In my previous post I mentioned how I worked as an intern at a small public relations agency in New York City and how all of the upper level management was men and the account executive positions were dominated by females. The other two interns I worked with were also female. I've been thinking about how Dr. Aldoory said, “many account supervisors were female and they decided how to pitch clients and how to plan campaigns." Her experience reflected my internship, and it made me think about how the female account executives are putting in some really time-consuming hard work and how the upper level executives are not putting in as much effort. I understand the concept of "paying your dues" and climbing the corporate ladder but since there is a clear gender division, you have to wonder if this situation is fair. At my internship the CEO didn't come into the office on Fridays, instead he played golf. The other two male principals came to the office every day but arrived a little after 11am whereas the account executives came in a little before 9am. I just always wondered if gender played a role in this situation. If the upper level executives were female who had all male subordinates, would they arrive to the office so late? I think the fact that the executives of the company were all male, they felt they had more freedom, especially since all their subordinates were women.
Professor Van Dyke touched on affirmative action and I am actually writing my research paper for my Gender, Culture, and Communication class about that topic. Affirmative action is usually associated with cultural minorities gaining a bit more of an advantage in applying to colleges or for jobs through programs and organizations. I recently attended the New York Women in Communication, Inc. Student Career Conference in New York City, and although the organization is open to men, it is mostly made up of women and the word "women" being in the name even makes it feel exclusive. I understand these affirmative action programs and feminist organizations are trying to help women and minorities gain a fair advantage in the workplace but sometimes I think they are getting more than just a fair advantage. Women fought to be equal to men but now I think we are being portrayed as trying to surpass men rather than stride for gender equality. I'm interested to hear what you all have to say about programs like this that help women gain an advantage. Do you think it is fair, or are they actually putting us a step ahead of men rather than making us equal to them?
-Alexis Murphy
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlexis, I think programs like the one you refer to are fair. Keep in mind, they don't guarantee that organizations will "create" jobs for women that are identical to ones held by men ... or hire women into a job by denying men access to that job. I think it's more like Title IX in NCAA athletics. Consider this:
ReplyDelete"Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in any educational program or activity at any educational institution that is a recipient of federal funds." (See Women's Sports Foundation Website)
Also, "Title IX requires that women be provided an equitable opportunity to participate in sports as men (not necessarily the identical sports but an equal opportunity to play)." (Women's Sports Foundation Website)
So, my view is that affirmative action programs don't give women or men an advantage. Instead, they afford men and women the chance on an equal playing field to compete for a job based on factors other than gender ... and may the best (qualified) man OR woman win!
Mark
I think that these amendments have been conflated with preferential selection and the quota system and hence the negative perception. The interpretation of affirmative action has varied across cases (as it should be), and there probably have been occasions where exceptions were made to accommodate women and minorities. However, hiring practices have not always been fair and the fact remains that the playing field has been far from even. In such scenarios, should those who have been historically disadvantaged, be given a break? The answers are never clear, as so much depends on the particularities of a case. Seen across the board, and from a vantage point, such issues may look murky, but up close and personal, they may look a little different.
ReplyDelete