the top of organizations. "Women working full time earn about 77 percent of the salaries of men working full time," says Babcock. Again, that figure does not take differing professions and educations levels in account, but when those and other factors are considered, women who work full time and have never taken time off to have children earn about 11 percent less than men with equivalent education and experience. Could this potentially explain why some women are putting off having children longer and longer nowadays?
However, interestingly, the traditional explanation for the gender differences that Babcock found is that men are simply more aggressive than women, perhaps because of a combination of genetics and upbringing. The solution to gender disparities, this school of thought suggests, is to train women to be more assertive and to ask for more. However, a new set of experiments by Babcock and Hannah Riley Bowles, who studies the psychology of organizations at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, offers an entirely different explanation.
Their study, which was coauthored by Carnegie Mellon researcher Lei Lai, found that men and women get very different responses when they initiate negotiations. Although it may well be true that women often hurt themselves by not trying to negotiate, this study found that women's reluctance was based on an entirely reasonable and accurate view of how they were likely to be treated if they did. Both men and women were more likely to subtly penalize women who asked for more -- the perception was that women who asked for more were "less nice".
"What we found across all the studies is men were always less willing to work with a woman who had attempted to negotiate than with a woman who did not," Bowles said. "They always preferred to work with a woman who stayed mum. But it made no difference to the men whether a guy had chosen to negotiate or not."
This would be a very interesting conversation and I would love to hear your responses.
Full article can be found: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827.html
One theory was discussed in this Washington Post article called "Salary, Gender, and the Social Cost of Haggling by Shankar Vedantam. The beginning of the article does quite a bit of convincing with statistics that during the interview process, a man is significantly more likely to push for a higher salary than a woman. Babcock, the researcher referred to during this article, thinks this may partially explain the persistent gender gap in salaries as well as other disparities in how people rise to the top of organizations. "Women working full time earn about 77 percent of the salaries of men working full time," says Babcock. Again, that figure does not take differing professions and educations levels in account, but when those and other factors are considered, women who work full time and have never taken time off to have children earn about 11 percent less than men with equivalent education and experience. Could this potentially explain why some women are putting off having children longer and longer nowadays?
However, interestingly, the traditional explanation for the gender differences that Babcock found is that men are simply more aggressive than women, perhaps because of a combination of genetics and upbringing. The solution to gender disparities, this school of thought suggests, is to train women to be more assertive and to ask for more. However, a new set of experiments by Babcock and Hannah Riley Bowles, who studies the psychology of organizations at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, offers an entirely different explanation.
Their study, which was coauthored by Carnegie Mellon researcher Lei Lai, found that men and women get very different responses when they initiate negotiations. Although it may well be true that women often hurt themselves by not trying to negotiate, this study found that women's reluctance was based on an entirely reasonable and accurate view of how they were likely to be treated if they did. Both men and women were more likely to subtly penalize women who asked for more -- the perception was that women who asked for more were "less nice".
"What we found across all the studies is men were always less willing to work with a woman who had attempted to negotiate than with a woman who did not," Bowles said. "They always preferred to work with a woman who stayed mum. But it made no difference to the men whether a guy had chosen to negotiate or not."
This would be a very interesting conversation and I would love to hear your responses.
Full article can be found: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827.html
Gender Discrepancies: Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
This article, "Bias Called Persistent Hurdle for Women in Sciences", was published in the New York Times just a few days ago. Although it does not deal directly with bias in writing, it addresses bias on a broader scale: that careers in math and science are dominated overwhelmingly by men. The bias that men are inherently better at some subjects than women is expressed through language, whether spoken, written or implied.
As this article explains, a report by the American Association of University Women demonstrated that the gap is closing between genders, but bias is still prevalent in the sciences. They conducted studies where the actual act of telling women that they aren't expected to do as well as men on a math exercise may have provoked that very result. The women in the study had comparable backgrounds and abilities in math to those of the men. The difference in the control where women weren't told this was minimal: women scored 17 and men scored 19. However, the scores varied tremendously when the women were told that they weren't expected to score as well: women scored 5 and men scored 25. The research suggested that women may be less likely than men to pursue fields in math and sciences as a reaction to this belief that they will not be as successful in these pursuits.
