Women in Public Service

Hillary Rodham Clinton

One of the main topics that has interested me most this semester is gender stratification pertaining to occupations. Why do women and men tend to drift towards certain occupations? Is it because of personal interest, or does society's influence have an effect?

Personally, I believe society still plays a role in leading individuals to choose occupations based on gender. Two common examples are men as engineers and women as nurses, but one that causes a huge concern for me is women in public service and politics.

According to MarketWatch.Com, 17.5% of the world's elected offices are held by women, and the numbers in the United States are lower.

There are individuals attempting to shrink the gap between women and men in public service. One of the most recent is Wellesley College (Hillary Rodham Clinton's alma mater) and the U.S. State Department teaming up to bring women the opportunity to participate in the inaugural Women in Public Service Summer Institute, which is a part of the Women in Public Service Project.

According to MarketWatch.Com, "The institute will convene fifty promising women leaders from around the world, including areas undergoing political transformations and social change, such as Arab countries in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region. Participants will benefit from training and networking sessions with their peers and established leaders, a forum for shared learning and dialogue on leadership, and a global exchange of ideas and resources."

The Women in Public Service Project was introduced in March 2011 in efforts to attract and keep more women in politics. With programs like this, hopefully our government will move towards a better representation of our nation as a whole.

Foreign Assistance Gives Women Opportunities to Succeed

Many Americans believe that America should offer aid to developing countries as a matter of human interest.  Aid comes from America in the form of food programs, education programs, money, etc.  The recent awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to 3 women, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and peace activist Leymah of Gbowee of Liberia and Yemeni democracy advocate Tawakul Karman is proof that these programs can benefit humanity.  These women have worked hard to make strides in their own countries, for the well-being of their people and by extension, the world.  They represent social progress taking place around the world.  Due in part to aid from the United States, these women have all benefited from partnerships with Harvard University, the American Jewish World Service or the State Department's International Visitor's Leadership Program. 

 There is a correlation between gender and development around the world.  It is important that we  rethink the budget cuts being made to programs that not only support its participants, but also human freedoms throughout the world. 6 out of 10  of the poorest people in the world are female, and females make up 2 thirds of the illiterate worldwide.  Last month's Nobel Peace Prize winners are representatives of what can happen if women are given opportunities to succeed.

A Push for More Women in Elected Office

I read an article this weekend titled, “New Political Group Aims to Push Women to Seek Elected Offices.” A brief summary is that there is a new organization from Ventura County, California called The Ventura County Women’s Political Council who are trying to recruit and train women for public office. In the article it gives statistics that pertain to both the issue of women serving in Ventura County but also national statistics of women in office.

The statistics that this article gave were eye opening. At the state level, women make up 28 percent of the Legislature, while at the national level 90 serve in the Senate and House of Representatives, holding 16.6 percent of 535 elected offices, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.That is just a ridiculous amount of under representation; you would think that because women make up a little more than half of the population that they would be represented accordingly in our government. But I suppose it goes back to the debate as to whether or not someone has to belong to a certain group to represent them accordingly. There are certain politicians who say they are pro women but it’s debatable if they count as representation as they aren’t a woman.

Something that struck me as odd about this council is that their core teachings are issues that women usually go to school for or have some sort of background knowledge in; reproductive health, the environment, social, educational, and economic justice. Before this semester I had not heard much about these political schools so it's interesting to read about one opening up and the stats that come with it. 

Link to original article: 

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/oct/01/new-political-group-aims-to-push-women-to-seek/

Gender Inequality: Nudity

Photo

One of the lessons of the world my mom had to teach me when I was young was why men were allowed to walk around with their shirts off and women weren't (the question stemmed from seeing men jogging or doing yard work without their shirts on.) I couldn't have been more than five at the time, but I remember my mom's reply, "We just can't. It's against the law."

I'm not proposing that women be allowed to walk around without their shirts off, but the whole idea of what is acceptable for women to wear and how what women wear directly effects how people perceive them is such an interesting topic to me.

On VH1's show Tough Love, one of the contestants gives up her job as a go-go dancer in order to please a man she is interested in. Later in the season, she admits that her career goal is becoming a Playmate and is afraid of telling her mother.

