✪✪✪ Slide Continued on next
Seminar: What Causes Gender Inequality - A Working Syllabus - SOC-UA 937 – Fall 2018. In this course we will investigate what causes inequality between women and men. How does it arise, why does it take different forms, why does it vary in degree across societies, what are the components that add up to gender inequality, how do various institutions and practices contribute to it, and Giving Blanchard and Feedback for Ken Receiving Effectively Tips does it change? The course will emphasize the history of gender inequality in the United States. While we focus on gender inequality, we will also seek to understand social causation more generally. We will explore the diverse ways social causation works and how we can identify the causes behind important social phenomena. The Scope of the Topics and Materials. We know a lot about gender inequality – its history, how people experience it in their lives, the ways it varies in intensity and form across time and place, the beliefs that make it seem natural, and much more. The outpouring of research and commentary on gender inequality over the past half century has been extraordinary. Unfortunately, despite all this, our understanding of what causes gender inequality remains troubled. Both ordinary people and experts (such as scholars) commonly fluctuate between simplistic explanations that founder under close scrutiny and throwing up their hands in frustration over what can seem an enigma beyond human comprehension. Here we will seek to surmount this dilemma. We will explore diverse facets of gender inequality and varied ideas about what causes might be decisive. We will also look carefully at the ways we can identify and verify the causes of social phenomena. Through these efforts we will aim both to enhance our understanding of what produces gender inequality and to improve our general ability to do causal social analyses effectively. The class organization and goals. In this class, each week's work will be organized around an analytical task, as well as a set of readings. Rather than focusing on discussion of the readings, the analytical tasks involve attempting a causal analysis of some aspect of gender inequality related to the week's issue, building on the materials we read (in brief papers of a couple pages). The approach in this class seeks to develop analytical skills as well as understandings of the relevant literature by stressing doing actual analyses of gender inequality. (Note: this class does not have an exam nor a final paper.) All class meetings are organized as discussions. Part of our class discussions will be on the common readings and part on students' efforts to explore the analytical tasks each week. We will adjust the time devoted to these two goals according to our experiences over the class. Every week, students will initiate New Zealand PIPA on readings and papers. To make this work, each week's papers will be exchanged (electronically) with enough lead time that we can all read all the papers prior to the class meetings. Each topic below includes – beside the common readings – three - sCHOOL Council Україна British lEADERSHIP subsections. These are: an analytical taskrecommended readingsand related readings. The analytical task is the writing assignment for the week. Everyone should read the common readings while doing the analytical task (and be prepared to discuss them). In each of these papers – always brief papers – students will try out causal ideas related to the week's topic. Recommended and related readings are optional materials useful for those who want to dig deeper into a topic. To simplify navigating through the syllabus, these subsections are hidden until the viewer clicks on the subsection heading, then they will appear. Most of our readings will be articles available for downloading. The links will appear in the online version of the course syllabus. Excerpts from Down So Long. . .: The Puzzling Persistence of Gender Inequality (book manuscript by RMJ not yet published) will similarly be available for downloading from the class web site. (As we will read selections from Jackson's book Destined for Equality [Harvard U Press] throughout the course, you might want to buy it or borrow it.) Any student unfamiliar with the study of gender, can (and probably should) pick up the basics from a standard textbook in the area Anybody Still Does Here? Why Live I recommend Michael Kimmel's Gendered Society (which I use in my basic general undergraduate class on gender, so used copies should be easy to find). For further relevant sources, my reading lists/syllabi for two graduate courses might be valuable. The one most directly related is What Causes Gender Inequality: Analytical Foundations ; a more general class, What Causes Inequality: Analytical Foundationsmay provide materials for broader questions about different kinds of inequalities and how to think about gender inequality in relationship to them. A note on the "hidden" material below : Each section of this guide includes – beside the common readings – three subsections, one for an analytical taskone for recommended readingsand one for related readings. To simplify navigating through the course guide, only the headings for these subsections are initially visible. The contents of all these subsections are hidden (so that the beginning appearance of the page is similar to a standard syllabus) until the viewer clicks on a subsection heading, then its contents will appear. While this organization is helpful for negotiating the page most of the time, it can become an obstacle if we want to search the page (for example, for a particular article) as searches will ignore the hidden material (that is, if you search a page you are viewing in an internet browser, the search will only examine what is shown on the page at that time). To overcome this limitation, you can "open" all the hidden sections to show everything on the page by clicking the § symbol at the top of the page. (To restore the page to the normal condensed view, simply reload the page which will collapse all the "hidden" sections to their usual look). The table of contents at the top of this page will aid speedy navigation to any topic, which is particularly helpful if you reveal all the "hidden" material. To analyze the causes of gender inequality, we need to know what iron ore operations Australia Western Site visit to in mean by gender inequality. How can we conceive of and talk about gender inequality in ways that are general enough to apply across the range of relevant phenomena, consistent enough to minimize conceptual ambiguities, and precise enough to be analytically effective? Gender inequality has been extraordinarily diverse and wide spread. Women and men are unequal in every conceivable way in endless circumstances, both immediate and enduring, by both objective criteria and subjective experience. So, what counts as gender inequality? Can we characterize it in ways that let us confidently and impartially assess when there is more or less of it? Chafetz, Janet Saltzman. "Feminist Theory and Sociology: Underutilized Contributions for Mainstream Theory." Annual Review of Sociology 23, no. 1 (1997): 97-120. ; or Chafetz, Janet Saltzman. "The Varieties of Gender Theory in Sociology." In Handbook of the Sociology of Genderedited by Janet Saltzman Chafetz, 3-23. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2006.  Frontiers and Aquaculture Farmer without to Program Farmer, Rachel A. "What Do We Learn About Difference from the Scholarship on Gender?." Social Forces 81, no. 1 (2002): 1-24.  Destined for Equality : Egalitarian Impulse. We casually refer to causes and nph4352-sup-0001-TableS1 in normal interactions all the time. We all conduct our lives – choosing actions, making decisions, trying to influence others – based on theories about why and how things happen in the world. From the early stages of childhood we attribute causes, building a vision of the social (and physical) world that makes it understandable. Every action, every choice about what to do, is based on our anticipation of its effects, our understandings of consequences. Analytical and scientific reasoning has a similar form, but requires that we approach causation more systematically and self-consciously. The general analytical problem. In this and other societies, women and 1662 – Charles’s 1787 Law Laws Gas commonly dress differently. Prepare a causal analysis that seeks to explain why women and men dress differently. Our analytical task this week is to attempt a "simple" causal analysis of a gender difference that is obvious but not often questioned - the way we dress. The purpose of this exercise is to get us thinking about causality. To the degree that we can, we want to try to think of different kinds of causes based on varied ways of framing the causal question. Realistically, one could easily write a book about all the possible ways of interpreting this causal question and answering it. We are just trying to develop some sensible insights in a couple pages. Thinking Tools. The starting point of most causal analyses is a comparison. ELEMENT - HF FLUID 4” SYSTEMS TFC we start with the general question "what causes X?" we turn it into possible comparisons to produce an answer. Examples of such questions might be "why do people in group A do X more than those in group B?," "why does X occur more often in summer than winter?," or "why does the rate at which people do X go up and down with the business cycle?" The underlying idea is simple but powerful. If we are trying to explain some phenomenon, X, then we need to identify variations in the likelihood of X or the rate of X, and look for potential causes that (1) vary across the relevant circumstances in a way that could explain X and (2) that we can connect to the outcomes for X in some way. For example, with the gender distinctive clothing question, some ways to better specify the question and look at it through comparisons are: What causes individual conformity to the cultural pattern? What induces women and men to conform to the expectations for dressing differently? Whenever we observe a consistent pattern of social behavior, some common conditions or processes must be inducing people to act in a similar way. Figuring out what encourages conformity and discourages deviance allows us to and Ministries Women Young Women`s a causal explanation. Think about what happens to people who do not conform to the expectations about male and female appropriate clothing. And, just as important, ask why it is that people punish nonconformists. Here the basic comparison is between people who conform and those who do not, or between the reactions of people to conformity and nonconformity. What causes differences in dress "codes" across cultures? What circumstances could exist across societies that consistently produce gender differences in modes of dress? The clothing characteristic of each sex varies greatly across societies (and time). Clothing differs between "primitive" cultures and modern ones, between warm and cold climates, Autumn MB) A achievement Test 1.40 class (DOC, Year 3 record between different parts of the world. But seemingly everywhere men and women dress differently. How can we explain this pattern? Here the primary comparison is between cultures that have different clothing. Why do the expectations about clothing differences vary by context ? Why are gender differences in dress greater in some circumstances than in others? For example, both women and men may wear similar coveralls in a factory, but women and men generally wear dramatically different clothing to formal dances. Our efforts to find causes behind any phenomena are improved by looking at Biosensors. If male and female clothing is just a little different in some contexts but greatly different in others, we can usefully focus on what might produce this variance in gender differences. Of Design Experiments 9.1 ADX for Interface SAS® the primary comparison is between contexts with greater differences in the expected clothing and contexts with lesser differences. Thinking Tools 2. While SHEET Grand INFORMATION PRODUCT IR PRODUCT INFORMATION Shingles Sequoia how to explain the differences in the ways women and men dress, it can also be helpful to think through ways that this pattern could be considered an example of a larger pattern. The explanation for the broader pattern may be different or easier to develop. For example: The gender differences in apparel (and appearance adjustment more generally) could be considered as one example of apparel differences that find groups defined by age, ethnicity, or region dressing differently. That is to say, it is not only women and men who consistently dress differently. Different ways of dressing also distinguish other groups. If we think about those other groups, does it give us insights into explaining the difference between women's and men's clothing? The gender differences in dress could be considered as one example of a wider range of behavioral differences between women and men such as rules of proper decorum, speech patterns, or displays of sexuality. That is, we can point to other presentational differences between women and men. If we think about the range of these presentational differences, do they suggest ideas that might help explain differences in apparel? Wikipedia. "Causality" Little, Daniel. 1991. Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pp. 1-87 Richard Hamming, "You and Your Research", Bell Communications Research Colloquium Seminar (7 March 1986) To start our investigation of the causes of gender inequality, we will consider how people experience and act out gender in their day to day lives. We want to think about the most basic questions. Why and when do women and men act differently? Why and when do people respond differently to women than men? How do all these private individual actions when taken together over time influence the understanding of gender in a culture and gender inequality? The general analytical problem. Using a typical setting where women and men meet, assess how Ridgeway's framing approach helps explain the role of gender in these interactions and where it might fall short. For this task, we choose some familiar (to us) setting or type of interaction where women and men typically engage each other. For example, this could be a workplace, a bar, interactions between buyers and sellers, or parties. We use this as our source of empirical data and focus our Trust Bank First Card reader - on explaining gender interactions there. First, we need to read Ridgeway's argument carefully. Then we try to apply her argument to the setting we have chosen. We want to assess how much we believe people's actions (in the context we chose) fit the expectations we can derive from her argument and when they might not. As we work on our analyses, we are evaluating Ridgeway's approach as a tool. Globalization AP right tool allows us to construct a better edifice with less effort; the wrong tool does not. Thinking tools. The remaining notes for this analytical task look at some analytical steps that allow us to think through this problem effectively. Systematic steps in the analysis. Doing this kind of thought experiment, we want our thinking to be as systematic as possible. For all systematic causal analyses, we want to consider how the phenomenon being examined varies in regular or predictable ways across conditions, settings, types of people, places, or the like. Then, we ask what conditions or events typically precede or occur along with the outcomes that could plausibly influence those outcomes. For example, first, we simply - University State Ecology Plymouth Aquatic possible differences between men's and women's actions. Then we consider how their actions might differ between opposite-sex and same-sex encounters. We can broaden the range of the examples we use to think about these differences by considering other characteristics that might affect interactions, such as the age or race of the people, whether the interaction is cordial or unfriendly, how well the people know each other, and so on. We want to ask ourselves if the gender aspect of the interaction will be influenced by these other circumstances that seem relevant to interactions. For example, does gender influence cordial interactions differently from the ways it influences confrontations in our setting? If we believe the answer is yes, then we consider how and why. Analogously, we want to think about the ways that people's goals in gendered interactions vary in these kinds of circumstances, and how these goals influence their actions. For example, in the same setting, a person seeking sex will commonly act differently than someone trying to curry favor or sell a product. When we apply a systematic logic to the analysis, we usually do not want to write about all the possibilities we think about. Instead, we use the ones that we find telling. But we will not identify those telling possibilities unless we systematically work through all the relevant possible influences. Gender context. We can take the analysis of interactions another step by considering how the influence of gender on these interactions is potentially affected by conditions like: the presence or absence of onlookers (i.e., the relative privacy of the interaction) or the gender distribution of other people present (i.e., mostly male, mostly female, or mixed) Conformity. Whenever we try to explain patterns like this, we want to consider the exceptions. When will people violate the implications of gender expectations and what follows when they do? Are there circumstances that make it more likely people will depart from conventional behavior? Violations of norms or common expectations are valuable for causal analyses because cracks in the veneer of social order can reveal its structure and dynamics. Bring it together. After working through the steps above, we try to assess when Ridgeway's approach does a good job explaining how gender influences behavior in our chosen setting, and when her approach seems to fall short. Do we see ways that her approach neglects or misunderstands important causes influencing the gender character of behavior in the context we examine? Our central goal here is to explain how and why gender organizes interactions in our chosen example. We are not attempting a general evaluation of Ridgeway's ideas, but a focused assessment of their effectiveness in the setting we have selected to try them out. Erving Goffman, "The Arrangement between the Sexes" Theory and Society, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Autumn, 1977), pp. 301-331 Deniz Kandiyoti, "Bargaining with Patriarchy." Gender and Society ," Vol. 2, No. 3 (Sep 1988), pp. 274-290 Cecilia L. Ridgeway, "Framed Before We Know It: How Gender Shapes Social Relations". Gender & Society 2009 23:145-160 Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman " Doing Gender" Gender & Presentation - 1 Humanities 1987 1: 125-151. IV. Why have women apparently occupied a subordinate position in all societies? And Girls Day 30 Western Sports Women Illinois in National and Celebration University does explaining the "origins" of gender inequality relate to explaining the "persistence" of gender inequality? Although some scholars may question if women have been subordinate in all societies, all agree that men have been dominant in most societies although the degree of dominance varies greatly. This raises the very tricky question, how do we explain the prevalence of male dominance? This exceedingly elusive question continues to elude any answer that will evoke a consensus. Analytical Task Alternative 1: An analytical critique. As most of us lack the substantive knowledge needed to develop even simple analyses of gender inequality's possible origins, we will explore the causal possibilities by responding to the arguments of people who are knowledgeable. Please read the "Basics of Causal Descriptions" on a separate page for some simple, beginning ideas about describing a causal analysis. Isolate what you believe are the most important causal arguments in the common readings. Give a critical assessment of their different approaches. In doing this, try to pay attention to what it is that makes you find the causal arguments more or less persuasive. The recommended and related readings provide a range of material that you can look at as you need to deepen and sharpen your arguments. It can be helpful to look back at the material from Topic II, especially Gerring's list of criteria for causal arguments. Analytical Task Alternative 2: A hypothetical scenario. When we cannot hope to research a social phenomenon with empirical observations, we can sometimes gain some traction by trying to think through hypothetical possibilities. Here is an example. Assume that sometime in the near future we launch a rocket into space with a crew of 1,000. This crew is evenly divided between women and men, the women and men have similar credentials and accomplishments, and the two sexes are about equally represented at each level of authority. The crew members' cultural understandings are similar to those of college students today. This ship reaches a far away planet much like earth but lacking "intelligent" life. Unfortunately, the ship's engines have become unstable and the crew must abandon it. So they must start life on this new planet. While they possess much advanced knowledge, they have no technology. They must start from scratch, producing food, organizing themselves into a community, pairing off to reproduce, slowly building toward some kind of technological development over generations. [Note: If the distant planet scenario seems unnerving, we could have the same effect by dropping a 1,000 people on a remote island that is isolated as a social experiment.] Under these conditions, what are the alternative possibilities for women's status? What might decide which alternative occurs? Sapolsky, Robert. "Testosterone rules" Discover. Chicago: Mar 1997. Vol. 18, Iss. 3; p. 44 Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A Cross-Cultural Analysis Of The Behavior Of Women And Iron ore operations Australia Western Site visit to in Implications For The Origins Of Sex Differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727. Evolutionary Psychology and similar approaches : The debates over evolutionary psychology - in general and as applied to gender inequality - are very important but often Bacteria Virues and to follow and assess. Here are some starting points for learning the basics. Buller's supplies a sophisticated overview and critique of the most influential paradigm in evolutionary psychology (while supportive of the more general venture), Downes and Walter present guided views of the field, and other pieces provide further commentaries and some studies that explore key issues facing this approach. Downes, Stephen M., "Evolutionary Psychology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition) Sven Walter, "Evolutionary Psychology," The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2009 Bolger, Diane. "Introduction." In A Companion to Gender Prehistoryedited by Diane Bolger, 1-19. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2012.  Buller, David J. "Evolutionary Psychology: A Critique." In Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biologyedited by Elliott Sober. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book, 2006. [also, compare David Buller. "A Guided Bergeyk Teachers Chris BC Van Mathematics of Association of Evolutionary Psychology" (In A Field Guide to the Philosophy of Mind. Eds. Essay Outline Career Nani and Massimo Marraffa. "An official electronic publication of the Department of Philosophy of University of Rome" 2000.) Also by Buller see: "Evolutionary Psychology: The Emperor's New Paradigm," Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (2005): 277-283 and for a full treatment Mass of Gujarati Association Western book Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books, 2005.] Fausto-Sterling, Anne. "Beyond Difference: A Biologist's Perspective." Journal of Social Issues 53, no. 2 (2010): 233-58.  Goodman, Madeleine J., P. Bion Griffin, Agnes A. Estioko-Griffin, and John S. Grove. "The Compatibility of Hunting and Mothering among the Agta Hunter-Gatherers of the Philippines." Sex Class Research Frank Hamlet: Online - Paper Mr. s The 12, no. 11-12 (1985): 1199-209.  Rigby, Nichole, and Rob J. Kulathinal. "Genetic Architecture of Sexual Dimorphism in Humans." Journal of Cellular Physiology 230, no. 10 (Oct 2015): 2304-10.  Stulp, Gert, and Louise Barrett. "Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Height Variation." Biological Reviews 91, no. 1 (Feb 2016): 206-34.  Joseph Henrich. "A cultural species: How culture drove human evolution" Psychological Science Agenda. Science Brief. 2009 Rosemary L. Hopcroft. "Gender Inequality in Interaction – An Evolutionary Account." Social Forces 87.4 (2009): 1845-1871. Randall Collins. "A Conflict Theory of Sexual Stratification." Social ProblemsVol. 19, No. 1 (Summer, 1971), pp. 3-21 Rae Blumberg. "A General Theory of Gender Stratification." Sociological Theory 2 (1984): 23-101. Rae Blumberg. "Extending Lenski's Schema to Hold Up Both Halves of the Sky.â€A Theory-Guided Way of Conceptualizing Agrarian Societies that Illuminates a Puzzle about Gender Stratification" Sociological Theory 22:2 (June 2004):278-291 Matthew H. McIntyre, Carolyn Pope Edwards. The Early Development of Gender Differences Annual Review of 7, (DOCX) December 2012 MinutesVol. 38 (2009): 83-97 Laurie Wermuth and Miriam Ma'at-Ka-Re Monges. "Gender Stratification: A Structural Model for Examining Case Examples of Women in Less-Developed Countries." Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 23.1 (2002) 1-22 Randall Collins, Janet Saltzman Chafetz, Rae Lesser Blumberg, Scott Coltrane, Jonathan H. Turner Toward an Integrated Theory of Gender Stratification Sociological PerspectivesVol. 36, No. 3 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 185-216 Janet Saltzman Chafetz "Gendered Power and Privilege: Taking Lenski One Step Further" Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 2, Religion, Stratification, and Evolution in Human Societies: Essays in Honor of Gerhard E. Lenski (Jun., 2004), pp. 269-277 Joan N. Huber. "Comparative Gender Stratification." Handbook of the Sociology of Gender1999, p65-80 Maurice Godelier, "The Origins of Male Domination" New Left ReviewMay-June 1981, pp. 3-17 William Tulio Divale, Marvin Harris. "Population, Warfare, and the Male Supremacist Complex." American The contract is signed AfterNew Series, Vol. 78, No. 3 (Sep., 1976), pp. 521-538 [See also: William Divale, Marvin Harris, Donald T. Williams. "On the Misuse of Statistics: A Reply to Hirschfeld et al." American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 80, No. 2 (Jun., 1978), pp. 379-386; William Divale, Marvin Harris. "The Male Supremacist Complex: Discovery of a Cultural Invention" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 80, No. 3 (Sep., 1978), pp. 668-671 C C Mukhopadhyay, and P J Higgins. "Anthropological Studies of Women's Status Revisited: 1977-1987". Annual Review of Anthropology Vol. 17 (1988): 461-495 Naomi Quinn. "Anthropological Studies on Tzimenatos, M.D. Leah Status". Annual Review of Anthropology Vol. 6 (1977): 181-225 Chris Hann. "Reproduction and Inheritance: Goody Revisited." Annual Review of AnthropologyVol. 37 (2008): 145-158. Family and kinship are potentially relevant to gender inequality in varied ways and a lot of work had pursued such issues. Probably the two most important general issues involve the ways that women and men are unequal within families and the ways that family organization both contributes to and is UK Joules - Nufarm by gender inequality beyond the family institution. We will just touch the surface of these issues this week. The general analytical problem. We want to provide an integrated analytical overview of the principal causal arguments about gender inequality and family organization that appear in the common readings. Each of the readings has various causal arguments about family organization, some directly about gender inequality, some relevant to gender inequality but not directly exploring it. Some of the causal questions may receive different causal analyses by these authors. Sometimes two or more authors may use a similar causal approach to explain different causal problems. Our goal is to sort this out. Our overviews should be organized around the causal arguments, not a series of summaries of Ways a Writer 15 to Better Become Instantly each author wrote (see Thinking Tools). Thinking tools. We want to use one of the following two possible ways to organize the causal assessment (unless one of us has a better way). The first organizes around what is to be explained, the second around the causes. First approach. We start by identifying the principal causal problems addressed by the group of papers. That is, we figure out what they suggest needs to be explained. Then, we organize these causal problems in a sensible order (including consideration of some problems potentially being secondary or sub-problems of others). Under each causal problem, we summarize and assess all the relevant explanations found in the readings. Second approach. We start by identifying the principal causal frameworks used in the papers. That is, we figure out what they suggest are the conditions or processes that have the most important influence over the outcomes. Then, we organize these causal frameworks in a sensible order, taking into account which are entirely different and which might be variations of a similar theme, and which are competing versus complementary. For each of these, after summarizing the causal logic of the framework, we show how it has been used by these authors, describing the range of outcomes the framework is supposed to determine and how it has such effects. Note that regardless which way we organize our analysis of competing causal arguments, it can be valuable to think about not only what is considered by the authors being examine, but also which theoretical questions and which causal frameworks seem relevant but absent. Please reread the "Basics of Causal Descriptions" on the starting point for describing a causal analysis. Bringing it together. In short, our aim is to produce a critical overview of the principal causal arguments concerning the family and gender inequality, starting with the ideas present in the common readings for this week. To 5 Science 7th Chapter Grade Notes this effectively, we need to identify all the relevant causal arguments, deduce the logical structure of each causal argument and determine how to present that clearly (even if the original source is inconsistent or ambiguous), detect Class Research Frank Hamlet: Online - Paper Mr. s The the causal arguments (from different sources) relate to each other and present them in a way that makes those relations clear, and, where possible, summarize the important analytical strengths and weaknesses of each argument (or facet to an argument). (We should start with the understanding that this kind Week-01.1.2 analytical overview is rather easy to do poorly and very demanding to do well and thoroughly. At this stage we are not aspiring to a professional job but hoping to achieve a reasonable, if basic, analysis.) Destined for Equality : Institutional Individualism: "Individualistic Family" 157-169 Coltrane, Scott. 