These findings show how great of an impact stereotypical language can have on performance. This reminded me of the comment of the politician in my article on the Canadian national anthem yesterday stating, "There’s lots of things to do for women more important than changing the words of the national anthem." This research suggests that if we continue to use sexist language that discrepancies in achievement will be reinforced. A positive finding in this article is when women are in fact aware of such bias the effect that the bias has on performance is diminished, which is why it is important to explore these topics in an academic setting like we are doing in class.
Link to Article Below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/science/22women.html?ref=science
As this article explains, a report by the American Association of University Women demonstrated that the gap is closing between genders, but bias is still prevalent in the sciences. They conducted studies where the actual act of telling women that they aren't expected to do as well as men on a math exercise may have provoked that very result. The women in the study had comparable backgrounds and abilities in math to those of the men. The difference in the control where women weren't told this was minimal: women scored 17 and men scored 19. However, the scores varied tremendously when the women were told that they weren't expected to score as well: women scored 5 and men scored 25. The research suggested that women may be less likely than men to pursue fields in math and sciences as a reaction to this belief that they will not be as successful in these pursuits.
These findings show how great of an impact stereotypical language can have on performance. This reminded me of the comment of the politician in my article on the Canadian national anthem yesterday stating, "There’s lots of things to do for women more important than changing the words of the national anthem." This research suggests that if we continue to use sexist language that discrepancies in achievement will be reinforced. A positive finding in this article is when women are in fact aware of such bias the effect that the bias has on performance is diminished, which is why it is important to explore these topics in an academic setting like we are doing in class.
Link to Article Below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/science/22women.html?ref=science
Monday, March 22, 2010
Broads and Chicks
I want to draw attention to the term "chick," which is seemingly comparable to the old term "broad." I haven't found very credible sources for the origins of these words. It seems that "broad" is derived from the slang for a circus ticket back in the 18th century. Thus, the woman was the ticket to the show-- not only an objectification of females, but also a reference to prostitution. Of course, you don't hear the term "broad" all that often these days, except for when you're checking out old movies on ACM or if you happen to pull out Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
"Chick," on the other hand isn't disappearing. It's not uncommon to hear the terms "chick lit" and "chick flicks." The question is whether or not women should embrace this cultural concept. We really seem to make this term our own, and yet it's a rough concept to accept. Some connect "chick" to the common British term "bird" in reference to a woman. Some say the term is taken from a Sinclair Lewis novel, Elmer Gantry from 1927:
He had determined that marriage now would cramp his advancement in the church and that, anyway, he didn't want to marry this brainless little fluffy chick, who would be of no help in impressing rich parishioners. But that caution he had utterly forgotten in emotion, and her question was authentically a surprise, abominably a shock.
But, unlike "broad," "chick" has been accepted and even recirculated to mean something else. It represents femininity in a stereotypical sense, and it may not seem as negative as it should. I wonder how much we should care. Is "chick" wrong? Should we teach our daughters to roll their eyes at the term "chick lit"? It's offensive, and yet the genre sells so well.
Just as we talked about the concept of "old wives tales," it seems that the term "chick" has come to represent a cultural force that is not necessarily negative. Can one truly deny a concept that celebrates feminine media? Won't this naturally be singled out from the rest? I suppose that I can't be upset about the terms "chick lit" and "chick flick," but I can be upset about the poor quality of both. It wouldn't be nearly as negative if the "chick" media lines produced something that had more depth. I particularly consider "chick lit" in this way. Should women hold their entertainment to a higher standard? Or perhaps women have just found their equivalent to the bad action movie or the poorly written science fiction that is geared toward men. Too bad we don't have a term for those.
I used the following:
http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20000612
http://www.chickculture.com/
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/From_where_did_the_slang_use_of_the_word_chick_originate
"Chick," on the other hand isn't disappearing. It's not uncommon to hear the terms "chick lit" and "chick flicks." The question is whether or not women should embrace this cultural concept. We really seem to make this term our own, and yet it's a rough concept to accept. Some connect "chick" to the common British term "bird" in reference to a woman. Some say the term is taken from a Sinclair Lewis novel, Elmer Gantry from 1927:
He had determined that marriage now would cramp his advancement in the church and that, anyway, he didn't want to marry this brainless little fluffy chick, who would be of no help in impressing rich parishioners. But that caution he had utterly forgotten in emotion, and her question was authentically a surprise, abominably a shock.
