TORTURE, NOT CULTURE

Female circumcision, better known as Female Genital Mutilation, is an
ugly monster finally rearing its head from out of the depths of time. It
can attack a girl at any age, with a little prompting from her society,
and the aid of an unsuspecting human wielding the knife. Usually, it is
performed from a few days after birth to puberty, but in some regions,
the torture can be put off until just before marriage or the seventh month
of pregnancy. Women that have gone beyond the primary level
of education are much less likely to fall victim to the tradition.

The average victim is illiterate and living in a poverty-stricken
community where people face hunger, bad health, over-working, and unclean
water. This, however, is not always the case.
As one can see in the following story of Soraya Mire, social classes create
no real barriers. Soraya Mire, a 13-year-old from Mogadishu, Somolia, never
knew what would happen to her the day her mother called her out of her
room to go buy her some gifts. When asked why, her mother replied, "I
just want to show you how much I love you." As Soraya got into the
car, she wondered where the armed guards were. Being the daughter of a
Somolian general, she was always escorted by guards. Despite her mother's
promise of gifts, they did not stop at a store, but at a doctor's home.
"This is your special day," Soraya's mother said. "Now you
are to become a woman, an important woman." She was ushered into the
house and strapped down to an operating table. A local anesthetic was given
but it barely blunted the pain as the doctor performed the circumcision.
Soraya was sent home an hour later. Soraya broke from her culture's confining
bonds at the age of 18 by running away from an abusive arranged marriage.
In Switzerland, she was put in a hospital emergency room with severe menstrual
cramps because of the operation. Seven months later, the doctor performed
reconstructive surgery on her. Now in the U.S., Soraya is a leading spokeswoman
against FGM. In addition to being active in the fight against
FGM, she is a American filmmaker. She has come a long way. Being well-educated
about the facts of FGM also brings to light the ugly truth. "It is
happening on American soil," insists Soraya.

Mutilations are occurring every day among innigrants and refugees in the U.S. Immigrants have also brought the horrifying practice to Europe, Australia, and Canada. Normally, it is practiced in North and Central Africa, the Middle East, and Muslim populations of Indonesia and Malaysia. Although it seems to have taken root in
Muslim and African Christian religions, there is no Koranic or Biblical
backing for FGM. Many times female circumcision
is treated as a religion in itself. It can be a sacred ritual meant to
be kept secret forever. As a woman told poet Mariama Barrie, "You
are about to enter Society {sic}, and you must never reveal the ritual
that is about to take place."

The ritualistic version of FGM is much more barbaric than the sterile doctor's world which Soraya Mire passed through. Mariama Barrie had to endure the most severe form of FGm at the tender age of ten. Mariama's torture is known as infibulation.
There is also excision and sunna. Infibulation consists of the removal
of the entire clitoris, the whole of the labia minora and up to 2/3 of
the labia majora. The sides of the vulva are sewn or held together by long
thorns. A small opening the size of the tip of a matchstick is left for
the passage of menstrual blood and urine. Excision is a clitoridectomy
and sometimes the removal of the labia minora; sunna is the only type that
can truthfully be called circumcision. It is a subtotal clitoridectomy.

To put this in perspective, infibulation
would be like cutting off a man's penis completely, cutting the testicles
to the groin, and making a hole in them to have the semen siphoned out.
But still, it can get worse. The instruments that can be
used to perform the operation are usually crude and dirty. they can include
kitchen knives, razor blades, scissors, broken glass, and in some regions,
the teeth of the midwife. Because of this, there are many dangers threatening
the victim. The most immediate danger is exsanguination: there is no record
of how many girls bleed to death because of this operation. Other physical consequences include infection, gangrene, abcesses,
infertility, painful sex, difficulty in childbirth, and possibly death.

No matter how much we learn, the pain will
still be the same as when the first female circumcision was performed in
the fifth century, B.C. The number of women affected by
this has risen steadily since then. The average per year is now 2 million,
and it is their "female friends, mothers, and grandmothers
who urge them to lie back and think of traditional culture". The reason women are promoting this practice is because "circumcisions
are often carried out by select older women, whose profession provides
them with a degree of public esteem rarely enjoyed by women in male-dominated
societies". A better, but still not logical reason
for women to promote FGM is life. Soraya Mire remarks, "[It] is proof
of your virginity, and men only want to marry virgins. A Sudanese woman
without a husband is not only an outcast, she is likely to die of starvation
because she has no way to make a living on her own." Many
cultures support female circumcision because of ancient native beliefs.
For example, some believe that bodies are androgynous at birth. To enter
adulthood, girls "must be relieved of their male part, the clitoris". Others believe that the clitoris contains poison or will
eventually grow to the size of a man's penis.

