Today in class I read a poem by Mary Oliver entitled, "Wild Geese". This poem made me think about the traditional roles of women in society, and how those expectations have come to change over time. In the beginning of her work, Oliver points out that "you do not have to be good", and I believe this message is meant to empower women. The author believes that women should not have prescribed duties, and I believe wild geese function as a symbol of males in society. Males are free, they travel, they can fly, they can be loud and obnoxious. Women, however, are forced to experience the world through their imagination, as shown by the author, "whoever you are, no matter how lonely, the world offers itself to your imagination". I believe that Oliver is contrasting the man's freedom and his ability to fly around the world to the woman's dependence on imagination in order to truly experience life.
The poem is also interesting in the way it describes the world. It goes through scenes from nature, as if to say while women and men are living their lives, life goes on. I think this is more of a message to society and a contrast to the egocentrism we, as a society, are used to. How can one not be egocentric? After all, you view your entire life from one pair of eyes. It is difficult to adapt to another viewpoint and think about waterfalls flowing in other parts of the world (nature and life going on) while you are concerned with your own business and day to day life. While there were many similarities between this poem and "Power" by Adrienne Rich, I thought "Power" had a different message on the passage of time. In Adrienne Rich's work, she focuses on the preservation of time, evident through the conservation of the hundred year old bottle of tonic found in the earth. She also focuses on the memory of Marie Curie and her progress in science, saying that her perseverance and stubbornness gave her the power and ability to make great improvements in the field of science.
Tuesday 31 January 2012
Friday 27 January 2012
Women in the Workplace
The End of Men, written by Hanna Rosin discusses the possibility that modern, postindustrial society may be better suited to women than men. I believe there are many flaws in Rosin's arguments, and while it brings up good points for discussion, it is controversial at the least. The main issue I see with her work is her influence on the stereotypes of women and how these judgments tend to hinder females, yet later on in the piece she stereotypes males as being more suited for physical labor and jobs that require strength. She goes on to argue that critical thinking and communication are skills more evident in women. If the author claims that stereotyping is a problem, why does she stereotype? Rosin then generalizes about the leadership of men, saying they are controlling, and states that women are more moralistic leaders.
I found this article interesting, and it sparked a passionate and intriguing debate in my english class. I discovered my true opinion on the end of man (and the rise of the female) during this discussion: I believe that it not the end of man. Females are simply branching out into previously male dominated areas, industries that were stereotypically male, for example physical labor and positions of leadership/CEO positions in corporations. Female domination tends to be in the working class, as pointed out in The End of Men. However, the gender gap comes from the fact that men are not reciprocally branching out into fields previously dominated by females such as nursing. Men are hesitant to make the leap into "women's" professions, while women are eager to fill the shoes of men in their stereotypical jobs. Currently there are more female farmers in the world than there are male farmers, and many professions are recently seeing a more equal number of female and male employees.
I think it is important for men to adapt, to be able to pursue any career regardless of stereotypes. I also read a response to The End of Men, titled, It's Not the End of Men. In this piece, Anne Friedman poses a question which I believe perfectly depicts the situation of males in the workplace. The question reads: "Are American men aggressive brutes who need to make a living on their physical strength? Or are they omega males, cowed by high-achieving women?"A point is made that for every two males receiving a Bachelors Degree, three women are doing the same, and I believe the difference in employment and the rise of females is attributed to differences like this in the education system. We must ask ourselves, however, can males adapt to a changing economy, marketplace, and workplace; will they rely on aggressive behavior and try and make a living on physical strength, or will they cast aside stereotypes in order to better themselves in the long-run?
I found this article interesting, and it sparked a passionate and intriguing debate in my english class. I discovered my true opinion on the end of man (and the rise of the female) during this discussion: I believe that it not the end of man. Females are simply branching out into previously male dominated areas, industries that were stereotypically male, for example physical labor and positions of leadership/CEO positions in corporations. Female domination tends to be in the working class, as pointed out in The End of Men. However, the gender gap comes from the fact that men are not reciprocally branching out into fields previously dominated by females such as nursing. Men are hesitant to make the leap into "women's" professions, while women are eager to fill the shoes of men in their stereotypical jobs. Currently there are more female farmers in the world than there are male farmers, and many professions are recently seeing a more equal number of female and male employees.
I think it is important for men to adapt, to be able to pursue any career regardless of stereotypes. I also read a response to The End of Men, titled, It's Not the End of Men. In this piece, Anne Friedman poses a question which I believe perfectly depicts the situation of males in the workplace. The question reads: "Are American men aggressive brutes who need to make a living on their physical strength? Or are they omega males, cowed by high-achieving women?"A point is made that for every two males receiving a Bachelors Degree, three women are doing the same, and I believe the difference in employment and the rise of females is attributed to differences like this in the education system. We must ask ourselves, however, can males adapt to a changing economy, marketplace, and workplace; will they rely on aggressive behavior and try and make a living on physical strength, or will they cast aside stereotypes in order to better themselves in the long-run?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)