But, unlike "broad," "chick" has been accepted and even recirculated to mean something else. It represents femininity in a stereotypical sense, and it may not seem as negative as it should. I wonder how much we should care. Is "chick" wrong? Should we teach our daughters to roll their eyes at the term "chick lit"? It's offensive, and yet the genre sells so well.
Just as we talked about the concept of "old wives tales," it seems that the term "chick" has come to represent a cultural force that is not necessarily negative. Can one truly deny a concept that celebrates feminine media? Won't this naturally be singled out from the rest? I suppose that I can't be upset about the terms "chick lit" and "chick flick," but I can be upset about the poor quality of both. It wouldn't be nearly as negative if the "chick" media lines produced something that had more depth. I particularly consider "chick lit" in this way. Should women hold their entertainment to a higher standard? Or perhaps women have just found their equivalent to the bad action movie or the poorly written science fiction that is geared toward men. Too bad we don't have a term for those.
I used the following:
http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20000612
http://www.chickculture.com/
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/From_where_did_the_slang_use_of_the_word_chick_originate
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Gender Resource for Technical Writers
I stumbled upon this website as a resource for technical editors. This website specifically focuses on the need for editing gender issues. Check out http://www.jeanweber.com/newsite/?page_id=55! Most everything we have discussed previously in class, but it is a nice little checklist of things you should think about before submitting your final revisions.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Chain Email - "If Women Controlled the World"
I just received a "forward" email that absolutely made my skin crawl because of its gender stereotyped language and images. I won't include all of the images here, but if you would like to see the whole email, let me know and I will send it to you.
The first section of the email is called "Men can fix anything." It is full of funny pictures of makeshift repairs such as a bicycle's missing wheel being replaced by a shopping cart, a mailbox consisting of a jar duct taped to a piece of wood, and lawn sprinkler made out of a water hose and two-liter bottle with holes poked in it.
These images aren't doing much for the male community. While these images reinforce the redneck "there i fixed it" stereotype, these images are not completely degrading because they portray men as creative and resourceful human beings.
The second section of the email is labeled "If Women Controlled the World" which, of course, implies that men currently control the world. Although some of the pictures are funny, they suggest women are stupid and incapable of functioning effectively in a so-called man's world.
Here are a few of the pictures with my commentary:
This one implies that women know nothing about cars beyond being able to distinguish between two colors. Even as more women are being recognized as mechanics, race car drivers, and people who sell cars from a car dealership (I tried really hard not to say car salesmen there), women are constantly fighting the "bad driver" stereotype and images like this one do not help.
In case you can't tell, this is supposed to be a computer mouse with a built in compact. While this may seem like a handy device, there are many implied ideas here. Looking at this mouse, I'd imagine the woman using this computer is more concerned about her personal appearance and may be using a computer for shopping or catching up on the latest fashion magazine. This image definitely does not lead me to think about women who are computer scientists, computer engineers, or even professional journalist who work on a computer. On a better note, computer engineering Barbie hit the shelves last month:
http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/barbie.jpg.
Again, this image reinforces the women-and-cars-do-not-mix stereotype, but does so in a very different way. Here, women are not only ignorant about classifying cars, but they are also bad drivers. This image further suggests that that women can not convert numbers into speed, and that they react foolishly in dangerous situations (closing eyes and biting lips while driving at high speeds).
I'm glad we have computer engineering Barbie to break this stereotype, but this image goes on to imply that men created computers and women do not know how to use them.
This image is a little funny, but I chose to include it because of the title. This title, implies women do NOT control medicine.
I acknowledge that these images come from an email that was created for the purpose of humor, and were not intended to make a statement. These words, labels, and images reinforce a negative idea that women and men are at odds with each other and competing for "ownership" of the world. The most bothersome point I wanted to make is that even in these "dumb men" images, men are portrayed as resourceful and capable while women are portrayed as weak, stupid, and in need of assistance.
The first section of the email is called "Men can fix anything." It is full of funny pictures of makeshift repairs such as a bicycle's missing wheel being replaced by a shopping cart, a mailbox consisting of a jar duct taped to a piece of wood, and lawn sprinkler made out of a water hose and two-liter bottle with holes poked in it.
These images aren't doing much for the male community. While these images reinforce the redneck "there i fixed it" stereotype, these images are not completely degrading because they portray men as creative and resourceful human beings.