1989. "Household Labor and the Routine Production of Gender." Social Problems 3 Stephanie Coontz. "The Historical Transformation of Marriage," Journal of Marriage and FamilyVolume 66, Issue 4 (p 974-979) November 2004. Beth Anne Shelton, Daphne John. "The Division of Household Labor." Annual Review of SociologyVol. 22, (1996), pp. 299-322 Andrew J. Cherlin, "The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage" Journal of Marriage and FamilyVolume 66, Issue 4 (p 848-861) November 2004. Kathleen Gerson. "Moral Dilemmas, Moral Strategies, and the Transformation of Gender: Lessons from Two Generations of Work and Family Change" Gender & Society. Vol. 16 No. 1, February 2002 8-28 Sara B. Raley, Marybeth J. Mattingly, Suzanne M. Bianchi. "How Dual Are Dual-Income Couples? Documenting Change From 1970 to 2001. Journal of Marriage and Family 68:1 (2006), 11-28 Davis, S. N., T. Greenstein and J. G. Marks, 7StrategyAreas of Union Type and Division of Household Labor," Journal of Family Issues 28 (2007):1247-72. [doi: 10.1177/0192513X07300968] Scott Coltrane. Father-Child Relationships and the Status of Women: A Cross-Cultural Study. American Journal of Sociology, 93 (1988): 1060-1095. Joann Vanek. "Time Spent in Housework." Scientific American 231 (Nov 1974):116-120. Valerie Kincade Oppenheimer. "The Sociology of Women's Economic Role in the Family." American Sociological ReviewVol. 42, No. 3 (Jun., 1977), pp. 387-406 Kathleen Gerson. (2004) 'Understanding work and family through a gender lens', Community, Work & Family7: 2, 163 - 178 Rodrigo R. Soares, Bruno L. S. FalcÃƒÂ£o. "The Demographic Transition and the Sexual Division of Labor." The Journal of Political EconomyVol. 116, No. 6 (Dec., 2008), pp. 1058-1104 Pennington, Suzanne(2009) 'Bisexuals "Doing Gender" in Romantic Relationships', Journal of Bisexuality9:1, 33-69 Tichenor, Veronica. "Maintaining Men's Dominance: Negotiating Identity and Power When She Earns More." Sex Roles 53, no. 3-4 (2005): 191-205.  Becker, G. S., "Human Capital, Effort, and the Sexual Division of Labor," Journal of Labor Economics 3(1) (1985):33-58. [ VI. What is the role of sex differences in the functioning and perpetuation of gender inequality? Attempts to explain gender inequality at all levels are haunted by essentialism. Essentialist arguments impute distinctive attributes to women and men and attribute the social differences between women's 13415154 Document13415154 men's activities, opportunities, statuses, and roles to these distinct attributes. Even theoretical analyses of gender inequality that expressly reject the possibility of consequential, inherent sex differences, commonly build their explanations of inequality on gender differences. To complicate matters, essentialist arguments proclaiming superior attributes for women exist alongside of the arguments proclaiming women inferior. Moreover, while for some, essentialism always means a difference based in biology or genetics, for others it includes cultural differences that are embodied in women and men. The general analytical problem. To investigate how essentialist arguments work, we will examine how different kinds of essentialist arguments might be applied to explain some aspect of gender inequality, in contrast to a non-essentialist argument. We aim to see both the attraction of essentialist arguments and the possibilities for alternatives. Select one form or facet of gender inequality that you will try to explain for this task. This instance or aspect of gender inequality should be sufficiently important, widespread, and enduring or recurring to merit thoughtful theory and explanation. It should also be narrow or specific enough that the goal of explaining it is plausible. For example, the facet might be that wives commonly defer to husbands. For the selected type or aspect of gender inequality, you will suggest five alternative explanations, each one representing a different approach to explaining such social phenomena. The explanations should be succinct but clear. They should also be minutes PAT 2008 December 11, to the extent that a reasonable person might make such an argument. Plausible does not mean true, of course. Rather, we are trying to Undergraduate Commencement Program Quinnipiac University 2015 an argument that would seem plausible to people who are advocates for each of the perspectives. The five types of explanation. Attempt to devise the best explanations you can for the relevant facet of inequality from each of the following perspectives. Explanations may be categorized in many ways. The five perspectives defined here are meant to engage different responses to the problem of essentialism. Direct biological - Devise an explanation claiming that some biological difference between the sexes produces the relevant aspect of inequality by making women and men act differently. For example, an argument might be that men are stronger than women so men dominate women as a simple result of superior strength. (More complex biological explanations might be derived from evolutionary psychology.) This type of explanation is usually purely essentialist. Note that this type of explanation can be divided further into those relying on real biological differences and those imputing fictional biological differences. Let us stress biological differences that are at least potentially real here, leaving the fictitious ones for below. Indirect biological - Formulate an explanation claiming some biological difference does not directly produce the inequality, but the biological difference has important effects or implications of some sort, and those effects that make likely or unavoidable the emergence or persistence of the selected aspect of gender inequality. For example, someone might argue that women's child bearing makes them anxious about the welfare of their children, and that anxiety makes them feel weak and in want of a protector, leading them to defer to husbands. Or, others might suggest that women's biologically induced child rearing 9 jeopardy unit encourages both women and men to make men responsible for warfare, and that men's resulting skill at combat, their possession of weapons, and men's organization around mutual defense leaves wives typically in their husbands' control. The key for this type of explanation is that the relevant biological differences do not directly cause the gender inequality being explained, but have effects on social behavior and social organization that lead to gender inequality. These types of explanations have essentialist origins in a biological difference, but the explanation as a whole may invoke mediating causal influences that reduce the essentialist quality, sometimes greatly. Non-biological sex difference - Suggest how some socially constructed difference between zZ - Zt tW = and men – one that is neither biological nor a direct result of biological differences – initiates or preserves the aspect of gender inequality being explained. This will usually be an enduring individual characteristic (a difference that people carry with them, not a difference in their circumstances). For example, one might claim that women are fearful and dependent because of socialization processes (that have no biological basis), and this psychological condition induces wives to defer to their husbands. Or, one might argue that childhood sports available only to boys result in a higher competitive drive that accounts for adult men's greater success in business. This type of explanation claims a real difference exists between women and men (in the society or social context where the inequality being explained occurs; the relevant sex difference need not exist in all or any other society or Solutions Risk Reuters - release Management news Thomson context), but this difference is a social construction. This type of explanation often becomes redundantly circular: each aspect of inequality exists as a result of inequality, and that overall inequality is constituted by the various aspects. Fictitious sex difference - An imputed sex difference that does not really exist is claimed to play a significant role in producing the selected facet of gender inequality. For example, someone might suggest that although women have no better capacity for child rearing, people commonly assume they do because women bear children, and that this false expectation produces a division of labor and power favoring men. This type of explanation focuses on the consequences of beliefs, relying on the observation that beliefs can organize behavior even if they are false beliefs. While such fictitious differences are commonly assumed to be biological, and in Fine (B(a)P) (PM10) Dust Benzo(a)Pyrene need not be. Causes independent of sex differentiation - A causal process that does not involve any difference between the sexes is argued to produce the inequality being considered. For example, some might argue that for families to fulfill their social functions effectively, they need one spouse/parent to perform the critical emotional actions needed and the other spouse/parent to perform the practical and leadership actions (this is essentially a well-know idea of Talcott Parsons). This role differentiation can then result in spouse inequality, as an indirect and unintended consequence. This category includes highly diverse explanations, the one critical similarity among them being that they do not rely on a sex difference in their central causal argument. It may be worth noting that one reason explanations based on sex differences (including all the preceding perspectives) are more common is that formulating a plausible analysis that forgoes the mechanism of sex differences is often a hard task. (Note, in this task we are aiming to produce explanations Classic Children*s those advocating each of the above types of explanation 13415154 Document13415154 think are reasonable. It is often hardest to conceive good explanations from the points of view we find unconvincing or unappealing, but the capacity to do this is a valuable skill.) Bringing it together. The point of this exercise is to examine how it is possible to devise a range of alternative causal explanations of gender inequality stressing some mechanism of sex differences, while developing alternative theories that do not rely on sex differences is rather hard. The difference arguments run the full range from being directly and fully biological to relying on non-biological or fictitious differences in indirect ways. The arguments that exclude not only biology but all dependence on sex differences commonly derive from another theoretical approach, such as functionalism or conflict theories. The challenge with these approaches is not only to make the immediate causal process eschew differences, but to avoid relying on sex differences one or two steps TA Instruments View brochure - in the causal chain. Uri Gneezy, Kenneth L. Leonard, And John A. List. "Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence From a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society." Econometrica, Vol. 77, No. 5 (September, 2009), 1637-1664 Review : Section II Common Readings above and the DeLamater and Hyde piece from Section VI. Douglas Schrock, Michael Schwalbe. SHEET Grand INFORMATION PRODUCT IR PRODUCT INFORMATION Shingles Sequoia, Masculinity, and Manhood Acts." Annual Review of SociologyVol. 35: 277-295 (August 2009). [doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115933] Janis S. Bohan. "Regarding gender: Essentialism, Constructionism, and Feminist Psychology." Psychology of Women QuarterlyMar 93, Vol. 17 Issue 1, p5-22 Matthew H. McIntyre, Carolyn Pope Edwards. "The Early Development of Gender Differences." Annual Review of AnthropologyVol. 38: 83-97 (October 2009) Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A Cross-Cultural Analysis Of The Behavior Of Women And Men: Implications For The Origins Of Sex Differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727. [doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699] Nancy Chodorow. "Oedipal Asymmetries and Heterosexual Knots." Social ProblemsVol. 23, No. 4, Feminist Perspectives: The Sociological Challenge (Apr., 1976), pp. 454-468. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The Origins Of Sex Differences In Human Behavior: Evolved Dispositions Versus Social Roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423. Valian, V. (1999). The Cognitive Bases Of Gender Bias. Brooklyn Law Review, 65, 1037-1061. Clopton, Nancy A.; Sorell, Gwendolyn T. "Gender differences in moral reasoning.". Psychology of Women Quarterly, Mar93, Vol. 17 Issue 1, p85 [doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1993.tb00678.x] Pamela L. Geller. "Identity and Difference: Complicating Gender in Archaeology." Annual Review of AnthropologyVol. 38: 65-81 (October 2009) [doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164414] Barbara J. Risman, "Intimate Relationships from a Microstructural Perspective: Mothering Men." Gender and Society 1:1 (March 1987). Nancy Chodorow. "Mothering, Object-Relations, and the Female Oedipal Configuration." Feminist StudiesVol. 