However, the tide is turning. Men, who probably created FGM for their benefit,
are turning against it. Most men found out that prostitutes are more fun
if the woman isn't in pain. It's not the best reason, but it's better than
none at all. This has been a tragic and horrifying
story to tell. I'm sorry I had to be the one to tell it, but someone had
to.

Feminism And Gender Equality

Overall, the rights and status of women have improved considerably in the last 

century; however, gender equality has recently been threatened within the last decade.  

Blatantly sexist laws and practices are slowly being eliminated while social perceptions of 

"women's roles" continue to stagnate and even degrade back to traditional ideals.  It is 

these social perceptions that challenge the evolution of women as equal on all levels.  In 

this study, I will argue that subtle and blatant sexism continues to exist throughout 

educational, economic, professional and legal arenas.  

        Women who carefully follow their expected roles may never recognize sexism as 

an oppressive force in their life.  I find many parallels between women's experiences in the 

nineties with Betty Friedan's, in her essay: The Way We Were - 1949. She dealt with a 

society that expected women to fulfill certain roles.  Those roles completely disregarded 

the needs of educated and motivated business women and scientific women.  Actually, the 

subtle message that society gave was that the educated woman was actually selfish and 

evil.

I remember in particular the searing effect on a friend of mine who once intended to be a 

psychologist, of a story in and old McCall's magizine dated December 1949 called "A Weekend with Daddy."  

A little girl who lives a lonely life with her mother, divorced, an intellectual know-it-all 

psychologist, goes to the country to spend a weekend with her father and his new wife, 

who is wholesome, happy, and a good cook and gardener.  And there is love and 

laughter and growing flowers and hot clams and a gourmet cheese omelet and square 

dancing, and she doesn't want to go home.  But, pitying her poor mother typing away all 

by herself in the lonesome apartment, she keeps her guilty secret that from now on she 

will be living for the moments when she can escape to that dream home in the country 

where they know "what life is all about." 

        I have often consulted my parents' freinds about their experiences, and I find their 

historical perspective enlightening.  My mother's best friend was pregnant with her third child in 

1949.  Her work experience included: interior design and modeling women's clothes for 

the Sears catalog.  I asked her to read the Friedan essay and let me know if she felt as 

moved as I was, and to share with me her experiences of sexism.  Her immediate reaction 

was to point out that "Betty Friedan was a college educated woman and she had certain 

goals that never interested me."  This lady, though growing up during a time 

when women had few social rights, said she didn't experience oppressive sexism in her 

life.  However, when she describes her life accomplishments, I feel she has spent most of 

her life fulfilling the expected roles of women instead of pursuing goals that were mostly 

reserved for men.  Unknowingly, her life was controlled by traditional, sexist values 

prevalent in her time and still prevalent today.   

        Twenty-four years after the above article from McCall's magazine was written, the 

Supreme Court decided whether women should have a right to an abortion in Roe v. 

Wade.  I believe the decision was made in favor of women's rights 

mostly because the court made a progressive decision to consider the woman as a human 

who may be motivated by other things in life than just being a mother.  Justice Blackmun 

delivered the following opinion:

Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and 

future.  Psychological harm may be imminent.  Mental and physical health may be taxed 

by child care.  There is also a distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted 

child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, 

psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.  In other cases, as in this one, the 

additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. 

        I feel the court decision of Roe v. Wade would not have been made in 1949.  

Even in 1973, it was a progressive decision, which the Bush administraction is trying to overturn by using every means at its disposal,
including packing the Supreme Court with anti-choice justices.

  Abortion has existed for the entire history of the world, but had never been addressed because 

discussing these issues was not socially acceptable.  A culture of not discussing issues that 

have a profound impact on women is a culture that encourages women to be powerless.

The right of abortion became a major issue.  Before 1970, about a million abortions were 

done every year, of which only about ten thousand were legal.  Perhaps a third of the 

women having illegal abortions - mostly poor people - had to be hospitalized for 

complications.  How many thousands died as a result of these illegal abortions no one 

really knows.  But the illegalization of abortion clearly worked against the poor, for the 

rich could manage either to have their baby or to have their abortion under safe 

conditions. 

