The Social Construction of Gender in Workplace Organizations.

This week, we explored work as a gendered and sexed institution. While we are now aware that family and education are two arenas in which gender is developed and maintained, one might make the error of assuming that work is a reprieve from such gender constraints. That is, once someone transitions into the work force they are no longer a student in a class room, and when  an individual leaves for work their family stays at home. Unfortunately, our social constructions of gender do not yield to the doors of the home or classroom, and gender/sex is thusly mitigated in the workplace as well. As is prominent in the public psyche, DeFrancisco and Palczewski (2014) note the wage disparities between men and women, citing that women make 82.2% of men’s earnings (p.187). Looking through the critical gendered lens, we find that this disparity exists as a function of sociocultural practice, as Madden (2012; as cited in DeFrancisco and Palczewski, 2014) found that it was not that women had inferior abilities compared to men, but rather, the sales opportunities were not duly granted to them by comparison in stockbroking positions. Therefore, it is not that women are less capable than men; patriarchal systems imbedded within organizations do not afford them the same money-making opportunities. I feel at this juncture, it is important to note that patriarchy is not one particular man (or even a particular group of men) actively oppressing women, but rather, a system in which males and masculinity are privileged because it’s simply considered the social norm.

Part of the way in which organizations become gendered/sexed is related to the way in which we define and assign work. Of particular interest, I feel, is the fact that our definition of “work” is not related to function, physical demand, or required skill, but merely contingent upon whether or not an individual is paid for a particular task or tasks, and is consequently gendered. DeFranscisco and Palczewski (2014) illustrate the gender relationship well in examination of the term “working mothers.” Working mothers are females who have birthed children, yet continue to work at jobs outside of the home. The inference here being that it is the paid labor which is work, and thus significantly different than, and additive to, the domestic duties of a female (or, perhaps otherwise-gendered person) who is raising their children. Moreover, a perhaps parallel term, “working father,” is not only non-existent in western colloquial discourse, but carries with it a sense of awkwardness; it is assumed that the male of the relationship will continue to work regardless, harkening back to the idea of the “nuclear family” discussed in the previous chapters.

Regardless of the gender/sex of an individual, upon entering the work force they are entering a gendered/sexed organization. Those of us working in corporate environments are woefully aware of the position of the abstract worker –a bodiless, sexless, emotionless worker who does not procreate (DeFranscisco and Palczewski, 2014. p.192). This definition explains the way in which communicative behavior in organizations is influenced by gender; while organizations center their ideologies around the abstract worker, in reality, workers do in fact have bodies, sexes, emotions, etc. The abstract worker seems to be the organizational ideal from which men and women deviate and thus expose differences in gender. Perhaps the best example of this is Albrecht’s (1999; as cited in DeFranscisco and Palczewski, 2014) finding that pregnancy is often framed as a “disability.” As such, when women need to take time off to bear and raise children, they thus deviate from the characteristics of the abstract worker and draw attention to differences in gender. Men, by contrast, do not typically take maternity leave and are able (or, rather, encouraged) to fulfill their organizational duties in lieu of child birth, keeping them closer to the schema of the abstract worker.

DeFranscico and Palczewski (2014) further the organizational element of gender in the work place by invoking the situation of transpeople who transition to their identified gender while working. What are profoundly interesting to me are the findings that while transgender men often enjoy higher status in the workplace after the transition is complete, transgender women often experience a diminishing effect on their perceived abilities and status within an organization. It would seem, then, that our judgments about work-place performance are almost inextricably linked to gender/sex, and furthers the rather disturbing, yet realistically visible, idea that employees in workplace organizations are viewed within the framework of the abstract worker.  Vidal-Ortiz (2009) offers a unique perspective on the experiences of transgender women –namely those of color, or ethnic decent. For transgender women, employment upon transition is neither guaranteed secure or obtainable. While transgender men may reap certain sociocultural benefits in terms of their treatment by co-workers post transition, transgender women may experience the opposite effect: having their employment terminated during transition (Tesene, 2012; Vidal-Ortiz, 2002). While feminist debates have excluded prostitution as from women’s labor possibilities, he brings the vast deployment of a female workforce outside of the middle-class parameters of decent employment. Vidal-Ortiz (2009) argues that the negative assessments of transwomen –particularly those of color- may reduce their possibilities to work outside of street economies such as sex work (p.100). Yet, he also brings to perspective the notion that transwomen of color experience similar stereotypes to other nontransgender sex workers, opening up earning potential denied to them by other institutions. Sex work, while reifying stereotypes, also serves as a site for liberation, rather than oppression, for transgender women of color. Drawing from both the text and supplemental reading, I propose the following questions:

1. While “stay-at-home mom” is a rather ubiquitous term, “stay-at-home dads” are now on the rise. When you hear the latter phrase, what are your thoughts? What kind of judgments/assumptions do you make (or think are made, in general) about “stay-at-home dads” based on our culturally-constructed gender roles? How do you think this relates to the “nuclear family?”

2. How does the definition of abstract worker (a sexless, bodiless, emotionless individual who does not procreate) make you feel? Do you agree or disagree that most workplace organizations structure their communicative practices to this effect, and why?

3. At the end of his opening vignette, Vidal-Ortiz asks the reader “what is your figure of the transwoman of color?” Taking an intersectional approach, answer this question, and explain how our communicative construction of gender may influence your answer. How do you think her experiences might diverge from/converge with other transpeople, and/or people in general?