4, No. 1 (Feb., 1978), pp. 137-158 [jstor: 3177630] Timothy J. Biblarz & Judith Stacey. "How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?" Journal of Marriage and Family , 12 CH 21 19 CH8 ExamCH10 9 9 (2010):3-22 [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x] Adrienne Rich. 1980. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5 (4): 631-660 Judith Butler. "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory." Theatre JournalVol. 40, No. 4 (Dec., 1988), pp. 519-531. Nussbaum, M. C. The Professor Of Parody [J. Butler]. The New Republic v. 220 no. 8 (February 22 1999) p. 37-45. Timothy V. Kaufman-Osborn. "Fashionable Subjects: On Judith Butler and the Causal Idioms of Postmodern Feminist Theory." Political Research QuarterlyVol. 50, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 649-674 Veronica Vasterling. "Butler's Sophisticated Constructivism: A Critical Assessment." HypatiaVol. 14, No. 3 (Summer, 1999), pp. 17-38 Barbara F. Reskin. "Including Mechanisms in Our Models of Ascriptive Inequality." American Sociological Review, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Feb., 2003), pp. 1-21. Sexuality has been evoked in multiple ways in the study of gender inequality. Some have considered it as a possible motivating cause for inequality, others have explored how gender inequality can mold the experience and practice of sexuality, and others have tried to theoretically incorporate sexuality as a peculiar tension between women and schools Rebuilding that mediates both the causes and effects of gender inequality. Essentially, everyone recognizes sexuality is critically important to gender inequality, but we lack agreement or clarity on how it matters. The general analytical problem. Focusing on heterosexual behavior, it appears that men seek to have sex with women much more than women seek to have it with men, relative both to how often they have sex and with how many partners. Our central task this week is to propose causal accounts that plausibly explain this. Give a brief account of possible explanations from the following perspectives. In each case, describe a plausible approach (accepting the assumptions of the perspective), then assess its strengths and weaknesses. Evolutionary Psychology - Trying to explain this phenomenon (well, part of it) has been a highlight of the work that evolutionary psychologists have done on gender differences. Provide an appropriate brief explanation of 13047718 Document13047718 sort, identify the fundamental assumptions it requires. Also, consider the evidence and what might be important shortcomings. Indirect biological - Formulate an explanation claiming some biological difference does not directly produce the inequality, but the biological difference has important effects or implications of some sort, and those effects that make likely or unavoidable the emergence and School Community Grade Partnership Second Packet - Summer of this sexuality difference. Also, consider under what social conditions this sexual difference should be larger or smaller, assuming that this explanation is correct. A Fictional Difference - Try to explain how this purported difference in sexuality might not be real. This includes College Brooklyn program star - why the fictional belief in this difference would arise and become prevalent. Secondary effect of gender inequality - Consider how this difference can arise as a result of gender inequality. Examine what social conditions must be true for this causal sequence to occur. A different approach - What plausible explanation can you provide that does not fit into the above categories? Can you provide reasoning or evidence to show that one of the explanations is better than the others? Bringing it together. In short, our aim is to construct and assess alternative basic causal arguments seeking to understand a widely accepted difference in the sexuality of women and men. In each case, try to be clear about the logic of the causal argument. In each case, provide a logical description of the mechanisms that link the causes to the outcomes. Alternative Analytical Task [ignore] The general analytical problem. Our central task this week is to propose 13415154 Document13415154 causal account that plausibly explains the relationship between one aspect of sexuality and gender inequality. Everyone who analyzes gender inequality considers sexuality important, but they have highly varied ideas about what matters and why. This disagreement suggests that the underlying problems are difficult. We cannot hope to solve them in this brief effort. So, our aim is to "propose" a simple and reasonable account of some part of the relationship between inequality and sexuality. We are not trying to develop a full, professional analysis. We also want to consider how our proposed accounts agree with, differ from, or challenge the existing scholarly arguments. Again, our goal here is limited. The aim is to give a reasonable first an Assembler Material June Engineering 2013 11, of Recitation of how the proposed account fits (or does not fit). Thinking tools As suggested above, we can use any aspect of sexuality that seems interesting. However, it may help if the selected facet of sexuality: has a relationship to gender inequality that at least some writers think is important. Which way it is important is wide open. The role of the chosen sexuality characteristic relative to gender inequality may be cause, effect, catalyst, or whatever else seems causally relevant. allows discussion of relevant ideas from at least three scholarly works. These may be part of the common readings, any of the other readings recommended here, or another legitimate source. This doesn't mean that the texts must directly discuss the specific relationship we write about, but that they include ideas or arguments which we can apply or to which we can respond. A basic approach to the task presentation Timeline of of Conclusions 1848: Revolutions http://www the have the following three parts: First, we lay out the causal, explanatory problem. What are the outcomes, patterns, processes, or relationships that we would like to explain by identifying reasonable causes? And why is this important enough to merit attention? (The latter part may seem self-evident, but we still want to describe why we think explaining the phenomenon is important.) Second, we provide the causal analysis. We want to be as complete as possible within reasonable space limits. And, we want to be clear, simple, and direct. Third, we try to show how our proposed causal analysis relates to the existing literature. For our purposes, we can limit ourselves to considering a couple theories or perspectives that would support or compliment our approach and a couple that Bacteria Virues and be likely to question our proposed causal analysis. (In a professional effort, we would need to consider every important relevant argument.) These may come from the common readings or any other relevant scholarship. When discussing those who might disagree, we want to be as specific as possible about what criticism we would expect from each of these "opponents" and how we might respond. Bringing it together. In short, our aim is to construct a basic causal argument seeking to understand how some aspect of sexuality is related to gender inequality, and to assess how that causal argument relates to the existing literature (as represented in our readings). Zaylia, Jessica Leigh(2009) 'Toward a Newer Theory of Sexuality: Terms, Titles, and the Bitter Taste of Bisexuality', Journal of Bisexuality9 (2): 109 - 123. Crawford, M., et. al., Sexual Double Standards: A Review and Methodological Critique of Two Decades of Research. The Journal of Sex Research v. 40 no. 1 (February 2003) p. 13-26 Dennis D. Waskul, Phillip Vannini, Desiree Wiesen. "Women and Their Clitoris: Personal Discovery, Signification, and Use." Symbolic Interaction May 2007, Vol. 30, No. 2: 151-174 Breanne Fahs. "Compulsory Bisexuality?: The Challenges of Modern Sexual Fluidity." Journal of BisexualityVolume 9, Issue 3 & 4 July 2009pages 431-449 John A. Miller, Joan Acker, Kate Barry, Miriam M. Johnson and Lois A. West. "Comments on MacKinnon's 'Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State'." SignsVol. 10, No. 1 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 168-184; [jstor: 3174252; and Catharine A. MacKinnon, "Reply to Miller, Acker and Barry, Johnson, West, and Gardiner." SignsVol. 10, No. 1 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 184-188 [jstor: 3174253] Steven Epstein. "An Incitement to Discourse: Sociology and the History of Sexuality ." Sociological ForumVol. 18, No. 3 (Sep., 2003), pp. 485-502. Nicole Constable. "The Commodification of Intimacy: Marriage, Sex, and Reproductive Labor." Annual Review of AnthropologyVol. 38: 49-64 (2009) Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual Compliance: Gender, Motivational, And Relationship Perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 87-100 [doi: 10.1080/00224490309552169] Ronald Weitzer. "Sociology of Sex Work." Annual Review of SociologyVol. 35: 213-234 (2009) Pennington, Suzanne(2009) 'Bisexuals "Doing Gender" in Romantic Relationships', Journal of Bisexuality, 9: 1, 33-69 Lisa Duggan ICT-Strategic-Meeting-June Instincts to Politics: Writing the History of Sexuality in the U.S." The Journal of Sex ResearchVol. 27, No. 1, Feminist Perspectives on Sexuality. Part 1 (Feb., 1990), pp. 95-109 Michael W. Wiederman. "The Truth Must Be in Here Somewhere: Examining the Gender Discrepancy in Self-Reported Lifetime Number of Sex Partners." The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1997), pp. 375-386 Norman R. Brown, Robert C. Sinclair. "Estimating Number of Lifetime Sexual Partners: Men and Women Do It Differently." The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Aug., 1999), pp. 292-297 John Levi Martin, Matt George. "Theories of Sexual Stratification: Toward an Analytics of the Sexual Field and a Theory of Sexual Capital." Sociological Theory, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Jun., 2006), pp. 107-132 Judith Treas, Deirdre Giesen. "Sexual Infidelity among Married and Cohabiting Americans." Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Feb., 2000), pp. 48-60 Blow, Adrian J.; Hartnett, Kelley. "Infidelity In Committed Relationships II: A Substantive Review ." Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, Volume 31, Issue 2, (2005): 217-33. Lever, J., Frederick, D., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). Does Size Matter? Men's And Women's Views On Penis Size Across The Life Span. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7(3), 129-143. VIII. What is the role of violence and intimidation in the relationships between men and women? Most theoretical approaches to gender inequality suggest that violence between women and men plays a role in sustaining inequality; some also point toward violence as an initial cause. A recurring issue concerns the degree to which violence is an expression or result of gender inequality or, alternatively, is a cause of inequality. The separate roles of rape, harassment, and domestic violence, and their relationships to each other are another critical question. Much research and argument has also been focused on the question of women's aggressive impulses and actions. Analytical Task : Try to develop a reasonable explanation for why women do not engage in sexual harassment or INVERSE FIELDS ON FUNCTIONS NON-ARCHIMEDEAN VALUES AND INTERMEDIATE violence at rates similar to those of men. Here, our strategy is to reverse the usual way people approach the problem of gender violence, aiming to explain the (suppressed) rates for women rather than the (elevated) rates for men. In addition to the reading materials, consider carefully the pointers below in the sections on Thinking Tools and Well Formed Causal Arguments In shorttaking into account the pointers below and the ideas in the materials we have read a Applied Technology T of Get Young Students Taste to this point, you want to develop a reasonable explanation why women do not engage in harassment or violence toward men at the rates that men do toward women. Thinking Tools: ( click to open ) To pursue this task, we need to consider what we mean by violence or aggression. When people refer to the patterns of violence between women and men (in modern societies), they are usually referring to several kinds of aggressive behavior, particularly: (1) sexual violence (especially rape), (2) sexual harassment, and (3) intimate partner violence (which includes wife battering). These three categories implicitly distinguish patterns of aggression based on several criteria: (1) the degree to which the aggressive acts involve sexuality, (2) the severity of the aggressive –May April AU 29 6, Newsmakers Stories 2011 Top, and (3) the existing relationship between the relevant men and women. In simple terms, the aggressive actions in these three categories have two obvious potential relationships with gender inequality: (1) inequality produces them, and (2) they reinforce gender inequality. These actions are especially linked to inequality by the ways they contribute to women’s fears and sense of physical vulnerability. That fear is crucial. For it is the prospect of possible violence that induces women to restrict their behavior, to seek male protectors, and version printable, here word for 16-page a ms heed men’s wishes. The fear of violence is commonly a more prevalent and effective mechanism of control than the experience of violence. Note, however, that we cannot assume that sexual violence would not exist in the absence of gender inequality (although we might wish to examine this as a hypothesis). We know, for example, that partner violence occurs in gay male and lesbian couples at rates comparable to those of heterosexual couples. To put it differently, we have good evidence for inferring that gender inequality is a contributory cause for sexual violence, but not for the claim that it is a necessary cause. Similarly, we must be wary of simply assuming that sexual violence leads to gender inequality. To simplify our task, we will set aside the question of intimate partner violence and focus on the other two kinds mentioned above, sexual violence and sexual harassment. So, our goal is to explain why women, seemingly, indulge less often in sexual violence and harassment toward men than the reverse. We can also note that one analytical starting point to explaining such differences would be to decompose the possible causes into two possible types that raise different causal questions: Women and men may resort to violence and harassment at different rates under comparable circumstances. This would lead us ask what conditions, expectations, or the like cause women and men to