        A critic of the women's movement would quickly remind us that women have a 

right to decline marriage and sex, and pursue their individual interests.  However, I would 

argue that the social pressure women must endure if they do not conform to their expected 

role is unfair.  The problem goes beyond social conformity and crosses into government 

intervention (or lack thereof).  The 1980's "reagan Revolution" saw the pendulum swing against the women's 

movement.  Violent acts against women who sought abortions became common and the 

government was unsympathetic to the victims.  There are parallels between the Southern 

Black's civil rights movement and the women's movement: Blacks have long been 

accustomed to the white government being unsympathetic to violent acts against them.  

During the civil rights movement, legal action seemed only to come when a white civil 

rights activist was killed.  Women are facing similar disregard presently, and their 

movement is truly one for civil rights.

A national campaign by the National Organization of Women began on 2 March 1984, 

demanding that the US Justice Department investigate anti-abortion terrorism.  On 1 

August federal authorities finally agreed to begin to monitor the violence.  However, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation director, William Webster, declared that he saw no 

evidence of "terrorism."  Only on 3 January 1985, in a pro-forma statement, did the 

President criticize the series of bombings as "violent anarchist acts" but he still refused 

to term them "terrorism."  Reagan deferred to Moral Majoritarian Jerry Falwell's 

subsequent campaign to have fifteen million Americans wear "armbands" on 22 January 

1985, "one for every legal abortion" since 1973.  Falwell's anti-abortion outburst 

epitomized Reaganism's orientation: "We can no longer passively and quietly wait for 

the Supreme Court to change their mind or for Congress to pass a law."  Extremism on 

the right was no vice, moderation no virtue.  Or, as Hitler explained in Mein Kampf, 

"The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of 

violence." 

        This mentality continued on through 1989 during the Webster v. Reproductive 

Health Services case.  "The Reagan Administration had urged the Supreme Court
 to use this case as the basis for overturning Roe v. Wade." 

        It is disturbing that the slow gains achieved by the women's movement are so volatile 

and endangered when conservative administrations gain a majority in government.  To put the 

problem into perspective: a woman's right to have an abortion in this country did not 

come until 1973. Less than two decades later, the president of the United States is pushing 

to take that right away.  It seems blatant that society is bent on putting women in their 

places.

        From the above examples, it appears American culture prefers women as non-

professional, non-intellectual, homemakers and mothers.  This mentality is not easily 

resolved, because it is introduced at a young age.  Alice Brooks experienced inequality on 

the basis of her race and her sex. In her autobiography, A Dream Deferred, she recalls the 

reaction of her father when she brought up the idea of college to him:

 "I found a scholarship for veterans' children and asked my father to sign and furnish 

proof that he was a veteran.  He refused and told me that I was only going to get married 

and have babies.  I needed to stay home and help my mother with her kids.  My brother 

needed college to support a family.  Not only was I not going to get any help, I was also 

tagged as selfish because I wanted to go to college."

        This is another example of women being labeled as selfish for wanting the same 

opportunities as men.  Alice Brooks is a very courageous woman; seemingly able to 

overcome any oppression she may encounter.  During her presentation to our class, she 

said that "women who succeed in male dominated fields are never mediocre - they are 

extraordinary achievers."  Her insight encapsulates much of the subtle sexism that exists 

today.  I feel that no one can truly be equal in a society when only the "extraordinary 

achievers" are allowed to succeed out of their expected social role.  

        This attitude of rising blatant and subtle attacks on women's civil rights is further 

exemplified in recent reactions to affirmative action plans. These plans have been devised 

to try to give women and minorities an opportunity to participate in traditionally white 

male dominated areas.  However, we see the same trends in legal action for the use of 

affirmative action plans as we saw in the 1980's backlash against the Roe v. Wade 

decision.  A few interesting points were presented in the case, Johnson v. 

Transportation Agency, Santa Clara .  Mr. Paul E. Johnson filed 

suit against the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency when he was denied a 

promotion, feeling the company's affirmative action plan denied him of his civil rights.  

Some interesting facts were presented in this case:

Specifically, 9 of the 10 Para-Professionals and 110 of the 145 Office and Clerical 

Workers were women.  By contrast, women were only 2 of the 28 Officials and 

Administrators, 5 of the 58 Professionals, 12 of the 124 Technicians, none of the Skilled 

Crafts Workers, and 1 - who was Joyce - of the 110 Road Maintenance Workers.  

        The above statistics show women have been considerably underrepresented at the 

Santa Clara County Transportation Agency.  These numbers are not uncommon and are 

found throughout business.  It is interesting to note the current popular perception is that 

affirmative action precludes white males from finding employment with companies that 

implement these plans.  The truth is in the numbers, however.  The fact that Mr. Johnson 

felt he was denied his civil rights because an equally qualified woman was given a 

promotion, instead of him, is just a small window into the subtle sexism that exists today.  