The second section of the email is labeled "If Women Controlled the World" which, of course, implies that men currently control the world. Although some of the pictures are funny, they suggest women are stupid and incapable of functioning effectively in a so-called man's world.
Here are a few of the pictures with my commentary:
This one implies that women know nothing about cars beyond being able to distinguish between two colors. Even as more women are being recognized as mechanics, race car drivers, and people who sell cars from a car dealership (I tried really hard not to say car salesmen there), women are constantly fighting the "bad driver" stereotype and images like this one do not help.
In case you can't tell, this is supposed to be a computer mouse with a built in compact. While this may seem like a handy device, there are many implied ideas here. Looking at this mouse, I'd imagine the woman using this computer is more concerned about her personal appearance and may be using a computer for shopping or catching up on the latest fashion magazine. This image definitely does not lead me to think about women who are computer scientists, computer engineers, or even professional journalist who work on a computer. On a better note, computer engineering Barbie hit the shelves last month:
http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/barbie.jpg.
Again, this image reinforces the women-and-cars-do-not-mix stereotype, but does so in a very different way. Here, women are not only ignorant about classifying cars, but they are also bad drivers. This image further suggests that that women can not convert numbers into speed, and that they react foolishly in dangerous situations (closing eyes and biting lips while driving at high speeds).
I'm glad we have computer engineering Barbie to break this stereotype, but this image goes on to imply that men created computers and women do not know how to use them.
This image is a little funny, but I chose to include it because of the title. This title, implies women do NOT control medicine.
I acknowledge that these images come from an email that was created for the purpose of humor, and were not intended to make a statement. These words, labels, and images reinforce a negative idea that women and men are at odds with each other and competing for "ownership" of the world. The most bothersome point I wanted to make is that even in these "dumb men" images, men are portrayed as resourceful and capable while women are portrayed as weak, stupid, and in need of assistance.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Virginia Politicians
Here is another one from the Virginia political establishment. I thought it might be interesting when we talk about gender editing.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/CUCCGAT05_20100305-182601/328592/
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Today
An additional note from today:
While walking on the commons, I was yelled at by one of the many groups trying to raise money:
"Would you like to sign this petition to end the use of the "R" word for disability awareness month?"
I can appreciate someone following a cause, but who is controlled by a petition controlling speech and writing? Isn't this such a backwards way of going about this?
--Jessi
While walking on the commons, I was yelled at by one of the many groups trying to raise money:
"Would you like to sign this petition to end the use of the "R" word for disability awareness month?"
I can appreciate someone following a cause, but who is controlled by a petition controlling speech and writing? Isn't this such a backwards way of going about this?
--Jessi
Are Political Correctness and Diversity Mutually Exclusive?
In 1987, the Associated Press Stylebook contained an entry under "handicapped," a first for this category. The appearance of the category was the result of work by organizations for people with disabilities to change the way in which reporters and editors wrote about disability.
Since then, many organizations that support people with disabilities have produced sets of guidelines for avoiding demeaning and sensationalized words and phrases when writing about people with disabilities. The fact that so many groups see this as an area for concern should alert journalists to the fact that the way they use words does matter.
At the same time, there is an increasing focus on encouraging diversity within organizations. Doing so results in divergent ways of thinking which can lead to more robust ideas. This is in stark contrast to like-minded people who come up with convergent ideas. Along with diversity, sensitivity training has also become important. It is seen as a way for members of a given community to learn how to better understand and appreciate the differences in other people. The goal in this type of training is more oriented toward growth on an individual level. Sensitivity training can also be used to study and enhance group relations, i.e., how groups are formed and how members interact within those groups.
The critics of sensitivity training claim that such training is not really designed to help people be more sensitive to other people's ideas and feelings, but it actually changes one's attitudes, standards and beliefs. These critics argue that sensitivity training merely wears people down until they conform to the mentality of the group, and forces people into complying with community directives to conform to standards of political correctness. Political correctness has been defined as "avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against" or the "alteration of language to redress real or alleged injustices and discrimination or to avoid offense." While political correctness seems like a good thing, opponents of the political correctness movement argue that it represents a totalitarian movement toward an ideological state in which there is 100% conformity.