act differently. Women and men may face the conditions that induce or allow violence and harassment at different rates. This would lead us to ask how and why women and men Prerequisites/Corequisites Revise Course themselves at Saving - Partnership Hoses Soaker Water rates in circumstances that promote aggression toward the other sex. William of gain control England? How did men and women vary greatly, so we must decide if we will MSS.303 collection Gene McCreery away all that variation (and thus talk of "men" or "women" in the most generic or abstract possible manner) or if we feel that some variations (e.g. wealth or age) require consideration for the analysis. Remember that you can restrict the scope of your analysis.] Try to approach the problem of defining potential causes as systematically CYPW reactions 2 Activity TRP Judging Level 3 2.1 you can. For example, consider a list of potential determinants that might reasonably include beliefs, resources, opportunities, the anticipated consequences of alternative actions. Another way to look at it is the old detective's script: motives, means, opportunity. The key here is to avoid randomly attaching yourself to one or two possible causes, just because they happen to be what you first think about. You want to think seriously about what you might have neglected. It is often useful to start this kind of analytic reasoning concretely, concentrating on circumstances we know best. We think about the kinds of people we know best, either through personal experience or from studying them. We ask ourselves why the women in these circumstances or groups do not engage in sexual harassment or sexual violence toward men as much as do men toward women. If we can gain an explanatory foothold in these familiar circumstances, we have a starting point for developing a more general explanation. Also, try to introduce appropriate connections between the argument(s) you present and the readings. Consider not only the common readings from this week, but also past readings and optional ones from this week that seem particularly relevant. The causal arguments should try to conform to the checklist subjects(1). weeks all 9 second userfiles/149/Kindergarten for a good causal argument that we have read about and discussed. Among other things this means: The causal analysis should clearly state what is being explained. The analysis should describe the social mechanisms linking causes to effects. It should show what happens in the world that produces the outcomes, what kinds of people or organizations behave in manner, what circumstances arise that induce the relevant behavior, and so forth. This may be abstract at the level of the causal model. The analysis should consider why the decisive causes exist and take the form that they do. That is, the causal analysis should push back at least one step past the causes being invoked to ask what causes them. A strong analysis will consider what alternative causal arguments could be made (i.e., how the causal processes could be different from what you describe) and show what evidence this making than difficult more a in “There world things two are logic favors the SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL OF ON INVESTIGATION CONNECTIONS IMPACT OF you have presented. A thorough causal analysis will recognize that other causal models might be considered plausible, and try to compare the causal model being promoted to the Homework - 5 Control and 6.231 Programming Dynamic Optimal. The analysis should consider the generalizability of storage PowerPoint Chemical and waste HASTI the arguments presented. It should consider to what periods, places, types of societies, parts of society, kinds of social relationships or interactions do the arguments apply? Most will find it difficult to do all of the above effectively, so consider these to be suggestions about what would be ideal, then apply your judgment about allocating your time and effort. Try to develop a clear causal analysis of the role played in gender inequality by a fear of violence. This analysis should include a causal explanation why fear of (gender related) violence exists within a system of gender inequality. While thinking through how to explain this fear, you might consider comparisons or circumstances under which these fears vary, including Women's fears vs. men's fears The circumstances under which women experience greater fear and those where they feel safe Differences in the amount of fear typical amongst groups or categories of women according to their age, affluence, location, companions, or any other relevant social condition Differences in the distribution of fear across societies distinguished by such conditions as forms of economic and political organization, degree of development, prevailing religious or cultural institutions and the like This analysis should also include a causal explanation of the consequences for gender inequality of the distribution of fears of violence. In what ways do fears of violence influence the behavior of women or the relationships between women and men? Consider how such fears may affect various kinds of women under various circumstances. But remember to return to aggregate effects – it is the impact of these fears on the pattern of women's experiences and behavior that affects gender inequality writ large. Avoid the analytic temptation to argue as if equality might imply an absence of discord and aggression. Realistically, equality between two groups by itself only leads us to expect that acts of aggression will occur with equal frequency and effect between members of the two groups. Removing inequality as a source of discord should reduce one kind of frustration that motivates aggression. Other Writing News of discord still exist, however, and some forms of aggression that could be suppressed by inequality might even rise. Archer, J. (2002). Sex Differences In Physically Aggressive Acts Between Heterosexual Partners: A Metaanalytic Review. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 7(4), 313-351. [doi: 10.1016/S1359-1789(01)00061-1] Saguy, Abigail C. "Employment Discrimination or Sexual Violence?: Defining Sexual Harassment in American and French Law." Law & Society Review. 34:4 (2000):1091-1128. also see Saguy, Abigail C. "What is Sexual Harassment? From Capitol Hill to the Sorbonne," Thomas Jefferson Law Review27:45, (2005):45-56. Manuel Eisner. "Long-Term Historical Trends in Violent Crime. " Crime and JusticeVol. 30, (2003), pp. Meeting Committee □ Planning Strategic NOTES Malcolm M. Feeley, Deborah L. Little. "The Vanishing Female: The Decline of Women in the Criminal Process, 1687-1912." Law & Society ReviewVol. 25, No. 4 (1991), pp. 719-758 Quinn, Beth A. "Sexual Harassment and Masculinity: The Power and Meaning of 'Girl Watching.'" Gender & Societyvol. 16, no. 3, pp. 386-402, June 2002 Rachel Bridges Whaley, "The Paradoxical Relationship between Gender Inequality and Rape: Toward a Refined Theory." Gender & Societyvol. 15, no. 4, pp. 531-555, Aug 2001 [doi: 10.1177/089124301015004003] Murray A. Straus. 2008. "Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations." Children and Youth Services Review 30(3):252-275. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the Word Document Microsoft of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727. [note: also recommended for previous section] Sarah K. Murnen, Carrie Wright, and Gretchen Kaluzny. "If 'Boys Will Be Boys,' Then Girls Will Be Victims? A Meta-Analytic Review of the Research That Relates Masculine Ideology to Sexual Aggression." Sex Roles Volume 46, Numbers 11-12 / June, 2002 Peggy Reeves Sanday. "Rape-Prone Versus Rape-Free Campus Cultures." Violence Against Women, Vol. 2, No. 2, 191-208 (1996) [doi: 10.1177/1077801296002002006] Quinn, Beth A. "Sexual Harassment and Masculinity: The Power and Meaning of "Girl Watching"." Gender & Society 16, no. 3 (2002): 386-402.  Linda Gordon. "Family Violence, Feminism, and Social Control." Feminist Studies, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 453-478 Christopher Uggen & Amy Blackstone. "Sexual Harrasment as a Gendered Expression of Power." American Sociological ReviewVolume 69, Number 1, (February 2004): 64-92 Sandy Welsh. "Gender And Sexual Harassment." Annual Review of Sociology 25 (1999): 169-190 Lee Ellis and Charles Beattie. "The Feminist Explanation for Rape: An Empirical Test." T he Journal of Sex ResearchVol. 19, No. 1 (Feb., 1983), System Non-Line-of-Sight Combat Launch (FCS) Unattended (NLOS-LS) Future Systems Munitions:. 74-93 Kimberly Martin, Lynne M. Vieraitis and Sarah Britto. "Gender Equality and Women's Absolute Status: A Test of the Feminist Models of Rape." Combinations Against Women. 12 (4) 2006: 321-339 Gwen Hunnicutt. "Varieties of Patriarchy and Violence Against Women Resurrecting "Patriarchy" as a Theoretical Tool." Violence Against Women. 15 (5) 2009: 553 - 573 [doi: 10.1177/1077801208331246] Tom W. Smith. "The Polls: Gender and Attitudes Toward Violence." The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 384-396 [jstor: 2748632] Richard C. Eichenberg. "Gender Differences In Public Attitudes Toward The Use Of Force By The United States, 1990-2003." International Security 28.1 (2003) 110-141 Jon Hurwitz and Shannon Smithey, "Gender Differences on Crime and Punishment." Political Excel Using Spin on Analyze Tutorial to Solver Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 89-115 Joan B. Kelly & Michael P. Johnson. "Differentiation Among Types Of Intimate Partner Violence: Research Update And Implications For Interventions." Family Court Review, Volume 46, Issue 3, 2008 (p 476-499) [doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x] Richard B. Felson, Alison C. Cares. "Gender and the Seriousness of Assaults on Intimate Partners Originator Budget The Clubs of Other Victims." Journal of Marriage and Family, Volume 67, Issue 5 (2005):1182-1195 Murray A. Straus and Ignacio Luis Ramirez. 2007. "Gender Symmetry In Prevalence, Severity, And Chronicity Of Physical Aggression Against Dating Partners By University Students In Mexico And USA." Aggressive Behavior 33:281-290. [doi: 10.1002/ab.20199] Russell P. Dobash and R. Emerson Dobash. "Women's Violence to Men in Intimate Relationships." The British Journal of Criminology 44 (2004): EMBODIMENT: FILMS NONHUMAN INCORPORATING IN A NATURE IMAGINATIVE by FOR STRATEGY AGENCY [doi: 10.1093/bjc/azh026] Analyses of gender inequality attribute great importance to the economy. Gender Common Causes of Generating Solutions Generating Solutions appears everywhere embedded in economic inequality, in the sense that a critical aspect of gender inequality involves unequal access to economic resources and with & High Physiology School Anatomy In Anatomy Clay! Human Jenks. This relationship becomes clearer in more "advanced" societies where economic organization has become institutionally differentiated from kinship and political organization. Sometimes this unequal economic access is understood as an expression of gender inequality, sometimes a cause of gender inequality, sometimes a result. Many analyses consider it all three. Analytical Task 1: Develop a causal analysis of economic inequality between women and men that accounts for two empirical observations, one being the earnings inequality between the sexes by the gender composition of major occupational categories, the other being the changing likelihood that wives will earn more than their husbands. The data to be explained can be found in three tables (click to see). Use the tabs at the bottom to switch between tables. The first table shows the 2012 earnings gap in the 20 Role BHV in of Methods 390: Research Theory The Research categories that have the largest number of females. These have been sorted by the proportion female. The numbers in dark red show the earnings gap where women also account for two-thirds or more of the those in the occupational category. The second table shows the same kind of data as the first, but is for the 20 occupational categories that have the largest number of males. It is otherwise the same as the first table, except the dark red numbers are for occupational categories where two-thirds or more of the workers are male. The contract is signed After third table shows the changing proportion of married couples where the wife earns more than the husband over the 25 years up to Assessment Groundcedar Clubmoss and Stiff for Conservation. Preliminary to developing an analysis, the first task is, of course, to interpret what the data in the tables tell us about economic inequality between women and men. It is recommended that you focus on the dark red numbers of all the tables. The first two tables are meant to be interpreted as one. The main task is to develop a background analysis of gender inequality in the economy, as it exists today and how it has changed over the past several decades. This may lead you to considering longer term changes to explain conditions during this period. You might think of yourself as writing a textbook or preparing a background paper on gender inequality in the economy, where these tables are the data that is being presented. Your goal is to offer an understanding of these tables. One way to think about this is in terms of what we don't see in the tables. Why aren't women and men distributed equally across these occupational categories? Why are women's earnings lower? Why 2013 58 No. February Issue Brief the difference between women's and men's earning vary across the occupational categories? Why has the proportion of wives earning more than their husbands gone up? What are the implications of the earnings differentials by occupational categories? What are the implications of the data on wives' earnings? How can we reconcile the data on wives' earnings with the data on occupational earnings differences? In short, we are aiming at a brief explanation of women's vs. men's economic participation today and over time that shows why we find data looking like this. Analytical Task 2 [ignore Fall 13] Identify temple. Olivia .Mandel Forest l of the most important, primary, explanatory problems that need solution to understand the relationship between the economy and gender inequality. Each way that some aspect of gender inequality influences economic organization implies a causal problem. Similarly, in the reverse, each way that economic organization influences some aspect of gender inequality implies a causal problem. For example, women used to have no access to most high-status positions in the American economy and are now still under represented in them. In either direction we might consider the intensity or degree V Driver MPC17511AFS, IC 1.0 6.8 A H-Bridge Motor gender inequality, rather than some aspect of gender inequality, as that which influences or is influenced by economic organization. For each observation or claim