Most critics of affirmative action do not consider the grossly unequal numbers of men in 

management and professional positions.  Secondly, it never seems an issue of debate that a 

woman may have had no other previous life opportunities in these male dominated areas.  

I do not intend to argue that affirmative action is good or bad, but only wish to point out 

that the current backlash against these programs is heavily rooted in sexism and racism.  

        Often blatant violence or unfair acts against a group of people will cause that 

group to pull together and empower themselves against their oppressors.  The women's 

movement has made large steps to eliminate many of these blatantly sexist acts in the last 

century.  Now the real difficulty is upon us: subtle acts of sexism and the degrading social 

roles of women in today's conservative culture.  Alice Brooks so eloquently described her 

experiences with inequality, stating, "the worse pain came from those little things people 

said or did to me."  As these "little things" accumulate in the experience of a young 

woman, she increasingly finds herself powerless in her relationships, employment, 

economics, and society in general.  The female child has as many goals as the male child, 

but statistically she is unable to realize these goals because of the obstacles that society 

sets in front of her.  Society and media attempt to create an illusion that women have 

every right that men enjoy.  However, women will never be equal until the day female 

scientists, intellectuals, professionals, military leaders, and politicians are just as accepted 

and encouraged to participate in all of society's arenas as males.

Gender Roles in Education

The issue of gender inequality is one which has been publicly reverberating through society for decades. The problem of inequality in employment being one of the most pressing issues today. In order to examine this situation one must try to get to the root of the problem and must understand the sociological factors that cause women to have a much more difficult time getting the same benefits, wages, and job opportunities as their male counterparts. The society in which we live has been shaped historically by males. The policy-makers have consistently been male and therefore it is not surprising that our society reflects those biases which exist as a result of this male-domination. It is important to examine all facets of this problem, but in order to fully tackle the issue one must recognize that this inequality in the workforce is rooted in what shapes future employees and employers-- education.

The late 1960s brought on the first real indication that feminist groups were concerned with the education system in North America. The focus of these feminist groups captured the attention of teachers, parents, and students. At first the evidence for inequality in schooling was based on no more than specific case studies and anecdotal references to support their claims but as more people began to show concern for the situation, more conclusive research was done to show that the claims of inequality were in fact valid and definitely indicated a problem with the way that schools were educating the future adults of society. One of the problems which became apparent was the fact that the policy-makers set a curriculum which, as shown specifically through textbooks, was sexist and for the most part still is.

Textbooks are one of the most important tools used in educating students whether they are elementary school storybooks or university medical textbooks. It is therefore no surprise that these books are some of the most crucial information sources that a student has throughout their schooling. Many studies have been done examining the contents of these books to reveal the amount of sexism displayed in these educational tools. The results clearly show that gender inequality definitely runs rampant in textbooks some of the sexism subtle and some overt. To begin with, it is apparent that historical texts show a distorted view of women by portraying them unfairly and inaccurately and neglecting to mention important female figures, instead opting to describe their sometimes less influential male counterparts. Elementary and secondary school textbooks are also guilty of gender bias.

In elementary and secondary school textbooks, sexism takes many forms. Boys predominate in stories for children; they outnumber girls 5 to 2. When girls are present in texts, they are almost always younger than the boys they are interacting with, which thus makes them foils for the boys' greater experience and knowledge-- a situation commonly referred to as the 'ninny sister syndrome.' Girls are shown to be far more passive than are boys and to engage in fewer activities. In fact, sometimes grown women are portrayed who rely on small boys (often their young sons) to help them out of difficulty.

Surprisingly it is not only these hidden forms of sexism that appear in textbooks.

One study found sixty-five stories that openly belittled girls (two were found that belittled boys). Another study pointed out an instance where Mark, of the Harper & Row 'Mark and Janet' series, states: 'Just look at her. She is just like a girl. She gives up.' Male characters said, in another story, 'We much prefer to work with men.' This type of material on the treatment of girls would seem to have little social or educational value, and its widespread use is difficult to understand.

In the long run, the ideas put in students heads through textbooks, perhaps through the lack of female role models, can affect the choices they make in the future with regards to employment.

Actual teaching situations are also prone to sexism. For the most part teachers do not try to be sexist but, for sociological reasons, can not help it. A perfect example of society's male-dominance interfering in education unintentionally is when teachers assign projects to their students. The teachers may hand out lists of acceptable topics ranging, in a history class for example, from fashion to transportation. The teachers then give the students a choice as to which topic they would like to do the project on. The underlying problem with this is that girls tend to choose what could be considered more "feminine" topics while the boys will choose the more "masculine" ones. "Offered to the pupils as free choice, such selections are self-perpetuating, leading to the expected choices and amplifying any differences there may have been in attitudes." The reason for this could be that society, through the media and other modes of communication, has pre-conceived notions as to what issues are "male", "female", or unisex.