March 18 Education: Education is a Gendered Institution, Classroom Interactions, Title IX

   When a child first enters their first stage of education, they do not realize that they are entering a growing stage and up to 12 years of education. According to the textbook, Education is one of the most important influences on one's life, and a good education can contribute to raised income, career options, health, and quality of life. In other words, the authors are saying that education is not only about the information that we receive but it is more about the skills that are develop and how we take those skills and make them major aspects in our life. Moreover, education tends to have an effect on identity, one’s self esteem and overall one’s life. Education has always been that place where you learn values and biases of the culture that become sort of presumed. Education is an institution with the potential to be a great equalizer--a promoter of individual growth--but much of its history has been about being the great divider (Ruane and Cerulo, 2008). In making this statement, Ruane and Cerulo are saying that education itself is something that can be considered being a healthy issue that has gained to be positive and civilized and an issue that has history that tears us apart from the issues within. Although, education history is significant for its inception, it has become important just with the issues that divide the classrooms and the educational institutions. From learning about the history of education, public education was originally intended for White upper-class boys who had what it takes to get a decent education. It was then deemed that during the time of African American slavery in the United States, they were all prohibited from being able to learn how to read or write. This was a way that was known as controlling them. Although they were in a controlled environment, they eventually were able to still learn how to read using a Bible. Before public education was established poor people and certain ethical minority persons were not able to obtain en education. In the textbook, it tells us that public education is an education for all and did not become the norm until the mid-1900s.

                During this time as well, society did not look at just everyone being able to obtain an education. As stated before, education was only intended for White upper-class boys. Defrancisco and Palczewski states, “Only white women from wealthy families could obtain higher education before the 1900s, and even then they were discouraged from taking courses in what were considered the masculine domains of business, science, and mathematics.” In making this statement, they are explaining on the type of people that were looked at to even be considered to receive an education and how much they were stereotyped in being a part of a wealthy family. During those times, women were not always looked at to me smart but to be raised and taught how to become a good wife for a successful husband.  However, this comes to the question, “How is public education considered for all people if only a certain group is excluded because of what the norm is?” Many educators had slight concerns that bringing forth girls and boys together in an educational institution would slow the pace of teaching due to the adjustment for women. It was thought that working side by side with girls would feminize boys and would bring out the masculine aspect in education. Critics not only worried boys would become effeminate; they worried boys would become gay (Kimmel, 2012a; Minnich, 1998). The essence of Kimmel and Minnich argument is that taking a masculine setting out of education would make the learning a little softer spoken and less masculine. Eventually, as the time passed, women became more successful in education and many of the majors and careers still remained unusually gendered. Most educators believed that the career options that were made for women were, secretary, teacher and nurse, all in which were not required to have a degree. Going back to what the textbook states what a nuclear family is and what a nuclear family consist of which is  the male is the primary wage earner and the female is the primary homemaker. In other words, this is saying that regardless of what society lives by now according to the history of women being brought up they have always been known as to do only certain things that women do.

Along with the coeducation issue within the history of education, race and ethnicity also played a major role. There was eventually an assimilation that the government was creating so that immigrants were put into learning English and more about the United States. Defrancisco and Palczewski writes themselves that, "Despite the push for assimilation of immigrants, schools in the South remained racially segregated until forced to integrate after, in 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that separate schools are never equal in quality." This statement explains that Brown v. Board of Education was an argument dealing with coeducation with establishing black and white students unconstitutional. Advocates believe single-sex schools help counter underachievement, low self-esteem, drugs, teen pregnancy, and gang violence (NASSPE, 2006a, 2006b). This makes a point on how sex-segregated education divides students by gender which many think that it takes in account gender or sexual orientation. But in reality all of this affect a child comfort in a same sex educational program.

Hidden curriculum is norms, values, and beliefs as a byproduct of education that people often fail to question.  This became an issue because it is almost like being taught something in school but not knowing the entire information about. In other words, hidden curriculum is something that is condensed for the sake of controversy etc. In the textbook it states that curriculum is gendered in terms of what is taught and to whom. In other words, certain subjects or topics are meant for a certain gender. For example, Woodworking is a class that would be geared towards more of males instead of females. But as far as hidden curriculum goes, it makes clear that a critical gender analysis must go further than simply comparing women and men for possible differences in educational experiences. (p.169)

To speak about Classroom Interactions, Sociologist Margaret Andersen (2011) describes schools as "the stage where society's roles-roles defined by gender, class, race, sexuality, and age-are played out" (p.304). Classroom interactions are simply ways that students act depending on how the teacher treat them. It is stated that although most teacher education programs now include some form of diversity awareness, Sadker and Silber's (2007) review of curriculum revealed that gender is largely missing. This statement deems to be true because of the different ways teachers treat their students and most teachers do not know that the way they teach in a coeducational class can affect each gender. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for all boys or all the girls to be punished because of the behaviors of a few (Kramer, 2005; Kimmel, 2012a). Both Kramer and Kimmel points out how it is not of the norm for all boys and girls to not get punished for someone else within that classroom doing something wrong.

Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 was formed in 1972. The textbook states that, it declares that no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" (20 U.S.C. 1681). Many believe that Title IX is just for the sake of participation in sports but it was created for all educational practices. Yes, sports is seen to be something that would need more attention as far as bringing some equivalency but other educational practices were things that needed to bring some rights to students and their issues within an educational institution. The textbook also states that Title IX promises all students the right to education without bullying, sexual harassment, and other threats of violence. Even though Title IX did not too much support educational practices when it became effective, it gained a long term effect and gave support to many over the nation in education and in sports.

Based on the readings, here are some questions for you all:

 1. According to the textbook, hidden curriculum seems to be something that people fail to question. Why do you think hidden curriculum or any curriculum is not always questioned?

 2. Classroom Interactions sections speaks about how it is not acceptable to intentionally segregate children by race, but acceptable to segregate by sex, Which do you think is acceptable and not acceptable and why?

3. Speaking and reading about Title IX, what are your thoughts about what the purpose of this act is? Do you think this plays a major role in education today?