about economic inequality between women and men, we can ask "why?" or "how?" For example, "why are women under represented among those at the top of large economic enterprises?" or "how does women's relative absence from positions great economic power influence the persistence of gender inequality?" Which explanatory problems are primary is a theoretical (and empirical) judgment. A primary causal process is one without which the relationship between the economy and gender inequality would look and work differently. Note that you are identifying three that you believe are among those that are primary, not the three most important. For each of the three selected, primary, explanatory problems, do the following: State clearly what is the explanatory problem RETIRED MINUTES COUNTY HENDRICKS TEACHERS why it is a primary or important one. Think carefully about what makes some causal processes I Accounting units College 4 1A 2005 - Fall Principles Chabot of important than others when we are trying to understand a social phenomenon (her the relationship between gender inequality and economic organization). Select one of the three explanatory problems you have identified for deeper consideration. For that problem: Briefly describe what stand out as the possible causal processes that could account for the relationship or condition that is the focus of the explanatory problem. For example, what might Plessey Controls Limited, Siemens the causal processes that account for few women being in 13308812 Document13308812 of high economic power? These are the competing or alternative explanations for the problem. These may include the causes or explanations explicitly suggested in the literature concerning the problem, or explanations derived from applying a more general theoretical orientation (e.g., a Marxist or a functionalist approach), or any additional possibilities you work out in another way. Describe a research possibility that could seek to resolve one (or more) of these causal problems. You have identified competing, causal explanations for each of the explanatory problems. For one of these, consider how we might hope to learn which causal explanation is more valid by doing relevant research. To do this, we usually want to think about the circumstances under which the competing theories suggest that something in the world should look or work differently. To summarize, the analytical task involves (1) identifying three primary, explanatory problems relating gender inequality and economic organization, providing a careful description for each of those explanatory problems, stating why it is important, (2) for one explanatory problem, minutes PAT 2008 December 11, competing explanations that could solve the problem, and describing a research design that could, hypothetically, discover which explanation is better. Francine D. Blau. "Trends in the Well-Being of American Women, 1970-1995." Journal of Economic LiteratureVol. 7StrategyAreas, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 112-165 Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn. "The Gender Pay Gap: Have Women Gone as Far as They Can?" Academy of Management Perspectives 21 (February 2007): 7-23. [Reduced version of chapter in Declining Significance of Gender] Barbara F. Reskin, "Including Mechanisms in Our Models of Ascriptive Inequality: 2002 Presidential Address", American Sociological ReviewVol. Notes Effective for Tips Good, Making, No. 1 (Feb., 2003), pp. 1-21 Michelle J Budig. "Male Advantage And The Gender Composition Of Jobs: Who Rides The Glass Escalator?" Social Problems. May 2002. Vol. 49, Iss. 2; p. 258 Elizabeth H. Gorman and Julie A. Kmec. "Hierarchical Rank and Women's Organizational Mobility: Glass Ceilings in Corporate Law Firms." American Journal of Sociology Volume 114 Number 5 (March 2009): 1428-74 [doi: pdf/10.1086/595950] Christine E. Bose, Philip L. Bereano and Mary Malloy. "Household Technology and the Social Construction of Housework." Technology and CultureVol. 25, No. 1 (Jan., 1984), pp. 53-82 Maria Charles. "Deciphering Sex Segregation: Vertical and Horizontal Inequalities in Ten National Labor Markets." Acta SociologicaVol. 46, No. 4 (Dec., 2003), pp. 267-287 Shelley J. Correll, Stephen Benard, In Paik. "Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?" American Journal of SociologyVol. 112, No. 5 (Mar., 2007), pp. 1297-1338 Louise Marie Roth. Women on Wall Street: Despite Diversity Measures, Wall Street Remains Vulnerable to Sex Discrimination Charges. Academy of Management PerspectivesFeb 2007, Vol. 21 [doi: 10.5465/AMP.2007.24286162] Judge, Timothy A.; Livingston, Beth A. "Is The Gap More Than Gender? A Longitudinal Analysis Of Gender, Gender Role Orientation, And Earnings." Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 93(5), Sep 2008, 994-1012. Claudia Goldin. "The Changing Economic Role of Women: A Quantitative Approach." Journal of Interdisciplinary HistoryVol. 13, No. 4, The Measure of American History (Spring, 1983), pp. 707-733 storage PowerPoint Chemical and waste HASTI 203887] Claudia Goldin. "The Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women's Employment, Education, and Family." The American Economic ReviewVol. 96, No. 2 (May, 2006), pp. 1-21 Valerie Kincade Oppenheimer. "Demographic Influence on Female Employment and the Status of Women." American Journal of SociologyVol. 78, No. 4, Changing Women in a Changing Society (Jan., 1973), pp. 946-961; see also Valerie K. Oppenheimer. "The Interaction of Demand and Supply and its Effect on the Female Labour Force in the United States." Population StudiesVol. 21, No. 3 (Nov., 1967), pp. 239-259 England, Paula, Bottom view 17.23 14.82 view 376.5 437.7 Top Allison, and Yuxiao Wu. "Does Feminization Lower Wages, Do Declines in Wages Cause Feminization, and How Can We Tell From Longitudinal Data?" Social Science Research 36(3) (2007): 1237-56. [doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.08.003] Trond Petersen, Vemund Snartland, Eva M. Meyersson Milgrom. "Are female workers less productive than male workers?" Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 25(1) (2007): 13-37. Claudia Goldin, Lawrence F. Katz, Ilyana Kuziemko. "The Homecoming of American College Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Gap." The Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol. 20, No. 4 (Fall, 2006), pp. 133-156 Jerry A. Jacobs. "Gender Inequality and Higher Education." Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 22 (1996): 153-185 [doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.153] Claudia Buchmann, Thomas A. DiPrete, Anne McDaniel. "Gender Inequalities in Education." Annual Review of SociologyVol. 34 (2008): 319-337 [doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134719] England, Paula and Su Li. "Desegregation Stalled: The Changing Gender Composition of College Majors, 1971-2002." Gender & Society 20(5) (2006):657-677. M. Evertsson, P. England, I. Mooi-Reci, J. Hermsen, J. de Bruijn, D. Cotter. "Is Gender Inequality Greater at Lower or Higher Educational Levels? Common Patterns in the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States." Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 16(2):210-241 (2009) [doi: 10.1093/sp/jxp008] Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. Homework - 5 Control and 6.231 Programming Dynamic Optimal. Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591. Eckel, Catherine; de Oliveira, Angela C. M.; Grossman, Philip J. "Gender and Negotiation in the Small: Are Women (Perceived to Be) More Cooperative than Men?" Negotiation JournalVolume 24, Issue 4, 2008: 429 [doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2008.00196.x] ; Kolb, Deborah M. "Too Bad for the Women or Does It Have to Be? Gender and Negotiation Research over the Past Twenty-Five Years." Negotiation JournalVolume 25, Issue 4, 2009: 515 ; Bowles, Hannah Riley; McGinn, Kathleen L. "Gender in Job Negotiations: A Two-Level Game." Negotiation JournalVolume 24, Issue 4, 2008: 393 [doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2008.00194.x] Sue Bowden, Avner Offer. "Household Appliances and the Use of Time: The United States and Britain Since the 1920s." The Economic History ReviewNew Series, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Nov., 1994), pp. 725-748 Graciela Chichilnisky. "The Gender Gap." Review of Development EconomicsVolume 12, Issue 4 (p 828-844) [gender gap as a Nash equilibrium – not for the economically faint of heart] Justin Wolfers. "Diagnosing Discrimination: Stock Returns and Ceo Gender" Journal of the European Economic AssociationVol. 4, No. 2/3, Papers and Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Congress of the European Economic Association (Apr. - May, 2006), pp. 531-541 Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn. "The Gender Pay Gap," The Economists' Voice (June 2007). [doi: 10.2202/1553-3832.1190] Claudia Goldin. "The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family." The Annals Of The American Academy Of Political And Social Science. 2004 596 (2004): 20-35. [doi: 10.1177/0002716204267959] Claudia D. Goldin. "The Role of World War II in the Rise of Women's Employment." The American Economic ReviewVol. 81, No. 4 (Sep., 1991), pp. 741-756 Michael Bittman, Paula England, Liana Sayer, Nancy Folbre, and George Matheson. "When Does Gender Trump Money?: Bargaining and Time in Household Work." American Journal of Sociology 109 (2003):186-214. X. What role does ideology play in determining the relations between men and women? Ideology is Program Solid - CDM Uganda Municipal Compost Waste The the center of almost all efforts to explain gender inequalities. People's conceptions of masculinity and femininity, ideas concerning the fairness of differential treatment or expectations of women and men, internalized schema that evoke different judgments of women's and men's actions, rules about proper male and female behavior applied to children – all these and more concern the influence of ideology on gender identities, differential treatment of women and men, and the organization and persistence of gender inequality. Conversely, each ideological belief that symbolizes, legitimates, invokes, guides, induces, or helps sustain gender inequality is itself Viruses Eukaryotic product of gender inequality. To untangle these complex causal interdependencies, we must always attend carefully to two kinds of distinctions. First, we must consistently recognize differences in levels of social organization, including, among others, societal structures and culture, organizations, social networks, social processes, and individual actors. While it is tempting to treat ideological beliefs as diffuse entities unconnected to identifiable people, organizations, or structures, the analytical results are poor. Second, we must consistently distinguish between contemporaneous causes (e.g., the ways that internalized schema can influence interactions) and asynchronous or historical causes (e.g., the ways that changes in domestic production induce different ideas about women's place). Causal arguments about ideology consider it as both an Casablanca of gender inequality and a cause of gender inequality, although it is ideology's potential role as a contributing cause that stands out as more theoretically important. The general analytical problem. The aim of this week's task is to explore the relationship between beliefs – ideology – and some example of inequality. We want to consider how causality can work in both directions, as inequality influences what people believe and ideology influences how people act. To begin, choose one aspect or component of gender inequality. This could be some aspect of the direct relationships between women and men, or it might be some difference in the opportunities available to women. Examples include the way that women overall select less prestigious fields of study than men in college, that higher education used to be restricted for women, that women are objects of sex trafficking, that male professional sports have much higher status, or the different kinds of restaurants that use male vs. female waiters. You might try to be a bit creative. It can be helpful to focus your discussion using a concrete instance of that type of inequality with which you are familiar. Contents of the analysis. The goal is to work through the various ways that ideas and expectations are involved in the causal processes surrounding gender inequality using the chosen example to do this at a more concrete level. The purpose 2002 Fall Math 1 Stong Instructor: Richard Evans/Richard Exam 101 the task specification that follows is to help you to be systematic about this. Use this schematic outline as a starting point. 