Another example of how females are prone to gender inequality in the classroom is during class discussion and also what the teacher decides to talk about in the class. Classroom behaviour is a major focal point for those who identify examples of inequality. There are many differences in the way that females and males present themselves at school. It is apparent that in classroom situations males talk more, interrupt more, they define the topic, and women tend to support them. It is generally believed in our society that this is the proper way to act in classroom situations, that males have it "right" and females don't, they are just "pushovers" and don't have enough confidence. This, however is a big assumption to make. Some research has been done in this field that could, however, begin to refute this stereotype. It is frequently assumed that males use language which is forceful confident and masterful (all values which are regarded as positive). Females on the other hand, it is assumed, use language that is more hesitant, qualified, and tentative. One can look at the example of the use of tag questions, which are statements with questions tagged onto the end such as "I'm going to the store, all right?" It is obvious that if the above assumptions about the use of language were true, this hesitant, asking for approval type of question would be more frequently used by women. ". . . studies were carried out to determine whether women used more tag questions than men. It was found that they did not.

The end of high school brings about more obstacles for women on the way to achieving equality in the workplace. One of the most important steps in achieving a high paying, high status job is post-secondary education. It is apparent that even today women are being encouraged to follow certain educational paths. This is shown very simply by the fact that even here at Queen's University, men vastly outnumber women as both students and faculty members in such programs as Applied Science, while women greatly outnumber men in the programs of nursing and concurrent education. Women have historically been encouraged to enter into what could be considered "caring professions" such as nursing, teaching, and social work. This is shown very crudely in the book Careers for Women in Canada which was published in 1946 and written by a woman. The book devotes almost 200 pages to pursuing careers in such fields as catering, sewing, being a secretary, interior decorating, the arts, teaching, and nursing while it only allocates 30 pages to medicine, law, dentistry, engineering, optometry, and more combined. The following quote clearly illustrates the beliefs of the more liberal people of that time. "Some women have specialized in surgery. There can be no doubt but that a capable woman may operate very successfully on women and children, though it is doubtful whether a man would call in the services of a female surgeon except in an emergency. Although much has improved since the 1940s, the enrollment numbers in university programs clearly indicate that women still have a long way to go before gender is not an issue.

After choosing a career path, women enter the workplace with a disadvantage. They have the same financial responsibilities as men with regards to supporting families and themselves and much of the time they have an even heavier burden because there are many women in today's society who are single mothers. Given that there is no question that the need for money is identical it can, therefore, be concluded that there is a major problem with the wage structure in today's jobs. The wage gap clearly shows that society as a whole puts more value on the work of males than on the same work done by females. The facts that have been displayed above showing that education is itself a sexist institution perhaps explain why there is this inequality once schooling is finished. The fact that textbooks show males as being more successful than females, that teachers set assignments which reinforce gender stereotypes and sex roles, the fact that "masculine" behavior is reinforced while "feminine" behavior is condemned, and the fact that women are encouraged to choose certain career paths all validate the claim that the gender inequality in employment situations can be directly related to the way that children are educated.

For Sex or Money?

It is tragic that such a country exists in today's world. The citizens live in constant fear. The children are force fed the "New Philosophy". The adults have an invariable fear that they will be the next to be arraigned on trumped up charges. Amazingly the cause of all the terror is not the government, but private individuals seeking to take advantage of a weak government. What country is this? The Middle East? Perhaps war torn Eastern-Europe? No, it is the United States that fosters such anarchy, in the form of sexual harassment suits. People from both sexes find themselves editing their conversations. They are trying to take out anything that might be misread as an innuendo. It is getting so absurd that a simple date is turning into a well-documented legal affair. Sexual harassment is not normal human behavior, but explicit sexual influence from a superior.

Take the case of the six-year-old boy from Wisconsin. He kissed another six-year-old on the cheek. She asked him to do it, and the act was totally innocent. The first grader was suspended for a day for sexual harassment. I am really glad that I did not go to that school when I was six. I would have been expelled. To tell a little boy that it is amoral to kiss anyone on the cheek is wrong. To punish him for it shows a situation that has gone completely out of control. The boy did not even know what sex was, much less how to harass someone with it! If it takes these extreme measures to keep harassment out of the workplace then maybe we should abolish the workplace too.