Many employees who go through sensitivity training sessions feel that only certain groups were being asked to be sensitive of the others. On the other hand, proponents of the PC movement assert that it makes each of us a bit more sensitive to the challenges that our fellow citizens may face on a daily basis. Despite these differing points of view, sensitivity training will continue, and employers and other organizations will continue to assess whether its effectiveness warrants the costs.
http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/mediacircus/styleguide.htm
http://www.americasbestcompanies.com/blog/senstraining.aspx
Since then, many organizations that support people with disabilities have produced sets of guidelines for avoiding demeaning and sensationalized words and phrases when writing about people with disabilities. The fact that so many groups see this as an area for concern should alert journalists to the fact that the way they use words does matter.
At the same time, there is an increasing focus on encouraging diversity within organizations. Doing so results in divergent ways of thinking which can lead to more robust ideas. This is in stark contrast to like-minded people who come up with convergent ideas. Along with diversity, sensitivity training has also become important. It is seen as a way for members of a given community to learn how to better understand and appreciate the differences in other people. The goal in this type of training is more oriented toward growth on an individual level. Sensitivity training can also be used to study and enhance group relations, i.e., how groups are formed and how members interact within those groups.
The critics of sensitivity training claim that such training is not really designed to help people be more sensitive to other people's ideas and feelings, but it actually changes one's attitudes, standards and beliefs. These critics argue that sensitivity training merely wears people down until they conform to the mentality of the group, and forces people into complying with community directives to conform to standards of political correctness. Political correctness has been defined as "avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against" or the "alteration of language to redress real or alleged injustices and discrimination or to avoid offense." While political correctness seems like a good thing, opponents of the political correctness movement argue that it represents a totalitarian movement toward an ideological state in which there is 100% conformity.
Many employees who go through sensitivity training sessions feel that only certain groups were being asked to be sensitive of the others. On the other hand, proponents of the PC movement assert that it makes each of us a bit more sensitive to the challenges that our fellow citizens may face on a daily basis. Despite these differing points of view, sensitivity training will continue, and employers and other organizations will continue to assess whether its effectiveness warrants the costs.
http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/mediacircus/styleguide.htm
http://www.americasbestcompanies.com/blog/senstraining.aspx
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Writing on Disability in the Context of Literature
This syllabus (link below), which I found by searching “writing about disability”, describes the course "Topics in Literature and Society: Writing on Disability" at Columbia University. It follows none of RTC guidelines or any other guidelines that we have encountered. In this paragraph, the professor repeatedly ignores RTC’s suggestion on people-first writing by using "eccentric bodies" in conjunction with "disability". He does mention the historical shift from viewing disability as "heroic”, but then uses the word "cripple" with no quotations. His blatant omission of following the guidelines led me to examine the appropriateness in this context - an introduction to a literary course on just that: writing about disabilities.
In reading the professor’s profile at Columbia University (see link below), I noticed his emphasis on medieval literature and that "He has approached these issues through the optic of original manuscripts" and his "new research on the cultural imagination of disability in the Middle Ages". I concluded that the professor uses these negative terms in order to familiarize students with the portrayal of people with disabilities in literature. After all, the titles of required reading included "On Being a Cripple" and "Sideshow USA: Freaks and the American Cultural Imagination."
We have discussed the importance of context in evaluating the best language to use in a given situation. If the purpose of using words such as “cripple” is to educate students through literature, then this may change the intent associated with using this terminology ─ as long as this distinction in usage is emphasized. As with the educators in Michael's topic, this professor also needs to consider that students with disabilities may be in the class. However, the difference here is choice since this course is at the college level. Considering that the context of this professor’s writing, does this constitute a justifiable omission of guidelines? Or should this professor have adhered to the guidelines in posting this syllabus at least?
Syllabus: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/english/syllabi/4917baswell.pdf
Faculty Profile: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/english/fac_profiles.htm
Perpetuating Stereotypes about People with Disabilities
This first unit on editing brought up many conflicting differences on how we write, view, and talk about disabilities. These conflicting differences arise between those with disabilities and those without over how we as a culture should talk about these issues. My presentation yesterday demonstrated how sensational media stories can influence the public's perception about how to view families living autism.
On my search to understand stereotypes of people with disabilities I came across a campaign that had gathered celebrity support - the Inclusion in the Arts & Media of People with Disabilities (I AM PWD). Shifting our attention from electronic and printed texts, they way we portray people with disabilities also plays a huge impact on our perception and the solidification of certain stereotypes about people with disabilities.