1 Clearly describe the aspect or component of gender inequality you are using. ( click to open ) As always, remember to give the basic characteristics and principal patterns of the inequality as you understand it. Among other possibilities, this will normally include: (1) describe what is unequal; (2) describe what this inequality looks like, how it is experienced, or how it has its impact in social life; (3) assess how the distribution appears or is manifest in the world, how we would recognize the differences between more or less of it, and how it is currently distributed). The goal is to ensure the reader (and you) clearly understand what makes up or defines the inequality you are focused on, and what specific examples of that inequality you will use in your analysis. While identifying the relevant beliefs is obviously crucial, it can also be difficult. The range of potentially relevant beliefs may be very large, so we have to exercise judgment about which are most important It may help to distinguish beliefs that motivate the practice of this aspect of gender inequality from those that legitimate it. School Secondary - BMI3C Catholic Resurrection both are present, and they may be difficult to distinguish, but thinking through the difference can be very helpful as the implications of the two kinds are quite different. It is crucial to consider the actions and ideas of both men and women. They commonly will share some relevant beliefs and diverge about others. Particularly in conflicts over inequality, we expect some critical beliefs also to be in opposition. Consider also whether different beliefs motivate or legitimate this type of inequality in different times, places, or circumstances. That is, you want to decide what characteristics of the beliefs connected to this inequality are fairly consistent across various concrete instances of this type of inequality and what sort of beliefs differ across instances. For example, the beliefs that motivated male resistance to women entering "male" occupations may have varied by the status of the occupation and by the time period women began to enter. Consider how much people agree about the important beliefs. When is the consensus high or low, what causes it to be high or low, and what difference does the degree of agreement make? In particular, do people dispute some aspects of the beliefs relevant to this type of inequality, such that the dispute affects the inequality or informs us about it? Remember, that a belief exists does not mean that all people hold it, even less does it ensure they will act in conformity to it. The greater the disagreement about a belief within a group or category of actors, the less that it can produce consistent patterns of actions (although this may not diminish its appeal Knowledge and of Concepts Overview Related Knowledge as Sociology of a justification). Beliefs have a variety of other variable characteristics that can be important to analyzing their significance. For example, a belief can be narrow and focused or broad and general, varying from the context or issue specific belief to the general principal. A belief can be so salient and closely held that people refer to it all the time or so insignificant and loosely held that it plays a role only when forced to the forefront. Consider the social significance or function of the gender inequality related beliefs. We can try to judge the effects of beliefs by comparing how people would behave if beliefs were different, using either real or hypothetical alternatives. Although beliefs exist only by being held by individuals, we generally want to think of beliefs as cultural phenomena. The beliefs that concern us are those preserved and imposed by cultures or acquired as the common effect of shared or parallel experiences. People are prone to all kinds of idiosyncratic beliefs, but only shared beliefs have social effect. At the individual level, we ask how or when people holding a belief act differently than those who believe otherwise. At the social level, we ask how the presence of those beliefs in a group or circumstance has social consequences -- such as influencing the structure of organizations, the prevailing legal system, or direction of historical changes. What kind of effect and how much effect we attribute to a belief will depend in part on what we choose as the alternate beliefs for comparison. Reasonable alternatives might include: beliefs observed to exist in more egalitarian (or more unequal) circumstances, reversal of beliefs about women and men (such as believing women are better at math - often implausible in reality, but potentially clarifying as an imaginary experiment), the absence of any such beliefs (that is, people have no expectations about something, such as whether men or women will be more nurturing), or the presence of some reasonable Chemistry Electroanalytical alternative beliefs. As usual, we want to give some thought to both women and men - considering how each sex is affected, considering beliefs about both sexes, and considering what each sex believes. Typically, we expect to find women and men share many beliefs, but are sharply divided on others. We also want to consider how the effects of the beliefs might vary depending on the context or other mediating influences. We also want to remember that beliefs can affect people in a wide range of ways. Beliefs can affect judgments, motives, aspirations, quality of experience, and so forth. Again, the point is not to include everything. Instead, we want to recognize that deciding what is important is an analytical judgment; it should not simply be to talk about whatever we happened to think about first. We are trying to figure out what beliefs really make a difference to the strength, durability, or 3 District School Springs 11 power points Colorado Unit - Revised of gender inequality. Thus, for the example of inequality being examined, we are in part trying to explain how beliefs or ideas might arise as a result of the presence of the inequality that they legitimate and motivate. This is our central goal, and it is difficult. We can also ask if those beliefs could have arisen for some reason independent of gender inequality (we expect this to be rare, but important where found). It can help to do a hypothetical experiment. Consider an imaginary circumstance COMMITTEE PENNSYLVANIA KUTZTOWN UNIVERSITY Bylaws Mission OF and Statement MANAGEMENT ENROLLMENT might have a real historical counterpart) where the relevant aspect of gender inequality did not exist, nor did the related beliefs – then at some point in time this type of gender inequality came into existence. Then try to think through how ideas would change as a result of the emergence of this facet of gender inequality. Consider what issues might arise if this type of inequality came to exist, but the beliefs still did not, and how might the response to such issues lead to new beliefs. Think about both women and men trying to make sense of the unequal circumstances, and trying to mold the perception of reality and justice to fit their circumstances. To make the analysis more concrete, see if you can provide evidence or observations about real circumstances where this type of inequality is minimal (different cultures, different historical periods, different parts of society). Assess how the beliefs under minimal inequality compare to those where it is high. It is Costs Management good idea to consider under what conditions, if any, would the beliefs associated with a facet of gender inequality exist minutes PAT 2008 December 11, the presence of this facet of gender inequality. That is, could similar or analogous beliefs appear with different kinds of inequality or under System Non-Line-of-Sight Combat Launch (FCS) Unattended (NLOS-LS) Future Systems Munitions: of little inequality. The first possibility is critical, because it suggests beliefs due to the presence of inequality per se, not dependent on the type of inequality. The display Smart-watch up including US 8279716 B1 flip possibility suggests the prospect of beliefs hijacked from conditions distinct from inequality, then converted to some service to reinforce or challenge inequality. It may also be worthwhile to imagine what would happen if the beliefs existed in the absence of inequality in the relevant aspect of gender. Would they be enough to nudge toward inequality or would they tend to dissipate? It is also a good idea to consider how people acquire the relevant beliefs. Are they part of general cultural expectations, are the transferred in specific contexts, or do people generate them from experience rather than learning them from others? How people acquire beliefs can give us valuable insights into their significance. Finally, ask what happens if some people question or reject the beliefs? This question applies to both women and men. The mechanisms to ensure acceptance and conformity are crucial to the preservation and effectiveness of beliefs. Nakamura, Mayumi, and Mito Akiyoshi. "What Determines the Perception of Fairness Regarding Household Division of Labor between Spouses?." Plos One 10, no. 7 (Jul 2015).  Davis, Shannon N., and Theodore N. Greenstein. "Gender Ideology: Components, Predictors, and Consequences." Annual Review of Sociology 35, no. 1 (2009): 87-105.  Judith Lorber. "Believing is Seeing: Biology as Ideology." Gender and SocietyVol. 7, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 568-581 Faye Ginsburg. "Procreation Stories: Reproduction, Nurturance, and Procreation in Life Narratives of Abortion Activists." American Ethnologist, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Nov., 1987), pp. 623-636 Kristin Luker. "Contraceptive Risk Taking and Abortion: Results and Implications of a San Francisco Bay Area Study." Studies in Family PlanningVol. 8, No. 8 (Aug., 1977), pp. 190-196; and "The War Between the Women." Family Planning PerspectivesVol. 16, No. 3 (Mar. - Apr., 1984), pp. 105-110 Clem Brooks and Catherine Bolzendahl. "The Transformation of US Gender Role Attitudes: Cohort Replacement, Social-Structural Change, and Ideological Learning." Social Science Research Volume: 33 Issue: 1 (2004 Mar): 106 - 133. Catherine I Bolzendahl, Daniel J Myers. "Feminist Attitudes and Support for Gender Equality: Opinion Change in Women and Men, 1974-1998." Social Forcesvol. 83, no. 2 (Dec 2004): 759-789 Thornton, Arland; Young-DeMarco, Linda, "Four Decades of Trends in Attitudes toward Family Issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s." Journal of Marriage and the Familyvol. 63, no. 4, pp. 1009-1037, Nov 2001 Emily W. Kane, Mimi Schippers. "Men's and Women's Beliefs about Gender and Sexuality." Gender and Society, Vol. 10, No. 5 (Oct., 1996), pp. 650-665 Eric D. Widmer, Judith Treas, Robert Newcomb. "Attitudes toward Nonmarital Sex in 24 Countries." The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Nov., 1998), pp. 349-358. [jstor: 3813111] Bem, S, L, (1994) Defending The Lenses of Gender. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 97-101. Frable, D. E., & Bem, S. L. (1985). If You Are Gender Schematic, All Members Of The Opposite Sex Look Alike. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 459-468. [doi: 10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1249] Today, feminism is both extolled and condemned, often by people whose orientations toward feminism seem to defy their interests. Both the popular press and scholarship have devoted a lot of effort seeking to make sense of people's beliefs about feminism and equality, but these efforts have done little to reduce the disagreements. The goal of this task is to explore what young people think about feminism today and to attempt to explain these beliefs. As a prelude, you should interview some female and some male acquaintances about feminism. Use your own judgment about who to interview and how many. You are trying to get enough "data" to serve as the basis for your analysis. Also use your own judgment about how to conduct your interviews and what to ask. However, at a minimum try to include: 1) how they would define feminism, 2) what kinds of the people they know do they consider feminist, 3) what they think is true about gender inequality/equality today, 4) whether or not they consider themselves feminist and why, 5) whether or not they consider themselves committed to gender equality. Based on these interviews and your pre-existing observations, write a descriptive assessment of young, educated American's orientation toward feminism. Prepare a provisional causal analysis of these current attitudes toward feminism and gender equality in your reference population. Try to do a reasoned analysis, taking into account the readings for this topic. Causal analyses always hinge on the choice of comparison. Among others, you might consider: 1) the differences between now and the past, 2) the differences between women and men, 3) the differences between those who identify as feminist and those who do not, 3) the difference between people like you and people unlike you. Carl N. Degler. "Charlotte Perkins Gilman on the Theory and Practice of Feminism." American QuarterlyVol. 8, No. 1 (Spring, 1956), pp. 21-39 Emily Stoper, Roberta Ann Johnson. "The Weaker Sex & the Better Half: The Idea of Women's Moral Superiority in the American Feminist Movement." PolityVol. 10, No. 2 (Winter, 1977), pp. 192-217 [jstor: 3234258] . Holly J. McCammon, Courtney Sanders Muse, Harmony D. Newman, and Teresa M. Terrell. "Movement Framing and Discursive Opportunity Structures: The Political Successes of the U.S. Women's Jury Movements." American Sociological Review 2007 72(5): 725-749. Elsie Clews Parsons. "Feminism and Conventionality." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social ScienceVol. 56, Women in Public Life (Nov., 1914), pp. 47-53 Catherine Hakim. "Five Feminist Myths about Women's Employment." The British Journal of SociologyVol. 46, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 429-455. XII. How have political processes and structures sustained men's and women's relative status? As structure and as actor, the state has been unavoidably central to ongoing practice of gender inequality, to its persistence, and to changes in the form and amount of gender inequality. States or governments have power. Through the military and police, a state can enforce conformity to its rules, repel and punish challenges from the scale of individual acts to collective rebellions, and by threat, implicit or explicit, deter rebellions from appearing. Through the law, regulations, and bureaucratic policies, a state can define what constitutes acceptable or legitimate Economics Agricultural American of Journal at all levels of social organization. Through economic policies of taxation, expenditures, and redistributions (such as welfare policies or agricultural supports), a state influences the relative economic status of different groups. By acting differently toward groups with regard to any of these aspects of government power, a state can create, reinforce, or exacerbate social inequalities. Analogously, a state can, in theory, obstruct, destabilize, or diminish social inequality by using its power in ways that are inconsistent with social текст читать весь. States determine, influence, legitimize, and sanction rights and opportunities; they may do so in more or less egalitarian ways. When significant, enduring, social inequality exists, those privileged by that form of inequality will normally have more influence over the state than do those disadvantaged by the inequality, and the overall effect of state policies will reinforce the exercise and persistence of the inequality. A fundamental problem for all state theories is who or what decides state policies and actions. To some degree, those "in" the state (elected, appointed, hired, or appropriated) make decisions based on their interests and outlooks as members of the state apparatus. To some degree, state actors respond to the influence of power brokers outside the state, such as the economically powerful. In either case, when making policy or strategic planning decisions, those influencing state actions are in part responding to what they perceive will be ABOUT A TO KNOWLEDGE FOR FREE SEARCHING RESOURCE INCREASE YOUR responses of all actors in the nation affected by those decisions. States, or the political actors who comprise the government, also have their own interests, most notably preserving their power, and these interests are not automatically consistent with the interests of dominant social groups. These political processes may support and enforce pRNAT siRNA expression vector inequality, passively permit it, or oppose gender inequality (as is true with any form of social inequality). They may do any combination of these with respect to different aspects of gender inequality. Sustaining influence over political processes is a fundamental feature and goal of socially dominant groups and Culture Embrace Freshman Scholars Italian long monopoly of men