A case that clearly does show sexual harassment is Bob Packwood. Packwood used his position and power to take sexual favors from women. He forced his attention on women in his staff who had no choice but to accept him or quit their jobs. Packwood's actions show that he does not care much about other's opinions, least of all women's. Packwood has chauvinistic and unfair ideas about society and he casts a dark shadow on all males. Cases like Packwood's are to be minimized, but not at the cost of everyone else's rights.

A case that does not come close to Packwood's in significance or precedent, but that does equal it in outrage, is the story of a twelve-year-old boy in Oregon. This boy stuck out his tongue at another girl his age. He was suspended for three days for sexual harassment. The administrators said he was "mimicking oral sex". The girl was shocked. She had no idea the boy would be in such hot water. The parents were outraged that their boy was accused of mimicking something that he could not even define. At twelve I thought oral sex was phone sex! The boy just needed to be reprimanded not kicked out of school for three days. If we are so strict when we are watching our kids they will do their exploring completely outside of out supervision.

A strong example of what sexual harassment is, is the Ed Fadely case coming up. Ed is much like Packwood in that he used his position to force sexual favors out of his staff. The way in which Ed differs is that he is a judge. He is supposed to interpret the law. Instead Ed broke it, and he misinterpreted it for others coming in and out of the court-room. Ed not only hurt himself and the women he abused. He also hurt every member of society coming through his doors seeking restitution and justice. Ed needs to go down big time, but not if it means locking up six-year-old cheek-kissers.

At the University of Oregon now, students must receive explicit permission to hug, to kiss, to ... You get the idea. If the baby boomers were required to jump through all of these hoops none of us would have been born. The point is that you cannot regulate manners. Even the victims agree that these type of strategies will not work. Sexual harassment problems are power problems, not manner problems. If the administrators want to curb problems then they should set up harsher penalties, not harsher preventive measures. Sexual harassment is not a pickup line.

Sexual harassment is not your boss trying to get a date with you. It's your boss telling you to choose between a date and your job. Sexual harassment is your boss coming on to you more than once. It is not little kids on a playground exchanging pecks. Nor is it a kiss good-night after a first date. Sexual harassment is anyone with power over you seeking to use that power to a sexual end. Sexual harassment is not any other human behavior.

Sexism-Patriarchy

Sexism by definition is discrimination by members of one sex
against the other, especially by men against women, based on the
assumption that one sex is superior. It regards women as
inherently inferior intellectually, psychologically, and
physically to man. This view is shared by both men and women unfortunately,
and has historically shaped institutions of world society. It
has been continued through the cultural modification of groups of
people through prolonged and continuous interaction involving
intercultural exchange of generations of children with resulting
differences between the sexes.

On-job sexual discrimination such as low-level work
experience caused by traditional sexist viewpoints has hindered
a lot of female job promotion. Women with the same
qualifications as a man that applied for a job would be turned
down based on the simple fact that they are a woman. Prior to
the Women's movement women were constantly discriminated against
in this manner. Sexual discrimination still exists but its
occurrence has drastically reduced. Subtle discrimination is
however, still quite prevalent in our society.

Salary is one aspect of this still present discrimination. A vast majority of
women employed in the work force today receive less of a paycheck
for the same amount of hours worked on the same jobs as men.
This is reinforced by the low number of women who have a high
paying, high powered job. There are a significantly higher
number of women who have little or no power in decision making
and earn a low salary. The women that do get promoted are often
the subjects of rumor and remarks made in poor taste. Men just
can't stand to see their egos shattered, and so they lash out
against the woman with authority. They demean her position and
make it seem less important or trivial. All of this does hurt
female self-esteem and is just one of the ways sexism hurts
women.

Women are not just harassed verbally but physically.
As in the movie Flashdance, the male employer comes on to the
female employee. In lawsuits, such "coming on" is considered
sexual harassment; by definition it is considered a misuse of his power.

When she resists and he persists, as in both the movie
and the Harlequin formula, it is an even clearer form of sexual
harassment." In many cases if a woman does not give in to a
man's sexual advances she stands the chance of losing her job!
This was the tendency and in many instances still is the tendency
of many men who have authority over women. Sexism runs rampant
in every facet of our society.

Women As Leaders

More and more women are rising to the leadership challenge, even in some of the most male-dominated industries. The increase in the number of women attending university, in the workplace or starting their own business has demonstrated to men who own businesses that women can be both managers and mothers, thus showing their male counterpart that women can in fact "do it all". In this paper the history of women in the workforce will be outlined, as well as the challenges they face. The changing attitudes towards women taking over family businesses will be looked at briefly, how women lead along with a comparison to how men lead, and a critique and conclusion of their leadership style will also be discussed.