Some would argue that women being able to dress scantily and pose nude is empowerment. The key to this argument is choice, which I am all for in all aspects because, honestly, who likes being told what to do? But this idea is still hard for me to accept for myself. If it is indeed empowerment (which I don't think anyone will ever agree), it implies that I can get what I want only through my ability to be physically appeasing.

And I'm not saying that men don't get ahead because of their attractive qualities, because studies have shown that more attractive people in general are favored more. But, if a man chooses to pose nude he isn't judged the same way a woman is, and it is not assumed that he poses nude because he has no brains to accomplish anything else.

So, I am not judging women who aspire to goals like the woman from Tough Love, nor am I saying that women should have to cover up. But, I just wish people would drop the whole empowerment spiel, and stop choosing how to judge a person based on their sex.

Women Own 1% of the World's Property

There was a lovely article I read written by Soraya Chemaly entitled, "Women Own 1% of the World's Property. Occupy That!" The UN has a particular field just for women and researching the inequalities women suffer around the world. Well this article brought to light some of these statistics and one of the most shocking, being the percent of women who own property. She also discusses the belief that some people have that the Occupy movement is feminist at it's core, but she points out:

"Men's visits... have been consistently reported -- just perform a basic internet search for Michael Moore, Russell Simmons, Kanye West, Cornel West or Chris Hedges. But what about Naomi Klein, Barbara Ehrenreich, Eve Ensler and Susan Sarandon, to name a few?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/women-own-1-of-the-worlds_b_1076715.html

Few of the statistics that the article mentions:

• There is a direct link between increased female labour participation and growth: It is estimated that if women’s paid employment rates were raised to the same level as men’s, America’s GDP would be 9 percent higher; the euro-zone’s would be 13 percent higher, and Japan’s would be boosted by 16 percent
• Women perform 66 percent of the world’s work, produce 50 percent of the food, but earn 10 percent of the income and own 1 percent of the property
• In Sri Lanka, food took up to a quarter of migrant women workers’ wages in 2008, so women since then have reduced their meals from three to two times a day and/or reduced the quality of their diet in response to declining wages and dramatic increases in the costs of basic necessities

http://www.unifem.org/gender_issues/women_poverty_economics/facts_figures.php

Gender Equality: Monarchy

Sons and daughters in the monarchy now have equal rights to the throne. 16 leaders of Commonwealth countries approved the change unanimously at a summit in Perth, Australia.

This means that if the highly publicized couple William & Kate have a daughter first, she will be able to obtain the throne even if they have a son later. BBCNews

Personally, I cannot believe it has taken this long. The idea that a younger son would inherit the throne simply because he is male is ludicrous.

According to MailOnline:

• The ancient rules of royal succession have handed men the balance of power for hundreds of years.
• If the new rules had been in force in 1509 Margaret Tudor would have taken the throne instead of Henry VIII. That could have meant the Reformation would never have taken place and Elizabeth I would never have been Queen.
• If the practice had been changed as recently as the last century, Britain could have had two Queen Victorias back to back.
• Princess Victoria, the Princess Royal would have acceded to the throne in 1901 instead of King Edward VII.
• When she died just a few months later, her son Kaiser Wilhelm II would have ascended the throne – something which could have prevented the First World War.
• The Queen of England now would have been the completely unknown Princess Marie Cecile of Prussia

It will be interesting to see how the monarchy's new equality will shape history from this point forward. The recent changes display why something should not stay enacted simply because it is tradition.

Leading Ladies of Hollywood: Not Easily Forgiven, Too Easily Forgotten

Hollywood is riddled with scandal for the general public to watch almost as closely as the movies stars and starlets make.  It seems that all too often stars are caught in situations with the law for all the world to see.  Looking back, it would also seem that males seem to bounce back from these indiscretions more easily than men.  Through the years, men tend to repair their reputations merely by issuing a formal apology in the media and serving their sentence, while women of Hollywood, struggle to re-calibrate and  move forward in their careers.