In this article the writer talks about the relevance for the need for a campaign like this in arts and media The article discusses a 2005 UCLA survey conducted by SAG, the results reported that "people with disabilities play fewer than 2 percent of characters on television, even though more than 20 percent of Americans live with a disability." Actor Ann Stocking points out the normal roles casted for people with disabilities "generally fallen into a narrow group of stereotypes: heroic fighters, pathetic victims, bitter narcissists or disfigured villains.These damaging stereotypes perpetuate the myth that disabled people are not complex and surprising human beings, but instead are less capable, less valuable members of society.”
Stocking later explained that "in reality, disabled people are just like everyone else.We’re mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, lovers, doctors, politicians, athletes, actors — as well as heroes and villains."
In this case, people with disabilities are trying to be seen. The celebrity spokes men and women are trying to relay the message that having a disabilities does not mean that there is this limitation for casting of specific roles in movies or on TV only. They want to build this critical mass of having more actors and actresses to be seen on TV or in movies to build stronger acceptance.
For the whole article follow this link: http://www.patriciaebauer.com/2008/10/06/hollywood-disability-rights-3394/
Teaching the Children
So, I wanted to post the link to the Easter Seals site for the "Friends Who Care" program. This is a pretty amazing effort which, as we saw in class yesterday, may still have a long way to go.
Friends Who Care
What struck me the most about this site and its attendant lesson plans, activities and handouts is that Easter Seals is one of the organizations staking a claim to having, as we've said in class, "authority over the language of disability." This is a group which publishes guidelines, does charity work and spends time in the news spotlight. So what happened with "Friends Who Care?" I'm not really sure. Looking through the rest of the site, and the teacher materials, I found an interesting mix of useful activities, attempts to be sensitive and straightforward advertising for the Easter Seals organization. In fact, the videos you can use to show students are far more "testimonials" about the quality of Easter Seals than about the children.
Many of the hands-on style activities in the lesson plans seem innocent and useful enough in conveying a sense of living with a disability to students, but very little guidance is provided to teachers about "answering the tough questions." Students are provided with facts and faced with some scenarios which simulate some disabilities, but what should you do when Little Johnny announces to the class that his little sister is a "retard?" Or what if the Little Suzy in your class is a child with autism? It seems as if the materials were designed entirely with nondisabled students in mind.
Another issue is the language. The testimonials and "quotes" all seem to have one thing in common, they delve into that sympathy language. Terms like, 'regular disability girl' or 'severely autistic' are bandied about, giving the impression that this is more of a commercial than a truly helpful, thoughtful effort.
On a lighter note, because the program is sponsored by Friendly's, students all get ice cream at the end... except in places that don't have a Friendly's... so maybe not a happy ending after all.
Thanks,
Michael
Friends Who Care
What struck me the most about this site and its attendant lesson plans, activities and handouts is that Easter Seals is one of the organizations staking a claim to having, as we've said in class, "authority over the language of disability." This is a group which publishes guidelines, does charity work and spends time in the news spotlight. So what happened with "Friends Who Care?" I'm not really sure. Looking through the rest of the site, and the teacher materials, I found an interesting mix of useful activities, attempts to be sensitive and straightforward advertising for the Easter Seals organization. In fact, the videos you can use to show students are far more "testimonials" about the quality of Easter Seals than about the children.
Many of the hands-on style activities in the lesson plans seem innocent and useful enough in conveying a sense of living with a disability to students, but very little guidance is provided to teachers about "answering the tough questions." Students are provided with facts and faced with some scenarios which simulate some disabilities, but what should you do when Little Johnny announces to the class that his little sister is a "retard?" Or what if the Little Suzy in your class is a child with autism? It seems as if the materials were designed entirely with nondisabled students in mind.
Another issue is the language. The testimonials and "quotes" all seem to have one thing in common, they delve into that sympathy language. Terms like, 'regular disability girl' or 'severely autistic' are bandied about, giving the impression that this is more of a commercial than a truly helpful, thoughtful effort.
On a lighter note, because the program is sponsored by Friendly's, students all get ice cream at the end... except in places that don't have a Friendly's... so maybe not a happy ending after all.
Thanks,
Michael
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)