A number of events have occurred over the last twenty-five years or so that have resulted in the rise of the female in the work-for-pay world. Beginning in the mid-1970's, women began going to business school and earning their Master's of Business Administration and, as a result, building on that education and gaining work experience. The days of the one income family are over. Females need to be armed with a university or college degree to be a contributor to this century's model of the family unit and in this time of "education inflation", the demand for higher education is growing at a staggering rate. In the corporate sector, the generation of women who entered the corporate world two to three decades ago have blazed the trail now followed by ever-growing numbers of women.

The great strides women are making in the work force can be attributed to numerous factors including the: "passage of equal employment opportunity legislation's, modifications in job requirements, more females on the buying side, elevated educational achievements by females, more women in business schools, the huge percentage of female business school graduates with 'androgynous' orientations, and the willingness of many young women to postpone marriage and child-bearing." While women continue to make progressive strides toward equality, few have risen to the highest positions-leading companies to the new millenium. Fortunately, women can now demand equal treatment in their respective organizations as a result of the aforementioned changes in history. Many companies have policies in places that require equality at work and punishment for those who do not adhere to such policies. There is a vast amount of evidence that women tend to occupy less powerful, lower paid, and lower status organizational positions than men. These divisions not only occur vertically, but on a horizontal scale as well. Women who seek to enter management level positions fight against stereotypes, discrimination, and myths, not to mention the fight to balance work and family. They have also been overwhelmed by unfamiliar products, skeptical clients or customers, guy talk, a scarcity of female associates and little or no empathy.

Twenty years ago, there was no place for women in most family businesses. If they did have a position, it was presumably as secretary, assistant, or some other "behind-the-scenes" role. The traditional successor to the family business was the first-born son and if there was no son, then the widow was discouraged from running the company and urged to sell the business. Those days have since past. As women are achieving higher levels of education and are being employed in more prominent positions, their leadership roles in family organizations have increased. Many young women are refusing to accept the rule of "primogeniture". Primogeniture is defined as a birthright or an inheritance. Although women are making great strides in this arena, there is still the feeling out there that the son should be considered first and the daughter as a second option, only if there is no son or if the son declines the offer. But, Nelson says that, "young women by and large feel that if they want to go into the family business, the opportunity is there." In each of the cases described by Nelson, the fathers encouraged their daughters to become involved in the family business. As well, each father let his daughter run the show once she was named CEO-the surest sign of support. In more and more families and in business in general, gender is becoming a "non-issue". As roles increasingly change on the home front, the business world will soon mirror the changes taking place in the family structure. Nelton also urges women in leadership roles to not lose sight of the bottom line. She says it is "easy for women to get caught up in the management of people". She goes on to say that if you cannot prove that you are also profit-driven, you will never make it to the successor level.

There are many characteristics that women inherently possess that make them great leaders. Women tend to handle juggling many tasks at the same time better than men do. Because women have traditionally been the primary caregiver in the home as well as taking care of the household chores, "juggling" or time management has become second nature to them. Although women are skilled in handling many tasks, studies have shown that women are for the most part, people-oriented, rather than task-oriented. Women also value relationships and tend to spend time nurturing those relationships with their family, as well as subordinates . Coaching, counseling, and mentoring, and the building of relationships are among the many characteristics needed to be an effective leader. In the past, commanding and controlling were thought to be the answer to gaining compliance and hard work from employees. The majority of men lean toward the traditional 'command and control' style and were more likely to view job performance as a series of transactions with subordinates offering rewards for services rendered or punishment for inadequate performance. Women understand the effectiveness of immediate praise and tend to be more supportive of one another and the people who work for them. Men wait for proof of achievement before extending gratitude or compliments. In the book, Selling is a Woman's Game, Nicki Joy outlines the characteristics she feels are unique to women that make them prone to leadership roles: "The talent to multi-task, willingness to pay attention to detail, their interest in people, their skill in picking up body language, moods and undertones of conversation, and their superior listening skills".

