Arthur is one of those shows I started watching since pre-K and never stopped watching. My friends all scorn my love for this TV show since it's directed towards elementary school children. But watching it is one of my favorite things to do. With all these depressing poems and American literature we're reading in our English classes, I've hung onto watching this show. I'm glad I can escape to the land of Elwood City for thirty glorious minutes. Everything is fine here; I know that any accidents here will always turn out for the better, friendship issues will always be resolved, and D.W.'s imaginary friend, Nadine, will always love her even D.W. is growing up. The theme of "working together to make things better" is constant and predictable. I might not gain any new insights from this show, but I feel refreshed and calm after watching it. And sometimes, my brain really needs the rest.
Why Women Still Can't Have it All
Anne-Marie Slaughter’s “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” article has been interesting to think about with regards to Oksala’s and Beauvoir’s ideas. Generally I also think that a lot of women’s oppression extends beyond working rights into the structure of society, and how culture shapes our consciousness, values, and perceptions on women.
One of Slaughter’s main arguments to close the gender gap measured by well-being rather than wages is to close the leadership gap by ensuring female representation in top positions, which will then create a society that works for everyone. This kind of representation for women is important because it is men who typically possess the privilege of their voices being heard; to simply be a man is to be in a higher position in the social hierarchy and to be in the position of privilege. The capacity of being able to say something that affects society relies on a certain position in the cultural and social framework. Those in a position of power are also role models for the kids, who can see how they can thrive as well. I’m not completely sure about the “top women are superhuman” part or even that Rhodes Scholars are on another level though it’s a huge accomplishment. To say that makes it sound like women cannot handle much or that lofty goals of being able to both work a top job and raise children are beyond them, which reminds me of the Beauvoir socialized-into-having-lower-ambition argument.
Nevertheless, I agree that numerous women are unable to achieve “having-it-all” because of societal constraints. Rather than being an issue of ambition, the policies and schedules in place clash with home responsibilities, and sequencing work-life decisions does not work because often big promotions occur during important child life stages. Faced with the decision, many females will go with family rather than jobs due to how society has conditioned women and instilled viewpoints on their places in the public and private spheres. Furthermore, arguing that one can “have-it-all” undermines the issue, placing the individual female at blame rather than the society that creates the institutions and conditions that render it difficult for females to stay in their job when they also desire a family.
Also, many women suffer an internal breakdown between the self and the ideal. Many, including Anne-Marie, were unable to continue working their jobs due to the gap between what she wants and values more personally vs. what society imposes onto her. Feminity is a social construction, and the ideal of femininity is imposed into society. The gender ideologies and work-family constraints shape women’s career decisions. For instance, one of my friends from home has decided to become a stay-at-home mom immediately after graduating high school. I think it’s interesting how some would frown upon this decision but also she made it due to both her nature and how she was raised and socialized to believe in her role as a mother. I realized over the summer that women did tend to complain a lot over things that did not make sense since I thought they had the autonomy to change their situation. For example, some of the other people I went to some professional event with complained about wearing heels there. I laughed and played along to relate with them while internally thinking that it was their own decision and they could’ve chosen to wear something else. However, I think that Oksala’s ideas can help explain the overall phenomenon. Women internalize these social divisions and power hierarchies through fulfilling mundane gender-role actions. Women’s success is often linked to how they fit in with society’s ideal and standards, and there are often consequences for not fitting in these ideals. Women are thus subjugated by normalization; they are still subjects with the ability to choose, but they are made into particular kinds of subjects that need to fit into some frame or ideal that often determines their success. Many decisions and actions women take whether consciously or subconsciously are a product of what ideal femininity looks like, and women should try to consciously break the patterns.
Furthermore, this article frames the choice between job and family, but the question is, do women even have a choice? Oksala would mention that the idea of personal choice “effectively masks the systemic aspects of power – domination, social hierarchies, economic exploitation – by relegating to subjects the freedom to choose between different options whilst denying them any real possibility for defining or shaping those options.” So, women can make choices, but these choices are made within an unequal power relation, that construct how they think about the situation and restrict their options. I am also interested in what Oksala thinks about this, in a liberal Adam Smith-like view of the atomized individual- “It has now become conceivable that a woman’s interest might not coincide with her husband’s and children’s interests anymore: new feminists do not want a happy home, they want money, power and success. They are atomic, autonomous subjects of interest competing freely for the economic opportunities available”. Oksala believes that women have the rights and are individuals pursuing their own interests. Nowadays, idealized femininity and economic power are linked.
Related to this, I wonder how the female reality relates with other issues like race and economic inequality as well and how they are connected. Would solving this issue also mean having to solve the issue of race/economic inequality as well? The issues of gender are always intertwined with the issue of class; the issues seem to reproduce in the already existing set of relationships. Being able to get jobs in the first place as well as generating the initial ambition is dependent on the already existing structures that are contingent on class. Ambition-wise, some women have been conditioned to aim lower and settle for less. Gender-based inequalities seem to be a feature of the class system, especially regarding family and married women. Anne-Marie, as a well-off elite woman, has more of the autonomy to make decisions for herself but also the freedom to choose to take care of the children, whereas lower-class women are forced to work in order to provide for the family, especially if they have children, which means they take care of the kids even less. With this autonomy raises the question of personal choice within an already unequal system.
The other side of the elite feminist debate is summarized briefly by Clinton, who disapproved of Slaughter’s article saying that her problems were individual and that some women simply are not cut out for the job. There is definitely truth to this argument because some women do take up jobs that are not in line with their abilities, and this is true for both men and women. Clinton’s viewpoint does not seem to take into account where people come from, how individual capabilities arise, or how people are socially conditioned. It also overlooks the larger systematic issues of gender inequality by zooming into Anne’s particular case as an individual issue. Women tend to internalize social positions that affect their behaviors and actions, and they are portrayed as the result of their individual choices. This side values the neoliberal values of individualism and the ability to make a choice. This power to choose means that the women are subjects, but their choices are produced out of and restrained by the very structures of power through which emancipation is sought. It therefore downplays the need for collective action against the systematic inequalities and the evolving dynamics that create the inequalities. Instead of trying to bring each other down and discount others’ efforts, everyone should work together to fix these gender equality issues.