For example, in 1996 Robert Downey Jr. seemed to have spent more time trying to sabotage his career than build it.  In June of that year he was arrested after being caught with heroin, cocaine, crack and a gun in his possession.  Three weeks later he was found passed out in a stranger's bed.  Four days after that he escaped a detox center, where he'd been placed by court order.  Between 1996 and 2001, he bounced in and out of prison for drug use and possession.  Many thought he would never come back from his legal woes and fight the demons within, driving him towards madness.  However, in a comeback that is so rare, he saved his career.  He cleaned up his act and landed roles in "Tropic Thunder" (which earned him an Oscar nod) and the "Iron Man" and "Sherlock Holmes" franchises.

However, Winona Ryder, whose transgressions were far less than Downey's, has never been able to restore her image.  Once a sought-after starlet, starring in films like "Girl, Interrupted", "Heathers", "Little Women", "Mermaids" and "Beetlejuice" among other notable films, Ryder was arrested in December 2001 for grand theft after stealing thousands of dollars worth of merchandise from a Saks Fifth Avenue in Beverly Hills.  Her conviction was later reduced to a misdemeanor in 2004.  She paid her fines, attended counseling, and completed 480 hours of community service.  Despite repaying her debt to society, Ryder continues to struggle years later with her return to roles as a leading lady.  Since the arrest, she has been in supporting roles in blockbusters such as "Black Swan" and "Star Trek".  Her spotlight has gone dim after a single arrest that didn't involve drugs, sex or physical injury to herself or anyone else.  

Perhaps the difference between the two is that Downey had Mel Gibson in his corner, who paid for his insurance on the film "The Singing Detective", which aided Downey in his climb up the ladder to fame once more when insurance companies refused to cover him.  Ryder didn't have anyone to help her in such a way.

But, maybe the key is the amount of time spent in the spotlight as a result of scandal versus the amount of spotlight due to actual work.  Sean Penn, for example, spent 33 days in jail in 1987 for hitting a film extra and reckless driving and was later sentenced to 300 hours of community service in 2010 after he kicked a photographer.  These incidents seem to have had little effect on his career because he has been in the spotlight for far more films and well-played roles than for his run-ins with the law (he has two Oscars under his belt for "Mystic River" and "Milk").

However, the same cannot be said for the likes of Naomi Campbell who assaulted a housekeeper, police officer and her assistant between the years of 2000 and 2008.  It is thought that because she has spent most of her career in magazines, on billboards and on runways that the general public doesn't feel as much connection to her.

Chris Brown is evidence that males don't always need to put forth much effort to win back fans.  In 2009 when he assualted Rihanna, most people didn't believe he'd be able to rebuild his career.  Though he hasn't shed his violent image (he threw a chair at a window after an unpleasant "Good Morning America" interview earlier this year), he's maintained a successful career in music with his most recent effort, "F.A.M.E. (Forgiving All My Enemies)" debuted at number 1 in March on the Billboard 200 albums chart.

Chris Brown was forgiven, but the public has less tolerance for racist remarks as evidenced by Michael Richards, formerly of "Seinfeld".  After using racial slurs during a stand-up routine against two African-American audience members, he struggled to redirect his career in a positive direction. 

Lindsay Lohan could be doomed if she doesn't get her life together, but Britney Spears' triumphant return should give her hope of a return of her own, if she does the work. Spears had an unforgettable breakdown in 2007 which included her shaving her head and losing custody of her two children; no one believed she would be able to come back from.  However today, she is in a much better place, appearing to be healthier and happier than she did back then.  Her father seems to be the key to her success, having taken control of her assets in 2008 after Spears lost custody of her children and was put under involuntary psychiatric hold twice.

Lohan probably won't be receiving the same type of help from her parents anytime soon as her mom-ager Dina has allegedly been shopping a tell-all memoir and her father Michael historically uses his daughter's fame to propel himself into the spotlight.  

Fans could welcome Lohan back with open arms as they did for Spears if she would put more energy into working instead of partying and getting arrested.  But after a slew of arrests, and more mugshots than red carpet photos circulating, it's going to take a lot hard work to repair her image and return to the public's good graces.  Given the history of men and women in Hollywood who have found themselves in Lohan's place (to varying degrees, in fairness), Lohan has her work cut out for her.  Perhaps, instead of posing for Playboy to relaunch her career she should start shaking hands and kissing babies.