Equal Rights Amendment

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."
In 1923, this statement was admitted to Congress under the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The ERA was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution granting equality between men and women under the law. If the Era was passed, it would have made unconstitutional any laws that grant one sex different rights than the other. However, in the 1970s, the Era was not passed, and therefore did not become law.
The idea for an equal rights amendment first became acknowledged in the early part of the twentieth century. In 1916, Alice Paul founded the National Women's party (NWP), a political party dedicated to establishing equal rights for women. Traditionally, women were viewed as weaker and inferior to men. The purpose of the ERA was to prohibit any person from acting on this belief. Alice Paul viewed that equality under the law was the foundation essential to full equality for women.
In November of 1922, the NWP voted to work for a federal amendment that could guarantee women's equal rights regardless of legislatures' indecisions. The NWP had 400 women lobbying for equality.
Despite strong opposition by some women and men, the NWP introduced and Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1923. In order to become law, the amendment needed a two-thirds vote in both houses of the congress of the United States, or a supporting petition of two-thirds of the state legislatures. Then the amendment would have required ratification by three-fourths of the states. However, it failed to get the two-thirds majority required to move onto the states for approval. The proposed amendment also failed in following sessions until 1972, when it won a majority vote in Congress.
The main objectives of the women's movement included equal pay for equal work, federal support for day-care centers, recognition of lesbian rights, continued legalization of abortion, and the focus of serious attention on the problems of rape, wife and child beating, and discrimination against older and minority women. The ERA would have addressed all of these issues if it were passed.
Had it been adopted, the ERA would have resolved the paradox of an oppressed majority, by adding to the Constitution a provision that says no person shall be denied any rights on the basis of sex. But ten years after being approved by Congress, the bill died three states shy of thirty-eight needed to ratify.
Defenders in Congress and out of Congress believe that equal rights for women will be neither abandoned nor compromised, but supported until successful. Some of the more conservative supporters of the ERA included Senator Strom Thurman, President Richard Nixon, and Governor George Wallace. Today, President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton are also strong supporters of equal rights for women.
At the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, the main theme was effort to promote equal rights for women. A speaker for the United States, Madeleine K. Albright, announced that the Clinton administration is determined to bring down the barriers to the equal participation of women that take place in this country. She introduced a seven-point plan of commitments that the United States government plans to take. Although the ERA was denied in the seventies, the new administrations are trying to introduce plans that will exemplify equal rights for women in society.
Opposition to the ERA in the 1970s was similar in some ways to opposition in the 1920s. Conservative politicians and organization voiced strong opposition to the amendment. Phyllis Schlafly, one of the amendment's most vocal opponents, founded STOP ERA, a group that worked to defeat the amendment. "Schlafly argued that the amendment would force women to take on roles normally reserved for the men and that equal rights meant women would give up "privileges" of womanhood." Th ERA was also opposed by many woman who feared the loss of alimony and of exemption of military service.
Although there is no consensus to explain the ERA's defeat, there are several theories. "Many felt that it was a rejection of the feminist ideal of what women ought to be, an ideal that threatened to destroy the American family and sap the strength of a society already crippled by moral permissiveness and political weakness and indecision." Others felt that the Church of Jesus Christ spent great sums of money to defeat the amendment.
Equality for both men and women included the draft. Although women wanted equality in society, they did not want to be included in the draft. One of the most damaging charges was that the ERA would force young women into combat. Children carried signs in front of Congress with the slogan "Please Don't Send My Mommy to War!" Many felt that if a woman went into to war, they were considered to be women-who-want-to-be-men - anomalous persons who rejected the kind of life that nature (G-d and sex) had ordained.
In the January 1983 issue of Ms. magazine, Gloria Steinem and her coeditors argued that the ERA failed for three reasons: 1) too many people, both men and women, dislike women; 2) most of the majority expressing support in the polls remained contently expectant instead of becoming politically determined; and 3) the opposition was better organized.
Other opposition to the ERA included how the Amendment was to be interpreted. It was felt that giving the Supreme Court and federal agencies authority to spell out the meaning of equal rights would be risky. Decisions made on such a level would be too far removed from the ideas and desires of the people. Opponents felt that equal rights should be dealt with on a local or state level where legislators can be voted out of position if the people do not like some of the decisions made.
Although the ERA did not pass, all of the actions made by NOW, NWP, and any of the other women's movements, have greatly aided women in their battle against sex discrimination in the work place, in educational institutions, and in their roles as wives and mothers, and finally laid to rest the controversy over protective legislation and equal rights. Like the Fourteenth Amendment, we are inclined to forget that the ERA was designed not to change values but to modify behavior of mainstream citizens by changing the constitutional status of a particular group. The ERA's purpose was and is to provide equality of opportunity through the Constitution and legal system for those women who want to realize full personal and professional expectations within mainstream America.

Welcome!!

I'm glad you found this haven for women on the Web. This is a place to talk about Women's issues- Working Women's challenges, Single Motherhood, Women and Wage Inequality, Domestic Violence and Women, Women in Combat, etc. it's all good here!