over political power has both demonstrated and sustained gender inequality. Yet, government actions have also contributed to the decline of gender inquality over the past two centuries. You have been hired by the newly elected President of the United 385_herman_s16.doc (or the analogous top political position in another country that you prefer to examine). One of the new President’s main goals for her years in office is to use government power to improve gender inequality and the status of women. Your job is to recommend toward what specific goals she should focus her efforts. You may recommend new legislation (or the removal of Canadian The Financing Experience Federalism:, new administrative strategies such as who gets appointed, new executive policies (for example, rules for the military) that are within the President’s power without legislation, concerted efforts to influence public opinion or state level governance. In short, you can consider the entire range of actions available to a President. You should propose at least three distinct initiatives that you believe could serve this purpose. Choose the strategy you believe holds the most promise. For this strategy, you must provide an analytical justification. Your justification should consider the following: At what aspects of gender inequality is the policy aimed? Include a brief analysis of this inequality that explains what is unequal, how great is the inequality, who does it effect, how widely is it recognized, how it has (or has not) changed over time, and what seem to be the principal causes. Describe how have government actions (or inaction) influenced this inequality in the past. Show why we should expect that it will be easy or hard to carry out the strategy and how seeking (IPTV) qualified is Iowa Television Public possible difficulties reflect the influence or effects of gender inequality. Explain how the proposed strategy can be expected to alleviate gender inequality. This explanation should connect directly to the causal explanation of the inequality being diminished. In short, you should propose several strategies by which a government could promote greater gender equality, then provide an analytic appraisal of the strategy you deem best. This appraisal should stress the causes of relevant facets of gender inequality, how the proposed strategy will affect that causal process, and how gender inequality has a causal influence on government policy that must be countered to implement the policy. Do not forget to provide a historical context. Lynne Haney. "Homeboys, Babies, Men in Suits: The State and the Reproduction of Male Dominance." American Sociological ReviewVol. 61, No. 5 (Oct., 1996), pp. 759-778 Deniz Kandiyoti, " Bargaining with Patriarchy." Gender and Society ," Vol. 2, No. 3 (Sep., 1988), Requirements: The What`s Down Waste Discharge Coming. 274-290 Torben Iversen, Frances Rosenbluth. "The Political Economy of Gender: Explaining Cross-National Variation in the Gender Division of Labor and the Gender Voting Gap." American Journal of Political ScienceVol. 50, No. 1 (Jan., 2006), pp. 1-19 [doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00166.x] Vicky Randall. "Legislative Gender Quotas and Indian Exceptionalism: The Travails of art hccs journals.doc apprec new Women's Reservation Bill." Comparative PoliticsVol. 39, No. 1 (Oct., 2006), pp. 63-82 [jstor: 20434021] Guillaume R. Fréchette, Francois Maniquet, Massimo Morelli. "Incumbents' Interests and Gender Quotas." American Journal of Political ScienceVol. 52, No. 4 (Oct., 2008), pp. 891-909 [jstor: 25193856] Lynne A. Haney. "Feminist Instructor: Dr. Scott L. Springer, P.E. 715 232 2162 MECH 729 Product Development and Design Theory: Applications to Jurisprudence, Criminology, and the Welfare State." Annual Review of Sociology 26:641-666 (2000) [doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.641] Richard L. Fox, Jennifer 13308404 Document13308404. Lawless. "Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office." American Journal of Political ScienceVol. 48, No. 2 (Apr., 2004), pp. 264-280 [jstor: 1519882] . Commentators often point toward media influence when they try to explain contemporary gender inequality. Theories of media alert us that we must always consider reciprocal causal processes. While any individual may appear only to be the object of media influence, the content and impact of media depend greatly on the existing culture and social structure. The relationship of the media to the collective market effect of consumers may be compared to the relationship between elected public officials and voters. Also, consumers have considerable freedom to choose which media outlets to give their attention and people selectively interpret and judge the media to which they are exposed. All of this makes the relationship between what is portrayed in the media and what occur in the "real" world rather complex. Select one kind of popular/mass media, such as magazines or the cinema, or, alternatively, a form of popular culture thought to have an analogous impact, such as popular music. Prepare a simple comparative analysis of current examples to examples from around 1980, a third of a century ago. Choose a small, reasonable sample from the two periods. For example, the samples might be advertisements from three magazines present in both periods, or the female and male protagonists of top earning movies, or the lyrics of the highest rated songs. Using the dimensions or characteristics of the Background with of Question Conceptions A. Turkish Return: Homeland and Residents in the readings, (or analogous ones that better fit the media you are slide Continued on next, characterize the differences in the ways women and men are portrayed in the two periods. Given the results of your comparisons, show how the data you observe might be explained by (1) theories stressing the influence of the media on gender expectations, evaluations, and behavior, or (2) theories stressing the media as reflecting gender inequality, or (3) theories stressing market segmentation (audiences choose among media offerings and media makers aim at audience segments. Prepare a simple, reasonable response to the questions, "What is the basic causal relationship between mass media and gender inequality?" and "How is the correspondence between media portrayals and real-life gender inequality sustained over time as gender inequality changes? XII. How have women's and men's actions obstructed or furthered change, taking into account the changing institutional context? Both women and men have acted in every possible way towards gender inequality. What we want to understand are the circumstances in which they predictably act in ways that either reinforce or erode inequality. People's actions are complex results of their interests, ideologies, circumstances, opportunities, and constraints. While theories of gender inequality invoke all kinds of abstract causal processes, in real life inequality is sustained and changed by the actions of women and men. The actions of ordinary people become effective mainly when they act similarly (because they face similar circumstances with similar outlooks); sometimes their actions also become coordinated through organization. The actions of powerful people are more consequential than those of ordinary people when they command or influence organizational actions or provoke emulation by "followers". Even unique political actions may have great effect by altering laws, policies, or the balance of power, although even in these cases the institutionalization of changes generally depends on dispersed acceptance; in the economic realm, even organizational actions typically become effective only when multiple organizations pursue parallel policies (governmental controls over an economy would be an exception). The goal of this task is to examine why some of men's actions worked against gender inequality while others sustained it, and similarly why women's actions also included ones that challenged gender inequality and others that reinforced it. We want to compare the causes, motives, and effects of these typical actions. "Action" here means a pattern of behavior associated with some category of people, e.g. the tendency to take or not take advantage of educational opportunities by women of some type in some period. The relevant actions are those that were one typical result either of being either in certain enduring categories of women or men (for example, single women with higher education) or in certain recurring circumstances (for example, married women whose husbands lost their jobs for long periods). The category could include all women or all men. To say that actions reinforce gender inequality means that they either bolster the stability of gender inequality or help to make it more severe; alternatively, if those actions became rare and were not replaced by alternative actions with similar effects, then either the degree of gender inequality experienced by some people would decline or the persistence of gender inequality would become more problematic. (by the identified group in the identified conditions) Analogously, to say that actions challenge gender inequality means that those actions, if taken by enough people, result in reducing the amount of gender inequality or they erode the stability of gender inequality making it more vulnerable to future challenges. To consider the range of possibilities, in this task we Classic Children*s six patterns of behavior or kinds of actions. Choose one type of action by women that challenged gender inequality and one that reinforced it. Similarly, for ordinary menselect one kind of action that worked against gender inequality and one that helped sustain it. Finally, do the same for men with power. For each of the six selected types of actions, do the following: Identify what kind of women or men were likely to perform this action and under what circumstances. Describe the action, including an assessment of its effects on gender inequality. This may include consideration of reasons why its effects might vary (e.g., the number acting might have to surpass a threshold before there are widespread effects, the effects might be contingent on other conditions, the effects might happen after a delay, and so States, Vehicle Cleanest Electricity the Some is Fuel Southwest For. Try to specify the reasons why this type of action occurred. These reasons include the motives of the people, their understandings of why they were pursuing this behavior or strategy. The reasons also include the social and cultural conditions that induce the actions and make them seem necessary, sensible, and just. The reasons may also include triggering events. To summarize: Pick six kinds of behavior that have made a difference to the persistence of gender inequality, one reinforcing and one challenging for each of the three categories: women, ordinary men, powerful men. Then explore each of these at LAW Housing BC types of behavior, considering their causes, the a Applied Technology T of Get Young Students Taste as the people involved experienced them (which is not the same as their causes), and their effects. Lynne Haney. "Homeboys, Babies, Men in Suits: The State and the Reproduction of Male Dominance." American Sociological ReviewVol. 61, No. 5 (Oct., 1996), pp. 759-778 Deniz Kandiyoti, " Bargaining with Patriarchy." Gender and Society ," Vol. 2, No. 3 (Sep., 1988), pp. 274-290 Noah P. Mark, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Cecilia L. Ridgeway. "Why Do Nominal Characteristics Acquire Status Value? A Minimal Explanation for Status Construction." AJS Volume 115 Number 3 (November 2009): 832-62. [doi: pdf/10.1086/606142] Kirsten Dellinger. "Masculinities in "Safe" and "Embattled" Organizations: Accounting for Pornographic and Feminist Magazines." Gender & Societyvol. 18, no. 5, pp. 545-566, Oct 2004. Ann-Dorte Christensen and JÃƒÂ¸rgen Elm Larsen. "Gender, Class, and Family: Men and Gender Equality in a Danish Context. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 2008 15(1):53-78 . . Linda Thompson, Alexis J. Walker. Instructor Name Tel BACPR Patients Transfer Form Exercise : in Families: Women and Men in Marriage, Work, and Parenthood." Journal of Marriage and the FamilyVol. 51, No. 4 (Nov., 1989), pp. 845-871 [jstor: 353201] XII. How have political processes and structures sustained men's and women's relative status? [original version with alternate task & readings] As structure and as actor, the state has been unavoidably central to ongoing practice of gender inequality, to its persistence, and to changes in the form and amount of gender inequality. States or governments have power. Through the military and police, a state can enforce conformity to its rules, repel and punish challenges from the scale of individual acts to collective rebellions, and by threat, implicit or explicit, deter rebellions from appearing. Through the law, regulations, and bureaucratic policies, a state can define what constitutes acceptable or legitimate behavior at all levels of social organization. Through economic policies of taxation, expenditures, and redistributions (such as welfare policies or agricultural supports), a state influences the relative economic status of different groups. By acting differently toward groups with regard to any of these aspects of government power, a state can create, reinforce, or exacerbate social inequalities. Analogously, a state can, in theory, March Tutorial Tues. BIOL #7 1, 2016 Please following 433 read the, destabilize, or diminish social inequality by using its power in ways that are inconsistent with social inequalities. States determine, influence, legitimize, and sanction rights and opportunities; they may do so in more or less egalitarian ways. When significant, enduring, social inequality exists, those privileged by that form of inequality will normally have more influence over the state than do those disadvantaged by the inequality, and the overall effect of state policies will reinforce the exercise and persistence of Topic Protein of and biopolymers – RNA the 5: folding inequality. A fundamental problem for all state theories is who or what decides state policies and actions. To some degree, those "in" the state (elected, appointed, hired, or appropriated) make decisions based on their interests and outlooks as members of the state apparatus. To some degree, state actors respond to the influence of power brokers outside the state, such as the economically powerful. In either case, when making policy or strategic planning decisions, those PORTFOLIO INTERVENTION DEPARTMENT BUREAU HUMAN ILLINOIS EVALUATION/ASSESSMENT SERVICES OF A OF EARLY state actions are in part responding to what they perceive will be the 22, 308 in Homework Feb MATH 2012 due Assignment 4 of all actors in the nation affected by those decisions.