It is true that within the elite circles and to come from a place of privilege, people should have
greater access to opportunities and financial stability to support that.
However, people like Anne-Marie are needed because society needs more women who are in
powerful positions that can change society and speak for those who are struggling. Anne realizes
the issue from a larger social perspective and tries to fight some of the structural factors that
make it difficult for women. A possible solution to her dilemma is offered by Coontz.
Both of Coontz’s articles try to offer an explanation of gender inequality through the structural
impediments that prevent people from acting on egalitarian values, saying that employers should
be developing work-like policies that allow people to put gender values in practice.
Coontz argues that today’s main barriers are not in women’s attitudes, but in the structural
barriers that stop people from acting on egalitarian values, which leads both men and women to
end up in positions they didn’t want to find themselves in.
Still, it is interesting to think about this side, "How to Have an Insanely Demanding Job and
2 Happy Children" which is helpful. Beauvoir argues that women do not succeed in building a
solid “counter-universe” where they can defy males because they lack the conviction, and their
attitude towards man is too ambivalent. I tried to find out more about the personal lives of certain
women in power, whether CEOs or government officials. Emily Weiss, the 34-year-old CEO of
Glossier, seems to have been married and then divorced. I wonder if it was over struggles of
running a business that interferes with life balance. I also investigated the Rent the Runway
founder’s life Hyman to find out more. She grew up in a financially priveldedged home like
Anne-Marie; an upper middle class neighborhood in New York with an emphasis on education
at home and went to Harvard. If she wasn’t successful, Clinton would probably look down on her.
In the real word, however, her main challenge was that she was a woman. Her boyfriend broke
up with her because “he didn’t want to be with a women who was his equal” (Huffpost). It’s
interesting to see the kind of sexism she faced both behavior-wise
(being too loud and enthusiastic) and fundraising less than if she was a man. I looked into her
company and it looks as though it is a place that cultivates the sort of values that Coontz talks
about; the website says, “We want Rent the Runway to be an example of what the modern
workplace should be - one that is more human, focused on its people and wellbeing… this means
recognizing and supporting the many facets and phases of employees’ lives” (Rent the Runway).
Observing the language, I see that they do not specifically point out these benefits for just
women but for all employees, with paid sick and family leave, even a sabbatical program to
allow employees to nurture their passions outside of work. Statistically, 67% of the women
leaders are also mothers, which is well above the norm in American society. I’m very interested
in following these kind of companies and seeing how they do and also how they can enact
greater change in terms of fighting gender inequality. I also wonder what this would look like in
other professions as well like government or finance and how it would change the perceptions and
industries.
PSET of the Week
A Galilean linear order is a structure G = hA, vi where A is an Aristotelian linear order and v is a binary relation, read “is no longer than” such that:
1. If a is a part of A then a v a. (This is to say that v is reflexive on the set of parts of A.)
2. If a and b are distinct parts of A then either a v b or b v a.
3. If a, b and c are distinct parts of A then a v b and b v c implies a v c. (This is to say that v is transitive on the set of parts of A.)
So v defines a non-strict linear order on the parts.
An order automorphism is a mapping from an ordered set to itself that preserves the order. That is, if f: S-->S is a one-to-one correspondence from S to itself then f is an order automorphism for < iff for all a,b in S, a < b implies f(a) < f(b)
Explain why there is only one order automorphism for the natural numbers N={1,2,3,...}
Assume there’s another order automorphism for the natural numbers N = {1,2,3…}, such as N1 = {2,1,3…}, then f(1) = 2, f(2) = 1, which means that in N1, f(1) > f(2), but 2 > 1, so this contradicts the given condition of if a < b implies f(a) < f(b). So, the assumption is wrong. Thus, there is only one order automorphism for the natural numbers N = {1,2,3…}.
What kinds of order automorphism are there for the integers Z={...,-2,-1,0,1,2,...} ?
An order automorphism is a mapping from an ordered set to itself that preserves the order. For example, the order automorphism W = { + or - (n-1) | n = 1, 2, 3…}, n being a natural number, is for the integers z = {... -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, …}
With reference to your answers, explain why we can give a unique structural description of 2 in the natural numbers (i.e., a sentence in terms of < that is true of 2 but no other element of N) but not in the integers.
The use of 2 or its multiples can express half of the natural numbers 2,4,6,8… where 1 < 2, 3,5,7…(2n-1). The structural place of 2 can be in two places in the integers because of the positive and negatives, but there is only one place of 2 in the positive natural numbers.
Explain why an affine transformation f(t) = gt + s preserves ratios of lengths of open intervals of real numbers (where the length of (a,b) is |b-a|). If absolute time is affine (i.e., if its structure is invariant under affine transformations when interpreted in terms of the reals), explain why it can be said to flow uniformly.
Since absolute time is affine, its transformation f(t) can be mapped into (a,b), of which the ratios of lengths are uniformly distributed. Because the ratio of lengths are uniformly distributed, this means that time flows uniformly.
(Newtonian absolute time is a Galilean linear order TA = hT , vi that is uniform with respect to itself under any order isomorphism of < that is an order isomorphism of v. There is no distinguished unit of time but ratios are preserved. Since distinct automorphisms describe translations and rescalings of T, we say that absolute time is affine and provides exactly the structure required to compare intervals of time along distinct motions.)
